PDA

View Full Version : Spiderman 3



ALLWritety
04-27-2007, 10:39 PM
Hi Guys & Gals,

I have just found out that one of the few times Taiwan is better that the West is Spiderman 3 is released here on May 1st. 3 -4 days before state side. So if you guys want I will go and see it and blab all about it here.

Don't you just LOVE people who tell you the whole story before you see the movie!!!!! ;-p

Spidy is my all time hero. I saw 1 & 2 but i thought to myself that I would not go see No. 3 but then when I saw the trailers I quickly changed my mind.

I have high hopes for this one.

Kev

ChunkyC
04-28-2007, 12:20 AM
I'm quite excited about it too. I just hope they handle the rather large cast much better than in Batman & Robin, the one with George Clooney as Batman. It had way too many primary characters: Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy ... far too many to keep track of.

Spidey 3 has a bunch too: Spidey, MJ, Harry Osborn, Sandman, Venom ... but Spidey has Sam Raimi in the director's chair, where he's been since the beginning. Batman 4 fell victim to a really poor script and Joel Schumacher's cartoonish direction.

So I'm hopeful. :)

Writer14
04-29-2007, 08:40 PM
Omg! I hope to see it the day it comes out (may 4th where i'm at. Florida,USA,lol)

I'm sure Raimi will do a fine job with the cast, as always!

VeggieChick
04-29-2007, 11:44 PM
It comes out in Russia on May 3. We're also half a day ahead, so... Can't wait :)

jvc
04-30-2007, 12:20 AM
I hope it will be a good film, I really do, but I think it may end up being like X-men 3 with too many characters vying for the top spot.

ChunkyC
04-30-2007, 01:36 AM
Well, according to the Internet Movie Database, the runtime is two hours and twenty minutes, so that gives them a good length in which to tell the story.

madderblue
04-30-2007, 01:58 AM
Hey KC, It's being released here (Japan) early too. They are making a huge dealio of it. All the actors came and did all those interviews. I'm sure they were in Taiwan as well. They looked awfully tired.

I just got invited by my friend's husband to go see the movie the day it comes out (she has to work), which is tomorrow, OMG! But it's Golden Week here which means EVERYONE will be there. Still debating.

Michael
04-30-2007, 03:50 AM
I'm quite excited about it too. I just hope they handle the rather large cast much better than in Batman & Robin, the one with George Clooney as Batman. It had way too many primary characters: Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy ... far too many to keep track of.

Spidey 3 has a bunch too: Spidey, MJ, Harry Osborn, Sandman, Venom ... but Spidey has Sam Raimi in the director's chair, where he's been since the beginning. Batman 4 fell victim to a really poor script and Joel Schumacher's cartoonish direction.

So I'm hopeful. :)

You're not kidding about Batman and Robin. I was so disappointed with that movie.

ALLWritety
05-01-2007, 08:44 PM
Ladies & Gentlemen,

I have just got back for the the screening. I won't tell you as I don't like being told what will happen in a movie. Here are just a few comments.

I thought it was excellent in the story and how they worked with all the characters. It all fitted together rather well. There was a bit in the middle that seemed to plod on then the tempo picked up.

There was a interesting twist at the end which i did think off but looking back I should have picked up on that!! Maybe you guys will think of that!!!!!

Any a very good movie.
ENJOY.

Kev

ChunkyC
05-01-2007, 08:50 PM
:Jump:

ALLWritety
05-01-2007, 08:59 PM
Hey CC

Does that mean you are excited by the moive? Have you revied it yet?
K

Writer2011
05-01-2007, 09:21 PM
Just hope its' better than the last two---I grew up (as i'm sure a lot of others did) reading the Spiderman comics and such-- I'm glad they're introducing Venom this time around--I knew by the black spiderman suit Venom would make his grand entrance :)

J. Weiland
05-01-2007, 09:40 PM
The trailer revealed the whole story anyway.

ChunkyC
05-01-2007, 10:24 PM
Hey CC

Does that mean you are excited by the moive? Have you revied it yet?
K
No, I haven't seen it yet. It's not released here until Friday and in my little town I don't get to attend a press screening since I'm the only local reviewer. So I get to go when it comes to the theatre. VERY much looking forward to it. :)

Writer2011
05-04-2007, 01:02 AM
My wife and I are going to see it tomorrow (Friday)...looking forward to it the more and more I see commercials and such... I am sooo glad they're introducing Venom in this one :)

robeiae
05-04-2007, 01:53 AM
Wait a minute...they're making Spiderman movies???

Rainy Night
05-04-2007, 02:26 AM
Spider who?

dancingandflying
05-04-2007, 02:36 AM
i heard it was terrible. one friend who works at a movie theater: 'go watch the notebook instead; just as much crying in half the time.'

just my two cents. i haven't seen it yet.
peace.
d and f.

dclary
05-04-2007, 03:01 AM
Spidey 3 is CRUSHING box office records overseas (in 10 of the 14 markets it opened in, it set the opening day record... in other markets it outpaced Spidey 1 + 2 COMBINED).

maestrowork
05-04-2007, 03:11 AM
There's no doubt it's going to do well -- maybe even the biggest box office champ of the year. But is it any good. I hate to go into it with great expectations only to be disappointed.

dclary
05-04-2007, 03:22 AM
I am expecting it to be middle of the road. On the one hand, Spidey-2 so completely blew away my expectations for it, and Venom was my wife's favorite character, so I've got heightened demands on the material already. And yet it's a 3rd pic, AND a multi-villain movie (something no hero movie has ever done well) so it's going against some severe challenges.

If it's average, it did a good job.

ChunkyC
05-04-2007, 04:12 AM
Spidey 3 is going to do phenomenal business in the opening weekend no matter how good or bad it is. The true test will be if it can hold the number one spot the following week against such mega-competition as Delta Farce (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800003/). ;)

Seriously, though ... Shrek the Third is being released 2 weeks after Spidey, and Pirates of the Caribbean 3 a week after that. Spidey's gonna have to be incredible to hold top spot against those movies.

katiemac
05-04-2007, 11:06 AM
Well, I just saw it. I won't say anything about the plot. It was good, but I think I'm disappointed.

Southern_girl29
05-04-2007, 06:31 PM
We're going tomorrow night. I can't wait to see it. We're going to go to a little drive-in and take our four year old. She loves the Spidey movies, but I'd rather take her somewhere she doesn't have to sit still and be really quiet.

Bmwhtly
05-04-2007, 06:39 PM
I'm not going tonight (I don't like crowded cinemas). I'll go tomorrow.
My main concern is the multi-villain-ness of it.

I can see the argument, if it was spidey versus a villain it could be seen as the same formula as spidey 2.

*WARNING: Little baby spoiler that doesn't really qualify as a spoiler but better safe than sorry*


But, from a review I heard, they don't explore the bad guy's backstory as much as if it was just one bad guy. Which is a shame.

Just Me
05-04-2007, 06:58 PM
My main interest in this movie is the conflict between Peter and Harry that needs to be resolved. I'm a sucker for "Best friends turned enemies" type stories. I'm also curious about what happens with Spidey and the Venom symbiont.

As long as enough time is devoted to those two elements (and the first conflict in particular is resolved in a satisfactory way), I'll be a happy camper.

~JM.

dclary
05-04-2007, 07:41 PM
I agree. I saw it last night too. Disappointing and disjointed would be the two words I'd use.

