The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Spider-Man 3 Discussion Thread
Zeromus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
*Please note, this is a Geebs-approved thread. Thanks, Geebs, you're hot.*
Spider-Man 3 - Opening in the U.S. on Friday, May 4th
Rotten Tomatoes "Tomatometer" as of 5/3: 65%
Previous Spidey flick Tomato scores: 90% (203 reviews) for Spidey 1, 93% (228 reviews) for Spidey 2
Meta Critic score as of 5/3: 60/100
Previous Spidey flick Meta Critic scores: 73/100 (37 reviews) for Spidey 1, 83/100 (41 reviews) for Spidey 2
With Spider-Man 3 just around the corner, I thought it would make sense to make a thread dedicated to its discussion. And so I did. So as to not completely gunk up the OP, you can feel free to read more about it on the Spider-Man 3 Wikipedia entry, or check out the film's official website, which is linked earlier in this fabulous little blurb.
Some clips, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes. Includes some Gwen on Mary Jane action, Spidey saving a screaming women during a construction catastrophe, and Eddie Brock's first transformation.
- -
So, I thought the first movie was alright, thought the second was great, and hope to see the third one continue this upward trend. I've already bought my ticket for Thursday night's midnight show, and I'm pretty excited to say the least. While I am a fan of the Spider-Man comics (though I haven't read much Ultimate), I can acknowledge that these movies simply aren't going to be the same sort of thing as Sin City, and I can view them as separate but wholly entertaining entities. I do not expect that Gwen will really get the characterization or screen time she deserves (really, she should've replaced MJ in the first movie), but I plan to not shit my pants over it in favor of, hopefully, enjoying the movie. Raimi is a pretty swell guy.
Now. Discuss.
Spider-Man 3 - Opening in the U.S. on Friday, May 4th
Rotten Tomatoes "Tomatometer" as of 5/3: 65%
Previous Spidey flick Tomato scores: 90% (203 reviews) for Spidey 1, 93% (228 reviews) for Spidey 2
Meta Critic score as of 5/3: 60/100
Previous Spidey flick Meta Critic scores: 73/100 (37 reviews) for Spidey 1, 83/100 (41 reviews) for Spidey 2
With Spider-Man 3 just around the corner, I thought it would make sense to make a thread dedicated to its discussion. And so I did. So as to not completely gunk up the OP, you can feel free to read more about it on the Spider-Man 3 Wikipedia entry, or check out the film's official website, which is linked earlier in this fabulous little blurb.
Some clips, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes. Includes some Gwen on Mary Jane action, Spidey saving a screaming women during a construction catastrophe, and Eddie Brock's first transformation.
- -
So, I thought the first movie was alright, thought the second was great, and hope to see the third one continue this upward trend. I've already bought my ticket for Thursday night's midnight show, and I'm pretty excited to say the least. While I am a fan of the Spider-Man comics (though I haven't read much Ultimate), I can acknowledge that these movies simply aren't going to be the same sort of thing as Sin City, and I can view them as separate but wholly entertaining entities. I do not expect that Gwen will really get the characterization or screen time she deserves (really, she should've replaced MJ in the first movie), but I plan to not shit my pants over it in favor of, hopefully, enjoying the movie. Raimi is a pretty swell guy.
Now. Discuss.
Zeromus on
0
Posts
On an unrelated note, love the sig and avatar. Patch rocks.
Spider-Man 1 and 2 got us away from comic book movies that got by on just a recognizable character and some good action shots... it made having a story and plot a pre-requesite to being a good comic book movie (I'm looking at you, Fantastic Four).
According to the newsarama review, he takes the mask off a lot in 3
Now that I think about it, Kristen Dunst would have worked better as Gwen Stacy. Aside from the acting career, which was largely incidental to the character in the movie, she was far more of a sweet, girl next door than a stunner who should be outside of Peter Parker's league. And of course, now that Gwen's been introduced, I'm sure she'll have nothing in common with the Gwen from the comics. How could she, unless she was in high school?
Well shit.
This won't bother me if it's done fairly well. Though it often happened in the comics, I still enjoyed it when a villain would get the better of him and unmask him. In the second one, his mask starts to burn, so he whips it off and completely forgets that he doesn't have a mask. It was a little understandable considering he was preoccupied with saving a train full of people, but it still bugged me. And I would have preferred if he had kicked Doc Ock's ass instead of saying "Look, it's me!".
And the drama does make him more of identifiable character, I just think there's too much of it.
and he's always like "fuck i don't have my mask on do i"
I've only seen them in light comedies, Traffic, and the afore-mentioned Sideways. Nothing that would really allow a person to show off his talent.
Except, you know, that Thomas Hayden Church was nominated for an Academy Award for Sideways.
That was true depth and emotion thomas hayden church showed there.
And I'm sure Halle Berry will make an excellent Storm and Catwoman.
Perhaps I should have said range rather than talent. As good as he was in Sideways in that particular role, that role was still an anomaly in the otherwise embarrassing filmography of a man who actually seemed right at home playing the bad guy in George of the Jungle.
