I'm kind of upset about this movie. they had spider-man, and it was good, then some suits ruined it while still making a bundle and that was fine because they can always reboot it.
would it have been that hard to make the last scene of spider man 3 be eddy brock in the church? no
1. The first two Spider-man movies are not very good.
2. If it had ended there then Spider-man 3 would have still been a terrible movie that would scare anyone from watching 4.
0
Options
#pipeCocky Stride, Musky odoursPope of Chili TownRegistered Userregular
I vastly preferred SpecSpidey George Stacy and how he found out Pete was Spidey. Just taking off a mask isn't as cool as figuring it out. And he was just more of a jerk than I am used to. Still, his death hit harder than Ben's for me.
The other thing is that I really disliked what they did with Conners. I prefer when he's the nicest guy and has a wife and kid and is terrified and ashamed of the Lizard.
That said, I've long been one to say that the SpecSpidey versions of the characters are superior to any other, but this movie's Gwen was definitely better than the show's. Then again, I never really liked the show's Gwen, in contrast to the majority opinion. I was rooting for Liz.
And as someone who was an active supporter in the Twitter campaign for Donald Glover to play Peter (though I still think he would've done a good job), I think Garfield was flawless.
No he would not have. Donglover is a great actor but his style and timing do not work for spider-man. I also don't think the man can do drama. He'd a comedic genius and he can get some heartfelt emotions going but I will never believe he can believably portray angst or anger in a way that isn't hilarious.
The guy's an actor, and he can be directed and produced and maybe you know, grow as an actor. Although I don't think I could buy him as a high school senior. I didn't really see Garfield or Stone as high school seniors either though.
People say this and assume its actually applicable to every a for and its not the case. Like I said dude is a comedy master and apparently a hardcore rapper but I don't think he's gonna pull off an Tom hanks and switch to dramatic roles anytime soon.
Also Tom Hanks go back to comedy we need you.
I would like to see your actual reasons for holding this viewpoint.
because the dude hasn't really done any well known dramatic roles for you to point at and say "THERE, SEE" and, you know, good at comedy does not rule out good at drama.
Man, I don't know how anyone can see Zombieland and not get Emma Stone.
Anyhow, I thought this was pretty good. The cast was superb, but I felt like the script was lacking.
The whole get powers - uncle dies - be a hero cause-and-effect seemed weirdly structured, like it was at some point we don't really see between when he's searching for his uncle's killer and when the Lizard shows up that he starts being a hero.
Spidey's snark was greatly appreciated, though.
re your spoiler
right before the lizard rips up the bridge, sheriff stacy is all "spider-man is just doing his own thing and not actually helping people" which makes peter think and then after chasing away the lizard on the bridge he sees a kid who needs help only he can give and he gives up on his instinct to chase the lizard in favor of actually helping people
I vastly preferred SpecSpidey George Stacy and how he found out Pete was Spidey. Just taking off a mask isn't as cool as figuring it out. And he was just more of a jerk than I am used to. Still, his death hit harder than Ben's for me.
The other thing is that I really disliked what they did with Conners. I prefer when he's the nicest guy and has a wife and kid and is terrified and ashamed of the Lizard.
That said, I've long been one to say that the SpecSpidey versions of the characters are superior to any other, but this movie's Gwen was definitely better than the show's. Then again, I never really liked the show's Gwen, in contrast to the majority opinion. I was rooting for Liz.
And as someone who was an active supporter in the Twitter campaign for Donald Glover to play Peter (though I still think he would've done a good job), I think Garfield was flawless.
No he would not have. Donglover is a great actor but his style and timing do not work for spider-man. I also don't think the man can do drama. He'd a comedic genius and he can get some heartfelt emotions going but I will never believe he can believably portray angst or anger in a way that isn't hilarious.
The guy's an actor, and he can be directed and produced and maybe you know, grow as an actor. Although I don't think I could buy him as a high school senior. I didn't really see Garfield or Stone as high school seniors either though.
People say this and assume its actually applicable to every a for and its not the case. Like I said dude is a comedy master and apparently a hardcore rapper but I don't think he's gonna pull off an Tom hanks and switch to dramatic roles anytime soon.
