Spiderman 2 Trailer

It was actually... by Bourdain · 2004-04-09 02:09 · Score: 5, Informative

on the east coast too at about 40 minutes into the show for those with Tivo's.

Re:It was actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:20 · Score: 0

yeah, i saw it on TiVo... i'm on the east coast of Lake Huron,

there are people in between East and West coasts, you know... with even TiVo too, you insensitive clod!
Re:It was actually... by ongeboren · 2004-04-09 05:59 · Score: 0

Where is the sound ?
Give me back my money!!

--
First I wanted to be a chef. Then I wanted to be Napoleon. My ambitions have continued to grow ever since.

Spiderman and the Apprentice? by nightsweat · 2004-04-09 02:10 · Score: 5, Funny

I'd rather see Extreme Makeover - Spiderman Edition.

They could give him the extra four legs he's always wanted and graft some acting ability onto Kirsten Dunst.

--

the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White

Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2004-04-09 02:19 · Score: 1, Informative

Spider-Man actually had those four extra limbs for awhile in the comic book. Although, he grew extra arms, not legs.

--
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by nightsweat · 2004-04-09 02:21 · Score: 1

That's probably better. Gloves are much cheaper than shoes.

--

the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:34 · Score: 0

WOW. THAT'S GREAT.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by Eagle5596 · 2004-04-09 02:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Graft acting abilities onto Kirsten Dunst? There are two rather large reasons why she was hired for the part, and neither were her acting abilities. Instead they were the show cases of the rain soaked shirt scene of the first movie, and are already firmly grafted into place.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by b0r0din · 2004-04-09 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny

graft some acting ability onto Kirsten Dunst.

"Now how are we going to even do this, Doctor?"

"I'm not sure, she's really REAALLLY bad. Did you see Mona Lisa Smile?"

"Am I wearing a pink tutu?"

"Yes but that's besides the point. I mean, we're talking a miracle here."

"Ok, what say we just give her some nitrous, and play with her boobies. Agreed?"

"Agreed."
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by somethinghollow · 2004-04-09 03:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Then a radioactive actress falls from the ceiling, kills the doctors, and bites her. Suddenly, we absolve her of her former shortcomings, and appreciate her as both an actress and a hottie.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by modecx · 2004-04-09 03:33 · Score: 1

I suspect that he just got tired of finding intriguing gestures for his extra hands to make while they weren't doing something useful.

Yep.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:56 · Score: 0

Those two reasons aren't that large. They're pretty damn small IMHO.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 05:16 · Score: 0

She's not even a hottie. She's just some random bint who engaged in a wet t-shirt competition in a film.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 05:49 · Score: 0

Were this fark, I would rebut your comment by posting a few jpegs that prove you wrong... But this is slashdot, where you can't post images and nobody follows links anyway, so I won't even bother.
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by nightsweat · 2004-04-09 06:26 · Score: 1

People are touchy about their Kirsten Dunst aren't they? 60% funny, 30% overrated 10% interesting.

I'm not saying she's not sorta hot, but really listen to her deliver those lines in the first movie. Ugh.

--

the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by nightsweat · 2004-04-09 06:31 · Score: 1

Someone mod the parent up. That's funny.

--

the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by lbergstr · 2004-04-09 10:36 · Score: 1

you're so full of shit. she's a great actress. have you seen eternal sunshine?
Re:Spiderman and the Apprentice? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-10 04:20 · Score: 0

Chickenshit. You are a scared little boy hiding in the basement. Try logging in and backing up your bullshit, fairy.

cartooney by VC · 2004-04-09 02:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

The CGI looks kind of cartoonely, kind of like when you can tell during the burly brawl when they stopped using keano and started using the all cgi character.
That being said ill still go see it... ;-)

--
Official GOD FAQ.

Re:cartooney by jgabby · 2004-04-09 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that's on purpose in this case...given that it's based on a comic book world.
Re:cartooney by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:09 · Score: 0

If that's the case, then why have some of the spider-man shots be non-cgi?
If you're reasoning was correct, wouldn't it make sense to be consistent on whether or not spider-man looks real or fake?
stop making excuses for bad effects.
Re:cartooney by Chuns · 2004-04-09 04:39 · Score: 1

Agreed. At least match the costume's non-CGI red to the CGI red. The CGI red is distractingly brighter than the non-CGI.
Re:cartooney by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2004-04-09 04:51 · Score: 1

There *is* always the chance that these are unfinished pre-release CG shots. The early shots from The Hulk looked *nothing* like the final product. The movie was still ass, though...
Re:cartooney by Golias · 2004-04-09 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

The CGI in Spiderman was just fine. Certainly better-looking than any stuntman-based attempts at superhero film-making that has come before.
If you disagree, kindly name three movies (apart from LOTR) which you think have better CGI than the Spider Man films, and we can commence to piss all over a favorite movie of yours.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:cartooney by Chuns · 2004-04-09 06:12 · Score: 1

That's what I was thinking. Maybe they will adjust it after getting feedback from the trailer. Wouldn't it be nice if you could tweak the CGI yourself? I mean after all... ::trivializing part of a multi-billion dollar industry:: ...it's just color, isn't it?
Re:cartooney by asdf+101 · 2004-04-09 07:35 · Score: 1

That was true for the first movie also .. looked plasticky there too. Till you saw it in a movie theater where it didn't look as out of place.

But you get back home and watch it when it's playing on cable and it's back to the glossy makeover for spidey.

Guess it's a function of the display scale then. Also true of some the graphics from LOTR.. look out of place on a smaller screen such as on 15" computer monitor .. but look perfectly ingrained in to BG on a big screen.
Re:cartooney by phriedom · 2004-04-09 07:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think the problem isn't with the animation, but with the goal. Spider-Man moves impossibley fast and ignores some basic physics. I think it is impossible to have a "person" spring 20 feet straight up into the air and not have it look cartooney. If we are going to enjoy the movie, we just have to suspend disbelief and accept that if there were a Spider-Man, then that is how he would move.

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Re:cartooney by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 14:01 · Score: 0

I have to disagree. The character itself, not its movements, looked "off". You could tell quite often when it switched to CGI. It had nothing to do with the movements of the character and everything to do with his fundamental look.

BTW, this is not a knock on the CG artists, who I am continually impressed by. I just don't think we are there yet in terms of absolute realism.

Trailer or Spoiler? by Darth_Vito · 2004-04-09 02:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is anyone else annoyed by the amount of story that is given away in trailers now? I guess the production companies must have found that these types of trailers are effective in pulling in audiences to see the movie but it seems to detract from the experience.

Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Jin+Wicked · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

I love it. They put so much in the trailers now, that if you're shrewd you can usually tell which trailers actually represent the movie, and which are a collection of nothing but the best 2 minutes of the entire movie and the rest is downhill from there.

But I've never cared about spoilers. I read at least two or three reviews for almost any movie before I see it, to make sure I want to spend the $15 it costs now just for a ticket, popcorn and a drink plus two hours of my time not including all the adverts at the beginning... Anyway, I've never had a trailer or even a review ruin a movie for me, even when I know the ending in advance.

--
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by re-Verse · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Completely. About 10 months ago I decided that I will no longer watch trailers. It was the best movie decision I have made. I mean you can't really tell if a movie will be good or not from a trailers. I've seen some bad movies with excellent trailers, and some great movies with terrible trailers. All in all, I really enjoy films a lot more now that all the high intensity parts aren't revealed to me in advance.

I recommend that everyone try this. See a few movies that you have absolutely no concept of when going in, it makes for a much more interesting ride.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:19 · Score: 0

Heck, why do you even need to see films these days? We can just watch the trailers and see all the salient and important parts of the film! Everything else is just filler.
It seems like most movies are being created so that they make good trailers. You see more and more of the one liners that make a trailer look good, but the movie tends to suffer because of the sound bytes that seem to be quilted together to make a movie.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by prgrmr · 2004-04-09 02:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Annoyed? How about totally pissed-off. I first noticed the give-away trailer format all the way back with "Throw Momma from the Train". There were 3 different commercials they were showing on TV and if you'd seen them all, then you saw almost every physical gag they did in the movie. Very disappointing, particularly as ticket prices keep going up the net effect is we are paying for less and less as the trailers reveal more and more.

The trailer for Hellboy, which I've not seen yet, seems to give a good mix of enticement and still not be a complete give-away. The Hildalgo trailer, however, looks like it shows way too many of the dramatic parts.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by maxbang · 2004-04-09 02:26 · Score: 1

eh, not really. who was it that quipped something about the internet being created solely for geeks to get pr0n and insider movie info? kevin smith? with my daily scouring of the net for movie trivia and upcoming movie info, i usually know a lot about the plot even before the trailer is released. what annoys me is watching a movie that's pretty funny, but the stupid audience who laugh only at the parts shown in the trailers. I have, however, given up on reading reviews. They're all a bunch of sellouts.

--
I also reply below your current threshold.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Otter · 2004-04-09 02:27 · Score: 1

I've seen some bad movies with excellent trailers, and some great movies with terrible trailers.
Hmmm, there's a topic for an extended discussion. I'd cite The Matrix as an example of great movie/bad trailer and The Phantom Menace as awful movie/great trailer. And then ther was that Not Another Teen Movie or something like that -- hilarious trailer that prompted me to drag my wife to what turned out to be the most vile, loathsome movie ever.
On a completely offtopic note -- is there going to be another Harry Potter movie?

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by fleener · 2004-04-09 02:27 · Score: 1

As a new parent, I appreciate getting the whole story compressed into a trailer. It will be several years before I step foot into a theatre again, and DVD rentals will be few and far between.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by IANAAC · 2004-04-09 02:35 · Score: 5, Funny

About 10 months ago I decided that I will no longer watch trailers.

So you're the guy that always climbs over me 1 minute into the movie.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Nightpaw · 2004-04-09 02:36 · Score: 1

Skip Hellboy. It's pretty, but the script and characters are completely flat. I was bored the whole way through.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Ryosen · 2004-04-09 02:40 · Score: 1

Yes, the release schedule is planned through 2007, when Order of the Phoenix will be released.

