Options

The Spider-Man 3 Discussion Thread

1235714

Posts

  • Options
    AlgertmanAlgertman Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Midnight and preview showings consist of the biggest bunch of retards known to man

    I went to a preview showing of XMen3, I swear the was people in there jerking off over Wolverine everytime he was on the screen

    Algertman on
  • Options
    Cubicle CaptiveCubicle Captive Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Is it okay to see a movie you know you're probably not going to like?

    It's your money. If you want to go, then do it.

    I've had the same problem with virtually every comic movie to come out, but I usually cave to the fanboy within and go see them. I'm STILL trying to wipe "Elektra" from my brain.

    Cubicle Captive on
  • Options
    HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    It's a battle between curiosity and a seemingly inevitable disappointment!

    I ended up having to see Elektra as a trade off to getting a ride to see The Incredibles. Never before has the dichotomy between good and bad superhero films been more evident.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • Options
    DraXXXenDraXXXen Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Saw it last night at a midnight screening. I was hearing alot of horrible things about the movie before hand, but seeing as Spider-Man 2 was amazing I figured it was just fanboy rabbling due to venom or some other silly complaint.

    Well, I guess I didn't read the tag line on the poster, cause it was obviously 'Spider-Man 3: Everybody Cries'
    It was one seriously bad movie (i'm so evil!you don't understand me! time to emo my hair...ohhh!), but I think eventually it will actually slip into the 'so-bad it's good' category, mainly due to the strutting / dance scenes that can't possibly taken seriously, nor watched while sober and in large due to a certain French waiters scene.

    spoilers I guess...
    Sandman however was amazing (wished they gave more details to his origin and more development...not just 'oops fell into a large hole at night. oh shits they are tesing at like 4 in the morning?'

    The CONCEPTS of the movie, on PAPER, would seem great...but when watching, it seemed like a train wreck. (Anyone else bothered with Parker forgiving Sandman, both having a good cry together...even the one made of sand!, and just letting him go, though anyone with half a brain knows he will just commit more robberies for his daughter?)

    oh..and fuck the butler! "I care for you guys alot.....oh by the way, I totally forgot to tell you the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER about your fathers death when it happened...my bad, i guess that would have cleared some stuff up."

    DraXXXen on
    donutMachine.jpg
  • Options
    Cubicle CaptiveCubicle Captive Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    DraXXXen wrote: »
    Saw it last night at a midnight screening. I was hearing alot of horrible things about the movie before hand, but seeing as Spider-Man 2 was amazing I figured it was just fanboy rabbling due to venom or some other silly complaint.

    Well, I guess I didn't read the tag line on the poster, cause it was obviously 'Spider-Man 3: Everybody Cries'
    It was one seriously bad movie (i'm so evil!you don't understand me! time to emo my hair...ohhh!), but I think eventually it will actually slip into the 'so-bad it's good' category, mainly due to the strutting / dance scenes that can't possibly taken seriously, nor watched while sober and in large due to a certain French waiters scene.

    spoilers I guess...
    Sandman however was amazing (wished they gave more details to his origin and more development...not just 'oops fell into a large hole at night. oh shits they are tesing at like 4 in the morning?'

    The CONCEPTS of the movie, on PAPER, would seem great...but when watching, it seemed like a train wreck. (Anyone else bothered with Parker forgiving Sandman, both having a good cry together...even the one made of sand!, and just letting him go, though anyone with half a brain knows he will just commit more robberies for his daughter?)

    oh..and fuck the butler! "I care for you guys alot.....oh by the way, I totally forgot to tell you the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER about your fathers death when it happened...my bad, i guess that would have cleared some stuff up."



    Yeah, Bernard sucked BIG TIME. "It was apparent to me that your father died by his own hand." Who the hell wrote that piece of trash? Sounds like a high schooler doing Shakespeare fan Fiction...