III
05-06-2007, 06:01 AM
Okay, here's the super-bonus question. No fair using IMDB. The actor who played Peter Parker on the short-lived live-action Spiderman TV show in the 70's was in what major movie musical? If you remember the TV series, you'll freak when you see the answer.

And we just saw SM3. It was weak but had its moments. I thought the first one sucked and the second one was good. It actually parallels the X-Men movies IMO. I grew up on Marvel comics, but the movies have been terribly disappointing. I'm dreading seeing what they do to Silver Surfer and Galactus. Christopher Nolan should be required to write and direct all superhero movies henceforth.

Sage
05-06-2007, 06:44 AM
I'm not a big comic book reader, & I enjoy superhero movies, but don't love them all or need to see them all. That said, I LOVED Spiderman 2. Spiderman 3 was not even close to as good. It wasn't horrible, just not great. I did like the Harry subplot & the way it was handled. But overall, I felt like it was two hours of set-up, followed by a climax. Maybe it was just that the climax was so disjointed from the rest of the story, as if everything else was a bunch of subplots, & then suddenly... hey, here are the villains!

ChunkyC
05-06-2007, 07:05 PM
I'm disappointed too. I thought Spidey 1 was good, and Spidey 2 was arguably the best superhero movie ever made. Compared to them, Spidey 3 is a mess.

There were some good moments, but Sam Raimi should have kept his butt firmly planted in the director's chair and kept his fingers out of the scriptwriting process. Our regs in the screenwriting forum would have a field day pointing out everything that's wrong with that script. The story is jumbled, the dialogue is stilted ... nearly every time the characters opened their mouths it was a speech, not a conversation. And that scene in the jazz club, talk about cringe-worthy.

Too bad.

maestrowork
05-06-2007, 07:30 PM
Spidey 2 had Michael Chabon (you know, the Pulitzer-winning novelist).

Spidey 3 has the Raimi brothers.

'Nuf said.

Who said good writers are not important?

Writer2011
05-06-2007, 08:41 PM
The other night I read on a popular encyclopedia site and read about the Spiderman comics... If you go back and look at all the villians...you'll see why what happened, well happened... from what I saw they combined a bunch of the comics together... which was a bit much but still... It was a good movie and now knowing what really happens, I do feel a bit better..although kinda sad too.

Writer14
05-06-2007, 08:53 PM
I personally loved the 3rd movie, not as much as i enjoyed the 2nd one, but Spidey 3 was pretty damn good.

I agree that the dialogue and jazz scenes were next to awful, but Venom looked amazing, as did the rest of the sfx.

The story was great (wow...the opinion of a 14 yr old can be pretty idiotic. We're so easily amused,XD)

Iono. I don't think it outdid Spidey 2 though, but it was worth seeing.


P.S: Did i mention i saw it for free? Boy its awesome having a parent work at the theater ^_^

ChaosTitan
05-06-2007, 11:16 PM
There are movie spoilers in this post, so skip it if you haven't seen it.




I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. They did a good job of juggling multiple storylines and a slew of new characters. The only one I would have liked to see more of was Eddie Brock. I wasn't convinced that he was the sort to go all homicidal on Peter just because he lost his job. If the Venom symbiote plays on parts of you (especially aggression, like the professor said), I would have liked more indication that Brock was...well, aggressive. That was my main quibble.

Peter's whole "Look at me, ain't I the coolest" montage was cringe-worthy, but I have feeling that's what the director was going for. Peter was being an ass and everyone in the audience knew it. We were just waiting for him to finally realize it.

And did anyone else not know immediately that Harry was going to die after that scene in the hospital? When he told the nurse that he would die for his friends? *sigh* Sort of anti-climactic, but I did like Harry's arc. From a vengeful son to a best friend back to vengeful. Then he found his own path. And died. *sobs*

I :heart: James Franco.

Anyway...

It was nice to see James Cromwell, even if he only had three scenes. Love him. Jamison buying that little girl's camera because he didn't have his own photographer. LOL! Bruce Campbell's scene at the French restaurant was hilarious. Fun cameo by Stan Lee (as always). The aerial battle with Harry and the first fight with Venom made me dizzy--a little too dizzy. *boggles*

And holy cow, Thomas Hayden Church scared the crap out of me. The man seriously bulked up for that role. Talk about intimidating. But he did the "gentle giant" thing well. I like that Sandman was let go at the end. I didn't expect that.

Am I alone in thinking that Mary Jane was acting just a tad irrational for the first half of the movie? If she had just told Peter she got canned, things would have been better, and Peter wouldn't have been going on and on like things were normal. And then she wouldn't have gotten all pissy with him. He has super powers, but mind reading isn't one of them.

Sheesh.

III
05-07-2007, 03:00 AM
I'm disappointed too. I thought Spidey 1 was good, and Spidey 2 was arguably the best superhero movie ever made. Compared to them, Spidey 3 is a mess.

There were some good moments, but Sam Raimi should have kept his butt firmly planted in the director's chair and kept his fingers out of the scriptwriting process. Our regs in the screenwriting forum would have a field day pointing out everything that's wrong with that script. The story is jumbled, the dialogue is stilted ... nearly every time the characters opened their mouths it was a speech, not a conversation. And that scene in the jazz club, talk about cringe-worthy.

Too bad.

What did you think of the CGI? Maybe I'm just utterly burned out on CGI, but I thought this was particularly barf-inducing. The first ten-minute battle with Harry was like dropping acid and taking your XBox on a roller-coaster. Most of the CGI was just a referenceless mess with the exception of the Sandman's origination. I think movie critics will look back at the early 2000's and praise movies that refrained from using CGI as brilliant and classic. Spiderman 3 was too much like Spy Kids.

katiemac
05-07-2007, 03:12 AM
Peter's whole "Look at me, ain't I the coolest" montage was cringe-worthy, but I have feeling that's what the director was going for. Peter was being an ass and everyone in the audience knew it. We were just waiting for him to finally realize it.

Sure, it was supposed to be cringe-worthy, but not in the way I expected. The suit turns people onto their darkest personalities and Peter Parker's is... emo?

It wasn't the dark spiral I expected, nor did the trailers play up. Spiderman never really *loved* the suit like he could have, and I thought Peter acted merely like an idiot as opposed to someone sinister. It may have worked better if he wrestled with the suit more, but I didn't get the idea it had really consumed him yet. Similarly, the other character changes came too convienently.. Harry, Sandman, etc.

ChaosTitan
05-07-2007, 03:50 AM
It may have worked better if he wrestled with the suit more, but I didn't get the idea it had really consumed him yet. Similarly, the other character changes came too convienently.. Harry, Sandman, etc.

Maybe it will be in the three-hour, deluxe Director's Cut DVD? :Shrug:

dclary
05-07-2007, 05:49 AM
No, because you can't add what's not there.

Here's my (spoiler-free) review of the movie:


The general consensus of the packed theater (not just screen... but like, 6 screens in the theater) was "WTF was that?"

Things you would not expect to see in this movie that... somehow you do.
Kirsten Dunst doing 2 musical numbers.
Tobey Maguire combing his hair to look like he's in the band "Good Charlotte."
A dance number.
Peter kills two people... twice. They then each die again a 3rd time. Hard to explain.
More Uncle Ben flashbacks than at the 5000th anniversary of the invention of rice.

