The Hot Blog

Not even going to post the amount? YOu have that much anger in you? :)

Oh, there's the numbers... weren't there a second ago.

For the record, I misposted, so pulled and replaced.

Anger? Oy.

You wanna see anger? I had $127.2 in the office pool. Arrgghh!!!

Well,it's my favorite of the three movies and I liked it more than Pirates 2, so I'm very happy it set new a record. I can't wait to see it again, though I think I'm going to be seeing Hot Fuzz for the third time tomorrow instead.

Man. It's amazing that there's even $60mil for the taking for one day alone let alone that it was actually accomplished (well, take a little).

Also, I have a feeling Disturbia was the winner of the "Sold Out?!?! Ugh, let's see..." debate. Even though it probably didn't occur as much as it would seem.

Spiderman 3 is one of those weird movies for me.

I liked it, but i totally understand people's gripes about it.

It was poorly written, and there's a shitload of coincidences posing as plot points.

But i enjoyed it.

I find it funny when a big huge blockbuster comes out and it's just average. Online types don't know how to handle it. Everything has to be BRILLIANCE or TRAGEDY. When a film is just so-so, you can almost hear the collective sigh as they have nowhere to take all that pent up energy.

Sony is buying a record for "Spider-Man 3". There are 3-day-a-week little-village theaters opening it day-and-date. There are small-town twin theaters opening it day-and-date.

In fact, Sony is leaving no space untouched in its pursuit of world domination.

Sorry if there's no link above -- HERE is the link.

Wow, Lucky You really bit the big one.

"I find it funny when a big huge blockbuster comes out and it's just average. Online types don't know how to handle it. Everything has to be BRILLIANCE or TRAGEDY. When a film is just so-so, you can almost hear the collective sigh as they have nowhere to take all that pent up energy."

I went to Spider-Man 3 expecting a train wreck, then for maybe the first half-hour I thought it was going to be the average film you're talking about, and then it turned into another steaming pile of shite. The pace at which the film went into the crapper was really the only consistently paced element of the story.

It also didn't help that it was bookmarked by opening credits which looked EXACTLY like a tv show version of credits, and one somnambulant false ending after another which reminded me of the neverending endings of "The Return of the King".

(Was the butler's name Dexter Macchina by the way?)

Hallick, you're entitled to your opinion, but the point i was trying to make is that the line seems so clearly divided.

a little under half the people seem to kind of like it

a little under half the people seem to kind of dislike it.

only a handful of people on either side are calling it 'great', or 'a complete piece of shit'

It's not Spiderman 2, but it's not Batman and Robin either. Nor is it the Phantom Menace.

The flaws in Spiderman 3 were present in Spiderman 2 and Spiderman. Online film people are just raging more about it now for some reason.

That kind of general indifference breeds a kind of malaise in the online film world. Spidey 3 is just like Dead Man's Chest last year. Despite a clearly divided opinion between critics and viewing audiences, the movie still raked it in, and online optimism/ambivilence was almost nil.

So the small group i hear calling it a complete piece of shit seem fairly dumb, seeing as the vast majority is calling it 'flawed, but entertaining'.

Like i said... the lunatic fringe exists to rage, though when a blockbuster lands in the middle of the road, they just kind of freeze. And those who still try to crucify it despite it's 'average' status just sound stupid.

"I can't wait to see it again, though I think I'm going to be seeing Hot Fuzz for the third time tomorrow instead."

"Hot Fuzz" is the movie that DESERVES a $59M Friday.

I think you're right, Anghus, it's based on expectations. People want a big summer movie to be AWESOME and if it isn't, even if it's only okay, then they get all riled up.

"So the small group i hear calling it a complete piece of shit seem fairly dumb, seeing as the vast majority is calling it 'flawed, but entertaining'."

Granted - I find myself "fairly dumb" in my own eyes, too. But I stand by my appraisal. I don't think it's a complete piece of shite (the maitre'd humor, J.Jonah Jameson's pill time, Eddie Brock, evil Peter kicking the crap out of Goblin Jr, and a couple of other points were above reproach), but on the whole, it's a friggin' mess that drags and drags and DRAGS whenever the Mary Jane material is on the screen, which is a good 40 to 50% of the time. And one character might have survived if another character didn't waste around ten minutes listening to a third character's life story while enjoying a pretty-pretty sunrise together!

