Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Sony releases that Venom Footage on a Fox Special prior to SPIDER-MAN 2!

First by claude12	Nov 24th, 2006 12:25:22 PM
First
I think that promo just gave me ADD by Big Bad Clone	Nov 24th, 2006 12:27:07 PM
This must have been mind-bogglingly frustrating to watch over a 2 hour movie with shitty commercials.
Yeah so now that im first by claude12	Nov 24th, 2006 12:27:18 PM
I am excited about this film, but this kinda looked shitty. "Im so excited to be going up against sandman", he was so paid to say that.
Sweet by Tai_Pan	Nov 24th, 2006 12:27:55 PM
That's it.
LAST!!!!! by nemesisdarkside	Nov 24th, 2006 12:28:09 PM
Spidey!!!!
This... by TraumReiter	Nov 24th, 2006 12:29:01 PM
...was awesome! I'm getting more and more excited. www.zombiewestern.de
ummmm... where? by CSpuppydog	Nov 24th, 2006 12:34:17 PM
yeah this was ok.... but where the hell is Venom... all I see is spidey in the black suit...
Where's the beef? by ShogunMaster	Nov 24th, 2006 12:36:46 PM
They only used clips from the trailers? The movie's supposed to be 2.5 hours long, why couldn't they find anymore footage? And I hate seeing Toby in interviews; it just proves the kid can't act. He IS a geek on the screen, and he IS a geek in real life; big stretch. My $0.02 (I only have a nickel so I need some change back please)
.05 of a second of Venom footage is kinda lame... by beastie	Nov 24th, 2006 12:37:04 PM
That's all I have to say. I have a feeling there won't be much more in the movie.
Super Hero Movies—Worst Film Genre Ever by RonaldLark	Nov 24th, 2006 12:37:17 PM
The hype for this film is a joke—just another CGI crapfest, and Venom is going to be the CGI-est, crapfest-iest piece of dung ever. There are few things more boring than a super hero movie.
At least this proves that by ducKy72	Nov 24th, 2006 12:38:01 PM
At least this proves that Venom will be a big part of the movie... they wouldn't show even a tiny clip of him if he was only a cameo.
Big Bad Clone... by RonaldLark	Nov 24th, 2006 12:38:07 PM
These clips ARE shitty commercials.
MIDDLE!!! by DefyThis	Nov 24th, 2006 12:38:08 PM
Yeah bitches... middle!
Betting that the Venom money shot... by wash	Nov 24th, 2006 12:39:03 PM
...is the last scene in the entire movie. Then everyone gets to wait until 2010.
wash, you don't show the by ducKy72	Nov 24th, 2006 12:39:22 PM
wash, you don't show the last scene in a movie on television 6 months before it comes out. that's totally retarded. read the new issue of Empire, there's an article on Spider-man 3 that is very revealing about venom's part in the movie.
Here are the 2 new posters by ShogunMaster	Nov 24th, 2006 12:39:36 PM
Just in case you didn't see them yet, Coming Soon.net has the new posters out: http://comingsoon.net/news/mov ienews.php?id=17652
Middle is SO the new First... by butnugget	Nov 24th, 2006 12:41:24 PM
fuck,DefyThis is tha MAN! /runs to get middle in other threads....
Venom better be in a lot more of the movie by wolvenom	Nov 24th, 2006 12:43:02 PM
or im going to pitch a hissy fit. I swear to god he better be in more than 5 seconds to 5 minutes of the movie, and I BETTER SEE A SPIDEY vs. VENOM FIGHT OR ATLEAST A VENOM Vs. SANDMAN FIGHT.... if all we see is a hint of spidey 4 to come i will fucking lose it.
I'm Sam Raimi and this is my suit and tie by supermarch	Nov 24th, 2006 12:43:55 PM
Why do directors now go with this corporate look? Abel Ferrara does it right, coked out and sunglasses. Anyway...they basically just pulled apart the trailer and cut in some interviews with the actors going "dis gonna be goods". I guess if you don't own a computer that just blew your mind.
Venom fight by ducKy72	Nov 24th, 2006 12:44:58 PM
This is a direct quote from the Empire article: "When he finally gets to unleash his rage, in a four-way superpowered smackdown that insiders say will make the second film's train look small and unambitious, it should be something to savour."
Not so much 'footage' as 'inchage' by Flim_	Nov 24th, 2006 12:48:47 PM
Guaranteed Raimi lives up to his promise of not directing any films about Venom by leaving the Venom bit until the very last scene, then steps back from the franchise to exec produce. Venom in and of itself is not an interesting character. It's a very interesting drawing, but it's about as deep as a puddle as far as character development goes. Carnage would be much more interesting, so hopefully it's a Venom/Carnage movie... Then we can finally move on to the movie with The Rhino as the baddie, the one we've all been banging on about for years.
WELL by THE KNIGHT	Nov 24th, 2006 12:50:14 PM
sam raimi RULES!
From what I hear... by vivavitalogy	Nov 24th, 2006 12:50:27 PM
"there are SO many twists and turns."
WTF... by Freefinger	Nov 24th, 2006 12:51:57 PM
Same shit as usual... Get me to WANT to see the clips then crack my brain with the same shit we've seen since the first images came out... God.. 0.5 seconds.. that's what pisses us off... I reeeeeeaaaallllll yyyy hope Raimi knows what he's doing with this one. No Harry in Hobgoblin, just a new "character of somekind"... Small amounts of Venom, and Sandman in a sandbox...
flim, Venom is not the last by ducKy72	Nov 24th, 2006 12:52:27 PM
flim, Venom is not the last scene. that's a theory that's been refuted time and time again. Venom is the main villain of the third act, and he will not be in the next movie.
I think... by Freefinger	Nov 24th, 2006 12:52:39 PM
We should just pick on one another and make this post interesting...
Memo to Flim_: by vivavitalogy	Nov 24th, 2006 12:52:42 PM
You said exactly what I was about to write.
Supermarch - Raimi's suit by Flim_	Nov 24th, 2006 12:52:58 PM
Raimi dresses that way because he believes it shows a certain amount of respect to the crew, the same as Hitchcock did. Keeps it on a professional level, and shows that you respect their work. Good thinking, that. Also, he probably does it since if he wore a sweater, he'd be mistaken for an intern and asked to leave.
RHINO?!?!?! YES!!! by Freefinger	Nov 24th, 2006 12:54:05 PM
That would be so sweet!!!
Ducky - Venom in the last act by Flim_	Nov 24th, 2006 12:56:23 PM
I'm hoping I'm right, but I suspect you are. I could swear that shot of Venom was taken from Mortal Kombat, since it looks about as shitty as that animated turd did in that flick. Here's to hoping he leaves Venom oblique enough that people who don't read comics (aka, heterosexuals) can appreciate its menace.
where's harry's fountain review? by wolvenom	Nov 24th, 2006 12:59:13 PM
I'm curious as to what he thinks of the fountain. WHERE IS THE REVIEW?!?! someone point me in the direction.
He probably won't have loads by ducKy72	Nov 24th, 2006 01:00:11 PM
He probably won't have loads of screentime, but i'm sure he'll make an impression. Here's a quote from an article about Spider-man 3 in Empire: "Franco's arc may have been planned from day one, and Church may be, screentime wise, the main bad guy...But they're just the webbing on the cake. The villain that will dominate Spider-Man 3, even though signs show he will only show up for the third act, is Grace's Venom."
hydro man should show up by wolvenom	Nov 24th, 2006 01:01:58 PM
and blast sandman away ... now that would be a geekjism for sure.
How about a little Lizard action? by vivavitalogy	Nov 24th, 2006 01:13:46 PM
Dr. Curt Connors did make an appearance afterall in part 2.