By the end of the movie, I was sure of three things:
The guys at sony sure do know how to get good rendering out of their vaios.
Marty McFly's hoverboard needs some serious upgrading
I am sure sick of Stan Lee getting cameos in every marvel movie.

The biggest disappointment of all was the poorly conceived plot, which just really was all over the place. The pacing and story lumbered around like a drunken marshmallow man, and all you were left with was a sense of "ok, we had these 40 scenes in our head when we came up with this movie. Every scene in the movie is either one of these 40 scenes, filler to get from scene to scene, or talking heads explaining what the hell's happening since the story itself doesn't seem to be covering this little detail."

My original fear had been the movie was too ambitious, and that Venom deserved his own movie as the solo bad guy. My fear was correct. This film should have focused on the suit, and getting rid of the suit, and set up Venom for #4. Instead, they tried too hard, and while this is no "Batman and Robin" (thank god) it's still the worst spider-man of the series.

Spider-man 3. See it on the big screen if you like your digital effects big. Otherwise, it'll be just fine on netflix.

Writer2011
05-07-2007, 06:10 AM
I have to agree... VENOM should have his own movie...with Venom, New Green Goblin and Sandman (although not a true "villian") was just too much--if they could have scratched out Sandman and focused more on say Green Goblin and Venom would have been a much better movie...oh well :) You can't win them all

mdin
05-07-2007, 10:32 AM
I liked it quite a bit, but part 2 was far superior. I agree with Chunk. Part 2 was one of the greatest superhero movies of all time.

The trailer ruined some of the most major plot points. That irritated me to no end.

maestrowork
05-07-2007, 05:20 PM
The consensus in the critic circle seems to be too much for one movie (thus the all-over-the-map plot). They're packing three movies into one, and even at 2.5 hours, it's still too much for too little time.

Celia Cyanide
05-07-2007, 06:03 PM
My main interest in this movie is the conflict between Peter and Harry that needs to be resolved. I'm a sucker for "Best friends turned enemies" type stories.

My problem is, Harry Osborn was such a bad friend that I couldn't really see why it was such a surprise that they turned against each other.

chaostitan:


Am I alone in thinking that Mary Jane was acting just a tad irrational for the first half of the movie? If she had just told Peter she got canned, things would have been better, and Peter wouldn't have been going on and on like things were normal. And then she wouldn't have gotten all pissy with him. He has super powers, but mind reading isn't one of them.

Mary Jane is a spoiled brat. She always has been. They did get married, eventually, but that didn't work out too well. Gwen Stacy was his girlfriend for many years. Mary Jane was not his main love interest until much later. She was pretty unfair and selfish toward Peter in Spider-Man 2, as well. Which is fine, but I didn't think she should have been his main love interest.

I know that a lot of this movie was cheesy, but it's Spider-Man, not Batman, and it's supposed to be that way. Spider-Man is a wise-cracking superhero. He isn't serious at all. Sam Raimi said he wanted some of the series to be serious, and some of it to be campy. For those of you who thought that there were cheesy moments in Spider-Man 3, did you NOT think it was cheesy in #2 when they did that "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head" montage?

ChunkyC
05-07-2007, 06:59 PM
For those of you who thought that there were cheesy moments in Spider-Man 3, did you NOT think it was cheesy in #2 when they did that "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head" montage?
They didn't take it nearly as far in #2, where it was funny.

[SPOILER ALERT]

Peter Parker playing the piano? When the heck did they ever establish that he could play any musical instrument? That came completely out of left field. The black suit is supposed to amplify what's already there, not bestow completely new talents. No, that scene would have worked much better if they'd kept Peter off the stage and just had him dance with Gwen right in front of MJ. The point was to show that Peter was becoming a jerk, that would have done it without all the dumb stuff.


What did you think of the CGI? Maybe I'm just utterly burned out on CGI, but I thought this was particularly barf-inducing. The first ten-minute battle with Harry was like dropping acid and taking your XBox on a roller-coaster. Most of the CGI was just a referenceless mess with the exception of the Sandman's origination. I think movie critics will look back at the early 2000's and praise movies that refrained from using CGI as brilliant and classic. Spiderman 3 was too much like Spy Kids.
Too fast at times in the fight scenes, for one. Maybe I'm getting old, but I'd like to actually be able to see what they're doing. That was my biggest complaint with the Yoda vs Count Dooku lightsabre fight in Attack of the Clones. Yoda was bouncing around so much you couldn't make out what was happening. Same thing occurred too often here.

I really liked the scene where Flint awoke to discover he'd been changed into the Sandman. That was awesome.

Just Me
05-07-2007, 07:31 PM
My problem is, Harry Osborn was such a bad friend that I couldn't really see why it was such a surprise that they turned against each other.
It was foreshadowed in the first movie and five-shadowed in the second one. :tongue Anyone who didn't know that Harry would turn on Peter must've slept through both.

Anyway, I never said it was a surprise. Just that I enjoy that particular type of storyline and want to see how it's resolved. A plot twist doesn't have to be surprising to be entertaining. (But since I'm very broke right now, it's probably going to be awhile before I see how it plays out. :cry:)

~JM.

III
05-07-2007, 08:00 PM
Okay, here's the super-bonus question. No fair using IMDB. The actor who played Peter Parker on the short-lived live-action Spiderman TV show in the 70's was in what major movie musical? If you remember the TV series, you'll freak when you see the answer.


Okay, since no Spidey fans were brave enough to take a stab at this, the answer was The Sound Of Music. Nicholas Hammond played Friedrich (the castrati) as a child and went on to play Peter Parker as an adult. There's part of your brain capacity you'll never get back. Nyeah. http://www.us.imdb.com/name/nm0358749/

katiemac
05-07-2007, 08:57 PM
Peter Parker playing the piano? When the heck did they ever establish that he could play any musical instrument? That came completely out of left field. The black suit is supposed to amplify what's already there, not bestow completely new talents. No, that scene would have worked much better if they'd kept Peter off the stage and just had him dance with Gwen right in front of MJ. The point was to show that Peter was becoming a jerk, that would have done it without all the dumb stuff.

The piano playing was truly bizarre. And although I thought him dancing around was strange, I do understand the "attention-getting" of him being on stage - he wanted attention as Peter Parker, not Spiderman. But still -- it didn't work.

I thought Gwen was sadly underused, too. I don't like Mary Jane and was looking forward to Gwen in the film, but the way she played out she could have been any other female character. My only hope is that, if they make Spidey 4, she'll have bigger roles in those, especially if they pull out the Lizard since they set him up pretty well in this film.

ChaosTitan
05-07-2007, 09:42 PM
My only hope is that, if they make Spidey 4, she'll have bigger roles in those, especially if they pull out the Lizard since they set him up pretty well in this film.

It's unlikely that any more films will get made. At least, not with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Both have been very vocal about not wanting to do anymore Spiderman films, and I believe they were only contracted to make three.

*shrugs*

That could be why Sam Raimi felt it necessary to cram so much story into one movie. He may not get another chance to explore these characters.

Unless they got the way of the Batman franchise and start replacing the actors every other movie, and we all know how well that turned out. :rant:

III
05-07-2007, 09:50 PM
Peter Parker playing the piano? When the heck did they ever establish that he could play any musical instrument? That came completely out of left field.

I think that part was an homage to Groundhog Day where Phil was inexplicably able to play the piano at the big party. We're supposed to assume Peter Parker went through a similar experience. Maybe it was too high-brow for the audience?

