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

[JimB]

SHIELD is making weapons using the Tesseract, Cap and Tony find this questionable...then they forget about it.

They find out about it two minutes before the Helicarrier explodes, Thor and the Hulk disappear, Loki escapes, and Coulson dies; then an alien apocalypse happens. I'm not sure which part of that the characters ought to have ignored in favor of yelling at Nick Fury about making weapons whose bullets Thor takes off-planet at the end of the movie anyway.

How convenient for Loki.

He's a god of lies and trickery. That said, I kind of agree with you that someone ought to have asked himself a question somewhere in there; I just think it makes sense that the only person who did so is the person who was far removed from the situation and had no stake in a pissing contest with anyone present at the scene.

Fury lies to Tony and Cap about Coulson having the cards in his pocket. This only helps Cap and Tony resolve their differences. Thor and Bruce are no present, yet this is referenced as the push they needed.

A combat situation generally resolves differences in people who want to live and need help doing so. You're right about Thor, though. I have no fucking idea how he figured out what was going on or where he needed to be. Hulk I'll excuse, since Banner landed in New York; he just needed to look up at the hole in the sky and keep going. Thor, though...I got nothing.

Then why was it presented as an issue in the movie as a first place?

The Hulk can be aimed. He can be partially controlled. That's as far as it goes. He's still a titanic force of destruction, capable of destroying cities without much effort, of killing entire battalions without taking a wound in turn, and of petty handily defeating a god in a brawl (not that Banner knew that one before it happened, but aren't the other two bad enough?). Further, Banner enters a fugue when he transforms and can't remember what happened afterward. Don't you think it's an unconscionable risk to shut off your brain, turn yourself into a monster with the destructive capability of a nuclear missile with no guidance chip, and hope the only people you hurt and kill are the ones who deserve it? Banner has taken that risk three times: once, when a monster every bit as bad as the Hulk was killing Harlem; once, when the world was about to end from an alien invasion; and once at the end of the movie starring Edward Norton. We don't know what happened that third time, but whatever it was, it was bad enough that it culminated in him trying to commit suicide before fleeing to Calcutta (that it went so badly is how we know the Hulk can only be partially controlled rather than totally).

 

[ninjaRiv]

I never understood why anyone likes any of these movies. I think someone once said it's because they're campy, like the 60s Spider-Man? I don't get how that's a good thing. But this explanation doesn't explain much, anyway.

Never understood why anyone thinks Toby Maguire is a good Spider-Man. Or Peter Parker, for that matter. He comes off as terribly fucking creepy and every "joke" as Spider-Man is so unfunny it actually hurts.

I also don't understand Bob's hatred for the newer movies. They're not bad... In fact, I'd call them "flawed but good." Kind of find it weird that he defends this pile of shit but not ASM...

I dunno, I just don't know why anybody likes Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

 

[Silverspetz]

Shield is making weapons using the tesseract, Cap and Tony find this questionable.....then they forget about it.

If by "forget about it" you mean: Confront him about it, temporarily put it aside in the face of imminent danger and great personal loss, and then lets it go since A) Fury tells them that making weapons was the backup plan to the Avengers Initiative and B) Said backup plan goes down the drain when Thor takes the Tesseract away. That isn't dropping a plotpoint, it is RESOLVING it.

How convenient for Loki.

Not really, what IS convenient for him is that no matter what the Avengers may think of his apparent confidence, they can't really do anything BUT play into his hands since they can neither kill him outright (because they still need the Tesseract + Thor probably wouldn't let them) nor let him go. They HAD to take him into custody no matter what and Loki knew that from the beginning. It's called "having a plan".

Also, Cap was also questioning how easy it was to get Loki when they were on the plane.

Fury lies to Tony and Cap about Colson having the cards in his pocket. This only helps Cap and Tony resolve their differences. Thor and Bruce are no present, yet this is referenced as the push they needed.

