Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by ST-TPM-ASF-TNE, Jun 1, 2002.
Spider-Man didnt need feature films to gather its huge fanbase.
biased eh....so DONT COME TO THE SITE!
I am not saying it does.
Only time will tell how well a SM2 or 3 can do.
I agree with the review. Spider-Man was a thoroughly entertaining movie; the best superhero movie I've ever seen.
I cared about the characters in Spider-Man. I didn't care about anyone (besides Obi-Wan, somewhat) in AOTC.
I was never bored during Spider-Man. I was bored throughout the first hour and a half of AOTC.
The love story in AOCT is perhaps the single worst love story I've ever seen on screen; and it certainly has the worst lines. Compare that with Peter Parker's refusal of Mary Jane at the end of Spider-Man. He loves her and wants to reciprocate her declaration of love; but, to protect her, he denies himself. "This is my gift; this is my curse." There's nothing in AOTC that rises to that level. In Spider-Man, the boy doesn't get the girl. In AOTC, we are given the most unbelievable love story ever. The whole time you can feel Lucas forcing Nat and Hayden together because, well, they have to conceive Luke and Leia.
Spider-Man: 8 out of 10
AOTC: 4 out of 10
pupkin,yes bladerunner did great box office.
2001 is a yawnathon.
great. Then why come to the AOTC...to tell everyone how much you hated it?
Bs I know you from the Senate board, I know your game.
You love to fan the fire.
Are you kidding? There are people here who nitpick more than my mother. I almost left once because of some of the cynicism. And threads like this are just as cynical and pointless. We're never going to agree. Liking a film is an opinion. There is no 'greatest movie of all time' because we each have our own opinion of what that is.
Good Lord, people!
I am not at all surprised Binary_Sunset is against AOTC in this topic
JBFett, I'm interested in the prequels.
You're only limiting your thinking to cultural ideals in believing that Spider-Man has a bigger fanbase than Star Wars.
That may be true in the States, but certainly not true in the world. I would think it safe to say that, at this point, even Harry Potter has a bigger following than Spider-Man. Certainly Star Wars has a bigger following than Spider-Man, the Matrix, or whatever domestic film series you wanna throw up against it.
To make such a general, encompassing statement that "Spider-Man has a bigger following than Star Wars" shows a cultural bias and prejudice.
Regardless of who has the bigger following in the states, I believe it says more a film that the world enjoys it more than just one particular country.
All I can say is that I enjoyed Episode II far more than Spider-Man. To me, Spider-Man was good, but AOTC whoops Spider-Man's butt. It's no better than X-Men. In fact, I thought X-Men was better than Spider-Man. Neither one are nearly as great as AOTC was though.
I am going to organize a Loyalist Committee for AOTC.
In Spider-Man, the boy doesn't get the girl.
That's because he's gay. I mean he goes around wearing tights and then turns down Kirsten Dunst? No excuse for that, sorry.
EDIT: JBFett count me in!!!
I posted this in another thread, but it feels relevant to this topic:
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but last night I was watching t.v. and a commercial came on for that new animated kids movie "Spirit". If you don't know anything about it (I really don't either) it's about a horse who goes on some kind of adventure supposedly.
Anyway, I guess the critics just think it's the cat's ass, cause all these qoutes from movie reviewers pop up on the screen gushing about how good this movie is (Ebert and Roper gave it two thumbs up).
I wasn't really paying it much attention until one qoute came up and I heard the narrators voice say : "So-and So from the (whatever paper) says this movie has more action than Star Wars Episode 2!"
What a frickin' cheap shot! Why didn't they say it's got more action than Spiderman? How about more action than 'Ice Age'? No, instead they chose SW!!
Now, I'm no fanboy, but I do think that that was cheap shot by whatever reviewer made that comment. It just goes to show you that critics just seem to love to hate Star Wars!
All I can say is : WTF!!!!
why did you even bring up box office results? money now determines if a movie is good or not? Blade Runner is a classic. No if, and, or buts about it!
*bangs head against thread once again*
And Pupkin, you didn't answer my original question.
George Lucas for President!
I second that vote.
The treatment taken in regards to the webshooters in the Spiderman movie compared to the comics is no different than what happened between the Mortal Kombat games and the movies in regards to Scorpion's weapon.
Webshooters in SM comics: mechanical web projecting devices
Webshooters in SM movie: organic webs that project directly from Spiderman's wrists
Scorpion's weapon in MK games: a hand thrown harpoon
Scorpion's weapon in MK movie: organic "snake" that projects directly from Scorpion's hand
I haven't read through this whole thread, but the LA Times article is completely wrong headed. SPIDERMAN was a fine movie, I admit that, but it's not going to have a timeless quality in 20 years when people go to watch the DVD(or whatever high falutin' new format there is at the time). It will look BATMAN(1989) does now; a comic book film that is constrained by the era the film was made in, too trendy and dated.
ALLof the SW films will still have that fairy tale quality of "A Long Time Ago..." and will seem as fresh as they did the day they were released.
That's why, contemporary box office grosses notwithstanding, SPIDERMAN will never be as good as AOTC, or any of the SW films.
You should have spelled it George Lucu$
But why would you?
but I think SM was a superior film to MK in every way. Except action.