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

Kirsten Dunst

[Splat]

"M.J." "clingy" "wet" "shirts"

Anyone else have a sudden renewed interest in seeing this film now ...

Re:Kirsten Dunst

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno.. i never was much of a fan of Michael Jackson.

Re:Kirsten Dunst

[Anonymous Coward]

For the price of the movie ticket, you can get a nice skin mag with all the heaving bossoms and wet clingy clothes in it you want. If that's what you want to see, just do it. Don't waste 2 hours of your life waiting for a few glimpses of some hollywood harlot's mediocre rack. Spend the cash, get the porn, and get on your life.

Sheeesh.

Re:Kirsten Dunst

[Hallow]

The beer critic?

Re:Kirsten Dunst

[digitalunity]

If you want to see some real acting by Kirsten Dunst, you're watching the wrong movies of hers.

Try these:
"Crazy Beautiful" - She plays a self-destructive troubled young teen daughter to a suicided mother.
Kirsten did a great job on this one. Although there are a few 'cheeze' moments, overall this was a very dynamic role in comparison to most of her work.

"Virgin Suicides" - Again, she plays a self-destructive teen hell-bent on killing herself. A very complicated movie, sad and dramatic. With an allstar cast featuring James Wood, Kathleen Turner, Josh Hartnett and narrated by Giovanni Ribisi, this movie was very well made. A+ to Kirsten.

"Bring It On" - Nevermind. This one sucked. I think those two were her only really good roles.

Re:Kirsten Dunst

[cybrpnk]

Actually, he ALSO originally had a "thing" for the somewhat shy and wallflower-ish Daily Bugle assistant Betty Brant, didn't he?

Re:Kirsten Dunst

[cybrpnk]

Immersing yourself in the mythology of your native culture as a child hasn't been a waste for thousands of years - it's at the core of what makes us HUMAN. Or so I tell myself, wishing I'd never thrown out my first-year issues of ASM, tattered tho they were from repeated immersion.

It's not unreasonable ?

[oops]

Is it ? If these companies have paid for advertising space in Times Sq., they must be factoring in the fact that Times Sq. is a well known location, and likely to feature in films/TV etc. Consequently a percentage of the ad cost would reflect this ?

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[cuyler]

If in the movie Spider-man they rendered the whole city would then also be required to program the computers in with their competitors ads? I think they are in their right to remove the ads. if Samsung wants product placement they can go right ahead and pay Sony for it.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[stevens]

<disclaimer>IANAL</disclaimer>

Is it ? If these companies have paid for advertising space in Times Sq., they must be factoring in the fact that Times Sq. is a well known location, and likely to feature in films/TV etc. Consequently a percentage of the ad cost would reflect this ?

It's totally unreasonable. While they might have paid someone more for the ability to put adverts in Times Square because they thought they'd free ride in movies &c., they sure as hell didn't contract with the Spidey movie to reproduce the ads.

The spidey movie made no contracts or promises to display the ads, so why should they? The billboard owners want something for nothing.

From the article: '"Sherwood has not authorized defendants or anyone to distort the appearance" of the area' [...]

Since when does a person taking a picture of something not allowed to futz with the image? Especially in the movies, where the whole point of taking the picture is to make the audience believe that something which isn't real actually happened.

This kind of litigiousness makes me fume.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[ciole]

Right. And because one party pays another a competitive price influenced by a perception of likely reactions on the part of a third party, the third party is legally obligated to oblige?

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[RoyBoy]

Are you insane? This is just a silly cash grab at something that is FICTIONAL! What the hell - these people (and their slimy lawyers) need to get a life! You cannot make other people advertise for you. Now, if the producers of the movie had paid for the right to shoot that location, and specifically agreed not to digitally alter any content, then this would be a passably arguably point. As it, it's nothing shy of a mindless money-grubbing cheap shot!

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Anonymous Coward]

they must be factoring in the fact that Times Sq. is a well known location, and likely to feature in films/TV etc. Consequently a percentage of the ad cost would reflect this

Sure, and I paid some joker $50 for the Brooklyn Bridge. I don't understand why the mayor doesn't recognize my property rights.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Titusdot Groan]

Of course if this was a p0rn movie they'd be suing for being left IN the shot.

I hope Sony gets fees when this gets dismissed ...

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Error27]

>>If these companies have paid for advertising space in Times Sq., they must be factoring in the fact that Times Sq. is a well known location, and likely to feature in films/TV etc.

True. They may have assumed that. But the film-makers can't really stop them from making stupid assumptions can they?

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:It's not unreasonable ?

[Geeky Frignit]

Not unreasonable? This movie is fictional, based on a fictional universe, their creative license should let them do whatever the hell they want in the story/images/whatever. They are not upset about Times Square being misrepresented like they say, it's all about there money, and while I might be a capitalist, I do see that artists (loosely used) should be allowed their creative license even if they sell it out to companies. Would these people have been upset if they had depicted Times Square without any advertisements? Probably not.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[madenosine]

so why should they?

Because they filmed in Times Square. What if you owned a piece of property in which a movie is going to be filmed? You might want to put up some ads. Then if some film came around and changed them, you would probably be pretty ticked, along with whatever company set up the ad.

I do, however think that it is mainly the fault of the owners; they didn't think to force Sony to leave t he ads in

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[dougmc]

Even if it wasn't porn, I imagine that Sony could be sued for leaving the billboards *in*, as that would be a copyright violation (the billboards are copywrited, after all.)

At least such a suit would have *some* merit -- unlike the current suit.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[NaturePhotog]

IANAL either, but I am a still photographer. I don't know if the same laws apply to motion picture filming, but generally you need a property release when photographing private property. It's not black-and-white (no pun intended), because if you photograph something like the New York or San Francisco skyline which is full of private property, you don't need a release. See more information on releases. Note this is referring to commercial photography, not vacation shots.

I'm not sure what a judge would rule, but I would hazard a guess that if the buildings and signs in question are 'part of the scene', it would be OK, but if they took a Samsung building and morphed it into Sony HQ and made it a key part of the film, it wouldn't.

Regardless, I can understand Samsung, et al, being a little miffed, but I also find the idea of taking this to court absurd. I guess I wouldn't make a very good lawyer...

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Gorobei]

Building owners/architects have sued and won for copyright infringement/trademark dilution when their buildings were used in a movie without their permission. Times Square light-boards are pretty distinctive, and a judge might well side with the owners on the above grounds.

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 ?

[Suppafly]

Care to back that up with a link or some more detailed info atleast?

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.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[meggito]

1. There is no copyright on an image of Times Square, or any other part of New York (as far as I know. 2. If there was, there's something called 'Parody', which Spider-Man frequently is.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Gorobei]

Buildings

A mural

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Suppafly]

from the second link
This concept is why I'm mentioning this article in ARTVoices. It's important for artists whose work is installed in buildings as part of the decor, whether wall art, sculpture or other installation, or whose work is part of a public place, such as a mural, to realize that their work is NOT protected from being displayed in other people's art works (nor are movie producers required to pay you a fee for your art being in their movies if it's just part of a public place they're using as a set). Think of all the copyrighted and trademarked images on the buildings and signs at Times Square, for instance. Artists depict that scene all the time (and if you walk the streets of New York City for very long, you'll see lots of artists selling such paintings from tables on the edge of the sidewalks). The same is true in Las Vegas and many other cities.

It even specifically mentions where artists lost such cases further down..

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[Suppafly]

Your first link discusses a couple of laws but doesn't contain any lawsuits to back up your intial claims nor does it have any relevant information regarding the submitted story.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[bill.sheehan]

The book you're looking for is "The Complete Book of Scriptwriting" by J. Michael Straczynski.

Mind like a steel whatchamacallit..."

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[kubrick]

I don't think the suit has any merit either way -- the subject matter of the film is fiction.

However, if someone were making a claim that the owners of these buildings did business with, e.g. heroin dealers (or something equally dubious), by virtue of digitally superimposing such advertisements over the current ones, then I'd imagine a lawsuit would be pretty quick in coming. This would presuppose a purported presentation of fact, though, which Spider-Man definitely is not :)

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[ahde]

What about the billboard companies that puts up the signs along the highways?

In case you haven't noticed, most movies that show people driving ( or roads for that matter ) actually *refuse* to show the billboards.

And when you watch a western, sometimes they will go so far as to avoid showing the roads *at all* just to spite the advertizers.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[david duncan scott]

The newly built Chrysler Building? Wasn't that completed ~1930, right along with the Empire State Building? (I seem to recall reading that the competition between the two was fierce, with elements of each design kept secret as long as possible, in the hopes that the other would fail to build tall enough -- the Empire State people had to tack on a zeppelin mooring mast to make the grade.)

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[ahde]

so you're saying its okay to change the ads on the billboards if it's a news broadcast? Cause what they show me on TV news these days is definitely some parallel (and I use the term loosely) universe.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[ackthpt]

To quote the flying-off-the-handle poster:

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.'