And I've missed anything he's done since Sideways, so I don't know if the following performances were awesome and indicative of skill on par with Molina and Dafoe.
Your first point is well-taken.
The only big problem I have is this : they've perfectly captured how shitty Peter's life is sometimes, especially in comparison to how awesomely fun it is to be Spider-Man most of the time. But, they haven't captured Spidey. Besides him constantly taking the mask off, he's too serious. I think he made one wise-crack in the entire second movie, and it was a really lame joke as well.
With the whole emo-black-suit thing, I don't think he's going to be getting any funnier...
SM2 focused too much of Peter's civilian life, and not enough of his life as a costumed hero; which for me was pretty boring. Also, despite being dressed like a power ranger, the Green Goblin was actually evil and put real thought into his schemes. Doc Ock on the other hand seemed to do stuff just for the sake of it, without any thought (kidnapping MJ). I also found the musical score to be a little off and didn't set the mood properly in some scenes.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
The only thing that really bothered me about Doc Ock was this line of thinking
"Okay, to get the thing I need I gotta bring Spider-man to Harry. I have no fucking clue where Spider-man is, but I'll make Peter Parker tell me where he is. I better throw a car at him to get his attention."
I wish they'd do better at Spidey being quippy. They need to hire Bendis to write mid-battle dialogue for Spidey.
I wouldn't, because I don't have spider-reflexes to get out of the way in that split second
Wow, that entire second paragraph didn't make very much sense at all. If you've read any Spidey comics, you'd know one of the biggest focuses of the comic is Peter's civilian life. All of the biggest moments in the Spider-Man mythos impact Peter's personal life, such as Uncle Ben's death, Gwen's death, and May's recent shooting. Spider-Man is built on Peter Parker and his personal life. As for Norman being evil, it's not so much evil intentions than him being completely fucking crazy. In fact, most of his "evil deeds" mainly had to do with furthering his own goals than making Peter miserable. Also, i would hardly call attacking the board in broad daylight with thousands of witnesses great planning. Ock, on the other hand, kidnapped MJ because, A) he was going slightly insane, and
Anyway, you're allowed to like the first movie over the second one, but your reasons for doing so are pretty weak.
Oh, yeah.
Maybe it was a really well-aimed car?
If there's one thing that really irks me in terms of the lack of continuity between the comics and the movies, it's that.
He starts off good fighting Doc Ock in the bank with "Here's your change!" but spends most of the rest of the time grunting and screaming.
I mean, Ultimate Spidey prepared a list of fat jokes to say to the kingpin.
Are you trying to say something negative about George of the jungle here?
Because I will murder everything you love if you are.
I hate George of the Jungle because it sucks.
But I also love it.
Now what are you going to do?
Murder half of the things you love.
Did I also mention I love you?
Poor half-dead dog rolling around on spinners.
That would be half murdering everything he loves.
PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast! Satan look here!
I imagine that Harry will get as much screen time as he got in the last film, only with a giant fight taking place where there would have formerly been only standing around or being drunk.
Sandman, meanwhile, is clearly the nice looking second fiddle. Just think of him as taking the place of the introductory fights with the big villain where Spider-Man gets his ass kicked, only this time the villain is offed before the final showdown.
Venom's introduction will likely lead directly to the last confrontation of the film. There can't be a prelude to a fight against Venom, because the first fight wouldn't stop until one of the two died.
Basically, one villain occupies as much space as he did when he wasn't a villain while the two other villains divide the time usually reserved for only one villain.
God damn it! Fuck you Hollywood! Fuck you in your glittery ass!
I mean, I have no problem with the movies deviating from the comics, but that seems to pretty much neutralise his entire reason for being Spidey in the first place.
Do you mean that if it were Sandman that he couldn't have stopped him and would therefore feel fine about not trying to stop the man who went on to kill his Uncle? I don't really think it matters. The fact remains that he was plenty strong, let some dude run off, said dude went on to murder Uncle Ben.
And it's not like he can't feel guilty anymore: he caused the death of that guy who didn't kill his uncle. He's gotta be feeling shitty about that.
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
No, because a) Sandman only becomes Sandman during the movie, so I assume he was just a normal guy in a fruity shirt when he offed Ben (assuming that he did said offing) and b) the point i'm driving at is that if he let some dude run off and said dude DIDN'T go on to murder Uncle Ben, then it just doesn't have the same impact.
So if it turns out that Random Robber didn't do the killing, but some previously unknown third party (who becomes Sandman in this movie), then Spidey no longer has that guilt motivator which drove him to be a superhero in the first place.
I might be wrong, but I was under the distinct impression from the first movie that he wanted to kill the guy that supposedly did it, but eventually regained control and just knocked him out and left him for the police.
That said, I agree that it probably is just a bait and switch, maybe someone using Spidey's guilt to catch him (and hell, loads of people already know who he is so that would be easy enough). I was just surprised that noone here had even commented on it, thats all.