Escape to the Movies: You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3

Clunks

New member
Apr 21, 2010
70
0
0
I could have sworn you've gone over this before in earlier videos, Bob? Or perhaps it's something you've talked about on twitter. Either way I agree with you quite strongly on almost every point re: Spider-Man 3, although I'm not sure what you see in Tobey Maguire. Dude can't act.

I actually rewatched the Raimi trilogy quite recently, and if anything I found it was the first film I had the least patience with. It's perfectly functional and it plods along fine, hitting all the right story beats and all that, but there's not very much I find actually all that interesting in it (aside from JK Simmons' perfect J Jonah Jameson and Willem Dafoe's delightfully goofy Green Goblin). It's not a movie I find much value in watching again. Compare that with Spider-Man 3 which, sure, is a mess of contrasting ideas that just don't gel together, but the individual elements that do work are fucking great. Honestly (and here's where everyone stops reading, if they haven't already), I'd take Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 over Raimi's Spider-Man for pretty much the same reason. Sure, Webb's film is full of disparate elements that have nothing to do with each other, but it's still fun to watch, in a way Raimi's first attempt mostly isn't. I'm not saying The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will hold up to repeat viewings as well as Raimi's third, though, in fact I doubt I'd ever bother watching it again. But it kept me entertained for two hours. Most movies don't.
 

Carbo

New member
Dec 17, 2010
61
0
0
CManator said:
To me, Topher as Venom WAS a travesty. He's just not intimidating, and poor writing never helps. However, Topher as Eddie Brock was highly enjoyable and probably the most redeeming aspect of the movie to me. Thankfully, Brock got far more screen time than Venom.
You know, I feel that Venom would have been a lot better if they didn't constantly remove his mask every five seconds. The only time it really had to exist is when he reveals himself first to Peter.

Topher easily manages to go between a rather nonchalant voice to a pretty droning one that suits Venom well. It turns him into a pretty unexpected threat.
 

deathjavu

New member
Nov 18, 2009
111
0
0
Suhi89 said:
I completely agree with this. I was never a particular fan of either of the first 2 Spiderman movies but I hated Spiderman 3. I hated the romance(s), I hated the many many villains (there were, what, 4?) and I hated everything about MJ. Seriously she came across as so needy and pathetic. The totally ridiculous emo scene was the highlight for me because it was the only part of the film that I didn't find mind-crushingly boring. I payed money to see this at the cinema and it probably shares joint worst cinema going experience for me with Pirates 3.
I replied to this specifically because it brought to mind a great analogy, in regards to Pirates 3 and Spiderman 3.

Did you by any chance see Pirates 4, the one that might as well have been a reboot?

Pirates 4:pirates 3 :: What Bob claims ASM2 is like : Spiderman 3.

Sure, the 3s are messy and overwrought, overburdened with storylines that never fully mature. But the OTHER ones are soulless, cynical cash grabs with fill-in-the-blank scripts written by pre-teens.

I'll always think something that tried to go big and fell because of it is superior to something that played it utterly, utterly safe and met that expectation. I want to encourage that mentality because the former is the necessary attitude to make stuff that's truly great. The latter is the kind of thinking that keeps churning out mediocre, 7/10 video game clones every year.

(If anyone's wondering why I saw Pirates 4, let's just say I have friends with no discerning taste, we all wanted to watch a movie, and there wasn't anything else they wanted to watch in theatres. I tried to get them to pay me back the ticket money after they dragged me to it.)
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Carbo said:
CManator said:
To me, Topher as Venom WAS a travesty. He's just not intimidating, and poor writing never helps. However, Topher as Eddie Brock was highly enjoyable and probably the most redeeming aspect of the movie to me. Thankfully, Brock got far more screen time than Venom.
You know, I feel that Venom would have been a lot better if they didn't constantly remove his mask every five seconds. The only time it really had to exist is when he reveals himself first to Peter.

Topher easily manages to go between a rather nonchalant voice to a pretty droning one that suits Venom well. It turns him into a pretty unexpected threat.
Worse venom voice ever........
 

