PDA

View Full Version : So what do You think about Spiderman 3 ? (Spoiler!)



Dirk
05-04-2007, 03:26 AM
Never seen a movie with a superhero and so many crying people ....

Dirk
05-05-2007, 05:39 AM
Sometimes, no answer is an answer, too ;D

pooby
05-05-2007, 06:05 AM
yeah, and sometimes an answer is.. 'I havent seen it yet'

Signal to Noise
05-05-2007, 10:18 AM
I haven't seen it yet. But based on the reviews I've heard/read and the clips I've seen on various programs I am not in any hurry to go to the theater and part with a hundred bucks. ;)

0scrooge0
05-05-2007, 10:49 AM
Too many special FX.
They're abused these days.

Nicolas Jordan
05-05-2007, 11:24 AM
I haven't seen it yet so I really shouldn't judge it, but I just can't help myself. I can't really understand why so many have such high hopes for this movie. It looks like it has really cool special effects but I could tell from the previews I had seen it was really lacking in the areas of story and character development. It will probably be a fun movie to see but I wouldn't expect the story to be as good as the first or even the second one. Sometimes you CAN judge a book by it's cover or preview in this case. I am pretty convinced that it lacks depth. I may go to see this one once it hits the cheap theater. I do however have high hopes for Transformers this summer and I plan on seeing that one on the biggest theater screen I can get to!

Tom Wood
05-05-2007, 11:41 AM
In both of the first two movies the villians kill themselves after two hours of the hero being shat upon. W T F ?

Not interested in this one at all.

newsvixen8
05-05-2007, 01:53 PM
Though the story line gets a bit sappy, and Kirsten Dunst is still in need of acting lessons, the film is worth the price of admission to watch the construction of the Sandman (Lovely!) and the marvy black veiny-looking jumble that infests our hero. Many of the longer action sequences were so complex as to be mind-numbing, and my attention wandered. But go see it during a time when there are likely to be few in the audience and the technical wonders do not disappoint.

Cageman
05-05-2007, 04:38 PM
One of the main reasons to even consider watching a movie like X-Men or Spiderman is because of the childish wow-factor when the guys/gals use their superpowers. :) I was hooked on Spiderman and X-Men comics when I was a child, and seeing these movies makes me remember how much I enjoyed those comics.

As someone said, the VFX-stuff these days are sometimes very distracting and I feel somewhat splitted when it comes to Spidermans somewhat cartoony moves. The main thing is that sometimes it looks very animated, and sometimes it just looks and feels right.

I wouldn't say NO if they decide to make a 4:th movie.... after all, I do enjoy these kind of things... :)

Dirk
05-05-2007, 06:10 PM
I don't mind the FX, think it was great. But the story... omg.

(SPOILER WARNING!)

I had a very bad feeling when I heard that cheesy voice over in the beginning, and I wasn't "disappointed". The Story was ridiculous even in terms of a superhero movie. That strange comet containing this black goo, just falling down in the Park (without any explanation what it is and where it came from) , and attaching itself to Peter Parkers moped by chance ? Or the Sandman - doesn't mind to kill a dozen policemen (or at least, endanger there lives recklessly) - and crying in the end?

GregMalick
05-05-2007, 06:39 PM
Alice & I plan on going tomorrow with our Godchildren & kids.
Our hopes are to have a rip-roaring good time.
I'll let you know if the 11-15 kids think the plot is stupid or it's simply fun.

We're counting on the later for our Sunday afternoon. :D


Oh .... Pirates, Transformers, and Fantastic Four are future planned outings. Just thought I'd point out another perspective on this issue.

Mark The Great
05-06-2007, 04:38 PM
On the whole, the plot was VERY like a comic book...

Yeah, that meteor came out of nowhere.

However, I loved it and didn't mind having to employ willing suspension of disbelief.

Dexter2999
05-06-2007, 05:00 PM
Actually the meteor didn't come out of nowhere. They were in the park watching a metor shower overhead. You guys didn;t see those "shooting stars"?

I enjoyed the movie overall. The script was bad. The suit was featured more as set of clothes than as a living creature. The attitude change in Peter was good, but the attitude change in Spiderman seemed forgotten. Personaly I would have used this movie as an introduction to the symbiote and the ended with the birth of Venom setting up the fourth film. As it was, there was too much going on. Venom is perhaps Spidermans ultimate enemy (sorry classic Spidey fans) and his creation and defeat seemed too rushed. The establishment of the Eddie Brock character was going nicely then at the end it was like they rushed it because they were running out of time.

The Harry Osbourn character also needed more time to develope. His mood swings were so abrubt that it made them hard to find believable. They did it well in the first film with the father but it didn't seem to work in this one. More time for the character developement!

I thought the fight scene at the beginning could have been the end to this movie. A tragic fight that ends in Harry Osbourn's death pushes Peter to finaly rid himself of the violent symbiote. The symbiote would then find Brock and the birth of Venom is the closing shot that makes the audience scream because the movie is OVER!!!

I know that many fans would have freaked out if they had put in the black suite and Venom not appeared. But I think it could have been done if they had leaked it ahead of time so people didn't expect to see Venom then end with a surprise cameo of the villain.

The story arc for the Sandman was handled perfectly I thought. They establish the man. The event that transforms him looks like the sand effects from The Mummy on steroids. Even the ending I was good with. Not exactly true to the comics but still done well.

I'm sure they crammed two movies into one and will make a couple million extra in merchandising because of it. But, it really shot a fourth movie with Venom in the foot costing them hundreds of millions.

shrox
05-06-2007, 05:40 PM
I just saw that the Roper and Ebert show gave it a thumbs down.

Mark The Great
05-06-2007, 06:30 PM
Actually the meteor didn't come out of nowhere. They were in the park watching a metor shower overhead. You guys didn;t see those % stars"?

I enjoyed the movie overall. The script was bad. The suit was featured more as set of clothes than as a living creature. The attitude change in Peter was good, but the attitude change in Spiderman seemed forgotten. Personaly I would have used this movie as an introduction to the symbiote and the ended with the birth of Venom setting up the fourth film. As it was, there was too much going on. Venom is perhaps Spidermans ultimate enemy (sorry classic Spidey fans) and his creation and defeat seemed too rushed. The establishment of the Eddie Brock character was going nicely then at the end it was like they rushed it because they were running out of time.

The Harry Osbourn character also needed more time to develope. His mood swings were so abrubt that it made them hard to find believable. They did it well in the first film with the father but it didn't seem to work in this one. More time for the character developement!

I thought the fight scene at the beginning could have been the end to this movie. A tragic fight that ends in Harry Osbourn's pushes Peter to finaly rid himself of the violent symbiote. The symbiote would then find Brock and the birth of Venom is the closing shot that makes the audience scream because the movie is % !!

I know that many fans would have freaked out if they had put in the black suite and Venom not appeared. But I think it could have been done if they had leaked it ahead of time so people didn't expect to see Venom then end with a surprise cameo of the villain.

The story arc for the Sandman was handled perfectly I thought. They establish the man. The event that transforms him looks like the sand effects from The Mummy on steroids. Even the ending I was good with. Not exactly true to the comics but still done well.

I'm sure they crammed two movies into one and will make a couple million extra in merchandising because of it. But, it really shot a fourth movie with Venom in the foot costing them hundreds of millions.

I mean that that its origin was untold - i.e. it came out of nowhere into the story.