Film_ = flamebaiting dickweed by spidercoz	Nov 24th, 2006 01:13:56 PM
"Here's to hoping he leaves Venom oblique enough that people who don't read comics (aka, heterosexuals) can appreciate its menace." - Dude, you're in the wrong fucking place. And if you're not "gay" what do you give a shit how Venom is done? Go troll somewhere else.
Oops. by Flim_	Nov 24th, 2006 01:15:27 PM
I didn't intend to pass judgement on anyone, nor flamebait the homosexual masses... I'm merely pointing out that heterosexuals don't read comic books. I never said there was anything wrong with homosexuals... Some of my best friends are gay. My father's gay! I apologise unreservedly if I offended your lifestyle choice.
Stuck in a rut by Capt. Spaulding	Nov 24th, 2006 01:16:48 PM
stuck in a rut....stuck in a rut....stuck in a rut...stuck in a rut...stuck in a rut...Does this trailer have alzheimers?
best thing about spiderman... by wolvenom	Nov 24th, 2006 01:17:16 PM
is the amount of wicked villains he has in his rogues gallery. Batman has already maxed out on film all of his wicked villains. Which is probably why they are redoing the joker. Spiderman will never have that problem. He will never max out on villains and near the bottom of the barrel there's still the likes of kraven and manwolf. Batman has no one left. All he has is maybe clayface and firefly left to put up on screen. ... Superman has even less likeable villains to put on screen. Its probably the reason why lex luthor has dominated all of the superman movies. The only others are brainiac, darkseid, and doomsday not to mention the crappiness of general zod.
So story continues then. by Vim Fuego	Nov 24th, 2006 01:23:09 PM
I think the title Spiderman 3 might have given that away Sherlock.
WHERE IS HARRY'S FOUNTAIN REVIEW?!?!? by wolvenom	Nov 24th, 2006 01:33:44 PM
WHEReeeeeeeee
Flim by vivavitalogy	Nov 24th, 2006 01:35:41 PM
You sir are an ignorant fool.
BEST. MOVIE. EVER. by stones_throw	Nov 24th, 2006 01:36:02 PM
Enough with the haters. I have total trust in Raimi.
Flim_ is right about comic geeks being swishy... by RonaldLark	Nov 24th, 2006 01:41:51 PM
...but it should be noted that his underscore is gay.
Classics? by RonaldLark	Nov 24th, 2006 01:43:56 PM
I agree that Spidey 1 was a classic, in the sense that most films defined as "classic" are boring as hell. I couldn't bring myself to shell out money for Spidey 2. Superhero movies suck!
Blek Le Rat... by vivavitalogy	Nov 24th, 2006 01:47:28 PM
went big thr other day. Nice work. You all should check it out.
Hugely optimistic by RobinP	Nov 24th, 2006 01:57:36 PM
Everything I've seen so far bodes well...and I mean REAL well for this to be the must-see of summer 07. It looks great. The quality just hasn't slipped yet and I'm optimisitc it won't with the third either.
Sandman... by The Midget_King	Nov 24th, 2006 02:00:48 PM
like a mother fucker bitches. Sandman is stealing this movie for sure. Black suit Spidey my ass.
Dirka dirka dirka by mrtwig48	Nov 24th, 2006 02:02:40 PM
muhammed jihad
As a future filmmaker, it is my responsibility... by zacdilone	Nov 24th, 2006 02:03:48 PM
...to say this will kick ass.
Spiderman 3 hate? are you fucking kidding me?! by Talkbacker with no name	Nov 24th, 2006 02:09:56 PM
You haters are a fucking joke. These are turning out to be some of the best superhero movies of all time! Fantastic Four this ain't! This is Spiderman vs Venom! ...I shouldn't have to explain much more than that. tut tut call yourselves film fans?
oops this asshole by spidercoz	Nov 24th, 2006 02:27:28 PM
Real easy to be a fucktard under the cover of net anonymity, isn't it? You think just because a guy reads comics he can't start some shit? (sorry, had to say it) You sir are a chode. You were born a chode and you'll die a chode, cold and alone, with no friends save the ones no one else can see. I curse you to an eternity in fanboy hell, surrounded by the kind of nerds who think The Crow was the greatest movie ever made and argue endlessly over which was the better book, Sandman or Death: the High Cost of Living. Where the only entertainment consists of the complete filmographies of Joel Shumacher and Uwe Boll. Yeah, I said it. Beeotch.
venom looks sweet, spidey looks grey. by jack scagnetti	Nov 24th, 2006 02:45:20 PM
DAMN YOU SONY! I WANTED THE SECRET WARS-BLACK SUIT,S'MEANT TO BE A SYMBIOTE NOT A UNI-TARD..WHAT IS THAT GREY CRAP? WHY YA GOTTA CHANGE IT, I FUCKIN LOVE THAT DESIGN,YA BASTICHS!
Toby Maguire is an ASS by CarmillaVonDoom	Nov 24th, 2006 03:08:51 PM
He was quoted as saying that this would be the last Spider-Man movie because "There are no more stories left to tell..." That really turned me against him; Amazing Spider-Man alone is up to issue #540+ alone since 1963, not counting hundreds, thousands of other stories. Toby Maguire thinks he is somehow 'bigger' or more important than SPIDER-MAN, and that makes him a total ASS. imo.
don't care about spoilers or trailer... by future help	Nov 24th, 2006 03:16:07 PM
just care about Raimi continuing to please me and most of the masses.
One cool thing about Secret Wars by CarmillaVonDoom	Nov 24th, 2006 03:18:00 PM
Of course Doctor Doom stole the power of Galactus in order to defeat the Beyonder, after everyone else in the book, hero and villain alike, proved to be too stupid/inadequate to take care of things. Then Doom just got bored with being omnipotent. Best villain of all time. Julian McMahon is like a pimple on the ass of Doom! (...and I really like Nip/Tuck!)
What did you expect? by seanny_d	Nov 24th, 2006 03:31:05 PM
Honestly this blows me away. yeah I think that this might be a little overkill 6 months prior to release but I still don't think they're revealing too much. as for tobey saying that he loves the sandman, well, he does. I read an interview with him after the first movie where he talked about being a huge fan of sandman. So I buy that. I think the biggest revelation is that willem dafoe is coming back. I figured he probably would but its now confirmed. I'm sure there will be a lull of info the next couple months before it kicks into high gear in feb/march. complaints about promos is pointless.
So how long is this movie going to be? by Ironmuskrat	Nov 24th, 2006 03:31:46 PM
It looks like there is at least three movies worth of material here. They can't possibly cram all this shit into a two, two and a half hour movie in any sensible way. I guess I can look froward to the four hour long directors cut.
Was watching Spiderman 2 last night on TV by Doc_Strange	Nov 24th, 2006 03:39:16 PM
And from a viewer's perspective, you could easily pick out ALL the CGI shots that were done. Like every CG shot of Spidey, the guy moved irregularly, like he was on a different plane, also the fight between him and Ock, they moved too fast and awkwardly, in otherwords, it looked really cartoony and fake. Don't give me that shit about it being a comic book movie, that was just sloppy FX direction. Then I remembered they spend 200+ million on the movie alone. Trust me, it didn't show. And as I watched it, the movie seemed terribly dated. I hope Raimi fixes these problems for the 3 film. Seriously, they should've gotten ILM or WETA to do the FX work because whoever's doing it now needs to go back to school or get some higher-poly models with some motion capture work. It's just bad.