I hear that they're working on a new Star Wars film, too. ;)

--

Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by RealRoadKill · 2004-04-09 02:42 · Score: 1

Agreed... HellBoy is money wasted..
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:43 · Score: 0

and that's nothing! There has been a series of colourful pamphlets released for many years that give away the whole story! I am terribly dissappointed that since before my childhood some publisher named Marvel have been ruining this movie for me!

I'll probably go see it tho, that trailer rocked...
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:45 · Score: 0

c.f. "Arlington Road"
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by No.+24601 · 2004-04-09 03:02 · Score: 1

So you're the guy that always climbs over me...
Glad you found your bed buddy. Nothing to see here people... move along.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by FoxMcCloud · 2004-04-09 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well then you should try going to a movie without knowing the plot. It's a totally different experience. I HATE trailers, and try never to watch them... I try to turn my attention to something else during the trailers before a movie.

I like to go watch a movie just on advice from friends whose tastes I trust, and go watch it without reading a single thing about it and only having been told that they enjoyed it. Try it.

For instance I saw Bruce Almighty and when the guy met God and whatever, I was totally amazed cause I didn't see it coming at all... I also watched The Butterfly Effect and enjoyed it a lot more than my friends cause the plot totally surprised me, I had no idea what it was about.

From my point of view, trailers suck, and so do reviews. They just serve to ruin the movie.

--
bool Marketoid::IsGood(){return IsDead();}
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by FroMan · 2004-04-09 03:38 · Score: 1

He dies at the end.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by FroMan · 2004-04-09 03:40 · Score: 1

Nevermind. :-) Just kidding.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by modecx · 2004-04-09 03:44 · Score: 1

I dunno, the original Matrix trailer was designed that way for a purpose, as far as I can tell: to draw the viewer into the theatre to be suprised by the plot.

That's why I would say that it was an excelent trailer: it gave nothing away that was relevant to the story, but still managed to get people into the theatre. It was ingenious compared to most trailers.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Peter+La+Casse · 2004-04-09 03:49 · Score: 1

Well then you should try going to a movie without knowing the plot. It's a totally different experience.
I've tried it, and found that I didn't enjoy it. I enjoy movies a lot more when I notice the little details and whatnot that I don't notice if I don't already understand the plot. If it's a movie I'm looking forward to (like The Phantom Menace... sigh) I'll even read the book first.
This is the same effect that one would get from watching the same movie twice in a row, but I seldom have the time, attention span or inclination for that.
The side benefit of knowing things in advance is that it can help identify movies that I won't enjoy as much. Also, if I have a more realistic expectation of what a movie is like, I won't be as disappointed when, once again, it sucks.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by AnonymousKev · 2004-04-09 03:52 · Score: 1

But is it matinee money wasted, or rental money wasted?
There are a lot of movies that I wouldn't waste $32 on ($8/head for a family of 4). However, they provide good value for $4 and a bag of Friday night popcorn.

--
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by bfg9000 · 2004-04-09 04:03 · Score: 1

Absolutely. The greatest movie brainf*ck of my short and pitiful life was when my friends rented "From Dusk Til Dawn" and I had no clue whatsoever about the massive twist that was going to happen about halfway through. My jaw dropped when it happened and I was like "What the--?" and then looked over at all my buddies who had already seen it, and they were all watching my stunned reaction and grinning.

It wouldn't have been half as good knowing what was going to happen in the movie beforehand and I am eternally thankful for my own ignorance. When it comes to movies, Ignorance Truly Is Bliss.

--
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:04 · Score: 0

I remember reading a magazine article about this. They claimed that studies have shown that people feel more comfortable if they know what they're going to see.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by koreth · 2004-04-09 04:09 · Score: 1

Is anyone else annoyed by the amount of story that is given away in trailers now?
Annoyed, yes, but "now" isn't right. I've been watching a lot of old movies on DVD, and on those DVDs that include the original trailers, I've noticed that the "giving the whole plot away" problem isn't anything new. I've seen it in trailers from the 1950s and earlier.
Which, if nothing else, makes me believe that it's a practice that will probably never change no matter how annoying it is to some people.
I think it's one of those things that people always assume is worse today than it was before, just because memory is selective and most people prefer nostalgia to bitterness. I think it's more likely that Sturgeon's Law has been true pretty consistently throughout human history.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:10 · Score: 0

Hey listen, I have a cousin--he can waste that money for you wholesale!
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by gpinzone · 2004-04-09 04:16 · Score: 1

Absolutely. The greatest movie brainf*ck of my short and pitiful life was when my friends rented "From Dusk Til Dawn" and I had no clue whatsoever about the massive twist that was going to happen about halfway through. My jaw dropped when it happened and I was like "What the--?" and then looked over at all my buddies who had already seen it, and they were all watching my stunned reaction and grinning.

Yeah, me too. I never expected a movie with such a badass opening turn into a half-assed shitty vampire movie gorefest.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by gpinzone · 2004-04-09 04:19 · Score: 2, Funny

The trailer for Hellboy, which I've not seen yet, seems to give a good mix of enticement and still not be a complete give-away.

Holy shit! You can give a review of a trailer you haven't even seen? I'm impressed.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by bfg9000 · 2004-04-09 04:28 · Score: 1

That's another way of putting it, yes.

--
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Massive146 · 2004-04-09 04:28 · Score: 1

I agree, and will take it a little further. Assuming you are watching a decent movie, the less you know about it the better, I've found. I watched 'From Dusk Til Dawn' and '28 Days Later' without knowing at all what the movies were about. And I think the movies were twice as good that way. Although, I'm sure this was more effective for these types of movies, than it would be for a non-suspense movie.I just wish I had a good way of screening movies so I could always do this.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by re-Verse · 2004-04-09 04:38 · Score: 1

Well, my method has become something like this... Hit up rottentomatos.com for a quick glance at the tomatometer (but I don't even read the reviews), and then the meter for the 'creme of the crop' on the site, and if its fairly high, I'll pretty much trust it - sometimes I'll discard it and just go on instict, but most of the time that tomatometer is pretty damn effective. If my friends try to tell me about the movie I get them to shut up as quickly as possible, but take note that my friends are ranting about a particular film.

Since I've stopped watching trailers, it seems I've actually been seeing more good films and less bad ones - So i'm starting to wonder what was the use of trailers for me in the first place.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by ThisIsFred · 2004-04-09 04:41 · Score: 1

But if you were to watch a trailer, this is the way to do it. No stupid Windows-specific embed tags with CLSIDs. Just download, uncompress, and watch.

--
Fred

"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Jim+Starx · 2004-04-09 05:01 · Score: 1

I totally agree. It's so hard for movies to surprise people with their plot twists. The previews are all 'MOST AMAZING PLOT TWIST EVER BLAH BLAH' and then you get in the movie and everything would feel normal except you know somethings coming so you look for it and it's not as cool when it arrives. The matrix I didn't see coming and I enjoyed the movie 100% more because of it.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by koali · 2004-04-09 05:38 · Score: 1

And I guess you never enjoy a movie the second time you see it...
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Golias · 2004-04-09 06:01 · Score: 1

Two unassailable truths about movies today:
1. Tarantino is one of the best directors currently working in Hollywood.
2. Tarantino is one of the worst actors currently working in Hollywood.
Please, for his own good, somebody tell that man to get behind the camera and stay there!

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-04-09 06:35 · Score: 1

See a few movies that you have absolutely no concept of when going in, it makes for a much more interesting ride.

I like doing this too, but I think the most important way to avoid knowing what's going to happen is to avoid reading reviews. I really hate the way many (possibly most) movie reviews give away major plot elements. They don't even seem to be doing it most of the time in service of illustrating a particular point about the movie, they just seem to do it to fill up space. Ebert seems particularly bad about this. I've sometimes seen reviews (although I can't remember now for which specific movies) where he essentially gives away the ending. Sometimes he tries to be a little subtle rather than saying explicitly what happens, but he usualy fails at that and after reading his review, you're pretty sure what's going to happen in the movie. But it's not really him in particular; there are tons of newspaper movie critics who do this.

I also tend not to read the back covers of books when possible since I've seen some that give away plot points that don't happen until a few hundred pages in.

--
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by irm · 2004-04-09 07:35 · Score: 1

Right. Because everyone's going to go see Spider-Man for the plot. Just like all the unexpected twists in Lord of the Rings. (Man! If only THAT movie hadn't been spoiled by JRRT, it might have made some coin.)
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by bigdavex · 2004-04-09 07:38 · Score: 1

Well then you should try going to a movie without knowing the plot. It's a totally different experience. I HATE trailers, and try never to watch them... I try to turn my attention to something else during the trailers before a movie.

I've always wished I could have seen Terminator 2 without having first seen the trailers and hoopla. There's a scene where the two terminators are approaching John Conner in a hallway. It would have been very cool if I was still expecting Arnold to be the villain.

--
-Dave
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Galvatron · 2004-04-09 07:52 · Score: 1

A good story from the Back to the Future DVDs: apparently when they first showed the movie to test audiences, who had no idea what kind of movie it was going to be, there was a gasp of shock when Doc (who the audience only knows so far as a crazy mad scientist) makes the car with his dog inside burst into flames and disappear. When he reappeared, there was a huge sigh of relief that this was not going to turn out to be a movie that involved killing dogs.
I think it's good to have at least a general idea what the movie's about, so you have some sense of what sort of a mood is appropriate. I enjoyed Road to Perdition more than my father, because I knew it was based on a comic, and so my suspension of disbelief setting was at the max. My father, who did not know that, was bugged by the implausibility of the bank robbery subplot.
Wouldn't you rather go into Spinal Tap knowing that it's not a documentary?

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by davew2040 · 2004-04-09 09:13 · Score: 1

So you're the guy that always climbs over me 1 minute into the movie.

Sounds like somebody needs to watch his diet a little more closely, and maybe hit the gym once in awhile!
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by Xaymot · 2004-04-09 09:48 · Score: 1

It doesn't give away the story. It just defines the plot points.

Yes the major "hero in conflict" point is defined but it does not give away the fallout between Peter and Harry, who Mary Jane hooks up with, and whether or not Aunt May's feeble skull gets crushed like paper-mâché by a mechanical Doc. Oc. claw.

CRRAAWCHUNKSHHH!!!!!
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by rokzy · 2004-04-09 10:29 · Score: 1

>plus two hours of my time

jeez, get over yourself. it's entertainment, if you have time for fun then that time is worth nothing.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by FoxMcCloud · 2004-04-09 12:25 · Score: 1

Actually, I DO like to see a good movie twice or more when I really like it, it's just a different kind of enjoyment.