As you've stated "If these companies have paid for advertising space in Times Sq., they must be factoring in the fact that Times Sq. is a well known location, and likely to feature in films/TV etc. Consequently a percentage of the ad cost would reflect this?"

IMHO New York City, among other cities, usually has some sort of agreement filmmakers have to abide by to shoot in the city. It is certainly not unthinkable to have a clause which requires advertisements to remain unaltered. If it's not in there, I betcha it soon will be, since these ads do cost $$$$.

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!

Sure, where would you like it? Maybe knock some sense and another perspective into your noggin. Who's more greedy, the advertisers who actually paid to have their product featured in a prime location, or a movie studio which sells out to USA Today for product placement? I expect the billboard people have a perfectly legit gripe. Now if, instead of USA Today, they advertised the fictional Daily Bugle (or whatever paper JJJ runs now) there'd probably not be such a bone of contention. Also, they producers could easily have just fudged in another billboard over some windows, but noooooo...

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[os2fan]

{disclaimer}ianal{/disclaimer} It is unreasonable. The matter is not confined to this peice of fiction (ie Spider-Man), but the over-writing of adverts on racing cars and so forth.

For what it's worth, someone sells space to the advert companies, who then on-sell it to whoever is keen to place an advert there. Obviously, if the space is over-written digitally, then this reduces the effectiveness of that particular site, and hence the revenue passing through to the owner of that site.

It's a big deal in motor-racing, where it is possible to geoplace adverts on the sides of cars. Since these cars are funded by displaying the adverts on them, obviously the racing teams and the companies paying for them were understandably upset. The same thing applies to the adverts in the grass of sports games.

In essence, an advert is a payment for a particular point of exposure. That means, everything that happens to it in the nature of being seen / heard in passing, including the recording of that scene on any number of pictures and film while it is being displayed.

The issue is not filming private property but distorting the image in an area for which no permission is granted. You need permission of the site owners to relabel buildings to tie in with your plot, etc.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[ImaLamer]

I've always been under the impression that San Francisco [the name] is copyrighted and you can't use it's name or image in a film with out paying a small fee.

Recently I was watching a movie and there were those little letters in circles after San Fran.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[tps12]

Because they filmed in Times Square. What if you owned a piece of property in which a movie is going to be filmed? You might want to put up some ads. Then if some film came around and changed them, you would probably be pretty ticked, along with whatever company set up the ad.

Then put it in the contract. Oh, wait, those companies didn't even have a contract with the film's producers, did they?

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[arkanes]

Thinking about this a bit, I suspect that there is such a clause in the filming permit - it's not neccesarily intended to protect advertising, but, guessing by the working in the suit, it probably says that you must accurately depict the cityscape of Time Square - which Sony is taking to cover thier billboards.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[_ph1ux_]

actually the empire state building wasnt even started until after the chrysler building was complete. and it was the fastest sky scraper ever built - taking 18 months to complete.

TV Series

[Ed Avis]

Remember the TV series 'Spiderman and his Amazing Friends'? It had three sidekicks for Spiderman IIRC: Ice-Man (ice), Fire-Start (fire) and one other I can't remember. I thought it was great at the time, but I don't think it's considered to be canon. Anyone know more about this?

Re:TV Series

[ConceptJunkie]

Wasn't it Herbie the Robot or the Wonder Twins or Dynomutt or something? I seem to recall it was the goofy, cartoony, comic relief that all cartoon superheroes of that era invariably had.

It was about as much canon as the Star Wars Christmas Special.

Now, what I'd love to see again is the Spiderman cartoon series from the late 60's or early 70's with the really moody impressionist background art and awesome brass-heavy score.

C'mon, everyone knows the theme song:

Spiderman! Spiderman!
Does whatever a spider can...

Re:TV Series

[marcsiry]

Yes, Spider-Man was part of the trio. Iceman was a pre-existing Marvel hero (from X-Men), and Firestar was created for the TV series.

Later, she was brought into the comics as well- perhaps as a part of the New Mutants, but my memory is sketchy there.

One notable thing about the series was that it featured cameos and guest appearances by other Marvel characters at a time when such appearances were few and far in between.

However, those episodes where not without some hilarious flaws- Wolverine, a Canadian in the comics, was rendered with an Australian accent (with the whole G'Day, Mate! bit and all)-- there are no wolverines in Australia, they are a cold-weather creature.

Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man, was inexplicably saddled with a Jamaican "Hey Mon" accent. Perhaps they felt that it made him sound more like a millionaire playboy? I dunno.

More than likely, the budget demanded that they use existing voice artists for the guest shots, and so the main characters "doubled up" by changing their voices and doing the guest bits.

Re:TV Series

[dougmc]

It was Firestar, not Fire-Start.

And no, it wasn't `canon'. Firestar didn't even seem to exist (in the Marvel comic world) until this cartoon was created. (Iceman, of course, was an X-man.)

It was entertaining, though. There's a new Spiderman cartoon out there, where he's on some other planet or something. Not nearly as entertaining.

Re:TV Series

[Sabalon]

I think it was in "Pryde of the X-men", a half-hour cartoon, where not only does he talk with the Aussie accent, but he refers to Dingos as well.

Re:TV Series

[tps12]

It was about as much canon as the Star Wars Christmas Special.

Spider-man fans have virtually nothing to say about the SW christmas special.

Pulled WTC Trailer

[hoegg]

I found the pulled WTC trailer on this morning, and have no idea why they pulled it. It shows the Towers in all their glory, and also waits until at least 3/4 of the way through before you even know what movie its for. Should have left it on the market.

Re:Pulled WTC Trailer

[.pentai.]

They pulled it because the Towers represented a part of the plot, where bad guys were trying to blow up the building (something along those lines, bad guys, bombs, and the towers).
I guess they thought that would be a "bad idea" after all that crap that happened...

So, they removed it.

Re:Pulled WTC Trailer

[mwalleisa]

Actually, it was high-class (if that's not a misnomer) bank robbers, well, robbing a bank . . . then escaping from the roof via helicoptor, which Spidey subsequently snares and reals in, leaving it suspended in a web between the Trade Towers. In my opinion, a very cool shot that should have been left in (scene was shot before 9/11). I mean, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold up the release of the new Flight Simulator just to delete the Towers from . . . OH! I had found the original trailer somewhere (not Sony's site), but I can't seem to find the link.

Re:Pulled WTC Trailer

[Rob Kaper]

then escaping from the roof via helicoptor, which Spidey subsequently snares and reals in, leaving it suspended in a web between the Trade Towers. In my opinion, a very cool shot that should have been left in (scene was shot before 9/11)

Hopefully they will put it on the DVD as an extra. I'm not American, so I do not know how such a thing would be received by the public now that we're 6 months (by the time of the DVD release over a year) past 9/11. Personally I would love to see such footage and I think it would actually tribute the WTC.

But I can understand how it upsets many people as well and would be deemed inappropriate to be included.

Re:Pulled WTC Trailer

[NanoGator]

I strongly disagree. It's too soon. There are a lot of people hurt and frightened by what happened on 9-11 who would like to esacpe it. If they can't go to a movie to get away from it, then where are they supposed to go? There still isn't a news day that goes by that doesn't mention the destruction of the WTC.

If you want to see the trailer in question, there's a 'magazine' (it's really a DVD) in the mag section of Borders for about $10. I think it's called Movie FX.. or something like that. (I apologize, it's been a while since I bought it.) It's a DVD that shows how effects are made. They have the WTC Spidey Trailer if you want to see it.

When I saw it back in Jan, it bothered me. I can only imagine how somebody who was close to the attack felt.

Re:Pulled WTC Trailer

[Rakarra]

suspended in a web between the Trade Towers. In my opinion, a very cool shot that should have been left in (scene was shot before 9/11).

First of all, it was a pretty stupid shot, bordering on sheer cartoonishness. I might have expected that from "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends," but not from this movie. Second, are you sure that shot was actually in the movie? The trailer was a teaser trailer -- a trailer that is made often before the movie itself, frequently having nothing to do with the movie. For a classic example, see the trailer for Godzilla(released May 1998) which came out Winter/Spring 1997. It had nothing to do with the movie, and was released just to start a buzz.

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.

Waste of breath

[lothix]

Ads have been edited into movies for a while now but in this case the real question is, "Will movies have to pay for every piece of private property put on film?" Could I be possibly sued of taking a picture of a city, applying filters to it and putting it on the web? Sounds ridiculous!

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.

Re:Waste of breath

[trenton]

Interesting article. Note that this applies to an injunction, not a decision. The appellate court vacated (removed) the injunction and remanded to (put the case back in) the lower court. They appellate court did not say what Gentile did was okay. They just said that the injunction shouldn't have been issued.

The case can go forward there. It's likely that they'll lose, because of the findings the appellate court, but that's neither here nor there.

Virtual Times Square

[EddydaSquige]

I know the guy who was the production manager for most of the NY production crew, he had told me (after I asked what kind of a pain in the ass shooting in TS is) that most of the TS stuff was shot on a set in LA. Most of what wasn't on the set was done digitally. So if the TS that we see in the movie isn't the real TS, then what claim do advertisers have to claims of authenticity?

