Into the Spider-Verse: "Did *that* feel like a cartoon?"

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Into the Spider-Verse: "Did *that* feel like a cartoon?"

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

In Spider-Verse, Miles Morales is a teenager who wants to escape his daily life, but never has the same choice. The moment he gets superpowers, he's drawn into inter-dimensional intrigues where his own initiative becomes secondary, and throughout he gets molded to become another Spider-Person among many.

This leads to the basic problem that the whole Spider-Person aspect of his character becomes redundant and obfuscates his own individuality. If he's not trying to escape his daily life as Spider-Man, then there's not really point to it. He's just serving as an understudy. He even loses his beloved uncle,, as if he universe was going through a checklist so that he can fit a certain template.

Just consider that he gets his powers from being bitten by an evil corporation and then puts on a store-bought Halloween costume before he gets an unique superhero suit. He's progresses from an individual to a consumer and ultimately into a product.

Stan Lee and Steven Ditko created a superhero character who reflects teen anxieties. Now Spider-Verse presents a teen character who reflects superhero anxieties.

Say what you want, this is a pretty good point

# ¿ Dec 24, 2018 23:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:31

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

nine-gear crow posted:

It's like clockwork. Lamps eats a probe and you rush in out of nowhere to defend him.

Its almost as if there is publicly searchable database that shows when and why someone was probated that is accessible to all users

And its not even defending him from the probe, that wasn't the post he was probated for.

And besides all of that, it is a good point, regardless of your opinions on the dude. Into the Spider-Verse is very much a story about the anxieties of the ownership of Spider-Man as a character between Marvel and Sony and its being deliberately obtuse if you don't notice that subtext.

Its literally a story about someone believing they cannot live up to the mantle of the title "spider-man" until they realize there are multiple incarnations of the characters and that there is no one true version. If that's not an extended metaphor for the intellectual property struggles behind the character I don't know what is.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 00:00

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Phylodox posted:

Bravest doesn’t have a point. Bravest never has a point. He just sees that something is popular and reverse engineers some pseudo-intellectual horseshit to justify being a petulant, contrarian jackass. Then, if people make the mistake of actually engaging with him and pick apart his horseshit, he just plugs his ears and yells “Nuh-uh!!!”

You don't think there is a tangible sense of anxiety behind corporate ownership of the character behind the story?

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 00:34

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Queen Combat posted:

I'm convinced you're an alt.

The first post-Marvel-IP-sharing Sony-based Spider-Man feature hits three major story beats.

1. Peter Parker Spider-Man is gone
2. There simultaneously exist multiple versions of Spider Man in different universes
3. Miles is this "universe's" new Spider Man because there is no more Peter Parker

How is that not an extended metaphor for Sony's split ownership of Spider-Man as intellectual property

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 00:46

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Phylodox posted:

No. That’s someone forcing a movie into a tortured metaphor to serve their puerile self-aggrandizing whining. Why would it be about that when several people have pointed out several themes that fit much better with what’s shown on the screen without having to invent behind-the-scenes tension?

Multiple themes can exist simultaneously, just because one interpretation has merit doesnt mean all other interpretations can no longer exist

Necrothatcher posted:

I actually think this is a neat interpretation and it makes me respect the movie more.

_{So I don't think they're an alt.}

Yeah I just wanted to check out what BotL got tagged for but that post actually got me thinking and there is a very material metaphor for the production of the film in the film itself.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 00:54

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Phylodox posted:

Hey, cool, that’s not at all what I said. Just because multiple themes can exist at once doesn’t mean all interpretations have equal merit.

I dont see why there is not a valid interpretation of the film as a metaphor for it's ownership other than you are mad at BotL

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 00:59

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Phylodox posted:

I’m not saying there isn’t a possibly valid interpretation along those lines, I’m saying BravestOfTheLamps is nowhere even close to making one, even given your ridiculously generous take on his semi-coherent rambling about insidious spider gods and exposed spider genitalia.

Nothing I quoted from BotL was about spider gods or spider genitals so I dont know what you are referring to.

I quoted a post about how Miles being tailored to exist as a product is part of the extended metaphor of the film itself.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 01:14

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

So if we just exclude botl from the conversation can we engage with the movie as a metaphor for it's own split ownership

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 01:24

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

nine-gear crow posted:

Question: have you listened to the Christmas album yet? Your master has repeatedly dodged the question. What do you have to say on the matter?

I listened to it and it was kind of cheesy and lame but all Christmas albums are, even when they are being ironic.

