You Know Who

Okay. Finally this is making sense to me. I was having difficulty thinking of an shitty phase of my life that prevented me from drawing as well as would have liked, then I remembered the shit storm that was my previous semester in college. You win.

Actually, lazy writing is spelling things out for your audience. There's a well known saying in writing, "Show, don't tell." It basically means that if you give your audience the hints, they'll be smart enough to pick up on it. If Spidey just says, "I can't use my powers because I'm sad" that's lazy writing. Your average audience is usually smart enough to pick up the subtle clues and figure out what's wrong with the hero. Then apparently I didn't pick up the hints of a condition I had never heard of. Or you might just be reading into it. It isn't a very subtle film by any stretch of the imagination.

3. Sorry, but I maintain that that scene was WAY TOO FUCKING LONG, though not as much so as the broom closet. 4. Yes and Octavius says it allows him to control the arms and not vice versa. Are we supposed to assume that his subconscious controls them after the inhabiter is destroyed? 7. Alright, you guys win. 8. That is true, but the fact that it's never explained still smacks of lazy writing to me.

3: The elevator scene is hilarious. 4: After the inhibitor was destroyed, the arms were hooked up directly to his brain. 7: If you had metal tentacles and went stomping around on them with enough force to crack through concrete, you'd make a decent tremor. He doesn't have to be the weight of a T-Rex to do that. 8: Yeah, Preston's right. 3. It outstayed it's welcome. 4. What? Was it not the other way around? Were they not hooked his brain before having a will of their own? 7. Mmmmmmmm...maybe. I'm still not entirely sure. 8. Perhaps, but it could have been presented better. His mask prevented us from seeing him being bummed out or frustrated right before losing his powers, thus it's kind of a stretch.

No, I haven't. If that's what Pete had, evidently he needs a new doctor.

It sort of was. It was a confidence issue. If he didn't have the confidence in his abilities, he was going to fail. Weak and cliched.

O, he was. He's one of the best supervillains to make it to the silver screen, talking arms and earthshaking aside.

Just finished watching. Here are my gripes with it (some of them are admittedly nitpicks but they have to be mentioned): 1. Like I said before, the first half hour of the movie is spent beating us over the head with how much Peter's life sucks and Octavius isn't introduced until after that period. 2. Franco's still weak as Harry Osborn. Ironically, I think his strongest performance as Harry is in the next film, the weakest of the franchise. 3. Dragged out, humorless gags like the broom closet and elevator scenes. 4. Doc Ock's sentient arms, whose shrieks he can somehow understand. 5. Hokey acting from the New York City citizens ("Go, Spidey, go!"). 6. Bad CGI in some places, like whenever Spidey or Ock gets electrocuted or when Spidey throws those two citizens to safety from the train. 7. The Earth shaking whenever Doc Ock walks around on his tentacles. He's not the fucking T. rex from Jurassic Park. 8. Peter losing and regaining his powers throughout the movie is NEVER FUCKING EXPLAINED. I had a few more but decided to narrow it down to eight, given the film's villain. Despite these gripes, I still like the movie.

O, yeah...ouch...

What's wrong with it?

If that's the best, then they should just stop making superhero films. I thought 2 was awful. The first one is the only good one in the series. WOW...never thought I'd see someone say that. I don't think it's awful, but I definitely prefer the first one to the other two. Too much time is spent in this one on beating the audience over the head with how much Peter's life sucks.

Watching Spider-Man 2 for the first time in a while. Seeing if the parts I like hold up and if it really does rank among the best superhero films ever.

HOORAY!

Apparently this film will go the Superman: Brainiac Attacks route, not in terms of quality, but by nature of the fact that it will lift its animation style from a previous continuity but not actually be in that continuity (ex. Arisia predates Hal Jordan as a member of the Corps in "First Flight" but here is a rookie while Hal is a veteran).

This has to be the singlehanded most insane thing posted on these forums. In a world where Suavestar exists, that's quite a feat. Congratulations on your incredibly misguided tastes. A-fuckin'-men

The Last Airbender wins Worst Picture Award at Razzies: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/27/us-razzies-idUSTRE71Q0HV20110227 James is vindicated.

Just like it would be hard to top Jack Nicholson's Joker? These things can be done. Perhaps, but I'm not sure if General Zod can be interpreted and portrayed in as many ways as the Joker can. I guess it would hinge as much on his motivations as his characterization. I'd still see the film if Zod was the main antagonist, but I think the makers of the Batman and the upcoming Spider-Man reboot had the right idea when they decided to start off with a villain audiences haven't seen before.

I'd prefer him as the latter rather than the former. Like Mike, I'm sorta of the mind that Superman should be the last remaining Kryptonian and that the presence of Zod or Supergirl negates his epithet "the last son of Krypton". Also, it would be hard to top Terence Stamp's version of the character.

are you sure you and I watched the same film? Lol, yea I think so, I don't know why I really just enjoyed the score, it wasn't as great as Danny Elfman score to Batman or Spider-Man, but it fit well. I haven't read the book like you did, so you probably had your own feature in your head and like most it didn't capture the feeling you felt from the book(like how WB screwed over Queen of the Damned), but I thought it was a good film and was impressed. Actually it did capture the feelings I got from the book. Though I'm not a fan of the book or the movie (I might give it a second chance), I do think it was a very faithful adaptation of the source material, all things considered.

are you sure you and I watched the same film?

...........I got nothin'.

Preston homoerotic comment count: 2

I sort of disagree; it's more likely she would get combat experience as a street hooker Sorry, I've just never heard of learning any martial arts being learned by rebound your face off the hand of an angry pimp. Not martial arts, just street-fighting. I don't remember Sonny Chiba wearing 6 inch heels and a PVC mini-skirt.

I sort of disagree; it's more likely she would get combat experience as a street hooker Sorry, I've just never heard of learning any martial arts being learned by rebound your face off the hand of an angry pimp. Not martial arts, just street-fighting.

I sort of disagree; it's more likely she would get combat experience as a street hooker than as a debutante, since she'd probably have a few run-ins with muggers and pimps. She'd still probably need someone to train her and refine her skills so that she could hold on her own against Batman for more than thirty seconds. Her living such a life would also give her a motivation for stealing from the rich than if she was just well-off the begin with. That being said, I quite like Mike's idea, though I'm not sure they could get away with having a prostitute be a pivotal character in a film that a lot of kids are gonna see. Whatever interpretation they use would be better than the mousy secretary of Batman Returns.