Since it got the two most confrontational and bickering members of the group to work together, I'd say it WAS the push they needed even if only two of them heard it, since they were the ones who needed it most. If you mean this as a plot hole for why all the Avengers were working together in NY, then I would like to point out that extreme circumstances takes to make people put aside their differences.

Then why was it presented as an issue in the movie as a first place?

Because no matter whose side he is on the Hulk is still dangerous, as became apparent on the Hellicarrier. He is a living nuclear bomb that tends to pick his friends and enemies depending on who or what was pissing him off at the time.

 

[nayrbarr]

That you! I've been saying exactly that about the "douch-bag Parker" part of that film for years, glad to hear that you agree.

 

[Bruce]

Spiderman 3 to me was the one that showed off what was worst about Raimi's trilogy - in how Venom was set up.

Brock's actions showed extreme issues with his ethics as a journalist, and would be an instant firing offence in any newsroom outside of the Murdoch empire for a reason.

Trying to make his motivations sympathetic doesn't work - because they're not sympathetic motivations. The guy was fired because he got caught plagiarising a photo in order to fake a news story.

He is supposed to be sympathetic as a character born of Peter's 'wrongdoing' under the influence of the symbiote, but Peter didn't actually do anything wrong, Brock is just an unethical dick.

The way the whole story is framed thus ends up feeling like bullshit.

 

[Tony Murlin]

Spoilers (maybe?).

Honestly, after having seen the Amazing Spider-Man 2, I have to say that it's up there as one of the best Spider-Man films yet made. Individuals on this thread mentioned that the film is "disjointed," but I don't see where they're getting that from. The plot flowed just fine for my tastes. That's not to say the film doesn't have flaws, but the more I'm seeing of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man, the more I'm liking him more than Toby Maquire's. I'm also not understanding the whole "twilight" comparison... aside from being skinny, Garfield's not an incredibly attractive person ('bout on par with Maguire in my eyes). Is it the hair? 'Cause if it is, then David Tennant was a shitty Doctor Who Twilight-wannabe too. And Smith... but I digress.

Maguire made an interesting 60's Era Spider-Man (although he wasn't actually "Spider-Man", rather than "Generic Superhero with Vaguely Spider-like Powers")that gelled quite well with Post-9/11 America. But the Raimi movies were not flawless masterpieces (barring the incredibly shitty third film). For every excellent decision (casting J.K. Simmons as J.J. Jameson, Thomas Haden Church as Sandman, and Alfred Molina as Dr. Otto Octavius... flawless), the Raimi series makes several terrible, abominable sins (the first film's handling of the Green Goblin, absolutely everything having to do with Harry Osborne (casting and plot), casting a charisma-black hole like Kirsten Dunst, etc.). There is also the fact that, unlike ASM's Gwen Stacey, SM's Mary Jane Watson is not a *person*, she's a thing to be lusted after by Raimi's "hopeless loser" version of Peter Parker. She contributes nothing to the plot but complications, she exists to do *nothing* but "be protected" or "be fought over like a possession." Hell, the entire breakup subplot in SM3 could have been avoided if she was written like a human being and not like a self-centered child. One sentence ("Peter, I got fired from the play, so could you please stop being a douche for a minute?") could have ended that whole thing... but no, it had to be "Smallvilled" out (just like the first two films).

The issue with the Raimi films is that, while they are technically competent, they are nothing more than a series of cool moments and images chained together by convenient plot points and a (frankly mystifying yet) sub-par love story. Willem Dafoe was *excellent* as Norman Osborne, but he was *terrible* as the Green Goblin. This is mostly due to the fact that the Green Goblin is a super-bad-terri-suck-tastic villain *in general*. The combined acting talents of Dafoe, Franco, and Dehaan cannot save this pathetic villain concept from sucking. Personally speaking, if the series could just keep the Osbornes as the villains and just stop with the Green Goblin nonsense altogether, the Spider-Man film series would be better off for it. There's also the fact that James Franco just didn't work in the SM films: Harry Osborne's depiction is bland, there is absolutely no reason he should be friends with Peter Parker or be going to public school (if they kick him out of Military School, *then* I see someone as rich as Norman sending his kid to, ugh, Public School), and SM3's Amnesia plotline was idiotic and (pardon the pun) forgettable.

