Slashdot Mirror
Spider-Man 2002 vs. Spider-Man 1992
Surly Robot writes "Do you like your Spider-Man CG or non-CG? Here's an article that I wrote for the Baltimore City Paper about the guy who made his own Spidey flick ten years ago, and what he thinks of the new movie." Another submitter sent in a link to view Green Goblin's Last Stand (Microsoft format unfortunately, but it works with Codeweavers).
I'm sure many will disagree, but I don't mind when movie directors change small things about a character like Spiderman if it adds to the story. In the article written by the submitter, the guy who made the original movie complains that Spiderman2002 will shoot webs from his own mutated body rather than contraptions made by Parker's own engineering. Personally, I prefer that as it makes him able to sling webs anytime(not just when he's suited up) and it doesn't require as much an explanation. If they made this movie with him inventing a web-slinging device, we'd all be arguing about the feasability this weekend!
Just my opinion.
42
Sure, you can always tell what is CG and what is not, but this movie has been what I have been dreaming of since I was a kid, I'll take a little "fakeness" to the CGI if it remains true to the comic . . . Spiderman doing crazy ass stuff swinging all around the city. You just can't do Spiderman without some insane special effects without being true to the comic, it will just come off looking like the mess that was the TV show.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the previews it looks like they have done an amazing job with the portrayal of Spiderman. This movie is going to be HUGE.
The new version has enough light to see the charaters, and enough sound quality to hear them talk.
Dan Poole comes across as having a bad case of sour grapes. Sure, it's great to see some guy hanging it all out there one the edge, risking his life, etc., but it doesn't necessarily make for a better movie. There are other factors involved such as story, acting, etc.
Since Poole makes his comments without having seen the newest version, I tend to disqualify his commentary as having any validity.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I'd buy Poole's argument if the new Spidy had been directed by anyone else. Who but Raimi has the street cred to pull this off CGI and all? I think Sam paid his dues with live action fx. If Poole had taken Raimi's path and worked his way through movie after movie, I'm sure he'd kill to use this big budget to make Spider-Man EXACTLY how he envisioned him - using CGI. Maybe if Poole shared Raimi's unwavering love of film instead of Spider-Man, we'd be seeing more of this obviously talented man.
Karma: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.
Mr Poole is evidently a die-hard fan of the spiderman comic books. But he must realize that if a commercial movie was made to be 100% faithful to the comic books it would probably fail and only appeal to those few die-hards. Marvel comic books written in the 50's,60's and 70's are all tainted with issues and a view of the world of those years. It was just after the discovery of atomic powers, so half of the super-heroes just needed to have some contact with radiation to get super powers. Now most people know that if they did get in contact with radiation they'd get super-burns or super-cancer, not super-powers.
Today's world preoccupations have changed, and if you want those old stories to have an effect on people you need to adapt them to the present. This is something that Mr Raimi understands but Mr Poole seems oblivious to. X-men would have been a huge flop if they had spandex costumes and just took a plot line straight from the comic books with no adaptation.
So in the end you should just respect the artistical and technical choice of the film makers and try to enjoy the movie. It's not like they re-wrote the holy bible...
I was watching The Dark Crystal a while ago, for the first time as an adult (sorta). The film is just beautiful and amazing. It made me sad to think that no movie will be made like that ever again.
Good effects are never going to make a movie with poor storytelling good. And no matter what technique is used for the effects, if they're used properly to complement a good story, you'll probably end up with a good film.
-B
"haven't seen it but it sux."
What's wrong with Jackie Chan? He's like, 50 years old or something. Not a convincing high-schooler in my opinion. I love Jackie Chan, but he's soooo not right for Spider-Man.