AgentLampshade

New member
Nov 9, 2009
468
0
0
I've always liked Venom, and think if done right, he can be a monstrous presence on-screen. It's just unfortunate he was so obviously shoe-horned into Spider-Man 3 that it just looked like Raimi had given up caring about the movie. It was obvious Venom shouldn't have been there and maybe been a big cliffhanger for the next film.

And then Carnage. Because Carnage is basically a superpowered Joker. And that's awesome.
 

The Bandit

New member
Feb 5, 2008
967
0
0
Just a friendly reminder that all of Bob's opinions are not his own. Do the majority of people like something? Well, he hates it! Do you the majority of people dislike something? Those are his most cherished thing!
 

Sanunes

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
21
Rachith Sridhar said:
I don't hate spiderman 3 for the emo crap or the random dance sequence. I hate it coz it doesn't make sense to me.
That I believe is because of Sony meddling with what Rami wanted to do with the movie by forcing him to make changes to the movie, instead of letting him do his thing.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
While I can see Spider-Man 3 having some good (or even very good) parts, it just doesn't come together at all for me. There is too much going on with too many characters and the pacing is way too all over the place. What I would like to see from Spider-Man 3 is actually a recut of the movie. I feel enough good parts are there to make a good movie but as it's put together now, it just doesn't work now matter how good some of those constituent parts are.
 

twosage

New member
Oct 22, 2013
61
0
0
Bob, I love you. I really do.

But this video should be linked in Webster's Dictionary.com under Stockholm Syndrome. Your affection for Spidey has been abused so long, you're starting to defend your abusers.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
3 has a good movie IN there, it's just that it didn't come out properly. Any one of the three villains could have carried a movie on their own, but they tried to cram them into one movie. The Sandman's plot was great, Harry as the Goblin had been a long time coming, and the glimpses of Venom were very interesting. Too bad there's no way you can reasonably wrap up stuff like that without it looking like a mess. Venom they just should have saved for a fourth movie, put him at a stinger at the end of the movie and then go from there. As for his casting, it was actually a good idea. Seriously, you expect me to believe some musclebound lunkhead is a reporter? Nope, not gonna buy it. Eddie as a slimeball foil to Peter? WAY better. Too bad he didn't get much to do.
 

Khanht Cope

New member
Jul 22, 2011
239
0
0
The Sandman was done great for about a quarter of the movie. Initially it seems like the film has done a great job of realizing a typically C list villain well enough to adequately fill the big screen for significant duration in the movie. As a side threat that the hero has to figure out how to beat while dealing with other kinds of major theme baggage and personal relationships/drama.

A demonstration that you don't necessarily need to rely on mandatory A list anti-thesis blockbuster villains for every movie; condemning your franchise to a cycle of:

Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Venom, Reboot

or

Joker, Riddler, Two Face, Reboot (with Catwoman mixed in there with one of them)

But then there's the Uncle Ben retcon (something bad enough to in itself alone count as a black mark against the movie) and his motivations get overly sappy in vying for the viewers emotional attention in a crammed and emotionally chaotic movie.

A major problem with that is the ridiculous amount of other shit Spiderman has to juggle with in the middle of this movie. In Spiderman 2 it worked in the sense that it was supposed to all become so much that no one could reasonably cope with without washing their hands of it all to recuperate for a while; but then this movie takes the baggage to eleven.

Spiderman has barely 2 seconds spare to think about how to deal with Sandman before the guy shows up again to give him the last headache he needs. With all the other major threads going on, Sandman's side story becomes a screen time hog taking away from stuff that needs fleshing out.

I get that the Uncle Ben retcon was supposed to hold a mirror to Peter's present experiences with Harry and give the right perspective he needs to forgive the guy and move on. But that doesn't make it alright in retroactively ruining something that was already completed brilliantly just for the sake of what's happening now in your latest movie. Find a different way!