Re:Virtual Times Square

[bentini]

What claim do the advertisers have?
Easy, when you buy an ad in Times Square, you pay a lot. More than my life is worth, to be sure. When you do that, though, you become part of Times Square. This isn't some podunk town being made up to look like some other podunk town in Nowheresville having its billboard changed, this is a situation where the advertisers had a reasonable belief that they would be featured in media. Spiderman obviously isn't trying to use Times Square as a stereotypical city backdrop, they're using it for the cultural significance. Part of that is the ads.
After spending just a couple days in the area, the ads have an effect on me. The screens, the Nasdaq and so on. To portray one aspect and not another is changing the reality. Now, there are, of course, free speech arguments to be made and all things considered, I side with the first amendment.
Think about it this way: What if you were using an image of me, but changing my eye color because you thought it looked better, ot it matched your production company's logo colors better, would that be fair? Probably not, if I had entered with the idea that you would accurately represent me. I'm sure that the City of New York and all entities involved in it give out filming permits with the idea that they will be portrayed more or less accurately, if not positively.
I'm not saying they're right, but I am saying that they're not so obviously wrong, and that we should consider and discuss.
-Dan

Re:Virtual Times Square

[gvonk]

I'm sure that the City of New York and all entities involved in it give out filming permits with the idea that they will be portrayed more or less accurately, if not positively. (emphasis mine)

So what's the problem then? If it's all CG, what filming permits were necessary? Not that I agree with that rationalization anyway...

Re:Virtual Times Square

[Danse]

They made a deal to purchase ad space. As far as I'm aware, they had no such deal with the makers of the Spider-Man movie. The movie is fiction, it doesn't need to accurately represent anything, and nobody should be able to force them to do so. They aren't commiting slander or liable. As long as they're within the bounds of the law, they shouldn't be subjected to asinine lawsuits such as this one.

Re:Virtual Times Square

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I'm not saying they're right, but I am saying that they're not so obviously wrong, and that we should consider and discuss.

No, they're pretty obviously wrong. They paid the building to put up the ad, to have it displayed. That service is already rendered. Incidentally, the building is caught on film. They didn't pay to have it on film. They don't own that space forever, and they aren't "entitled" to an incidental benefit. Yay for them if Sony gives them free advertising, but if not, then not.

You're exactly right about the choice being about "cultural significance". Those buildings are part of the culture and their image transcends any particular owner's claim. These guys will just have to live with it.

Or are they proposing to pay a portion of their profits back to all the directors, photographers, etc. who made Times Square into the cultural icon it is? After all, those people "created" the value; don't they deserve compensation more than the yahoos who happen to be renting the space right now?

Re:Virtual Times Square

[kubrick]

To portray one aspect and not another is changing the reality.

Changing the reality? This is Spider-Man, not some deadly serious documentary.

In my reality, people don't develop the ability to spin webs after being caught inside a nuclear experiment with a spider (or whatever the original reason was).

Re:Virtual Times Square

[Loligo]

> You can rent this space for only $5 a week.

But since this is virtual space, someone can come along and change the ads when they quote you.

-l

Re:Virtual Times Square

[Loligo]

>I'm not sure that I am seeing the same things
>that other people are. :)

Can I buy ad space on your retinas to replace things you see with what I want you to see?

-l

Re:Virtual Times Square

[kubrick]

Shhhh... you'll be giving advertising company executives ideas. :/

I've always maintained that life is a lot like one of Philip K. Dick's lesser works, and something like ad space on the retinae would lead to the sort of dissociative experience he was so good at portraying...

It was a Samsung Ad that was pulled

[MikeKD]

From the UK's Guardian: A lawsuit filed in Manhattan accuses Columbia Pictures, producers of the new Spiderman movie, of digitally manipulating shots of Times Square to block out an advert for Samsung, arch-rivals of Sony, which owns Columbia. So, this seems more like Columbia censoring daddy's rivals than just removing an ad because the director didn't like it's artistic qualities. Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer.

Re:It was a Samsung Ad that was pulled

[NanoGator]

"Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer."

Here in Portland, we recently had a movie filmed where they took one of the bridges and added a train to it. I haven't seen the movie yet, but that bridge is pretty identifable up close. I can imagine somebody seeing that movie, visiting Portland, finding that bridge, and saying "Hey? Where's the train?"

Anybody gonna sue them for that? I doubt it. The entire reasoning behind this is to gain free ad-space. Samsung never paid for advertising space in the movie, therefore they have no business worrying about it.

Here's another factor to chew on: Is the movie really clear about when it takes place? If it's a 'not too distant future...' movie, then how do we know their ad will always be up? The director could claim that he's trying to cover all his bases.

Frankly, I find this amusing. It could set a bad precedent though.

Re:It was a Samsung Ad that was pulled

[Joe Rumsey]

Samsung never paid for advertising space in the movie, therefore they have no business worrying about it.

And, in fact, Samsung isn't worrying about it. The billboard company is the one bringing the suit.

I hope I know what would happen if Samsung tried to sue Sony over not putting Samsung ads in a movie. But who knows, the world's getting crazier all the time.

Re:It was a Samsung Ad that was pulled

[ahde]

er... not for philophers and lawyers.

Nuisance Lawsuits...

[bje2]

We really need some good nuisance lawsuit laws so that defendants don't have their money wasted and the courts don't have their time wasted...this kind of thing is a joke...people are too quick to sue on another anymore, and all they have is visions of dollar signs dancing in their eyes...there needs to be sticter penalties, if perhaps the judge decides that the plaintiff is guilty of a nuisance lawsuits...it would make people think twice before bringing idiotic things like this to the courts...

also, i can't wait to see Kirsten Dunst in the wet t-shirt either...

Re:Nuisance Lawsuits...

[mgblst]

These are two companies... they should be wasting as much money as they can...

and I also can't wait to see Kirsten Dunst in the wet t-shirt too...

One more thing about "Spiderman"

[marcsiry]

It's "Spider-Man."

Spider-dash-Capital M-Man.

I used to be an assistant editor at Marvel Comics, and if you let "Spiderman" get into print, you would fear for your job. Something about diluting the trademark...

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[timothy]

Thanks for pointing this out.

I've been thinking "Spiderman" for the past 24 years -- it's as if you suddenly told me that yogurt had a "3."

timothy

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[ClassicPenguin]

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

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[ConceptJunkie]

Sounds like you're a candidate for a /. No-Prize!

Excelsior!

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[Suppafly]

The comic is "Spider-Man" note the dash and the captiol M. Incase you are not believing, check out here and here (note the reserved trademark at the bottom).

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[EvilGwyn]

yog3urt does have a 3

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[MrMickS]

I thought the domain was http://www.SpIdErMaN.SonyPictures.com/

Re:One more thing about "Spiderman"

[red5]

That's funny my friend has the t-shirt and it says "spiderman". No -

Time dependency?

[QuodEratDemonstratum]

What would happen if they had computer generated Times Square instead of filming it live.

What ads would they have to place there?

• displayed at the time the location was being written.?
• The ones displayed when it was being rendered?
• When the file was being shown?
• etc.

A photograph or film has a longer lifetime than an advertisment ... the owners of the billboards cannot expect the film to always accurately represent the location, so taking to the argument further, why should they expect it to ever accurately represent the location?

so what?

[coyote-san]

So what? The advertisers can hope for whatever they want but it's a public space and they have absolutely no expectation of control of their image.

Tobey Maguire + skin-tight outfit = yum

[PastaQueen]

I was about to complain about this being a sexist comment, but then I remembered half the movie will feature a buff Tobey Maguire in a skin-tight uniform, or at least a buff stunt man.

I think the female of the species are definitely getting the better deal here :P

Re:Tobey Maguire + skin-tight outfit = yum

[dinivin]

think the female of the species are definitely getting the better deal here :P

And don't forget us gay men :-)

Besides, I've seen trailers where buff Tobey has his shirt off.

Dinivin

Re:Tobey Maguire + skin-tight outfit = yum

[AnalogBoy]

Really.. i shall now see the movie.

Re:Tobey Maguire + skin-tight outfit = yum

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they deal with his... er, package in said skin-tight suit? Tape? CG? Or do they just let it hang?

What's happening latley?

[tickle_me_perl]

First we have Rio De Jenero say that a Simpson's episode doesn't accurately portray the city (It's not a jungle infested with rats and monkeys and that protrayal hurt Rio's feelings), Now it's happening in the US. Has anyone heard of fiction? Huh, huh?

Re:What's happening latley?

[Bake]

Personally, I think that if a film/tv show takes place in a real location (i.e. not someplace like Gotham City or Metropolis) the producers should at least have the common decency of portraying the location accurately.

Re:What's happening latley?

[NanoGator]

"First we have Rio De Jenero say that a Simpson's episode doesn't accurately portray the city..."

Rio sort of has a point. The part about the monkeys isn't as disturbing as the part where Homer was kidnapped and held for ransom just for being an american. In these days of keeping an eye open for terrorism, nobody wants to go anywhere where it is a possiblity that'll happen to them. Look at what happened to Pearl, for example.