Also Tom Hanks go back to comedy we need you.
I would like to see your actual reasons for holding this viewpoint.
because the dude hasn't really done any well known dramatic roles for you to point at and say "THERE, SEE" and, you know, good at comedy does not rule out good at drama.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I just personally can't see it being a possibility.
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
Man, I don't know how anyone can see Zombieland and not get Emma Stone.
Anyhow, I thought this was pretty good. The cast was superb, but I felt like the script was lacking.
The whole get powers - uncle dies - be a hero cause-and-effect seemed weirdly structured, like it was at some point we don't really see between when he's searching for his uncle's killer and when the Lizard shows up that he starts being a hero.
Spidey's snark was greatly appreciated, though.
re your spoiler
right before the lizard rips up the bridge, sheriff stacy is all "spider-man is just doing his own thing and not actually helping people" which makes peter think and then after chasing away the lizard on the bridge he sees a kid who needs help only he can give and he gives up on his instinct to chase the lizard in favor of actually helping people
is my take on it
I kind of like that, although
Like I said, they don't really show the realization. If what Captain Stacy said affected him, I think maybe a couple of lines with Gwen on the Balcony there would have helped. Something like "He's right about me. I only helped people because it helped me search for the guy that killed my uncle. But that's gonna change, now. I know Spider-Man can be a hero to everybody."
Usually comedy actors can do drama really well though, as the old saying goes they're two sides of the same coin. I mean Jim Carey did well in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind plus Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell surprised me both with Reign Over Me and Stranger Than Fiction respectively.
Hitchcock was big on hiring comedic actors because comedy is harder to do well than drama; so if an actor is talented enough to do comedy well, then it's usually easier to get a dramatic performance out of them.
Dunno how applicable that is in the real world; just passing on the message from a dead man.
Man, I don't know how anyone can see Zombieland and not get Emma Stone.
Anyhow, I thought this was pretty good. The cast was superb, but I felt like the script was lacking.
The whole get powers - uncle dies - be a hero cause-and-effect seemed weirdly structured, like it was at some point we don't really see between when he's searching for his uncle's killer and when the Lizard shows up that he starts being a hero.
Spidey's snark was greatly appreciated, though.
re your spoiler
right before the lizard rips up the bridge, sheriff stacy is all "spider-man is just doing his own thing and not actually helping people" which makes peter think and then after chasing away the lizard on the bridge he sees a kid who needs help only he can give and he gives up on his instinct to chase the lizard in favor of actually helping people
is my take on it
I kind of like that, although
Like I said, they don't really show the realization. If what Captain Stacy said affected him, I think maybe a couple of lines with Gwen on the Balcony there would have helped. Something like "He's right about me. I only helped people because it helped me search for the guy that killed my uncle. But that's gonna change, now. I know Spider-Man can be a hero to everybody."
I actually liked how this was handled in a very simple exchange
When the dad on the bridge asks him "who are you?" he responds simply with "Spider-Man", a name we hadn't heard until that moment. And because of that, because neither the cops nor press get to brand him with that name, Peter has now set the standard for what it means to be Spider-Man; to embody that moral obligation to save and help everyone he possibly can.
Aunt May knows he's Spider-Man by the end of the movie, right? Because I feel that was an awesome way to go. I love when Aunt May knows.
Oh, that scene in the end when Pete walks in covered in lizard marks sealed it for me. She just had this look of "You wonderful, foolish little bastard."
I kinda got that sense too.
And I am maybe really dense here, but I wasn't entirely sure what was going on with that last line with Gwen re: their relationship. I think I know what the actual status is, but the line was too fast or too cryptic for me and I am dumb.
You mean "Promises you can't keep are the best kind?" He's saying he knows he made a promise, but she's too important to him to keep that promise, even if it means she'll be at risk for being thrown off of a bridge and killed one day by a dude in a circus outfit.
I kinda thought that, but the problem is
following that train of logic, it is pretty selfish. Why not just have the movie point out that George got to have her and her brothers and mom while doing a similar job (the parallels were already established!) and that maybe people should trust her because she had already proven to be very capable and accepting of risk?
