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.
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
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
deus does not exist but if he does
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"?