Brazil's economy is really tough right now, and they're putting lots of money into getting tourists to visit. It doesn't help when an uber-popular TV show basically says that Brazil is no place to visit.

I don't fully agree with them on this topic, but I do sympathize. The Simpsons could have left them alone. I've been to Brazil, and I didn't find that episode all that amusing. Not because I was offended, but just because it was a dull episode. The Australia one, however, cracked me up.

Re:What's happening latley?

[shyster]

Personally, I think that if a film/tv show takes place in a real location (i.e. not someplace like Gotham City or Metropolis) the producers should at least have the common decency of portraying the location accurately.

But, for comedy shows (the Simpson's, in this case) is it not unreasonable to stretch the accurate portrayal for comedic effect? Not to mention that Rio does, in fact, have monkeys (and monkeys have been known to attack), a high crime rate(*), and a lot of orphan children beggars(*). So, did the Simpson's really portray the city inaccurately? Any more inaccurately than a movie set in NYC where a guy gets mugged?

And, for non comedic works, is removing/changing ad space not depicting the location accurately? I could understand the owner's of Times Square being upset if Columbia had changed all the ads to porn ads...but, c'mon. This is laughable.

(*)Quoted from Yahoo! Travel:

Unfortunately it's not all sweetness in exuberant Rio. Even tourists will notice the favelas (shantytowns) that blanket the hillsides, providing meager comfort to more than a third of the city's population. Rio's poor lack education and medical care; drug abuse and violence litter the streets; and police corruption is more common than not. With chronic poverty and a stubbornly high crime rate, Rio is not unlike other high-density global centers. The difference is that the extremes in Rio can be difficult to ignore.

Re:What's happening latley?

[Roblimo]

Well, I don't want to visit the U.S.A. depicted in "The Simpsons" so I suppose the U.S.A. should sue.

I doubt that I'd want to visit a New York where demented comic book characters swing from buildings, so New York should sue the Spider-Man movie producers.

A moderator on Slashdot once modded one of my comments down. I should sue.

Let's just have an "Everybody sues Everybody" day next year, let Judge Judy run the proceedings and yell at everyone, then call it all even and go have lunch.

- Robin

Untenable defense..

[Corporate Drone]

OK... let's suppose the judge who hears this one (assuming, of course, they don't settle for a laughably small sum to go with all the free publicity they've milked this one for) is on crack, and sides with the plaintiff.

what would've been established is that the author of a creative work wouldn't have the right to depict a person/place/thing that's somewhat like a something in the real world (note all those disclaimers at the end of the credits of every movie "blah blah blah this work doesn't depict any person blah blah blah").

so, if this suit holds, a movie maker won't be able to depict any site without permission, and, likely, won't be able to get permission without some serious licensing fees.

won't happen. the consequences are untenable for any creative activity...

11 Things I Hate About Spiderman

[devnullkac]

Maybe I've been watching too much Heath Ledger/Julia Stiles, but I misread that title the first time through...

MJ

[enrico_suave]

Micheal Jordon?

In related news...

[not_cub]

... I am being sued by advertisers for tippexing my eyeballs in the space normally occupied by banner ads in slashdot.

not_cub

Re:News for Nerds?

[NanoGator]

"This is supposed to be "News for Nerds"? What's so Nerdy about this? Other than the fact that Shiela Villalobos hasn't paid me back my $310... This aint news... I want 5 mins of my life back!"

Seeing as how a good portion of the /. community is interested in seeing this movie, finding out if it's good or not is worth the time. The $5 I saved by not seeing Resident Evil is going to a subscription here.

Nice attempt at Karma Whoring, though. :)

Psst btw it is news, if Samsung wins this case, it could affect our digital rights. You could get sued for stuff like making the WTC look like it's flipping off the Middle East.

Fictional surroundings.

[Joe Rumsey]

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.

I sure hope so. I'm not sure Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King: Sauron takes Manhattan. would have the same impact.

I think the opposite lawsuit would stand just as good a chance of winning. If they didn't change the billboards, and Samsung or NBC decided they didn't want to be associated with a guy in spider suit (or, let's say this wasn't something innocuous like Spiderman, but E.G. a porn movie) then they could just as easily sue over having their ads in the movie. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Of course, if they hadn't changed the ads but simply removed the billboards, this might never have come up. But who could imagine a movie without advertising? It's ludicrous!

Re:Not just that...

[NanoGator]

"They're also digitally removing the WTC. Lots of editing going on in Spider Man"

You mean those buildings that don't exist anymore? Damn them for making the movie up to date!! :P

Oh for god's sake...

[kypper]

...so if you have a fear, you avoid it like a frightened turtle hoping it will go away?
Dear christ, why not just overcome your fear and deal with it?
People are so bloody emotional in today's society of 'poor me' victimization.
Force yourself to face your fears and GET OVER IT. It happened, yes, but that doesn't mean we should remove articles of history just because some assholes flew planes into them.
Besides, wouldn't it be nice to see a good guy kicking ass on a site where we royally fucked up? Think about it.

As for being on topic, I think spiderman scaling the world trade center would have been very cool. :p

Re:Oh for god's sake...

[anonicon]

Hey. While you're throwing out gross generalizations about victimization and fear, please take *just* a moment to understand that not *everybody* subscribes to your philosophy.

Some people may confront their fears, some people may not, that's why we're called People and *not* uniform biological protocols.

Get over it? RIGHT. Some people will (I have, but then I only watched it on TV), but for many, it will never happen. Traumatic experiences do that, that's why they're fucking called traumatic.

Peace.

Re:Oh for god's sake...

[kypper]

So close your eyes during that part of movie; don't ruin it for the rest of us

Re:Oh for god's sake...

[NanoGator]

"Force yourself to face your fears and GET OVER IT"

It's real easy to act like you have solutions for a problem you don't have to deal with.

Re:Oh for god's sake...

[NanoGator]

I hardly think that ruined the movie. I would suggest being more sensitive to those who lost loved ones than trying to keep a scene in that's stupid to begin wtih.

Never mind that only an idiotic pilot would fly through those two buildings.

Makes it looks like somebody's last name

[karb]

"Irving J. Spiderman" (pronounced "SPIdermin")

Re:Advert replacing in news broadcasts

[NanoGator]

Didn't a billboard get removed during NYE that got a few ppl hacked off?

I remember something along the lines of some news coverage was going on, and depending on which network you were wtaching, you saw a different billboard in the background.

Or was it during coverage of the election? Doh, sorry, I don't remember. I do remember, though, that the issue was heated up recently. This case could be on the tail of that.

"Anything packaged as "real" shouldn't be allowed to do this. "

Um, no. A movie needs all the artistic freedom it can get it's hands on. If they want to change the billboards, more power to them. I mean, how would you feel if this case was going on, but the billboard that was inserted in was a joke in the movie? How would you feel about it then?

They're still in the movie...

[telstar]

From drudge:

"DRUDGE: Sony keeps shot of NYC Twin Towers in upcoming 'SPIDER-MAN' film.... World Trade buildings shown in reflection of Spider-Man's eyes, studio sources reveal.... Developing... "

link

That's called "incidental beneficiary"

[mikosullivan]

Insert usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer

Getting your billboard on TV and in the movies is known as being an "incidental beneficiary". It means that you benefit from something even though the [something] wasn't designed or intended to benefit you. Of course, entire business models are built being an incidental beneficiary (just count the restaraunts and gas stations near interstate exits), but it doesn't give you a right to the benefit (just ask the restaraunts in Christiansburg, VA where the interstate exits were redesigned). Incidental benefits are an old source of political and legal battle, so I wouldn't be surpised if there's a lot of political fallout from this, but I still think they'll lose the court case.

All movies should be boycotted

[michaelmalak]

Until the media firms stop trying to outlaw general purpose computer hardware and software, Slashdot readers should boycott all movies and merchandised music. See a play or listen to a live local band instead -- it's a richer experience anyway.

Why Not?

[toupsie]

The movie is using Times Square as a prop in the movie. Instead of the fictional Gotham City's town square, we get the real New York City landmark, Times Square, being presented in the movie as "present day". A tangible, real thing. Nothing of fantasy.

SONY should be allowed to disagree with content portrayed on their property. Its their property and the message presented on it reflects upon them. Think of parallels.

My made-up example?

What about a Julia Roberts, tear jerking movie that pits her as a courageous pro-choice activist against an evil cabal of extreme right-wing, slack jawed, anti-choice, church going, white men. As a part of the movie, Roberts attends a church of open minded, pro-choice parishioners...most likely Lutherans. Since the civil rights crusading producer wants to really stick it to the closed minded, white men and their abused, subservient wives in our society and make a real deep, societal impact on the minds of uniformed Americans, he CGIs the church sign of a real, mean, anti-choice, anti-gay, born-again Christian church in Mississippi, to be this warm, fuzzy, cuddly, pro-choice, Julia Roberts kind of church with a feminine Reverend. So all establishment shots of the Julia Roberts kind of church in the movie feature this real anti-choice church but with the Hollywood magic sign. The church was filmed on the road legally. It is a landmark in the town as most churches are. Most of the viewers of the film would never know what was on the sign before seeing the movie as they do not live near the sign, but the audience local to the landmark would. The sign is nothing more than the advertising of religious faith -- a somewhat commercial activity, as money is exchanged between parishioner and church and visa-versa from time to time.