And exactly how small is New York? Spiderman and Fantastic Four lead me to believe that it's very common to continually bump into people you know (at just the right moment), or to track someone down in the streets.

Celia Cyanide
05-07-2007, 10:34 PM
Anyway, I never said it was a surprise. Just that I enjoy that particular type of storyline and want to see how it's resolved. A plot twist doesn't have to be surprising to be entertaining.

It isn't a plot twist. Harry was never a very good friend to Pete. If he was, it would be a little bit sad and tragic when they became enemies. But it's not. So I couldn't really give a crap about them fighting, or how it was resolved.


Peter Parker playing the piano? When the heck did they ever establish that he could play any musical instrument? That came completely out of left field. The black suit is supposed to amplify what's already there, not bestow completely new talents.

I think that whole scene was pointless, but it's not as if it was established that he couldn't play piano. Most of the kids in my neighborhood took pianio lessons when I was growing up. It's not really that surprising.

dclary
05-07-2007, 10:50 PM
Let's not forget how utterly STUPID his change-of-heart came about.

"I need your help."
"Fuck you."
"Sir, I'm old. I saw your dad's wound. Spidey didn't do it."
"Well, shit. Now what am I supposed to do?"

dclary
05-07-2007, 10:51 PM
I think that part was an homage to Groundhog Day where Phil was inexplicably able to play the piano at the big party. We're supposed to assume Peter Parker went through a similar experience. Maybe it was too high-brow for the audience?

And exactly how small is New York? Spiderman and Fantastic Four lead me to believe that it's very common to continually bump into people you know (at just the right moment), or to track someone down in the streets.

Holy leap of faith, Batman! Where in the world did you get THAT from?

Just Me
05-07-2007, 10:57 PM
It isn't a plot twist. Harry was never a very good friend to Pete. If he was, it would be a little bit sad and tragic when they became enemies. But it's not. So I couldn't really give a crap about them fighting, or how it was resolved.
Difference of opinion, I guess. For me, it's just an angle that I've always found interesting, almost regardless of context. (And the fact that the actors involved in this case are both so nice to look at helps. :tongue)

I wasn't trying to start an argument or anything. I'm sorry if I've upset you.

ChunkyC
05-07-2007, 11:36 PM
I think that part was an homage to Groundhog Day where Phil was inexplicably able to play the piano at the big party. We're supposed to assume Peter Parker went through a similar experience. Maybe it was too high-brow for the audience?
In Groundhog day, they established at the beginning that Murray's character could remember each of the repeating days as he lived them, whereas everyone else was starting over from scratch each time. Then they showed him taking piano lessons for weeks worth of those repeating days until he got good enough to get up on stage. Thus, it works within the context of the story, without any deux ex machina.


I think that whole scene was pointless, but it's not as if it was established that he couldn't play piano. Most of the kids in my neighborhood took pianio lessons when I was growing up. It's not really that surprising.
It also wasn't established that he couldn't perform brain surgery, but if they suddenly had him slicing someone's head open and pulling out a tumour, I'd find that equally annoying. :)

Being a movie, and it already established that the black suit only enhanced what was already there, it's poor storytelling to give Parker a skill he'd never shown before right at the moment it was needed for 'the big scene.' If they absolutely had to have him play piano in that scene, they should have shown him noodling around on a piano earlier in the movie, like backstage after MJ's broadway debut. That they didn't is a perfect example of how poor the script was.

Celia Cyanide
05-07-2007, 11:44 PM
Difference of opinion, I guess. For me, it's just an angle that I've always found interesting, almost regardless of context. (And the fact that the actors involved in this case are both so nice to look at helps. :tongue)

I wasn't trying to start an argument or anything. I'm sorry if I've upset you.

No, you didn't upset me. Sorry if it sounded that way. :) It was the movie(s). I've never liked any of the subplots surrounding Peter Parker's relationships.

And yeah, what Deek said. That scene was so silly

Celia Cyanide
05-07-2007, 11:55 PM
Being a movie, and it already established that the black suit only enhanced what was already there

I don't think the movie established that at all. The story didn't really delve into how Venom worked. It obviously gave Brock skills he didn't have before.

But then again, as a comic fan, I don't care for the series, and I think it's overrated as far as super hero films go. I think they are all entertaining, but none of them are outstanding.

katiemac
05-08-2007, 12:05 AM
I don't think the movie established that at all. The story didn't really delve into how Venom worked. It obviously gave Brock skills he didn't have before.

But then again, as a comic fan, I don't care for the series, and I think it's overrated as far as super hero films go. I think they are all entertaining, but none of them are outstanding.

They didn't say so in the film, but I thought Brock had skills because the symbiote remembered them from when Spiderman was the host. It sort of passed them on, right?

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 12:12 AM
I don't think the movie established that at all. The story didn't really delve into how Venom worked. It obviously gave Brock skills he didn't have before.
I was pretty sure Peter's professor said so (enhancing what's already there) when talking to Peter about the properties of the sample he brought him. If I had that right, then what you say about the black goop giving Brock powers he never had is a contradiction in the script and a far bigger goof than the piano silliness.

ETA: Katie's observation would explain it, but again they never explained it.

dclary
05-08-2007, 12:15 AM
Bottom line, as much as you may have wanted to love the characters, as much as you transferred your like of the comics to the movie, as much as this movie could have rocked, it didn't.

You can keep trying to fool yourself, but you're wrong. You -- each of you who liked this and thought it was great.

You'll look back in 30 years and go "what the hell was I thinking?"

robeiae
05-08-2007, 12:25 AM
You'll look back in 30 years and go "what the hell was I thinking?"
And yet you still insist Red Dawn was a good--no, great--movie...

III
05-08-2007, 12:25 AM
I was j/k about the Groundhog Day thing - it seemed as random a thought as any other random thing in the movie. Phil? Phil Connor? Ned?!? <punch>

Here's another big plot hole (I know, there's tons of 'em but this seems apres peau) when Venom / Topher meets Sandman / Lyle, he says he knows all about his accident and his sick daughter. What??? Spidey / PP didn't know about his daughter; Venom didn't know about his daughter, so how did Venom / Topher know about her? Did Topher have a butler who was conveniently written in to the script for SM3 to strategically tell him things he couldn't otherwise have known in order to manipulate the plot? Oh wait ... that was someone else ...

dclary
05-08-2007, 12:26 AM
And yet you still insist Red Dawn was a good--no, great--movie...
Yeah?

Hey, so do you!

katiemac
05-08-2007, 12:31 AM
Here's another big plot hole (I know, there's tons of 'em but this seems apres peau) when Venom / Topher meets Sandman / Lyle, he says he knows all about his accident and his sick daughter. What??? Spidey / PP didn't know about his daughter; Venom didn't know about his daughter, so how did Venom / Topher know about her? Did Topher have a butler who was conveniently written in to the script for SM3 to strategically tell him things he couldn't otherwise have known in order to manipulate the plot? Oh wait ... that was someone else ...

I agree, that was strange. I'm not sure why Flint joined up with Venom at all -- Venom said he wanted Spiderman dead, but for all Spiderman knew Sandman WAS dead. He could've slipped away, but then I guess Peter wouldn't have his redemption moment.

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 12:42 AM
I believe the two villains were to set up a climax where Peter needed Harry's help. Again, lame writing in not being able to conceive of a situation where one villain might give Spidey more than he could handle and therefore have to call on his old friend, bringing about the change of heart and the resulting tragic ending.