Also, isnt it a bit beneath you as a mod with being so obsessed with forums drama that you keep bringing it up even though I havent done anything to bring it up.

Phylodox posted:

That’s only vaguely related to what Bravest was saying, to the point of being useless. You might as well say the theme of the film is “movies”.

Ok, well I disagree

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Dec 25, 2018

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 01:29

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Olympic Mathlete posted:

*edit: also this movie is just loving stunning looking. My jaw was hanging towards the end taking it all in. I need the art book.

I have a very minor gripe about the animation style because that kind of psuedo-stop motion worked when the premise of the film was "the imagined world of toys" but doesn't fit as well when that conceit is removed

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 01:51

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

nine-gear crow posted:

I�d argue the variable frame rate works to an advantage in the action sequences because it allows the animators to emphasize key actions and moments better than a smoother frame rate would. The What�s Up Danger sequence uses this to great effect as Miles finally comes into his own and he actually starting doing things deliberately rather than bumbling though them.

It�s in the quieter dialog scenes where the choppy frame rate comes off as jarring, but you�re right it is a minor annoyance at best.

I suppose they could have gone for even larger gaps in the frames to try and mimic the sequential "comic" style for the action scenes and it might have worked, or it might have caused everyone to be terribly motion sick so who knows

I mean, purely visually its alright, I just wish there was an established context for it. I really enjoyed it in the lego movie because we were ostensibly seeing the toys being manipulated by a child but in a setting in which the child is invisible within the world itself. The jerky motions mimicked the hands of a child manipulating them as the child played.

this movie doesn't give us that context and it sort of makes the effect suffer because of it

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Dec 25, 2018

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 02:06

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

There's nothing incoherent about it. Spider-Verse establishes that there's a Lovecraftian spider-god.

Its plan is to apparently to turn one dude (usually the same person) in every dimension into an outlandishly-dressed vigilante.

I think its a bit reductive to limit the outside presence controlling the universe to a tangible entity. The Spider-God exists, but not as a controlling presence within the universe. The Spider-God is the audience and the industry. There must be Spider-Man movies for Sony, and so this is the story of a new Spider-Man being crafted so that he can be in more movies. Simply creating an actual entity in the narrative robs the audience of the necessary sensation of existential discomfort that comes from realizing that the malevolent force driving the heroes through their struggles is the audience itself.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2018 23:58

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

The_Doctor posted:

Where do you guys keep getting this spider-god thing from?

I use it as shorthand for the fact that the movie seems to imply that despite the near infinite possibilities of the multiverse, all multiverses must have a Spider-Man. The fact that there is a present force or suggestion that maintains this sort of status quo is the "spider god".

Of course, I dont take it to be literal, since the spider god is clearly us

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 01:01

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

NmareBfly posted:

The goblin stuck Spider-Man’s head in the collider which is why it sucked in other spider people.

Why did it suck in other spider people and not other orphaned nerds who live with their aunts

What essentiallized him as Spider-Man over all other aspects of himself? Afterall, as you said yourself, the universe looked for copies of Kingpins family, and yet the copies of Peter Parker wasnt other Peter Parkers, but other Spider-Men. What is that essentializing force?

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 01:20

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Waffleman_ posted:

Yeah, the common thread is that they all got bitten by radioactive spiders, and radioactivity is probably going to be more apparent to a particle collider.

Spider-Man Noir was bitten by a vessel of an ancient spider-god that wasn't radioactive so why is he there?

Also Japanese Spider-Girl was never bitten by a spider at all

checkmate libs

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 01:27

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Young Freud posted:

Spider-Ham was a spider bitten by a radioactive May Porker.

Spider-Ham overall seems pretty chill about the fact he is in his own version of Planet of the Apes

Phylodox posted:

Who, exactly, do you think you�re getting one over on, here?

Congratulations, you�re a weird, pedantic dingus.

Legit whats your problem dude

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 01:58

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Pirate Jet posted:

Very cool to see the thread has successfully transitioned into being genuinely mad that people are actually talking about the movie instead of the lovely ancillary promotional material.