I do have to say, in the interest of full disclosure, that almost half of the audience definitely applauded when the end credits started rolling, so I'm never going to spout that "there's no way anybody could possibly enjoy this mess". But I would say this was one of the least deserved big openings (in a profit to quality ratio) I can remember.

Opening weekend is never about quality, it's about marketing - and the quality of the previous movie.

Thank God for Away from Her and Waitress. This is the first Friday in awhile when a couple of the indies didn't immediately fall off a cliff.

Aw man, I will have to see Spidey next weekend then if it's that crowded.

Ang Hus - Though I agree to some degree with your thesis (even though it has shitall to do with my reaction to the film), I wonder why you limit it to "online types." How do all the other critics who slammed the film get qualified?

My favorite Sam Raimi movies all have piss poor story and character devolpement, but they are entertaining as hell. Evil Dead movies are not what you'd call a well written, but they are highly rewatchable. So in that regard, "flawed but entertaining" doesn't sound so bad to me.

Dave

my thesis doesn't involve actual film critics.

im referring to talkbackers, bloggers, message boarders, etc.

Actual film criticism quantifies and grades the various merits of film. I'm talking about the people who see a movie, run online and scream bloody murder with quotes like 'George Lucas raped my childhood' and 'Flames on Optimus ruins the film'. In fairness, Hallick really wasnt going that far, but ive been chatting about the film since early friday and reading a lot of boards. It seems like everyone was ready to crucify the film before it came out. Then, reaction from film goers was 'not bad, not good, kinda flawed', and they really didn't have anywhere to take their predetermined crucifixtion complex.

I think "the online types", i.e. internet film chatters have a cycle with films in a series. The longer the series goes on, the more judgemental about it they get. They start picking at flaws that were always there, and begin to look for reasons to hate it.

Spiderman 3 was every bit as good and bad as the last two. I agree with your review, that Spiderman 2 almost felt like a throwaway. Even the opening credits only showed like 3-4 shots of the second film in regards to 'catching you up'. The movies feel almost like issues of a comic book. A cursory understanding of origin and history is about all you need.

It goes back to a point from another thread: my expectations from Spiderman 3 aren't exactly that high. I want some thrills, i want some fun, i want some action. I got all that.

So when i hear people calling it 'the worst film ever made' or 'this is the worst of the series', i have a feeling that these people were frontloading their expectations.

I can't consider myself a huge fan of the franchise, nor of comic-book movies in general, but I did enjoy the first two for the most part. But this one - Jesus. I kept trying to keep the cringe moments subdued, so as not to offend the obvious fans I came with. But there were three or four instances where, had I not been dead-center in a full house (and reliant upon other drivers to get home), I would probably have got up and left. But the wave of badmouthing that started up throughout the theater once it was over let me know I wasn't alone. And this is coming from hundreds of fan-boy types who were dying to see this thing. I don't think that is the response from the lunatic fringe. In our theater (LA / Arclight) that seemed to be the general consensus.

>Sony is buying a record for "Spider-Man 3". There are 3-day-a-week little-village theaters opening it day-and-date. There are small-town twin theaters opening it day-and-date.>

Given that the goal is to get as much revenue as possible before Shrek and Pirates the saturation marketing and release is a good move. Whether the folks who post here like or not, for Sony this franchise is about one thing: making money. Given the negative and marketing costs the more revenue the sooner the better.

"And this is coming from hundreds of fan-boy types who were dying to see this thing. I don't think that is the response from the lunatic fringe."

ummmmm. raging fanboys claiming they are 'dying to see it' make up a pretty sizable part of the lunatic fringe. these are the guys who claim to love certain properties and then freak the fuck out the minute any minute detail is changed.

Again, these are the FLAMES ON OPTIMUS? and GEORGE LUCAS RAPED MY CHILDHOOD! guys who almost passed out over organic webshooters in the first film.

Right now they splitting time freaking out over Spiderman 3, a Gaseous Cloud Galactus, and... GASP... PG-13 DIE HARD 4!!!

there are 4 or 5 people i poll on average who aren't online much, if at all, about movies. I'm more inclined to ask them what they think of a film like Spiderman 3. So far, i've gotten up with three of them who all basically said 'it was alright'. None of them said they'd buy the DVD (2 of them own Spiderman 1 and 2). There was no hate, no bile, no rage. Just kind of a shrug. One girl really liked James Franco and wished they'd spent more time on the Harry story and just lost Sandman alltogether. But again, no rage. Just 'not a bad film, not a good film'.