Because the payoff for Film 2 won't be as big.
Honestly, Film Critic Hulk talks an awful lot of shit about how the end of this movie means that he hasn't really changed, or learned anything. I think that's over selling it a little, but the whole idea is that it's Peter's choice to keep dating Gwen that gets her into the mess with the Green Goblin in the first place. I really don't see how you wouldn't end up cheapening an attempt to keep the promise at the end of this film and then just suddenly undo it 20 or 30 minutes into the next film just for the sake of the story. It may take away from Peter's development in this film, but frankly I'm pleased that they didn't try to sell me on something that's going to just be undone in the next flick anyway.
That's how I feel about it anyway. Maybe it's it's "unfair" to know where the inevitable sequel is going? Who knows, there's all this arcana involved with critiquing film that I don't get.
Aunt May knows he's Spider-Man by the end of the movie, right? Because I feel that was an awesome way to go. I love when Aunt May knows.
Oh, that scene in the end when Pete walks in covered in lizard marks sealed it for me. She just had this look of "You wonderful, foolish little bastard."
I kinda got that sense too.
And I am maybe really dense here, but I wasn't entirely sure what was going on with that last line with Gwen re: their relationship. I think I know what the actual status is, but the line was too fast or too cryptic for me and I am dumb.
You mean "Promises you can't keep are the best kind?" He's saying he knows he made a promise, but she's too important to him to keep that promise, even if it means she'll be at risk for being thrown off of a bridge and killed one day by a dude in a circus outfit.
I kinda thought that, but the problem is
following that train of logic, it is pretty selfish. Why not just have the movie point out that George got to have her and her brothers and mom while doing a similar job (the parallels were already established!) and that maybe people should trust her because she had already proven to be very capable and accepting of risk?
Because the payoff for Film 2 won't be as big.
Honestly, Film Critic Hulk talks an awful lot of shit about how the end of this movie means that he hasn't really changed, or learned anything. I think that's over selling it a little, but the whole idea is that it's Peter's choice to keep dating Gwen that gets her into the mess with the Green Goblin in the first place. I really don't see how you wouldn't end up cheapening an attempt to keep the promise at the end of this film and then just suddenly undo it 20 or 30 minutes into the next film just for the sake of the story. It may take away from Peter's development in this film, but frankly I'm pleased that they didn't try to sell me on something that's going to just be undone in the next flick anyway.
That's how I feel about it anyway. Maybe it's it's "unfair" to know where the inevitable sequel is going? Who knows, there's all this arcana involved with critiquing film that I don't get.
At the end of the day I think everybody needs to take step back and remember that the choice to date Peter is Gwens choice and only hers. It is not selfish of Peter date someone he likes and who knows what they are getting in to. It is however extremely condescending of Gwen's Father and of Peter to take the choice from her because she might be put in danger.
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
I'm kind of upset about this movie. they had spider-man, and it was good, then some suits ruined it while still making a bundle and that was fine because they can always reboot it.
would it have been that hard to make the last scene of spider man 3 be eddy brock in the church? no
1. The first two Spider-man movies are not very good.
2. If it had ended there then Spider-man 3 would have still been a terrible movie that would scare anyone from watching 4.
The first two are super fun and campy with fantastic antagonists (green goblin's suit is still dumb though)
Aunt May knows he's Spider-Man by the end of the movie, right? Because I feel that was an awesome way to go. I love when Aunt May knows.
Oh, that scene in the end when Pete walks in covered in lizard marks sealed it for me. She just had this look of "You wonderful, foolish little bastard."
I kinda got that sense too.
And I am maybe really dense here, but I wasn't entirely sure what was going on with that last line with Gwen re: their relationship. I think I know what the actual status is, but the line was too fast or too cryptic for me and I am dumb.
You mean "Promises you can't keep are the best kind?" He's saying he knows he made a promise, but she's too important to him to keep that promise, even if it means she'll be at risk for being thrown off of a bridge and killed one day by a dude in a circus outfit.