And while you can still get the enjoyment from the second time if you watched the movie without knowing anything about it the first time, the surprise you could have had in the theater is lost on you the minute you read or see a spoiler.

--
bool Marketoid::IsGood(){return IsDead();}
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by bryan1945 · 2004-04-09 16:39 · Score: 1

"Wouldn't you rather go into Spinal Tap knowing that it's not a documentary?"

Actually, I did see it thinking it was a documentary. I was kind of disappointed when I later found out it was a doc.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by yellowjacket03 · 2004-04-09 19:51 · Score: 1

Absolutely right. I had no idea about the plot to the Matrix until I saw the movie, it was a totally different kind of enjoyment because nothing was given away. Contrast that to the other two, which I had no idea about the plot AFTER I saw them :)
Re:Trailer or Spoiler? by bfg9000 · 2004-04-10 02:12 · Score: 1

Did you see him when he was accepting an Oscar for Kill Bill? The way he talks he doesn't even sound like he's from Earth anymore. Even the cool bling-blinged black people I know can't decipher his stange mumblings.

--
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

Torrents! by AIX-Hood · 2004-04-09 02:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Spiderman 2 - Quicktime version - torrent Spiderman 2 - Divx Version - torrent

Re:Torrents! by *weasel · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 1

now how about a torrent to the fullscreen version?

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:Torrents! by NineNine · 2004-04-09 02:30 · Score: 1

Give me a bit and I'll make a .torrent for that one.
Re:Torrents! by AIX-Hood · 2004-04-09 02:31 · Score: 1

Those ARE the full screen versions.
Re:Torrents! by *weasel · 2004-04-09 02:39 · Score: 1

The quicktime torrent is indeed fullscreen, my mistake.

However the Divx torrent is not. Perhaps the divx was made from the fullscreen quicktime source - but the result is noticeably smaller, darker, and more compressed.

I can't complain given the turnaround time of the first divx .torrent - but I would like to see a better quality version.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"

Direct download link by (trb001) · 2004-04-09 02:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Full screen .zip (.mov) file

Yes, it works with Linux! by Krik+Johnson · 2004-04-09 02:12 · Score: 5, Informative

For those who use Linux, try Mplayer, and The kmplayer plug in for konqueror!

--
I have a fetish for traffic cones

Re:Yes, it works with Linux! by Simon+Lyngshede · 2004-04-09 02:20 · Score: 1

Mplayer have been able to mplayer QuickTime for sometime now (using either ffmpeg or dll magic), you hardly need to inform people about it....

A redundant comment, to a redundant post, my job is done.
Re:Yes, it works with Linux! by damiam · 2004-04-09 02:43 · Score: 1

Better yet is the mplayer plug-in for Mozilla.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.

w00t! by JoeLinux · 2004-04-09 02:12 · Score: 4, Informative

I was skeptical after the first trailer came out. However, this one looks just as good as the first, if not better. Looks like real character development (*gasp* *shock*). I also liked the character of the editor of the Daily Bugle. Looks like another weine...er...winner. ...Cluster bombing from a B-52 flying at 30,000 feet is HIGHLY, HIGHLY accurate: The bombs ALWAYS hit the ground.

Re:w00t! by StateOfTheUnion · 2004-04-09 02:16 · Score: 2, Funny

I agree . . . I wish there was more of J. Jona Jameson (The editor) in the first movie . . . I honestly think that if he had more screentime, he would have stolen the show. "PAAAARKERRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Re:w00t! by *weasel · 2004-04-09 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's funny, I thought he already had.

Easily the most faithful, honest, and entertaining adaptation of a comic-book character ever.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:23 · Score: 0

And I wish there had been more of Jenna Jameson. What's your point?
Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:24 · Score: 0

This movie actually reminds me more of the comics than the previous one did. It's a lot darker and not as plastic looking (except for the cgi, but I expect they'll be touching that up before it gets to theatres, i.e. adding atmospheric effects).
Spidey actually rejects his status! You don't see that in movies these days, and that goes to the heart of what the comics were about; they weren't completely about spidey kicking ass.
Also the villains appear a lot stronger in this one. I like!
Re:w00t! by xtinct · 2004-04-09 03:06 · Score: 1

>Spidey actually rejects his status. You don't see that in movies...

actually, this was the whole plot of superman 2 -- superman gives up his powers to become a "normal" man so he can hook up with lois lane.

but, i love spider-man, so i'm looking forward to a little doc oc action! plus my 3 year old loves spider-man right now, for some reason -- this will probably be a little too "scary" though...
Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:54 · Score: 0

> However, this one looks just as good as the first, if not better.

I hate to break the news for you, but the first one sucked.
Re:w00t! by SuiteSisterMary · 2004-04-10 05:05 · Score: 1

Or, in an attempt to really rope in the 12 to 80 Male demographic, they update the character (and Parker's job) for the new millenium....

Yes, Parker is now a photographer for J. Jenna Jameson, and, well, let's just say that it ain't a newspaper anymore.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.

michael by psycho · 2004-04-09 02:12 · Score: 4, Informative

It's spider-man, not spiderman, you insensitive clod!

Re:michael by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Friends episode:

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!

Now I feel unseemly for posting "Friend's" quotes to Slashdot...
Re:michael by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:51 · Score: 0

Actually it was Spiderman.

Because of the rampant anti-semetism in Europe, they changed it to Spider-man to protect revenues in that market.
Re:michael by miracle69 · 2004-04-09 05:00 · Score: 1

Everyone knows that there is no Gold Man, but there is a Gold Member.

--
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.

Give a new meaning to by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:13 · Score: 0, Funny

trailer trash.

Re:writers? by Jin+Wicked · 2004-04-09 02:14 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I don't know. I thought the X-Men movie was really good, and I liked the second one better than the first. =P

--
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street

Supervillan by attercoppe · 2004-04-09 02:15 · Score: 1

Anyone else go to the site and say, "Ooh, who's that reflected in Spidey's eye? ...looks like he has something coming out of his shoulders...DOC OCK! COOL!!"

Of course, *real* fan(atic)s probably already knew this, but it was a surprise to me...

--

Hardware Geeks Do It With The Covers Off!

Re:Supervillan by richie2000 · 2004-04-09 02:20 · Score: 1

It's in the Synopsis:
In Spider-Man® 2, the latest installment in the blockbuster Spider-Man® series, based on the classic Marvel Comics hero, Tobey Maguire returns as the mild-mannered Peter Parker, who is juggling the delicate balance of his dual life as a college student and a superhuman crime fighter.
The entertaining adventure escalates and Spider-Man's life becomes even more complicated when he confronts a new nemesis, the brilliant Otto Octavius, (Alfred Molina) who has been reincarnated as the maniacal and multi-tentacled "Doc Ock."

+1 Insightful for your sig, BTW.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Supervillan by attercoppe · 2004-04-09 03:47 · Score: 1

It's in the Synopsis:

Yeah, but I didn't read that till after I watched the trailer...

+1 Insightful for your sig, BTW.

Gee, thanks! Although, oddly enough, I just changed it, and by the time I came back to this thread and saw your reply, the new sig was on my post. But I think you meant the other one...

--
Hardware Geeks Do It With The Covers Off!
Re:Supervillan by richie2000 · 2004-04-09 05:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, I think I meant the other one...

--
Money for nothing, pix for free

I'd like to know... by Guano_Jim · 2004-04-09 02:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Is the sound of all that data suddenly being shot through Akamai's pipes louder than a maglev or not?

--
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com

Re:I'd like to know... by f00zbll · 2004-04-09 02:29 · Score: 1

Yeah, but Akamai's pipe are on Viagra, so it's still going strong!!
Re:I'd like to know... by DikSeaCup · 2004-04-09 03:00 · Score: 1

It certainly is of a higher frequency.

--
I talk about stuff.
Re:I'd like to know... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:37 · Score: 0

Louder than my bum after a binge at Taco Bell.

Listen to Stan.... by Himring · 2004-04-09 02:17 · Score: 5, Informative

I really hope they listened to Mr. Lee on this one. He's sorta the guy behind spidey, and he had some sound advice on how the first movie coulda been a bit better. His argument as to the necessity of Peter Parker "making" his web solution and shooter mechanism made for some good sense, and for him to point out that William Defoe was a superb actor and, thus, should have had his face shown while in "Goblin" mode is something the director should have figured out first.

With makeup and CGI like it is, Defoe could have easily had his own face used without a hitch, and being the actor he is it would have been far better than the stupid mask.

Of course, people need to keep in mind that these movies are only "based" on the actual comics and Lee, et al., are not fully consulted....

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill

Re:Listen to Stan.... by NineNine · 2004-04-09 02:33 · Score: 1

Makeup? CGI? Willen Defoe is so creepy looking, he could've been the Green Goblin with no makeup or CGI whatsoever!
Re:Listen to Stan.... by YomikoReadman · 2004-04-09 02:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, but think of every time that Harry saw the Goblin.. without the mask, we would have had this problem; he gets to act all stupid and not realize that the Goblin looks exactly like his father. Put a mask on him, and hey! It's a whole other person, and he can be none the wiser, which leads into the Hobgoblin bit, as he seeks revenge against Spidey. Granted, the mask looked cheesy as all get out, but even in the comics he wore a mask.

--
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
Re:Listen to Stan.... by Himring · 2004-04-09 02:44 · Score: 1

Lee argued that he shouldn't've wore the mask in the movie (I think it was an interview on Techtv?). I'll admit I don't remember in the comics the Goblin ever donning a mask, but maybe he did and I just missed it. I read spiderman like the rest of us did growing up (I bought 3 copies of the issue where he attains the sentient-being outfit in the 80s -- I said that outloud didn't I?). Anywho, if Lee says Defoe shouldn'ta wore the mask then that's good enough for me....