GregMalick
05-07-2007, 01:52 AM
Alice & I plan on going tomorrow with our Godchildren & kids.
Our hopes are to have a rip-roaring good time.
I'll let you know if the 11-15 kids think the plot is stupid or it's simply fun.

We're counting on the later for our Sunday afternoon. :D


Oh .... Pirates, Transformers, and Fantastic Four are future planned outings. Just thought I'd point out another perspective on this issue.

Just got back a few hours ago.

The reviews:

11 year-old Awesome!
13 year-old It was Great!
15 year-old It was good.
35 year-old Killer!

Personally - I thought 2.5 hours was too much. I could have really done without MJ singing (twice - no less!) and the SatNightFever stuff. But it was very comic book and you have to keep in mind that tears are a common comic technique to show deep emotion and pathos. Here we see it again in the Marvel movies. No problem for me.

I think Sam Raimi had particular problems showing Peter Parker's dark side (being taken over by the symbiote) and keeping Peter sympathetic. At best he stumbled - but more accurately fell on his face since it simply came across as ludicrous.

Anyone know if it was in Kirsten Dunst's contract that she had to have two singing scenes? gag :thumbsdow

Action scenes were fabulous. Villains were good. And the major point of the movie (reconciliation) was handled well. Maybe 15 minutes of drek that should have been cut.

Maybe a Director's Cut DVD will be released that tightens the movie up a bit.
I might go for that.

Qexit
05-07-2007, 07:01 AM
OK, I haven't seen this yet. I'll be waiting on the DVD for that. A friend of mine took his family to see it on Friday and thoroughly enjoyed most of it. The kids enjoyed all of it. We had a general chat about it yesterday and he made an interesting observation about the use of motion blur in the effects though. To explain. In the real world, when a fast moving object like a train or the title credits at the end of a TV show go past your eyes, if you just stare straight at them everything is blurred. However, if you turn your head or just move your eyes to track part of the movement, e.g. the train itself or one name in the credits, it comes into pin sharp focus while everything else remains blurred. Try this in a CG effects sequence and everything stays blurred and so appears totally unreal. He referred to a few scenes in the film where Spidey swings across the screen. My friend tried to visually track Spiderman to produce the expected sharpening effect but wasn't able to as every aspect of the scene was motion blurred. Thinking about other films, the same problem occurs. I think he has finally pinpointed one of those things that make CG unreal. You know, the 'I can't quite put my finger on why it seems wrong...but...it is' sort of feeling. I imagine I'll be able to judge for myself around Christmas when the DVD comes out :thumbsup:

SBowie
05-07-2007, 07:36 AM
It's a long, long time since I read a Spiderman comic, but I did so faithfully in the early years it existed. Except for the effects, I have been mostly disappointed throughout this series. Maybe I'm too old to get it now, but Tobey Maguire's Spidey comes across very different than my recollections.

In characteristic form, Peter Parker was often mixed up in complex emotional tangles. The risky business of overlaying the life of a super-hero on a young man still with vulnerable friends and family made this unavoidable. This all added some tension to an otherwise fairly typical 2D superhero story. Occasional social awkwardness familiar to many a teen male also played a role - but I never remember thinking 'this kid is an idiot.' I did so frequently when I watched this last film. Black or red, this is not the Spidey I remember.

UnCommonGrafx
05-07-2007, 08:20 AM
Chuckle,
Steve, it is because you are an old man now and have been jaded with life. ;) ;)

I went because my daughter asked me and we enjoyed the movie. I looked at my watch once during the movie as the lull had me pining for other things to do in the eve. However, the sfx kicked in and I was back in suspension-ville.

Had to chuckle when my daughter, 15, thought I was a kook for not having seen Spidey 2 and that I would be lost. As the movie progressed, and I started explaining things to her, she wondered how I knew all this stuff. When I told her of my childhood of reading the Spidey comic books and watching her face of ... envy(?) I realized that the comic books were indeed more special than the movies are to me today.

However, the special effects are really really well done in this movie. The sandman will be the thing to beat from this movie as it had the most charm and magic to it. That he crys, without affecting his sand-ness, upset me for a moment but I moved on. ;)

Awful acting, awful script, a good movie to escape the day with, though.

SBowie
05-07-2007, 08:52 AM
Steve, it is because you are an old man now and have been jaded with life. ;) ;)
The first part is definitely true, Robert. I had to think about the latter bit. I think few people likely enjoy each new day as much as me (overabundant endorphins, I suppose), so if jaded means 'seen it all before and weary' I'm not so sure I'm ready for the tag. :)

I also thought the particle fx were quite good in a lot of places, and from the first film in the series on I thought they did a good job retaining the classic Spidey stances while putting it all into 3D motion.

I just don't remember Spidey as a wuss - a pubescent geek, sure (who wasn't back then?), but not a wuss.


As the movie progressed, and I started explaining things to her, she wondered how I knew all this stuff.Cling to that moment, mate - those 'Wow, my Dad knows everything!' looks can wane a bit coming out of the teens ... kicks back in again around 30-ish though. ;

UnCommonGrafx
05-07-2007, 09:15 AM
Jaded in the sense of you being "in the biz", definitely not about life. ;)

I'm experiencing the moments from a few ages and am enjoying them all.

As to Peter Parker being a wuss, he sure was. He HAD to be to cover up his SI (Secret Identity) the same as superman, et al. I concur that it was nerve wracking to see such wusserie. The bar scene was enjoyable for that reason. Painful for compassion sake, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Tom Wood
05-07-2007, 10:19 AM
Awful acting, awful script, a good movie to escape the day with, though.

Apparently this is the new standard. Historians have noted that in civilizations past, when the art dropped to this level, the civilization soon cratered. Oh well...:D

SBowie
05-07-2007, 10:21 AM
As to Peter Parker being a wuss, he sure was. He HAD to be to cover up his SI (Secret Identity) the same as superman, et al.
There's 'wimpy enough' for cover, and then there's 'wussy' ... enough to make you gag; guess I'm just not Tobey's biggest fan.

Quote : "You are a wuss: part wimp, and part *****" -- "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" 1982

hrgiger
05-07-2007, 10:24 AM
I liked it overall. It could have been cut down by about 20 minutes. A few scenes with Mary Jane and Aunt May could have been cut without much disapproval from me.

The sandman effects were great. His character development was a little weak though. Although honestly, I've never cared much for story and character development, I just need entertained for a few hours. It was good enough that I resisted the urge to urinate for the last hour of the movie after having my large blue raspberry Icee.

Should have been more Venom and Eddie Brock to make a better story. And I agree, the symbiote should have been more just that instead of a suit that Pete pulled out of a trunk in his closet.

I would have been happy to see more of J Johah's secretary. She's a real dish.

I give it a 7.5.

OOZZEE
05-07-2007, 11:55 AM
I hope the next one is kick ***** and less sappy and emotional... with all the crying they did in this one, they could have washed out SandMan with their tears alone... they didn't need Peter Pecker - oops.. Parker...

6 out of 10 !!

Liber777
05-08-2007, 02:52 PM
...My friend tried to visually track Spiderman to produce the expected sharpening effect but wasn't able to as every aspect of the scene was motion blurred. Thinking about other films, the same problem occurs. I think he has finally pinpointed one of those things that make CG unreal...

The same thing happens with live-action shot on film. It's not a CG thing. Objects blurred on film due to their motion and the cameras shutter speed will remain blurred. The clarity that occurs when tracking an object with the eyes is a real-world phenomenon.