Now, regarding Emo-Peter: it should never have happened. Ever. Not even as a joke. Why is Peter even *trying* to be cool, I mean *at all*? All the pointing, dancing, and douche-like behavior was just a pointless time-filler and contrived plot gateway to the Jazz Club fight. It wasn't necessary and all it did was add a "what the hell did I just watch" moment. The reason I hate SM3 is not because of Topher Grace's portrayal of Brock/Venom (hell, he was the only one actually excited about the film during the press rounds), but because this film focused far too much on the SM series' weakest point (the love triangle) and succeeded in making Peter Parker into someone as fundamentally loathsome as Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane. Granted, Peter was already skirting the line of being a terrible person in SM2 when he was actively trying to break up MJ's relationship and, basically, lying to her and playing with her emotions (but, it's okay... she leaves her Fiance at the alter for him. You know, because it's funny and romantic... I guess). So, not only is Raimi's Peter Parker a creepy "nice guy" stalker with a myopic fixation on one single human being, now he's a "drug addict" and a manipulative asshole. Well, at least MJ managed to sneak a note to Peter on the bridge after Harry Osborne regained his memories and, together, they stopped his villainy. Oh, wait. No, she didn't. Because she'd rather tear his heart out and keep him in the dark than actually try to solve the problem together (much like Peter kept doing to her, you know, because he *loves* her so goddamn much). I sure Love to see that Smallville legacy firmly entrenched in the SM films. Love it.

I will agree on one point, however: I really, really like the Sandman's "becoming" scene. I dig it, hardcore.

Now, onto the ASM Films. Are they a blatant cash grab on Sony's part? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Do they ditch the 60's Spider-Man in favor of one more in line with Ultimate Spider-Man? Yep, and I am glad they did. I'm tired of Peter Parker being how old former-athlete business executives think nerds actually are and am interested in the personal growth of a nerdy-looking, socially awkward dude with neuroses similar to my own. Also, Gwen Stacey (as portrayed by Emma Stone) as a character and love interest is just. plain. better. period. She has charisma for *days*, chemistry with Garfield (one would hope), and is capable of emoting onscreen without looking constipated (or "Pulling a Dunst").

Dane Dehaan's Harry Osborne makes more sense in his connections to Peter Parker because they're both freaky looking weirdos whose Dads work together. His motivations for hating Spider-Man, while just as strong as Franco's Osborne, are far more realistically portrayed. And, finally, while I hate the Green Goblin in this movie too, his transformation scene was friggin' boss and I like how they made the suit important(ish). He was *way* underused in the third act (they could have shaved some minutes from the Electro fight and from some of the slower scenes to enhance the GG's role in the film), which is fine because the GG sucks as a villain/character/concept but ultimately harms the movie due to his rather sudden appearance and disappearance.

Jamie Foxx is *terrible* as Max Dillon. His portrayal is hokey to the point of being Raimi-level Camp. However, once he becomes Electro, Foxx tones it down and becomes a rather respectable antagonist. He is Peter Parker if Peter internalized his anger and powerlessness, only to unleash it all once he gained actual power. He still wants to help people, to be wanted and adored, to feel as though he has control... but his rage is just too strong (and, iirc, they hint that some of that "Lizard" insanity is affecting him as well). His whole interaction with Osborne in Ravencroft was great and demonstrated all this rather well (although Dr. Kafka and Ravencroft is pretty campy as well).