    Cubicle Captive on
  • Options
    ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I like how most of the arguments for why the movie "sucked" are basically overblown nitpicks. It's like no one is looking at it holistically, instead deciding that "Venom's only in it for half an hour and Peter's hair is stupid" are basically reasons that the entire movie was bad. Again, it obviously wasn't a perfect movie, but the script was actually quite good (with the exception of a few blatant flaws) and I felt it was pretty great on the whole. I suppose comic book movies are never made with comic book fans in mind, though.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • Options
    noir_bloodnoir_blood Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Man, even after all the reviews and everything, I still went to the midnight showing thinking that Raimi was going to produce a great movie. And I'm sure he did..if you look closely you might be able to find it in the bloated corpse that is Spiderman 3.

    Seriously...
    The New Goblin arc would have been good enough for a single movie, have that, with Parker dealing with the black suit through out the entire movie, and end with the church scene, and bam, you have a great story and the lead off to the next one. I understand that a lot of the actors might not go for another one, but still..

    Venom..oh, oh Venom. I think since people saw the Dock Ock/Spiderman fight in the second one, people have been wanting to see Venom and Spiderman go at it, but we only got a small sample of it here. I undestand the need of the construction setting because of Sadman, but can you imagine an all out battle between Venom and Spidey that goes through the whole city, with them webswinging? And what the fuck is up with them so soundly killing them off at the end?

    noir_blood on
  • Options
    noir_bloodnoir_blood Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Zeromus wrote: »
    I like how most of the arguments for why the movie "sucked" are basically overblown nitpicks. It's like no one is looking at it holistically, instead deciding that "Venom's only in it for half an hour and Peter's hair is stupid" are basically reasons that the entire movie was bad. Again, it obviously wasn't a perfect movie, but the script was actually quite good (with the exception of a few blatant flaws) and I felt it was pretty great on the whole. I suppose comic book movies are never made with comic book fans in mind, though.

    The butlet scene is not an overblown nitpick. It's lazy, lazy writing. Same goes for the meteor. And people aren't bitching about Venom being in there for only half an hour because they're comic book geeks, they're bitching because he is completely underutilized and brings nothing to the story. And Peter's hair is stupid, because again, it's the laziest possible way to show he's changed. You can not tell me the moment he's walking out of that alley, stops and looks at a mirror, and pulls down his hair is a good scene.

    noir_blood on
  • Options
    Cubicle CaptiveCubicle Captive Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Zeromus wrote: »
    I like how most of the arguments for why the movie "sucked" are basically overblown nitpicks. It's like no one is looking at it holistically, instead deciding that "Venom's only in it for half an hour and Peter's hair is stupid" are basically reasons that the entire movie was bad. Again, it obviously wasn't a perfect movie, but the script was actually quite good (with the exception of a few blatant flaws) and I felt it was pretty great on the whole. I suppose comic book movies are never made with comic book fans in mind, though.

    The butlet scene is not an overblown nitpick. It's lazy, lazy writing. Same goes for the meteor. And people aren't bitching about Venom being in there for only half an hour because they're comic book geeks, they're bitching because he is completely underutilized and brings nothing to the story. And Peter's hair is stupid, because again, it's the laziest possible way to show he's changed. You can not tell me the moment he's walking out of that alley, stops and looks at a mirror, and pulls down his hair is a good scene.

    I agree completely.

    Circle gets the square.

    Cubicle Captive on
  • Options
    ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    No, those weren't good scenes.

    But to say they ruined a two and a half hour movie is pretty stupid.

    Incidentally, I didn't have a problem with the meteor thing, because as I said in an earlier post, I thought it tied in pretty well to the duality of Peter's "fate" that we get a lot in the comic books. And honestly, I was kind of glad that they didn't spend an hour explaining what the symbiote was and where it came from.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Zeromus wrote: »
    I like how most of the arguments for why the movie "sucked" are basically overblown nitpicks. It's like no one is looking at it holistically, instead deciding that "Venom's only in it for half an hour and Peter's hair is stupid" are basically reasons that the entire movie was bad. Again, it obviously wasn't a perfect movie, but the script was actually quite good (with the exception of a few blatant flaws) and I felt it was pretty great on the whole. I suppose comic book movies are never made with comic book fans in mind, though.