Its legit kind of unnerving that "hey, lets think about the weirder unspoken implications of the film" or "hey, look at how this movie is kind of subtly speaking to its own creation by Sony" have been met by genuine anger from a dude with a krogan av

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 02:08

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

OldTennisCourt posted:

Or maybe people are finally getting tired of literally every single CD thread devolving into "hmmm yes but you see why hmmm why is the film called into the spider verse filled with characters based on spiders? Perhaps this speaks to the nature of consumerism in our culture and furthermore ~faaaaaaaart~"

Like, what else is there to talk about if not being analytical about the film

"i liked movie"

"I also liked movie"

"I liked this part"

"I, also, liked this part"

truly an engaging and worthwhile discussion to build a subforum around

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 02:18

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

OldTennisCourt posted:

Or maybe.....just maybe its possible to have interesting conversations that dont fall into the most boring reductive poo poo in the universe. What interesting points were you bringing up in your gripping discussion on why spiderman was in a movie about spiderman?

There's a huge gulf between I LIKE PRETTY MOVIE YAY and the smelling your own farts discussions that thisnsubforum is rancid with.

There are tons of interesting threads on this sub forum but it seems like every single thread about a new popular movie gets inundated with the lamest psuedo-intellectual babbel that never even says anything.

EDIT: this was in response to mel.

hey homie maybe try starting a conversation about something you want to talk about instead of appointing yourself the police of who is allowed to talk about movies

OldTennisCourt posted:

What does this even mean? People like me made netflix a viable and more easily usable option?

there is a subforum called blockbuster video for non-critical movie discussion

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 02:29

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Apraxin posted:

CD would be the place for analyzing Boss Baby through the lens of Foucault.

Having the deuteragonist being a capitalist metaphor in a world in which emotions like love and affection are a literal limited commodity could be pretty clearly analyzed through a Foucaultian framework now that you mention it

porfiria posted:

I liked Gwen's tooth gap.

It represents the gap between the audience and the characters, the bridge between authentic experience and mere catharsis. (this was a joke)

I Before E posted:

I can see where Mel's coming from, with Sony having to deal with the fact that any version of spiderman they put out will be compared not just to the currently ongoing spiderman movies, but to the previous Sony spidermans, and deciding to get in front of that by making a movie that declares unequivocally that there isn't just one definitive spiderman, and that trying to hold one up as an unreachable ideal is a losing proposition.

I know, its a fascinating correlation between the artist and art that I think elevates it as a product

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Dec 26, 2018

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 02:37

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

nine-gear crow posted:

lovely rear end in a top hat nerds on the internet ruining things through pedantry? That's unheard of!

the only people ruining anything are the people so frazzled by over-exposure to BotL that they treat any attempt to talk about the film critically as some kind of sinister uber-troll.

Nothing I have said as "ruined" anything, and even one dude went so far as to say my point made him appreciate the movie more. I am not the one trying to turn "talking about a movie" into a personal vendetta.

Who What Now posted:

It's literally a tangible entity, though.

God comics are great sometimes

Also, now that it has been revealed there really are lovecraftian spider-gods I think BotL should be unprob'd

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 02:46

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

OldTennisCourt posted:

The only person consistantly obsessed with this loving album at this point is you dude. We get it.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

hey homie maybe try starting a conversation about something you want to talk about instead of appointing yourself the police of who is allowed to talk about movies

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 02:50

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Who What Now posted:

All the Sam Raimi movies, including three, are way better than any of the later live-action Spider-Man films

There's been a weird sort of backlash to sam raimi movies I don't get. Especially since Sam Raimi has a clearer vision as a director than any of the later films.

I think the issue is that the later marvel movies have been very good at tricking the audience into believing they are not watching a superhero movie, while the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are unapologetic in their superhero-ness

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 04:18

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Yeah Spiders Man is the winner

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 04:58

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

SardonicTyrant posted:

This is precisely why Streets Of Fire is the greatest movie ever made.

If you want to see him making crazy faces I got a little movie for you named Anti Christ

# ¿ Dec 26, 2018 19:09

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

I mean, he does, again, raise some good points you seem to be ignoring just to continue the "lol Botl" train

What narrative purpose behind the selection of the characters in the film exists beyond the arbitrarily of including them? If alt-Parker is meant to be aspirational, and Gwen is meant to be supportive, what roles do Noir, Ham, and Peni play other than "popular and funny"

# ¿ Dec 29, 2018 04:13

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

That's kind of BotL's point though, that they are there for reasons that are not narrative as much as the film's desire to be effective as a product for consumption.

Conrad_Birdie posted:

and mel! you literally follow botl from thread to thread! so weird!!!

https://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php

Phylodox posted:

Giving it half a moment’s thought, they very effectively illustrate the film’s main message, that “anyone can be Spider-Man”, even a prepubescent Japanese girl or a cartoon pig.

ok, but why the japanese girl and pig? If it could be anything, why them?

