http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/8048/tobimagfrodo5jt.jpg




:lol:

From the trailer:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/spiderman3.html

Hah! Sam Raimi doing fanservice. I love it. :lol:

hahahaha!!

My precious!

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/4333/stolenscenes0mb.jpg




:D

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/4545/threeng6ul.jpg


:D :D :D

Yeah - natural thing to think when seeing the preview. I thought the same thing when it saw it before Superman Returns.

It's messed up because Tobey McGuire (sp?) even looks like Elijah Wood in the side-by-side "ring" frame captures!

EDIT: Yes, I was lazy enough to put (sp?) next to Tobey's name and make this comment when looking up the correct spelling would've taken less time.

This is one lol rip off. Nice job on spotting it, Gila.

There is nothing new in the cinema anymore. Every single thing is a rip off from a movie that was made before. People go to the cinema to watch the same movie over and over again, each time with diffrent faces on screen and bigger explosions.

If there is one movie I'm most certainly not going to watch in the cinema, its "Spiderman III".

The last motion picture of that series was so Inteligence (sp?) Insulting. Movies of that kind just lost the will to Inovate or to base sufficiant story line. Now days movies are only a bunch of special effects gathered together in some minor story line that will make a movie of them. Nothing in that movie is unique, interesting or "fun" to watch. Even the actors have the most annoying of faces and acting skills I have ever seen.....except J.J. Tompson which is the only chacter who's close as it can get to the Comic one.

Lol, how far did I take this thread...hehe....
although I'll be happy to know if someone thinks like me or otherwise. It can become a very interesting debate :D .

...I loved Spider-Man 2. I thought it surpassed the first one my miles.

I think that we have to see the 'one ring' scene in context before we decide if it is just a flagrant rip off. Sam Raimi, the director, likes to pay omage to his favorite movies/directors/actors in his movies. The first two spider-man movies are filled with little clues and copies that fans can see and smile about. They are like little inside jokes. I'm very much looking forward to the 3rd movie. The trailer made me want more...so much more. I can't wait to see Venom!

This is one lol rip off. Nice job on spotting it, Gila.

There is nothing new in the cinema anymore. Every single thing is a rip off from a movie that was made before. People go to the cinema to watch the same movie over and over again, each time with diffrent faces on screen and bigger explosions.

If there is one movie I'm most certainly not going to watch in the cinema, its "Spiderman III".

The last motion picture of that series was so Inteligence (sp?) Insulting. Movies of that kind just lost the will to Inovate or to base sufficiant story line. Now days movies are only a bunch of special effects gathered together in some minor story line that will make a movie of them. Nothing in that movie is unique, interesting or "fun" to watch. Even the actors have the most annoying of faces and acting skills I have ever seen.....except J.J. Tompson which is the only chacter who's close as it can get to the Comic one.

Lol, how far did I take this thread...hehe....
although I'll be happy to know if someone thinks like me or otherwise. It can become a very interesting debate :D .

Well, I think it's a little harsh to complain that Spiderman II doesn't present any new ideas. It is, afterall, based around a comic book character. Personally, I think Spiderman II did what it set out to do very well - it told a well known story without taking itself too seriously but at the same time emotionally involving the audience. I suggest reading Ebert's review of Spiderman II for more on this.

As for new ideas... um, go ahead. Think of a truly NEW idea. I mean, sure, watching teen movies that are all knockoffs of American Pie (which was originally a surprisingly smart movie) can get a little old, but there are still new movies out there. Just because a movie has a protagonist or even a stock character doesn't make it a ripoff.

As for this LOTR thing, it's not a ripoff if it's intentional. It looks like a reference - you're supposed to know it's a lot like Lord of the Rings. Sam Raimi likes to have fun as a director, and his movies are full of references. He's not the first person to do it, either. References are there for more than filling holes in the writer's imagination. They're supposed to evoke other thoughts. Like whenever there's a reference to Christ, you're supposed to think of why a character is being compared to Jesus, and what other traits the character shares with the savior of Mankind. The references are there to make you think - they're not trying to pull a fast one on you.

As for me, I'll be there opening day for Spiderman III :cool:

Well, I think it's a little harsh to complain that Spiderman II doesn't present any new ideas. It is, afterall, based around a comic book character. Personally, I think Spiderman II did what it set out to do very well - it told a well known story without taking itself too seriously but at the same time emotionally involving the audience. I suggest reading Ebert's review of Spiderman II for more on this.

As for new ideas... um, go ahead. Think of a truly NEW idea. I mean, sure, watching teen movies that are all knockoffs of American Pie (which was originally a surprisingly smart movie) can get a little old, but there are still new movies out there. Just because a movie has a protagonist or even a stock character doesn't make it a ripoff.

As for this LOTR thing, it's not a ripoff if it's intentional. It looks like a reference - you're supposed to know it's a lot like Lord of the Rings. Sam Raimi likes to have fun as a director, and his movies are full of references. He's not the first person to do it, either. References are there for more than filling holes in the writer's imagination. They're supposed to evoke other thoughts. Like whenever there's a reference to Christ, you're supposed to think of why a character is being compared to Jesus, and what other traits the character shares with the savior of Mankind. The references are there to make you think - they're not trying to pull a fast one on you.

As for me, I'll be there opening day for Spiderman III :cool:


I disagree about the part on subtlety. Yes Spiderman was reffered to Jesus, but very unsubtly (it couldn't have been more obvious if there was an actuall crucifix in the train scene).
As for the reference itself - I think that international superheros (or any other charcters for that matter) shouldn't be presented as symbols of religion. I believe that giving anyone that symbol's emotional power is wrong and diminishing.

I don't see those images as homages to any other movies, I see them as ripoffs. The director prefers to make people think of why he is ripping off instead of what his movie is about anyway. He creates emotions in the viewer by adding "trade marks", thinking that will compensate for the horrible acting, awful storyline (which is not exactly as it is in the comics) and make a boring little soap out of a chiledhood hero.

I agree with you on the lack of novelty though, no recent blockbuster has presented anything new. Except maybe Matrix, that showed a new camera work (which was seen before in the movie "Buffalo 66" - but not by as many. Great movie BTW.)

My 2 cents.

The first two spider-man movies are filled with little clues and copies that fans can see and smile about. They are like little inside jokes. I'm very much looking forward to the 3rd movie.

Do you really belive it?
I mean, I too really enjoyed it when Princess Fiona (Shrek 1) did an homage to Matrix. It was so funny, just in time, just in place. But seeing that homage over and over in every single movie again and again and again. that doesn't make me smile, or think, it makes me bothered - damn that cheap trick again. Like the movie "The Island". I came to watch it in the cinema with a friend and found out that its nothing but a combination of really obvious rip offs. I have nothing against Homages, I think that it helps the cinema evolve. but when its done over and over its becoming a lame trick - a Generic solution to one director's problem. The Island uses shoting angles from other movies, Story line which is stolen from "The 6th day" and "Total Recall", really bad charteristics (cause thats something the director really had to think of by himself) and really action packed, where IMHO, it wasn't needed. It happens again in Spiderman 1, 2 probably will in 3 aswell.

They are like little inside jokes.

Yeah, like the Boom stick (Filming Microphone) that enters the frame in the first movie. While Peter is talking to his Uncle and Aunt.

hehe....

Homage - Rip off....There is a thread dividing (sp?) between those two.
I hope my opinion doesn't hurt anyone, its just my own and it cryticizes HollyWood's movies and not anyone else. :D

:rolleyes:

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/5096/mel1qm.jpg

Homage - Rip off....There is a thread dividing (sp?) between those two.
I hope my opinion doesn't hurt anyone, its just my own and it cryticizes HollyWood's movies and not anyone else. :D

I'm not certain that I agree with you, but your opinion certainly doesn't hurt me. Personally I think the line between homage and rip-off is in presentation. If it's being presented as "original" work and it's not...well, that's a rip-off. Sam Raimi does I lot of "homage" type things in his movies. For instance, I always get a kick out of looking for Bruce Campbell (they must be best-friends or something; Bruce Campbell was Ash in the Evil Dead). But in the case of Spiderman, Sam Raimi walked into a group (Marvel comics) that likes to through bits into the movie as much as he does. I think Stan Lee does a cameo in every Marvel movie.