    The butlet scene is not an overblown nitpick. It's lazy, lazy writing. Same goes for the meteor. And people aren't bitching about Venom being in there for only half an hour because they're comic book geeks, they're bitching because he is completely underutilized and brings nothing to the story. And Peter's hair is stupid, because again, it's the laziest possible way to show he's changed. You can not tell me the moment he's walking out of that alley, stops and looks at a mirror, and pulls down his hair is a good scene.


    I honestly thought the entire reason they brought JJ's son in on the second movie was to use him as the reason for the symbiote getting to Earth, similar to the story in the 90s animated series. As it is now though, it kind of brings back a nagging pet peeve that I was willing to let go from 2 back to light, while irritating me about how lazy the introduction of the suit in 3 is.

    Aoi on
  • Options
    Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aoi wrote: »
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Zeromus wrote: »
    I like how most of the arguments for why the movie "sucked" are basically overblown nitpicks. It's like no one is looking at it holistically, instead deciding that "Venom's only in it for half an hour and Peter's hair is stupid" are basically reasons that the entire movie was bad. Again, it obviously wasn't a perfect movie, but the script was actually quite good (with the exception of a few blatant flaws) and I felt it was pretty great on the whole. I suppose comic book movies are never made with comic book fans in mind, though.

    The butlet scene is not an overblown nitpick. It's lazy, lazy writing. Same goes for the meteor. And people aren't bitching about Venom being in there for only half an hour because they're comic book geeks, they're bitching because he is completely underutilized and brings nothing to the story. And Peter's hair is stupid, because again, it's the laziest possible way to show he's changed. You can not tell me the moment he's walking out of that alley, stops and looks at a mirror, and pulls down his hair is a good scene.


    I honestly thought the entire reason they brought JJ's son in on the second movie was to use him as the reason for the symbiote getting to Earth, similar to the story in the 90s animated series. As it is now though, it kind of brings back a nagging pet peeve that I was willing to let go from 2 back to light, while irritating me about how lazy the introduction of the suit in 3 is.

    Why didn't they use that story? It would have made a lot more sense than the movie version. As long as no one turns into a wolf because of a moon crystal or something...

    Mr Pink on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Because the movie was already long and that would add another 15 minutes.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Because the movie was already long and that would add another 15 minutes.

    That's the fault of the writing too thought. They did exactly what the old Batman movies did, especially later on. Too god damned many bad guys to be able to center in on any one for very long. Jesus, all three of these villains could have held their own in a movie. Two of them MIGHT have been doable without it feeling like too much. But three? That just reeks of Raimi wanting to stuff too much into the movie because he wasn't planning on doing anymore and still wanted to work with those characters.

    Aoi on
  • Options
    GuekGuek Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    just wanna affirm again amidst all this hate mongerin(jk), that i enjoyed the movie ;-)

    edit: also, did you guys really think that raimi was taking himself seriously?? like...really? throughout all these "terrible" scenes, all i could think was "goddamn fucking raimi..." but in a good way. in a "oh yeah, he directed army of darkness, he's a silly bitch" kinda way. plot holes aside (those are pretty good nit picks), raimi went over the top for a reason. i really do think it's one of those "so bad-it's good" things he was attempting and in the end, while a little too overdone, i didn't mind it half as much as anyone technically "should."

    Guek on
  • Options
    noir_bloodnoir_blood Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aoi wrote: »
    Because the movie was already long and that would add another 15 minutes.

    That's the fault of the writing too thought. They did exactly what the old Batman movies did, especially later on. Too god damned many bad guys to be able to center in on any one for very long. Jesus, all three of these villains could have held their own in a movie. Two of them MIGHT have been doable without it feeling like too much. But three? That just reeks of Raimi wanting to stuff too much into the movie because he wasn't planning on doing anymore and still wanted to work with those characters.