This might have been a good starting point for drawing up the framework for the story, but it's almost as if they just left it at that and started filming, instead of hammering the story into shape before storyboarding the movie.

Personally, I would have dumped the Sandman character altogether and saved him for a subsequent movie. A Peter vs Eddie Brock / Spidey vs Venom story would have been much tighter. Peter is distracted by Brock at the Bugle, therefore Peter ignores MJ's needs. So that subplot would still do its job of pulling Peter in two directions. Does he focus on competing with Brock for the staff job and risk losing MJ, or focus on her and lose the potential job security? Layer that in with the arrival of Venom and Peter's ongoing feud with Harry Osborn and away you go.

katiemac
05-08-2007, 12:48 AM
Personally, I would have dumped the Sandman character altogether and saved him for a subsequent movie. A Peter vs Eddie Brock / Spidey vs Venom story would have been much tighter. Peter is distracted by Brock at the Bugle, therefore Peter ignores MJ's needs. So that subplot would still do its job of pulling Peter in two directions. Does he focus on competing with Brock for the staff job and risk losing MJ, or focus on her and lose the potential job security? Layer that in with the arrival of Venom and Peter's ongoing feud with Harry Osborn and away you go.

Thing is, Sandman is one of Raimi's favorite Spidey villains. He's said before that he never "got" Venom, but the newer generations of Spiderman readers think he's one of Spiderman's most important adversaries.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 12:51 AM
SPOILER...




Peter Parker playing the piano? ...that scene would have worked much better if they'd kept Peter off the stage and just had him dance with Gwen right in front of MJ. The point was to show that Peter was becoming a jerk, that would have done it without all the dumb stuff.

I agree. I understand the point of the Jazz Club scene and it could have been better scene if they didn't go over the top. I think the dancing part is great... he's showing his ability but also as Peter Parker the jerk, and he ends up hurting two women at the same time. But the piano playing part is just goofy.


As for the plot, I think it's fast enough that if you just want to see back and relax, it's entertaining. But if you have some time to think, the plot is very forced. I mean after three years suddenly the butler is telling Harry that "your father was killed by his own blade"? And what does it prove? Nothing. Peter could still have used that blade... and the whole thing about Sandman killing Uncle Ben... it's just forcing a plot -- Peter has to have something to be angry about. And what's the whole point of MJ agreeing to Harry's scheme to break things off from Peter? That's so totally pointless and out of character. There are many others, including the ending, when Harry went from hating Peter to using his body to save Peter's life? Lame, lame, lame.


They really missed the boat on Venom. Too little screen time and too little character development.

dclary
05-08-2007, 12:51 AM
I believe the two villains were to set up a climax where Peter needed Harry's help. Again, lame writing in not being able to conceive of a situation where one villain might give Spidey more than he could handle and therefore have to call on his old friend, bringing about the change of heart and the resulting tragic ending.

This might have been a good starting point for drawing up the framework for the story, but it's almost as if they just left it at that and started filming, instead of hammering the story into shape before storyboarding the movie.

Personally, I would have dumped the Sandman character altogether and saved him for a subsequent movie. A Peter vs Eddie Brock / Spidey vs Venom story would have been much tighter. Peter is distracted by Brock at the Bugle, therefore Peter ignores MJ's needs. So that subplot would still do its job of pulling Peter in two directions. Does he focus on competing with Brock for the staff job and risk losing MJ, or focus on her and lose the potential job security? Layer that in with the arrival of Venom and Peter's ongoing feud with Harry Osborn and away you go.

Chunky, this is how I said it should have been handled.

Make Spidey-3 about the Sandman, who is a formidable opponent to begin with. Include the New Goblin story arc. Now he's got two opponents he can't deal with, and comes in contact with the suit, which gives him the power to stop them both -- at a price.

In the end, Peter overcomes the suit, stops the sandman, and regains the Goblin's friendship. Movie ends with happy ending as he also shows up Eddie Brock.

Roll credits.

Final scene after credits, Brock climbs to top of church -- to kill himself. Fade to black as something oozy and evil sludges toward him...

Which of course sets up a perfect Spidey-4.

Ashtal
05-08-2007, 01:01 AM
Am I alone in thinking that Mary Jane was acting just a tad irrational for the first half of the movie? If she had just told Peter she got canned, things would have been better, and Peter wouldn't have been going on and on like things were normal. And then she wouldn't have gotten all pissy with him. He has super powers, but mind reading isn't one of them.

Sheesh.


Because if she did tell him, then he would have stopped being such a self-absorbed jerk, and then their reason for becoming estranged would have been even weaker. It's like those soap operas, when someone has to tell someone else something really important but the other person won't let them - for a week, or longer. Lame, lame plot device. I was so annoyed.

The MJ of the movies is a much meeker character than the one from the comics, as I understand it. I don't know if that's the director's call or just Dunst's interpretation, but that meekness rubs me the wrong way. I want a gutsy girl, and I think gutsy would have played off better against the mostly meek Peter (until the suit interfered).

As for Gwen Stacy, her presence seemed wasted. If you just needed someone to act the part of love rival to get MJ angry, why not use Betty Brant? And if you had subbed Brant, then you have more time spent in the Bugle, in turn developing the under-utilized Eddie Brock character. (Tho' I like Topher, I would have prefered a meaner, bigger guy to play the part.)

But if Gwen's only purpose was to tie that rescue to her to her Dad so that Spidey could be awarded the key to the city and set up the kiss, it was extra-lame. Bleh. That kiss alone bothered me. I can't think, no matter how swept up he was his moment of glory, that he'd kiss a girl like that. I could see a peck on the cheek through the mask, but as soon as he pulled it up to his nose I was thinking, "Are you crazy?"

Yeah, disappointing overall. It felt like too many scenes should have been in the deleted scene section of the DVD. Or just outright weird ... like the piano! What the hell? o.O

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 01:03 AM
All the characters are wasted in this film. And give me another MJ in distress on top of some high-rise structure again, I'm gonna scream.

Ashtal
05-08-2007, 01:05 AM
<snippage of excellent idea>

Which of course sets up a perfect Spidey-4.

That would have been much, much better.

I don't know if Raimi wanted to come back after 3. Maybe he wanted to get his paws on Venom before leaving, and that necessitated mashing the plot of two movies into one. Certainly how it felt, anyways.

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 01:07 AM
<snip>

Final scene after credits, Brock climbs to top of church -- to kill himself. Fade to black as something oozy and evil sludges toward him...

Which of course sets up a perfect Spidey-4.
I agree. That would have been way better. I vote Dave to direct the 'reimagining' of Spidey 3, then we make 4. :D

dclary
05-08-2007, 01:12 AM
I had hoped that the success of the three LotR movies, which avoided (against Studio exec wishes) any sort of flashback or synopses at the beginning of each film to show people what had gone on in the last movie, would have taught execs that today's media-savvy audiences are able to keep up with multi-film story arcs.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 01:18 AM
And what's the whole point of MJ agreeing to Harry's scheme to break things off from Peter? That's so totally pointless and out of character.

Because he threatened to kill Peter if she didn't?

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 01:24 AM
Thing is, Sandman is one of Raimi's favorite Spidey villains. He's said before that he never "got" Venom, but the newer generations of Spiderman readers think he's one of Spiderman's most important adversaries.

