posted
Batman & Robin...*sigh* That was a bad movie filled with terrible puns. "Ice to see you"? Blech.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: The movie not only failed my watch-check test (rating how much I like the movie based on the number of times I check my watch) but it also failed a newly-made 'turn on the pda and read a book' test as well.
It was torture. I couldn't wait for the movie to end.
Why on earth would you sit in the theater through a bad experience to read in low lighting?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It had it's flaws but I enjoyed it quite a bit. I wouldn't mind seeing it again. I don't understand what all the (negative) fuss is about.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
<i>Beyond bad? Torture? Now you're just being silly.... Either that or you've never seen what a really bad movie is like (which I doubt). Batman 4, anyone?</i>
Like I said, the fight scenes were spectacular.
The same movie with lower quality actions scenes would be of the same calibre as <i>Batman and Robin.</i> It really was that stupid.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. While not Batman&Robin-bad I would say that Spider-Man 3 was Star Wars Episodes 1 to 3 -bad. There was the same sort of emotional detachment in all of those movies though Spider-Man was way better acted. But when it comes to directing non-actiony emotional drama moments Sam Raimi is not really any better than George Lucas. He should have the characters do things in those scenes, not just stand still, or then he should use more close-ups or something. He's not like Peter Jackson who can direct both drama and action.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The emo hair is meant to show us how much we are supposed to hate emos, I consider the entire point being to point out that emo = bad.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The spidey sense was actually explained in the first movie as simply being really good reflexes and not actual spidey sense at all.
IP: Logged |
posted
emo hair: when he pulled it doen in front of his eyes, its somewhat spikey somewhat messey, but always goes in front of an eye.
It is in reference to the listeners/members of Emo bands
Emo is short for emotional. Emo music referres to that pop/punk style where a few young adult males with high pitched voices whine and cry over a girl (usually) or not having friends whilst playing a monotonous drum rythem and 3 maybe 4 power chords. The song usually involve wanting to kill oneself or hurt oneself and yet blame the other person involved in the relationship that went south.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The spidey sense was actually explained in the first movie as simply being really good reflexes and not actual spidey sense at all.
No, it wasn't. In the first movie, the Spidey sense came from a (fictional?) species of Spiders that the Osborn scientists theorized had a "sixth sense for danger", that was added into the hybrid spider that bit Peter.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: emo hair: when he pulled it doen in front of his eyes, its somewhat spikey somewhat messey, but always goes in front of an eye.
It is in reference to the listeners/members of Emo bands
Emo is short for emotional. Emo music referres to that pop/punk style where a few young adult males with high pitched voices whine and cry over a girl (usually) or not having friends whilst playing a monotonous drum rythem and 3 maybe 4 power chords. The song usually involve wanting to kill oneself or hurt oneself and yet blame the other person involved in the relationship that went south.
That is a very over simplified and ungenerous assessment. But, yes there are emo bands that are like that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: emo hair: when he pulled it doen in front of his eyes, its somewhat spikey somewhat messey, but always goes in front of an eye.
It is in reference to the listeners/members of Emo bands
Emo is short for emotional. Emo music referres to that pop/punk style where a few young adult males with high pitched voices whine and cry over a girl (usually) or not having friends whilst playing a monotonous drum rythem and 3 maybe 4 power chords. The song usually involve wanting to kill oneself or hurt oneself and yet blame the other person involved in the relationship that went south.
That is a very over simplified and ungenerous assessment. But, yes there are emo bands that are like that.
I havent really run into any bands that fit the Emo genre that dont fit this description. Then again... this is probably teh most annoying form of music to date, yes... even worse than techno... Which is why i avoid it at all cost.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mostly they sound like teenage boys whining about girls who don't like them in the most irratating tone of voice ever!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I just need to grow up (I'm 24), but emo as a music genre is something I actually connect with rather strongly. I can relate to the raw passion, the pure emotion, the anguish that accompanies heartbreak and rejection. Of course I completely understand not feeling the same way. I can't stand most country music myself. What I don't understand is the hostility, the condescension, the stereotyping, this taboo of openly and passionately expressing how you feel, the association of emo with pure immaturity and self-pity.