    Actually, I think it's been said a number of times in interviews that Venom was pretty much pushed on Raimi. Raimi is much more interest in the classic villains, and he had to be convinced that Venom would work. I see it as pretty much the higher ups telling him that he had to put Venom in the movie, hence the way he's used. Compare him to Dock Ock or Sandman, and Venom pales in comparison. Shame too, because I think Topher Grace nailed the character, and the overall look of Venom I liked.

    noir_blood on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Aoi wrote: »
    Because the movie was already long and that would add another 15 minutes.

    That's the fault of the writing too thought. They did exactly what the old Batman movies did, especially later on. Too god damned many bad guys to be able to center in on any one for very long. Jesus, all three of these villains could have held their own in a movie. Two of them MIGHT have been doable without it feeling like too much. But three? That just reeks of Raimi wanting to stuff too much into the movie because he wasn't planning on doing anymore and still wanted to work with those characters.

    Actually, I think it's been said a number of times in interviews that Venom was pretty much pushed on Raimi. Raimi is much more interest in the classic villains, and he had to be convinced that Venom would work. I see it as pretty much the higher ups telling him that he had to put Venom in the movie, hence the way he's used. Compare him to Dock Ock or Sandman, and Venom pales in comparison. Shame too, because I think Topher Grace nailed the character, and the overall look of Venom I liked.

    I know it was pretty much Hollywood speak, but he did say a year or so ago that it was partially because of fan outcry, and partially because "he looked more into the character and found the depth of Peter's duality within it". The thing is,
    if he doesn't want to do Venom, but he has to, why kill him? Especially if he doesn't like the character. Do the rushed thing like he did (I know, arguable, sue me), and leave him alive for a future movie for someone else who wants to use the character to use. I always hate it when these people making comic book movies decide to kill off these iconic villains who have been around for decades.

    Aoi on
  • Options
    noir_bloodnoir_blood Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aoi wrote: »
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Aoi wrote: »
    Because the movie was already long and that would add another 15 minutes.

    That's the fault of the writing too thought. They did exactly what the old Batman movies did, especially later on. Too god damned many bad guys to be able to center in on any one for very long. Jesus, all three of these villains could have held their own in a movie. Two of them MIGHT have been doable without it feeling like too much. But three? That just reeks of Raimi wanting to stuff too much into the movie because he wasn't planning on doing anymore and still wanted to work with those characters.

    Actually, I think it's been said a number of times in interviews that Venom was pretty much pushed on Raimi. Raimi is much more interest in the classic villains, and he had to be convinced that Venom would work. I see it as pretty much the higher ups telling him that he had to put Venom in the movie, hence the way he's used. Compare him to Dock Ock or Sandman, and Venom pales in comparison. Shame too, because I think Topher Grace nailed the character, and the overall look of Venom I liked.

    I know it was pretty much Hollywood speak, but he did say a year or so ago that it was partially because of fan outcry, and partially because "he looked more into the character and found the depth of Peter's duality within it". The thing is,
    if he doesn't want to do Venom, but he has to, why kill him? Especially if he doesn't like the character. Do the rushed thing like he did (I know, arguable, sue me), and leave him alive for a future movie for someone else who wants to use the character to use. I always hate it when these people making comic book movies decide to kill off these iconic villains who have been around for decades.

    Yea, I didn't get that either. And did we really see much of a duality between both characters? We saw the duality that existed between Peter himself, but there really wasn't enough interaction between Parker and Brock to catch a glimpse into it.

    noir_blood on
  • Options
    GuekGuek Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    i disagree
    while topher should definitely have had more time on screen, once we get to the point to where he becomes venom i think we have enough insight into his character to see what choices he would make with all that power.

    also
    i think they kill off villains because they're never really sure of what the reception will be. if you leave a vilain alive, then you give the audience the expectation for another movie featuring that villain. that's not always the best idea. another movie with dafoe as the goblin, i think, would be great but at the same time, the masses could very well get bored with the idea. raimi kind of pushed the limit with sandman staying alive at the end. i think he should have at least turned himself in and gone to prison. but at the same time, its alright that he stayed alive because he's supposedly reformed now and most likely wont appear again as a villain. say venom stayed alive. then what? another venom movie with brock? i think it'd just be redundant. these aint comics, ya know.