I kinda thought that, but the problem is
following that train of logic, it is pretty selfish. Why not just have the movie point out that George got to have her and her brothers and mom while doing a similar job (the parallels were already established!) and that maybe people should trust her because she had already proven to be very capable and accepting of risk?
Because the payoff for Film 2 won't be as big.
Honestly, Film Critic Hulk talks an awful lot of shit about how the end of this movie means that he hasn't really changed, or learned anything. I think that's over selling it a little, but the whole idea is that it's Peter's choice to keep dating Gwen that gets her into the mess with the Green Goblin in the first place. I really don't see how you wouldn't end up cheapening an attempt to keep the promise at the end of this film and then just suddenly undo it 20 or 30 minutes into the next film just for the sake of the story. It may take away from Peter's development in this film, but frankly I'm pleased that they didn't try to sell me on something that's going to just be undone in the next flick anyway.
That's how I feel about it anyway. Maybe it's it's "unfair" to know where the inevitable sequel is going? Who knows, there's all this arcana involved with critiquing film that I don't get.
At the end of the day I think everybody needs to take step back and remember that the choice to date Peter is Gwens choice and only hers. It is not selfish of Peter date someone he likes and who knows what they are getting in to. It is however extremely condescending of Gwen's Father and of Peter to take the choice from her because she might be put in danger.
Aunt May knows he's Spider-Man by the end of the movie, right? Because I feel that was an awesome way to go. I love when Aunt May knows.
Oh, that scene in the end when Pete walks in covered in lizard marks sealed it for me. She just had this look of "You wonderful, foolish little bastard."
I kinda got that sense too.
And I am maybe really dense here, but I wasn't entirely sure what was going on with that last line with Gwen re: their relationship. I think I know what the actual status is, but the line was too fast or too cryptic for me and I am dumb.
You mean "Promises you can't keep are the best kind?" He's saying he knows he made a promise, but she's too important to him to keep that promise, even if it means she'll be at risk for being thrown off of a bridge and killed one day by a dude in a circus outfit.
I kinda thought that, but the problem is
following that train of logic, it is pretty selfish. Why not just have the movie point out that George got to have her and her brothers and mom while doing a similar job (the parallels were already established!) and that maybe people should trust her because she had already proven to be very capable and accepting of risk?
Because the payoff for Film 2 won't be as big.
Honestly, Film Critic Hulk talks an awful lot of shit about how the end of this movie means that he hasn't really changed, or learned anything. I think that's over selling it a little, but the whole idea is that it's Peter's choice to keep dating Gwen that gets her into the mess with the Green Goblin in the first place. I really don't see how you wouldn't end up cheapening an attempt to keep the promise at the end of this film and then just suddenly undo it 20 or 30 minutes into the next film just for the sake of the story. It may take away from Peter's development in this film, but frankly I'm pleased that they didn't try to sell me on something that's going to just be undone in the next flick anyway.
That's how I feel about it anyway. Maybe it's it's "unfair" to know where the inevitable sequel is going? Who knows, there's all this arcana involved with critiquing film that I don't get.
At the end of the day I think everybody needs to take step back and remember that the choice to date Peter is Gwens choice and only hers. It is not selfish of Peter date someone he likes and who knows what they are getting in to. It is however extremely condescending of Gwen's Father and of Peter to take the choice from her because she might be put in danger.
Let's be real, condescending or not, a straight laced dude like Captain Stacy is going to protect his little girl. The scene where he engages with her in the house when Peter's sitting tore up by the Lizard in her room as him interacting with her like she is daddy's little girl, and he gets flustered when she starts talking about her cramps (perfectly natural and calculated, but it's still worth noting). As for it not being selfish, um hi, actually that's exactly what it is: doing what you want instead of what someone else wants you to do. UNREASONABLY selfish? Perhaps not, but it absolutely *is* a selfish choice: he has as much power to go after her as she has to resist, and vice versa. That they choose to make him the one to step forward and say "I like you too much to keep my promise to your father" has some things to say about gender roles, but realistically, he's the hero. And the Gwen we see certainly seems to go with the flow- she protests when Peter doesn't show up to Capt. Stacy's funeral, but seems to fall in line after she has the epiphany; she totally avoids him at school. But when he suggests that he doesn't want to stop seeing her, her reaction is clearly positive; so she's a fairly passive character in all those scenes.