Matt
05-08-2007, 04:33 PM
Finally seen it, awesome effects (especially Sandman) but that's standard these days and to be expected, they can't simply rely on special effects to save the day, because let's face it, the script and story was absolutely appauling.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-08-2007, 10:41 PM
I would have been happy to see more of J Johah's secretary. She's a real dish.

Agreed.

Had I been editor on Spiderman 3, the cutting room floor would have been...well, as far as anyone could see there would be no floor.

Toby Macguire achieved frightening new levels of nerdiness. I think he was way too creepy to be charismatic. Which is a shame, because he was so endearingly dweeby in the first two films.

And where were what's-her-name's nips?!!

Screenplay was a disaster but I liked it overall. Sandman and Venom were amazing.

DogBoy
05-09-2007, 07:35 AM
....And where were what's-her-name's nips?!!

WHAT!!! I thought it was written into her contract. "your nips must make an appearance in every shot."

maybe she don' like Tobey as much as she used to ;)

F1Racer
05-09-2007, 12:41 PM
I didnt think much of the movie. Spidey 2 was much better I reckon.
The CGI was undoubtedly great, particularly Sandmans first 'baby' steps.
The particle effects were mind blowing. Amazing what can be done with the new 9.2 :D

Story wise, nah. Peter Parker made to look darker because his hair was down over his forehead ? That didn't work.
The most cringing scene was Parker walking down the street with the dance beats. Kirstens sining I can tolerate because she`s actually quite a hottie :)

Too much 'exploriing the relationship' and not enough Venom and Sandman.
At least the annoying Goblin Jr has gone now. Amazing that no-one spotted them at the start in that battle with Spidey unmasked.

I wont hesitate to buy it on DVD when its out though because I have the other 2 and I do enjoy the CGI aspects, but I really expected better,

Safe Harbor
05-09-2007, 12:50 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed it! Very entertaining, loved the story (nice to see a superhero movie that shows the superhero's life!). I do agree I wish Venom and Sandman had had a larger part of the movie, but I felt it moved along nicely and had a great, climactic ending.

The comic relief moments were pretty funny... and as far as Pete's "bad" side being so implausible and the "Saturday Night Fever" bit was almost painful to watch, I think that was the whole point. He's such a dork, that even "bad" he's a dork... but I thought it was great.

I would think, given that little extra piece of the black goo in the lab at school, and the nature of the goo able to "re-form" itself, that we might see more of Venom in a future movie... perhaps it wasn't destroyed?

ghostlight
05-09-2007, 01:52 PM
Each villain should have had his own movie, just like the first two films. Each one was interesting enough if they'd just spend the time to develop each one. Amazing action and visual effects. Sandman gathering up in the beginning was just jaw dropping! I feel movies are trying to juggle too much these days. There's something to be said about a nice simple story told well with depth and care as opposed to juggling too many balls in the air at once. All four of those plots flying around in the air during the climax, banging into each other, begging for screen time... left me dizzy. Loved the Harry plotline. Loved Venom! Liked Sandman. Overall, good time in the theater.

Oh, and I loved the Sam Raimi comedy. Bruce Campell with a french accent??? COME ON! That's awesome!

Chris S. (Fez)
05-09-2007, 03:03 PM
Oh, and I loved the Sam Raimi comedy. Bruce Campell with a french accent??? COME ON! That's awesome!

I thought the Bruce Campell cameo was a bit wasted. With that snooty French accent, it was the perfect setup for him to be a total *******.

bluerider
05-13-2007, 03:47 AM
Never seen a movie with a superhero and so many crying people ....

My favorite part of the film was when Dunst got punched by Peter Piper....I mean Peter Parker, or Spider Man. Mind you the force of the strike should have given her whiplash, shes obviously has special powers, like a reinforced spinal column :D

The acting all round was stunning, it reminded me of a school play. The Romance had the depth of a puppy love kinda thing, entertaining. Refreshing script in the way it came across as "most people who can write have a chance of getting their work made into a blockbuster", thats great for the common man/ woman.

Anyway, I loved the effects, who needs good acting and story...give me effects. I loved the decadence of its big fat budget, marvellous. :devil:

JamesCurtis
05-13-2007, 10:04 PM
I liked Spidey 3.

Note on location shooting of Spidey 3:

I live about 30 miles from Cleveland, OH, which was used to shoot some of the city scenes. Couldn't make out stuff in the shots during watching of the flick in the theaters, but will definately check out and study it when it hits DVD. BTW, I had a friend who was part of the crew for the Cleveland shoot.

IgnusFast
05-14-2007, 08:11 AM
All-in-all, I liked it. :)

I was disappointed with the whole Sandman story - it really seemed like they threw that in just to give the Venom/Spidey someone to fight while he was still in dark-side mode. And speaking of Sandman, what kind of scientist performs any kind of experiment involving transforming/controlling matter with A) an open pit, and B) seemingly completely unconcerned that something living (even a bird) could get in and throw off any results?

I actually like the emotional side of the story involving his aunt and MJ, though it was a little ham-handed. The cringe-inducing scenes after the initial transformation were laugh-out-loud funny for my son and I, which was nice.

I dunno. Solid B, I think.

George Lucas is COMPLETELY talking out his *** when he says this one was empty, considering the last Star Wars trilogy. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed them anyway; but George had just as bad a female lead, crap dialog, and over-reliance on effects. I mean, did he build a single set for any of the last 3 movies? :)

CMT
05-14-2007, 09:25 AM
I loved it. Sure the story was a bit sappy in parts, but think about it.... The black suit is supposed to make for a darker Parker/Spidey. There has to be some major consequence of wearing the black suit and to show it's effect on Peter and his relationship with MJ was the perfect answer for it. If that part of the story wasn't there, the whole themes about choices, redemption, and forgiveness is lessened by half.

The way they handled Sandman was elegant IMO. Normally a hum-drum character, but which gets a great story and character make-over and becomes pretty cool. And Thomas Haden Church did a great job. I didn't get the feeling he was just thrown in. He was interwoven with the story as the man who shot Peter's uncle and who is forgiven by Peter at the end, but wasn't even forgiven by his wife at the beginning of the movie. Then there were a couple lulls in the action where Aunt May starts talking about stuff and you get a bit bored, but if you listen, it all ties in and she comes across as a very wise woman. Little plot points like that are what really make this movie great to me. And there were a few others as well.

As far as some of the over the top Sam Raimi humor? What can I say? You either like it or you don't. All I can say is that I was ROFL and so was most of the audience.

And seeing how stupid people can be, it's easier for me to imagine some scientists leaving a particle experiment out in the open like that than suspending my disbelief in a radio active super spider creating a superhero. So I have no problem with slightly cartoonish animation or things like that in a comic book movie.

I only wish Venom either had more screen time or was still around for a 4th movie. I didn't feel he was used to the fullest.

And Lucas made a poor choice for Padme/Amidalla. She really had problems with that role. Just no believability in her acting (but easy to look at!) Episodes 1 and 2 were severely lacking, but episode 3 really came through form me.

redlum
05-24-2007, 11:08 AM
I liked it. I thought the (spoiler) theme of forgiveness was very good.

Titus
05-24-2007, 06:03 PM
Yesterday had the opportunity to watch spidey. It was good, not like the first two but maybe the IMAX theater had something to do with the overall experience.

Too many bad guys and conflicts, the obvious had to happen, good turned bad and bad turned good, blah!. CG for Sandman was excellent, that's the kind of progress I like to see more often.