The fact is, all these movies (DC, MCU, ASM, SM, X-Men, etc.) suck balls as far as "film" is concerned. They're hundred million dollar blockbuster films that take shortcuts where plot development is concerned, confuse "shock and awe" for "storytelling," and they have trouble with consistency in just about every way, shape, and form. But you know what? I'm not so freakishly myopic or superlatively thin skinned that I go off on a rant each and every time someone mentions the original Raimi films. The sheer fact that this film "broke" Moviebob so much that he had to waste content on telling us why "we were wrong about Spider-Man 3" not only reeks of self-important hyperbole but of someone struggling to find something, anything, to fill time. So, this is goodbye, Moviebob. I'm done. As far as I'm concerned, I anticipate your opinion on film and geek culture in the same manner as I anticipate medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.

Love, Peace, and Chicken Grease,
The Mighty Grendel

 

[Ratty]

Say what you will about his Spidey movies yay or nay. Army of Darkness is now and forever Sam Raimi's greatest achievement.

 

[Weaver]

I liked Spider Man 3. Especially the part when he walks down the street to "get up and drive that funky soul".

 

[Lightknight]

Wait, Bob mentions several of the things that make the film bad. The disjointedness, the poorly combined villains, the unnecessary love triangle. He basically laid out the reasons we think the game is bad but doesn't resolve them. How does this make us wrong? He doesn't present the good side of things. The reason the movie wasn't bad. He just seems to be reviewing the movie generally.

Interestingly enough I didn't bat an eye at Sandman being the murderer. In fact, I'd say it was one of the best parts of the movie and the last scene with the sandman was a significant payoff for the retcon.

That Peter is a dweeb does not justify a musical/dance scene. You can explain the "why" of it, but not justify that it was cleared.

The movie had a lot of promises and ultimately fell short. Though, I guess Bob's saying just that, it wasn't terrible. Some parts were good, some were mistakes. I don't regret having seen it I just don't remember it fondly. Perhaps just the sandman's plot and bits of the venom when it wasn't near spiderman. Heck, that guy would have made an interesting carnage too. But the goofy scenes and the cringing dialogue with Peter infected by it was just cringeworthy.

Completely agree that the whole green goblin bit was really squeezed in. Also, I found his costume ridiculous. Not sinister and not cool. Like what an evil kid genius crops up in his garage before growing up to join the big league. Not a billionaire with access to all of his father's equipment.

The only person that is wrong here is the guy or gal that just rehash what anyone else said about it. The people who either didn't see the movie or just couldn't be bothered to form their own opinion about it. But I remember sitting there in the theater during the dance scene and looking at around the theater to see if other people were also confused that it was taking place in this kind of movie. Other people looked my way and we seemed to be in silent agreement. I am not wrong about Spider-man 3. I've made a rational albeit subjective decision that the movie could have been a lot better with a different direction and more streamlined plot. Heck, a smaller budget may have even helped them.

 

[JimB]

That scene in Spider-Man 3 where Peter tried to be cool does make more sense if Peter has no idea how to act cool. Though it needed a voice over explaining why Peter started acting this way.

Not sure how fair that is. After all, we had two and a half movies up to that point to establish that Peter is just not cool. It's kind of on us if we haven't figured it out by now.

 

[katsabas]

I cannot see what Bob sees in Spider-Man 3 and the whole 'Pete does the dance cause he thinks it's cool' thing. The black suit is supposed to corrupt you MORALLY. I mean, in the Spectacular series, while under the influence, Spidey went and asked for a job from fucking Tombstone ! An actual mobster and the then Kingpin !

He brushed off his friends in the worst way possible and was okay with the symbiote taking over his work while he was sleeping, not caring whether during his fight with the sinister six someone got hurt or worse ! The suit made him choose the easy way every time he came at a crossroads and he paid the price with being alone at the end. I didn't see that in Spiderman 3. For me, that's why the movie failed as a whole. It came down to using the central piece of the plot in a wrong way.