Think the church would have a right to complain by having their sign's content in the blockbuster Julia Roberts film being altered to reflect a message with which they disagree? I would think so. And you are more likely to know about the advertising in Times Square than would you this church in Mississippi. Hate to stick up for a multinational corporation but they do have a right to have messages on their property correctly reflect their desires. It is not up to you and I to decide for SONY what their message is.

Offtopic: Anyone hear that Standard Oil of New York conspiracy before?

Disclaimer: I live in NYC and I don't like Julia Roberts tear jerking movies but I am forced to watch them. I will back any legislation on Digital Rights Management that contains a rider that will make Oxygen, Lifetime, and Women's Entertainment (We) illegal to broadcast within the United States.

Re:Why Not?

[mcc]

I think this is the least coherent thing i've ever read on slashdot. I have no idea what you are trying to say, but i'm going to attempt to respond to what vaguely seems to be your point:

Spider-man is something called "art". They aren't selling you the property of times square. They are selling you pictures of it, with a fictional story and some sounds overlaid.

The U.S. legal system has an idea built in called "freedom of expression". This implies that if you are creating a piece of art, you have a right to do anything in it that you like that corresponds to promoting your artistic vision, and that no man or government has the right to restrict that because freedom of speech and expression is a basic, universal, human right.

OK?

There is the question of slander-- i.e., if you took a public figure of some sort, which would include a church of some sort, and represented them publicly in a light they disapprove of, then they could go after you for slander. You could say that this is an exception to the "there should be no legal limits on art" rule. However, this only applies when you step outside the realm of artistic expression and into journalism-- i.e., when you are actively stating that the portrayal of things that you are offering in your product is *true*, as opposed to simply offering an artistic portrayal of the universe. The new york times has an obligation to not print things like "Newt Gingrinch is an Alien" when they have no proof of such. The makers of the movie "Men in black" are under no such obligation. I think it's pretty safe to say no one could be misled to believe that the movie "Spider-man" is meant to be an accurate portrayal of New York City.

There's also the question of copyright and image reuse-- i.e., do you have the legal right to use someone/something's image if you can consider the image you are reusing an artistic product that someone else "owns". I would say that that doesn't apply here becuase the image of Times Square is just a part of our culture, and has become something that the owners of the physical property Times Square no longer have control over.

Would you imply that someone doing an impressionist, blurry painting of times square has a legal obligation to preseve the clarity of the advertisements there?

You'd probably argue that that example is different, because in that case, the altering of the nature of the buildings and advertisements is required by the nature of the artistic decisions made by the painter; whereas in the case of Spider-man, the advertisements were altered out of sheer greed.

That argument would be invalid for one simple reason: no matter what the law says currently, neither the government nor the courts have the right to determine what is a valid artistic decision and what is greed. That is simply not their business; the supreme court has said again and again that the government has no right to discriminate a legal difference between "good art" and "bad art"; there is only the question "is it art", and if so, you have to treat it legally in a manner consistent with the way you treat all other art..

Re:Why Not?

[zzyzx]

When I went to Bard College, a movie (Chief Zabu) was filmed there. They edited scenes from our school library to make it look like it was the big public library in New York. They made it look like a field in the back of one building was in back of another. This happens all the time. It's a fictional work.

Re:Why Not?

[leob]

It looks more and more like the American society, with the corporations suing or attempting to sue the consumers and their competitors, forgets a simple rule: dependence does not guarantee entitlement.

The advertizers are not entitled to having their ads undisturbed in movies just because they depend on it; the producers and distributors of the audiovisual entertainment are not entitled to perpetual copyright just because they need money, etc., etc.

Re:The outcome of the the corporate America

[NanoGator]

"These are the results of the capitalistic system
in the USA. Money talks. Corporations at their finest. In a few years you will have to pay money to take pictures of the statue of liberty. The
DMCA will only get stronger because it suits the corporations. Is that the best reason they could come up with to sui sony? What a fucked up country. America at its finest. Why do we forget the right of sony to shoot anything they want in their movie? They do have that right, yes? Oh well, not that i care anymore but it's just sad to see these kind of things happening.
Too bad really. "

I see those days happening, too. Fortuantely, though, people (individuals) are waking up to this fact and standing up against it. Look at what happened to the SSSCA, it was universally rejected. Despite all the money that was put into it, it still was universally rejected. We had our say and we won.

Eventually, the content industries will put out so much crap that people will look to independents to create new stories for them. It's already starting to happen. (Troops, anyone?)

That's why I find court cases like these funny. It's a lot of petty squabbling with millions of dollars at stake. At least it's not coming out of our pockets this tiem!

...and by the way

[kypper]

Here is the WTC spiderman trailer, which fucking rules.

third party beneficiaries

[falloutboy]

According to the Uniform Commercial Code - I forget which part - a third party beneficiary is not entitled to pretty much anything.

An analogy that my professor used was if a municipality is paving an off-ramp from a highway, and somebody decides to build a restaurant at the end of it. If, for some reason, the off-ramp is canceled, the restaurant owner can't win any damages.

On a more Spider-Man related note, I've been collecting these comics since I was about 12 years old. At first, I wasn't sure that Tobey Maguire would be able to pull off a convincing Peter Parker. Anyone see the movie and have an opinion on this?

Re:third party beneficiaries

[DavidBrown]

Sorry, the Uniform Commerical Code applies only to transactions regarding the sale of goods. A billboard is not a good, it's a limited real property right.

Hmm

[Have Blue]

If I create a digital version of Times Square in a modeler, am I required to include the billboards?

seamtress?

[autopr0n]

academically gifted *and* a knock-down seamtress to boot

Shouldn't that be 'taylor' or something? I mean, 'seamstress' isn't really a term you'd use for a guy.

Re:seamtress?

[The_Shadows]

His name is Peter, not Taylor. He may, however, be a tailor. Or a seamster. I like the sound of that.

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:Hello?

[tswinzig]

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

Riiiiiiiight. So you're saying whoever sold Samsung that ad can never replace them with another advertisement, because then people will confuse that new ad for Samsung?

Nice try.

Re:Hello?

[CaseStudy]

No, but that's a pretty nice straw man. I'm saying that people might think that there's a business relationship between whoever is selling advertising space in the real world and whoever has their ad superimposed on the space.

Re:Four ways to look at it.

[dangermouse]

There was no deal between the film company and the building owners. The building owners assumed that if their billboards were shot by a camera crew, they'd appear in a movie.

They assumed wrong. I don't see how that's the filmmakers' fault or problem.

Imagine the court proceedings transcript

[SoftwareTechie]

CP = Counsel for the Plaintiff
CD = Counsel for the Defendant

CP: The accused has distorted the billboard area without my client's permission.

CD: My client has agreed to re-edit the film to remove all shots of the Times Square Billboard area, thus resolving the plantiff's grievance. Does my Learned Friend concur?

CP: What? Well...errr....oh bugger.

3 more facts about Spider-Man

[Nailer]

1. Spider-Men are mammals.
   
2. Spider-Men fight ALL the time.
   
3. The purpose of the Spider-Man is to flip out and kill people.
   

Paraphrased from The Official Ninja Homepage

Re:Not just that...

[ConceptJunkie]

It could be worse. Kinda like when the ran reprints of the original "Amazing Spider-Man" series from the early 60's, but updated the topical references to something chronologically appropriate for the publishing time of that series of reprints (late 80's, Spidey's origin was about oh, maybe 8 years of comic book time ago even though it was at the time almost 30 calendar years) such as "The Dukes of Hazzard", etc, as opposed to what they were in the early 60's.

Extremely cheesy!

Holy inconsistency, Bat-Man!

[phillymjs]

What makes Spider-Man so special that HE must be hyphenated but Batman, Superman, Aquaman, et al are not?

I would think if any of the super heroes would be hyphenated, it would be Wonder Woman (or is that Wonder Wo-Man?), since she's a liberated chick. :-)

~Philly

Re:Holy inconsistency, Bat-Man!

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

What makes Spider-Man so special that HE must be hyphenated but Batman, Superman, Aquaman, et al are not?

No hyphen, but the proper way to spell one of those is "The Bat Man".

Re:Holy inconsistency, Bat-Man!

[Carmody]

That is not a hyphen, it is a strand of webbing.

I am a professional news photographer...

[El Camino SS]

Two major reasons why this is crap:

REASON NUMBER #1.
I am a news videographer (and granted, that is a different designation than commercial photographers) but there is no need to sign a release form for me to shoot a building.
But then again, my TV station, like all TV stations has an attorney on retainer for just such an occasion, when someone decides to tempt fate and the Bill of Rights.