    Guek on
  • Options
    Cubicle CaptiveCubicle Captive Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    Aoi wrote: »
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Zeromus wrote: »
    I like how most of the arguments for why the movie "sucked" are basically overblown nitpicks. It's like no one is looking at it holistically, instead deciding that "Venom's only in it for half an hour and Peter's hair is stupid" are basically reasons that the entire movie was bad. Again, it obviously wasn't a perfect movie, but the script was actually quite good (with the exception of a few blatant flaws) and I felt it was pretty great on the whole. I suppose comic book movies are never made with comic book fans in mind, though.

    The butlet scene is not an overblown nitpick. It's lazy, lazy writing. Same goes for the meteor. And people aren't bitching about Venom being in there for only half an hour because they're comic book geeks, they're bitching because he is completely underutilized and brings nothing to the story. And Peter's hair is stupid, because again, it's the laziest possible way to show he's changed. You can not tell me the moment he's walking out of that alley, stops and looks at a mirror, and pulls down his hair is a good scene.


    I honestly thought the entire reason they brought JJ's son in on the second movie was to use him as the reason for the symbiote getting to Earth, similar to the story in the 90s animated series. As it is now though, it kind of brings back a nagging pet peeve that I was willing to let go from 2 back to light, while irritating me about how lazy the introduction of the suit in 3 is.

    Why didn't they use that story? It would have made a lot more sense than the movie version. As long as no one turns into a wolf because of a moon crystal or something...

    An extra 20 minutes to an already overblown movie? i could go for it if they cut other scenes down. But I think it was more of a budget thing. This movie's already costing Sony in the neighborhood of $350 million to produce and market ($250M for production, $100M for marketing), so I can't see Raimi coming to them saying "Yeah, I'm gonna need another $10-$15 million..."

    Cubicle Captive on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    Aoi wrote: »
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Zeromus wrote: »
    I like how most of the arguments for why the movie "sucked" are basically overblown nitpicks. It's like no one is looking at it holistically, instead deciding that "Venom's only in it for half an hour and Peter's hair is stupid" are basically reasons that the entire movie was bad. Again, it obviously wasn't a perfect movie, but the script was actually quite good (with the exception of a few blatant flaws) and I felt it was pretty great on the whole. I suppose comic book movies are never made with comic book fans in mind, though.

    The butlet scene is not an overblown nitpick. It's lazy, lazy writing. Same goes for the meteor. And people aren't bitching about Venom being in there for only half an hour because they're comic book geeks, they're bitching because he is completely underutilized and brings nothing to the story. And Peter's hair is stupid, because again, it's the laziest possible way to show he's changed. You can not tell me the moment he's walking out of that alley, stops and looks at a mirror, and pulls down his hair is a good scene.


    I honestly thought the entire reason they brought JJ's son in on the second movie was to use him as the reason for the symbiote getting to Earth, similar to the story in the 90s animated series. As it is now though, it kind of brings back a nagging pet peeve that I was willing to let go from 2 back to light, while irritating me about how lazy the introduction of the suit in 3 is.

    Why didn't they use that story? It would have made a lot more sense than the movie version. As long as no one turns into a wolf because of a moon crystal or something...

    An extra 20 minutes to an already overblown movie? i could go for it if they cut other scenes down. But I think it was more of a budget thing. This movie's already costing Sony in the neighborhood of $350 million to produce and market ($250M for production, $100M for marketing), so I can't see Raimi coming to them saying "Yeah, I'm gonna need another $10-$15 million..."


    Yeah, but again, Venom is a big enough fan favorite that he could have carried a movie on his own. They didn't need three villains in one movie. Hell, it's been shown over and over again that too many baddies in one flick is a bad thing, unless some of them are supposed to be rather one sided (like say, The Brotherhood in Xmen 1. The only one that really really mattered was Magneto and maybe Mystique). In this one though, Venom, Sandman, and Harry? Would anyone consider any of those characters throw away? (Well okay, maybe some would consider Sandman...).