Cause, honestly, what did the suit make him do in the movie ? Dance, slap MJ once, be more aggressive.

In Spectacular however, the list is:

Steal the suit.
Lie to his only supporter, Gwen's father.
Fall in with mobsters and ask them for a job.
Become the primary reason for the creation of Venom since Eddie was a pretty awesome guy.
Crush his friends emotionally and hurt them, to the point where Flash Thompson of all people was the only one that managed to make him come around.
Be not just aggressive but fine with the suit using his body while he was asleep.
His aunt being in the hospital with a heart attack and him hearing about it 1 day after, making him an extremely inconsiderate nephew.

So yeah, Bob is wrong about SM 3. I don't care how it says ASM 2 "broke him" because there is no way that movie is worse than SM 3. No way in hell.

 

[Lightknight]

That scene in Spider-Man 3 where Peter tried to be cool does make more sense if Peter has no idea how to act cool. Though it needed a voice over explaining why Peter started acting this way.

Not sure how fair that is. After all, we had two and a half movies up to that point to establish that Peter is just not cool. It's kind of on us if we haven't figured it out by now.

This is ridiculous. We thought Peter looked silly because it was a dance scene in an action movie (something that doesn't happen pretty much ever because it's too jarring a change unless the whole movie is built in that vein like Kung Fu Hustle). But look at the actual scene, he's agile and cool. People are impressed and are clapping. This argument completely fails at the point where it claims that the whole thing is supposed to be dorky.

<youtube=U883K-W77ZY>

Seriously, he slips the hostess money (successfully) like a big man to get them a seat in a popular place, he plays piano like a pro, has a band backing him up, performs impressive acrobatics and the whole bar is going crazy for it. Cheering and clapping the entire time. He even woos the woman until she realizes that the whole thing it just to hurt Mary Jane Watson.

Whoever made this, wanted him to look cool doing it. I'm sorry but the whole "he doesn't understand how to be cool" doesn't work with that dance scene. He is being cool according to whoever is making it but it just didn't translate that way to the movie audience. The bar audience clearly thought it was great.

Now, contrast that with the scene leading up to it where he's walking down the sidewalk trying to act cool in his standard blue windbreaker, jeans and a button up shirt. He's trying and failing to be cool there:

<youtube=UcgBeSNavzw>

But then he dons the black to transition us to the next scene.

But surely everyone can tell the difference between those two scenes. Just pay attention to the people surrounding him and it's obvious whether or not they think he's being "cool".

Remember that these two videos coincide with the dorky one preceding the dance scene. This is actually meant to serve as a dichotomy between standard blues spidey (original dorky) and black venom spidey (new dark and mysterious). He isn't cool while wearing his blues with people laughing at him and then has a cool scene once he changes clothes into the black clothing. The artistic notion being that he switches over to being more his venom dark self than his original dorky self. Not that he's still dorky the whole time. This was Peter being cool like he's always wanted but at the cost of becoming a jerk. There's no pseudo-cool intended here. Bob completely missed it. It's symbolism that is so blatant it's slapping us in the face. It's well done symbolism in the wrong place.

So no, the dance scene wasn't ironic. It was really supposed to be cool. It is exactly what we thought it was.

 

[JimB]

This is ridiculous. We thought Peter looked silly because it was a dance scene in an action movie (something that doesn't happen pretty much ever because it's too jarring a change unless the whole movie is built in that vein like Kung Fu Hustle).

Who's "we?"

Seriously, he slips the hostess money (successfully) like a big man to get them a seat in a popular place, he plays piano like a pro, has a band backing him up, performs impressive acrobatics and the whole bar is going crazy for it.

Douchebags can't slip a waitress money? A clown doing acrobatics is cool instead of just a dorky piece of entertainment like a magician or a street performer? Fooling Gwen Stacy into thinking he's a nice guy for less than the duration of one full date makes him cool? And you don't think that just walking up to a piano and making yourself the center of attention is a conception of cool held by children and other people who don't know what cool is?