That is bullshit. It is a public place. Because there is no release needed then there is no cause to sue over a lack of release. That category falls under public and private view. By the way, any place that doesn't say "NO TRESSPASSING" can be considered public view, within reasonable doubt.

I have punks and even regular people tell me constantly that they will "sue my ass to high heaven for invading their personal privacy." It usually involves their business shortchanging someone or they have done something horrible to others. So I quote me some law on 'em. (I then proceed to explain in tiny detail why they can waste their money on a First Amendment Violation. They usually will tell me that they are going to beat me and take my camera. I casually tell them that I am taping them, if they touch me it is battery and I will report them, camera theft is felony theft on the order of grand theft, and as a professional photographer my material is easily entered into evidence. And then say, "Now if you HADN'T COMMITTED A CRIME, well, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE.")

As a news photographer, I can shoot a camera inside a window showing you holding your dog hostage or whatever as long as a reasonable expectation of privacy is maintained. Reasonable privacy is really broad, at least for the news people.

I dare say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in Times Square. Probably less of an expectation than ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. So asking permission to shoot advertising or exterior televisions by its nature is hilarious, due to its intent.

REASON #2:

Spider-Man is a work of fiction. Period. There is no requirement of any member of the film industry to maintain any continuity or realism whatsoever. That is totally a free speech issue. I am surprised that the MPAA hasn't "gone ape shit" on them yet. Even if it was a "documentary" they still don't have a leg to stand on. It is a private work. A private work that they can alter at will, without someone meddling with it.

Never before has there ever been a rule that an artistic work (yes, many of you will argue that a big budget hollywood film is art) has any "must carry" rules to it. Good luck, assholes. You're going to need it. I personally would countersue immediately for "unnecessary usage" of the court system. Maybe there is an Anti-SLAPP out there that can help on this one?

Besides, the blueprints of a building might be copy protected, but you are not going to be infringing to see it in the real freaking world, nor is anyone charging you to see it.

I hope whoever thought this plan up dies a horrible, horrible death and goes straight to a fiery pit. When they get there, they have taxis back over him for eternity under a giant jumbotron that keeps showing "the best of" episodes of She's the Sherriff starring Suzanne Sommers.

Re:I am a professional news photographer...

[yzf750]

"the best of" episodes of She's the Sherriff starring Suzanne Sommers.

There are best of episodes of that show?

Re:I am a professional news photographer...

[trenton]

What!!?

If it was a "documentary" they still don't have a leg to stand on.

Spider-Man isn't a documentary? What have I done with my life? All these years wasted following the chronicles of a fictional character, ohhhhh, the humanity!!!

Re:I am a professional news photographer...

[NaturePhotog]

I am a news videographer (and granted, that is a different designation than commercial photographers) but there is no need to sign a release form for me to shoot a building.

This is precisely why it is different -- news vs. commerical. I could shoot all the pictures I want of private property (as long as I didn't trespass or otherwise break the law to do it), but as soon as I want to sell one of those pictures for anything besides news (e.g., to sell a product or as fine art to hang on a wall), a release is needed.

And as noted in my post, I agree that taking this to court is absurd.

Anyone willing to wager

[Vegeta99]

that had they not changed it, the advertizers would have sued for copyright infringement and demanded payment?

I almost hope they win...

[Greyfox]

I'd be first in line to sell billboards in New Zealand before the LOTR sequil is shot! The elves could go into a jingle about baking cookies halfway through the movie!

Cynical? Me?

Re:Realistic depiction of areas

[mgblst]

So, in a film about the past, it must be completely accurate or be liable for suit? What about historical fiction?

Sometimes i wish this were true, if you make a historical film should you be allowed to change the facts/outcome. I guess it's your film, but changing history (and let's face it, a lot of people get all there history from TV) does seem a bit disgusting and just plain wrong. Off course, if this were so, almost every US "history" film would be in trouble.

USA Today?

[MaddyX]

Where does Sony get off adding a USA Today ad anyway?
I mean this is a Spider-Man movie. What about the Daily Bugle?

Re:The outcome of the the corporate America

[llamalicious]

And yet, it is coming out of our pockets.
Do you think the judges, court transcribers and all the other administrative personnel who handle all these claims are simply volunteers...?
They also don't make commission's for private lawsuits. (Well, some of them do, but they get arrested eventually)

Petty lawsuits generate a LOT of overhead in the system. All the more reason I'd like the judge to just dismiss this idiocracy of a lawsuit quickly.

The mask thing

[mikosullivan]

One thing about the movie I'm already pleased about: they got the mask thing right. The problem with putting a mask on an actor is that masks usually impair vision and cause the actor to turn his/her head in funny ways to see what's going on. Ultra-man used to do this. The Spider-Man in the 1970's TV series did it. Batman does it sometimes. In every trailer I've seen for the movie Spider-Man holds his head like he can see just fine. These details do make a difference.

My guess is that most of the time that we see Spider-Man it's not really footage of an actor, it's just CGI. I guess it's easier to hold your head upright if you're just a piece of software.

I actually hope the times square people win

[Edmund Blackadder]

It is getting really annoying when movies do their own add placement. If i pay $10.00 for a movie i do not want to see adds.

Of course there may be things that look like adds in the movie, but as long as they are not payed for it is ok.

To put it more clearly i think movies should represent either reality or the unobstructed vision of the makers, and not advertising agreements.

So i guess in the times square case it is ok to keep the original adds because they represent reality.

You can say my rule is arbitrary: "whats the diff between an nbc add and a usa today add?" Well there is a difference, because when some one pays for an add they usually put conditions on how it will be shown in the movie and those conditions, usually having to do with adds being clearly shown close to the main heroine's tits or something silly like that, make movies suck.

Re:I actually hope the times square people win

[kubrick]

It is getting really annoying when movies do their own add placement. If i pay $10.00 for a movie i do not want to see adds.

If you don't want to see advertisements in movies, then don't see the sorts of movies that have ads scattered through them like this.

There are a number of directors and creative teams who make movies where commercial decisions do not totally dominate the content of the film...

e.g. in Pulp Fiction Tarantino invented 'Red Apple' cigarettes, not wanting to give screen time to any pre-existing brand.

Re:I actually hope the times square people win

[kubrick]

It's a toss-up as to who writes better dialogue when they're really firing. Clerks and Jackie Brown both worked almost as well with the eyes closed, because the conversations are the meat of the films.... But anyways.

If you bought my sig space, you'd have to run the risk of people changing it into textads for Sony or something -- just like those people in Times Square :) All I can do is indicate what I want to present... of course, if we can get a pair of sunglasses confirmed as a DMCA circumvention device for making my advertisements ineffective, we should be able to ban web filters and Slashdot's dastardly Friend/Foe system easily enough. :}

The mini-review

[sunhou]

Not sure who CheeseburgerBlue is, or how complete a version of the film he saw. But I'm really hoping this turns out to be a good movie. I read Spider-Man as a kid in the early 70's, and that (together with Fantastic Four) was one of the things that fueled my interest in science. Peter Parker was a science geek, and also a kind of "common guy" who just accidentally picked up some superpowers.

So, I'm glad they are still emphasizing that aspect of his character in the film. I was glad when I first heard that Tobey Maguire would be playing Spidey; he seems about right. From the previews, the actress playing Aunt May doesn't look quite old/frail enough, but other than that I'm pretty happy so far.

(Minor spoiler below, but most fans probably know about it already.)

I'm a bit bummed that Spidey's webs are actually going to come out of his body in the movie, rather than from mechanical webshooters. I can see their argument, that nobody would believe a high-school science geek could invent some super polymer material that megacorporations can't even make. On the other hand, I'll be wondering, does he have to eat a lot of extra food to produce all that webbing? How quickly can he produce it? (Will he ever temporarily run out, as he did in the comics when he forgot to refill his webshooter cartridges?)

Star Wars Episode 2 I'm not so excited about. But I'll be in the theater watching Spidey on opening day. I really hope I'm not disappointed.

Re:The mini-review

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...
If webbing is produced naturally by Spidey's body, what happens when he has an ejaculation? "Sorry, honey, I'll go get a knife and cut you down from the ceiling"?!!!

Food for thought...

Too bad this wasn't a pre-Crisis Superman movie

[zzyzx]

I can see DC's defense now. "Sony advertises onm Earth Prime's Time Square. We were trying to accurately depict Earth 1."

Hmmm....

[gnovos]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how Sony would feel if a movie theater decided to flash a laser ad (capable of washing out the light from the projector) on top of a patch of screen that just happened to match up with one of those billboards in the movie...

Spider-Man

[istartedi]

Are you sure you don't mean Spider-Person? Or perhaps Spider-American or Arachno-American. Then of course there are those who believe it should be GNU/Spider.

Complaint Document Posted At FindLaw

[cribcage]

A direct link to the Complaint:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/spiderman/spide rman040902cmp.pdf

Or, find it on FindLaw's Document Archive. The Spider-Man Lawsuit is currently the fourth heading down the page.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/

crib

Filmmaking

[cdf12345]

Isn't the idea of film making to make a movie that depicts the writer/producter's idea. Well what if his idea is a times square without certain ads. I mean what if the story takes place in a universe without a Samsung corp.