The point is that Film Critic Hulk has a reasonable argument about Peter's growth during the film. MY point is a) it's a trilogy, and I feel like it's actually interesting not to see a character that has completed his developmental arc after the very first film, and b) I think I prefer that their break up doesn't span the end of this film and the beginning of the next one: while it takes away from Peter's development, it means we don't have to sit down in the next film and throw out the ending anyway, since there's no place else for that relationship to go if it's going to be meaningful when the Green Goblin arrives.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I just personally can't see it being a possibility.
why?
I mean to you want a thesis or something? His acting style is overacting specific emotions to get a comedic effect Indont think he could transition to drama.
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
I'm kind of upset about this movie. they had spider-man, and it was good, then some suits ruined it while still making a bundle and that was fine because they can always reboot it.
would it have been that hard to make the last scene of spider man 3 be eddy brock in the church? no
1. The first two Spider-man movies are not very good.
2. If it had ended there then Spider-man 3 would have still been a terrible movie that would scare anyone from watching 4.
I'm kind of upset about this movie. they had spider-man, and it was good, then some suits ruined it while still making a bundle and that was fine because they can always reboot it.
would it have been that hard to make the last scene of spider man 3 be eddy brock in the church? no
1. The first two Spider-man movies are not very good.
2. If it had ended there then Spider-man 3 would have still been a terrible movie that would scare anyone from watching 4.
The first two are super fun and campy with fantastic antagonists (green goblin's suit is still dumb though)
See when I think fun I think jokes and levity and those movies are the opposite of that.
They are dry, campy and dry. And I posit that while the actors for both villains are fantastic both are written dumbly. One has absolutely no plan whatsoever and spends the entire movie trying to make the protagonist miserable for no reason and the other involves a sentient A.I. that takes over his head and makes him create a machine that will destroy the world(or New York, I forget).
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
By this thread's logic, as I have never been in a drama I am obviously an incredible actor but just have not been given the chance to truly shine.
I would have liked to have seen more of Webb's (500) Days of Summer visual style in this movie but, I mean, they aren't gonna let no music-video-slash-independent director go too off-the-rails with their big superhero property.
Man, I don't know how anyone can see Zombieland and not get Emma Stone.
Anyhow, I thought this was pretty good. The cast was superb, but I felt like the script was lacking.
The whole get powers - uncle dies - be a hero cause-and-effect seemed weirdly structured, like it was at some point we don't really see between when he's searching for his uncle's killer and when the Lizard shows up that he starts being a hero.
Spidey's snark was greatly appreciated, though.
re your spoiler
right before the lizard rips up the bridge, sheriff stacy is all "spider-man is just doing his own thing and not actually helping people" which makes peter think and then after chasing away the lizard on the bridge he sees a kid who needs help only he can give and he gives up on his instinct to chase the lizard in favor of actually helping people
is my take on it
I kind of like that, although
Like I said, they don't really show the realization. If what Captain Stacy said affected him, I think maybe a couple of lines with Gwen on the Balcony there would have helped. Something like "He's right about me. I only helped people because it helped me search for the guy that killed my uncle. But that's gonna change, now. I know Spider-Man can be a hero to everybody."
I actually liked how this was handled in a very simple exchange
When the dad on the bridge asks him "who are you?" he responds simply with "Spider-Man", a name we hadn't heard until that moment. And because of that, because neither the cops nor press get to brand him with that name, Peter has now set the standard for what it means to be Spider-Man; to embody that moral obligation to save and help everyone he possibly can.
Was Peter actually the first one to use the "Spider-Man" title in this movie though? I could have sworn that the cops were saying it prior to the bridge scene in a more sarcastic tone.
Aunt May knows he's Spider-Man by the end of the movie, right? Because I feel that was an awesome way to go. I love when Aunt May knows.
Oh, that scene in the end when Pete walks in covered in lizard marks sealed it for me. She just had this look of "You wonderful, foolish little bastard."
