The Technodrome Forums

Go Back   The Technodrome Forums > General Forums > General Discussion > TV and Movies

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2007, 04:48 PM   #1
Spitfire
Writer • Director
 
Spitfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutrino View Post
Yeah, spit. I've seen the second movie. I liked 3 more than one and two. Yes the emo dark paker was a bit lame, but they were trying to get their point across. They must appeal to a larger audience than just you. (young children)
Rami never cared about pleasing anyone he did what he wanted. That's why I respected him. I respect directors who don't let movie studios tell them what to do.

Why do so many people like 300? It has tons of action and no plot. That's the common movie now of days that everyone eats up. I expect Rami to deliver more then that. And he did, but I just didn't find it on par with #2. And if that young children comment is about me I got a few things I could say about that, and instead of jumping the gun and assuming it is I'll just say that a PG-13 movie shouldn't appeal to young children. The less children in the theater during any movie the better.

Quote:
Well, there are more action scenes to level out the drama, so yeah, I think you should give it a shot.
There's only more action because it's a half hour longer. I actually think #2 has more action in it or around the same. Though I more recently watched 2.1 which is a re-cut that has extended fight scenes*And their really cool actually*

Quote:
I could hardly stand 2. Way too many minor annoyances as well as the fact that they over-accentuated the drama.
What annoyed you, out of curiosity? And how was the drama any more over accentuated then this movies? This one was worse in that aspect I thought. Then again you said it has more action then drama and that just proves you fit into the stereotype above of people liking movies better when it's mindless entertainment.

Sorry if I'm a bit harsh but I look at movies as a form of art, and when I see bad art recognized more then good art simply because of who was involved in it I get a little aggressive.

Quote:
If you think of the Symbiote as the main villain and not Venom, then his apperance makes more sense and his screen time (or lack thereof) is justifed.
You know I didn't even think of it that way. I'll have that mind set next time I watch it, I might enjoy it more.
__________________
Check out my online portfolio
http://www.christopherpelletier.com/

Last edited by Spitfire; 05-06-2007 at 04:55 PM.
Spitfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2007, 05:53 PM   #2
ZariusTwo
Overlord
 
ZariusTwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP!
Posts: 22,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire666xXxXx View Post
Rami never cared about pleasing anyone he did what he wanted. That's why I respected him. I respect directors who don't let movie studios tell them what to do.
Agreed. Raimi did what he felt was better for the drama and the characters, the Symbiote and Sandman had never been done justice, heck the original Alien Costume storyline is all but obscure barring it's larger known use in the animated series, here, it was made the forefront of the film. Venom took years to come into the comics, where as the Symbiote did'nt.

By paying more attention to that, Raimi and Sargent must have really backtracked to the Secret Wars. That's why whenever Sam says he has "respect for the character" now, there's no doubt he means the original symbiote storyline, and the Eddie Brock/Venom he and his writers created to serve as the Symbiote trying to gain revenge.

One thing I kind of figured out is that the more critical audiences did'nt want to see Spider-Man, the New York loved, well appreciated, fun everyday superhero who overcomes personal odds within the movie...go through the film with less upbeat moments, even at the conclusion

When a franchise, medium-wise, known (rather ignorantly) for it's fun and adventure in the face of adversity starts to have less of that and focus on the long-term problems the character is known to sometimes have, it leaves a very different taste, and I don't think audiences that have been so against this are ready for that
ZariusTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2007, 06:16 PM   #3
Jo Dawn
Inactive Moderator
 
Jo Dawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Authority On All Things Don
Posts: 5,190
So... I saw it.

I, uh... Ok. It had some good parts. On the whole, I was bored, though. I can't stand the whole 'I love you , but I can't have you, and I mess up, but YOU mess up and on and on and ON' crap. Which is what the whole second movie was, and a good chunk of this one.

Personally, I found the Sandman a much more compelling 'bad guy' (if he can be called that) than anything. Though, I'm glad Venom wasn't 'Venom' for very long (as I was never a fan of the character).

J. Jonah was a joy, though, heh. As always. And there were a few good spots...

Crowd wasn't in it, though. I have to say, each time I saw TMNT the crowd was way more into that they were this (though it could have been this particular crowd, also). The kids in front of us (two of them around 10 years old, some younger) actually fell asleep a little more than halfway through.

I'd see it again, to see if I could get a better 'feel' on it. Maybe I was tired. Either way, it had it's good points... Every so often, heh.

Spoiler:
Although Harry in effect 'needed' to die, it was still sad to see him go, though it was infuriating that he wouldn't BELIEVE HIS BEST FRIEND until the end there. Also, Gwen Stacey living was sort of surprising, sort of not. It's ok, though. I actually like the actress, so...
__________________
Jo Dawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2007, 10:55 PM   #4
gobo
Wacky Action
 
gobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: on Earth
Posts: 12,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire666xXxXx View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobo
I could hardly stand 2. Way too many minor annoyances as well as the fact that they over-accentuated the drama.
What annoyed you, out of curiosity? And how was the drama any more over accentuated then this movies? This one was worse in that aspect I thought. Then again you said it has more action then drama and that just proves you fit into the stereotype above of people liking movies better when it's mindless entertainment.

Sorry if I'm a bit harsh but I look at movies as a form of art, and when I see bad art recognized more then good art simply because of who was involved in it I get a little aggressive.
Well, you aren't exactly inspiring me to dignify you with an answer, but I'll accept your explanation, apology or whatever I should call it. In 2, MJ was the main source of annoyance as usual. The fact that it felt like a hammed-up soap-opera didn't make me at all happy. The "if it wasn't for bad luck, Parker wouldn't have no luck at all" themes made me clinch my teeth. Peter: "There's more for me to say." MJ: "Wait. What are you saying?" I so wanted to slap her right then... twice even. Stupid girl...

As for why I think the drama was easier to stomach this time around, it was better balanced among the action and comedy. While there were just as many dramatic moments, they weren't as concentrated. We were given more relief between those scenes, and they didn't seem to drag on forever. If they had more than two that were even long enough for me to get upset over, I must have blinked or something.

BTW, I still have no intention of ever seeing 300 unless someone shows it to me. It sounded like garbage to begin with, and I don't care for movies where the sensationalism outweighs the point (if it has one). I've said that around here a few times before, so the impression you got is wrong, proving to me that I pay more attention to you than vice versa.
__________________
Live and let live... or go to hell.

gobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2007, 04:13 PM   #5
Duke
Mad Scientist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,913
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the symbiote in context with its relationship with Peter Parker. It is supposed to make his repressed tendency more natural. Peter isn’t necessarily the “nice” guy, he portrays. Remember it is a constant struggle for him not to let his strength and powerful overwhelm him. Peter is human and has tons of rage like almost everyone (like when he wanted to kill his uncle’s “killer” in the first movie). But thankfully he is constantly reminded by his beloved uncle “with great power comes great responsibility.” He represses that rage and anger and does his best to be a true hero. However, rage/anger isn’t the only emotion Peter represses. Deep down inside he still see’s himself as a nerd, science geek, and someone who got picked on in high school. But that isn’t what he wants.

Spoiler:
That’s why we see him absolutely revealing in the praise he receives as Spider-Man, which is the cause of the majority of his conflict with MJ.


I think the reason the Symbiote made Peter act the way he did is because it pushed those issues to the front of his conscience. Peter wanted to be the “cool kid” and he wanted all the eyes and attention focused on him. I think all the actions and behaviors Peter displayed during this time were a wonderful adaption of the symbiote's influence and control over Peter. For this reason, I agree 100% with Zarius in seeing the Symbiote as the main bad guy in the movie. As it not only affects Spider-Man's life but also the much more personal elements of Peter's life.

Amazing movie.
Duke is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.