I would have to defend the artists decision to display whatever he chooses, and no one wopuld complain if all the ads were removes, so who cares if only certain ones are.

Re:I like Sam Raimi

[pressman]

To be fair, Sam was involved in the writing of the Hudsucker Proxy and did do a good job of directing The Gift. I haven't seen the Quick and the Dead or A Simple Plan, but from everything I've read they aren't that bad.

Take a look at Peter Jackson. Bad Taste, Brain Dead, Forgotten Silver, The Frighteners.... all three books of The Lord of the Rings! And he's not doing a bad job so far.

Directors can get better with experience... Ed Wood being the obvious exception that proves the rule. Some directors can start at such an appalingly low level and work their way up with experience. Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson are proof of that.

p.s. My cat's name is Ash, my iBook is Bilbo Baggins and my G3 tower is Legolas. I might be a bit biased.

I'll dignify this to you although I shouldn't...

[El Camino SS]

Wow. If you were man or woman enough to actually use a monicker out here you could check my file and see that it hasn't changed one bit "anonymous coward."

Also, before you check out and decide to call me a scum sucker, you should ask me how many personal good stories that I have done to save people. Why I get apid so little to help people.

(This is an offtopic rant, but it is snap-judgement cocksuckers like that AC who are usually the ones that I have to get ballistic on, because they are the ones that tell me that I need "to get the hell out of our town" when I am asking for directions to a Child Cancer Telethon or a good story about human triumph.)

So here's a couple of points I would teach to anyone listening out there in slashdot land about the media business:

#1: It is exactly the "media scum" attitude hanging in people's mind that would make a person say scum-sucking scandal-shooter in the first place.
DID HE ASK IF I WAS OUT TRYING TO CATCH A PEDOPHILE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DAY? No, he just assumed it was scandal. Well, then, I suppose it wouldn't matter then, now would it. Unlenss you saw your children playing with said pedophile. Then you might have wanted to pay more attention instead of turning off the TV. I am not here to shoot scandal. I am here to keep the public informed.

It is that same kind of unbased, ridiculous, "media scum," "Geraldo asshole," "assume they are lying" attitude that makes a otherwise rational person try to attack me at something as benign as a street carnival.
PEOPLE THAT MAKE SNAP JUDGEMENTS AND HAUL OFF AND TRY TO BE SEAN PENN WITH THE MEDIA ARE THE REAL PROBLEM. I am just trying to get a few shots in. Not kill anyone or take away their freedoms, just take pictures. However, you would think that I was a criminal. Those that have the most to hide fear the camera the most, and subsequently act the most insane around me. They, for some reason, and on some unconscious level think that when I am pulling out a camera a block away that I am COMING FOR THEM SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SOMETHING TRIVIAL TWENTY YEARS AGO THAT THEY FEEL BAD ABOUT. Then they freak out. Then they threaten you with everything under the sun. Then they punch at me. I was just trying to cross the street.

#2: Nutbags love TV. Consequently, everyone who is mentally unbalanced doesn't walk, but sprints towards the camera, IMMEDIATELY. Then they act like a danger to themselves and others. I cannot help this.

#3: Everyone has an agenda. Period. The more aggressive they get, the more their bad past or real agenda shows. I'm not saying that the gorilla is in charge of the man, but I am saying that everyone has an agenda. It just might not be malicious like what the word "agenda" usually connotates.

Honestly, I don't eat my young. I am not a sub-human. I don't prey on misfortune. I spot problems and tell you about them. Unfortunately, I am not psychic and often spot problems immediately after misfortune. Once again, there is nothing I can do about it. Its the stupid nes that say I am a vulture.

Also, I am paid to get to the heart of controversial matters. I wouldn't be there if it as not somehow important.. unless of course you have a donkey that plays soccer or a waterskiing squirrel. :)

If you notice the only people in the world that consistently blame the media are politicians. If I am the fish that cleans the tank of humanity, then they are my dinner.

I'd like to say that I am not a scandal hound, and I am not a scum sucker, and whoever wrote that note to jab at a stranger needs to write to others like it was their mother that was going to read it.

One great big festering neon distraction

[evilviper]

I'm freaking sick of all the damn product placement in movies.

I remember the movie 'Cobra'. In the beginning of the film, there is a crazy man holding hostages inside a supermarket. Obviously Stallone is the only one that can do anything, so he goes in to the store. Now for the sinister part.

After exchanging gunfire, Stallone takes cover in an isle. He takes a moment from his life threatening ordeal to pick up a prominently placed 'Coors' beer can, open it, take a drink (prominently placed logo that you can't miss) and set it down before jumping back out into gunfire and killing the 'bad guy'.

So, musicans are selling out their songs to the highest bidder for use in movies, commercials, or any other high-paying customer. Celebrities and directors are perfectly happy to endorse any product, in any context, if they get paid to do it. Hosts like Jay Leno and Conan O'Brian are whoring themselves for any corporate interest (at leat Conan will openly tell you he is whoring himself first).

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm anxiously awaiting the day the 'The Big One' knocks Hollywood off the map.

To quote my favorite band "TOOL" from the song "Hooker with a Penis":

All you read and
Wear or see and
Hear on TV
Is a product
Begging for your
Fatass dirty Dollar

So...Shut up and
Buy my new record
Send more money

Or even better, from the song "Ænema" (Long Quote, but a good one):

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cuz
I sure could use a vacation from this

Silly shit, stupid shit...

One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

Learn to swim.

My Spidey-Sense is tingling...

[gvonk]

>If it's all CG, what filming permits were necessary?

That's to allow them to bother people, block undesirables from the set, etc.

Thanks buddy. I know what a filming permit is for. The CG part of my original comment means that they did it on computersDIDN'T ACTUALLY USE the actual location. They probably just built cg models of all the buildings. I would imagine with the scope of the use of that area, they would have built it all on their machines and then could do whatever they wanted with it.

But sure, maybe they just choreographed the whole thing and unleashed Spider-Man in Manhattan ...

Re:Why?

[klui]

According to Behind The Mask of Spider-Man: The Secrets of the Movie by Mark Cotta Vaz, Stan Lee who wrote the forward stated "When I dreamed up Spidey, I wanted to be sure his name wouldn't be confused with another not inconsequential hero named Superman. So I purposely put a hyphen between Spider and Man. That made the magazine's masthead look totally different from the one featuring the cat from Krypton."

Defense's case

[trenton]

We made a movie. It was fiction. In fact, the NYC you see isn't really NYC at all. It's a fictional NYC that looks just like the real one... except some items were left out. We call that artistic license. You see, we're trying to setup a parallel univerise, or another place where things *could* happen in the way we who the audience.

And in that fictional, parallel univerise, there happens not to be that Samsung ad. That's all.

Defendant rests.

Re:Spider-man or Spiderman?

[bedders]

Phoebe: (to Chandler) Hey! (Chandler looks up, startled) Why isn't it Spiderman? Y'know like Goldman, Silverman...

Chandler: 'Cause it's-it's not his last name.

Phoebe: It isn't?

Chandler: No, it's not like, like Phil Spiderman. He's a spider, man. Y'know like ah, like Goldman is a last name, but there's no Gold Man.

Phoebe: Oh, okay. There should be Gold Man!

*cough* You may want to see this

[bonch]

Do me a favor, pick up the latest issue of Rolling Stone (the one with Shakira on the cover), and flip to page 122--the Oakley Ad. See anyone familiar? Maynard has been affiliated with Oakley for a number of years now.

One of these times, you should read into the meaning of "Hooker With A Penis" more closely. Maynard is singing that the band has already sold out, simply by making an album. They sold themselves, hence the title of the song.

Now just a second...

[Gruneun]

Let's say it isn't unreasonable. Let's assume that it's perfectly legitimate for a company to be upset and feel entitled to the space...

What makes them so sure that their ad was up during that particular segment of time? If I remember correctly, Spiderman is a fairly old comic book and maybe the current ads wouldn't make sense if placed in that time. Sure, the movie seems to be set in the present, but where do you draw the line?

My last thought is the compensation. Obviously the CG billboards weren't auto-magically created, so someone spent time and effort on it. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to expect a fee associated with the space. If the companies feel so greatly about their stake, they should pay for it. I suggest making it a several hundred year contract. After all, if they stop paying for the real-life space, they should at least continue to pay for their Spiderman space. People won't see their physical billboard, but people will continue to watch the movie.

Re:*cough* You may want to see this

[evilviper]

Well I don't happen to have a copy of Rolling Stone so I can't verify that right now...

Hooker with a penis talks about selling out. Obviously. However, just because he made a song talking about it, doesn't mean that it is true of himself... Even though it may be. I'm sure you know he has some songs, written in 1st person perspective, that can't be attributed to his own experiences.

Besides... That is off topic in any respect. It's just a quote, not a statement that Maynard should be the world's new moral leader.