Raimi admitted that he doesn't really hate Venom, he just wanted to keep it a secret that the character would appear in part 3.

katiemac
05-08-2007, 01:45 AM
Originally Posted by maestrowork http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1318116#post1318116)
And what's the whole point of MJ agreeing to Harry's scheme to break things off from Peter? That's so totally pointless and out of character.
Because he threatened to kill Peter if she didn't?

Sure, I could have bought that storyline in film 2 when she didn't know he was Spiderman. Otherwise, she could have stood there on the bridge and said, "Pretend to look upset while I break up with you, Peter, cause Harry wants to kill you." I mean honestly, she NEVER tried to warn him about Harry. She could have called him instead of sulking around.


Raimi admitted that he doesn't really hate Venom, he just wanted to keep it a secret that the character would appear in part 3.

I read an interview since the film came out, where Raimi never said he hated Venom - he just never understood his rivalry with Spiderman. Actually, here's a piece. The full interview is on Ew.com, as Spiderman 3 was last issue's cover story.


One of those characters, Venom (javascript:openLink('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venom_(comics','_new')), is a newer villain in the comic books. He's from the '80s and '90s, as opposed to Sandman, who hails way back to issue 4 in the 1960s. Why the new baddie mixed in with such an old one?
I had never read Venom in the comic books, since they came after my time. Because of that, I didn't have a natural inclination toward him. And when I read those comics, at [producer] Avi Arad's urging, I didn't understand where Venom's humanity was. I know that kids think he looks cool, and they think he's a good villain for Spider-Man. I actually didn't. What was it about Peter's own makeup that this villain represented some weaker or darker side to? Just looking like a dark version of him is not enough for me. The more I read [Venom stories], the less interested I became. But then Avi said, ''Look, you've got to be less selfish. You've got to learn what it is these kids love about Venom.'' So I tried to open my mind up. Then Alvin developed a character that I did understand, and did appreciate.

dclary
05-08-2007, 01:53 AM
The problem with that is the same problem Ang Lee had when he admitted he had no idea what "The Hulk" was when agreed to direct that movie.

You *have* to understand that these comic book characters are actual 3-dimensional characters, and not just easy-to-caricature 1-dimensional images. If you can't grasp a character (and this refers to ordinary old human characters too), then it's probably a REALLY bad idea for you to try and direct him.

This admission should have been tatamount to Raimi agreeing not to put Venom in the film, or handing the reins of the film to someone who "got" him.

katiemac
05-08-2007, 01:58 AM
It's unlikely that any more films will get made. At least, not with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Both have been very vocal about not wanting to do anymore Spiderman films, and I believe they were only contracted to make three.

*shrugs*

That could be why Sam Raimi felt it necessary to cram so much story into one movie. He may not get another chance to explore these characters.

Unless they got the way of the Batman franchise and start replacing the actors every other movie, and we all know how well that turned out. :rant:

I didn't mention comment on this earlier, but at last year's Comic Con they announced the studios were more than willing to make Spideys 4-6. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten have commented since then they aren't truly willing (I bet some more $$ could change that...) but the studios sad back then they'd make the films without them. I don't know if those opinions have changed since 3, but honestly, the films are such blockbusters (breaking every box office record) they'd at least try.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 02:02 AM
needless to say... spoiler...



Because he threatened to kill Peter if she didn't?

That's just totally lame. And then after Harry helped him at the end and died, did MJ tell Peter "it was all a lie... I really still want to be with you"? No. We jumped to the last scene. That's just silly. The whole plot and character development are just bad.

And the FX wasn't really that good either. Part of it is so cartoonish. And the crowd scenes was so CG, especially on IMAX. Sandman was cool, though, and the black suit and Venom are also very cool.

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 02:28 AM
That's just totally lame. And then after Harry helped him at the end and died, did MJ tell Peter "it was all a lie... I really still want to be with you"? No. We jumped to the last scene. That's just silly. The whole plot and character development are just bad.
Exactly right. It really felt like a first draft before they went back to smooth it out and fix all the holes ... only they never did.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 03:01 AM
That's just totally lame. And then after Harry helped him at the end and died, did MJ tell Peter "it was all a lie... I really still want to be with you"? No. We jumped to the last scene. That's just silly. The whole plot and character development are just bad.

So how was the WHOLE THING not lame? The entire series? I don't think any of them are actually good films.

dclary
05-08-2007, 03:02 AM
One was decent. Two was actually quite good -- as superhero movies go.

This one blew chunks, and lands quite solidly in the lower middle ranks of best-to-worst 3rd movies ever.

(I can paste that list down here if you need it).

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 03:27 AM
I didn't think part 2 was any good at all. They were all silly.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 03:34 AM
I didn't think part 2 was any good at all. They were all silly.

It's a comic book movie, of course it's silly, but at least 2 made sense and there were actually good character development. The relationship between Peter and Aunt May was very good, and Dr. Octavius was a well-developed good guy-villain.

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 03:41 AM
I thought Spiderman 2 was arguably the best superhero movie ever made. I was easily able to suspend my disbelief and buy into the comic book universe Spidey inhabits.

What really made the first two resonate for me, and what I think makes Spiderman one of the world's favourite superheroes, is how underneath the mask he is such an accessible character. I mean, who can really identify with Superman, an alien from another world? Or Batman, a millionaire playboy?

Peter Parker is the geeky kid so many of us were growing up, and Spiderman epitomizes the strength (both physical and of character) the geeky kid years for. And the storylines are timeless: Peter is bullied, the world seems to laugh at him. But once he gets the power to wreak revenge for all the wrongs done him, he has to learn to control it.

Like the catch phrase from the first movie says: with great power comes great responsibility. That's a wonderful lesson to teach people, both young and old. And Spiderman gets that message across better than any other comic book superhero, imho.

That's probably why I'm so disappointed in #3 -- they lost sight of what Spidey is all about.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 03:53 AM
Who can identify with... Batman, a millionaire playboy?


Um... me me me!

AzBobby
05-08-2007, 04:08 AM
Haven't seen SM3 yet; hard to skip over this thread trying not to slip and fall into spoilers...


What did you think of the CGI? Maybe I'm just utterly burned out on CGI, but I thought this was particularly barf-inducing... I think movie critics will look back at the early 2000's and praise movies that refrained from using CGI as brilliant and classic. Spiderman 3 was too much like Spy Kids.

I found the first SM one of the best two or three comic book movies I've ever seen, if not the best. And I distinctly remember the CGI being distractingly less than state of the art. It seemed every time Spidey took to the air, he turned into a video game figure. He looked and moved like a plastic toy every time. I decided not to care, and I was impressed with how the movie overcame the imperfect special effects -- as if I would have liked it about the same if Ray Harryhausen came on board and did all the web swinging shots with stop motion models. The characters were what mattered, the cast was unbeatable, the script was smart. I like movies like that. This makes me unsure of whether I'll likewise find the flaws that distracted you to be a big deal -- but I will if the filmmakers expect such scenes to support the whole movie. For me, that's what threw X-Men 3 into full suck.

I for one am just about burned out on CGI because it's too often used as a replacement not only for good stories, characters, and acting, but even for good old fashioned dumb action scenes. It's noticeable when the stunt guys get fewer scenes because some wacky plastic looking cartoon figure flies onto the screen in their place -- and it feels totally different to watch the results. Conversely, I'm really impressed with CGI that is either hidden or feels like live camera work even when depicting fantasy scenes. I expect future critics to look back at the flawless performance of Gollum in LOTR, for example, with more or less the same appreciation they do today.