Anghus, it seems to me that if you ask 90% of people about 90% of movies, their reaction is going to be 'it was all right'.

"Anghus, it seems to me that if you ask 90% of people about 90% of movies, their reaction is going to be 'it was all right'."

which is exactly my point.

We apply the passion (both love and hate) for those 10 percent that are truly good or truly and truly awful to all movies.

that's what the internet has done. every film gets the same kind of vitrol and passion that used to be reserved for the best and the worst.

Every film has to fall into 'Brilliant' or 'Epic Tragedy'. Tabloid style film criticism. Like 24 hour News channels that make every story seem apocalyptic in nature, the internet film sites have turned every film into 'hail' or 'crucify', when in reality, most films released are 'just alright'

If you just apply this simple mantra:

Film is subjective. Some people will like a film, others might not. Films aren't meant to be loved by everyone. How many movies do you that are universally loved, or reviled. I'm guessing about 10 percent.

But film sites make their money off getting people pictures from set, test screening reviews, and creating buzz about films that are probably going to end up pretty average.

Frontloading expectations and marketing gets people hyped up about films so much, that when they go into the theater and just see an average film, they feel incredibly let down. Not everyone, mind you, just the internet film fans that make up the lunatic fringe.

The problem is that studios bought into the fact that the lunatic fringe represented the majority of film fans. Then something like Grindhouse tanks and people start wondering if this vocal online film base really translates to tickets. Of course, we know they don't.

The thing is jeff, a site like the hot button, or aint it cool, or any number of film sites is that the audience they are writing for represents this obnoxious vocal minority. So the coverage remains continually over hyped and we continue to see 'MASTERPIECE' or 'PIECE OF SHIT'.

What everyone needs to remember is the obnoxious guy screaming on the message board or chat room about an awful film is not representetive of your typical movie goer, who just goes to the movies for a pleasant distraction, who has no idea who Bruce Campbell or Sam Raimi is, and think Kirsten Dunst is a really good actress.

No, I agree with you.

"Stupid is as stupid does."
And I don't mean you Jeff - nor you David.
(I'm refering to that dense, wimpy audience that Anghus describes - and seems to so placidly and boringly likes to watch films with.)

Denying "the truth" (Truth is ... Spidey 3 was flawed, and no way near as good as the first two were)- by suggesting those who speak the truth are a fringe group and should thereby be summarily ignored or negated - is the way little politicians become dictatorial oppressors.

Be grateful for us Anghus.
(We keep you free so that you can spout nonsensical dribble on that same radical internet the fringe is exercising.)

It wasn't the marketing (or the interent rabble) that frontloaded our expectations. It was the greater quality of the first two Spideys that we all saw together before - that was not represented in the third Spidey that we all saw now.

Don't kid yourself. the lunatic fringe of obsessive compulsive fanboys have poisoned the well. They've screamed so loud for years that it all just sounds like static.

It's the biggest sin of the internet in terms of enterainment: those who claim to love film so much have a horrible sense of entitlement. And they have screamed so loudly, spewing so much bile that actual film criticism has become overshadowed to nameless, anonymous bloggers who believe critiquing a film is insulting everyone involved and decrying that every major motion picture from a studio is a horrific piece of shit that must be wiped from existence.

Those online who claim to love film so much are the ones who are responsible for taking a lot of fun out it. So much more time and energy is spent pissing on films. What if that energy was used to talk about films people actually liked. Maybe we'd get somewhere. Maybe then the internet could make a difference in the kind of films we see. But again, the angry obsessive film nerds have screamed so loud, for so long, no one cares anymore.

whatnokiss sums up my position perfectly: we're having a pretty interesting discussion, and you come in with some martyr complex. Get off the cross. People need the wood. You talk about 'the truth'

It's a movie. There is no truth. There is only opinion. But what do i expect from someone who responds to an interesting conversation with insults. You're just proving my point with every bile filled sentence you spew. You call me stupid, but i would attest that my posts are far more developed than your childish insults, but i can go there too.

You're a fucking knob.

The mistake you make is assuming that i somehow think i'm smarter or that my opinion matters more. you're wrong. I'm just putting out 'a thesis' (as Dave put it), that online film types spend a lot of time feverishly trying to justify their hate filled opinions. It doesn't make them 'wrong', it just means that the haters take up a lot more space and waste a lot more energy.