Oh! and the part of spidey travelling in front of the full frame american flag, they could skip it, no need for distracting messages.

Whelkn
05-24-2007, 06:04 PM
whats the distracting message?

Titus
05-24-2007, 06:34 PM
I'm still trying to figure the message, that's what make it so distracting.

redlum
05-24-2007, 07:09 PM
Oh! and the part of spidey travelling in front of the full frame american flag, they could skip it, no need for distracting messages.

Maybe next time it should be a white flag, or mexican flag? Come on. Spider man, New York City - The flag shots are part of the story. :2guns:

GregMalick
05-24-2007, 07:24 PM
I just checked and Spiderman3 has made $780M worldwide (as of today).
That's 3/4 BILLION DOLLARS.

Say what you will about it's faults - it was unbelievably successful.

Titus
05-24-2007, 07:26 PM
Maybe next time it should be a white flag, or mexican flag? Come on. Spider man, New York City - The flag shots are part of the story. :2guns:

I don't care the color of the flag, this shot was distracting as spidey holding a bowl of cheerios. But hey, I'm making comments on my experience, if yours was different, that's ok.

Whelkn
05-24-2007, 11:35 PM
so was it that it was a big flag that bothered you? or was it that is was a big American flag that bugged you?

oDDity
05-25-2007, 05:12 AM
I just checked and Spiderman3 has made $780M worldwide (as of today).
That's 3/4 BILLION DOLLARS.

Say what you will about it's faults - it was unbelievably successful.

What's that got to do with anything. Are you suggesting that the value of everything should now be judged entirely on the number of drones that paid to see it?
That's exactly the problem. The way they make these movies is based on a lowest common denomenator formula.
'Let's think up what will have the most appeal to the most common people, and make it even less intelligent than that just to be safe'
And you bunch of twats having a 4 page discussion about it should be ashamed of yourselves.
I'll never see. I don't care if they were paying me to watch it, and giving away free blowjobs, I still wouldn't go.

sammael
05-25-2007, 05:22 AM
I just checked and Spiderman3 has made $780M worldwide (as of today).
That's 3/4 BILLION DOLLARS.

Say what you will about it's faults - it was unbelievably successful.

In Australia a billion dollars is 1000 million... was that a typo or is that a US billion?

oDDity
05-25-2007, 06:27 AM
780 million is (roughly) 3/4 of 1000 million. What typo.

mattclary
05-25-2007, 06:45 AM
I'll never see. I don't care if they were paying me to watch it, and giving away free blowjobs, I still wouldn't go.

Who's doing the blowing? That could greatly affect my desire to see the movie! Free BJs are a great incentive in my book! :thumbsup:

CMT
05-25-2007, 08:33 AM
Who's doing the blowing?

Venom ...

mattclary
05-25-2007, 08:37 AM
Venom ...

Ooooooo kaaayyyyyyy. Put me down for a "no". ;)

bluerider
05-25-2007, 10:14 AM
so was it that it was a big flag that bothered you? or was it that is was a big American flag that bugged you?

Personaly I like to see big flags. Its important visual reference as to which country its in, some people could miss that. :)

redlum
05-25-2007, 10:31 AM
What's that got to do with anything. Are you suggesting that the value of everything should now be judged entirely on the number of drones that paid to see it?
That's exactly the problem. The way they make these movies is based on a lowest common denomenator formula.
'Let's think up what will have the most appeal to the most common people, and make it even less intelligent than that just to be safe'...

but sir, if the industry didn't make movies for the money they couldn't afford such dogs as Primary Colors, Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, Letters from Iwo Jima, The Good Shepherd, and An Inconvenient Truth. (to name a few)

Tom Wood
05-25-2007, 10:51 AM
The reviews for SP3 are generally along the line of: "The story sucked but the FX were good enough that I enjoyed it anyway."

They had enough money to 'draw' every frame to perfection and still couldn't tell a good story. That people settle for that is a tragedy, not a triumph.

There is a part of The Power of Myth where Joseph Campbell describes some cave paintings that appear duplicated and out of focus when viewed by electric lighting. But when viewed by flickering firelight, they dance and move. The first 'motion pictures' shown in a large dark room. I'll bet their stories were better.

redlum
05-25-2007, 11:27 AM
There is a part of The Power of Myth where Joseph Campbell describes some cave paintings that appear duplicated and out of focus when viewed by electric lighting. But when viewed by flickering firelight, they dance and move. The first 'motion pictures' shown in a large dark room. I'll bet their stories were better.

I have a tattoo on my left butt cheek that does the same thing. :D

GregMalick
05-25-2007, 11:28 AM
What's that got to do with anything. Are you suggesting that the value of everything should now be judged entirely on the number of drones that paid to see it?
That's exactly the problem. The way they make these movies is based on a lowest common denomenator formula.
'Let's think up what will have the most appeal to the most common people, and make it even less intelligent than that just to be safe'
And you bunch of twats having a 4 page discussion about it should be ashamed of yourselves.
I'll never see. I don't care if they were paying me to watch it, and giving away free blowjobs, I still wouldn't go.

Actually, the title of the thread is " So what do You think about Spiderman 3 ? (Spoiler!)"

The title isn't "Do you think Spiderman3 should be judged as art?" or
"Do you think Spiderman3 had a great storyline?"

To answer your question:
No - the value of everything should not be judged entirely on the number of drones that paid to see it.

But sometimes a Comic Book movie is just that.
We're not judging Leonardo DaVinci's work here - you know.

BTW, you should change your name to The Denomenator.
It has a nice ring and the spelling strikes me as funny. :ohmy:

oDDity
05-25-2007, 12:57 PM
Actually, the title of the thread is " So what do You think about Spiderman 3 ? (Spoiler!)"

The title isn't "Do you think Spiderman3 should be judged as art?" or
"Do you think Spiderman3 had a great storyline?"

To answer your question:
No - the value of everything should not be judged entirely on the number of drones that paid to see it.

But sometimes a Comic Book movie is just that.
We're not judging Leonardo DaVinci's work here - you know.



Exactly, so a bunch of grown men sitting around having a serious discussion about the narrative of a movie that was obviously made for 10 year old boys and mongoloids to watch, strikes me as rather pointless.
Do you really think those 10 year olds and/or mongoloids are interested in the narrative or character development?
No, they just want to see a man in a funny suit beat up some ridiculous villains in some ridiculous fashion.
This is the problem with you dweebs, you're still nostalgic for spiderman, and you seriously expect them to make an intelligent, adult spiderman movie, rather than a piece of kiddie drivel.
Ain't gonna happen, so you can either watch the drivel and shut up, or, like me, neither watch nor care about it.
I'm not sure what's worse, a bunch of dweebs watching a kiddie spiderman movie, or the idea that adults might actually make spiderman for other adults to watch.
The world is growing progressively more puerile. People are remaining at a mental age of 12 for longer and longer, just what happened to dogs when we domesticated them, they continued behaving like puppies for their whole lives.

Titus
05-25-2007, 01:10 PM
This is the problem with you dweebs, you're still nostalgic for spiderman, and you seriously expect them to make an intelligent, adult spiderman movie, rather than a piece of kiddie drivel.

You have things wrong here. Something I really liked from the first two movies was the teen story, the problems every teenager has and are reflected magnificent as a fable. One of the problems now is the conflict (in every story must exist a conflict) being more oriented to adults. We have Peter Parker being sucessful but his beautiful partner failling professionally, this is something we suffer as adults or at least young adults, kids or teenagers doesn't have to live with it yet.