The first Spy Kids was a hoot. Somewhat like fantasy movies of long ago -- or again, maybe like your typical Harryhausen work -- it felt like they didn't really care whether spfx shots jumped out at you as obvious spfx shots, since the whole thing was spoofy and old fashioned anyway. And it helps to watch it with your under-12 kids, even though the film threw plenty of clever stuff over their heads for the parents. That was another flick that really got its spine from the characters and wit, regardless of how the spfx turned out. Not so with its sequels, unfortunately.

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 04:11 AM
Um... me me me!
LOL! I said 'identify with', not 'want to be.' :D

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 04:14 AM
LOL! I said 'identify with', not 'want to be.' :D

What are you saying? Huh? Huh?

robeiae
05-08-2007, 04:26 AM
What are you saying? Huh? Huh?
That you've never been in a giant clam?

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 08:12 AM
It's a comic book movie, of course it's silly, but at least 2 made sense and there were actually good character development. The relationship between Peter and Aunt May was very good, and Dr. Octavius was a well-developed good guy-villain.

I liked Doc Oc, but that was it. And even that was probably only because of Alfred Molina. I didn't think Mary Jane was very interesting, or her relationship with Peter. All she did was whine. And Peter Parker was never the type to say, "Oh, I can't have a girlfriend, because I am Spider-Man!" I don't know where that came from.

I thought Peter losing his powers because he didn't believe in himself or something was silly, and didn't make any sense at all.

katiemac
05-08-2007, 08:51 AM
I thought Peter losing his powers because he didn't believe in himself or something was silly, and didn't make any sense at all.

I don't remember the movie as him not believing in himself -- but instead he didn't want to be Spiderman anymore. I thought that idea was pretty universal, and common in superhero storylines. Tons of heroes -- saved aside Batman, maybe, who chose his herodom -- have been conflicted about the cause.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 04:58 PM
I don't remember the movie as him not believing in himself -- but instead he didn't want to be Spiderman anymore. I thought that idea was pretty universal, and common in superhero storylines. Tons of heroes -- saved aside Batman, maybe, who chose his herodom -- have been conflicted about the cause.

Agreed. Spidey 2 made sense even in the realm of comic book and it touched on universal themes -- he yearned to have a normal life, have a girlfriend, and do well in school; what kind of science geek like Parker doesn't? The recurring theme is "with great power comes responsibility" and that's what Chunky was saying -- that worked. But they drop that in Spidey 3.

Maybe Parker and MJ are boring, but that was the point -- they wanted to be "everyday" normal. I honestly didn't find MJ whiny -- at least no more whinier than an average person -- that's the point. MJ and Parker are average (if not for his super power). He's a geek and she's an aspiring actress. They have their hopes and dreams and frustrations and flaws, too. That makes them very human.

They tried to change the dynamic in part 3 by saying MJ remains normal (she even gets fired from her show) but Spidey is hot -- a celebrity.


And Peter Parker was never the type to say, "Oh, I can't have a girlfriend, because I am Spider-Man!" I don't know where that came from.

You must have seen a different movie. The reason was very clear right from the first movie -- he loves MJ but doesn't want her to get hurt, like Uncle Ben did. The whole thing about Uncle Ben getting killed prevents him from telling anyone his true identity -- he can't stand the idea of his loved ones being hurt and killed because of him. Only MJ figures it out herself. He still haven't told Aunt May, but I think she suspects. That makes perfect sense to me.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 05:01 PM
I don't remember the movie as him not believing in himself -- but instead he didn't want to be Spiderman anymore. I thought that idea was pretty universal, and common in superhero storylines. Tons of heroes -- saved aside Batman, maybe, who chose his herodom -- have been conflicted about the cause.

Batman has been conflicted over what he has done, just like many superheros have. But did they lose their powers over it? That made no sense to me. Peter Parker has powers because of the spider that but him. Whether or not they work should not have anything to do with his state of mind.

III
05-08-2007, 05:16 PM
Um... me me me!

He didn't say a millionaire who reads Playboy.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 05:44 PM
Batman has been conflicted over what he has done, just like many superheros have. But did they lose their powers over it? That made no sense to me. Peter Parker has powers because of the spider that but him. Whether or not they work should not have anything to do with his state of mind.


Batman has no superpower.

Actually, in the realm of comic books, losing your superpower because of your will is not uncommon. It happens in X-Men. It happens in Superman.

I mean, if we can believe a tiny radioactive spider's bite can give him superpower, we can certainly suspend our disbelief that he could "lose his power" when he doesn't want to be a superhero anymore -- use it or lose it.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 07:21 PM
Batman has no superpower.

I didn't say he did.

Katiemac said this:

Tons of heroes -- saved aside Batman, maybe, who chose his herodom -- have been conflicted about the cause.

I said that Batman has been conflicted over being a hero too.

I can suspend my disbelief, it doesn't make it any less silly. Ridiculous things happen in comics all the time. It doesn't make them less ridiculous.

Batman is NOT a playboy, btw.

swvaughn
05-08-2007, 07:44 PM
Chunky, this is how I said it should have been handled.

Make Spidey-3 about the Sandman, who is a formidable opponent to begin with. Include the New Goblin story arc. Now he's got two opponents he can't deal with, and comes in contact with the suit, which gives him the power to stop them both -- at a price.

In the end, Peter overcomes the suit, stops the sandman, and regains the Goblin's friendship. Movie ends with happy ending as he also shows up Eddie Brock.

Roll credits.

Final scene after credits, Brock climbs to top of church -- to kill himself. Fade to black as something oozy and evil sludges toward him...

Which of course sets up a perfect Spidey-4.

Ooh, I like this!

I'm going to pretend this is the movie I saw, and just make up my own version of 4. :D

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 08:10 PM
The reason was very clear right from the first movie -- he loves MJ but doesn't want her to get hurt, like Uncle Ben did. The whole thing about Uncle Ben getting killed prevents him from telling anyone his true identity -- he can't stand the idea of his loved ones being hurt and killed because of him. Only MJ figures it out herself. He still haven't told Aunt May, but I think she suspects. That makes perfect sense to me.
Right. It shows growth and change in the character. At the beginning of the first movie, he's just a kid. Then this extraordinary thing happens to him and like any kid he revels in it. Now the bullies can't hurt him anymore. But, when his Uncle is killed, he realizes there's a heavy price to pay for his newfound powers. He discovers there is no free lunch, and that those who would want to challenge Spiderman would hurt those he loves in order to get to him, which is exactly what the Green Goblin did in the climax of the first film. So by the end in the graveyard, these thoughts are overwhelming him and he decides that to protect MJ, he must not let his enemies know how much she matters to him. The only way to do that is push her away.

It's an enormous sacrifice to make, to cut yourself off from the core relationship all humans yearn for. That theme right there makes the first film good, and the continuation of that in #2 helped make it even better.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 08:21 PM
So by the end in the graveyard, these thoughts are overwhelming him and he decides that to protect MJ, he must not let his enemies know how much she matters to him. The only way to do that is push her away.

It's an enormous sacrifice to make, to cut yourself off from the core relationship all humans yearn for.

And it is completely out of character for Spider-Man. He was never someone who would do something like that.