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Re:Listen to Stan.... by DrDoombender · 2004-04-09 03:13 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm not 100% sure they did listen. There's a scene in that trailer where doc oct tells parker to find spider man. He then procedes to throw parker into a brick wall....You'd think that after Parker got back up with only minor injuries that Doc Oct, a genius, would figure out that parker is spiderman. I may be reading too much in to the trailer, but it seems logical. Anyway, my sequel senses are tingling, and they are warning me of a possible dissapointment.
Re:Listen to Stan.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:37 · Score: 0

Coincidence that both the hero and villian both wear a mask? Might mean something?
Re:Listen to Stan.... by roman_mir · 2004-04-09 03:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wait a second, wasn't the point of the mask to hide the identity of Goblin from everyone? Without the mask Spiderman would have known from the very beginning who he is up against.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Listen to Stan.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:13 · Score: 0

Yeah, kinda funny, like they both try to hide their, like, identities when doing the hero/villain stuff? Eh? EH?
Re:Listen to Stan.... by nyseal · 2004-04-09 15:22 · Score: 1

I don't know....I think that making DeFoe's face partially visible with a well designed (granted, corny) mask was pretty good. I believe that it achieved the effect of someone actually human becoming a super villain; much like spider man becoming a super hero....yet we never see spidey's true appearance while in costume. A good balance, I think.

--
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?

Spiderman I teaser w/WTC? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anyone know what happened to the original Spiderman teaser/trailer that had the jewelry store heist, 'copter getaway, and web slung between the towers of the World Trade Center? It disappeared pretty quick after 9/11.

Re:Spiderman I teaser w/WTC? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:20 · Score: 0

it's probably still floating around on the p2p networks, that's where I got my copy of it.
Re:Spiderman I teaser w/WTC? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:05 · Score: 0

This trailer was officially pulled. It was packaged into the 'A Knight's Tale' DVD starring Keith Ledger. But all the DVD's that were shipped were recalled about a week later. I worked at Blockbuster Video at the time. So if you have a first run copy of this DVD you will get the original trailer.

But as the other reply said P2P networks will be the best way to get that. I actually was lucky enough to see it a few times during the summer of 2001 in the movie theater.
Re:Spiderman I teaser w/WTC? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:03 · Score: 0

I can see the knee-jerk reaction to pulling the scene so close to 9/11, but I'm disapointed they didn't at least include it in the DVD (one of the reasons I bought the DVD was in hopes of seeing the missing scene).

Someone at the web site "got it" by doublem · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think this the first time I've seen a "Download" link that lets you save it to disk with a couple clicks, instead of having to look at the HTML source and download it by hand.

I guess they got tired of people complaining about not being able to download the trailer.

--
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA

Re:Someone at the web site "got it" by maxbang · 2004-04-09 02:31 · Score: 1

they've allowed this for several trailers - matrix, star wars, and some more that i can't think of right now. usually you can download the high-res version. also (you probably already know this) if you have quicktime pro, you can select "save as quicktime movie" after the whole thing's been loaded. that's for all the stuff on quicktime.com, at least.

--
I also reply below your current threshold.
Re:Someone at the web site "got it" by pronik · 2004-04-09 03:01 · Score: 3, Informative

If you are using Linux & Mozilla, then just check out the mplayerplug-in, which doesn't only play everything you want, but also allows you (in the latest CVS version, which is quite stable) to save the file by simple right-click!
Re:Someone at the web site "got it" by bfg9000 · 2004-04-09 04:34 · Score: 1

Kick-ass link, bro. Thanks!

--
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Re:Someone at the web site "got it" by ajayvb · 2004-04-09 06:27 · Score: 1

Didn't the Matrix have it even for their Superbowl trailer? They are not the first for sure.

holy crap by maxbang · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 1

I saw this last night (yes, I watched the apprentice, but only to eye that cute little blonde on there) and it was awesome. From ED, to Herc, and now to one of the worlds most beloved comic heroes, Sam Raimi keeps making awesome stuff. I was a little annoyed at "another Hollywood sequel" a few months back, but after watching the longer trailer, I'm more than excited. In fact, there are three things on my body that are hard right now. I'll leave it to you to figure out what they are.

--
I also reply below your current threshold.

Much better by slaad · 2004-04-09 02:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Ah, nice. This is much better than the old trailer ("teaser trailer") I saw a couple of months ago that started off with Peter and Mary-Jane in a diner with a car crashing in. Although that one isn't bad at all. Check out the movie's website and click on "watch it now" under the Full Length Trailer section to see the original teaser and some other stuff as well.

--

~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!

Re:Much better by Malc · 2004-04-09 02:58 · Score: 1

"Peter and Mary-Jane in a diner"

I didn't think you could sit around getting high in restaurants in the US.
Re:Much better by Tibor+the+Hun · 2004-04-09 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have to disagree with you. The old trailer told us nothing about the movie, and made us think that maybe Doc. Oc knows who Spider-man really is.

The new trailer explains that he doesn't really know that. He only knows that Parker can get Spider-man, because that's what Green Goblin's son told him.

It's pretty easy to figure out most of the movie then:

Parker's life is messed up by being Spider-man, so he quits doing it.

Green Goblin's son wants to find Spider-man, since he "killed his dad".

Doc. Oc is created in goblin's lab by accident.

Goblin's son tells him to find Spider-man, by going through Parker.

Doc. Oc kidnaps MJ to get Spidey.

Spidey comes back and gets his ass kicked by Oc, who then delivers him to Goblin's son.

From there on it's pretty much guesswork but it's pretty easy to guess that Spidey wins at the end and gets the girl.

Granted, I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but it'd be nice not to know most of the plot of the movie from watching one trailer.

--
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Re:Much better by rueba · 2004-04-09 05:01 · Score: 1

That was exactly my reaction.

Can't they make an interesting trailer without giving away so much?

I would have liked to have been surprised by some of those plot points.

Perhaps the solution is not to watch trailers.

--
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
Re:Much better by Communomancer · 2004-04-09 06:23 · Score: 1

"Doc. Oc is created in goblin's lab by accident. Goblin's son tells him to find Spider-man, by going through Parker." And why does Doc Ock give a hoot what Goblin's son tells him to do?

--
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.

So? by b12arr0 · 2004-04-09 02:21 · Score: 1, Funny

What's so great about spider-man's trailer? I lived in a double wide for years. Don't see anyone getting excited about that. Oh, his probably is full of webs and he probably sleeps in a web-hammock. I Got it.

Fine Line by dolo666 · 2004-04-09 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the fine line for the industry; I think with a franchise like Spiderman, the movie will be fun regardless of what plot details leak... I mean it's an action movie, so the total experience is what you're paying for, unlike other movies where the plot matters much more (because it's all some generes have, plot), while the action/comic genre offers more in terms of the experience. Spiderman 1 was very pleasing, but the Hulk was missing plot/char development. I think Spiderman 2 will be better, but I won't know for sure until after I've seen it in theatres (and hence the catch 22 of all moviegoers today, really). Downloading the trailer now...

Re:Fine Line by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-10 03:13 · Score: 0

the Hulk was missing plot/char development

You are way too kind. The Hulk totally blew! I wanted to leave except I was with a group.
Re:Fine Line by dolo666 · 2004-04-10 04:16 · Score: 1

> The Hulk totally blew!

I would have noticed it more but these to drunk fools were sitting behind us and they kept commenting through the whole move and kicking our chairs, farting noises and belches, laughing during quiet moments in the film; they made the film seem better than it was. If it weren't for them, I would have seen how horrible it really was, I guess.

I feel stupid for getting mad at the idiots behind us...

But the problem with the Hulk was the plot, and the style of the special effects.

The best kind of effects for the Hulk would have been a more glowing character; if the Hulk was green, maybe he was more luminescent. The painted green look of him was just stupid and annoying. Bright green is an eyesore; and that's not the point of the Hulk comics... he's so enraged, he turns green and smashes everything. But he goes back to normal and carries a great deal of guilt in doing so. Furthermore, the muscular movement looked very rubbery, even though it was CG; it didn't look authentic.

The camera angles were almost always flat; they should have done more lower angle shots up, to portray how menacing the Hulk really is. That was a mistake, to show Hulk at face-level, because he looks goofy as hell that way, and who's going to see him at face level?

But I guess that's the way the comic is. Hollywood could have adapted better to it. And where's the angst in the character? Gone. Where's the guilt? Gone. It was all absent.

Oh and what about that horrible video game? Cell shading is soooooo 1993.

The story was adequate, but what was missing was the depth in the story; ie: the framework was okay, but there wasn't much development past framework.

Re:cartooney - Not a bad thing.... by BRock97 · 2004-04-09 02:23 · Score: 1

The CGI looks kind of cartoonely...<snip>

I guess it is all about the context of which you are viewing the animation. Films like Spidey and (I assume you were referencing) the Matrix I believe have their atmosphere enhanced by this type of animation. Just as how well Gollumn was translated into CG completely enhanced LOTR.

That said, the Spidey trailer had some of the best examples of this type of CG I have seen. That isn't to say it always works, though, as last summer's Hulk easily proved. There is an example of the CG just not looking good no matter what context it was put into.

--

Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....

Hmmm.... by DarkMavis · 2004-04-09 02:23 · Score: 0, Redundant

This makes my spider sense tingle....

Hooligans. by blair1q · 2004-04-09 02:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Slashdot really needs to be more considerate of small, startup-quality companies like Apple.

Think of the dropped packets.

Great evil villain to get ass kicked by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:26 · Score: 3, Funny

I hate that Amoroso. Please have Spidey thoroughly kick her ass please. The bitch just doesn't want to do her job and will end up in politics unless Spiderman saves the day. He could say something like "Your fired!" just before he kicks her skull in.

Re:Great evil villain to get ass kicked by bfg9000 · 2004-04-09 04:26 · Score: 1

Heh heh, surfing the web and basically wasting my life away, I stumbled across the horribly mentally disfigured and monsterous Omarosa. Apparently, she didn't win the Apprentice, but she did win the title of the only Intern Clinton refused to sleep with. "Jesus, you're gross! Get the hell off me!" the President was quoted as saying.

And I would also put money that she's the reason the hapless Democrats crumbled into impotent nothingness after a decade of being on top politically.

--
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Re:Great evil villain to get ass kicked by tyndyll · 2004-04-13 21:52 · Score: 1

in other news slightly related news (and since noone else has mentioned it I will), the next film from Marvel is the Punisher (with trailer available here! Hopefully infinitely better than the Dolph Ludgren original :s

--
Morale seems good, considering, although high spirits are just no substitute for eight hundred rounds a minute

Anyone noticed... by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-04-09 02:28 · Score: 3, Informative

When trailers are engineered to produce 'false scenes'? What I mean is that two different scenes/shots are spliced together in the trailer because they coincidentally run on from eachother or work well together. For example: In the trailer for Men In Black (the first film):

Linda Fiorentino: Let me guess, this is a government conspiracy and you guys are just trying to cover it up, right? (can't remember the exact line)

Cut to Will Smith: Psh, naw.

Two different frickin' scenes, I swear!

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?

Re:Anyone noticed... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:42 · Score: 0

Hm. What annoys ME more, is when they do that with the movies themselves, which is often enough. It's really obvious once you start looking.
Re:Anyone noticed... by delus10n0 · 2004-04-09 07:01 · Score: 1

The trailer for Jurassic Park 1 had something like this, as well. Ellie grabbed a fern or huge leaf while the jeeps were driving, but in the movie it just sort of appeared. Not pivotal, but the same example of strange cuts.

--
Not All Who Wander Are Lost

Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:30 · Score: 0

Let's all go see Spiderman 2! And then let's all come back here and bitch about what the MPAA does with all the money we just gave them!

Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 05:56 · Score: 0

Let's all go download Spiderman 2 and justify what they're doing with all the money everyone else just gave them!

Re:post contains SPOILER by the+Man+in+Black · 2004-04-09 02:31 · Score: 1

Yep. Looks like I won't be seeing that movie.

God, I hate you.

--
El riesgo vive siempre!

Full Screen Torrent by LqqkOut · 2004-04-09 02:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Availablecourtesy of Suprnova.org

--

-- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!

Re:Full Screen Torrent by AIX-Hood · 2004-04-09 02:40 · Score: 1

If you would have looked at what I posted, you would have seen that they were already the full screen versions.
Re:Full Screen Torrent by LqqkOut · 2004-04-09 02:43 · Score: 1

I read the comment that asked for a full screen and decided to provide the link that I used to dl the full screen version. Please reply to the person who asked for fullscreen versions and don't shoot the messenger.

--
-- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!

Most curious by fleener · 2004-04-09 02:33 · Score: 1, Funny

I downloaded the 45.3MB zipped trailer. Then I had to unzip the 46.3MB Quicktime file and delete the zip file. Wow, they saved a whole megabyte in the transfer. Is their bandwidth savings worth the hoops they make their customers jump through?

Re:Most curious by GR|MLOCK · 2004-04-09 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you want people to download something from your website, you zip it. Pretty much all browsers know how to handle a .zip file. They save it to disk. If you give a link to a .mov, crazy things can happen. People who don't get the whole right-click thing just click on it, and then the QuickTime plugin takes over and loads the thing.

It's all about MIME types.
Re:Most curious by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:45 · Score: 0

wahhhhh wahhhhhhh wa wa wahhhhhhhhhh

fricking baby.
Re:Most curious by Eagle5596 · 2004-04-09 02:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oh wow! Such hoops! You mean I have to unzip the file? Oh woe is me, for unzipping is such a difficult process.

Stop whining, it only makes you look incompetent. Yes, for your information, 1MB of savings per user, over several million hits really does save a lot of bandwidth you insensitive clod.
Re:Most curious by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:17 · Score: 0

If they actually wanted to save bandwidth they would have compressed it better. Like it is now it both looks bad and is horribly oversized.
Re:Most curious by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:57 · Score: 0

They don't want people streaming it from the site, because of the likelihood you'll watch at least part of it more than once. Wastes bandwidth (plus, streaming video via HTTP is, was, and will always be teh ghey).

So they zip it up to force you to download the whole thing before you play it. Now it's on your local machine, and you can watch it to your heart's content without interfering with other users. See? Everybody's happy.
Re:Most curious by FrostedWheat · 2004-04-09 05:06 · Score: 1

Is their bandwidth savings worth the hoops they make their customers jump through?

They don't do it for the saving, they do it because most browsers will try to play a .MOV file in the browser window when you click on it. Putting it in a ZIP means the browser will download it.

Sure they save a huge big 1Mb, and you get a file integrity check thrown in for free!
Re:Most curious by ms_drives_me_mad · 2004-04-09 05:19 · Score: 0, Troll

yeah but lamer - the quicktime files never are streamed , they're stored on the disk and you can watch progressively the part that has been downloaded.
Re:Most curious by proverbialcow · 2004-04-09 05:53 · Score: 1

Wow, they saved a whole megabyte in the transfer. Is their bandwidth savings worth the hoops they make their customers jump through?

They're giving you this (pretty freakin' awesome) trailer FOR FREE, and you're complaining that they might want to keep their bandwidth costs down? It's not just you downloading the trailer, y'know - multiply that 1 meg by the ten-thousand-plus downloads today alone, and how-many-tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of downloads between now and June 30.

Saving even that 1 meg per download seems to make a lot of sense to me.

--
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Re:Most curious by T'hain+Esh+Kelch · 2004-04-09 06:36 · Score: 0

You have to zip it, because some non-/.-geeks have trouble right clicking on the link and choose 'save as'. They need to have it as easy as possible, and most of them have learned to use a zip-file. (Or they just click it and see what happens)
Re:Most curious by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 10:22 · Score: 0

STFU flamer.

Does Apple Profit from Trailers? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:34 · Score: 0

Seeing trailers on Apple's web site for awhile, I am now curious, if (I'm sure they do) and how much Apple profits from such trailers on its site.

Could someone provide some insight?

Perhaps the more views the trailer receives, the more $$$ Apple receives? Or, maybe Apple does not profit at all, only attempting to increase exposure for Quicktime?

Re:post contains SPOILER by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:34 · Score: 0

I haven't seen it yet you fucker

Spiderman Trailer World Premier by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:36 · Score: 0

This is the first time i've actually fallen asleep during the trailer of a movie.

Amount of story given away? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:36 · Score: 0

Is anyone else annoyed by the amount of story that is given away in trailers now?

What's to give away when the story has been in comic books for the last 40 years or so?

If anything, this is just another symptom of Hollywood's utter lack of originality. Which is why they're so pissed off at Mel Gibson: How dare he make a religious movie that's grossed close to $400 million in 5 or 6 weeks and will probably gross close to a billion dollars or more - that would be in the top 5 grossing movies all time.

We hate the MPAA by stratjakt · 2004-04-09 02:37 · Score: 1

but we like using quicktime to watch commercials.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:Ye gods... by HeghmoH · 2004-04-09 02:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Slashdot has never successfully slashdotted Apple; they have more bandwidth than slashdot dreams of. Apple successfully streams realtime full-motion video to tens of thousands of simultaneous viewers a couple of times a year, I think they can handle a few trailer downloads.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

Potential by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Spiderman has the potential of being the best comic book converted to movie series.

My 2 cents:

Superman - Classic. Great. But didnt have the technology to bring the movies to their full potential. Story started to fade as it approached the later movies. Didn't fully capture the superman comic.

Batman - First one was great, possibly one of the best Comic book Movies EVER. The rest...well you've seen them. Storyline altered to make it more entertaining.

X-Men - Fantastic movies. Very entertaining to watch. Difficult comic to convert into a movie series b/c of the huge personalities of every character. There is no way to capture the true greatness of the comic books without having 5 LOTR length movies.

Spiderman - First one was fantastic. Showed the depth of Peter Parker, Mary Jane and Harry Osborn. Only time will tell if the second movie can bring story together while still keeping us entertained. All the conflicts that Spiderman/Peter must face with Mary Jane and Harry will truely be interesting if done right. In addition, we have Dr. Octavus being introduced which is one of my favorite comic villians[possibly making my opinion bias :-)].

not michael... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:41 · Score: 0

It's moron, not michael, you insensitive clod!

Re:post contains SPOILER by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:42 · Score: 0

was it the butler?

Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by Gzip+Christ · 2004-04-09 02:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Is anyone else annoyed by the amount of story that is given away in trailers now? I guess the production companies must have found that these types of trailers are effective in pulling in audiences to see the movie but it seems to detract from the experience.

Tell me about it. I was all looking forward to seeing The Passion but then <***SPOILER ALERT***> some jackass came up to me on the street and told me about how the main character dies at the end to save humanity. So I told him "hey jackass, thanks for ruining the movie for me. I'm reporting you to the MPAA for pirating the plot and redistributing it to me. I think you owe Mel Gibson an apology and $10." It's just as well that I didn't see it - it sounds like they just ripped off the ending from The Matrix: Revolutions.

Re:Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by p4ul13 · 2004-04-09 03:00 · Score: 2, Funny

And now you ruined it for us too. Thanks!
I heard they made a book of it, and I was going to read before seeing the movie, but there's little point in that now. =)

--
Paul Lenhart writes words!
Re:Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:11 · Score: 0

He put in a spoiler warning, dumbbutt. It's your own fault. You should read the book anyway, you'd probably learn something.
Re:Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by mkrieger1277 · 2004-04-09 03:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, but what made me mad was Hollywood's interference with the script. They clearly had to have their happy ending since it sells better. The guy comes back from the dead?!? Come on. :-P
Re:Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by Kamerynn · 2004-04-09 04:17 · Score: 1

What about us poor folks who hadn't seen Revolutions yet, you insensitive clod!
Re:Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:40 · Score: 0

I think South Park nailed it - it's a snuff film.
Re:Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:49 · Score: 0

...heard they made a book of it...

I tried reading it, but the writing is really bad. It's like the author ignored everything that writers have learned over the past thousand or so years. Worse than that, there are entire sections of the book with no plot whatsoever. And whoever the dumbass editor who put a number at the beginning of every single sentence in the book is, he needs to be shot.

I'm surprised they even made it into a movie...must have something to do with how may copies have been sold.
Re:Spoilers, spoilers everywhere by slim-t · 2004-04-09 08:28 · Score: 1

Tell me about it. I was all looking forward to seeing The Passion but then some jackass came up to me on the street and told me about how the main character dies at the end to save humanity. So I told him "hey jackass, thanks for ruining the movie for me. I'm reporting you to the MPAA for pirating the plot and redistributing it to me. I think you owe Mel Gibson an apology and $10." It's just as well that I didn't see it - it sounds like they just ripped off the ending from The Matrix: Revolutions.
Same thing happened when I wanted to see Miracle. Somebody told me the Hanson brothers from Slapshot were in it, so didn't even bother. Slapshot 2 sucked.

Kind of like a COMIC BOOK? by JoshMKiV · 2004-04-09 02:44 · Score: 1

Wait, it looks cartooney? Kind of like a COMIC BOOK? Hmmm...

Re:Kind of like a COMIC BOOK? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:06 · Score: 0

yes, in comic books it should look cartoonish, in REAL LIFE MOVIES IT SHOULD LOOK REAL.
Are you saying that Raimi would not insist on realistic effects if they were possible because he'd prefer them to look cartoony?
Stop making excuses for bad special effects.
Re:Kind of like a COMIC BOOK? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:56 · Score: 0

I guess there's no pleasing everybody. You know, you don't have to go watch the movie if you despise the special effects so much. Really, it's okay.
Re:Kind of like a COMIC BOOK? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 05:56 · Score: 0

Are you saying that Raimi would not insist on realistic effects if they were possible... Spoken like somebody who has not seen any of the "Evil Dead" movies.
Or "Darkman."
Or "The Quick and the Dead."
Or even "A Simple Plan" for that matter.
Sam Raimi doesn't do realistic. He does broad and exaggerated. It's called a "style," and some people like it. Deal with it, pink boy.
Re:Kind of like a COMIC BOOK? by l3prador · 2004-04-09 15:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Yah, actually, I think it looks like they really recreated the comic book pictures really well... That costume in the alley trash can as he walks away in the rain is a really good recreation of the drawing in the comic books... (Amazing Spiderman #50, pg 8, if anyone cares)

Trailer opens a website by oogoliegoogolie · 2004-04-09 02:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

At the end of the trailer it opens a browser and connects to http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/. That's a 'feature' I can do without.

Re:Trailer opens a website by c64cryptoboy · 2004-04-09 06:23 · Score: 1

That, and it accesses both of my cdrom drives for no good reason.

--
I put the 'fun' in fundamentalism

MPAA by Malc · 2004-04-09 02:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Do we like them or not? I'm confused.

Re:MPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:28 · Score: 0

It's simple enough: hate the Motion Picture Association of America, but luuuuuuuuuuv motion pictures.

Kirsten Dunst by mattlary · 2004-04-09 02:50 · Score: 1

Kirsten looked much hotter in the first one- maybe it's just because I've got a thing for redheads- I heard that in the first movie she wore a wig, but she dyed it for this one; I think the wig looked more red.

Man, this sucks for 2 reasons by jerkychew · 2004-04-09 02:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

First off, I'm a huge fan of the first one, as well as the comics. I'm not trying to incite a flamewar, but...

As was said earlier, the trailer gives away pretty much the whole damn movie! We see the initial backstory, the inner demons, Peter throwing away the spiderman costume, Peter putting it back on... I mean, am I going to have to stop watching trailers soon just so I'll be surprised at the theater?

And second, from the trailer the plot looks almost identical to the first. Evil scientist has a wardrobe malfunction (heh) that turns him crazy, and destroys NYC. Peter wants to be with MJ but has to choose what he really wants (Superman 2, anyone?). Crazy scientist captures MJ, Spiderman has to rescue her.

Or am I missing something?

Re:Man, this sucks for 2 reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:55 · Score: 0

Yes you are but you said you don't like spoilers so I'm not gonna tell ya.
Re:Man, this sucks for 2 reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:07 · Score: 1, Informative

umm - dude, the plot line for all comic books is pretty much the same, so its no surprise that the movies are too. Thats like saying every scooby-doo episode is the same - they track down some monster, who ends up really being the house caretaker with a mask.
Re:Man, this sucks for 2 reasons by T'hain+Esh+Kelch · 2004-04-09 06:46 · Score: 0

I dont think the trailer gave it all away... At the end were he removes the mask, im pretty sure it was Peter Parker wearing it... :) ANd that makes the end still up in the open.

I didnt like the first one... Tooby Maquire (?) who plays Peter Parker really didnt fit the character, the CGI was pretty crappy and the story/background/filming wasnt as dark as the original Spiderman cartoons... And the plot was pretty straight-forward, borring if you ask me. (Thats just my opinion)
Fortunately the new trailer looks like it has a darker feel, and (YEAH) character development!
Re:Man, this sucks for 2 reasons by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-09 18:35 · Score: 0

How about this?

Peter makes a living taking Spidey pictures
Mary forces him to choose between the Spider and her.
*Harry forces him to choose, because Harry loves Peter and hates the Spider
Peter decides he loves his friends and family too much, so ditches the Spider
*Someone steals the costume
Doc Oc develops a new weapon platform for Harry/Osborne industries
*Freak accident ensues (not like Green Goblin, that wasn't an accident, it was intentional)
*Harry offers to research how to restore Octavius, but first wants him to bring in Spider-Man
*Octavius captures a fake Spider-Man
Octavius tries to track Spider-Man through Peter, takes MJ hostage
*Spider-Man must rescue MJ
*Harry is hopped up on Goblin Juice too
*Peter confronts Harry, says MJ is too important for their rivalry (Spider vs Goblin)
*Battle between Goblin and Spider
*Work together to rescue MJ from Octavius

Why do I believe Harry is hopped up? In the first movie there were two villains: Burgler and Goblin, and they played off each other on Peter. If this follows the formula, then so will Octavius and Harry.

*Scenes not in the trailer, made up by me.

--

GPL Deconstructed

whoa, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 02:53 · Score: 0

For those who use Linux, try Mplayer, and The kmplayer plug in for konqueror!

uhh, is this something new? mplayer-plugin? crossover plugin? is there anyone who believes linux still is a hobbyists OS that doesn't play .mov .avi .wmv .mpg?

looks like I'm getting too old or this post is from the last century.

Akamai by Isaac-Lew · 2004-04-09 02:54 · Score: 1

It appears that they are using Akamai. This link explains how Akamai works (basically, they cache on thousands of servers).

Re:Akamai by blair1q · 2004-04-09 03:55 · Score: 1

Apparently, your link was cached on an Akamai server.

Akamai is mostly owned by Intel, afaik.

I only mentioned that for those who wanted to be mad at some other kneejerk-meme on this good Friday.

Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:04 · Score: 0

Even with the slashdotting, Apple's servers were still fast enough to deliver the Full Screen mode in real time.

Re:Did you type that whole thing? by Himring · 2004-04-09 03:16 · Score: 1

Omg! It's my ex-wife. How the f*ck did you find me here?...

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill

WTC trailer here... by antdude · 2004-04-09 03:21 · Score: 4, Informative

You can still download it from here. I personally thought it was an awesome teaser. Too bad 9/11 had to happen. :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Re:WTC trailer here... by hiryuu · 2004-04-09 04:59 · Score: 1

For the under-informed here (namely, me) - was that WTC sequence ever intended to be used in the movie? Or was it just something "thrown together" for the advertisement?

--
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Re:WTC trailer here... by JediTrainer · 2004-04-09 07:00 · Score: 1

Umm... unfortunately their link doesn't work. Is there another one that anybody's got?

--

You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Re:WTC trailer here... by delus10n0 · 2004-04-09 07:05 · Score: 1

It was actually intended to be a scene in the movie. I don't have a link to back this up, but if you surf around you can find the info..

--
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Re:WTC trailer here... by antdude · 2004-04-09 07:20 · Score: 1

JediTrainer: Are you sure? It works for me when it takes me to: http://www.movie-list.net/mlst2k2/spider-man-tease r1.mov

I can even use wget:
[antdude@somewhere download]$ wget http://www.movie-list.net/mlst2k2/spider-man-tease r1.mov
--12:19:29-- http://www.movie-list.net/mlst2k2/spider-man-tease r1.mov
=> `spider-man-teaser1.mov'
Resolving www.movie-list.net... 64.246.36.140, 66.98.166.22, 216.40.230.10, ...
Connecting to www.movie-list.net[64.246.36.140]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 22,382,679 [video/quicktime]

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:WTC trailer here... by JediTrainer · 2004-04-09 07:27 · Score: 1

That's weird. It works now. Before I was getting a 404 error. Maybe it was /.d?

--

You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Re:WTC trailer here... by antdude · 2004-04-09 07:39 · Score: 1

JediTrainer: Probably. Someone else pointed that out earlier this morning as well. I am surprise the Web site (not mine) is handling the demand well.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

this is funny by zogger · 2004-04-09 03:26 · Score: 2, Funny

the apprentice is one of the few shows I watch, so I saw the trailer. all of a sudden I jump up and yell HEY, THAT'S DOC OCT!!! Startled GF and we both laughed over it

heh heh, hadn't even thought about it since the 60's when my dad MADE ME give away my collection when we moved because he didn't want to pay shipping on it with the full sized tractor trailer that moved all our other crap... uh huh, full collection going way back to the 50's, marvel and DC and Mads.. geez....

that collection would be worth.. a freeking lot right now, that's how much! I would guess well into five maybe even six figures

Re:this is funny by mrtroy · 2004-04-09 03:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Your father was unsuccessful...

The move and the removal of the comic books wasnt due to "shipping". He was trying to turn you from a pansy boy to a man. Unfortunately, due to the avid slashdot reading, he has obviously failed.

;)

--
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:this is funny by Brandybuck · 2004-04-09 07:32 · Score: 2, Funny

My grandma threw out all my father's Superman comics, going back to issue one, when enlisted in the marines in WWII. She figured he didn't need kiddy comic books anymore when he was off fighting in the pacific...

He used to tell me, "Son, if my Ma hadn't thrown out my Superone 1, I would be a rich man today. But since she did I can't afford a gardener, so GET OUT THERE AND MOW THE LAWN!"

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:this is funny by zogger · 2004-04-09 09:39 · Score: 1

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yep, more or less how my dad sounds. He's a crank,and a cobjob back yard tinkerer/inventor, guess that's where I get my disposition and interests from from.

Funny, he HATES computers, but is a retired mainframe hardware guy. My mom uses a webTV for surfin and email, but he will have naught to do with personal computers.

I don't throw nuthin out now! I make packrats look like someone in atlantic city with lottery winnings in their pocket!

I remember when I finally made it to A DOLLAH A WEEK allowance for chores. Geez it was like a millyun bucks.

Ample warning given by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 03:31 · Score: 0

Try reading the subject next time. It says 'post contains' and 'SPOILER' in nice capital letters for you. If you're illiterate then knowing the ending of Identity is the last of your worries.

The Apprentice by filpaul · 2004-04-09 03:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Did anybody else catch the joke here?
With the trailer shown during The Apprentice, they had to include this:

JJ Jameson, Peter Parker's boss at the paper, says
"YOU'RE FIRED!!"

Re:The Apprentice by Brandybuck · 2004-04-09 07:21 · Score: 1

And now the movie studio, director, and the quorint actor are going to be sued by Donald Trump for trademark infringement...

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:cartooney - Not a bad thing.... by modecx · 2004-04-09 03:38 · Score: 1

At least in LOTR Gollum was consistent.

They didn't go back and forth between CGI and non-CGI Gollum, and that's what made it beleivable (and they did an exceptionaj job on him, too). If they went between something that was obviously CGI and a puppet/actor, we'd be complaining just as much.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.

I want the original music !!! by BESTouff · 2004-04-09 03:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

There was *one* thing I was reaally missing in the first film: the music. Before entering the cinema, I thought I'll hear some kind of remixed spiderman music (like in MI2), but I was very disappointed. Music is really part of my memories about the cartoon (yeah, I know, you couldn't hear it in the comics. Whatever).

Re:I want the original music !!! by cqnn · 2004-04-09 07:06 · Score: 1

That's what you get when you don't sit thru
the credits.

I read the book by QEDog · 2004-04-09 03:52 · Score: 3, Funny

and told me about how the main character dies at the end to save humanity.

I read the book, and I have no intention of watching the movie now. In the book, at the end, it was so obvious how they forced it to leave and open ending to then milk more cash in a sequel.

--
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham

Re:I read the book by hesiod · 2004-04-09 06:49 · Score: 1

> it was so obvious how they forced it to leave and open ending to then milk more cash in a sequel.

Yeah, a book sequel was done by some people living in Utah, but it was not authorized by the original author.

Dr. Oc by CGP314 · 2004-04-09 03:53 · Score: 1

Perhaps my childhood memories of reading spider-man are inaccurate, but I thought that Otto Octavious was Eastern European. Anyone else remember that? If it's true, why would the movie producers change that? Oh, and what's with his trenchcoat? Where's that lame full body green suit that made me pitty him?

-Colin

Re:Dr. Oc by bfg9000 · 2004-04-09 04:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, and what's with his trenchcoat? Where's that lame full body green suit that made me pitty him?

They don't want you to pity him, they want you to fear him. And what's more fearsome that a crazy guy with a George Michael haircut walking around in a trenchcoat?

"This Octopus has NINE big tentacles baby!"

--
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
Re:Dr. Oc by deft · 2004-04-09 05:47 · Score: 2, Funny

"Where's that lame full body green suit that made me pitty him?"

Is that you Mr. T? Welcome to slashdot....loved ya in the A-Team.

--

There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Re:Dr. Oc by Daetrin · 2004-04-09 11:26 · Score: 1

It's been awhile since i've seen the trailer, but Dr. Octopus didn't look _anything_ at all like i expected him to. Of course my expectations are mostly based off of hazy memories of the Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends cartoon, and i'm not sure how true that was to the original source.
btw, why is everyone making such a big deal about this trailer? Why is the tv refering to it as the "World Premiere"? Isn't it the same one that was shown before Return of the King?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Dr. Oc by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 14:25 · Score: 0

You're remembering the cartoon. For some reason they gave him an eastern european accent, but he was born in frikkin New York city.

Uh... by bonch · 2004-04-09 04:01 · Score: 1

You're clearly a comic fanboy who things every adaptation should be direct one-to-one.

I really hope they listened to Mr. Lee on this one. He's sorta the guy behind spidey, and he had some sound advice on how the first movie coulda been a bit better. His argument as to the necessity of Peter Parker "making" his web solution and shooter mechanism made for some good sense

Uh, no, he agreed that it was better for the movie that shooting webs was part of his genetic mutation. Why?

Because it would have been fucking stupid. If all the sudden he's able to make super-industrial-strength web shooter complete with reloadable cartridges...in a far-fetched movie, that just pushes it to the realm of stupidity.

and for him to point out that William Defoe was a superb actor and, thus, should have had his face shown while in "Goblin" mode is something the director should have figured out first.

That's just an opinion. Sam Raimi wanted to use the goblin mask. Big fucking deal. We got plenty of William's face, particularly in the schizo scenes.

With makeup and CGI like it is, Defoe could have easily had his own face used without a hitch, and being the actor he is it would have been far better than the stupid mask.

You mean with makeup and CGI like it was when Spider-man came out--which would have looked, you guessed it, fucking stupid.

Of course, people need to keep in mind that these movies are only "based" on the actual comics and Lee, et al., are not fully consulted....

Gee, I would have never guessed a movie called "Spider-man" is based on the comic book called "Spider-man." If we directly translated absolutely everything from comics, it would completely, 100% suck. These are movies, not comics.

Re:Uh... by Himring · 2004-04-09 05:33 · Score: 1

Uh, no, he agreed that it was better for the movie that shooting webs was part of his genetic mutation.

In the interview I watched of Stan Lee commenting on the movie he clearly lamented that Peter Parker did not make the web solution and shooter mechanism (I tried finding a transcript of this on techtv, but alas cannot. I did find a transcript of his interview on "Big Thinkers" and he discusses the not-yet-released, first Spiderman movie, but the interview I saw was after the movie's release and I think Leo Laport did the interview -- could be wrong). Parker's scientific abilities (illustrated almost solely through the making of the web-shooters), stated Lee, were a key element of his character.

If you saw some other interview where Lee stated differently then I cannot answer for that....

You're clearly a comic fanboy who things every adaptation should be direct one-to-one.

I'm clearly a comicbook fan, and I'm also clearly someone who saw Lee stating the things I listed in an interview and felt that, like, since he created the stuff his opinion might matter a little.

...who things

'Things'? You talk like Inigo Montoya.... "I do not thing it means what you thing it means...."

You're clearly a comic fanboy

You're clearly short and fat....

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Re:Uh... by jcuervo · 2004-04-09 06:07 · Score: 1

Uh, no, he agreed that it was better for the movie that shooting webs was part of his genetic mutation. Why?
I heard he disagreed.
Because it would have been fucking stupid. If all the sudden he's able to make super-industrial-strength web shooter complete with reloadable cartridges...in a far-fetched movie, that just pushes it to the realm of stupidity.
It was a plot point in the comics (I read them when I was much younger). His webbing dissolved after about an hour, I think, and he occasionally ran out.

As an aside, you really should look at this.

--
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
Re:Uh... by SuiteSisterMary · 2004-04-10 05:03 · Score: 1

Ye need to look back on the times.

In the fifties and early sixties, science was being thrown forward by leaps and bounds. Some guy in his basement really could, and did, come up with world-shaking inventions.

Now a days, however, it seems kind of farfetched that a highschool kid could come up, over night, with an adhesive that 3M can't.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:Uh... by Himring · 2004-04-10 10:19 · Score: 1

Ye need to look back on the times.

In the fifties and early sixties, science was being thrown forward by leaps and bounds. Some guy in his basement really could, and did, come up with world-shaking inventions.

Now a days, however, it seems kind of farfetched that a highschool kid could come up, over night, with an adhesive that 3M can't.

If I find Stan Lee's email address, then I'll be sure to let you have it so you can take up this issue with him....

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill

Dear Dumbass by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:04 · Score: 0

No shit it's okay, but it's not okay to sit their and pretend that sub-par computer drawings look photo-realistic.

Re:Dear Dumbass by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:57 · Score: 0

Wow, you are a bitch.

Its All About Marketing by EXTomar · 2004-04-09 04:13 · Score: 1

The marketing groups at the movie studios found out something a long time ago: most people want to know what happens. So they cram as much of the story and important points into 30 seconds as they can. This is a much better move than to just put "Spider-man 2: Summer 2005" on a blank black screen.

As much as you hate the fact they showed Peter wanting to throw away the costume, many more people want to know Peter is having this turmoil. So marketing sticks it in. As much as you don't want to know why Doc Oc wants to go on a rampage many more want to see exactly how Doc Oc throws stuff around mad as hell.

Its the nature of the buisness. Although there are people who hate the idea of a story being spoiled, so many more out there really want it.

Re:writers? by Zoshnell · 2004-04-09 04:17 · Score: 0

Becasue you fail it by not providing ANY kind of reasoning behind your arguement. Not that i would care myself.

KTHNXPLZDRVTHRU!

--
"Do you suppose that's why God lives in the Heavens? Because he lives in fear of His creations?" - Steve Buscemi

smart ones by katanan · 2004-04-09 04:20 · Score: 1

the people are smart this time around they have a download trailer link which is good because it saves movie geeks time from trying to go to movielist or darkhorizons to get downloadable versions. i never understood why they didn't release trailers in downloadable format (for that matter musicvideos as well)

A sequel in the works by Gzip+Christ · 2004-04-09 04:22 · Score: 1

In the book, at the end, it was so obvious how they forced it to leave and open ending to then milk more cash in a sequel.

Sadly yes, there is a sequel in the works and I've read bits and pieces of the disappointing script... <***SPOILER ALERT***> They take all the fun out of the story by telling you that Jesus' supernatural powers are the result of an abnormally high midichlorian count. If that wasn't bad enough, there is a new character named Jar Jar The Baptist who seems to do nothing but trip into people who Jesus then has to heal (using his midichlorian powers). Even Natalie Portman couldn't save this movie (not even with all the grits in the world).

why you.... by zogger · 2004-04-09 04:26 · Score: 1

... you.. you internet flamer, you! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dang, I had some good ones, had a stack of the spidermans, from issue one. Just that one issue got to be worth serious clams now.. I am thinking now, converting lawn mowing (50 cent a yard), farm work(around 9$ a day in the summer) and snow shoveling (50 cent a driveway, with a shovel) hours of labor, into ten cent comics, what a return on investment that was, err, could have been.

Of course, I could have saved all my real silver coin, too..sheesh....