I kinda got that sense too.
And I am maybe really dense here, but I wasn't entirely sure what was going on with that last line with Gwen re: their relationship. I think I know what the actual status is, but the line was too fast or too cryptic for me and I am dumb.
You mean "Promises you can't keep are the best kind?" He's saying he knows he made a promise, but she's too important to him to keep that promise, even if it means she'll be at risk for being thrown off of a bridge and killed one day by a dude in a circus outfit.
I kinda thought that, but the problem is
following that train of logic, it is pretty selfish. Why not just have the movie point out that George got to have her and her brothers and mom while doing a similar job (the parallels were already established!) and that maybe people should trust her because she had already proven to be very capable and accepting of risk?
Because the payoff for Film 2 won't be as big.
Honestly, Film Critic Hulk talks an awful lot of shit about how the end of this movie means that he hasn't really changed, or learned anything. I think that's over selling it a little, but the whole idea is that it's Peter's choice to keep dating Gwen that gets her into the mess with the Green Goblin in the first place. I really don't see how you wouldn't end up cheapening an attempt to keep the promise at the end of this film and then just suddenly undo it 20 or 30 minutes into the next film just for the sake of the story. It may take away from Peter's development in this film, but frankly I'm pleased that they didn't try to sell me on something that's going to just be undone in the next flick anyway.
That's how I feel about it anyway. Maybe it's it's "unfair" to know where the inevitable sequel is going? Who knows, there's all this arcana involved with critiquing film that I don't get.
At the end of the day I think everybody needs to take step back and remember that the choice to date Peter is Gwens choice and only hers. It is not selfish of Peter date someone he likes and who knows what they are getting in to. It is however extremely condescending of Gwen's Father and of Peter to take the choice from her because she might be put in danger.
Let's be real, condescending or not, a straight laced dude like Captain Stacy is going to protect his little girl. The scene where he engages with her in the house when Peter's sitting tore up by the Lizard in her room as him interacting with her like she is daddy's little girl, and he gets flustered when she starts talking about her cramps (perfectly natural and calculated, but it's still worth noting). As for it not being selfish, um hi, actually that's exactly what it is: doing what you want instead of what someone else wants you to do. UNREASONABLY selfish? Perhaps not, but it absolutely *is* a selfish choice: he has as much power to go after her as she has to resist, and vice versa. That they choose to make him the one to step forward and say "I like you too much to keep my promise to your father" has some things to say about gender roles, but realistically, he's the hero. And the Gwen we see certainly seems to go with the flow- she protests when Peter doesn't show up to Capt. Stacy's funeral, but seems to fall in line after she has the epiphany; she totally avoids him at school. But when he suggests that he doesn't want to stop seeing her, her reaction is clearly positive; so she's a fairly passive character in all those scenes.
The point is that Film Critic Hulk has a reasonable argument about Peter's growth during the film. MY point is a) it's a trilogy, and I feel like it's actually interesting not to see a character that has completed his developmental arc after the very first film, and b) I think I prefer that their break up doesn't span the end of this film and the beginning of the next one: while it takes away from Peter's development, it means we don't have to sit down in the next film and throw out the ending anyway, since there's no place else for that relationship to go if it's going to be meaningful when the Green Goblin arrives.
Fine. Its not unreasonably selfish. Nor is it something Peter should be required to do.
Gwen leaving him alone after a break-up isn't being passive. Its not being a crazy stalker.
I'm not arguing against Film Hulks review as I have no interest in his opinions on the film. At least not enough to read through his gimmick. I'm just saying that Peter is completely within his rights for backing out of a promise like that and that he(and the Captain which isn't surprising) is treating her like a child or otherwise incapable of making her own decisions, when he breaks up with her only because she might be put in danger.
Man, I don't know how anyone can see Zombieland and not get Emma Stone.
Anyhow, I thought this was pretty good. The cast was superb, but I felt like the script was lacking.
The whole get powers - uncle dies - be a hero cause-and-effect seemed weirdly structured, like it was at some point we don't really see between when he's searching for his uncle's killer and when the Lizard shows up that he starts being a hero.