# ¿ Dec 29, 2018 04:43

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Phylodox posted:

A film and everything in it is a product to be consumed.

I would just like to express my firm and committed disagreement with this post and its contents

Phylodox posted:

Why not a Japanese girl and a pig? Had they been anything else, you�d be asking the same question.

Well no, because I didnt say this about gwen and alt-peter because they had an obvious reason for being there.

Phylodox posted:

Nobody cares.

how many probes do you have to eat for contributing nothing to the discussion

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Dec 29, 2018

# ¿ Dec 29, 2018 04:48

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

UltraRed posted:

Spider-Ham is cannon. Poorly drawn non-anime girl is NOT.

Nitrousoxide posted:

Peni Parker is cannon.

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Peni_Parker_(Earth-14512)

I am so goddamn triggered right now

# ¿ Dec 29, 2018 16:42

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

one thing bothers me

they keep talking about how alt-peter let himself go and got fat but he isn't fat

asecondduck posted:

drat you, autocorrect.

you're still better than the multiple posters who thought official chronology was a type of artillery

# ¿ Dec 30, 2018 05:30

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

I have determined the spider man who would need to be in a sequel

Hold the Dark Spider Man

# ¿ Dec 30, 2018 20:40

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

fractalairduct posted:

Turn Off the Dark Spider Man for the next movie

gently caress I knew I should have googled that joke

regardless I want a spider-man who sings and does musical numbers

Artelier posted:

one thing i really like is that a lot of the characters tend to have a distinct shape / silhouette

I think it was Matt Groening who said that good design means the character should be identifiable just from a silhoutte

# ¿ Dec 31, 2018 18:20

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

more and more I think about it the more wholly unnecessary Penni/Noir/Ham were

Collectively I don't think they had more than 25 lines

# ¿ Jan 1, 2019 00:16

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Conrad_Birdie posted:

I love the Big Lebowski but Jesus is a pretty pointless character in it. He's in like two scenes, maybe 15 lines total. Wouldn't want him not in the movie though, because he overall adds to the texture and "universe" of the film. Also, it's fun to have cool and funny tertiary characters played by John Turturro in your movie.

They aren't tertiary characters though, they are ostensibly deuteragonists. The film is explicitly built on the premise of "spider-men from all over the multiverse" and in the end there are clearly characters the plot is built around and also characters who could be removed and not affect the film at all.

The movie could have just been miles/parker/gwen and been a lot tighter of a film and not lost anything.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2019 00:38

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Conrad_Birdie posted:

I feel like this has also been talked about before and you're just willfully being obtuse.
They're there to show how much wilder the "anyone can be Spider-person" concept can go beyond traditionally built modern day male/female.
Also, to show off interesting new animation techniques by the crew!
Also because it's fun! It's a fun movie!

Tossing in stuff just because its fun is what leads to films becoming bloated and aimless

And I do agree that the different animation styles are interesting which is why I wish they were more essential. The fact that Ham/Penni/and Noir all represent distinct visual art styles was something I wanted to see explored a lot more than their limited screentime. The film is already visually fascinating in its "core" art style, and I would have loved to see the changing of the art style played with a lot more than it ultimately was.

Conrad_Birdie posted:

edit: I mean, c'mon, it's a loving family movie called "Into the Spider-Verse" it's absolutely ridiculous you're walking around with a hand to your head going "WHY SPIDER HAM??"

Why is it everytime someone is dismissive of a movie like this people seem to go "animation and kids films don't get the respect they deserve!" and every time someone is being analytical about it they go "its just a kids movie don't take it so seriously"

At least pick a side and stick to it

# ¿ Jan 1, 2019 00:46

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Conrad_Birdie posted:

I'm sorry, in your opinion, there wasn't enough material for them in the movie.

Are you the writer?

# ¿ Jan 1, 2019 00:58

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Neo Rasa posted:

Noir Spider-Man has very little to say but they actually worked an arc in there.

which was?

# ¿ Jan 1, 2019 01:19

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

One of the under-appreciated jokes I think in the movie is "Alright, one more time..." before every backstory because not only of the obvious joke that it keeps happening, but also because its kind of a meta-joke about how played out Spidey's origin story is

# ¿ Jan 1, 2019 06:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:31

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

thought

if spider-gwen was knocked into last week why isn't her glitch way worse than everyone else

# ¿ Jan 3, 2019 17:46

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Into the Spider-Verse: "Did *that* feel like a cartoon?"