I think the weird emo segments might have worked in their intended context, for me, (and others) if Toby wasn't clearly too old to get away with it. If it was someone like Andrew Garfield, he could probably have been able to get away with behaving like a douche in that way, and where it's more naturally apparent to the audience; since the actor is still close to an age range where people are still experimenting with their identities and are prone to behaving in dumb ways, stupidly messing up relationships etc. With other kinds of behaviour, Toby had looked just about boyish enough for a lot of it; but having Toby behave like that it's just really difficult to watch.

I think it's another wider issue with the movie that the actors for the central recurring characters look like they should have out-grown the stages where their characters are supposed to be at.

Then Eddy finally gets the suit with something retarded like 25-30 minutes to go. Where they've got to stage and resolve everything including another Mary Jane kidnapping situation, the handicap match followed by the cavalry for the 2 on 2 battle royale, deaths and character & ending resolutions.

Lastly I'll say on the topic of Venom that he is hamstrung by what various creative forces are willing and able to do with him. He is potentially Spiderman's worst nightmare on the most intimate level, and can extend a darker more villainous twist on Spidey's own sense of humour. Separating him from Spiderman in terms of compelling goals and motivation as a main antagonist is a challenge to be sure; but in relation to Spiderman, he's entirely capable of being menacing, compelling, entertaining etc.
 

PhunkyPhazon

New member
Dec 23, 2009
1,967
0
0
I agree with some of this. I've never thought Spider-Man 3 was terrible and I could never understand comparisons to the likes of, say, Batman and Robin or the Fantastic Four movies. But ultimately I still consider it a disappointment because, like he said, there were too many cooks in the kitchen. There's a lot of solid ideas, but none of it really ever gets enough focus to develop into something truly great.

Anyways, I've had something else on my mind regarding this whole Raimi trilogy vs. the Amazing franchise. No, I do not agree with Bob on the newer movies...or the first one anyways, since I haven't had the chance to see ASM2 yet. I liked it fine. I didn't "love" it, but I "like" it. I still really prefer the first two Raimi movies, because I think those really understood a certain core aspect of Spider-Man, an aspect that kinda took a backseat in Amazing. You see, while there have indeed many different versions of the character throughout the decades that will do things differently from each other, the main thing that has ALWAYS been there and is ESSENTIAL to getting the character right is this: Peter Parker is constantly giving up his own happiness in order to help and protect people as Spider-Man.

It?s the direct result of the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing and is what sets him apart from other superheroes. In a way, he?s downright selfless in this regard. For proof of this, look no further than the Spectacular Spider-Man animated series, because this show nails it. Being Spider-Man costs Peter Parker his job at ESU, respect from his friends, he gets in trouble with Aunt May for always being out late, and everyone thinks he?s a coward because he?s always running off with lame excuses whenever trouble shows up. The entire thing is summed up perfectly at the end of the Lizard episode. Fed up with his personal life turning to crap, he comes very close to drinking a gene cleanser that would rid him of his powers, but then says ?Except?I saved [Dr. Connors and his family]. So what if nobody threw a parade? Spider-Man stays because Spider-Man is needed.? This is also why it?s important for Peter Parker?s personal life to be a major part of any Spider-Man mythos. If it isn?t really ever shown or expanded on, then you can?t ever really appreciate what Peter is sacrificing by devoting so much time to helping people. Plus the audience needs to have a reason to care whenever someone close to him is put in harms way.

The Raimi movies understood this. He loses Harry?s friendship, Mary Jane nearly marries another guy, Peter makes his living by giving Jameson ammunition to trash Spider-Man in the press which also results in him living in a shitty apartment with an obnoxious yet oddly likeable landlord breathing down his neck. Peter?s regular life getting torn to shreds is a major theme in the Raimi trilogy. Hell, it?s literally the entire plot of Spider-Man 2. This is why I will never ever understand people who say that this version of Spider-Man wasn?t true to the comics. (Plus some people seem to base their whole argument off of him not wisecracking much. I prefer that too, but if that?s really your only reason as to why you don?t think this version is true to the source material then you are entirely missing the point of Spider-Man)