    Edit: I guess the problem is in the actual structure of the movie itself. It forced rushing stories by introducing too many characters. The answer wouldn't have been more money, it would have been concentrating on less characters with the time given.

    Aoi on
  • Options
    GuekGuek Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    i'd say the sandman and harry characters were far far far more developed and much better done than venom was. i'd rather they had cut sandman and focused on brock but at the same time i loved what they did with him. the whole
    "forgiveness"
    thing worked really well

    Guek on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Guek wrote: »
    i'd say the sandman and harry characters were far far far more developed and much better done than venom was. i'd rather they had cut sandman and focused on brock but at the same time i loved what they did with him. the whole
    "forgiveness"
    thing worked really well

    The Venom aspect just gives me flashes of Bane in Batman And Robin. Not quite as shallow, but close.

    I guess what irritates me is that they've done a decent job at forshadowing future characters in this. Well, not forshadowing so much as simply showing or telling you they exist. Mentioning Doc Connors in 1, then showing him in 2 and 3, giving you a nice little Lizard wink. Mentioning Brock in 1 (or was it 2?) then introducing him in three. Introducing JJ's son in 2 that I THOUGHT was going to be foreshadowing to the symbiote for 3. Harry seeing Spidey with Norman's body at the end of 1, simply feeding that plotline in 2, and having the full on New Goblin in 3. It seems Almost X3 like. They give you the feeling that certain things are coming, they do a decent job pacing things out with the first two movies, then they just rush all these aspects into the third.

    I can definitely understand if they thought that a second Spidey/Goblin only movie would have been a bit much, but three baddies was still just overkill. The scene in the church really should have been at the end of 3 if they were following the same pacing as the other movies.

    I'm not hating on the movie BTW. In a way, it's like X3 for me. I see the flaws, and the flaws are big, yet I was still able to enjoy.

    Aoi on
  • Options
    GuekGuek Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    whoa whoa whoa, you're comparing it to X3? dogshit vomit, this is not, my good sir ;-) jk jk

    i guess what cinches it for me is how much i really loved the ending. as a 3rd and final instalment, it is excellent. unlike with the other 2 movies, i'd be satisfied now if they stopped making them. one of the bigger problems with X3 was that there wasn't a whole lot leading up to its plot. there's a lot of relavent back story to spiderman 3, unlike X3.

    or...eh...maybe i'm just a sap for those happy-feely moments.
    but the whole "pete, you're my best friend" thing and sandman's story. i just loved the hell out of it

    Guek on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Guek wrote: »
    whoa whoa whoa, you're comparing it to X3? dogshit vomit, this is not, my good sir ;-) jk jk

    i guess what cinches it for me is how much i really loved the ending. as a 3rd and final instalment, it is excellent. unlike with the other 2 movies, i'd be satisfied now if they stopped making them. one of the bigger problems with X3 was that there wasn't a whole lot leading up to its plot. there's a lot of relavent back story to spiderman 3, unlike X3.

    or...eh...maybe i'm just a sap for those happy-feely moments.
    but the whole "pete, you're my best friend" thing and sandman's story. i just loved the hell out of it

    Hehe, I wasn't comparing the actual flicks themselves :) Just the way certain plotpoints happen.

    And damn it, no. Connors has either been in or mentioned in all three movies. They can NOT stop making them until I get a Lizard movie.

    Aoi on
  • Options
    Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I always wondered why they chose Sandman over, say, Rhino of Lizard, but I'm actually pretty happy with what they did with him. I was hoping he wouldnt just be the 'throw away' fight in the begining.
    Sadly, the throw away villian was in the end...

    Mr Pink on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I always wondered why they chose Sandman over, say, Rhino of Lizard, but I'm actually pretty happy with what they did with him. I was hoping he wouldnt just be the 'throw away' fight in the begining.
    Sadly, the throw away villian was in the end...

    I was kind of surprised by no Lizard too. It always seemed like Raimi was leading up to him.