What some people have a hard time dealing with is that the fact that there are people that want to go see Wild Hogs. But these people aren't online posting on message boards. They're just typical movie goers who sometimes just show up at a theater and pick something that's playing and don't spend every waking hour of the day picking apart every film. And you have to realize that the 'dense, wimpy audience' accounts for a much larger percentage of the box office, and the studio could give a fuck as long as they're buying tickets.

The lunatic fringe is needed, because you can't have a middle without two ends. We just need to listen to them less. Just wait a few weeks, and we'll see what the consensus is on Spiderman 3. Maybe people won't like it, and it will fall fast. It's too soon to tell.

Online film fanatics claim to love film, which is why they get so angry when they see a film that doesn't live up to their monumental expectations.

Spoilers, Set Photos, Test Screening Reviews, Box Office Analysis... do they make people enjoy movies more, or less?

Does the online film community help bolster people's love of film, or just make them more cynical?

that's what the internet has done. every film gets the same kind of vitrol and passion that used to be reserved for the best and the worst.

Every film has to fall into 'Brilliant' or 'Epic Tragedy'.

I am not sure you can blame the Internet, though it may have aided the proliferation of this dichotomous mentality. Yet I find that this approach to reviewing film has been around since (or even before) Siskel and Ebert popularised "thumbs up/thumbs down", leaving no room for middling films but to be shunted towards a positive/negative reaction.

However, I disagree with your assessment that fans pick at flaws that were present in previous instalments simply because they want to "look for reasons to hate it". You can ignore a person's nose-picking habits if he were witty rather than if he were obnoxious. Similarly, movies that share the same flaw would not be equally criticised for them, especially if one had far more qualities to praise than another.

Granted, there is some fatigue involved, like in any long-term relationship -- where flaws grow ever more obvious compared to when love first sets in. But it is the prerogative of the filmmaker to strive for originality in sequels, and fix the flaws that were initially overlooked; not for the audience to lower its expectations to forgive Hollywood's lousy track record of "third times around". Especially since the quality of the "second times around" that seated them in the cinemas for the third were not entirely flukes on the filmmakers' part.

"Granted, there is some fatigue involved, like in any long-term relationship -- where flaws grow ever more obvious compared to when love first sets in. But it is the prerogative of the filmmaker to strive for originality in sequels, and fix the flaws that were initially overlooked; not for the audience to lower its expectations to forgive Hollywood's lousy track record of "third times around". Especially since the quality of the "second times around" that seated them in the cinemas for the third were not entirely flukes on the filmmakers' part."

Very well said, and i agree with you 100%

Who gets the credit for Disturbia's box-office legs? Shia Leboeuf? If he is even somewhat responsible, does that mean Transformers will pull in more teenage girls than expected? What kind of effect would that have - 5% boost? 10%?

If I were marketing Transformers, I might want to start highlighting Shia a bit more, especially on the MTV spots. Just in case...

I'm just calling it now.

After Maguire officially leaves the Spiderman films, everyone will claim the next spidey will be Shia Lebouff.

I'm not saying he will be, but get ready for all sorts of speculation

I don't think Shia is responsible, but I think he has gained a lot. Disturbia was the product of there being nothing else and for appealing to the April-teen crowd (remember Mean Girls followed a very similar path). I doubt anyone went to it saying "we have to see that new Shia LeBeouf movie!" but some may be saying it now for his next movies... maybe. His next movies seem to sell themselves.

Wow. Okay, so I just got back from Spider-Man 3. It's sort of terrible. Bad villains, bad visual effects (except for most of Sandman's stuff). Gwen Stacey is pointless. Too much touchy feely crap (not the good character development stuff, just the annoying wise wisdom building stuff usually spoken by old bitties). Too much crying. Too much of everything. Unexplained powers by Sandman. That silly truck filled with sand. That dreadful Saturday Night Fever moment and the painful musical sequence. Bad dialogue.

Ugh. I never thought I'd say this, but: James Franco gave the best performance in the movie. Maybe because for a while there he wasn't a mopey git.

Um, Whatnokiss? I'm tolerant, but you don't get to call me stupid in a throwaway comment, here or anywhere. If you have any legitimate comments you want to make to me, send them to my personal email address. Until you do, I know that you aren't serious and are merely targeting me out of convenience and cowardice.