Amazing?doesn?t really have this (again, only talking about the first movie, I haven?t seen the second). It?s not missing, no, but it?s kinda pushed off into the background. Once Uncle Ben is out of the movie (Martin Sheen was perfection by the way), there isn?t really much of a ?regular life? supporting cast outside of Gwen and Aunt May. And the latter seems to be the only person exclusively IN his personal life, everyone else has something to do with or some major role to play in his life as Spider-Man. Gwen, Doctor Connors, Peter?s father, Captain Stacy, and?uh...yeah I guess that?s pretty much the entire relevant cast. It doesn?t feel like being Spider-Man is costing Peter anything, except for when he ?gives up? Gwen at the end only to hook up with her again two minutes later. The only thing I think Amazing did better than the original films was that it shows off Peter?s abilities as a scientist more. Sure, Macguire?s Peter was definitely still a science geek, but you never really see him putting that knowledge to use. Garfield?s Spidey comes up with his own web shooters, helps create the Lizard, makes creative use of his webs, and directs Gwen in coming up with a Lizard antidote.

Oh, and Gwen. Amazing definitely did a much better job giving us a truly likeable and capable love interest, so it gets a point there too.

That?s pretty much it though. Again, I like Amazing fine enough, I just really prefer how the older movies handled Peter?s character, and I think it has a much more interesting and varied cast. And since it doesn't look like ASM2 is really doing anything to fix my issue with that, I'm doubting the reboot franchise will ever top the first two Raimi movies in my book.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Ashoten said:
Zhukov said:
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.
Your right. Bob is trying to retcon history here. No one ever took the Ramey spider man movies seriously. They were still goofy and entertaining now as they were at release.
The first one has Chad Kroger on the soundtrack, so that's instantly invalidated. The second one sees the Mary Jane character get ramped up from, kind of annoying, to full-blown why does Peter Parker even like her. Which in turn makes Peter's fascination with her make him look bad by extension as well. And the death knell for a superhero movie is when you're not rooting for the hero.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Oh my god. I cracked the code. Bob only likes the dorky comic book movies. Anything attempting to be edgy or cool gets shit on regardless of whether or not it actually worked (see: Chris Nolan/Batman). Every comic book movie is measured with how the character is "supposed to be" in their 60's incarnation. If they don't act like that character from the Golden Age, then the filmmakers didn't "get" the character. If they do act like it, then every single thing they do is wonderful and great.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
On Venom: You find him boring? >.> Moreover, for reasons that have little to do with how the character is supposed to work?

As I understand it, Venom's interesting as a spidey villain because he knows everything there is to know about Spidey, can move too fast for the spider-sense and can duplicate all of Spidey's powers. Venom's essentially a dark mirror to him, made worse by the whole addiction thing as well as the symbiote's various attempts to get back onto Peter.

You have an evil monster that has all of your power (except more of it), knows everything about you and desperately wants to either kill you or steal your soul. There's plenty of interesting elements to explore there.
 

Bocaj2000

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,082
0
0
I agree with you bud. I actually found the movie just as bad as the other movies, which upon re-watching rate more as mediocre than good. This one just had enough elements of bad for people to realize just how 'okay' the trilogy is. The only difference, and this is a big difference, is that this movie had three villains when the other two had only one. If this movie had only one villain, then I think that people would see the the rest of the bad as blatantly as they do now.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,083
1,849
118
Country
USA
ccdohl said:
Nope. You're wrong about Spider-man 3. Swing and a miss.

The retcon of the death of Uncle Ben is the worst thing that has ever been put on film. It's way worse than anything in the new movies.

With great power comes . . . well nothing because you stopping the guy wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
Yeah, that part was pretty bad. What was worse for me:
1) Being embarrassed by Parker. He was a jerk early in the film. He was a nerd before. That's different. Now I didn't like him (early in the film). That hurt. Didn't kill, but hurt.
2) Sandman had terrible motivation. His "birth" scene was fantastic though.

Over all, I didn't get the hate. This is a great movie. Great action, effects, acting. I even like Gwen.