 

[Lightknight]

This is ridiculous. We thought Peter looked silly because it was a dance scene in an action movie (something that doesn't happen pretty much ever because it's too jarring a change unless the whole movie is built in that vein like Kung Fu Hustle).

Who's "we?"

Most of the people. If you read the title of the video/thread, "You are wrong about Spider-Man 3" you can guess by context that the "You" of the title is the "We" I'm referring to. If you waltz over to rotten tomatoes you'll also see a terribly recieved film.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spiderman_3/#contentReviews

Sometimes you're not in the majority. Sometimes I'm not in the majority. If you think the movie was good then this is your time.

Douchebags can't slip a waitress money? A clown doing acrobatics is cool instead of just a dorky piece of entertainment like a magician or a street performer? Fooling Gwen Stacy into thinking he's a nice guy for less than the duration of one full date makes him cool? And you don't think that just walking up to a piano and making yourself the center of attention is a conception of cool held by children and other people who don't know what cool is?

Sure, Peter was being a douchebag. Guys that are slick that way are often considered assholes anyways. But not dorky. Such was the point of the interaction. But what he wasn't being was bumbling and dorky to the audience. There's a clear contrast in response between the people on the sidewalk when Peter in blue clothing is being awkward and the response given from the people in that restaurant to Peter in black.

I personally find his performance really poorly choreographed. With the individual dance scene being little more than him raising his arms. Had they done some actually impressive moves then we as an audience may have received it differently (maybe still not), but it's clear that the on bar audience was impressed and the girl was wooed until she realized, like you said, that he was just being a douchebag.

Look at that video of the dance. Look at the atmosphere. Do you think the on-film audience is thinking that he's being a dork?

My complaint is that the intention wasn't what Bob thinks it was. That he was actually being a dork in this scene. The intention was a contrast between his regular self. Venom = Cool at the cost of being a jerk. Peter = Dork with the benefit of being a nice guy. It isn't even subtle. They perform a costume change right there. It's a blatant contrast in every way and Bob thinks it's something else. But he's also regularly soft on movies that are on the topic of things we (nerds) care about. So at least he's consistent in a way I can rely on.

 

[JimB]

Who's "we?"

Most of the people. If you read the title of the video/thread, "You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3," you can guess by context that the "You" of the title is the "We" I'm referring to.

I know the title of the episode. I wanted to see if you were trying to claim some sort of invisible majority support to bolster your case, because it felt like you were. It still kind of does.

Look at that video of the dance. Look at the atmosphere. Do you think the on-film audience is thinking that he's being a dork?

I wouldn't go so far as dork, but it isn't a binary either/or choice. There's a sliding scale of cool, and I don't see any reason to think the clubgoers believe Peter is cool rather than amusing. I mean, shit, if applause at your antics is all it takes to be cool, then Rob Schneider is the Fonz.

 

[smartalec]

You're right about Thor, though. I have no fucking idea how he figured out what was going on or where he needed to be. Hulk I'll excuse, since Banner landed in New York; he just needed to look up at the hole in the sky and keep going. Thor, though...I got nothing.

Banner got a look at the results of the scan for the Tesseract before things went to hell in a handbasket on the helicarrier. He didn't have time to tell anyone else, but I took it that this was how he knew to go to New York on that ol' motorboke.

Thor can fly, so he can arrive pretty quickly if he needs to.

 

[JimB]

Thor can fly, so he can arrive pretty quickly if he needs to.

Yeah, but his ability to fly is only relevant if he landed within sight of where the hole in the sky opens, which I just don't believe happened. He landed on a rocky beach next to a florid field with no visible signs of human development. I just don't believe that's within line of sight of downtown New York. I mean, he wasn't there when Stark and Cap figured out where Loki was gonna set up, so it's not like he knew where he had to go.