Saying people are "dumb" or the "lunatic fringe" if they thought SM3 was shit is an oversimplification and unjustified. After seeing SM3 yesterday, I can tell you in my local theater maybe 10 people clapped, but my wife, friend and I all thought it was crap. We liked SM 1, loved SM 2, but this was such a poorly executed film (despite some fun sequences) it is inexcusable. DP's review of this is dead-on, the coincidences alone cannot be overlooked.

it'd be really nice if you could be involved in a discussion where people actually read the posts completely before writing replies.

"Saying people are "dumb" or the "lunatic fringe" if they thought SM3 was shit is an oversimplification and unjustified."

not liking SM3 does not make you dumb, or a member of the lunatic fringe.

Screaming 'it's the worst movie ever made' or 'this is the biggest piece of shit' i've ever seen kind of does. Broad, unfounded generalizations make you part of the problem, like saying...

"but my wife, friend and I all thought it was crap."

This is what is killing legitimate film criticism online. Because people come to film websites and the majority of posts are 'it was crap'.

Look at Kamikaze's Post:

"Wow. Okay, so I just got back from Spider-Man 3. It's sort of terrible. Bad villains, bad visual effects (except for most of Sandman's stuff). Gwen Stacey is pointless. Too much touchy feely crap (not the good character development stuff, just the annoying wise wisdom building stuff usually spoken by old bitties). Too much crying. Too much of everything. Unexplained powers by Sandman. That silly truck filled with sand. That dreadful Saturday Night Fever moment and the painful musical sequence. Bad dialogue.

Ugh. I never thought I'd say this, but: James Franco gave the best performance in the movie. Maybe because for a while there he wasn't a mopey git."

There's a formed opinion there. It's not just mindless anger. There's something you can discuss and make points for or against.

It's hard to have discussions or debates on statements like "i thought it was crap" or "George Lucas raped my childhood". The internet has turned film commentary into clips and phrases, subject lines and snippets. It's a thousand people posting "IT'S CRAP" for every person trying to articulate their point. Finding smart, well thought out commentary online is a proverbial needle in the haystack.

You'd think that people who 'love film' and spend time online discussing it would engage in some kind of intelligent discussion. Yet, if you scroll through most websites, most of what you'll find is bile spewing and poorly formed comments.

This site is an exception, which is why i post here.

Again, if you think what i'm saying is 'you're an idiot if you like Spiderman 3' or 'people who tear down Spiderman 3 are part of the problem', then you're not paying close enough attention

I was glancing over the replies and saw you quoting me and I figured you must have been berating me as the death of film criticism and was all ready to be all "I'm not going to write a full detailed review just for a blog" but then I did look carefully and now I'm happier.

well... Spider-Man 3 was still bad, but ya know...

Seriously though. Does anyone want to explain what those scientists were doing with all that sand. And how Sandman knew how to use his powers. And why a freakin' truck filled with sand was conveniently parallel parked in New York City?!

The best sequence of the flick showed how Sandman learned his powers. Mental determination becoming an organic command.

Sand is used in polymers for the manufacturing of plastics worldwide. That amount of sand was minuscule compared to the amounts will find at any plastics manufacturer. Experimenting with chemical electrolysis is a common everyday lab test.

The truck of sand likely was on its way to a construction site, something Manhattan isn't often short on.

"You'd think that people who 'love film' and spend time online discussing it would engage in some kind of intelligent discussion. Yet, if you scroll through most websites, most of what you'll find is bile spewing and poorly formed comments."

That's because a great chunk of humanity isn't that well developed when it comes to expression in any forum or format. I see the same kind of crude, damn near binary-level ability to form sentences from positive comments for "Spider-Man 3" and other films, television shows, books, etc.

It's a sad fact of the human condition: what we produce collectively (technology, philosophy, art, etc.) is at least a thousand-fold more complex than the average individual's ability to speak to these creations in terms any more developed than "It Rocks!!!" and "It Sucks!!!".

Hey, what a great idea for a new show:

"It Rocks! It Sucks!" Each week two chowderhead teenagers review the week's new movies, but instead of using their thumbs, they simply declare, "It Rocks!" or "It Sucks!"

Quick, get me Fox on the phone!

Hallick, i agree with you.