Spidey's snark was greatly appreciated, though.
re your spoiler
right before the lizard rips up the bridge, sheriff stacy is all "spider-man is just doing his own thing and not actually helping people" which makes peter think and then after chasing away the lizard on the bridge he sees a kid who needs help only he can give and he gives up on his instinct to chase the lizard in favor of actually helping people
is my take on it
I kind of like that, although
Like I said, they don't really show the realization. If what Captain Stacy said affected him, I think maybe a couple of lines with Gwen on the Balcony there would have helped. Something like "He's right about me. I only helped people because it helped me search for the guy that killed my uncle. But that's gonna change, now. I know Spider-Man can be a hero to everybody."
I actually liked how this was handled in a very simple exchange
When the dad on the bridge asks him "who are you?" he responds simply with "Spider-Man", a name we hadn't heard until that moment. And because of that, because neither the cops nor press get to brand him with that name, Peter has now set the standard for what it means to be Spider-Man; to embody that moral obligation to save and help everyone he possibly can.
Was Peter actually the first one to use the "Spider-Man" title in this movie though? I could have sworn that the cops were saying it prior to the bridge scene in a more sarcastic tone.
The press conference occurs after the bridge; leading up to that he is always "the spider guy", like at the Stacy's dinner table.
I would have liked to have seen more of Webb's (500) Days of Summer visual style in this movie but, I mean, they aren't gonna let no music-video-slash-independent director go too off-the-rails with their big superhero property.
Expectation: Uncle Ben lives
Reality: Uncle Ben is killed
if they had completely written out all the ending crap and just had it be black suit spiderman, sandman, and the movie ending with venom I think it would have been pretty good but that's just me
I would have liked to have seen more of Webb's (500) Days of Summer visual style in this movie but, I mean, they aren't gonna let no music-video-slash-independent director go too off-the-rails with their big superhero property.
Expectation: Uncle Ben lives
Reality: Uncle Ben is killed
Hahaha!
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
if they had completely written out all the ending crap and just had it be black suit spiderman, sandman, and the movie ending with venom I think it would have been pretty good but that's just me
It would have still featured the dance scene
those painful first scenes of Peter being a jerk.
A random fucking meteor just showing the fuck up out of no where.
i still dont understand how people can get mad at spider-man 3
it's like a modern day Batman '66 and it is wonderful
But it's not.
It just has the weirdest fucking tone.
The first two are campy movies.
The third was just bad. Like it wasn't campy. Batman 66 was.
It was Sam rami going fuck you for making me have a movie with venom in it. I had a perfectly serviceable script and now it's going to be fucked up because of you.
I don't mind sandman being the guy who killed uncle Ben from the perspective that he is supposed to be a sympathetic character and regrets it. That fails, but I don't dislike the concept.
Usually comedy actors can do drama really well though, as the old saying goes they're two sides of the same coin. I mean Jim Carey did well in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind plus Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell surprised me both with Reign Over Me and Stranger Than Fiction respectively.
Hitchcock was big on hiring comedic actors because comedy is harder to do well than drama; so if an actor is talented enough to do comedy well, then it's usually easier to get a dramatic performance out of them.
Dunno how applicable that is in the real world; just passing on the message from a dead man.
I'm holding out hope that since movies are not the same as the comics that they don't deal with Gwen's character the same way. I don't think I could see something like that happen to Emma Stone
Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer is a silly retcon meant to give Sandman and Spidy a personal ting between them. There are better ways to do that. It's dumb and gives the whole movie a weird feeling of deja vu.
Sandman being sympathetic is something they did in Spider-man 2 and at the same time it riffs on 1 feels a lot like a rehash of 2.
Posts
1. The first two Spider-man movies are not very good.
2. If it had ended there then Spider-man 3 would have still been a terrible movie that would scare anyone from watching 4.
I would like to see your actual reasons for holding this viewpoint.
because the dude hasn't really done any well known dramatic roles for you to point at and say "THERE, SEE" and, you know, good at comedy does not rule out good at drama.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
re your spoiler
I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I just personally can't see it being a possibility.
