Spider-Man 2 Has Over 30 Mistakes 750
Jon Sandys writes "Spider-Man 2 may have won over the critics, but the hard-nosed bastards at moviemistakes.com are listing 31 mistakes already - and no, not nitpicky stuff that's different from the comics. A scar swaps sides on Peter Parker's face and dummies are visible in hurled cars, not to mention the numerous errors involving tritium which I'm sure Slashdot readers will enjoy refuting. Read the complete listing on the Spider-Man 2 page." Also, people bitten by spiders don't generally become ultra-powerful.
32 already (Score:5, Funny)
In one scene, Spiderman is leaping and twirling like he's a male gymnast. Then in the next, he has a heterosexual love interest.
Re:32 already (Score:5, Funny)
Re:32 already (Score:5, Funny)
In one scene, Spiderman is leaping and twirling like he's a male gymnast. Then in the next, he has a heterosexual love interest.
As someone who got First Post in a Slashdot Spider-Man article, I highly doubt you are qualified to make such a differential assertion.
Re:32 already (Score:5, Funny)
So... what are you doing this evening?
Re:32 already (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Funny to see that here... (Score:4, Funny)
I guess you get to keep on secretly dreaming about Spidey coming out of the closet to declare his interest in you
Hmmm... [penny-arcade.com]
IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Insightful)
A harsh opinion? Perhaps. But sometimes it is the only way I can explain this middle school "neener neener neener" stuff. I would like to see these people work on a major motion picture and see how they feel afterwards.
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:4, Insightful)
(Yeah, it's OT, but not VERY OT)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only answer from my experience: having a friend who's a director, having been on the sets of two, big Hollywood movies and having had a girlfriend who was an editor;
No. Sometimes small mistakes have to be left in because there isn't enough coverage an a particular shot to find another angle which is usable, but most mistakes are just that: mistakes. A movie like Spiderman is an immense undertaking. At a minimum you're talking several years of effort, over a thousand people employed in various roles, coordinating several units shooting simultaneously and cutting down millions of feet of film into a two hour final project. In an undertaking that large, mistakes are inevitable.
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, in principle... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just saying there are possible reasonable explanations that aren't too far fetched. All of this is stuff I learned in sophomore quantum physics. Now if it was a math class instead of physics, solving for an eigenvalue of 0.23 in your head would usually be rediculous.
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called suspending disbelief, and some people, it would appear, are incapable of doing it.
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll happily suspend belief for the ground rules of the universe. Neither Middle Earth or Harry Potter's world work on plain old science. But those worlds, and more so the world of Spider-Man, share something in common with our world. Completely abstract media isn't popular. The only way we can understand what's going on in the movie is if we have some contact with the real world; there may be elves and humans, but you can kill them all with swords or arrows. There may be radioactive spiders giving people superhuman powers, but water should still boil if you toss superheated stuff into it.
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Radiation was cool/hip in the 50's and 60's when the comics were written, and passe when SP1 came out.
When SP2 comes out, automatic firewalls will be the the new hotness mutation.
Seriously though, in the days of Shelley's "Frankenstein", electricity was the "new hotness mutation". The effects are the same, but we change the causes to take advantage of the latest buzzwords. I'm sure when they remake "Spiderman" in 3D Holovid in 2050, the spider will have been altered with tachyons or (insert your favorite Star Trek-like technobable that becomes reality here).
(p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Funny)
(p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)
Certainly not! How else could I be writing to you ... FROM THE YEAR 3004 AD!!!!!
Oh and btw, don't take the bus on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012. Seriously. You don't affect history, but your son was captain of the first Earth-Saturn probe.
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:4, Funny)
No, they are a proven fact. In fact, you can buy a tachyon collector here [astreauxworld.com].
You know, once it hits the mass market, it's a done deal...
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:4, Funny)
Just be glad!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just be glad!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:4, Funny)
(note to mods: this is a haha-funny attempt)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! (Score:5, Interesting)
According to IMDB: James Cameron wrote a treatment for this film, over the years, as the rights to the character jumped between companies, nearly all his ideas were scrapped except for the biological web-shooters.
Also from IMDB: In the comics, Peter Parker designed and made Spider-Man's synthetic spider web and the mechanical wrist guns that fire it. In the movie he shoots the web from his own body. Director Sam Raimi answered the protests of comic book fans saying that it was more credible to have Peter shoot web this way than for a high school boy to be able to produce a wonder adhesive in his spare time that 3M could not make.
Rushed through post-production? (Score:5, Interesting)
But there's always a chance to catch these things in editing... in fact, that scar mistake was most likely introduced when somebody took a mirror image of a shot for some reason or another, and forgot that it'd end up reversing the side of the face the scar appears. Sure, that could be fixed in editing, but if they forgot to do it... well, it ends up on that site.
Seems like the bigger the film, the more of these glitches surface as they rush to the box office.
Re:Rushed through post-production? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, the bigger the film, the more nitpicky people get. If a movie sucks, then noone's going to point out that the dead guy's Michigan license plate is post-1998, when the movie was supposedly set in 1997.
Re:Rushed through post-production? (Score:5, Informative)
James Cameron delayed the release of Titanic from summer to Christmas in order to fix nitpicky things. IIRC, there was a CG shot of the boat sinking where the prop was turning even though the engine room was underwater. In order to get the release delayed, Cameron gave up his entire director's fee. Luckily, he still got a percentage of the box office and ended up just fine.
-B
Re:Rushed through post-production? (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, giving up that director's fee had to equate to the interest the investor's money would have made over the six-month delay, or the bean counters woulda vetoed it.
Re:Rushed through post-production? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rushed through post-production? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rushed through post-production? (Score:5, Informative)
What I find annoying is the number of nitpicky "film flubs" that get posted on sites like the one linked to in the news post that have more to do with the lack of imagination/suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer than anything else. There are generally a few interesting real errors listed in such places, but they get lost amongst all the chaffe.
Randall. (Score:5, Insightful)
"There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the shortcomings of others."
3.141 (Score:5, Funny)
Or perhaps that was after I licked that toad...
Either way, definately ultra powerful.
Re:3.141 (Score:5, Funny)
Dude - you do toad? That's like soooooooo gross!. If You Lick A Toad... You're Licking Every Toad That Toad Has Ever Been With
I wouldn't say they're being hard-nosed (Score:3, Insightful)
My only gripe (Score:4, Interesting)
But then, what good is a microscopic amount of tritium going to be as a plot device?
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
Which brings me to my point. Would you be more satisfied if the substance had just been referred to as bolognium, or less satisfied? In other words, are you giving them points for putting the ideas "tritium" and "fusion" in proximity to one another, or taking off points for getting the amount of tritium wrong?
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I must have missed the pressure gauge on the side of the container.
Personally, I like the idea of trying to stabilize a fusion reaction by just poking it back every time it starts to go unstable...
Just to be fair, the physics of Doc Oc's arms seems to have been fairly well thought out. Whenever he's lifting something heavy with two arms, he's always got the other two providing him a reasonable base. This is fairly unusual--I often see "strong" characters in movies lifting things in a physically impossible manner. They also, in this movie and the previous one, manage to make Spidey's swinging look quite plausible, which is quite an accomplishment (although making that much web is another matter, as has been pointed out before)
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something I first noticed as a child watching the old cartoon show, and it's still a problem now. But now I'm more able to accept that it doesn't matter because everything else about the show is so implausable too, just forget about it and go with the flow. As a small child it bothered me more than it does now.
Re:My only gripe (Score:3, Insightful)
And you need to relax a little, and remember that it's not a personal affront to you.
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case they only needed 0.001% pure tritium, so the size of the ball was entirely plausable.
-Adam
Re:My only gripe (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm far more irritated at the form the tritium took. Tritium isn't a solid (at least, not under any terrestrial environment). Tritium is a gas.
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=831&sequen
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit.
The Hanford Reservation has several square MILES contaiminated with tritium.
It was in the last process stream before discharging it to the ground - over the course of 40 years.
Here's a list of figures [pnl.gov] showing the groundwater contamination at the Hanford Site. Keep in mind that the area in the boundary is 540 SQUARE MILES. Check out map S-7.
That contamination doesn't include what is trapped in the vadose, the waste streams that have been treated in treatment facilities, and the tritium produced at Savannah River, Pocatello, and New York.
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see...
If we assume that the tritium was present as tritium oxide (heavy heavy water)--which is not an unreasonable way to store the stuff, really--then a 2 kg mass of the stuff would contain about 500 g of pure tritium; that's about (I'm going to work in round figures here) 100 moles of tritium.
Tritium has a specific activity of 28.8 curies per millimole [tocris.com]; so we're looking at a total activity of 28800 Ci per mole by 100 moles: about 3 million curies total activity.
Market price for bulk tritium seems to be about $2 per curie, so that sphere contains about six million dollars' worth of tritium. Expensive (call it about two thousand times the price of gold, by weight) but not untenable.
On the other hand, the peaceful commercial use of tritium runs to a half kilogram or so per year. The rest of the usage is in weapons programs, and accounts for a few kilograms.
Canada is the world's major commercial supplier, as tritium is generated as a waste product in its heavy-water moderated and cooled nuclear reactors. More than three kilograms are produced each year, and much of that is presumably stockpiled since Canadian law forbids the export of Canadian tritium for use in weapons programs.
To conclude...two kilograms of fully tritiated water would be expensive, dangerously radioactive, and hard to acquire--but it's not outside the realm of the possible. Actually, you can reduce the tritium requirement a bit by assuming that some of the weight of that sphere is shielding. I also haven't done the calculations for heating due to radioactive decay; you might need to use something that boils at a higher temperature than water, or dilute the stuff a bit. Still, I'd say an upper limit of 500 grams of tritium is a reasonable guess.
Re:My only gripe (Score:5, Funny)
But then, what good is a microscopic amount of tritium going to be as a plot device?
About the same amount of good as having your main character get a small welt and mild itching after being bitten by a genetically-engineered spider.
Re:My only gripe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I use a tritium nightlight. really. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:My Favorite Mistake (Score:5, Funny)
I hate it when I can't see up an open dress. .
Re:My Favorite Mistake (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, I may have just have been wishing her hardcore nippage from earlier in the movie was still there. Anyone else notice this?
Pretty Thin... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Plot hole: Harry tells Doc Ock that in order to find Spider-Man he must find Peter first. Doc Ock finds Peter with Mary Jane in the cafe and throws a car through the window straight at them. Any normal man would've been killed instantly, and Doc Ock doesn't know that Peter is Spider-Man. Given that Peter is his only lead on Spider-Man, it makes no sense that Doc Ock would effectively try to kill him."
I can just see some pimply faced teenager sitting in his mom's basement thinking.... "It'd only make sense that he'd act this way. if i were Doc ock, thats what I'd do. Then re-enacting the whole thing with his spiderman action figures to prove himself right." Give it a rest. It's a fictional movie about fictional characters that's incredibly entertaining. Make your lists about the gaffer screwing up, but when it comes to how a character that's got some metalic arms fused to his back would respond after throwing a car through a window at a cafe
The car wasn't going to hit Peter (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I just saw the movie one hour ago, and I enjoyed it regardless of the mistakes.
Matt Fahrenbacher
Re:The car wasn't going to hit Peter (Score:3, Insightful)
Also-Doc Oc throws Peter into a brick wall hard enough to shatter it. This is after threatening Peter with a 'You'll find Spider-man and have him meet me'. Unless in the Spider-man universe humans are tougher or brick is weaker, this is a bad idea for the Doc to do. Putting your gopher into the hospital or morgue wouldn't generally help their passi
Re:Pretty Thin... (Score:4, Insightful)
More mistakes and trivia (Score:5, Funny)
Hurting people, with science (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hurting people, with science (Score:3, Insightful)
One more mistake (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Lone Taxidriver (Score:5, Funny)
Because as we all know, there is only one working taxi in New York City.
Lots of No-Prizes will be awarded... (Score:5, Funny)
Spider-Man 2 Has Over 30 Mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem with spiderman (Score:5, Funny)
But I suppose a bit of realism here would give the movie (and comic book) an "X" rating. Would have been funny to see him net bad guys that way though...
Re:The webbing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Conveniently located blimps?
No, conveniently located New York City buildings. You know, those tall things that are all over Manhattan?
You'll notice that he generally will traverse the street. In other words, to go forwards, he first shoots a web to the top of a building that's in front of him and to the left. Before he smacks into a building, he shoots a web to the top of a building that's in front of him and to the right. Then left, then right. Some artists are more careless about this than others, but the movies seem to be good about that. (The video game that came out along with the first movie was careful to not let you swing as you neared the height of the tallest buildings, but in the interests of fun wasn't too picky about the precise geometry.)
The trick to this is, you need some variations to keep it up. (The rest of this web-slinging description is my own speculation.) If you start at rest, then you can only go down in the above-described manner; by the time you start an upswing, you've smacked into a building. While it's not as precise of a problem once you have a little forward momentum, it's still something to think about. You can get around this a little bit by starting a web pretty close to you in the forward direction (but still across the street and high). This lets you trade momentum to get back some height. But it's still not an easy game; you need one or two more tricks.
One handy trick is to swing on convenient out-jutting overhangings: gargoyles, horizontal flagpoles, etc. This lets you start an upswing without bleeding off as much momentum as you would if you used the across-the-street web trick.
Now, everybody who got through HS physics learned that an unpowered body can't keep this up indefinately, no matter how many geometry tricks you play. You're constantly exchanging kinetic and potential energy, but also bleeding some of that energy off as friction. You occassionally need a boost of energy. Fortunately, Spidey isn't an unpowered body. A quick yank upwards, timed right, and you can introduce a little energy into the system. If you need to stop and look around, you can also climb a nearby skyscraper to give yourself a nice big potential energy bank. Spidey traditionally can do this in a hurry by shooting a webline high and yanking hard on it (proportional strength of a spider, remember) to propel himself upwards. Or, if he's not in a hurry, good ol' wall-crawling works too.
In the original comic, does the webbing actually come from his body, or is it an invention of Peter Parkers?
Yup. Peter was a science whiz, and developed his own webbing material. It's strong, initially adhesive but quick-setting, and breaks down in a couple of hours. This is how it's been in every Spider-Man medium I've seen (lots of them), except the movies.
In the movies, they use organic web shooters. This is mostly to avoid explaining how a high school kid comes up with an adhesive that DuPont Chemicals would kill for. In the comics, it's addressed only vaguely: Peter suspects that he gained some sort of innate understanding of a spider's web when he was bitten. Even this was only discussed years after the comic began.
Spidey normally kept some extra web fluid cartridges on his belt, and sometimes would come up with specialty fluids for defeating particular foes (conductive fluid, geletainizing fluid, etc). But, being the hard-luck superhero, Spidey would inevitably run out of web fluid at the worst possible times. The "out of fluid" moments are almost a cliche of Spidey stories.
In the comics, most people-- heros, civilians, and villians-- assume that the webbing is an innate ability. I believe that he used that to fool villians once into thinking he had his powers when he didn't, but I could be wrong about that.
Re:Quotes from Amazing Fantasy issue 15. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fishnet stockings? That would put a whole different spin on why Mr. Parker was a social outcast.
The physics of those arms (Score:3, Interesting)
It was just a conflicting feel to them that threw me. On one hand they seem like big strong arms slamming through stone without any sign of slowing down. On the other hand they're being carried around without a care in the odd scene.
But while it did stand out, I was very happy with how they handled the arms overall. I think they went to noticable efforts to obey the laws of physics as much as possible without sacrificing other aspects of the film. Often one arm braces while another pushes out, for example.
I also liked the arcing on some of their heavy high-powered wiring when it was being pulled out. I don't think it'd look like that, arcing outwards but they're still trying to visualise real-world effects.
So they get my full support for putting in much more thought and detail into their physics than I expected going in. I'm willing to look past any physics-related errors at this point.
Re:The physics of those arms (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't seen the movie ... but (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I haven't seen the movie ... but (Score:3, Informative)
I have a red car, even though only the paint is red and the entire thing is a car.
Parker is a man. Spider is a modifier like 'typical', 'super', or 'bat.'
Perhaps in South America they would be interested in your suggestion.
Already being hit hard - copy of the site (Score:5, Informative)
Continuity: When Peter arrives at his aunt's home at the beginning of the movie, it's night. He talks to Harry in the kitchen a few minutes later, and look at the purple balloon by Peter's head, it reflects a window with lots of light coming through it.
Continuity: During the final conversation between Spider-Man and Doc Ock, the rips in Spider-Man's suit keep changing. For instance, there is a tear on his right shoulder; for most of the scene, there is a single piece of black webbing left holding the rip together, but when Doc Ock grabs Spider-Man's arm, the rip now has two pieces of black webbing. Then it goes back to one.
Continuity: When Peter and Mary Jane are together in his apartment at the end of the film, the collar of Peter's t-shirt keeps changing positions underneath his sweater. Sometimes it is fully visible all the way around, sometimes it's higher on the left or right side, and during the closer shots it isn't visible at all.
Factual error: In the scene where Peter is saving the children from the burning building, there is no smoke from the fire. Black smoke would be bellowing out the windows. He wouldn't be able to just stand up and walk through the building.
Visible crew/equipment: On the way to the theater Peter Parker intercepts policeman chasing a couple of bad guys. At the end of that scene one of the police cars has a tremendous wreck that swings the car sideways. There is a clear shot of the driver with a black helmet on.
Continuity: During the train scene, Spider-man's mask had gone partially black. We also see it when Spidey puts his mask back on. Yet when Doc brings him to Harry, we don't even see a patch of darkness on his mask.
Continuity: Doc Ock pulls the giant sun ball and its support down onto himself, so he should be under it as they descend, yet in the final shot of him sinking into the ocean, the ball is below him and he is falling after it.
Audio problem: It's clear that due to the tentacles' heaviness, they have to made some kind of sound when moving. But yet when Doc Ock takes the tritium from Harry in his house, he leaves without making any sound at all.
Factual error: Nobody would dare to cut a metal piece with a saw without eye protection, much less in a surgical room, like the surgeon that wanted to remove Doc Ock's tentacles.
Revealing: In the scene where Doc Ock comes out of the hospital and throws a car onto another one, you can tell the man in there is just a dummy. He has no reaction what so ever. He just sits there as if nothing happened.
Revealing: In the scene at the end where Spider-Man and Mary Jane are in the big web, there is a close-up which shows the webbing behind them. We can blatantly see that it's wire wrapped in plastic of some kind to make it look like web.
Factual error: Dr. Octavius says his fusion relies on tritium and that there is only 25 pounds of the substance in the world. In reality, tritium is merely an isotope of hydrogen and is a good deal more common than that. For example, there is a large region of the North Pacific that contains tritium-rich salt water. Submitted by Phoenix
Continuity: Peter has a small horseshoe-shaped scar on his right cheek. In Dr. Octopus's lab, as Octopus is destroying the fusion reactor, they share a meaningful look and the scar has switched cheeks.
Factual error: Considering the brightness of the fusion process, Dr. Octavius has to wear special goggles to be able to see it. Yet no one else in the room is wearing such goggles or seem hurt by watching the whole process, just as at the en
Re:Already being hit hard - copy of the site (Score:3, Insightful)
Mirror image isn't always a mistake (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the time a director selects a mirror image shot because he was unable to get the real shot he wanted (it happens in nearly every movie, but it's most noticeable when a main character has a lopsided image). In some cases, the director chooses the mirror image shot to cover up an actual mistake (e.g. the main character went left and he was supposed to go right). Sometimes it's more important to the director for a film to maintain spacial consistency than to keep scars/tatoos/whatever on the right side of the screen. However, you won't always know whether it was a coverup or if the shot was reversed on purpose. In either case, you can be assured that director knows and obviously doesn't care which side the scar is on.
Three things that got me... (Score:3, Informative)
1. How are you going to tell me a fusion reaction, what was supposedly a small sun, was drowned by water???
2. OK, so the fusion thing didn't work out, you're telling me that the technology going into those robotic arms that could instantly send wires capable of interacting with the human brain and be powered by no easily identifiable power source werent worth anything? As well as the biggest break-through in fusion energy ever? Yeah right.
3. OK, this one is a bit more nit picky... helicopters do not just go flying in between the buildings of New York like that, especially not so close to one another.
The movie was good as a whole, but a lot of the plot just didnt make sense. It doesnt seem like it would take that much thinking power to get rid of those few anomolies. Oh, and the one woman reporter asks about the super intellegent AI and Doc Ock had never even mentioned anything about the arms being intellegent!!! Why did the arms have to be intellegent at all??? Gah! Oh, and Doc Ock didn't tell whats his face how much of that gold junk he needed. He just said he wanted some. There were soooooo many technical errors in that movie and I wasnt even looking for them!
Re:Three things that got me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever read the comic books? Really. You're wondering how robotic arms could attach to someone's spine, but you're OK with the fact that there's a guy that can shoot webs out of his wrists?
I think some people actually go out of their way to NOT enjoy a movie at times. Just sit back, relax, and ignore the stupid shit. It's a fantasy movie, for chrissakes.
I prefer the IMDB's trivia (Score:5, Informative)
i didn't like the demonization of fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
in a world of smog and wars fought over oil prices (pro-iraq war people: read why iraq invaded kuwait, anti-iraq war people: read why us invaded iraq) we do not need an ultra-pop movie demonizing one of the few technologies which could save us from the petroleum age
in spider man ii, fusion can go "chernobyl", this is a fallacy
if something goes wrong with a fusion reaction, it just fizzles out, it can NEVER start a chain reaction
in spiderman ii, fusion is the megalomaniacal goal of the evil mastermind, and his obsession threatens to blow up half of manhattan... but much like that old '90s film "chain reaction", with keanu reeves, you can't blow up half of wisconsin or manhattan with a fusion reaction, noways, nohow, never
so we don't need hollywood spreading flat out wrong and fearmongering ideas about a promising technology
there is no runaway chain reaction component to fusion, please get it right hollywood... or do you like the global warming, choking on diesel exhaust, war-for-oil world we live in?
ps: fusion reactions are not super-magnets either: in the movie, anything metal got sucked towards them
pps: it WAS funny and harmless how the fusion reaction is portrayed as a miniature sun in the movie, complete with coronal mass ejections threatening doc ock's control of the reaction...
perhaps that is vaguely educational too, fusion's connection with the sun shown as a visual parable, to portray it that way
but hollywood, PLEASE: fusion is not fission, do not let forth the hounds of ignorance and fearmongering onto a promising technology, please!
Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion (Score:4, Insightful)
More than 2,000 observed supernovae disagree with you.
Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion (Score:5, Funny)
Good point. We should pass a law prohibiting the construction of fusion reactors containing more than two solar masses of fuel (just to leave a good safety margin) on the Earth.
Errors, you say? (Score:5, Funny)
Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in
What about the mistakes in real-life?!? (Score:3, Funny)
1. You are free.
2. You read slashdot because you're an 'intellectual'
3. That +5 Karma you have was hard earned.
4. You don't like Britney Spears and don't use windows at all.
So, where you the guy... (Score:3, Funny)
They've forgotten to list all the location mishaps (Score:4, Informative)
You know your a nerd when you: (Score:3, Insightful)
My only problem with the movie: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, otherwise I really enjoyed the movie.
I noticed alot of those errors (Score:4, Interesting)
Also the scene where he saves mary jane has several inconsistencies. When he is thrown out of the building he is launched maybe 100ft from the building, yet when he swings back he is maybe 20ft from where his web is attached to when he enters the window. Then we he leaves and picks up mary jane he jumps straight up, webs then is somehow built up enough momentum to be on the upstroke of a swing, yet again attached to another imaginary building. Also as a correction to a submitted mistake, when Doc Ock is underwater, he is still where he was when he entered the water. The fusion rig is obviously upside down people. Man people need to get their eyes examined.
newsflash (Score:5, Funny)
of course not! the spider has to be radioactive, silly.
Movie != Reality (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think people should try to hold movies to any kind of "reality standard". Even the most grounded movie story is told by men wearing makeup that techies spent an hour carefully lighting. People stand on boxes to look taller, directors tell actors to step farther apart so that their distance will reflect their relationship, and no one ever has to go to the bathroom.
No one ever points it out as a "mistake" in movies, but Spider-Man 2 took a step closer to reality by choosing to not have every car that was overturned explode in a huge ball of flames.
FWIW, Sam Raimi directed the Evil Dead movies, which are cult classics despite having some of the largest movie mistakes to ever slip by audiences. (For ex: in Evil Dead 2 there is no ceiling in the house, and during some of the fast shots you can see techies heads poking over the tops of the walls. People never seem to notice this until someone tells them to look for it!)
In Related News (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite... (minor spoiler) ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that you know, you're going to be made at me every time you watch this scene. Ha ha.
Spiderman, Spiderman, Does Whatever A Spider Can (Score:3, Interesting)
Movies are made for people like me. We laugh in the right places, cry for no apparent reason, and we know that Mary Jane constantly has a bad hair day in this movie because she's no longer a high school student being supported by mom and dad, but a struggling actress moving on up, finally making ends meet and who's also suffering from a bad case of Spidey-love.
I don't notice when Spidey's rips and tears move from shoulder to shoulder. I turn a blind eye when the CGI gets cheesey and pretend I'm watching a live action comic book (uh, I am right?).