My point is, that these poorly formed thoughts are drowning out actual, intellegent criticism, and pretty much replacing it.

I'll use Kamikaze's post as an example again. It was brief, it was to the point, and it contained criticism that could be quantified and debated. Most posts online don't contain that level of intelligence or brevity.

It's 10 paragraphs of 'this shit makes me sick.. someone should donkey punch Sam Raimi'

it's all becoming indistinguishable static.

I look at a site like Aint it Cool, a site whose chat room i frequent. There are efforts there for intelligent criticism, but it seems drowned out by

GORDON HAS A BEER AND CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
(Insert Topic) GOTTA EAT
(Insert Film) = FLAMES ON OPTIMUS
THIS YEAR'S LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE

The site is frequented by a loud mass of people who claim to love film yet spend most of their posts just tearing everything down.

And it only matters because the internet could have been so more useful for promoting films and learning more about what people want, but the lunatic fringe has yelled so loudly that no one is listening anymore. Instead, they just buy adspace and it becomes no different that a tv ad or trailer

such a wasted opportuninty

If I could find anything semi redeeming about SM3, I wouldn't have said it was crap, I would have enumerated the few problems I had with the film. Even the fun sequences you have to caveat to enjoy, like the Sandman "birth" sequence. There just happens to be a particle physics facility, operating at night, in the "marsh lands" (where was this supposed to be, Jersey?), that Flint Marko runs into after scaling the razor wire fence without injury. Am I supposed to be emotionally involved after this series of coincidences? And this pattern happens over and over again.

Here's another, after Marko becomes Sandman, then is strolling through Manhattan, there just happens to be a semi truck with trailer bed full of sand, in the middle of Manhattan, and there is not even an attempt to position the truck in front of any kind of construction facility, as in the end.

One more, when Brock at the end just happens to have stolen a taxi when MJ just happens to have walked outside to hail a cab, or are we to believe that Brock knew MJ was in her apartment and decided to wait her out to kidnap her, instead of just breaking into her apartment.

How about this one, Gwen Stacey just happens to be in the restaurant when Peter is going to propose to MJ!

Alright I am done, I don't think this deserves any more discussion.

so let me get this straight

"There just happens to be a particle physics facility, operating at night, in the "marsh lands" (where was this supposed to be, Jersey?), that Flint Marko runs into after scaling the razor wire fence without injury."

you can buy into the concept that a man can be turned into a living pile of sand, but the fact that the lab conducting these experiments is located in a marsh troubles you?

"One more, when Brock at the end just happens to have stolen a taxi when MJ just happens to have walked outside to hail a cab, or are we to believe that Brock knew MJ was in her apartment and decided to wait her out to kidnap her, instead of just breaking into her apartment."

Or that a guy can wear an alien symbiote suit that gives him super powers, but stealing a cab and finding out where MJ lives, that's just too big a leap of faith to make...

I remember when i saw Goldeneye years ago. I sat next to this guy who was quiet the whole movie. Then in the final scene, Sean Bean's character falls off the satellite dish, presumably to his death. Then, a few minutes later, you see a piece of the satellite dish plummet into him as he screams, and the guy goes

"That's bullshit.... There's no way he could have survived a fall like that... THIS MOVIE SUCKS"

So, in a movie where Bond jumps off a cliff and manages to catch a falling plane, uses a laser watch, drives a tank through downtown st. petersburgh and is attempting to stop a satellite that fires an EMP that can wipe out the electronics in an entire city... the problem the guy had was with a villain surviving a fall...

that's a head scratcher.

So in a movie with alien symbiotes, radioactive spiders, a guy who can transform into sand... the problems people have is with a flatbed truck with sand parked in downtown New York.

I get what you're saying, but to me, those complaints are kind of silly.

Much like the fanboys who raged over ORGANIC WEBSHOOTERS? in the first one.

I think in a universe where men can ride rocket surfboards and people bitten by radioactive spiders can become superheroes, i can believe that a truck of sand could be parked on the side of the road.

Anghus, everyone can suspend disbelief for movies like this. You have to be able to to even go buy a ticket about a man that got bitten by a radioactive spider and becomes a superhero. But when it comes to to things that are based in reality, I think it's fair game to insult the logistics.

To go back to your Goldeneye analogy. Yes, all that stuff is incredibly absurd, but it's James Bond so you've got to expect it. But when it comes to something more reality based such as falling from the satellite dish or whatever, I think it's fine to say "But, he would've died from the fall" because it's something we can actually guage by ourselves.

