Slashdot Mirror
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.
- "Worst opening titles sequence ever. Probably recycled out of un-used material from 'The Last Starfighter.' Truly IntelliVision-level graphics here.
- 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.)
- There is actually some credible character development. (Smacks own agape jaw in disbelief.) So much for the frickin' Batman franchise.
- We are treated to several exciting shots of M.J.'s heaving bosom through clinging wet fabric, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)"
"M.J." "clingy" "wet" "shirts"
...
Anyone else have a sudden renewed interest in seeing this film now
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 ?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
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...
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
What ads would they have to place there?
A photograph or film has a longer lifetime than an advertisment
not_cub
q='echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"';s=\';b=\\;echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"
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.
Miko O'Sullivan
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.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Here is the WTC spiderman trailer, which fucking rules.
If I create a digital version of Times Square in a modeler, am I required to include the billboards?
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.
Paraphrased from The Official Ninja Homepage
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.
Cynical? Me?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
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.
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.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?