Re:A Note from another AC

[El Camino SS]

Wow. this is totally against my rules to talk to ACs out there, but here goes.

I was surprised to learn that the questions in the interview are generally filmed after the answers. That was what really drove home to me what kind of presentation this really is.

First of all, most major news outlets like 20/20 don't do that. If they do, it is simply because it is that there are not enough crew members to go around or the location is bad for doing a two camera interview. This really doesn't change the answers, unless the journalist changes the question, which is of course, highly unethical. So really at the end of the day, there is little difference in my opinion.

I have personally heard them criticized by one guy they interviewed in a story on TWA flight 800 (& I saw the story afterwards.) In spite of everything he told them before, during, and after the interview, they carefully arranged their footage and commentary to paint him as a sort of whistleblower, and the FAA as being unresponsive to concerns about safety.

Frankly, I am not surprised about this. The Flight 800 story was so jacked up from the beginning that no reporter had a leg to stand on. Speculation flew wild. The FAA didn't really have much info until the parts were flung back together. That took months. People on the beach said, "Missile!" There was a person that said that it was hit by a meteorite on the national news. That my friend was one story. Thanks again for the snap judgement. The FAA wasn't talking enough BECASUE THEY WERE STUPID ABOUT IT (and I think they are much better about it now when they made it more of an overt policy to say straight up, "We don't know yet"), so the media went to people who thought they knew. That story was a complete cluster fuck. But if you blamed all of the media on one event, well, it is like blaming all of your engineering buddies (in different e'neering fields too) over the Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion and almost every plane crash, after all, it was engineers that designed the plane, if you start waving around the big finger of blame.

I am sorry your teacher or friend got burned.

Now, about you: I don't know anything about you, but I honestly can't see how you can "catch a pedophile" with your filming.

Once again this is an education in media. Yes we can. And I have literally called the cops on fleeing scumbags. I don't cuff 'em, but I do put them on camera, and I give away their positions and movements.
Did you know that there was an intel group that followed Chritiane Amanpour in the Gulf War? That is because we can slip in places without the smell of bacon on us. We are smarter than you think, and we are fighting for the best and most accurate news every day.

Catch a pedophile with a camera?

That was EXACTLY WHAT I WAS DOING, catching them. I was doing a story on the fact that the police department has known sex offenders that they don't keep tabs on living across the street from elementary schools. IF I DON'T CATCH IT ON TAPE, NOTHING GETS DONE. IF I DO, then they enforce the law that they have been soft on. Also, I try not to shoot pedophile houses, that does no good. I wait and go for the face. So when they go to someone else's neighborhood, he can't swap out faces like houses.

We pressure the police to do their job. Why? Because we have the power and knowhow. Just like E'neers pressure state and federal regualtory boards to make safety standards better, or pass a certain standard.

We go aftter the big fish though, because it is more important. You don't see a lot of crackdown on pot in the media, unless they find six bazillion pounds of it. It just doesn't change anything. But I do "push it" on laws that are important to children, and society as a whole.

Actually, cops come up to me all the time and say "good work, I've been bitching about all these years, and surprise! they just found the funding for it."

As a newsman, I have gone to college, studied hard, attended church, and done all of the other things that everyone else does.

Conversely, people think I eat my young. That I am an asshole instantly, and that I am lying to them all the time. Hmmmm... just like a cop or lawyer, perhaps.

Why most people say that the media is a nasty business is probably because we wouldn't be in someone else's business if it wasn't important. If it wasn't important, you would have little reaction to it. If it is really important, you usually have a nasty, highly emotional reaction to it. Considering most of us have precious little lock down on your thoughts or emotions, most bite the hand that feeds you the information that they didn't like.

Also. we're only human. And most have an idea that we have unlimited time, effort, money, and abilities to dig up their side of the story. No one can. All of life is relative. Truth is the most presious commodity in the world, and I fight for it. SO TAKE EVERYTHING RELATIVE. We are interdisciplinary... we are not an expert in any field other than writing or photography, so we might miss the subtleties of what you are saying.

I'll continue to try to be objective. Please note the strong emphasis on try, because the info comes fast (because this is the toughest job I have ever done, and frankly many people just can't mentally handle it), and it is not perfect. I will continue to keep it in my mind to be objective. That is a promise.

Whereas now, in the US journalists are disliked even more than politicians and lawyers. You guys have quite a challenge in restoring the public's faith in you.

Not even close. People like me just fine. People like the news just fine. It is a bitching outlet, though. Also, "you guys" lumps me.

People just want to know what is going on, and everyone is different. No person even looks at a story the same way. Once you see that, most of the criticisms melt away in a haze of agenda.

Re:*cough* You may want to see this

[bonch]

"Well I don't happen to have a copy of Rolling Stone so I can't verify that right now..."

A search through alt.music.tool would probably bring up a scan of the ad.

"Hooker with a penis talks about selling out. Obviously. However, just because he made a song talking about it, doesn't mean that it is true of himself... Even though it may be. I'm sure you know he has some songs, written in 1st person perspective, that can't be attributed to his own experiences."

I'm not sure how the song *couldn't* be about them lyrically. He meets a kid who acts "OGT" and accuses the band of selling out to the man. Maynard tells him everyone is the man, and that the band sold out themselves to make a record the kid bought.

"Besides... That is off topic in any respect. It's just a quote, not a statement that Maynard should be the world's new moral leader."

I know, I just like to argue. :)

Re:I'll dignify this to you although I shouldn't..

[Hard_Code]

Media and culture are sickly twisted. Nobody can claim to be an "objective reporter" just "reporting the news". These days the media IS the news. The medium IS the reality. Society of the spectacle, life through proxy, etc. etc.

I'm sure there are tons of authentic and genuine people in centralized media, but there is no denying that you are part of the big hairy beast for good or bad. Which is why indiemedia is so exciting.

Re:*cough* You may want to see this

[evilviper]

I'm not sure how the song *couldn't* be about them lyrically. He meets a kid who acts "OGT" and accuses the band of selling out to the man. Maynard tells him everyone is the man, and that the band sold out themselves to make a record the kid bought.

Not that I know if anyone claimed to be: "OGT, from '92, from the first EP." Even if he did, it's quite possible that the talk about selling out & being 'The Man' could essentially be sarcasm. Writing is an art form... Some happens in standard fashion, and some is more abstract. Listening to the musically and lyrically complex songs that Tool turns out, I don't take anything at face value.

Of course, the fact that it can be alternatively interperated doesn't mean Tool hasn't sold out... And endorsing a product doesn't *necessarily* mean Maynard has sold out either. And, I've said more than enough on the subject. That's it.

Ahh, I see agreement coming soon.

[El Camino SS]

Yes. After we whittle it down, you and I are both correct. The hardest thing in the news business is not the resources, but the time.

Time, time, time. I just did a story about tax laws and they chopped the meat out of it for time so that we could add another relevant story. Was I pissed, hell yes. Did I think the other story was relevent? HELL YES. So I sucked it up and started whittling away.

Time is THE major difference between the media and a lot of other businesses in the world. Other businesses are not time constrained to the hilt. If you say that the plane will drop out of the sky if I don't get another week, then they give you another week. The world wants to know RIGHT FREAKING NOW.

My timetable is in minutes and seconds. Never hours or days. That is what I meant earlier when I said that many people could not mentally handle it. It is like shooting craps all day, but the difference is that your entire career rides on it... daily. Like I said, it is amazingly difficult. I've seen 35 year old men with money and no dependents quit their high end careers to get into the news game because it is interesting work and their dream to see all that we see, and flame out six weeks later. I'd say the turnover rate on starting employees is about 90 to 95%. It is the stress that really crawls up your ass.

That being said, I was the second in line to go to Afghanistan. Almost made it there. That is something no one else in the world gets to do unless you carry a rifle. And being in a crack house and the govenor's mansion in the same day is rather interesting, no other job can give me that.

I understand your concern about reporting the honest truth. And for the most part we (the collective media we) try our best to give it out, as soon as possible. We do give the truth. As we know it. But the truth we give is the truth of action, not the specifics that we cannot understand. You are a physicist. I have a great friend that is a MRI and elementary particles friend up at Northwestern that I cannot even understand anymore when he talks about his work.

If I did a story about physics I would royally screw it up. If you trieds to lay it out it would be impossible to explain. What would the public find out? Nothing. So we compress it so they don't turn the TV off when one thing comes up that they only have a passing interest in. Their reaction would be something like this.... "Hey, that's neato. Cool." Most info goes out the other ear, but it would stick to the physics enthusiasts and they would seek the specifics.

See, all I can really do is let the world know it is there. I may mess up a little but I generate some interest. When the phone is ringing, dinner is on the stove, the kids are crying, and the TV is blaring, the home audience is not going to get much about it with all of the distractions, but they will know something is happening, and that is what the news does.

Also, my job is on the line with anything I work on. My boss says, "you have one and a half minutes to tell it... make it good. At least make it interesting. Tell me one thing I didn't know about this story that I would be interested in."

That is the pressure of news. It is a curse for having a real interesting job.