I'm still curious if Venom will still be an alien. by rbatty024	Nov 24th, 2006 03:57:15 PM
I seriously doubt it. My guess is that it's some Oscorp creation (nanotechnology or the like). The one thing that does not bode well for Spiderman 3 is that it looks too cramped with characters. Someone already mentioned that the movie would need to be three hours long at least, and I agree. I'm still hoping the two films back to back rumour is true (although it probably would have been confirmed by now.
yawwwn by slkboxrman	Nov 24th, 2006 04:02:20 PM
glad for the new scenes they threw into the mix last nite, but i watched it on youtube and the endless repeating made me want to stab myself in the eye. ok would all of those convinced that they would waste an excellent whole movie villain like venom for the "third act" of a film that already has 2 villains and then kill him off, please gimme some of whatever ur smoking. sam raimi is not and has not been that sloppy in the last 2 movies and i dont see him throwing a major villain down the toilet to be in this movie for 20 min to a half hour and then killing him off. no matter what u fanboys have read about him not liking the character, i dont see the huge leadup to the black suit to have it thrown out at the end of the movie, sorry guys. this movie is the "black suit" movie and how it affects his relationships and his job as a superhero. basically how power can goto ur head if youre not careful enuf to keep it in check...if anyone else remembers spider-man kept the black suit in the comics for quite some time before even knowing it was alive and then discarding it when he realized it was both alive and evil... so hate to bust the collective bubbles of all that think its true, venom will be what theyve shown....peter rips off the suit in the bell tower, part of it drops on eddie brocks hand and engulfs him and as it finally takes over, we zoom in on venom as his mouth opens and he screams, then the screen goes black and...... "to be continued".....then get ready for a whole venom vs spiderman movie with venom seriously fracking up things in the city...perhaps we would even see venom give "birth"
Don't get me wrong... by Larry Sellers	Nov 24th, 2006 04:07:39 PM
I love the movies (for the most part)...but the worst of all the drawbacks of the films have got to be the Spidey CG rendering. It has got to be the most half-assed attempt at moving the audience to invest in a cartoon character. Would it kill them to use motion capture? Shit, Robert Downey Jr is doing motion capture for Iron Man, which I could probably buy without the mc. You'd think they'd try to perfect a cg character that flies and flips and whatnot in mid-air. I mean, it doesn't look like it's improved at all in the last two movies.
SPIDER-MAN MOVIES = THE MUMMY EFFECTS by moto	Nov 24th, 2006 04:09:20 PM
I'm not talking about the recent Sandman footage perse (although it looks exactly like the Mummy effects, and that's not a compliment), but overall the special effects for the Spider-Man are very much like The Mummy, and Mummy Returns... sub par. Middle class. CG has not made movies better... they've made them worse. Plain and simple. Lazy filmmaking. I'll take the real effects of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars any day over CG. While some movies have utilized CG very well (Jurassic Park), Sam Raimi has been using them terribly. Overblown cartoonish images. Comic movie or not, the reason we go see comic book movies is to see our favorite heroes come to life, organically. Raimi offers nothing more than cartoonish images. James Cameron would have been so much better for this project years ago. At least he knows when and when not to use CG. Sam Raimi remains to be one of the most overrated directors in the history of cinema. I'm no Spidey hater at all mind you. For the first and second movie I was pumped to see what they had to offer. After each movie I was left completely unsatisfied and asking, "All that money and that's all they did?" WATERWORLD showed more of its budget then Spider-Man 1 and 2.
Spidey 3, Pirates 3 and Shrek 3 will probably... by Flim Springfield	Nov 24th, 2006 04:23:23 PM
...combine for the 7th largest economy in the world next year. They're gonna bump Canada out of the G8.
SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE is the best superhero movie ever. by darthbinks1220	Nov 24th, 2006 04:38:27 PM
Batman Begins is second. Spidey 2, a distant third.
Superman Returns is darker than Batman Begins by darthbinks1220	Nov 24th, 2006 04:57:24 PM
Works well for the Bat, not for the 'reel' steel deal. Singer promising to "Wrath of Khan" his super-sequel is setting the bar too low. A James Cameron or Peter Jackson would shoot for "Empire Strike Backing" it, or "Godfather Part IIing" it. I mean, come on Bryan. Since you're aiming so low, go for "Rocky II-ing", "Halloween II-ing", or even "Grease 2ing" it. Shoot for the stars, Mr. Singer. You really nailed the Fortress of Solitude, btw, making it darker than the batcave. Bottom line, I think the number two describes your movies to a tee.
Venom at 25 sec. mark of 1st vignette. by darthbinks1220	Nov 24th, 2006 04:58:01 PM
Looks awesome. Still, the pecking order-- Supes(Gold), Bats(Silver), Spidey(Bronze)
zombiesolutions by jack scagnetti	Nov 24th, 2006 05:00:54 PM
dude,i havent read secret wars lately, i said i liked the design of spideys outfit,period. I didnt vouch for the comics plotpoints.jeez.
I think Superman: The Movie created the first... by rbatty024	Nov 24th, 2006 05:05:59 PM
successful superhero movie, but over time it has shown some flaws. That's only natural when you're trailblazing new territory. Still, Lex's henchmen are too cartoony and turning back time was awfully cheesy. I think Spiderman 2 did a better job of balancing the comic book elements with a human story.
Dont lynch me for saying this.. by jack scagnetti	Nov 24th, 2006 05:27:53 PM
but i really love that first punisher movie,forget about the shitty acting, the action was great. the thomas jane punisher had its moments too, the johnny cash dude was cool, dark city had some sweet superhero moments,and burtons batman had some nice design,nolans batman was a disappointment,it could of been millers year one,wasn't,Neo was good too.
For those who missed him... by stubblychin	Nov 24th, 2006 05:31:14 PM
Venom. He appears for approximately a 5th of a second.
Can you not do tags? by stubblychin	Nov 24th, 2006 05:32:17 PM
http://flickr.com/photos/81748 221@N00/305270086/
A more functional link than above: by stubblychin	Nov 24th, 2006 05:34:40 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yhrgsf
How about Supergirl? by ShogunMaster	Nov 24th, 2006 05:45:18 PM
Where does she lineup on the medal stand? Frankly, I'm ready to see some leggy blonde in a short skirt fly around again. Someone has to be working on this by now. It just can't fail! LOL...
Another overrated cheese-fest on the way. by Pipple	Nov 24th, 2006 06:14:08 PM
So any news on the new batman?
Apologies by Flim_	Nov 24th, 2006 06:30:26 PM
Not entirely sure what a chode is, but again, I must apologise wholeheartedly, because it seems that I once again came across as homophobic, when in actual fact, I have a great deal of affection for your kind. Hell, I even entertained the notion of being bisexual myself whilst enrolled at my local school for the performing arts. When something like that surrounds you, and everyone successful you know happens to be of the... er... effervescent persuasion, you can't help but think that there is some link between the two. Heavens, there may still be! Indeed, I apologise once again to all the dear homosexualists out there, and hope that you won't put down your favourite swishy superhero periodical on account of my mislaid comments. Tally-ho!
I didnt fuckin see venom by WolfmanNards	Nov 24th, 2006 06:42:07 PM
where the fuck was he? Fuck you guys.
Catch Venom staring straight by Surround Sound	Nov 24th, 2006 07:51:39 PM
Catch Venom staring straight at you and biting your balls off: http://tinyurl.com/ynz8rr Pause it a little less than a third of the way through right before Parker starts tearing off the black suit. Then, arrow forward and "slow-mo" Venom in all his awesomeness. You're welcome.
wow by kirttrik	Nov 24th, 2006 07:52:08 PM
wow...this is interesting. I'm going for it. Fifth to last.
I will love the movie, but... by johnnykool	Nov 24th, 2006 09:29:25 PM
this promo gave me a seizure. Holy shit, someone fire the editor. And I agree about the BOOM BOOM BOOM in every freaking action movie promo. Get some new ideas, Hollywood.
Oh yeah... by johnnykool	Nov 24th, 2006 09:30:32 PM
MICHAEL BAY SUCKS A DONKEY'S DICK! I hear he's telling Raimi to put flames on Spidey's suit in #4!!!
What's with the chorus in every trailer? by CTU Mole	Nov 24th, 2006 09:34:38 PM
Every trailer for every movie has this Duel of the Fates chorus in Latin to give it gravitas. And the editing is like a first year Final Cut student would do. Hollywood gets one style and beats it to death.
Help me ZombieSolutions! My actual name IS John Tucker by darthbinks1220	Nov 24th, 2006 10:43:53 PM
And I really don't want to die. I'm in my teens for cryin' out loud! Arielle Kebbel is my Supergirl, anyhoo! Back to inane analogies.......Pecking order: Superman (NY Yankees/26 titles), Batman (Montreal Canadiens/24 Cups), Spider-Man(Boston Celtics/16 championships)......... Oh, and for the sake of the Spider-Man franchise, the unheroic Tobey MaGuire must die, and not me. Zombie Pecking order: Rob Zombie(Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder), 28 Days Later "Rage" Victims(Ferrari F430 Spider), Zombie Solutions (Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder GT)....... Meesa luva da spider, ba Tobey berry, berry bad!
About that footage....... by Yoda's Ball Sack	Nov 24th, 2006 11:11:14 PM
Removed at the request of Sony.
If I hear them say TWISTS AND TURNS by hatespeech	Nov 24th, 2006 11:24:12 PM
one more fuk'n time, I'm gonna fly to LA and punch Raimi's dog in the balls.
Okay Ladies and Gents by alra111	Nov 24th, 2006 11:49:15 PM
Everytime a new movie comes out we hear the same thing. "This movie is going to suck." "Why did they show Darth Vadar, in the trailer to Revenge of the Sith." "The Transformers came from Mars." In the end guys all we can do is wait and put our faith in Sam that he will get it right again. I think Spiderman 1 was good, and I loved Spiderman 2. Lets hope he can keep the trend going. Thanks and first time posting.
ZombieSolutions=Dorkosaurus Flim_=Rad by RonaldLark	Nov 25th, 2006 12:55:49 AM
Zombie, your post makes as much sense as Telendrin spilling coffee AFTER his speech. Never heard of Kerouc, but he's probably not nearly as boring as Kerouac.
Spider-Man 2 Really Sucked by MST3KPIMP	Nov 25th, 2006 01:25:41 AM
You gotta be really shallow if you mistake that disposable cgi fest as an improvment over pt.1. These films have become increasingly hype driven spectacles that just don't stay with you after a couple viewings. This one looks to be pretty self-important with operatic themes that will only further trivialize the spirit and history of Spider-man for past, present & future fans.
Fuck! by WONKABAR	Nov 25th, 2006 01:46:04 AM
You can't freeze or slow-mo that Venom-shot.
last by conbarba	Nov 25th, 2006 02:33:37 AM
for now
Spidey 1 is a far better film than 2 by DirkD13"	Nov 25th, 2006 03:15:14 AM
It's better written, better paced, more emotional and funnier, the only parts that 2 improved upon were the effects and the Raimi-esque camera moves. Still really psyched for this though.
I'd like to see Moore's Top Ten on screen. by Spartacus Hughs	Nov 25th, 2006 05:21:42 AM
Or Morrison's The Filth directed by Chris Cunningham.
Don't take this badly but some of you are idiots by spectrebeeyatch	Nov 25th, 2006 05:25:42 AM
First off why is anyone still tossing shit at Superman Returns it actually made 200 million in US box office and made a lot over seas. They've already green lit the sequel so all of you claiming their won't be one umm basically need to shut up. Also Venom will be in the movie longer than the final shot or last couple minutes or seconds. Other TBers have pointed this out but I'm annoyed how it is being ignored. Watch the full trailer where you see black webbing everywhere which is Venom's... The entire third act will be Venom. Now if he lives or dies can be debated but he will be in the movie for longer than a couple minutes.
Venom by SWR 77	Nov 25th, 2006 07:14:45 AM
I'm looking forward to this movie. A classic villain in the Sandman and another that was good before over- exposure. That half second of Venom was cool. I don't see him being in that much of the story except as Eddie Brock. This really seems like a set-up for Spidey 4 to me.
Venom by ducKy72	Nov 25th, 2006 07:46:33 AM
1. As of yet there is no Spider-man 4, so Venom's story must be wrapped up in this film. 2. You don't show the ending of a movie on television 6 months before it comes out at the cinemas. Ergo, no Venom cameo. 3. This is a picture of Venom in action- might be fake, but pretty damn good if it is http://img139.imageshack.us/im g139/7963/spideyandvenomhz4.pn g
Read the new issue of Empire by ducKy72	Nov 25th, 2006 07:51:02 AM
Read the new issue of Empire if you still think Venom does not have a large part in Spider-Man 3.
Cameo by SWR 77	Nov 25th, 2006 07:59:48 AM
I don't think Venom will just be a walk-on role. But I could see Raimi leaving that conflict unresolved for the all but guaranteed fourth movie. Peter's issues with Sandman should be center stage in this. Maybe there's more to it than what I've read; I don't want to know too much before I see it...
Venom is your third act villain... by dr_buggerlugs	Nov 25th, 2006 08:13:58 AM
People keep talking about using Venom as a cliffhanger - if they did that, it's pure badwill towards an audience who aren't expecting this to have a cliffhanger. Secondly, the Brock character is in the film the whole way through right? Venom is just the culmination of his character arc so having him just dominate act 3 is a good move after having Sandman as the main villain for acts 1 and 2 - more than likely, we'll get about 30-40 mins of the character which is enough for this film because I don't think the actual Venom character could hold a movie on it's own but used sparingly and in a way as the big promise for the 3rd act, you get the audience on your side so that when that money moment does happen, it's not gonna be a letdown. Raimi knows what he's doing - I'd bet we'll get at least one 1 on 1 smackdown between Spidey and Venom before it leads into the final four way fight is rumours are true.
Screw venom by Yoda's Ball Sack	Nov 25th, 2006 09:03:51 AM
I'd rather see Spiderman fight a black condom.
I thought homosexuals were by kirttrik	Nov 25th, 2006 10:24:52 AM
House Republicans, Evangelical Presidents, and Cowboys. Not comic book readers.
The biggest disappointment is still by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 10:47:31 AM
..the complete disregard for the wise cracking Spiderman that defines the comic book character. That would really set it a part from other superhero franchises. Instead every single director takes the single minded 'origin > dark > darker' route in step with their audience's expectation and growing age.
THIS IS SPARTA!!!!! by Ultron ver 2.0	Nov 25th, 2006 10:48:42 AM
As much as I'm stoked for Spiderman 3, I'm more excited about GHOST RIDER.....especially The Penance Stare: "LOOK INTO MY EYES"....Fuck yeah! Bring it!!!
oh and Youtube is dead. by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 10:50:31 AM
Google has taken over and will slowly kill it just like they did UseNet. Also the government and the industry do not want something like YouTube to exsist ..enter Google, the invisible third hand of the Illuminati. ..now, where did I put that crackpipe..?
Bitch bitch bitch by pk68	Nov 25th, 2006 10:56:11 AM
They're not going to show everything now, movie's six months away after all. Dumbasses! Why not just show it all on tv so you can bitch about how small the screen is. Morons. May 4th will rule haters!
Ducky72 yer Number one on google... by clintrockremix1969	Nov 25th, 2006 01:46:30 PM
when you search for "four-way superpowered smackdown" that should come up ALL the time. [scarcasm for the cheap seats]
I think we all missed the iconic symbolism by clintrockremix1969	Nov 25th, 2006 01:53:29 PM
or whatever the correct term is... but parker got bit in the hand by a spider, and Eddie Brock spins around with a spider like black glob... thingamajig on his hand...so they not only both look like nerds, but they both got superhero hand jobs to become super duper nerds.... can you dig it? there's 30,000 of us and only 3,000 cops.. CAN YOU DIG IT? sorry I forgot which movie i was talking about.
Wont be as good as first one. by Omegaman	Nov 25th, 2006 03:17:38 PM
Spider-man imo was quite a bit better than Spiderman 2. Green Goblin was a much better villain, the story was more interesting, the writing all around was better. Spidey 2 is still a pretty good movie, but not close to as good as part 1 imo. I think Part 3 will disappoint a little as well, because its the same writing team that there was for part 2. People never pay any attention to the writer, but that may be the most important factor in determining whether a movie will be any good or not.
Why can't the symbiote be an alien? by Dapper Swindler	Nov 25th, 2006 05:04:14 PM
I find it frustrating when people say that the alien must be some kind of scientific experiment gone awry (like all the other villains in the movie). Why can't it be an alien? Is that too implausible? Think about it: a black goo creature, that has its own personality, enhances your abilities, influences your personality, and makes you want to want to feast on human organs. Is someone going to tell me that it's more plausible for such a thing to be created in a lab than it is for it to simply be an alien? And it's so much better if it is an alien. It creates a sense of mystery; an unknown being from an unknown world. I can't get behind what the symbiote is supposed to be doing to Peter unless I know the symbiote is a sentient entity. Also, you save a lot of story baggage. If it's a scientific creation then you have to come up with why it was created, how it works, why it does stuff, etc. How much screen time will that take? If it's an alien, you just have to explain it by saying it came to earth after attaching to a rocket or something. No more explanation required about what it is, where it came from. In fact, the LESS explanation the better because it adds to a sense of mystery. So why no alien? Are people afraid of having an alien in a super hero movie? We've seen dozens of super heroes and villains in these movies that were created through scientific explanations - I think we're ready for an alien origin. The audience can handle it. So please tell me why you think the writers will make the symbiote an implausible lab experiment and why you think this is a better idea than an alien origin.
RE: Harry's Fountain Review by StarBlitzer	Nov 25th, 2006 05:49:06 PM
plantpage55 wins the thread for teh win! Anyone ever laugh so hard that you shit yourself? Indeed.
Not buying Topher Grace so far by IndustryKiller!	Nov 25th, 2006 06:56:54 PM
That's just not the character of Eddie Brock. It's just not looking like a guy like Grace can pull of intimidating. He's not supposed to be bizzaro Peter Parker. He's supposed to be the antithesis of Parker. Bullying where Peter is kind. Conniving where Peter is clever. Threatening where Peter is gentle. Vicious where Peter is empathetic. Although I also reject that many people on this site seem to think he is some sort of oaf. Methinks those folks watched too many episodes of the cartoon, where Venom was also basically butchered as a character. Brock was and intimidating presence but he wasn't an idiot. In fact like many of Spideys classic villains he was always thinking of new ways to interfere in Peters life outside of SPider-Man. Brock becomes twisted and insane but never an ogre. He's very machiavellian. I was expecting, and even supported, the filmmakers changing the origin drastically but the character himself seems to have gone with it. If Raimi didn't like the character of Venom why did he even bother putting him to film? I would rather not see Venom at all then see Raimis "reimagining". Raimi may have some very solid filmmaking skills but every time he reimagines something it doesnt work. Stick to the comic Sam. The work done there contains material from artists who write characters alot better than you do.
What's with the haters? by Christopher3	Nov 25th, 2006 09:33:43 PM
Yeah, the CGI's cartoony and some of the casting choices are a little off, but after 2 movies, it should be obvious that the series does an excellent job where it counts: the relationships between the characters. Maguire, Dunst, Franco and Harris all have excellent chemistry together. I'd rather have that than a bucketload of perfect CGI. THAT, my friends, was precisely what was wrong with "Superman Returns."
Christopher3!!! YES finally by clintrockremix1969	Nov 25th, 2006 11:24:41 PM
I agree Christopher3, big time....I get so SICK and tired how everyone loves these movies, except the talkbackers in aint it cool. Me and all my friends were in line once for the last LOTR movie and we were excited and these people I didn't even know in the line were talking about how everyone in the world should love the movie... except the aint it cool crowd forums.... if you wanna know if the public likes a movie... check the box office, anything over 100 million.. THEY LIKE IT! It's so I don't really bother checking the pulse and opinions of aicn talk backers, they're more impressed with who's FIRST then with how the latest 150 million dollar has cgi in it.
the actual worst genre is... by visitor_q	Nov 25th, 2006 11:33:56 PM
clearly show musicals! DUH!
theres so many twists and turns by dr.bulber	Nov 26th, 2006 12:07:59 AM
you dont really know whats going to happen.
I Find Spioder man exrtremely boring by Sepulchrave	Nov 26th, 2006 01:55:10 AM
as a movie series; and I liked Batman Begins and X-Men before they murdered it. It's just so shallow and glitzy; people say that it reflects the superficial sense of a comic book better than other, more invasive techniques, but I get a painfully nerdy 'Simpsons comic-book-guy' feeling from the people who really like it. That, and Kisten Dunst is one creepy, evil looking girl who should be playing Catwoman as a serial killer, not some pretty innocent.
Where were the bank exteriors filmed? by BannedOnTheRun	Nov 26th, 2006 04:04:00 AM
I remember seeing set pics on here with sand strewn about. I know the armored car chase was shot in Cleveland
Bullfighter movies - Worst Film Genre Ever by CuervoJones	Nov 26th, 2006 04:47:15 AM
oh sí
SpiderMan 3 by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 26th, 2006 07:14:45 AM
These have to be the most overrated films going, horrible bland acting and CG overload. Count me out. Bring on Bourne Ultimatum instead.
Spiderman2 was better than Spiderman 1 by Lolthien	Nov 26th, 2006 12:05:30 PM
And three will beat them both.. Christ people, why do any of you bother going to the movies if you hate them so bad? Just keep sending in those scripts that make people go "oh.. ummmm" when they read them and smoke a cigarette and drink your coffee in your fucking mime-outfits and pretend you're smarter than everyone you see while the 'idiots' around you actually do something with their lives, and come out of most movies smiling. When you lie dying on your soulless hospital beds in the run down nursing home you've been placed in by the state you'll wonder why the hell you didn't enjoy life a little more instead of hate every single thing you came across just to fluff up your pathetically withered self-image. So there.
Tobey's Comments by lagomorph	Nov 26th, 2006 02:10:01 PM
When Tobey Maguire says "there's no more stories to tell" he's not dismissing the hundreds of stories in Spiderman's history he's saying that the story Sam Raimi set out to tell with this trilogy finishes with Part III. It's the story of a geeky kid blessed with incredible power growing into his role as a hero. I had thought that Harry would be Peter's mirror but now I see it's quite obvious that Sam is using the Venom character as a foil for Peter. The embodiment of his dark side that he must symbolically deal with or be destroyed/consumed by.
I agree by pjdon	Nov 26th, 2006 05:15:44 PM
It really does seem to take something impossible to please most talkbackers. The Spiderman movies where without a doubt made by a true spiderman fan and a true filmaker. They are labours of love and i personally am happy with the effects. Nobody ever complained when stop motion was used, that never looked real, but everyone new it was the best they could do. CGI is still in it infancy, it doesnt always look 100% real but seen as your watching a movie you suspend your disbelief. The day a talkbacker produces a good movie or good effects they can slag all they want but we all know that being a talkbacker means relinquishing your true love of movies and just saying they are all crap.
P.S. by pjdon	Nov 26th, 2006 05:16:39 PM
Check out Topher Grace in P.S. for a slightly darker side.
Um ZombieSolutions.... They already greenlit a sequel by moto	Nov 26th, 2006 05:24:37 PM
... for Superman Returns. WB confirmed it awhile back and shooting is to start in 2008 with Singer back as the director, as well as Routh and co. starring. So there's your snowflake in hell I guess.
i hope by roccotheripper	Nov 26th, 2006 07:23:56 PM
venom destroys and love scenes in this movie cause im sick of them
WHY THE FUCK IS GWEN STACY IN THIS MOVIE? by Pipple	Nov 26th, 2006 09:33:02 PM
FUCK
The LOTR reference by Stollentroll	Nov 27th, 2006 05:59:53 AM
...is retarded. As is the whole Spider-Man franchise.
The CGI thing by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 27th, 2006 07:17:07 AM
I don't understand what it is about CGI that's made us expect perfection from every single effects shot. It is very strange to me. I remember, back in the eighties, we would put up with rubber monsters, crappy suits, stop motion, and some truly awful bluescreen/rear projection composites; but we still enjoyed the films. Now we are lucky enough to see Peter Parker flip and swing about like we all imagined when we were kids, but people pick it apart? I don't get it.
'effervescent persuasion' by teh ran	Nov 27th, 2006 07:24:57 AM
that was funny, not wanting to dispel any myths but why do people rise to Flim_'s posts? It's obvious he's having fun winding people up and as far as I can see he's doing a fine job! Well done old chap!
DucKy72 by teh ran	Nov 27th, 2006 07:38:10 AM
Empire truly is a great magazine, people no longer need to subscribe to it (something I stopped doing when the website was launched) instead get all the reviews on line and then thumb through the mag when you're waiting for a train or having your lunch break. Empire's one of those weird magazines that you buy on impulse but instantly regret the moment you start reading it. To be honest the magazine offers little more than you can access online or scan during aforementioned breaks. Plus they have members of their staff that troll websites like this one and plug the magazine or steal news ideas...:o)
Ducky72 works for Empire Magazine by clintrockremix1969	Nov 27th, 2006 08:54:45 AM
How else can you explain her mentioning it in FIVE PREVIOUS POSTS IN THE SAME TALKBACK... something is up there i tells ya. All she does is go on and on and on about how great Empire is.... to the point where I actually visited the website... and ya know what? It's actually pretty cool! haha... but still... I'm watching you DucKy72.... I'm watching you.
RE: my job by ducKy72	Nov 27th, 2006 09:05:17 AM
Haha you're right, i work for Empire and spend my time plugging the magazine on forums... And I get payed ALOT. Seriously, read Empire magazine, it makes you great in bed ;)
But seriously by ducKy72	Nov 27th, 2006 09:10:17 AM
Check my older posts, no mention of Empirer, i just really appreciated the awesome article on Spidey 3 http://www. aintitcool.com/talkback_displa y/30671#comment_1318750
wow... ok well... by clintrockremix1969	Nov 27th, 2006 09:20:26 AM
color me corrected, and I ended up going to empire and bookmarking it for my morning/coffee office read so you won! will make me better in bed? Well I dunno about that but hey... it's always worth a try. Clint.ca
supermarch by decfx	Nov 27th, 2006 12:52:14 PM
You said: Why do directors now go with this corporate look? Because that's what Raimi wears when he directs dumb ass! That's his look. Do a little research.
Michael Richards is in this by batzilla	Nov 27th, 2006 03:47:15 PM
he calls Venom the N word and Venom rubs his weenie. True story. He rubs his weenie to perfection.
Empire rules! by pjdon	Nov 27th, 2006 03:53:53 PM
I'm english so i've been reading empire for over 12 years, it is without a doubt the best film journalisim in the world. Teh ran said above that they have people plugging the magazine online, it's been pretty much the worlds biggest selling magazine for over 15 years so i don't think they need that kind of publicity. Saying they steal news of this website and others like it is saying that this website gets every piece of news it displays from the director itself. Wheras empire actually has a very close relationship with most film directors, people like Spielberg and Tarantino to name a couple would even contact the magazine and make sure they got the biggest scoops before anyone else. Thats why they have all that info on Spidey 3, they just asked their good friend Sam Rami. Saying that there is no point in reading the mag when you can get all the news and reviews online misses the point of a film magazine. The meat of the mag covers features on films past present and future aswell as probably the best interviews you will read anywhere. Check out this months 'In Conversation with Paul Verhoven' for proof. Sorry to go on for so long but Empire magazine is what made me really love film in the 1st place. God i sound like a plant.
Watch me school this fool by Pipple	Nov 27th, 2006 05:13:10 PM
"I don't understand what it is about CGI that's made us expect perfection from every single effects shot. It is very strange to me. I remember, back in the eighties, we would put up with rubber monsters, crappy suits, stop motion, and some truly awful bluescreen/rear projection composites; but we still enjoyed the films. Now we are lucky enough to see Peter Parker flip and swing about like we all imagined when we were kids, but people pick it apart? I don't get it." Get this. You must be some kid. You know there used to be a time when all television was BLACK AND WHITE, yet people still enjoyed it. You make tv black and white today and people will bitch and moan. WHY? You don't get it? I'LL TELL YOU. BECAUSE WE KNOW BETTER.
Hey pipple by pjdon	Nov 27th, 2006 07:06:00 PM
I think what he was trying to say is that the effects in a film arn't half as important as having a good film. Most people on these talkbacks have never actually watched Spiderman or any film with effects in, all they have done is watched the images on screen and tried to pick them apart in a way they were never meant to be. If anyone can think of a better way of doing Spiderman without CGI i'm all open to suggestions.
To Franklin T Marmoset by pjdon	Nov 27th, 2006 07:13:52 PM
It's nice to actually see someone else on a talkback who actually likes watching films. It's so surprizing how few people actually do.
The reasoning behind CGI criticism by Flim_	Nov 27th, 2006 07:22:31 PM
The reason people are so quick to jump on CGI effects, and never really were with practical effects in the 80s and whatnot is because practical effects, even when done poorly, still look a hell of a lot better than CGI effects. CGI always, always looks terrible, and costs a hell of a lot more than traditional post-and-beam effects. If you want to see the difference that practical effects make, check out Casino Royale. The bulldozer crashing into the concrete building? Miniature. The fuel tanker chase at the airport? Miniatures/bluescreen. The sinking house? Miniature. That's how it's done right, and probably for cheaper than CGI would have charged.
So how would by pjdon	Nov 27th, 2006 07:38:36 PM
they do spiderman with practical effects? A puppet on a string? A buldozer crashing through a building does look better phiysically but if you want a 30 foot gurilla or a man flying then it's a different issue. The effects in spiderman are as good as could possibly be done at the time.
I'm no effects wizard... by Flim_	Nov 27th, 2006 09:43:31 PM
...but I know for a fact that if it were done physically, it would look a hell of a lot better than it looks in all three movies. You can take that to the bank.
But it's not physically possible by pjdon	Nov 27th, 2006 10:25:52 PM
The only possible way to get a man swinging through the air and have the camera move in the way it does is CGI, overwise they would have done it physically. Sam Rami didn't use CGI because he thought it was cool, he used it because there is no possible way to make the film without it. I'm ok with being able to tell that something is CGI, it doesn't bother me, I'm enjoying the film way too much to notice little details. Film makers like Sam Rami and Peter Jackson only use CGI when they have no other choice. I do agree that CGI is overused in some films but Spiderman would never have been made without CGI and the effects are the best they could possibly look with the technology available.
What you are saying by pjdon	Nov 27th, 2006 10:30:29 PM
is like saying that they should have used real dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park, they are exstinct so the closest looking thing is CGI. There is no such thing as a guy who can swing around at high speeds doing backflips while the camera flys around him 100's of feet above a city and no amount of money could reproduce it physically so the closest thing is once again CGI
Typical Talkbacker: Film by pjdon	Nov 27th, 2006 10:57:59 PM
Can't handle an actual disscusion without resorting to insults so just stops typing altogether.
the problem is by Pipple	Nov 27th, 2006 11:04:47 PM
CGI is overused and it becomes too obvious these days what's done in cgi. Jurrasic park is an exellent example of CGI used well and was not overdone like it has become today. Raimi unfortunately doesn't have a grasp of how to not make it so obvious his characters are just cartoons jumping around like in who framed roger rabbit. And I hate that excuse about it being impossible to film a real spiderman. DURRRR of course it is. But shut the fuck up because if we can manage to do really awesome shit like gollum, king kong, jurasic park, star wars, the matrix, x-men 2, and harry potter, among many others I must have missed, then spidey has no excuse for looking like shit.
I just don't think the CGI in spiderman by pjdon	Nov 28th, 2006 12:14:03 AM
looked that bad, especially in the second one, i thought the scenes where he was fighting octo where spot on. And even the scenes in the 1st one that didn't look quite as good where good enough for me to suspend belief and enjoy what where absolutely brilliant films regardless of the effects.
I'm sorry, I must have missed something... by Flim_	Nov 28th, 2006 01:08:33 AM
When was it that I stopped typing altogether, because of the insults? I already told your people to calm down, I didn't mean any disrespect. I respect and admire the achievements of your people, and hope they continue to forward the agenda of the comic-book reader. You're here, you're queer, and you don't want flames on Venom, or whatever. Preach on, brothers!
Practical Spider-Man by Flim_	Nov 28th, 2006 01:11:43 AM
You show me one person who can prove the movies couldn't be done practically, and I'll show you forty stuntmen who would line up at the chance to make it happen. With a good second-unit director, and the spider-cam technology (which, incidentally, was used to create the camera moves you thought were CGI), it could be done practically. But, as I said before neither I nor yourself are special effects wizards, so who are we to speak definitively on it?
I hunch by Pipple	Nov 28th, 2006 01:21:46 AM
"looked that bad, especially in the second one, i thought the scenes where he was fighting octo where spot on. And even the scenes in the 1st one that didn't look quite as good where good enough for me to suspend belief and enjoy what where absolutely brilliant films regardless of the effects." OH it's bad, especially in the first. The second was better but still needs some work. And don't give me that suspend disbelief crap. When you watch superman IV and see that rebuild wall-o-vision, you fucking know it's just bull shit. and absolutely brilliant? What the hell, do you work for sony? These movies are absolutely mediocre.
Thanks for all the comments by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 28th, 2006 03:36:54 AM
Like pjdon was saying, it seems a shame to me that so many film fans are spoiling great, enjoyable films by picking apart the special effects. No, CGI effects are not perfect, but my point was that special effects have never been perfect, so why let that spoil your enjoyment? Foor the schooling guy, Pipple - thanks for thinking me a kid. I wish I was. What I am is old enough to remember the live action Spider-Man television series, and I remember very well how awful it looked. The stuntman on a cable shimmying up the side of building, those weird sunglasses lenses on his mask, the general gawkiness of a man in spandex. I actually agree with you that practical effects are often better, but not with Spider-Man. The Raimi/ILM Spider-Man puts that telly version to shame, and I'm very glad it does. Does it look a little cartoony? Of course it does, it's a guy swinging around on a string and fighting an octopus man. This is the Spider-Man I always wanted to see when I was a kid. Also, they're good films. That seems like a pretty good deal to me.
To pjdon by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 28th, 2006 03:47:11 AM
I do like watching films. I think this age of cinema, although it may be lacking in the scripts sometimes, is pretty amazing when it comes to visual spectacle. We can see things onscreen these days that we wouldn't have imagined possible twenty years ago. Lord Of The Rings without CGI and digital compositing? Forget it. Also, see my comments about old Spider-Man above. I know it's not fashionable to be grateful for these things, but I am. I think we're pretty lucky. Nice talking to you. P.S. Empire is good, isn't it?
PJDON & Empire by teh ran	Nov 28th, 2006 05:07:53 AM
Congratulations on reading Empire for a whole 12 years, however I started collecting at issue 1 but gave up about 6 years ago as I found that the magazine started differing a lot with my love of the cinema. In hindsight I put this down to growing up and growing apart!! I've been a cinema goer since the age of 11, I love the cinema and even went through the period in the 80's when everyone thought the cinema was dead because of the video revolution. I've seen films evolve and (sadly) become more reliant on CGI to tell a story. Sometimes I think it's sad that the only innovations in the film arena are computer generated. One of my favourite directors (who I met at the Fisher King premier) is Terry Gilliam precisely because he loves animation, stop motion and miniatures. Nick Park is the same (although he has given in to CGI) I have a genuine appreciation of the effort involved in this type of film making something I don't share with CGI. I remember watching the extras on the star wars DVD and George Lucas getting all excited about Yoda's hair and thinking why not concentrate on a good story rather than getting lifelike CGI hair. I'm not saying I'm against CGI it has it's context and admittedly Spiderman would suffer without it, but as the talkbacker mentioned above the tracking shots where shot on actual cameras and wires and spidey CGI'd in later. I like cinema as story telling, when its anything else it becomes boring.
Geeks help me.... by MJAYACE	Nov 28th, 2006 08:02:24 AM
I have to admit I have almost zero knowledge of the Spiderman comics--just not one I kept up with... I thought Venom is the name for Spiderman when he is taken over by the black suit stuff. Please give me some background... I saw the .2 second flash of the creature with the big teeth (which from your posts is Venom) so if a creature is Venom, whats the black suit stuff? thanks.
Geek help arrives! by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 28th, 2006 09:06:23 AM
As I remember it, Spider-Man finds some black goo from space that becomes his new costume. At first, he likes it because it's all cool and black and doesn't get wrecked up all the time; but soon he discovers it's a living thing that's turning him all angry and violent and whatnot. So he ditches the goo, which then bonds with Eddie Brock - turning Brock into Venom, a kind of steroid-amped, drooling, razor-toothed, lolling-tongued version of Spider-Man without the sense of moral responsibility. Also, veins. Lots of veins. I hope this helps.
Venom by teh ran	Nov 28th, 2006 09:25:10 AM
Spidey picked up the symbiote during the Secret Wars run, he thought that an alien machine had created an intelligent suit to replace the one he was wearing that was all tattered. When he eventually returned back to his home he kept the suit little realising that it was 'using' him whilst he thought he was asleep. It turns out the suit was a 'symbiote' that wanted to permenantly bond itself to it's host. It turns out the symbiote could be hurt by sonic waves therefore Peter used the tolling bell to make the symbiote leave his body, which then grafted itself to it's perfect host - Eddie Brock; someone who hated spiderman as much as the symbiote. It's also worth noting that a piece of the symbiote later grafted itself to a serial killer who became Carnage (in case anyone throws that into the mix)
Carnage by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 28th, 2006 10:10:21 AM
I had forgotten about this Carnage. He was the red one, right? The serial killer with red hair and therefore his suit is also red (classic comic book logic). There has been all this talk about Venom only being in Spider-Man 3 at the very end, but maybe it's Carnage they'll hint at. This would be a good set up for Spider-Man Forever, I think, to be directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Freddy Prinze Jnr (as Spider-Man). Oh, yes. Nipples on the Spider suit. Also, some kind of neon-covered Spider-Motorcycle.
