Sony's Spiderman 2

K. Forman · July 5th, 2004, 02:58 PM

Ok... I'll let you non-fans in on the villain teases. John Jameson did bring the Venom symbiot back from space, but that was after he turned into a werewolf from his first moon mission.

Eddie Brock, a reporter from the first movie, eventually becomes Venom, AFTER Peter Parker rejects the symbiot.

Parker's teacher Dr. Connors, becomes the Lizard in a search to regenerate his lost arm.

And, at the end of the second movie, Harry Osborne discovers his father's Green Goblin lair. He will eventually become the Hobgoblin.

I'm sure that there were more teases, but I missed them. It's not like I'm a full-fledged geek or anything ;)

K. Forman · July 6th, 2004, 07:14 AM

What happens when a TRUE comic geek watches Spidey 2? They nit pick it to death!
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3843

Someone needs a life... or a girlfriend!

Keith Loh · July 6th, 2004, 09:34 AM

Page overloaded :O

Emre Safak · July 22nd, 2004, 10:00 PM

Did anyone else except me love the editing? I thought it had a very rich vocabulary. The editor (Bob Murawski) has not cut anything really famous before: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0613657/

K. Forman · July 23rd, 2004, 06:10 AM

I was very pleased with all aspects of the film, and would have changed very little. I thought the editing was pretty tight.

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 23rd, 2004, 06:17 AM

What's the problem of editing a movie with anything you want???
The usual methods of offline/online are meant for that.
Anyway you always end with large sequences of frames pasted together.
Not Avid nor FCP will give you a quality advantage.
Or anyone here thinks that a 4k movie is directly edited at full resolution into an Avid system?? :)

Rob Belics · July 23rd, 2004, 08:38 AM

I thought it was fair at best.

Kirsten Dunst looked awful. The lighting was a little too obvious. There were some confusing parts, like why his threads weren't coming out.

Yes, I knew why but there was no way to know for sure. The drama was unsurprising and expected. I could hardly wait for the whole thing to end.

My 14-year old liked it. My 17-year old thought it was just OK.

Glenn Gipson · July 25th, 2004, 11:41 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : I thought it was fair at best.

Kirsten Dunst looked awful. The lighting was a little too obvious. There were some confusing parts, like why his threads weren't coming out.
-->>>

Or how could an old 70-something year old woman hold herself up sixty stories in the air...with a cane! I can't even do that lol.

Luis Caffesse · July 25th, 2004, 12:12 PM

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I actually loved the movie.

The main reason was that for the first time in a long time, I saw
a big budget summer 'blockbuster' that actually felt as though
it was made by an individual.

I did not enjoy Spiderman 1 much at all, thought it was just 'okay.'
Because, like most big budget movies, it felt as though it was spit
out of a machine. Whereas, for me, Spiderman 2 definitely had
a lot of life to it, it reminded me of so many of the things that made
me like Sam Raimi to begin with.

It was obvious that an individual with a point of view made it.
That alone made it better than the first.

Yes, it was melodramatic, and that is not for everyone.
The movie definitely followed the comic book, and it really felt
like a comic book on screen to me. But that is not a defense of the
movie.

It had all the strengths and all the weaknesses of a comic.
Comics and movies are different, and much like most great movies
would never make great comic books, the same could be said for
going the other direction. Spiderman 2 is a movie, and should be
judged as a movie. Saying 'yeah, but that's how it is in the comic'
isn't really a valid defense of things that might be wrong with it.

I can understand why a lot of people didn't seem to like it.
It was light fun, it was melodrama, and it was kind of cheesy.
But, I thought Raimi handled it very well. I definitely wasn't
let down at all. In fact, I may go see it again.

By the way:
"Did anyone else except me love the editing? I thought it had a very rich vocabulary"

What exactly does 'rich vocabulary' mean?

I thought it was well cut. But I don't really know what you mean
by 'vocabulary.'

-Luis

Keith Loh · July 25th, 2004, 12:20 PM

I think by vocabulary he means range and tasteful choice.

Emre Safak · July 25th, 2004, 01:14 PM

Yes, that is what I meant.

Joe Carney · July 25th, 2004, 01:22 PM

I saw the movie, and it seemed like a 150 million dollar chick flic.

Nothing wrong with that, but I would have preferred Doc Octopus' wife stay alive a little longer and have them explore that dynamic. I realize the guilt over his wifes death had much to do with his going crazy, but the chemistry between them was there and was for the most part wasted as nothing more than a plot deivice.
They have plenty of sequels left to explore Peter and Mary Jane.

Still, I thought the script was much better than the first one.

Plus, answering the question (who is spider man) and getting it out of the way was a very smart move by the producers to preserve the franchise.

July 5th, 2004, 02:58 PM	#16
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	Ok... I'll let you non-fans in on the villain teases. John Jameson did bring the Venom symbiot back from space, but that was after he turned into a werewolf from his first moon mission. Eddie Brock, a reporter from the first movie, eventually becomes Venom, AFTER Peter Parker rejects the symbiot. Parker's teacher Dr. Connors, becomes the Lizard in a search to regenerate his lost arm. And, at the end of the second movie, Harry Osborne discovers his father's Green Goblin lair. He will eventually become the Hobgoblin. I'm sure that there were more teases, but I missed them. It's not like I'm a full-fledged geek or anything ;) __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

July 6th, 2004, 07:14 AM	#17
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	What happens when a TRUE comic geek watches Spidey 2? They nit pick it to death! http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3843 Someone needs a life... or a girlfriend! __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

July 6th, 2004, 09:34 AM	#18
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Page overloaded :O __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

July 23rd, 2004, 06:10 AM	#20
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	I was very pleased with all aspects of the film, and would have changed very little. I thought the editing was pretty tight. __________________ www.SmokeWagonLeather.us

July 25th, 2004, 12:20 PM	#25
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	I think by vocabulary he means range and tasteful choice. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

July 22nd, 2004, 10:00 PM	#19
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	Did anyone else except me love the editing? I thought it had a very rich vocabulary. The editor (Bob Murawski) has not cut anything really famous before: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0613657/

July 23rd, 2004, 06:17 AM	#21
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	What's the problem of editing a movie with anything you want??? The usual methods of offline/online are meant for that. Anyway you always end with large sequences of frames pasted together. Not Avid nor FCP will give you a quality advantage. Or anyone here thinks that a 4k movie is directly edited at full resolution into an Avid system?? :)

July 23rd, 2004, 08:38 AM	#22
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	I thought it was fair at best. Kirsten Dunst looked awful. The lighting was a little too obvious. There were some confusing parts, like why his threads weren't coming out. Yes, I knew why but there was no way to know for sure. The drama was unsurprising and expected. I could hardly wait for the whole thing to end. My 14-year old liked it. My 17-year old thought it was just OK.

July 25th, 2004, 11:41 AM	#23
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : I thought it was fair at best. Kirsten Dunst looked awful. The lighting was a little too obvious. There were some confusing parts, like why his threads weren't coming out. -->>> Or how could an old 70-something year old woman hold herself up sixty stories in the air...with a cane! I can't even do that lol.

July 25th, 2004, 12:12 PM	#24
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	Just to throw in my 2 cents, I actually loved the movie. The main reason was that for the first time in a long time, I saw a big budget summer 'blockbuster' that actually felt as though it was made by an individual. I did not enjoy Spiderman 1 much at all, thought it was just 'okay.' Because, like most big budget movies, it felt as though it was spit out of a machine. Whereas, for me, Spiderman 2 definitely had a lot of life to it, it reminded me of so many of the things that made me like Sam Raimi to begin with. It was obvious that an individual with a point of view made it. That alone made it better than the first. Yes, it was melodramatic, and that is not for everyone. The movie definitely followed the comic book, and it really felt like a comic book on screen to me. But that is not a defense of the movie. It had all the strengths and all the weaknesses of a comic. Comics and movies are different, and much like most great movies would never make great comic books, the same could be said for going the other direction. Spiderman 2 is a movie, and should be judged as a movie. Saying 'yeah, but that's how it is in the comic' isn't really a valid defense of things that might be wrong with it. I can understand why a lot of people didn't seem to like it. It was light fun, it was melodrama, and it was kind of cheesy. But, I thought Raimi handled it very well. I definitely wasn't let down at all. In fact, I may go see it again. By the way: "Did anyone else except me love the editing? I thought it had a very rich vocabulary" What exactly does 'rich vocabulary' mean? I thought it was well cut. But I don't really know what you mean by 'vocabulary.' -Luis

July 25th, 2004, 01:14 PM	#26
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	Yes, that is what I meant.

July 25th, 2004, 01:22 PM	#27
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	I saw the movie, and it seemed like a 150 million dollar chick flic. Nothing wrong with that, but I would have preferred Doc Octopus' wife stay alive a little longer and have them explore that dynamic. I realize the guilt over his wifes death had much to do with his going crazy, but the chemistry between them was there and was for the most part wasted as nothing more than a plot deivice. They have plenty of sequels left to explore Peter and Mary Jane. Still, I thought the script was much better than the first one. Plus, answering the question (who is spider man) and getting it out of the way was a very smart move by the producers to preserve the franchise.