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 08:28 PM
I don't think it's out of character at all. Exactly the opposite. It's Peter Parker making this choice, Spiderman is only the hero persona Peter Parker shows the world. The real person behind the mask is the geeky kid who loves MJ. Spiderman isn't real, but Peter is.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 08:30 PM
You must have seen a different movie.

*sigh*

When I said I didn't know where that came from, I said that I don't know why they suddenly made Peter Parker into this brooding superhero who can't have a girlfriend because she might get hurt. Spider-Man always had a girlfriend, and this was never an issue for him. I don't find the idea romantic or sad, just out of character and contrived to create drama. Sorry.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 08:33 PM
I don't think it's out of character at all. Exactly the opposite. It's Peter Parker making this choice, Spiderman is only the hero persona Peter Parker shows the world. The real person behind the mask is the geeky kid who loves MJ. Spiderman isn't real, but Peter is.

Peter Parker or Spider-Man, that doesn't have a lot to do with it. I remember the comic, and I think it's out of character.

dclary
05-08-2007, 08:56 PM
*sigh*

When I said I didn't know where that came from, I said that I don't know why they suddenly made Peter Parker into this brooding superhero who can't have a girlfriend because she might get hurt. Spider-Man always had a girlfriend, and this was never an issue for him. I don't find the idea romantic or sad, just out of character and contrived to create drama. Sorry.

While this isn't entirely untrue, Spider-man has always faced the prospect of his secret identity getting out, and his enemies using this against him. A famous storyline in the 70s had Aunt May infatuated with Doctor Octopus, and Spidey had to somehow defeat him without hurting her.

And yeah, the Venom symbiote knows everything there is to know about Spider-man, which makes Eddie Brock especially dangerous.

This is a common and accepted danger for all heroes who hide their identities, from Clark Kent to Bruce Wayne to Tony Stark.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 09:21 PM
While this isn't entirely untrue, Spider-man has always faced the prospect of his secret identity getting out, and his enemies using this against him.

Yes, that's true. He was from the 60's, before anybody was really going public, so the "secret identity" would add to the drama. But they all handled it in different ways, and for different reasons.

Batman is someone who would, and often did, choose to remain alone because his life was too complicated. He had no super power but his mind, which meant he spend much more time working. Spider-Man was always lighthearted and funny, and for some reason, they made him into someone who would choose solitude over the girl he had a crush on. He did not have the same concerns as Bruce Wayne, because he had a much lower profile. There are many superheros who might have done what Peter did. He just wouldn't, and that's why I didn't like the whole Mary Jane subplot. She always seemed more like a source of conflict more than anything.

dclary
05-08-2007, 09:26 PM
Yes, that's true. He was from the 60's, before anybody was really going public, so the "secret identity" would add to the drama. But they all handled it in different ways, and for different reasons.

Batman is someone who would, and often did, choose to remain alone because his life was too complicated. He had no super power but his mind, which meant he spend much more time working. Spider-Man was always lighthearted and funny, and for some reason, they made him into someone who would choose solitude over the girl he had a crush on. He did not have the same concerns as Bruce Wayne, because he had a much lower profile. There are many superheros who might have done what Peter did. He just wouldn't, and that's why I didn't like the whole Mary Jane subplot. She always seemed more like a source of conflict more than anything.

Which is a good thing for cinema, if not for comics.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 09:37 PM
Which is a good thing for cinema, if not for comics.

What, conflict? I meant that her presence was a source of conflict in the comic, and not a true love. Sorry. I think part of her popularity came from her not being very nice, and them not getting along. They almost got divorced, as I recall, which is pretty unusually for a superhero. Yet in the movie, we're supposed to believe that she is his true love.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 09:49 PM
And it is completely out of character for Spider-Man. He was never someone who would do something like that.

Why do you say that? It's perfectly in character for Peter Parker/Spider-man. Please elaborate on why you think it's out of character.

Just because someone has superpower doesn't mean he's totally fearless or arrogant. Peter Parker is anything but arrogant or self-assured. He is just a boy, really, with tremendous power and also a way too much responsibility. It's perfectly within his character to care about MJ and not want his identity to hurt her.

So when you make a statement like "that's out of his character" please explain.

maestrowork
05-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Peter Parker or Spider-Man, that doesn't have a lot to do with it. I remember the comic, and I think it's out of character.

You remember wrong.

Millions of Spider-Man fans would tell you you're wrong.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 09:52 PM
You remember wrong.

Millions of Spider-Man fans would tell you you're wrong.

I haven't met one who did.

When did Spider-Man do anything like that, then? He was girl crazy, and I do think it was out of character for him to choose to be alone. Especially when he first became Spider-Man. He always had a girlfriend.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 10:08 PM
It's perfectly within his character to care about MJ and not want his identity to hurt her.

I did NOT say he wouldn't care about Mary Jane, and not want his identity to hurt her. I said that he would be willing to take that chance for a girl he liked. He liked Mary Jane, and ended up marrying her, even after Gwen Stacy was murdered while she was with him. He was not the type to choose being superhero over having a personal life.

III
05-08-2007, 10:52 PM
Hey, I found the video of Peter Parker learning to dance for SM3:

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m45/KENNEDY2233/animated201.gif

dclary
05-08-2007, 10:55 PM
Hey, I found the video of Peter Parker learning to dance for SM3:

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m45/KENNEDY2233/animated201.gif

I never knew Voltron had such killer moves.

ChunkyC
05-08-2007, 11:19 PM
He was girl crazy, and I do think it was out of character for him to choose to be alone. Especially when he first became Spider-Man. He always had a girlfriend.
Hmm ... I can see your point about him choosing to be alone as something he might not do based on how he was in the comics, but the way they presented the story in the movie, he was forced to make a choice to give up this potential boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with MJ in order to protect her.

I didn't see it so much as him choosing to be alone. Rather, he chose to keep her safe. And that is in character, as far as how the story is presented in the movies.

Then he changes his mind about being without her as we see in #2.

Celia Cyanide
05-08-2007, 11:43 PM
Hmm ... I can see your point about him choosing to be alone as something he might not do based on how he was in the comics, but the way they presented the story in the movie, he was forced to make a choice to give up this potential boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with MJ in order to protect her.

I didn't see it as him being forced. Ben didn't die because of who he was. The Green Goblin knew who Spider-Man was, but he was already dead. He wasn't Bruce Wayne, in the sense that most people did not know who he was. If anyone saw his face, it would not mean much to anyone who didn't know already Peter Parker. Harry knew Peter, but I think, at that point, he didn't think Harry would hurt her.

ChunkyC
05-09-2007, 01:32 AM
I didn't see it as him being forced. Ben didn't die because of who he was.
I was thinking of MJ snagged by the Goblin at the climax. That led Peter to decide to push her away to protect her. It happened once, it could happen again, you know? At least that's how I saw it. :)

Sage
05-09-2007, 04:48 AM
I mean after three years suddenly the butler is telling Harry that "your father was killed by his own blade"? And what does it prove? Nothing. Peter could still have used that blade... Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks these things.

robeiae
05-17-2007, 08:28 PM
Okay, I finally saw it...took my son to see it yesterday. Afterwards, he proclaimed that it was "the best movie ever!" Of course, he's only 6, so every movie is generally "the best movie ever," immediately after he has just seen it.

I thought it was pretty good, as far as comic book movies go. I don't see why it's getting relentlessly hammered in some circles. There were funny parts, there were serious parts, there were action-packed parts. Sure, it was probably not as good as 2, but still, it was better than Titanic.