Back to Spider-Man 3. I'm not sure what it feels like to be converged into a man made out of sand or whatever, I can't guage that. But I do know that it's incredibly rare to just be walking down a metropolis street and to come across a parked truck full of sand (with no construction sight in site). A regular ordinary person can also guage that a waitress would not be able to afford an apartment seemingly on Broadway (or near enough to it), nor would she be able to afford taxi rides to work.

Plus, were we meant to be sorry for Sandman at the end? When he was all "I was doing it for my daughter." Like, hello, you killed a whole lotta people (probably) and you were robbing banks. Cry me a river!

If you liked the movie as a whole, you'd forgive all those things. Since you don't, they become fair game.

OK now...let me get this striaght. Is Anghus for or against spidey? Is Anghus for or against free speech. Is Anghus for or against the freedom to be a fan boy? Or is he just against anything that is "for - or - against"?

I'd rather be a knob than some hotwinded airhead like that.

And jeffmcm...I said that my comment WASN'T about you or david. (Maybe you thought I meant Wells instead of you - but I was referring to you and Poland because you two had commented before me.)

I LIKE fencing with you.
You ARE a worthy opponent.
I do NOT think you are stupid.
And yes you are tolerant sometimes.
(ANd I never fence with a stupid opponent - it's a boring waste of time.) Especially with one like Anghus; who continuously double talks and always seems to accomplish exactly was he criticizes others for doing. (i.e. takes one to know one? / can only accuse others of what you are guilty of?)

And yes, I know that about him because I can do the same thing too - I just choose not to today - I'm just too busy with the real world today, to join the illusion Anghus is having.

(But your ability to type that much and that fast Anghus is amazing. You must be very right-brained.

And feel free to tirade back at me - but I just wanted you to know ahead of time - I'm really busy and not hanging around waiting for your pious opinions...julius.)

Ever heard of the saying "less is more"???

OKay, go ahead.

whatnokiss said:

"I'd rather be a knob than some hotwinded airhead like that."

mission accomplished.

how's that for brevity?

knob.

Whatnokiss, you say "I LIKE fencing with you.
You ARE a worthy opponent." as if we have some kind of history together? Even though you had never posted on this blog prior to one week ago today?

Huh?

I fell asleep in Spiderman 2. I've never quite understood this franchise's immense popularity. I walked out of Spiderman thinking I could have just watched my friends play the videogame for free.

Now, I think I'll pass for this one.

Angus: Don't get me started on the alien symbiote. Suspending disbelief about being bitten by a radioactive spider (didn't they switch this to genetically modified?) is entirely dependent on the verisimilitude of the execution. This is how the spider bite goes down in Spider-man 1 and if told with the same laziness in Spider-man 3:

Spider-Man 1: Peter Parker, a high school science nerd and photographer, visits a collection of spiders, some special. One escapes it cage, falls on Peter, and bites him.

Spider-Man 3: Peter Parker is walking through an alley in Manhattan, Times Square, a shortcut to see MJ warble some crap song at Disney's Beauty and the Beast, The Restaurant. He stumbles through a gigantic spider web without realizing it, and then gets bitten by a radioactive/genetically modified arachnid which has escaped from a bio-engineeering lab on the top of the W Hotel.

I wasn't particularly fond of Spider-man 1, it's only really 2 I think is worth my time, but Raimi and crew tried harder most of the time to keep SM1 more grounded. But even there, you can see laziness in not even trying to deal with harder problems of making Spider-man realistic. One of the most glaring is the suit. He has no money, so he can't afford any materials, but he can sew/build a suit that allows his new spider powers to work through the material, and he has to build multiple editions since it gets destroyed all the time. It's not remotely plausible the Peter Parker in these films could have made 1 suit, let alone a closet full.

Organic web-shooters is one of the changes they actually got right to make the character more plausible. Seriously, dude can walk up walls, cling to anything, and has > human strength and resilience, but he didn't get a spider's defining feature (other than legs) its' silk? Think of the problems there, Peter just has to whip up a synthetic compound that has the tensile strength of spider silk for a human's weight, and then a dispersal mechanism with cartridges and, oh forget it. Organic shooters are such an easy call, I don't think Raimi et al should get much credit.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: