11 Things About Spider-Man

An Anonymous Coward writes: "This has got to be the most inane, greedy thing I have heard of yet! The owners of the billboards on Times Square are suing Sony and those involved with the production of Spider-Man 'for digitally superimposing advertisements for other companies over their billboard space in the film.' Their argument: '[the ads] do not depict the area accurately.' Oh, and a guy in spider costume swinging from the buildings does? Give me a break!" That's one thing; read below for the other 10, if you can handle some movie spoilage. Update: 04/14 21:04 GMT by T : Oh, and a 12th thing: as reader marcsiry points out, that's "Spider-Man," not "Spiderman."

CheeseburgerBlue writes with his space-saving, 10-thought mini-review.

1. "Worst opening titles sequence ever. Probably recycled out of un-used material from 'The Last Starfighter.' Truly IntelliVision-level graphics here.

2. Peter hacks himself an awesome wannabe costume at first. This is good, because nobody is so well-rounded as to be ass-kickingly fierce, unswerving moral, academically gifted *and* a knock-down seamtress to boot. (It's unheard of, aside from that mama's boy show-off Clark Kent.)

3. There is actually some credible character development. (Smacks own agape jaw in disbelief.) So much for the frickin' Batman franchise.

4. We are treated to several exciting shots of M.J.'s heaving bosom through clinging wet fabric, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

5. J. Jonas Jamieson: beautiful! This character absolutely could not have been done better. It's like a really angry Perry White mixed with Lou Grant, drunk.

6. Nice casting. Not only is Peter's pal Harry the spitting image of his screen father (Dafoe), but he also makes a passable Anakin Skywalker. (I can't wait to see what kind of a Darth sombitch Harry turns into in the sequels.)

7. Many agree that the animated Spidey flying around looks like crap in the TV spots. Luckily, in context, it works. I found that what the C.G. webslinger lacks in verisimilitude is made up for in choreography -- the sequences of Spidey swinging through Manhattan and thrilling and fun.

8. I've always counted on Spiderman to deliver some quality wise-cracks, in stark contrast to Superman's squarejawed mumbling about truth and justice. I also expect Peter Parker to have a dark side that is less cheese-gothic than Batman's silhouetted form baying at the moon. This movie delivers -- Spidey's character is perfectly true to form.

9. Great pacing. It's more than half-way through the movie before Peter really becomes Spiderman. His gradual transition to superherohood is convincing, and helps sell Peter as a real guy along the way.

10. Despite the fact the Green Goblin essentially kicks his own ass in this movie, he does duke it out pretty cool with Spidey a few times first. (The best part is when the angry New Yorkers pelt him with trash for messin' with their friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.)"

Comments

Editorialising

[Anonymous Coward]

If the suit goes forward, a judge will likely decide whether makers of a movie about a fictional character have the right to place him in fictional surroundings as well.

Holy common sense, batman! Did we just actually see news.com engaging in *stating the obvious*?

That's a nice shift, usually these people are so terrified of seeming to include editorializing that an ironic, clippy comment like that would be cut right out..

Oh well.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Stonehand]

Well, they may have thought so, and it's quite reasonable for them to be unhappy -- but unless Sony and partners were somehow legally obligated to NOT alter the scenery in such a way, then what leg would they have to stand on? There's no obligation to be kind...

Now, they COULD have had such an agreement, depending on what deal NYC has with them. It's conceivable that any contract that granted filming rights would also insist that the film portray NYC "accurately" -- as much as could be done while having Spidey and company run around -- NYC might not welcome filming which portrays all its citizens as homicidal meth-addled maniacs, for instance. I'm merely speculating that NYC might impose such restrictions in the name of good PR for NYC. If there is such a clause, then it may possibly be vague enough that the plaintiffs feel they have a chance...

The other bit is that really, is Sony under any non-contractual obligation to show a truthful representation of NYC in a work of fiction. It's not exactly as if this were a news broadcast, in which it would be distasteful for the broadcaster to apply editing (although, if memory serves, it does happen; don't certain sports events have digitally imposed "virtual" advertising?). They're not making claims about NYC, or the building's owners, or at least that's what Sony could argue.

Re:Waste of breath

[hymie3]

The actual physical structure itself must be an identifiable trademark for this to ever happen, and then I'd imagine that the filmmakers were just being polite. Even when the building in question is a recognizable trademark, permission does not necessarily have to be granted in order for the likeness of the structure to be used. Check out this article.

Could you provide a cite backing up what you said? I'd be interested to read more, but must admit that I'm skeptical of your claim.

...and by the way

[kypper]

Here is the WTC spiderman trailer, which fucking rules.

Hello?

[CaseStudy]

Likelihood of confusion, anyone? (Pretty much the basis for traditional trademark law.) If they're putting other companies' ads on identifiable property in such a way as to imply that there's a non-fictional relationship between the companies (which I'd probably make if I didn't live in NYC, the shot was supposed to be of Times Square, and there was no in-story reason why the ads should be different), you might run into trouble.

And knock it off with the slippery-slope legal arguments, people; they only make you look like idiots.

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[ClassicPenguin]

Funny. They weren't too picky about the domain name. http://www.spiderman.sonypictures.com/

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[mcc]

I very unfortunately cannot remember the details, but:

There was a book i read once that was a biography of Walt Disney. It had a story in it describing how one of the early made-for-tv Disney productions had been sponsored by Ford, and Ford, upon seeing the production, demanded that Disney edit out the newly-built Chrysler Building from the shots of the New York skyline. Disney complied.

This was sometime in the 50s.

I have spent the last 20 minutes or so scouring the web trying to find documentation of this, or at least figure out which disney movie/tv show exactly that this took place in, but unfortunately i can't seem to find it. (I'm not 100% sure that it was Ford that asked them to remove the tower, actually, but it was one of Chrysler's at-the-time direct competitors.)

I don't know if this qualifies as a legal precedent of any sort, but it's at least interesting.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[digitalunity]

Fine. Be ticked. Even, get pissed. Cry. Jump up and down. It'll do no good. Look at the money Coke and Pepsi have payed for product placements in movies; this advertising doesn't come for free. There is no legal basis for this lawsuit and the lawyers who filed it on behalf of the billboard owners could get into trouble for this.

In most states, frivolous lawsuits are against the law. As is barratry.