Thanks for the info by MJAYACE	Nov 28th, 2006 12:30:08 PM
In a sense I was right--in that Venom and the black stuff are one in the same--just Venom is when it is on the Brock character. thanks again. I think this looks good--although I do agree with someone earlier in that the Sandman effects look like the Mummy. Hopefully it will look real when it comes out. Its sad, but I have to admit, as crappy as the character was, Jar Jar still looks more like he was "really" there then most of the CGI characters then or now (and that was 7 yrs ago). Probably because of the motion capture... CGI still works best when it is integrated with reality rather then on its own. ILM still does it the best.
wow, the actors really think it is good by Rupee88	Nov 28th, 2006 01:18:25 PM
lol...what is really funny is that most people believe this kind of promotional nonsense.
My Mistake by pjdon	Nov 28th, 2006 04:32:43 PM
I didn't know the camera moves where done physically, i still doubt they could get all the scenes done where he is fighting octo physically. I know i'm not a special effects genius but I know enough to know what is and isn't possible. Physical effects pretty much reached their limit in the 90's the same way as mechanics have hardly advanced in the last 50 years. I know CGI is an easy way out but if any director in the world has a love for physical effects it's Sam Rami, just look at the evil dead films and octos arms in most scenes in Spiderman 2. As for tah rans coment about CGI, you do realise that Gilliam is a huge fan of CGI because it lets him do things he has always wanted to do and means he can finally get his visions on screen without the stuido complaing about how he has spent a gazzillion dollars on a set for a small cult movie which isn't going to break even.
Effects reached their limits in the 90s? by Flim_	Nov 29th, 2006 12:16:23 AM
Completely untrue... I see where you might think that, and most people do, but the reason that the studios switched to CGI had nothing to do with the believability. They did it because CGI became a buzzword, and the CGI itself actually became a selling point. Not whether it looked good or not, just that there was loads of it. Someday, CGI will look as good or better than practical effects, but that day is at least ten years in the future, and that's being very, very generous. If you can imagine it, it can be done practically. It might need to be fudged somewhat (ie. shooting bluescreen, matting, etc.), but it can be done. Model effects are the best way ever to do something. Check out the helicopter explosion at the top of the Nakatomi building in Die Hard... The airplane blowing up at the end of Die Hard II. The alien ships in Independence Day, all the parkour stuff in Banlieue 13 (District 13), everything in Aliens, mostly everything in the original Star Wars films... I could go on and on. CGI is a fad, that is all, and it all looks like crap, to a one. Actually, I just thought of one exception to that rule; if it's in a commercial, it usually looks completely real. Don't ask me why, but it does. Here's a pretty simple rule for filmmakers to remember, in order to figure out whether or not CGI should be used; Don't use CGI. Simple, to the point, and good rule of thumb.
And just to dispel that other myth... by Flim_	Nov 29th, 2006 12:19:14 AM
...the one that CGI allows things to be done cheaper? Absolutely, patently false. Rendering farms and CGI artist sweatshops charge THROUGH THE ASS to do what they do. Practical effects are always (99.9% is 'always' in my books) cheaper.
Flim_ by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 29th, 2006 03:15:56 AM
I agree with you that CGI is often overused, but to say it's just a fad seems very strange to me. You're saying every use of CGI is crap? Gollum is crap? The Jurassic dinosaurs are crap? How about less obvious uses, like removing an arm or blasting a hole through someone? Do you really want to go back to the days of arms strapped obviously behind backs? I think CGI may prove to be as big a revolution in cinema as colour or sound. It's still early days, so some directors go overboard (new toy syndrome), but that will settle down eventually. Come on, there must be some CGI you liked.
Terry Gilliams best work by teh ran	Nov 29th, 2006 04:32:15 AM
His best work was done when he spent hours working with stop motion and miniatures and his early animation efforts. Any CGI effects in his films have been put there under pressure from the studios, films like Brazil, Time Bandits, Baron Munchausen, Crimson Permanent Assurance (genius) are all excellent and the effects work (although you can tell they are effects) do not detract from the film or the story telling. For me CGI becomes a distraction and all too often puls me out of the immersive experience of being told a story. As I said before CGI is best used in conjunction with special effects, for example Jurassic Park used full scale dinosaur models as well as CGI and it worked well.
For starters by pjdon	Nov 29th, 2006 05:00:35 PM
It will not take ten years to reach perfection with CGI, given enough time they can do them perfectly now. But thats the problem, it takes time. If there was no CGI then there would be no Matrix, Lord of the RIngs, Spiderman, the list goes on. What Film is saying is that every director in the world doesn't give a shit about their art, that people like Peter Jackson and Sam Rami are just in it for the money. I agree that CGI is not the be all and end all but it is the most important thing to happen to film in the last 50 years, it lets the director paint his vision onto the screen. The only thing that matters is whether what is on the screen is what the director had in his head and who are you to tell him he is wrong. Any new tool in any art is overused at first but that doesn't mean you should discount it. When sound and color came out people where saying exactly the same thing as you are saying now. As for Teh ran, gillian used CGI in brothers grim because he wanted to, he is not the sell out you think he is. People don't look at effects and say does this look real? They look and say does this look old school, that is not what it should be about. The old ways are not always the best just because they are old, if people always thought like that then even physical effects would not exsist today.
Although by pjdon	Nov 29th, 2006 05:02:04 PM
If they use CGI for anything other than Kurt Russels beard in The Thing remake then they really will fuck it up.
CGI and SFX by teh ran	Nov 30th, 2006 05:55:15 AM
CGI is a strange beast because at the time of watching films at the cinema like Brazil, Time Bandits etc I knew no better. Terry's wacky use of miniatures and stop motion blended seamlessly into the fantasy of the story, in this respect the guy is a genius. I also know that as an animator he is quite lazy (by his own admission) and does find CG effects to be simpler, but if you heard the man talk about his passion for stop motion you would understand exactly what I am saying. I'll give a personal example, The Fellowship of the Ring, when everyone is at the council in Elrond, the very final scene where everyone is stood up after Frodo has agreed to bear the ring is all wrong, the whole scene just doesn't look right and this is 100% the fault of CGI. My problem is that film is supposed to be an immersive experience and for me anything that jars me out of a film so badly (like that scene) means that the film should never be made. I would have been happier waiting until the technique was perfected before going ahead and making the film. In terms of films like Sin City, CGI is spot on because they are re-creating a visual style and this was achieved to prefection, total immersioan in the world of Sin City. My benchmark is simple, if whilst watching a film which involves CGI and I reach a point where I no longer notice it's even there then it has worked anything else is failure and is unforgivable in my book.
teh ran by Franklin T Marmoset	Nov 30th, 2006 10:24:02 AM
You're asking quite a lot of effects, don't you think? None of them are perfect. Does it pull you out of Star Wars when you can clearly see the eyeholes in Chewbacca's mask? How about in The Thing when the monster becomes a very obvious composited stop motion creature? These imperfections have always existed and people have always accepted them (imagination, suspension of disbelief, etc.), but for some reason the CGI age has made people expect perfection. Why? You say you'd rather they perfected a technique before they used it, but how can they perfect it without using it?
Point taken by teh ran	Dec 1st, 2006 03:53:22 AM
Cinema is a strange beast, I could think about it for a long time and I would never be able to answer your question. I think from my own personal perspective that the reason why I get so annoyed with CG is that in some films it really does work so well and in others (even the one with high production values) it doesn't. Another example is King Kong, the effects on Kong were fantastic and very well realised, however the scene where they are being chased by dinosaurs down the looked horrible (like people running on a treadmill in front of a green screen. I'm no perfectionist but if a scene didn't work I wouldn't use or I'd go back to the drawing board. BTW let's see if we can turn this into the longest (duration) talkback ever...I've already bookmarked it!

Talkbacks

Sony releases that Venom Footage on a Fox Special prior to SPIDER-MAN 2!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks