Welcome to the first installment of The Audio Edition for the month of March!
Today Doug, Darren and I discuss Spider-Man 3, the outfit and what kind of role Venom might play, The news that the studios still want Arnold for Conan the King and if that’s a good or bad idea, the studios growing trend of not showing advanced screenings to critics (it’s a bad sign folks), some background story to the new Superman movie and how Kevin Smith and Tim Burton got all caught up in it (it’s a great story) and we also touch on why there are so few women directors in Hollywood right now. All this and a few things more.
You can download this installment of The Audio Edition here.
To subscribe to the podcast of The Audio Edition on iTunes copy this link and then paste it into iTunes-Advanced-Subscribe to Podcast.
I would agree with John about Venom. I think it’s quite possible for them to introduce the symbiote and Venom and resolve both in the same movie. If the movie only introduced Venom and had no resolution to his plot, it would be a worse movie. (This is not to say Venom can’t return in a later movie.)
In fact, I’d wager a guess that this is why they have two villains. I could see the film going something like this:
1) Spider-man in normal costume goes up against Sandman and has trouble beating him.
2) Spidey gets his black symbiote and it strengthens him and allows him to beat Sandman.
3) Perhaps frightened by the power of the symbiote (maybe he almost killed Sandman), Spidey gets rid of the costume, which finds its way to Eddie Brock.
4) Spidey fights Venom in the film’s awesome climax.
I don’t really see Sandman as a villain strong enough for the entire movie. I see him more as symbiote or Venom fodder.
Regarding Jon Peters still being a producer Superman Returns, somehow I bet he simply kept the titled for having been so involved with early versions of the new Superman film and has little to do with Brian Singer’s version at all. After all, from what we know about Superman Returns it bears little resemblence to what Peters wanted (thankfully).
About Spiderman 3:
What do we know?
1. Venom will be a character in the movie.
2. There is a dark poster out.
I don’t think that it’s Venom on that poster. I think it’s just a dark picture of spiderman created as a smokescreen that gets a lot of publicity on the net. Then they release the design of the REAL Venom suit and get even more publicity. My guess is that THAT suit will be closer to the comics and not just a toned down spiderman suit clone.
What do you think?
Who the fuck is this Gigantic Ego shit and what’s his fucking problem? Hey buddy, if you can’t handle hearing things you don’t like, then go talk to a fuckin mirror.
And WTF do YOU know about bodybuilding? Arnold is fat ass out of shape these days and has let the gut fuckin go. John’s right, at 60 you can’t go from disgusting pig to being worthy of a servant of Krom in a year. Like the boys said, if they do it with Arnold it has to have a built in excuse why he looks like a ditch pig now. Conan the king gives him that excuse. He’ll rule but he’ll be a shadow of his former self for sure.
This is the best damn podcast on the internet because Daren and Doug and John are all different and argue and have diferent ways of looking at things. Fuck the haters.
I’ll disagree with “Johns gigantic ego” man above. I like listening to the audioshow because it seems like john is the only guy who isn’t a driviling fanboy saying just whatever all the fanboys want to hear. if i wanted that I’d still be reading Ain’t It Cool News. But I agree with the above guy that no one cared about that pyro guy.
KEEP DOING WHAT YOU’RE DOING JOHN! DON’T BECOME JUST ANOTHER FANBOY ZOMBIE!
Great Spiderman conversation. 15 minutes of John telling people they’re wrong without even listening to what they were saying.
1) “Sam Raimi and the spiderman people have never thought ahead of the movie they’re working on.”
Based on what? He says it with such confidence like he went out to lunch at Spago’s with “Raim” during production to do some consulting. But like Doug and Darren pointed out, a look at the films will prove him wrong.
Spiderman 1 and 2 had a very clear story arc building Harry’s anger towards his best friend. Spiderman 1 had Dr Connors cameo hinting at some potential Lizard action if they ever want to go to lame badguys. Spiderman 2 pretty much dedicated the whole epilogue to bringing in the green goblin. And he even claims that its not thinking ahead because a 5 minute green goblin epilogue only “opens up the ‘possibility’ of Green Goblin in Spiderman 3”? If Green Goblin doesn’t make an appearance then that whole ending will make zero sense.
2) John dismisses the origin of Venom to be completely unecessary. “All of that can happen in 5 minutes”
Darren said it. The symbiote and Eddie Brock’s story is very important if they want to treat Venom seriously. The Symbiote merged with a good guy like Parker just made him a guy with cooler abilities. A rejected Symbiote mixed with the anger of Brock is what makes Venom the craziest coolest badass enemy spidey will get to fight. (Plus it helps the potential Carnage introduction down the road.)
3) “They explained Spiderman’s origin in 15 minutes”.
What the heck is he saying? Spiderman’s backstory was almost half the movie, and to most people then they will admit it was by far the better half of the movie. You got to understand Peter Parker before you understand Spiderman. And just like with Venom, you have to really feel Eddie Brock’s hatred to understand why Venom is so freaking nuts.
4) Cutting out the sentimental pyro backstory with a 5 second look
Again, John’s ego talks faster than his brain thinks. You know why they got away with cutting Pyro’s emotional backstory? Because NOBODY CARES! He wasn’t a popular comic character, he’s not a popular movie character so convincing us he’s a troubled kid means nothing. Venom is so much more complicated and interesting than “boy can control fire” or “man born with wings”.
Anyway, I’m not even a spiderman fan but its a shame that a potentially fun spiderman conversation went NOWHERE because of John. Instead of a great discussion of what “might” happen in Spiderman 3 and 4 it turned into a discussion about how John just doesn’t want to be bothered with intelligent perspectives.
Jeez, i need to turn this off. John pretending to know anything about muscle development and why Schwarzenneger can’t get back into shape is enough garbage for the week.
The producer in question on Superman Returns was not named “Parker” but is Jon Peters (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005307/), who was indeed a producer on Batman, and Batman Returns. He is still a producer on “Superman Returns.” Kevin Smith talks about his experience with Peters in hilarious detail on the DVD “An Evening with Kevin Smith.” Smith also discusses his clash with Tim Burton which was over the “Planet of the Apes”, not “Superman Returns.” Apparently, the ending of “Plane of the Apes” bares a striking resemblance to a comic book Smith did, and in jest Smith made a comment that ended up in print to which Burton retaliated that it was not a rip off, he never saw the comic, as he wouldn’t be interested in anything Smith does. Check out “An Evening with Kevin Smith… very funny stuff!
As far as women directors go, I have to agree with John, Darren and Doug in that there just does not seem to be that many of them out there. It would be interesting to see what the ratio of women to men is in the Directors Guild and start doing the math from there. Katherine Bigelow (Near Dark, Blue Steel, Point Break, Strange Days) was one of the best action directors out there, even though her last effort, “K-19: The Widowmaker” kinda sucked it. Mary Harron (I Shot Andy Warhol, American Psycho) is showing a great deal of promise and perhaps if “The Notorious Bettie Page” does well critically and commercially a studio may give her a bigger project. Directors like Penelope Spheeris (Wayne’s World) and Amy Heckerling (Fast Times at Ridgemont High) found a niche with disposable comedies (Look Who’s Talking, The Beverly Hillbilles) but both really peaked early. Jody Foster (Little Man Tate, Home for the Holidays) and Diane Keaton (Hanging Up) have thrown their hats in the ring, but both are more successful in front of the camera under someone else’s direction. Nora Ephron (Sleepless in Seattle, Bewitched) has been hit or miss as a director and much more solid as writer. The most successful female director I can think of is Penny Marshall (Big, Awakenings, A League of Their Own), and even with the failure of “Riding In Cars With Boys” could still likely get anything she wanted made, but for whatever the reason she chooses not to work that often. In fact, when you look at the filmographies of any of these women, after a theatrical failure they tend to go into television work or drop out completely. Do they not have the thick skin required to forge ahead in the face of failure? Or does Hollywood dispose of them? Do some end up choosing family over career as happens in other industries? And if so, do the powers that be in Hollywood feel that nurturing their careers becomes risky business should the biological clock starts gonging? Or, (and I know I am setting myself up for a flogging here) are the majority of women in Hollywood lacking the hard ass approach required to effectively manage a set that is prominently populated by men? Whatever the case, a Kong in drag wont change things, if that is the intent.
Keep up the great work on the Audio Editions. They are always entertaining!
“He’s finally given his “comic book” movie (GH isn’t technically rooted in comics, but it has the same flavor) and hypes and hypes at viewaskew. Then he drops it.”
I know it seems like a minor gripe, and I’m not taking issue with the rest of your post, but did he say why he dropped the project? Just curious. Because if he just couldn’t come up with a script he felt did the character justice, then he actually should be respected for letting it go insted of producing a sub-par film merely because he had the license to do so. It’s better to let it slide than screw it up.
Yes, Parker=Jon Peters.
But there’s something even more disturbing.
John Campea gives Tim Burton too much of the ‘anti-Superman’ credit.
John Campea gives a free pass to Kevin Smith.
Shoot me now. Spare me.
1) Over half of the “anti-Superman” thing was when JJ Abrams and McG were involved, such as Luthor becoming an alien.
2) Both Burton and Smith agree Peters hated Superman and wanted the robot spiders-of which they both vetoed. Peters wanted “Micheal Bay” type action (and at one point, hired Bay briefly) while Burton wanted it more closer to Batman.
3) What is not said on Wikopedia but is well documented by Smith fans- what Smith had in his drafts. Just say The Justice League Of America and you are on the right track.
4) I’m saying they were both wrong and had creative differences. Don’t call Burton “a Liar” when Smith himself sweetens up his side. Smith, by the way, is a hypocrite. He badmouths anyone and everyone but himself; he is all but handed Green Hornet without a second thought. Here was the golden opportunity to prove his naysayers wrong. He’s finally given his “comic book” movie (GH isn’t technically rooted in comics, but it has the same flavor) and hypes and hypes at viewaskew. Then he drops it. But he won’t hesitate to slam other directors who ‘disappoint’ him as a comics fan- especially if he was once a party to it.
Where’s his script for the remake of 6 Million Dollar Man?
He shoots off his mouth, then puts his foot in it.
It should be said that although it is trivial, one thing is sure: Bryan Singer is a big time Superman fan. But he was “introduced” to the X-Men- and those two films turned out fine.
Oh, one more thing:
I thought “SpideyVENOM” fans wanted to see the Letal Protectoor in the reflection of Spidey’s eyes, not Sandman. Oddly, at the same time I was listening to the podcast, I too, took a hi-res pic of the promo poster, cut out the eye, transformed a good sized, good rez blow up in photoshop.
I’m not going to call you a liar, John- but I don’t think you tried in Photoshop. Keep it simple:But there is something you might want to try: change the lighting to a Photo Filter of Warming 85 (maximum) *and nothing else* and you can barely make out a figure in the lower end of Spider-Man’s eye. I’m not going to say that’s Sandy-it is close- but I could see where people would pick up on it.
Reason why it looks like Sandy but might not be?
It’s raining.
As for Conan, bah. Wasn’t it but one week ago you guys were all exited over an Arnold/Sly pic and now…Arnold’s a girly man.
Shoot me now. In the shin. Ouch.
-Sealer on the end of a noose
Parker is really jon peters and believe it or not he is still involved with superman returns! Lets face it superman returns is gonna suck ass.