I believe emo is a reflection of the very real emotional struggles many, probably most, young people go through. Those emotions may seem immature to you, and perhaps they are. That is part of the learning experience, life, growing up, etc. Emo, in a way, is an expression of these things. It's perfectly understandable that the genre doesn't appeal to those, say, 20ish and older because they've gotten over and gained control of these emotions that they now consider trivial. Or perhaps they simply never found them to be all that important to begin with. But just because you don’t or can’t relate to something doesn’t make it any less legitimate. Music means so many different things to different people. Who are we to say what genre is ultimately better or more musical than another?
And as a side note, I challenge anyone to provide a theme that provokes more passionate expression than love. Heartbreak is a dominate theme in nearly every genre for this reason. Emo just happens to concentrate specifically on this particular theme. What exactly is so wrong with that?
posted
Nothing really, i can like a song from any genre, it's just that most of the emo i have heard drives me up a tree. I think it's sthat tone. Why must ALL the bands sing in that same exact tone? It's all nasally and stuff. Or maybe Dir en grey ruined me... I have yet to hear a band with their kind of feeling and passion...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like most things, what provokes passion in each person is subjective. What many consider to be "emo" is also somewhat debatable. I for one would not consider many of these more pop-ish punk bands like Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy to belong to the genre. New Found Glory might be a possible exception.
As for tone, although I do find many male pop singers like Timberlake and what I can only assume was his twin separated at birth on American Idol to be annoyingly nasally, I would not consider most (I'll admit a few) singers typically labeled "emo" to fall in that same category. For example, I would not consider Nate Barcalow (Finch), Chris Carrabba (Dashboard), or Andrew McMahon (Something Corporate) to have a nasally tone. Higher in pitch than most males could ever imagine going, sure, but not nasally.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very uninterested in discussing what bands count as emo and which bands do not.
Synesthesia: Nobody agrees more that there are some, perhaps many emo bands that fit your description, and it makes complete sense that it would not appeal to certain folks. Who knows? Perhaps I only like it because it first came to be when I was the ideal age to enjoy it, but there is plenty of new stuff that just does not interest me, and some that does.
While characteristically emo singers do try to sing at the higher end of the registry, that does not mean they have to sound unpleasant or nasally.
You will find the direction that bands like Jimmy Eat World, All American Rejects, and The Get Up Kids take is markedly different then say The Used, The Bled, etc. But there are many bands in between or off to the side in their own direction.
The only thing that was emo about Peter Parker in Spiderman was his hair cut, and arguably his clothing. Beyond that he hung out at Jazz clubs not rock concerts, and he didn't pick up a guitar and start sobbing while he sang so I really don't think the intention was to emotize him, (not a word I know!)
Although if you look at the soundtrack for Spider Man 2, an emo band, Dashboard Confessional's "Vindicated" dominated the charts over their non emo counterpart's entrees.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyo can sometimes sound a bit nasally. iN a good way. He doesn't use that TONE though. It's like they are trying to sound like the dood from Greenday.... but they sound annoying for somer eason. Music is a chemical thing I think, and some music really makes the chemicals just flow... Other music just BUGS me. It's not bad, it just annoys me. For instance, these songs by Three Days Grace. They are not bad, they just IRRATATE me for some reason. Or this song by Staind. They aggravate me! This song Right Here Waiting has cool guitars, but the lyrics are TERRIBLE! And they did a cover of Comfortably Numb. I will not forgive!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I am very uninterested in discussing what bands count as emo and which bands do not.
For the record, I'm not interested in that discussion either. I was simply illustrating my point of subjective interests.
I love The Get Up Kids, by the way. I didn't discover them until a couple of years ago, but I've been hooked ever since.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: It was torture. I couldn't wait for the movie to end.
Finally! Wading through all that praise and even lukewarm acceptance of the movie made me wonder if I went to the same movie as everyone else.
I couldn't wait for the movie to end, either. I loved the first 2 so much that I kept giving it chances to get better, but in the end I WALKED OUT about 30 minutes before the end. (Shortly after that photographer guy got covered in black goo. I think that was the last straw.)
I did not read the comics and I couldn't care less about them. I enjoyed the first two movies because they were well written, well acted, and had compellingly written and believable characters who had depth and real, sympathetic problems.
I expected more of the same with this one, but from the opening information dump, through completely unbelievable "particle physics" (Give me a break!), to that awful scene with Peter trying to act cool that made me cringe...I have nothing good to say about the movie AT ALL. In fact, I am going to do my best to pretend that there were only 2 Spiderman movies, much the same way I try to pretend there was only 1 Matrix movie.
X-Men 3 wasn't good, but mostly I thought the problem was over-the-top violence and even melodrama. If only that was the only bad thing I could say about Spiderman 3.
There was too much going on and too many bad guys.
They tried to go back and revisit the best friend/enemy relationship with Harry through a pretty convenient bit of amnesia but I'm afraid they couldn't milk that twice. At least, not for me.
They spent entirely too much time on the romance subplot for an action flick.
I did laugh. Twice. I can't remember what was funny, though.
Torture is a great word. I chose painful, but it's all in the same spirit.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why on earth would you sit in the theater through a bad experience to read in low lighting?
I was with three other people more determined than I was to watch the movie entirely through. In other words—I was trapped.
I agree with Christine. Reading the other comments about Spider-man 3, I have also wondered if we all watched the same movie.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's just a matter of what your expectations were. I went in expecting it to be a typical third installmant of an action trilogy. I expected some awesome CGI, at least a couple of not-quite-as-cheesy laughs, Kirsten Dunst in the only role where she's actually atractive (I think it's just the red hair), and the opportunity to rant about how it easily could have been so much better with my friends at dinner aftwerward. I wasn't that disappointed.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*on topic* Caveat: I loved both 1 and 2 and Spidey has been my favorite superhero since I was 9 years old. Most of these points were made already:
I have wondered what happened to spidey-sense through all three movies. Maybe they did explain it away in the first one?
There were too many villains.
I too questioned why would Sandman agree with Brock/Venom to kill Spidey if he (Sandman) is actually a good guy.
I too thought, "This movie has more endings that LoTR III"--that's not a good sign.
There were too many we're paying this actor a lot of money and people want to see his face so let's have him take his mask off for no real reason sequences.
I checked my watch 2 or 3 times (did not do that in LoTR III), so it failed in that regard.
I disliked what everyone is referring to as the emo scenes.
MJ and Pete should definitely go to counseling to work on their communication issues before they go any further in their relationship.
I liked the amnesia suffering Harry, his remembering / make Parker suffer, and his redemption.
The butler was lame, lame, lame.
Some of the humor worked, but when it didn't (which was all too often) it was like a movie on MST3K.
The special effects were spectacular.
Casting continued to be fantastic. The actors did very well with what they were given.
I liked X3 better.
There should have been some explanation (as there was in the comic) for Parker to intentionally go to the bell tower.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I paid for the crane scene, and it's nice to know Mary Jane is growing up pretty. Did they ever resolve Spiderman's issues with being self-absorbed?
I don't really care about the fights or the villians, never have. Spiderman, for me, has been about the flying saves and noblisse oblige. The only villians I cared about were the people of New York, back when New York hated Spiderman, which made it ever the more touching in both movies when the people of New York stood up for Spiderman.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Quickie armchair director advice: it should have been Sandman and the Lizard, with Peter dealing with the symbiote all through the movie and finally getting rid of it at the end, with Brock getting it in the final scene to set up Spider-Man."
Agree 100 percent. I also thought it was idiotic that they killed venom off, they need him to create carnage.
A few issues I had include that he didn't seem to gain any spectacularly increased strength and agility from the symbiote and that he didn't get the ability to just like magically change what he wears (ie the suit transforming).
Just like you I also miss the smartass Spidey from the cartoons. MJ was always very aggressive but the movies she seems weak.
Practically no talking in the film, just action... that was kind of silly, ie. bad.
A lot of the emotional scenes were over the top and I have to say they just packed too much into one movie and watered down everything.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris BridgesThe meteorite finding the one superhero in NY was too strained. Better to have it infect other people and move around to stronger and stronger victims, maybe overwhelming each one, until it found one strong enough (Peter). This badly needed its own movie.
Well, perhaps they should have just used another way for the symbiont to get to earth. In the cartoon the symbiont comes down via Jamesons space mission. Then, in the lab milieu it comes across Parker whose above normal strength is recognisable and attractive to it. This way it would have been far less strained. But it does mean you'd have to sneak it into the second movie and by doing so you'd have given away the coming of Venom too soon (at least for the people who are aware of the backstory). JS...
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
