Posted by Insane Ian at ac92eb62.ipt.aol.com on May 04, 2002 at 20:14:51:
In Reply to: Sam Raimi and Sony ruin Spider-Man posted by Killgore on May 04, 2002 at 12:31:42:
You shouldn't share yours. heh, just kidding, i wanted to sound like someone who didn't actually read you post. Anyway, seriously, i read and appreciate your point of view here, but i strongly (STRONGLY) disagree.
: Letís get into it. This film sucked out loud from the opening credits; backed by what has become a tired self-parody of what Danny Elfman calls film score. Once again, I used to think highly of Elfmanís work, but it seems, as you get fat from big studio bucks you lose your edge and creativity. Sad to see any artist reduced to that, but this popcorn flick teems over with it.
Yeah, ok, as much of a fan of Danny's work that I am, even way back when he was in Oingo Boingo, this score reeks of BATMAN in the openeing credits. However, the majority of the rest of the score seems pretty fresh to me, and as i have studied his scores over the years due to the fact that i am a major fan not only of his work as a composer but also as a musician, i feel i can make this call with certainty.
:Early in the inception of the big screen Spider-Man movie we learned that Sam had decided to forgo the manmade webslinger for a mutation that enables him to sling them from his wrists. Why would the man that shot the scene where Ash cuts off his possessed hand in place of a chainsaw in Evil Dead 2 do this? Imagine all the cool little quirks and interesting scenarios that could come from a webslinger that may and occasionally would malfunction, as they always did in the comic. This is a good example of what is wrong with the movie. It seems that on every level Raimi forgot the story as it has been crafted for 40 years.
Yes, there's always gonna be a Spidey fan that's gonna bitch about this. Admitedly, i did too, and i've been a fan for 20 years. However, this choice makes sense. Number one, it's not just a comic adaption, it's a sort of retelling for the new millenium, much like Ultimate is doing in the comics. As such, the organic webshooters make sense to me, and they work as a plot devise in the film.
:How dare he assume the right to take the work of all these great writers over time and essentially wipe his ass with their stories. Does Sam Raimi think heís above comic book writers? Sounds like Hollywood to me, they think because they make so much money that they are somehow above artists that actually care about their craft and make dick. I am shocked and ashamed at Sam and everyone involved in this stupid summer flick.
Okay, now that's just plain stupid. Do you think Sam DIDN'T check with Stan Lee on that matter before going into it in the film? Sam Raimi, from what i understand, wanted to make sure this film was accepted by the fans first and formost, and that meant asking the man who created it for input. Let me tell you, as soon as I saw Stan Lee raving on the red carpet about how wonderful this movie was after he himself saw it, i knew i didn't have to worry about the organic web shooters.
: Let me get back on track. The very idea of Spider-Man was that he was an apprehensive superhero. His guilt over his Uncleís death drove him to pursue the right thing when at every turn he felt compelled to take a night off. Key word in that sentenceÖnight! This stupid piece of crap was shot almost entirely during the middle of the day which even the simplest of photographers knows sucks for lighting. Peter Parker had a day job and crawled the buildings of Manhattan at night, when we all know all the creeps come out. Just as a director, Raimi should have been looking for night shots; instead the whole thing was too bright which certainly didnít help the bad computer generated effects. Yes, I said BAD! They talked about how this movie couldnít have been made a few years ago, due to the lack of technology behind effects, but they had it backwards. Instead of making every shot a badly computer generated image, why not hire a slew of circus performers to do the swinging and wall crawling in front of a green screen? What you have here is a piss poor CGI Spidey that actually goes out of focus and swings so frenetically that you canít even appreciate the abilities heís acquired. Whew, can you tell Iím upset?
Ok, first off, the movie's pretty fucking dark. Most of the shots ARE night shots, but they don't appear strickly as such due to the fact that Spider-man is a Marvel comic, as as such, is pretty bright and vibrantly colored, so they express that in the film by not having the night shots appear as hazy as night actually is. Otherwise, well, we'd be looking at a black screen for most of the flick (and judging from your review, seems like it would have been an improvement over the film you saw that you claim was Spider-man, but I digress). Secondly, the effects, while not picture perfect, are DAMN FUCKING CLOSE. The ONLY CGI shot that had any discernable resemblance to Final Fantasy was on of Parker leaping across the buildings when he just discovers his powers. Do you think the film makers would have been able to keep a circus perfomer in focus while they were doing any of those "stunts" you claim are possible to them? Fuck no, not at the speed they'd need to do them to do the movie justice! I fear you critqued this movie even before you saw it, and you expected the worst and feel you got it without actually giving the movie a fair chance.
: I guess the point of this endless rant is that they blew it! On every level, in everyway, they just ruined the Spider-Man story. Yes, I said story, something Mr. Koepp has forgotten how to write. I bet the screenwriter also felt above going to some of the great writers of the comic to get their take on what he should do.
Again, what makes you think that? This movie was basically cribbed from the first few issues of the Goblin storyline, the origin story (closer to the Ultimate version, but still) and a few others. Granted, yes, i would have liked to have seen Peter being Spider-man throughout High School instead of "beginning of Senior year Uncle Ben gets shot, after graduating he becomes Spidey", but that's my only major quibble.
:This big budget, big studio piece of crap has no story and even reduced the great city of Manhattan into a lifeless almost forgotten character. How do you do that with New York? Oh, you donít show the Twin Towers. This flick could have been a tribute to them, but instead decided to play it politically correct and pretend they never existed.
Um...okay, now i know you didn't even see this flick, yet alone read up on the making of it. They didn't cut out ANY shots of the Twin Towers in this movie, i saw them cleary in the background of many cityscape shots, which is confirmed in the TV Guide article with Raimi. The ONLY shot that was removed of the towers was the one from the original teaser, and I honestly can't blame them for that. Would YOU really want to see ANY aircraft that close to the towers? I think not.
:I am truly ashamed of Sam Raimi and Sony for reducing this great piece of American Literature into a poorly conceived childrenís story.
Again, i don't know what movie you saw, but it obviously wasn't Spider-man. This movie was pretty violent for a "kids story", and especially violent for a Spider-man story (my only second quibble...and it's a minor one, Pete seemed far to angry while avenging). And poorly concieved? It's the story of Spider-man! They told the origin of Spidey, and his battle with one villian, a story that was told (aka, concieved) almost 40 years ago in a very similar way. Are you calling Stan Lee a poor conciever of story? Because, i know about 10,000,000 people who will disagree with you.
:For Godís sake Hollywood, instead of raping a 40-year-old franchise and reducing it to crap for a first weekend box office blitzkrieg, try remembering why this movie will make you rich. The riches you donít understand, the richness of story and character.
Again, the story and character are there in the movie *I* saw...i'm thinking you went to see Scorpion King.
: Just Killgoreís opinion, but I feel itís right!
And i feel it's wrong. That's the thing with opinions, they're like assoles, everyone has one. And you entitled to yours. I just don't agree.
: p.s. For the makers of this piece of crap, please see what Bryan Singer did with the X-men, a FILM as rich in story as the characters themselves.
Yeah, I loved X-men too. But wait, didn't they change somethings with that story? Like Rogue, wasn't she basically a combination of Kitty Pryde and Jubilee instead of the much older southern belle we know? And what about Beast & Iceman? We're they part of the original crew from issue one? In the movie, Bobby's a student, not an x-man, and Beast is no where to be seen (if they went by the comic, he wouldn't need the blue fur yet). And Storm & Wolverine didn't come around until years later. Why aren't you critising that movie for those creative changes...er, i'm sorry, indescretions? Kettle, the pot's on line two.
Post a Followup