My dad had comics from his childhood, pulp fiction looking things, I can't remember most of them, the weirdest ones were obvious propoganda pieces released during world war two. He went in out of high school during that war, so his collection came to a halt then, but it caught the first coupla years of the war while he was still in school. I can't remember the names of them now, no idea if he still has them. I do remember some of them had stickers you collected and pasted into the comics. They were pretty jingoistic and racist from what I recall, as to be expected then I suppose.

Never saw the first spiderman movie, but I only really buy well marked down used movies now, and not very many of them. I even have a copy of the matrix here I got somehow used, never watched it yet, just not a big movie person any more. Used to love them, now they are mostly tedious to me. Still like reading though, always have, taught myself (mostly) the basics before I went to school around age 4, reading newspapers and coordinating what I read in them with what was on the news on the 9 inch philco.. the first TV in da 'hood. First word I remember learning was "Ike". Picture association -> word. The rest came easier after nouns were adequate.

still kant speul wirth nuthin tho

In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 04:52 · Score: 0

Today the MPAA announced that it would be suing Vancouver, Toronto and several other cities for illegal movie sharing. In a statement from his crypt, Jack Valenti said, "These runaway movie makers need to be stopped. We invented movies here in Hollywood California, it's our intellectual property that they're stealing!" When questioned about exactly which laws were being broken, Mr. Valenti reacted by sucking out all the reporter's blood and leaving his corpse as an example to the others.

Re:cartooney - Not a bad thing.... by Jim+Starx · 2004-04-09 04:57 · Score: 1

I don't think it's fair to compare Golum to the Matrix 2. Golum was cgi intended to represent a being who does not exist in this world and who's physical charecteristics can't be replicated by an actor in a suit. It was consistent and believable. Whereas the matrix cgi was intended to represent Keano, they did a horrible job of making it look good and I think the movie was worse off for it.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.

Compared to Punisher by dolo666 · 2004-04-09 04:59 · Score: 1

The Punisher trailer, in comparison, appears quite bleak of content. Sadly, I am a Punisher fan who is wondering WTF they were doing in that movie. Punisher looks really awful from the trailer, and that bothers me. I'm the guy with the punisher jacket you saw back in the early 90's, fyi...

Re:Compared to Punisher by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 05:39 · Score: 0

I dunno, advance buzz on the Punisher seems mixed. I'm a big fan too (I have the arc where he was turned black and faded to white as well as the Punisher/Archie crossover!) so I'm going to give it a chance.

Hellboy looked like crap from the trailers and it turned out to be pretty good. Daredevil looked cool from the trailers and turned out to be not cool.

The Masks We Wear... by SeanDuggan · 2004-04-09 05:12 · Score: 0

IIRC, in the original comics, the Green Goblin is always wearing a mask when he's out. After all, he's also existing as a mild-mannered corporate shark. (And in fact, in later parts, he manages to have his two identities pretty much ignorant of each other) I can't swear for sure on the two Green Goblins that came out after that (And I think there was a 4th one, the Hobgoblin?). And the "Ultimate" series that retconned everything in a more modern manner had him able to transform to the Goblin, a totally different being physically.

--
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.

Re:The Masks We Wear... by Himring · 2004-04-09 05:38 · Score: 1

Lee didn't get into how he have had it all worked out as far as Dafoe transforming into the Goblin if he didn't wear the mask, but I figured it would've been something like you describe -- a transformation into Goblin wherein makeup and CGI would help (and no need to be an entirely CGI creation like Gollum IMO).

Also, good point someone else raised and that is that, heck, Spiderman wore a mask in the movie!!! Funny, we accept that (and Lee does too I guess), because it is far more clear that he does so -- or, I really don't know why we accept it. I honestly never thought about it until today and this thread.

Btw, thanks for the sanity in your post. It rather rare....

--
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill

Re: Too bad 9/11 had to happen. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 05:21 · Score: 0

Yep. Think of all the consequences. Lost movie trailers, modified flight simulator software. I'm just glad they didn't confiscate my copy of When Harry Met Sally and edit that, too. I don't quite understand this whole reaction to try and eliminate references to the great twin towers. And then the contradictory attitude of "we will never forget..." It doesn't make any sense to me. It's sort of like if your girlfriend was murdered, then you'd go and immediately burn all of her possessions and all the photos you had of her.

Re:post contains SPOILER by the_consumer · 2004-04-09 05:21 · Score: 1

He did you a favor. It stunk.

--
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -

Re:post contains SPOILER by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 05:49 · Score: 0

haha. That was fucking great. A +2 troll nonetheless!

Comic book movies!()*%& by jcuervo · 2004-04-09 05:54 · Score: 1

STAN LEE MUST BE STOPPED!

--
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.

dear numbnuts by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 06:02 · Score: 0

if it was supposed to be exaggerated, then why aren't ALL of the shots of spidey done in this "style"? Wouldn't it be more "stylistic" for Spidey's look to be consistent?

It's bad CGI. Deal with it.

Re:dear numbnuts by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 07:59 · Score: 0

Again, spoken like somebody completely unfamiliar with the way Sam Raimi likes his movies to look. He's never worried about matching up effect shots perfectly before, and a lot of people love his movies. Why should he change just for the handful of whiney bitches like you?

Mod Parent Up by dolo666 · 2004-04-09 06:11 · Score: 1

Good call, AC... it's true that we can't tell anything about these movies from their trailers; they are detatched from the film; separate, alternate even, as one is made by marketing folks and the other is made by everyone else. And that's the kicker, really; so many films go underrated as their trailers sucking down money that isn't there, treat the whole experience as a kind of myriad of cash potential and that's when the art is gone.

Ineptitude at Oscorp by Brackney · 2004-04-09 06:37 · Score: 2, Funny

You'd think after two major mishaps at Oscorp that resulted in insane super-criminals that they'd at the very least have their QS9000 certification revoked!

Re:Ineptitude at Oscorp by nyseal · 2004-04-09 15:39 · Score: 1

I might be wrong, but I don't think they supplied Ford, Chrysler or GM. Other than that, ISO 9001:2000 would have been good enough for the military but I digress...that should be pulled too.

--
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?

Willow by phriedom · 2004-04-09 07:37 · Score: 1

One of the most enjoyable movie experiences that I have had was with Willow, which isn't really a Great Movie or anything, but the trailers revealed nothing about the plot, and none of the "money" cool images from the movie were in it. I went in knowing the actors and director, and that it was a fantasy movie and nothing else, and I had a great time.

If only the people who cut the trailers would let the best parts of the movie surprise you...

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.

Re:Ye gods... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 08:01 · Score: 0

It also helps that they cache with akamai, so I don't think "they" (apple) has all the bandwidth you think.

Re:Ye gods... by bicho · 2004-04-09 08:07 · Score: 1

That's just because many slashdot readers do not have a WideBand connection.
Now, I just got 256 kbps a few weekends ago... So I'm joining the troop.

--

errera hunamum ets

Re:cartooney - Not a bad thing.... by sirsnork · 2004-04-09 09:16 · Score: 1

Not baging LOTR, but Gollum was NOT consistent. When he was shown in fellowship he was NOTHING like the last 2 movies. This was primarily cos theydecided to have an actor do his movements and ended up using said actors face gestures.

--

Normal people worry me!

mplayer-plugin by KidSock · 2004-04-09 09:23 · Score: 1

Is mplayer plugin supposed to have audio?

I hope that fucktard Any gets his ass sued off by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 09:56 · Score: 0

for distributing copyrighted material. Get a clue you fucking morons.

New? by WookieinHeat · 2004-04-09 09:59 · Score: 0

This has been posted on the Apple site for a couple months now.

Re:cartooney - Not a bad thing.... by modecx · 2004-04-09 10:06 · Score: 1

Yes, perhaps he changed a bit in between the whole set of movies; I wouldn't deny that (but I would attribute it to having more time to better refine their work, and more experience towards the end of the run).

My point was, that unlike Matrix, or many other movies that replace an actor for a scene or two, Gollum's appearance didn't suddenly (and dramatically) change inbetween takes, thereby drawing the viewer out of the movie by focusing his attention on the details. Iv'e seen CGI stunt doubles done well, but they are few and far between. Usually they blur the heck out of them, and the saturation seems all wrong, but eh. Whatever!

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.

shiny by Bender+Unit+22 · 2004-04-09 10:22 · Score: 1

I only noticed it a few places places where he was really shiny and the red color were much brighter. Too bad because it was really well done otherwise.

Ohh god, stop the agony by node159 · 2004-04-09 10:42 · Score: 1

A sequel? After the first one?!

And they blame P2P for drop in sales? Have any of the execs acually endured any of the movies they release?

--
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?

Fuck Apple and Quicktime by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 12:45 · Score: 0

Fuck Apple and their fucking Quicktime ... I just tried to get this fucking trailer working on fucking windows and it screwed up my display settings... why to they bother releasing their shit if it fucks everything up!?!?!?!

Re: Too bad 9/11 had to happen. by sysopd · 2004-04-09 13:13 · Score: 1

It doesn't make any sense to me. It's sort of like if your girlfriend was murdered, then you'd go and immediately burn all of her possessions and all the photos you had of her.

It doesn't make any sense, but its kinda like what the girlfriend does in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Hardship, trauma, loss, death, etc are all difficult to deal with but ultimately are character building. There is good in the bad as well as opportunity for change and growth.

direct download for MOV (direct play) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 14:44 · Score: 0

large version, direct play/download
or
http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/e8f971c7f91a24/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178af967e03faf187bef64d63 baedd50c0298df26491fe5fcd2c5e8d0173d43da90e80/spid er-man_2-tlr_us_m480.mov

Re:Direct download link (more direct - mov format) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 15:11 · Score: 0

More direct than zip, here is the raw .mov direct .mov
or
http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/e8f971c7f91a24/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178af967e03faf187bef64d63 baedd50c0298df26491fe5fcd2c5e8d0173d43da90e80/spid er-man_2-tlr_us_m480.mov

the other spiderman 2 trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-09 18:23 · Score: 0

the older spiderman 2 trailer makes more sense now (and between the two we have about 90% of the film story & plot)

http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/d6775c58e6ad8d/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178af967e03faf187bef64d63 baedd50c0298df26491fe5fcd2c5e/spider-man_2-tsr_m48 0.mov

280 comments