I kind of like that, although
why?
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
Dunno how applicable that is in the real world; just passing on the message from a dead man.
EDIT: Hey look, something Spider-Man related
I actually liked how this was handled in a very simple exchange
Honestly, Film Critic Hulk talks an awful lot of shit about how the end of this movie means that he hasn't really changed, or learned anything. I think that's over selling it a little, but the whole idea is that it's Peter's choice to keep dating Gwen that gets her into the mess with the Green Goblin in the first place. I really don't see how you wouldn't end up cheapening an attempt to keep the promise at the end of this film and then just suddenly undo it 20 or 30 minutes into the next film just for the sake of the story. It may take away from Peter's development in this film, but frankly I'm pleased that they didn't try to sell me on something that's going to just be undone in the next flick anyway.
That's how I feel about it anyway. Maybe it's it's "unfair" to know where the inevitable sequel is going? Who knows, there's all this arcana involved with critiquing film that I don't get.
The first two are super fun and campy with fantastic antagonists (green goblin's suit is still dumb though)
Satans..... hints.....
yep
The point is that Film Critic Hulk has a reasonable argument about Peter's growth during the film. MY point is a) it's a trilogy, and I feel like it's actually interesting not to see a character that has completed his developmental arc after the very first film, and b) I think I prefer that their break up doesn't span the end of this film and the beginning of the next one: while it takes away from Peter's development, it means we don't have to sit down in the next film and throw out the ending anyway, since there's no place else for that relationship to go if it's going to be meaningful when the Green Goblin arrives.
I mean to you want a thesis or something? His acting style is overacting specific emotions to get a comedic effect Indont think he could transition to drama.
1. BZZT
2. WEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOOWEEOOO
See when I think fun I think jokes and levity and those movies are the opposite of that.
They are dry, campy and dry. And I posit that while the actors for both villains are fantastic both are written dumbly. One has absolutely no plan whatsoever and spends the entire movie trying to make the protagonist miserable for no reason and the other involves a sentient A.I. that takes over his head and makes him create a machine that will destroy the world(or New York, I forget).
Satans..... hints.....
Congrats
We are the same person
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
Gwen leaving him alone after a break-up isn't being passive. Its not being a crazy stalker.
I'm not arguing against Film Hulks review as I have no interest in his opinions on the film. At least not enough to read through his gimmick. I'm just saying that Peter is completely within his rights for backing out of a promise like that and that he(and the Captain which isn't surprising) is treating her like a child or otherwise incapable of making her own decisions, when he breaks up with her only because she might be put in danger.
Expectation: Uncle Ben lives
Reality: Uncle Ben is killed
Hahaha!
Aw, crap.
We're going to have to deal with Judas fucking Traveler now, aren't we?
One of you, just get killed by a Goblin Glider quick, and save us all a lot of hassle.
Why I fear the ocean.
It would have still featured the dance scene
those painful first scenes of Peter being a jerk.
A random fucking meteor just showing the fuck up out of no where.
Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer.
And a nice guy just trying to help his daughter.
And just not very good at all.
Not when he gets the suit.
it's like a modern day Batman '66 and it is wonderful
Yeah there is
It's good through forever
But it's not.
It just has the weirdest fucking tone.
The first two are campy movies.
The third was just bad. Like it wasn't campy. Batman 66 was.
It was Sam rami going fuck you for making me have a movie with venom in it. I had a perfectly serviceable script and now it's going to be fucked up because of you.
I don't mind sandman being the guy who killed uncle Ben from the perspective that he is supposed to be a sympathetic character and regrets it. That fails, but I don't dislike the concept.
Satans..... hints.....
WAAAAAANT
including the rubber duckmobile from batman returns
if only it weren't 7 dollars
Sandman being sympathetic is something they did in Spider-man 2 and at the same time it riffs on 1 feels a lot like a rehash of 2.
but they are kinda obsessed with Peter Parker, a high school student, having to act mature for some reason?
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
If anything you should dislike him even more!
Satans..... hints.....
It's been over five years since I've seen it and I kinda don't wanna go back and relive it