I think this movie is a chick flick. We'll explain away everything, even the obvious flaws, and we're the ones who leave with hollow feeling in our bellies in sympathy with the emotional and physical ass-kicking Peter Parker takes in this movie.
I loved it, plain and simple. For the most part, they suspended my disbelief. A few CGI blips and the fact that Spidey's identity is now the worst kept secret in the universe, notwithstanding, I felt I got a pretty good bang for my buck(s).
My advice: save the criticism for movies that really, really suck. This movie rocks.
Blah blah blah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's one for free: In "This Island Earth" Dr. Meacham and his lady friend duck under the water to escape the explosion of the car driven by Russell Johnson's character. The next scene shows them stepping onto land and they are clearly dry. Woo hoo! I'm a GENIUS!
The reward for such powers of perceptiveness were skillfully and cleverly satirized by the infamous Marvel No-Prize, until the dolt readers became incensed that they never got anything and Marvel actually had to start sending something out.
Bad criticisms: (Score:4, Funny)
Audio problem: It's clear that due to the tentacles' heaviness, they have to made some kind of sound when moving. But yet when Doc Ock takes the tritium from Harry in his house, he leaves without making any sound at all.
Doc Ock's normal limbs were also there, in addition to his mechanical ones (He's not called Doc Quad, after all), and therefore he could still walk normally, just holding his mechanical limbs in the air and not doing anything with them (except holding onto the loot, of course). That could still be silent. Thus the implied sneaky getaway he allegedly made while off-camera is possible.
Continuity: Doc Ock pulls the giant sun ball and its support down onto himself, so he should be under it as they descend, yet in the final shot of him sinking into the ocean, the ball is below him and he is falling after it.
No. From the shot, we see Ock in the foreground, and the ball behind him, and they are getting smaller. The critic probably interpreted this to mean that they were falling away from the camera. But when I viewed it I interpreted this as the camera's vantage point was underneath them both, and the camera was sinking faster than they were, into the depths. The way the shot looked, either interpretation works. (But I think a much larger problem is that the river is only about 60 feet deep, and that final shot makes it look like it just goes down and down and down at least several hundred feet.)
Besides, it's entirely possible, even if the critic's interpretation of the camara angles is right, that the two got turned around at some point when they were both off camera. The movie does imply that quite a few seconds have passed between the scene where Ock pulled the thing down and the underwater scene.
Continuity: After Doc Ock drops Spider-Man off at Harry's house, Spider-Man's legs, wrists and arms are bound. When he sits up after Harry unmasks him, he never breaks his legs free of the ties yet he no longer has anything holding his legs together
Things are often implied to happen off-camera in a movie. There were shots during which only the top half of spiderman is shown during that 'breaking out' scene, and so breaking out the legs could happen anywhere in there. The problem with finding errors of ommission is that they don't necessarily mean anything when there are moments that are implied to occur off camera. Otherwise everyone in the movie must be horrendously constipated since the movie is implied to take place over a period of several days, and nobody ever goes to the bathroom.
Continuity: After Peter changes into Spider-Man to deliver the pizzas and throws them onto the ledge to save the two children, the camera goes back to show the pizzas and the man living there finding them. There are only seven pizza boxes, without any damage done to them. When he actually delivers them, there are eight and a couple of them are now flattened or banged-up as they should be.
The fact that there are 8 instead of 7 - that's a problem, yes. The fact that they are now damaged when they weren't before - no that's not a problem in the slightest. Nowhere does it imply that zero time has passed between the pizza on the ledge scene and the delivering scene. Presumably the damage could have happened after the ledge scene.
Re:Thank God Raimi makes all these mistakes! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, now that you mention it, it would be kind of interesting to see Spidey trade in his suit for a bowler hat and codpiece, and belt out "Singin' in the Rain" while stomping on some bad guy. The cinematography would be beautiful, a la "2001" or "Barry Lyndon", which is good, 'cause you'd get about five minutes between each line of dialog to study it...
Re:The 1st had a ton of errors too (Score:3, Interesting)
While watching with the pop-ups turned on through the Special Features menu, it allows you to push enter and go to short featurettes of behind-the-scenes stuff. However, at least in my DVD player (a no-name cheapy), even with it turned off, and trying to watch the movie normally, they would flash up for a split-second.
Could be, they were popping up for you too?
Re:Evil Dead - Army of Darkness (Score:5, Funny)