Liber777
05-25-2007, 01:11 PM
...a movie that was obviously made for 10 year old boys and mongoloids to watch...

My twelve year old saw it and found the narrative lacking... (his words to me)

(:

redlum
05-25-2007, 01:30 PM
Exactly, so a bunch of grown men sitting around having a serious discussion about the narrative of a movie that was obviously made for 10 year old boys and mongoloids to watch, strikes me as rather pointless.
Do you really think those 10 year olds and/or mongoloids are interested in the narrative or character development?
No, they just want to see a man in a funny suit beat up some ridiculous villains in some ridiculous fashion.
This is the problem with you dweebs, you're still nostalgic for spiderman, and you seriously expect them to make an intelligent, adult spiderman movie, rather than a piece of kiddie drivel.
Ain't gonna happen, so you can either watch the drivel and shut up, or, like me, neither watch nor care about it.
I'm not sure what's worse, a bunch of dweebs watching a kiddie spiderman movie, or the idea that adults might actually make spiderman for other adults to watch.
The world is growing progressively more puerile. People are remaining at a mental age of 12 for longer and longer, just what happened to dogs when we domesticated them, they continued behaving like puppies for their whole lives.


Sheesh, what a grump elitist. For someone who claims to be not interested (to put it lightly) in the spiderman movie you've certainly gone to great lengths not to mention spending considerable time writing about it to tell us how much not only the movie annoyed you but also how much the people on this string annoy you. Why not just do what most folks do, change the channel. And don't go away mad, just go away.

bluerider
05-25-2007, 01:51 PM
You have things wrong here. Something I really liked from the first two movies was the teen story, the problems every teenager has and are reflected magnificent as a fable. One of the problems now is the conflict (in every story must exist a conflict) being more oriented to adults. We have Peter Parker being sucessful but his beautiful partner failling professionally, this is something we suffer as adults or at least young adults, kids or teenagers doesn't have to live with it yet.

His beautiful partner. I never noticed the beautiful partner I though there was just Dunst?

CMT
05-25-2007, 02:09 PM
This is the problem with you dweebs, you're still nostalgic for spiderman, and you seriously expect them to make an intelligent, adult spiderman movie, rather than a piece of kiddie drivel.
Ain't gonna happen, so you can either watch the drivel and shut up, or, like me, neither watch nor care about it.
Yep. Call me what you want. But at least I don't go through life with a brooding look all the time like your avatar. I know how to have fun and can let myself enjoy some of the things I loved as a kid. Just because you grow up doesn't mean you have to hate everything you used to love. I don't know where you get that idea. And just to annoy you a bit more, I also watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Batman on Saturday mornings. Great stuff!


I'm not sure what's worse, a bunch of dweebs watching a kiddie spiderman movie, or the idea that adults might actually make spiderman for other adults to watch.
The world is growing progressively more puerile. People are remaining at a mental age of 12 for longer and longer, just what happened to dogs when we domesticated them, they continued behaving like puppies for their whole lives.

The world isn't becoming more puerile, you're just getting older and probably don't remember what it was like to enjoy those childish things. That's probably why you think it's below you.


His beautiful partner. I never noticed the beautiful partner I though there was just Dunst?

She's not bad, but judging by her complexion, she never found a cure for her vampirism from Interview...

Titus
05-25-2007, 02:11 PM
His beautiful partner. I never noticed the beautiful partner I though there was just Dunst?

Oh, I'm sorry for my engrish, maybe you can help me translating the word from spanish. Come on, I know you can

oDDity
05-25-2007, 02:29 PM
The world isn't becoming more puerile, you're just getting older and probably don't remember what it was like to enjoy those childish things. That's probably why you think it's below you.

Lol, well of course, I don't enjoy the things I did when I was 12 (well, maybe one)
Certainly not watching cartoons.
That's what being puerile means - still enjoying the things that children do.
You just admitted to it then, and backed up my claim while trying to deny it.

oDDity
05-25-2007, 02:37 PM
Sheesh, what a grump elitist. For someone who claims to be not interested (to put it lightly) in the spiderman movie you've certainly gone to great lengths not to mention spending considerable time writing about it to tell us how much not only the movie annoyed you but also how much the people on this string annoy you. Why not just do what most folks do, change the channel. And don't go away mad, just go away.

Considerable time?
I'm not sure when you learned how to write, but I've been doing it a long time, and can write a post like this in less than a minute.
Anyway, if I put doubt in just one persons mind that they're being a twat by watching a cartoon or movie based on one, then it was worth it.
All it takes to let this puerile media sh1tstorm have it's way, and melt the brain of every human on the planet, is for us few who see through it to do nothing.

CMT
05-25-2007, 02:43 PM
I wasn't denying it. I was embracing it. I find it a bit sad that you only like the "grown up" things. Cuz you'll never be able to relate to your kids, if you ever have any. They'll consider you a boring grumpy old man.

But I find it absolutely hilarious that you call indulging in some innocent fun watching a movie as puerile while name calling and aggressively putting down what others enjoy like a grade school bully. Who's the more childish?

And if I can get just one grumpy Grinch to see that, then it was worth it.

CMT
05-25-2007, 02:49 PM
If all adults thought like you do, then there would be nothing for kids to enjoy. Who would build their childish swingsets? Or animate their cartoons? Or sculpt their action figures? They would have a very boring and non childlike childhood.

So.... What's the one thing you still enjoy from your childhood? Wait.... if it involves a magazine, I don't want to know....

pooby
05-25-2007, 02:51 PM
a movie that was obviously made for 10 year old boys and mongoloids to watch,

I think it's lovely that they would make a film for such a demographic minority.

The makers must have been delighted when they discovered that it also had far wider appeal.

sammael
05-25-2007, 03:23 PM
780 million is (roughly) 3/4 of 1000 million. What typo.
your right, I read that as 78 million, must be this monitor taking its toll on my eyes.
Well thats an unbelievable profit margin. but I guess the film itself probably cost in excess of 150mil just to make it.

CMT
05-25-2007, 03:26 PM
Try 258 mill. But they knew it would rake in that in that much the first week or two.

cresshead
05-25-2007, 03:37 PM
i think spiderman3 is just another 'popcorn movie'...i've not seen 3 but 1 and 2 were..well okay to watch on a rainy sunday...certainly not the sort of movie i'd purchase at full price on dvd..or go n see in the cinema.it's at best 'okay' and certainly not in the same list as 'incredibles', titanic, aliens, T2, toystory 1 and 2, pitch black, starwars 4,5 and 6...i'd sooner watch diehard...any of them:thumbsup:

sammael
05-25-2007, 03:37 PM
Ill have to agree with you on this one CMT, I still enjoy a lot of stuff that I did when I was a kid. Although I did think spiderman 3 was terrible, I just went along to please my GF, I did not like either of the other 2 films much they seem to get progressively worse. Im hanging for transformers though & I did enjoy the x-men films.
They have nothing on a film like Pan's Labyrinth but still its a bit of mindless entertainment when you cant be bothered doing anything else.

GregMalick
05-25-2007, 04:15 PM
Lol, well of course, I don't enjoy the things I did when I was 12 (well, maybe one)
Certainly not watching cartoons.
That's what being puerile means - still enjoying the things that children do.
You just admitted to it then, and backed up my claim while trying to deny it.


How can anyone be an artist and not enjoy many of the things they did as a child. I still enjoy many many things I enjoyed when I was twelve:

Eating a good meal.
Talking with friends and family.
Singing.
Drawing.
Walking in the park.
Riding a bike.
Swimming.
Watching a butterfly.
Holding a girl's hand.
Playing with a dog.
Reading books.
Dreaming.

The world would indeed be a bleak place if no-one enjoyed the good things they enjoyed when they were twelve. I think puerile means something other than you're stating above.

oDDity
05-25-2007, 04:23 PM
Yes, it means a man watching a man pretending to be a man with spiders abilities beating up even sillier men.
Point proven.
There are many silly things kids do, which you don't do any more, and I'm claiming this should be one of them.

oDDity
05-25-2007, 04:45 PM
If all adults thought like you do, then there would be nothing for kids to enjoy. Who would build their childish swingsets? Or animate their cartoons? Or sculpt their action figures? They would have a very boring and non childlike childhood.

So.... What's the one thing you still enjoy from your childhood? Wait.... if it involves a magazine, I don't want to know....

Children don't need all that garish crap that manufacturers are constantly trying to sell to parents. (or rather advertise to kids to get them to pester their parents into buying it)
How do you think kids managed before the modern age of ultra-consumerism (points finger at USA again).
They still had fun, don't worry.
I still remembr my fondest days, just out building treehuts and generally getting up to mischief, not sitting in front of the box watching cartoons.
If I have kids, I won't fob them of with commercial faddish crap so I can get on with my own life, which is what parents currently do.
My remaining childhood pleasure does involve Mrs Palm and her five lovely daughters, yes, thouh perhaps not quite so regularly.

CMT
05-25-2007, 05:11 PM
Don't make this about the manufacturers. Adults creating things for children's amusement has been around for centuries. Sure it happens more today for various reasons, but the fact is that an adult will buy a toy or build a tree house for a child because they remember what it was like to be a child with those things. A Spiderman action figure, or a wooden doll from 200 years ago. Same thing.

I do however believe that children are more spoiled overall these days because parents don't know when to say no. This is part of the problem in the US where kids are becoming lazy and obese because parents pretty much let them do what they want.

parm
05-25-2007, 05:16 PM
Exactly, so a bunch of grown men sitting around having a serious discussion about the narrative of a movie that was obviously made for 10 year old boys and mongoloids to watch,

The preferred and less offensive nomenclature, is Downs Syndrome, I believe.

sammael
05-25-2007, 05:32 PM
The preferred and less offensive nomenclature, is Downs Syndrome, I believe.

I thought mongaloid was more of a general term... maybe im wrong?

bluerider
05-25-2007, 06:07 PM
The preferred and less offensive nomenclature, is Downs Syndrome, I believe.

There was me thinking he was on about a Ghengis Khan relative still hanging out in Outer Mongolia.

oDDity
05-26-2007, 03:31 AM
The preferred and less offensive nomenclature, is Downs Syndrome, I believe.

Thanks Mr PC man, and who decided that?
I suppose if people of African descent ever decide that the word 'black' is offensive, we'll have to remove that from the language as well, will we?
That's the way a modern society should be run, pander down to the the weakest and most sensitive people who are most easily offended, until you reach the point where it's literally illegal to utter certain syllables.

cresshead
05-26-2007, 09:33 AM
and then we'll have 'double speak'...a barely hidden language of words that mean 'real words' but we can use so no one 'suffers' irreparable damage to their life which 'we' of course are to blame...this has already started and is beyond stupid in my opinion..me? i call a spade a spade...if you don't like it..tuff..get over it!

bluerider
05-26-2007, 09:36 AM
Ah.... a digging Utensil, now I know what you mean.

parm
05-26-2007, 10:12 AM
Thanks Mr PC man, and who decided that?
I suppose if people of African descent ever decide that the word 'black' is offensive, we'll have to remove that from the language as well, will we?
That's the way a modern society should be run, pander down to the the weakest and most sensitive people who are most easily offended, until you reach the point where it's literally illegal to utter certain syllables.

No oDDity.Civilized society protects the, (or at least should), weakest, least able to look after themselves.

I'm not wishing to derail the thread. Just saying that: Anyone who has a relative with Down Syndrome, reading this thread. Would not appreciate that condition being used to insult the supposed intelligence of others. Let alone the offensive term you used to describe the condition. As to your other comment. I don't think it's acceptable to equate any ethnic group, with the characteristics you implied in the sentence I quoted. Nor do I think the nomenclature created by Victorian anthropologists. In a clumsy attempt to classify humanity like animals is appropriate.

Anyway. I enjoyed watching Spiderman epecially for the CG. And seeing as most people on this CG forum. Either work doing special effects in films, or would like to to work in films doing special effects. It seems only sensible research, to see all the latest stuff.

oDDity
05-26-2007, 11:41 AM
Heh, I can see you're the kind of guy who phones TV and radio stations in disgust if someone makes a joke you consider even remotely non-PC, or someone uses a cat for an experiment.
I've always wondered who they were.
I suppose living in a high fantasy comic book world like that of spiderman must be therapy for you, since you can't get offended by anything for a few hours.

parm
05-26-2007, 01:08 PM
Don't be ridiculous

Stooch
05-26-2007, 02:52 PM
Maybe next time it should be a white flag, or mexican flag? Come on. Spider man, New York City - The flag shots are part of the story. :2guns:

I hated the shot. It seemed extremely out of place and distracting. I mean i dont hate the flag it just seemed out of place, enough for me to burst out laughing. I can see if the flag was somewhere int he background but its placement was just gratuitous.

The story was too convoluted too. too many characters and their sudden changes of behavior was hard to follow and not believeable. This movie could have been shorter and more focused.

overall i did not feel as if i wasted my money. it was an experience. Unfortunatelly this 2.5 hour epic had as much depth as 1 issue of the comic...

Stooch
05-26-2007, 02:57 PM
Thanks Mr PC man, and who decided that?
I suppose if people of African descent ever decide that the word 'black' is offensive, we'll have to remove that from the language as well, will we?
That's the way a modern society should be run, pander down to the the weakest and most sensitive people who are most easily offended, until you reach the point where it's literally illegal to utter certain syllables.

wow. a moment of brilliance there for oddity :) i totally agree with that statement. always found this hypocritic "anti racist" movement to be self defeating. If you want to be "equal" then accept the fact that no language is "reserved" for your race.

Whelkn
05-26-2007, 10:39 PM
dude their retarded its not like they would get what oddity is saying ;-) You should watch that south park where Timmy is the leader of the band. It might teach you an important life lesson.

sammael
05-27-2007, 01:09 AM
Timmay!

oDDity
05-27-2007, 02:46 AM
I think a lot of speciality groups (disabled, women, the gays, various people of ethnic backgrounds) feel they should now get extra special treatment to make up or the past when they weren't being treated as equals.
I'm not sure how long this has to last though, before the balance can go back to genuinely equal, and you can make a joke about a black man or a gay, just as easily as you can make one about a white heterosexual, without being frowned at byt he likes of parm.

parm
05-27-2007, 04:14 AM
and you can make a joke about a black man or a gay

How fascinating. What kind of jokes do you want to make about black people or gays?


without being frowned at byt he likes of parm.

oDDity, you're over-reacting. You didn't say black or Gay. You said this:


Exactly, so a bunch of grown men sitting around having a serious discussion about the narrative of a movie that was obviously made for 10 year old boys and mongoloids to watch,

Which I think, is a little bit off.

In this same context. So would the use of the words, blacks or gays, in my opinion.


dude their retarded its not like they would get what oddity is saying ;-)

At least the word 'retarded' is non-specific. And could be applied to various attributes or characteristics. btw, it's they're and not their :)


You should watch that south park where Timmy is the leader of the band. It might teach you an important life lesson.

Thanks, but, I seriously doubt it. I already know how to treat people with courtesy and respect.

oDDity
05-27-2007, 07:29 AM
How fascinating. What kind of jokes do you want to make about black people or gays?

Funny ones.
For example, I don't consider the likes of Bernard Manning to be racist. The sort of 'a black fella walks into a pub..' jokes to me are not racism.
A fat man standing in a club making people laugh is not a danger to society.
He tells Irish jokes as well, and they bother me as little as the black or gay ones.
You're trying to suggest that by hearing a few derogatory jokes about blacks or gays or Irish, you're suddenly going to develop a lower opinion of them.
If you are, then the fault lies with you, not the comedian, if you're that easily swayed by a joke.
It's not exactly the same as Muslim clerics standing in mosques and literally telling their congregations to go out and kill westerners.

I was using the term mongoloid to refer to people with subnormal IQs. I'm not sure how that is a slight to people with Down's syndrome. If I had wanted to offend them , I would have said Down's and not mongoloids.
As you noticed, not many people even associate the terms any more.
I made a similar jest on a board once, and one person actually thought I was having a go at the population of Mongolia.
Tolkien also got it in the neck from people like you, thinking he was describing orcs as having the characteristics of Mongolians, and therefore he was a drooling racist, just because the heroes of the story generally happened to be white.
That's the level of finger-pointing paranoia you can easily descend to if you're not careful.

bobakabob
05-27-2007, 09:36 AM
Funny ones.
For example, I don't consider the likes of Bernard Manning to be racist. The sort of 'a black fella walks into a pub..' jokes to me are not racism.
A fat man standing in a club making people laugh is not a danger to society.
He tells Irish jokes as well, and they bother me as little as the black or gay ones.
You're trying to suggest that by hearing a few derogatory jokes about blacks or gays or Irish, you're suddenly going to develop a lower opinion of them.
If you are, then the fault lies with you, not the comedian, if you're that easily swayed by a joke.
It's not exactly the same as Muslim clerics standing in mosques and literally telling their congregations to go out and kill westerners.

I was using the term mongoloid to refer to people with subnormal IQs. I'm not sure how that is a slight to people with Down's syndrome. If I had wanted to offend them , I would have said Down's and not mongoloids.
As you noticed, not many people even associate the terms any more.
I made a similar jest on a board once, and one person actually thought I was having a go at the population of Mongolia.
Tolkien also got it in the neck from people like you, thinking he was describing orcs as having the characteristics of Mongolians, and therefore he was a drooling racist, just because the heroes of the story generally happened to be white.
That's the level of finger-pointing paranoia you can easily descend to if you're not careful.

Oddity, old trout, calm down, not everyone is as open minded as you. Why not lie down in a dark room for half an hour?

parm
05-27-2007, 09:40 AM
Oddity, old trout, calm down, not everyone is as open minded as you. Why not lie down in a dark room for half an hour?

PMSL

I was going to reply to oDD. But that is hilarious

bluerider
05-27-2007, 09:45 AM
Oddity= A fat man standing in a club making people laugh is not a danger to society.
He tells Irish jokes as well, and they bother me as little as the black or gay ones.
------

The Irish jokes wouldn't bother many people in "Ulster" because we can pretend they are own about the "Republic".

oDDity
05-27-2007, 10:00 AM
That's not how they see or intend it though, they consider anyone in Ireland, North or South, an Irishman.
That's right parm, do a bit of backpedalling, your barge in with your PC spiel, and and when cornered, try to deny you're that kind of guy at all.

parm
05-27-2007, 10:51 AM
.. He tells Irish jokes as well, and they bother me as little as the black or gay ones...

..It's not exactly the same as Muslim clerics standing in mosques and literally telling their congregations to go out and kill westerners...

Like I said oDDity. You're way over-reacting.

And I have absolutely no interest in your views on black people, gays or disabled groups, you can keep them.

I do see the irony in you. Accusing the makers of Spiderman 3, of pandering to the lowest common denominator. And then invoking Bernard Manning as being, somehow the high watermark of comic genius. That's funny.


I was using the term mongoloid to refer to people with subnormal IQs. I'm not sure how that is a slight to people with Down's syndrome.

No matter how you look at it. Using people who have a congenital disorder. To insult the intelligence of 10 year olds, and the people who enjoyed Spiderman 3. Is not cool.


Tolkien also got it in the neck from people like you, thinking he was describing orcs as having the characteristics of Mongolians, and therefore he was a drooling racist, just because the heroes of the story generally happened to be white.

How did you get Tolkien into this? Never mind.

FYI. I thought that the 'Lord of the rings' trilogy was great, and 'The Hobbit' and 'The Silmarillion'. I've got the BBC radio 4 adaptation of LOTR in my car for long journeys. Best radio adaptation of a story ever.

I don't see any difference between Elves, Orcs, Wizards and Sauron. And costumed super heroes fighting outlandish villains. The themes are exactly the same.

Titus
05-27-2007, 12:50 PM
How did you get Tolkien into this? Never mind.

That's why we have our own enfant terrible, to derrail the conversations.

Whelkn
05-27-2007, 12:56 PM
Parm you got me --- I only got a B in English--- you my friend got an A-- Now I know Whiskey and word usage don't go hand in hand. :-)

oDDity
05-27-2007, 01:31 PM
No matter how you look at it. Using people who have a congenital disorder. To insult the intelligence of 10 year olds, and the people who enjoyed Spiderman 3. Is not cool.
I've never claimed to be either cool or fashionable, nor would I want to be.




How did you get Tolkien into this? Never mind.

FYI. I thought that the 'Lord of the rings' trilogy was great, and 'The Hobbit' and 'The Silmarillion'. I've got the BBC radio 4 adaptation of LOTR in my car for long journeys. Best radio adaptation of a story ever.

I don't see any difference between Elves, Orcs, Wizards and Sauron. And costumed super heroes fighting outlandish villains. The themes are exactly the same.
I wasn't using it as an example of great literature, I was using it as an example of your kind of PC-ness gone mad. That's where it ends up. You start off by chiding someone for using the term mongoloid in a way you don't like, and it ends up with you scanning every novel and TV show for the remotest possibility of racism, sexism, or homophobia.
So, loosen that anus of yours up a little, (the gay fellas might help you out on that one) and have a good laugh at Bernard Manning's 'black fella' jokes, it'll do you good.

parm
05-27-2007, 04:36 PM
I've never claimed to be either cool or fashionable, nor would I want to be.


And you bunch of twats having a 4 page discussion about it should be ashamed of yourselves.
I'll never see. I don't care if they were paying me to watch it, and giving away free blowjobs, I still wouldn't go.


This is the problem with you dweebs, you're still nostalgic for spiderman, and you seriously expect them to make an intelligent, adult spiderman movie, rather than a piece of kiddie drivel.
Ain't gonna happen, so you can either watch the drivel and shut up, or, like me, neither watch nor care about it.
I'm not sure what's worse, a bunch of dweebs watching a kiddie spiderman movie, or the idea that adults might actually make spiderman for other adults to watch.


If I have kids, I won't fob them of with commercial faddish crap so I can get on with my own life, which is what parents currently do.

LOL.

Here's some advice for you. It's your own:


So, loosen that anus of yours up a little, (the gay fellas might help you out on that one)




and have a good laugh at Bernard Manning's 'black fella' jokes, it'll do you good.

Er, no thanks. I'll stick with a good movie.

Well, you're boring me now. You make it too easy.

See you around:D

Stooch
05-27-2007, 05:05 PM
Like I said oDDity. You're way over-reacting.

And I have absolutely no interest in your views on black people, gays or disabled groups, you can keep them.
I do see the irony in you. Accusing the makers of Spiderman 3, of pandering to the lowest common denominator. And then invoking Bernard Manning as being, somehow the high watermark of comic genius. That's funny.
No matter how you look at it. Using people who have a congenital disorder. To insult the intelligence of 10 year olds, and the people who enjoyed Spiderman 3. Is not cool.
How did you get Tolkien into this? Never mind.
FYI. I thought that the 'Lord of the rings' trilogy was great, and 'The Hobbit' and 'The Silmarillion'. I've got the BBC radio 4 adaptation of LOTR in my car for long journeys. Best radio adaptation of a story ever.
I don't see any difference between Elves, Orcs, Wizards and Sauron. And costumed super heroes fighting outlandish villains. The themes are exactly the same.

you know parm, you are probably trying to be a good PC person by instilling your values onto oddity but I really doubt that its necessary here... He doesnt strike me as a racist, infact no one on these forums does. I enjoy a few jokes that insult all sorts of demographics. The important distinction, as oddity pointed out, is that i know that they are jokes. and there will always be people offended by any joke you can imagine. Infact, PC jokes are rarely funny. I find it more offensive when you assume that other people are racist and feel compelled to force your ideology on them, than the jokes you are getting worked up over.

parm
05-27-2007, 05:21 PM
you know parm, you are probably trying to be a good PC person by instilling your values onto oddity

I'm just having some fun Stooch, that's all. I'm sure oDD enjoyed himself as well :)

oDDity
05-27-2007, 05:43 PM
Not sure what your point was with all those quotes of mine. None of them are contradictory.
Being cool and fashionable is doing all the faddish things that are currently en vogue, and that's exactly what I don't do.

bluerider
05-27-2007, 06:05 PM
That's not how they see or intend it though, they consider anyone in Ireland, North or South, an Irishman.
.

Who cares how they see it?

oDDity
05-28-2007, 03:00 AM
Well, I did choose an Irish passport rather than a British one. I don't mind being seen as Irish when abroad, since they are liked everywhere, while the British, having fcuked over everyone on the planet for many centuries, aren't welcome in many places.

bobakabob
05-28-2007, 05:42 AM
Well, I did choose an Irish passport rather than a British one. I don't mind being seen as Irish when abroad, since they are liked everywhere, while the British, having fcuked over everyone on the planet for many centuries, aren't welcome in many places.

Surprised you don't have your own customised Oddity Passport as clearly, not only are you the most likeable person in the known universe but a nation unto yourself :D

bluerider
05-28-2007, 09:00 AM
Well, I did choose an Irish passport rather than a British one. I don't mind being seen as Irish when abroad, since they are liked everywhere, while the British, having fcuked over everyone on the planet for many centuries, aren't welcome in many places.


So you prefer to be popular and liked then, theres an irony there.

oDDity
05-29-2007, 03:17 AM
It gives me a fair starting point at least, and then from there I can choose which way to go.
I don't want to be automatically disliked before I've even insulted anyone, that's all.

IgnusFast
05-29-2007, 08:56 AM
Is there anyone you haven't insulted or annoyed to distraction left? :)

redlum
05-29-2007, 09:29 AM
Yes, it means a man watching a man pretending to be a man with spiders abilities beating up even sillier men.
Point proven.
There are many silly things kids do, which you don't do any more, and I'm claiming this should be one of them.

what's with this guy. It sounds like someone p*ssed on his oatmeal.

Darth Mole
05-29-2007, 09:45 AM
Hoo boy, I'd missed the way this thread was panning out.

(Opens can of Coke, sits back in favourite armchair, watches carnage unfold).

redlum
05-29-2007, 09:55 AM
The story was too convoluted too. too many characters and their sudden changes of behavior was hard to follow and not believeable. This movie could have been shorter and more focused.

overall i did not feel as if i wasted my money. it was an experience. Unfortunatelly this 2.5 hour epic had as much depth as 1 issue of the comic...

I think these comments could easily work for the new Pirates movie. I saw that yesterday. Way too long and far too complicated. People shifting sides too many times, action was too fast. The FX were cool but got lost in all the confusion. Overal I give it a 6 because with all it's faults I could still dance to it. :-)

redlum
05-29-2007, 09:56 AM
I don't want to be automatically disliked before I've even insulted anyone, that's all.

Too late. :D

LightWuv
05-30-2007, 12:45 AM
Saw the movie (Spiderman 3, if thread contributors remember) yesterday. My brother and I decided we should have brought wine, because we weren't prepared for the sheer amount of cheese on the menu. Bad cheese, too!

Now I'm thinking I should have brought some of that cheese to this thread :D

In short tough, my peeve with the movie is that to me it clearly wasn't on the same (low, ok, relax) level as 1 and 2. Expectations weren't high; after two movies I sort of thought I had the franchise pegged. Just wasn't prepared for that sort of drop.

Ick.

Wuv

redlum
05-30-2007, 05:36 AM
Wuv


Cool avatar. Is that lightwave or the family pet? :thumbsup:

oDDity
05-30-2007, 06:33 AM
What is it with you guys and these f**king cat avatars? Am I missing some big in-joke here?
I'd prefer to see everyone's portrait as their avatar, so I'd recognise you if I saw you in the street.
That way, some of you might no be so smart mouthed here on the forums. :2guns:

sammael
05-30-2007, 07:13 AM
You must have missed the rediculous 300 odd post discussion about cat avatars... I had the best avatar but people were so put off by it that they put me on their ignore list... so I removed it.

Trevor
05-30-2007, 07:15 AM
Geez!
Mr Oddity you really are a barrol of laughs..!
You mention in one post, If i ever had kids,
do the world a favour, dont !

Anyways, back on topic.
I thought spidey 3 was great, anyone with kids will tell you, one of the joys of raising children is living through their eyes. So when my 12 year old son is enjoying himself watching spiderman, then I am too.

The sandman birth sequence was worth the admission price alone.
What I really liked about this sequence is they took time with it, beautifully paced. The closest thing to true cg art i've seen in along time.
The whole scene had me mesmorized, took me out of the rat race of life for a moment.

redlum
05-30-2007, 07:44 AM
Geez!The sandman birth sequence was worth the admission price alone. What I really liked about this sequence is they took time with it, beautifully paced. The closest thing to true cg art i've seen in along time.
The whole scene had me mesmorized, took me out of the rat race of life for a moment.

Absolutely. I am looking forward to hearing how they did that at this years Siggraph. (I'm also looking forward to the Newtek party) It was the whole scene, the music the emotion of his struggle to maintain form. Amazing. A real work of art. :bowdown:

Cageman
05-30-2007, 02:10 PM
...watches carnage unfold.

Technicaly, Carnage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnage_%28comics%29) was in the movie... ;)