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).

9 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. CG is great by EvilAlien · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm no ludite. Technology is letting filmakers realize dreams that could only be slightly approximated back in tha day.

    Fantastic stories and imagination should not be contrained by mere reality, computers let creative truly push the envelope.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    1. Re:CG is great by mccalli · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm no ludite.

      I am.

      Technology is letting filmakers realize dreams that could only be slightly approximated back in tha day.

      Well...maybe. But then again, maybe not. These new CG thingies date really fast. Have you ever looked at some of the old games you used to worship, and think "huh?". Doom is a great example - stunning in its day, still playable today, but the graphics are now considered poor. That was only six or seven years ago.

      You see, I'm of a school that still prefers models for special effects. Take the geek's bible of a film, Star Wars, as a great example. The rehashed Special Edition nonsense already had 'CG' leaping out at you from every turn, and it's so blindingly obvious when it appears. The original, apart from one bad 'airfix' moment when Luke skims over the Death Star, has barely dated. The models and machines look better than the easily-spottable CG bits.

      There are other examples. Last Starfighter anyone? Fantastic graphics for the day, awful for today. Babylon 5? Same thing (plot rescues it, but look at the obvious animated texture mapping particularly in the pilot). Terminator 2's reflective surface morphing? Lost its shine a bit, hasn't it? Titanic? Hmm...an awfully straight ship, wasn't it? Those railings must have been aligned with laser sights.

      Entirely self-contained CG films, like Toy Story or Shrek, have a much better chance of long-term survival in my opion because there's no point of reference to the real world. However, for me real world+CG dates faster than real world+model.

      Cheers,
      Ian

  2. Works fine with MPlayer too by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Green Goblin's Last Stand" works just fine with MPlayer, provided you download the .asf file from its actual URL first.

    --
    -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
  3. Sour grapes ... by zangdesign · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. How about the really old spiderman movies? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know, we have to put this stuff in perspective. They're doing movies based upon comic books. The way I see it, there are two options: make something that doesn't make much sense which won't sell as well (like Dick Tracy), or completely alter the mood and how everything works (like TMNT, Incredible Hulk, Batman) to suit the time and place.

    Comic books are rather like books: they can be timeless. Movies have a much harder time with that because your imagination can't fill in details that make the characters seem to fit in your present time - things like how they walk, what their clothing would look like if they where real, how they sound, etc.

    Have you seen any spidey movies from the seventies? They are...VERY 70's. You almost expect Shaft to bust in and help Spidey out with the bad guys.

    One final note: Organic web shooters? Raimi's on crack. Spiderman was Marvel's answer to Batman: a character who used his mind to figure out how to defeat his enemies. Nowhere is there a better reminder of that than in the fact that the webshooters where an invention.

    Plus, I could totally see that going awry: Peter gets all hot 'n bothered by MJ, and, completely distracted, he shoots webbing all over the place, random-like. Of course, I've always thought that Wolverine would have similar problems with his lovers, except instead of accidentally getting everything sticky, he'd probably destroy everything. Comics creators and movie directors just don't think much about those kinds of things...

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  5. You have to be realistic by EulerX07 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  6. I know you think you're funny, but by mattdm · · Score: 5, Informative

    This being a geek site, we should know better. Spider silk comes out through spinneret spigots, not through the anus.

  7. Re:Staying true to original? by Corvus9 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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
    I'm one of those people who disagree. Not because they're changing the comic book, but because it totally changes the character.

    Spider-man was written during the 60s; when teenagers interested in technology were even greater social outcasts than they are now; technology was associated with the Vietnam war, ROTC, and the military-industrial complex. The "cool kids" were all dropping acid and communing with nature.

    Peter Parker was the first anti-establishment teenage super hero. Superman and the Fantastic Four were as straight as could be. Batman was an adult vigilante. But Spider-man was a groovy nerd; many early issues had him inventing chemical and electronic gadgets to solve crimes.

    The movie spider-man is none of these; he's now a teenage heartthrob. Since all his powers are biological, he doesn't need to have any technical knowledge at all. Just get into one-ness with your inner spider, and Nature will rescue you. See, the 60s acid-heads were right all along! That is why I hate the biolgical web-shooters.

    As for all the posters who will say "but how can a teenager invent what 3M can't"; because he's a technical genius, that's why! This is one of the most important themes from the comic book; that intelligence can be used to make things that help humanity instead of things like napalm.

    It looks like the Green Goblin still has his hoverjet and gas bombs, gee I wonder why 3M isn't trying to get its hands on those. Let me guess why... because only villians use technology now.

  8. Unforgivable miscasting. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok guys, I'm gonna go out on a limb here. But first, I need you to set aside your preconceptions.

    Work with me here, because I'm suggesting that maybe Peter Parker doesn't have to caucasian. I myself am, and the comic book (and all the movies) have portrayed him as such. But the truth is, there is only one man capable of doing what Spiderman is capable of.

    Jackie Chan.

    Yes, that's right, Jackie Chan. So his accent is a little strong. Certainly they could afford some decent voice coaching. But other than that, what is wrong with him? That's right, nothing.

    What's right with him? A man who can run up walls, without CG effects. His reaction speed is simply incredible. Gymnastics. And he's not even a bad actor, he has that whole comedic side to him. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked, if during the credits they'd show him swinging from 100 story buildings and having bloopers.

    You could practically do away with the whole special effects budget.

    So tell me, what, other than prejudice and Hollywood's predisposition to heap stinky garbage on us, kept this from happening?