 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Spider-Man 2 is lots of fun and even kinda moving. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on July 17, 2004 at 07:10:05:
I was actually quite disgusted with this movie. I thought it embodied everything that is bad abut studio movies. It works as a case study IMO. I thought it was one of the worst movies ever made. I am disappointed that the public has embrassed such a bad movie. Just my opinion.
Follow Ups:
That knocking noise you hear is Ang Lee banging his head against the wall after seeing "Spidey 2."
I didn't see the Hulk.
Apart from the fact that its aimed at children?
Big J.
Actually I have nothing against movies aimed at children and quite like many of them.But why is it bad? Let's start with the writing.
A guy with super powers is struggling to keep a job as a pizza delivery boy while his aunt, the person he already feels he has betrayed, is about to loose her house to the bank. This guy is a bright science student but he isn't smart enough to get a high paying job with the use of his super powers? That is stupid. It is a phoney set up. He denies himself the love of his life because he believes it would put her in danger yet he has successfully kept his real identity a secret. Yet he publicly becomes known as Spiderman's personal photographer despite the obvious fact that this would put his secret in danger. He runs into all kinds of crimes in progress so often(as most of us do)that he is forced to let everyone down in his life when it comes to things like going to plays. OK the antagonist. A good guy whose mind is coopted by four mechanical arms to do evil. Why? Why are the arms inherently evil? Why does he want to rebuild a commercial product by becoming a public enemy? Does this make good business sense? Why does he need to do a chore for Peter Perker's best friend/worse enemy to get the trinium or whatever that stuff was called when a basic threat to the guy's life should do the trick? And... isn't it a little too "wizrd of Oz" that all Dr, Octavious needed was a little water on the mechanical arms to come to his senses and turn into a self sacraficing champion for good?OK let's look at the directing. Was I the only one getting dizzy from the obligatory 360 camera shots to build a cheap sense of tension? How about the Peter Parker as Jesus shot on the train? It was vulgar. Was I the only one who was put off by the cheap video game, no suspension of disbelief action scenes that dominated this movie? Isn't anyone else tierd of people enduring trauma that would certainly be fatal only to get up with renewed strength to win the fight? And how about the gee wiz grossly predictable near tragic happy ending with the obligatory next villian cliff-hanger? I was cynically predicting just about everything that happened in the plot. I am not a writer. The writers of a movie should be smarter than me about writing. The director shouldn't be so heavy handed that I can pick apart his shots like that. The movie is absolute dreck even for a popcorn saturday matinee movie. Just my opinion though.
Superman, and...Hamlet.
You want absolutes, work a few mathematics puzzles.
In fiction, it helps to be able to check a few neutrons on the rational side and just "go with the emotional flow."
No, not a great movie: I actually napped for a few moments at one point, but not a bad way to escape the heat and humidity (I do agree with your lambasting the fx: I think it's been downhill since computers took over; 2001 was my last enjoyable fx experience).
"Superman,"Suprman what... the movie, the second movie, the third? The commics? The cartoon? The TV show?
"and...Hamlet."
You are joking now right? Please tell me you are joking about Hamlet sharing the obvious writing problems of Spiderman II.
You want absolutes,No. I want reasonable, thought out set ups that are not so painfully contrived and ridiculous and used just to elicite a simple emotional response such as pity.
work a few mathematics puzzles.
Look just because Spiderman II is painfully wantring in the writing department doesn't mean all movies and literature is just as wanting.
In fiction, it helps to be able to check a few neutrons on the rational side and just "go with the emotional flow."In this case one has to check them all at the door. I am willing to go with just about any writer's set of new rules of physics for the sake of a narrative myth. But the writer has to be true to hsi own mythology and more importantly he has to be true to the human spirit and human intelegence. Spiderman II fails miserably on all counts. You may as well just play the video game.
"No, not a great movie: I actually napped for a few moments at one point, but not a bad way to escape the heat and humidity"My airconditioning works fine at home. I'd rather save my money than beat the heat by sitting infront of such drivel.
"(I do agree with your lambasting the fx: I think it's been downhill since computers took over; 2001 was my last enjoyable fx experience)."
Unfortunately many of the people behind the computers did not come to their position with much of a background in art, pre-computer effects or film making in general.
be discovered from the context (if I meant the 2 or 3, I'd have qualified: you didn't have a similar prob w/Batman?).
I was discussing plot: Hamlet's is weak and much of it is contrived. A guy walking around for 4 hours wondering if he should kill his Uncle whom a ghost has told him killed his Dad. Right. Brilliant.
If you know much of Shakey, you know he borrowed plot lines. He didn't care about it, he was after something bigger.
"be discovered from the context (if I meant the 2 or 3, I'd have qualified:"OK, I just wasn't sure. I fail to see many of the kinds of problems in Superman that I cited in Spiderman II.IMO Superman is vastly superior to Spiderman II. The set ups were not contrived and illogical within the mythology that the movie establishes. Superman's/Clark Kent's problems do not defy basic human rationality as far as I can remember. I also have no recollection of such heavy handed shots as the ones I cited in Spiderman II nor do I recall such a chessy ending as per my complaints of Spiderman II. I fail to see any of the failings in Superman that I cited in Spiderman II based on my memory of Superman.
"you didn't have a similar prob w/Batman?)."Actually I did but I thought it would be obvious via my comment on Superman. I didn't particularly like Batman either.
"I was discussing plot: Hamlet's is weak and much of it is contrived."You are talking about one of the greatest plays ever written. I completely disagree with your opinion. The plot is one of the greatest ever written. But feel free to cite anything in the plot that is contrived other than the established mythology in the play.
A guy walking around for 4 hours wondering if he should kill his Uncle whom a ghost has told him killed his Dad. Right. Brilliant.
That is a really poor synopsis of the plot.
"If you know much of Shakey, you know he borrowed plot lines."One can argue that plot lines are always borrowed. But please feel free to cite a play predating Hamlet that closely follows the plot of Hamlet.
"He didn't care about it,"I think he did.
"he was after something bigger."
He was an artist of unique stature amoung all artists ever. He is the only one to arguably be the very best at his art. The comparison between Hamlet and Spiderman II is very hard for me to address without being just plain insulting. I think it is absurd.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