    Aoi on
  • Options
    noir_bloodnoir_blood Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aoi wrote: »
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I always wondered why they chose Sandman over, say, Rhino of Lizard, but I'm actually pretty happy with what they did with him. I was hoping he wouldnt just be the 'throw away' fight in the begining.
    Sadly, the throw away villian was in the end...

    I was kind of surprised by no Lizard too. It always seemed like Raimi was leading up to him.

    I think there was probably some fear of seeming redundant, what with gobbly and doc ock both being scientists that experiment on themselves and have something horrible happen to them.

    noir_blood on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    noir_blood wrote: »
    Aoi wrote: »
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I always wondered why they chose Sandman over, say, Rhino of Lizard, but I'm actually pretty happy with what they did with him. I was hoping he wouldnt just be the 'throw away' fight in the begining.
    Sadly, the throw away villian was in the end...

    I was kind of surprised by no Lizard too. It always seemed like Raimi was leading up to him.

    I think there was probably some fear of seeming redundant, what with gobbly and doc ock both being scientists that experiment on themselves and have something horrible happen to them.


    Fair enough point. Though it would keep with the whole emo thing. Throw in problems with Doc Connors family when he changes, etc. Ya know, as much as I'm wowed by the movies visually... Jesus I'm sick of emo Peter. There was always this nagging feeling with Burton's Batman movies that he didn't quite get the character. I get the same nagging feeling with Raimi's Spider-Man.

    Thinking about it, has there been a super hero movie (that also doesn't suck), that the writer/director/whomever hasn't attempted to "reach deep down into the soul of the characters to bring about their own interpretation of their universe", and just tried to make a nifty movie about the god damned source material? I'm having a hard time thinking of one... Hellboy maybe?

    Aoi on
  • Options
    Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hellboy is just about the only one I can think of, and I think the fact that it was an amazing movie says a lot for that approach. What's odd, to me at least, is how underappreciated the Hellboy movie is in comparison to... well, almost every other comic book movie now. But I'm psyched about Golden Army.

    ...Hmm? A Spider-Man thread you say?

    Grey Ghost on
  • Options
    GuekGuek Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    hellboy is a good example of what you're describing
    fantastic four is not :P

    Guek on
  • Options
    AoiAoi Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Guek wrote: »
    hellboy is a good example of what you're describing
    fantastic four is not :P

    That's why I said an example of a good adaptation. :lol: It kinda tried for the feel of the original books I thought, it just failed.

    *Cough* I guess this should probably go to the movie thread, eh?

    So erm... Hows about that Spider-Man?

    Aoi on
  • Options
    LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Guek wrote: »

    edit: also, did you guys really think that raimi was taking himself seriously?? like...really? throughout all these "terrible" scenes, all i could think was "goddamn fucking raimi..." but in a good way. in a "oh yeah, he directed army of darkness, he's a silly bitch" kinda way. plot holes aside (those are pretty good nit picks), raimi went over the top for a reason. i really do think it's one of those "so bad-it's good" things he was attempting and in the end, while a little too overdone, i didn't mind it half as much as anyone technically "should."

    This, a thousand times this. All of the emo stuff was entirely tongue in cheek. At the showing I went to, the crowd was perfect. Everyone got all the jokes, everyone laughed when he swept his hair aside, people clapped when he wrecked people's shit, it was awesome. You have to remember a few things:

    1. Spider-Man is directed by the same guy that did Army of Darkness. Bruce Campbell is a good friend of his.

    2. Spider-Man is a cheesy kind of guy in the first place.

    3. Comics are not ivory towers of artistic greatness, and I think it's cool Raimi didn't take himself too seriously with the film.

    I mean, jesus, anyone remember when May got engaged to Doc Ock? Or when Peter made a bat out of webbing to freak out Johnny (That can actually glide)? Or maybe when he had the spider-mobile? Anyway, it wasn't a perfect movie, and it wasn't as good as 2, because of the forced and speedy ending, but i really liked it.

    Langly on
  • Options
    DVGDVG No. 1 Honor Student Nether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I really enjoyed myself watching the movie. Laughed pretty heartily throughout. I didn't jive too well with the venom stuff:
    Just because they so poorly defined what the suit was doing to peter and then Venom himself shared almost no characteristics with any other version of the character.

    But all in all I liked it pretty well.

    DVG on
    Diablo 3 - DVG#1857
  • Options
    Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aoi wrote: »
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I always wondered why they chose Sandman over, say, Rhino of Lizard, but I'm actually pretty happy with what they did with him. I was hoping he wouldnt just be the 'throw away' fight in the begining.
    Sadly, the throw away villian was in the end...

    I was kind of surprised by no Lizard too. It always seemed like Raimi was leading up to him.

    It would be hard to explain Connors becoming the Lizard in the movies, considering Movie Connors is a physicist, not a geneticist.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    FrostmanBluesFrostmanBlues Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    It earned the B my newspaper gave to it a day ago. It was an OK movie overall, it just wasn't Spider-Man 2 good.

    I am not complaining overall, loved the black suit and Venom, altough that seemed to be completely overshadow by Sandman. I mean, I think Sandman was just covering the entire thing, even "New Goblin"'s grudge with Spidey.

    Bruce Campbell=genius by the way. Jona Jameson was just as funny as he was in the first two films.

    But at least it wasn't Elektra bad. I am looking forward IF Toby Maguire resumes his role as Spidey in the next film.








    Assuming there will be one.

    FrostmanBlues on
    animegirls2.gif
  • Options
    FrostmanBluesFrostmanBlues Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Aoi wrote: »
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    I always wondered why they chose Sandman over, say, Rhino of Lizard, but I'm actually pretty happy with what they did with him. I was hoping he wouldnt just be the 'throw away' fight in the begining.
    Sadly, the throw away villian was in the end...

    I was kind of surprised by no Lizard too. It always seemed like Raimi was leading up to him.

    It would be hard to explain Connors becoming the Lizard in the movies, considering Movie Connors is a physicist, not a geneticist.



    I think The Lizard appearing in the 3rd movie would feel way too early. But that's just me.

    FrostmanBlues on
    animegirls2.gif
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Langly wrote: »
    Guek wrote: »

    edit: also, did you guys really think that raimi was taking himself seriously?? like...really? throughout all these "terrible" scenes, all i could think was "goddamn fucking raimi..." but in a good way. in a "oh yeah, he directed army of darkness, he's a silly bitch" kinda way. plot holes aside (those are pretty good nit picks), raimi went over the top for a reason. i really do think it's one of those "so bad-it's good" things he was attempting and in the end, while a little too overdone, i didn't mind it half as much as anyone technically "should."

    This, a thousand times this. All of the emo stuff was entirely tongue in cheek. At the showing I went to, the crowd was perfect. Everyone got all the jokes, everyone laughed when he swept his hair aside, people clapped when he wrecked people's shit, it was awesome. You have to remember a few things:

    1. Spider-Man is directed by the same guy that did Army of Darkness. Bruce Campbell is a good friend of his.

    2. Spider-Man is a cheesy kind of guy in the first place.

    3. Comics are not ivory towers of artistic greatness, and I think it's cool Raimi didn't take himself too seriously with the film.

    I mean, jesus, anyone remember when May got engaged to Doc Ock? Or when Peter made a bat out of webbing to freak out Johnny (That can actually glide)? Or maybe when he had the spider-mobile? Anyway, it wasn't a perfect movie, and it wasn't as good as 2, because of the forced and speedy ending, but i really liked it.

    I loved the Spider-man/Human Torch Spider-mobile, how Pete explains he can't drive.

    Also: If "all" of his powers failed, why is he visibly damaging the wall? That takes a bit of superstrength.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I think part of the reason I enjoyed 3 so much is because so much of it was silly (and on purpose, rather than Plan 9 From Outer Space silliness). The second movie took itself entirely too seriously.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    opieopie Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    http://www.marvel.com/universe/Venom_(Mac_Gargan)

    Could someone explain this to me... I mean I'm going to read it, but WTF?!?

    opie on
Sign In or Register to comment.