Spider-Man 3 - UK-Exclusive DVD on Page 37

[Anarchistguy]

Originally Posted by Inner City Blues

Alas, Spider-Man 3 joins the other bad thirds:

Superman 3

Batman Forever

Blade Trinity

Terminator 3 (They should have never made it)

X-Men 3

Sad really.

You forgot TMNT 3

[bullet]

don't agree with spidey 3 being bad, let alone the worst...but matrix revolution was pretty bad imo.

[Peanut]

I just think people take all this sh*t waaaay to seriously. I was entertained as hell for the entire thing, that's really all I care about.

[gobo]

Damn straight, 'nut. After all the painfully convenient scenes in the first two, wasn't it to be expected?

[Cure]

Originally Posted by gobo

Damn straight, 'nut. After all the painfully convenient scenes in the first two, wasn't it to be expected?

Did you just call him " 'nut "?! ROFL!

[gobo]

You read that right.

[Revan]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I just think people take all this sh*t waaaay to seriously. I was entertained as hell for the entire thing, that's really all I care about.

Bullseye. And even now looking at the coincidences, I still don't care. the special effects looked like actual live footage.

And even though it was not 100% true to the comics or whatever, so what. It's a movie. Movies are rarely a piece for piece replica of the original work. It is what it is.

[Mr. Snackpants]

No ****...this movie is NOT horrible. I was disappointed my first time seeing it because my expectactions were too high. The second time I saw it I enjoyed it much more. How can a movie be horrible if it entertains you almost all the ways through? I liked this one better than 2, but 1 will always be my favorite.

[Zog the Equalizer]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Sure they could. They changed Sandman for pete's sake.

I didnt say they couldnt they just didnt need to.

[GK Punk]

Uh.. about Harry

Spoiler:

I thought his amnesia was more a reference to what happened to the original Green Goblin. In the comics, the exact same thing happened to Norman Osborne, untill something triggered his.. Insanity which made him remember that Peter Parker is Spidey. And in a similar way to how Harry blamed Spidey for his fathers death, Norman blamed Spidey for Harry's drug abuse problems.

and yeah, I agree I think people are taking these movies a little to seriously. This wasn't a bad movie by any means. It just wasn't as good as the other 2. But I still really enjoyed it.

Spoiler:

Except for the ending. Peter went back to a girl that he still thinks cheated on him? wtf. If I were him, I'd go see what Felicia Hardy or Kitty Pryde were up to.

[LogicDonny]

as long as you get your $$ worth at a movie, why all the b*tching. I mean sure it's not as comic as you want it to be but it's freaking spiderman and it's a movie. what else you want?

You can't expect Raimi to make you all happy. There will always be one or 2 people who will feel disapointed with a movie like this.

even the first one alot loved it and a few ppl hated it.

[OA]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I just think people take all this sh*t waaaay to seriously. I was entertained as hell for the entire thing, that's really all I care about.

I agree man...the whole movie was very enjoyable; the special effects awesome...I can't wait for 4...

[ZariusTwo]

It's a fad to bash popular movies or ones that go over the audience's heads. Spidey 3 at least forced people to rewatch it based on the last two's success, and now most that initially could'nt "get it" enjoy it tremendously now that they know what to expect.

HULK did'nt have that luxery, because it did'nt have prior success forcing people to rewatch a sequel to see if they were trying something different

And X-3 was'nt remotley bad, it's only labeled that because it took a p*ss on "Brian Almighty Singer"'s storylines from the first two, mistreated Scott more than Brian actually did, and told their own story than bother with it. Singer was a god-damn idiot leaving those films wide open and not having the commitment to follow through with a third just because of his love for Superman. He condemed any other film and director to unfair comparison and judgments.

Batman Forever was'nt bad either.

[Spike Spiegel]

I still haven't seen it, but I am sure it not as bad as I have heard. However, I am disappointed with

Spoiler:

the way Venom dies

[RaphistheBest]

Originally Posted by Marty McFly

I still haven't seen it, but I am sure it not as bad as I have heard. However, I am disappointed with

Spoiler:

the way Venom dies

I completely agree. Fan boys scream left and right about wanting Vemon and look what happens. There are also a lot of people that just like Vemon because he looks cool. Depressing .

[Inner City Blues]

I don't even care about the comics since I've never read any of them, I just thought it was a bad movie. I'm all about the storytelling and things were poorly developed and rushed throughout the movie. There is nothing wrong with coincidences in a movie. For instance, a man's son could be kidnapped and brainwashed by a guerrilla faction. The man is later caught and is about to be executed, the executioner coincidentally is the man's son. That makes for a great scene, will he pull the trigger?

Now in Spider-Man, there were always coincidences. They just drove the movie, and they were used to put characters together or pull them apart at every turn. The coincidences in Spider-Man didn't really bother me, but the use of plot devices like amnesia and such to conveniently ignore a character did. If it were part of the comic, I'd like to see it more effectively used.

[Warhorse]

Originally Posted by Inner City Blues

Spider-Man 3 was horrible. They put too many subplots in this movie and it prevented development at any level. The next big problem was they would do things to characters to take them out of the picture so they could focus on other things.

Spoiler:

They gave Harry amnesia for what? Oh, so we could ignore his character and then we could create scenes with Sandman. They wash Sandman away for what? Was this to show some sort of weakness to water? No, it was just done so they could have him gone when Harry just "snaps" out of his amnesia. And let's not forget the worst reveal, the butler comes in years later to tell Harry his father killed himself, this is after he face is blown off and he's tried to kill his friends. Couldn't he have saved time and just told him this earlier (perhaps at the end of the first movie)? Again it was a convenient scene so that Harry can "redeem" himself at the end.

I see you question Sandman, but what was the point of Sandman? I know, he's the criminal with a heart of gold. He's not a bad person, he just made some bad decisions. But in making him into Uncle Ben's killer, doesn't that just turn Peter Parker into a murderer? Doesn't that destroy the whole origin? I thought it was supposed to be Peter Parker letting a criminal go and this criminal kills his uncle. He had the power to stop someone and he chose not to because he wanted revenge (the guy not paying him his money). Wasn't the whole idea to show how Spider-Man started out seeking revenge (letting the guy go, then killing the guy) and then later realizing "with great power comes great responsibility"? Suddenly Sandman comes in, erases all of that learning and it becomes about revenge again. We've done this plot already.

And when Sandman is there, he just meanders around the movie forming sandstorms and constantly grunts. Somehow we're supposed to believe the character has depth because he looks at a locket. After killing however many people, he walks up to Peter Parker with tears in his eye saying he's sorry. Peter forgives him and he blows away. Okay, so what about all those banks he robbed? Where'd the money go? What about all those people's he's hurt and killed? Is it okay now because he was just trying to rob banks to help his sick daughter? Sandman was completely pointless, he was nothing more than a plot device to bring in the "dark side" of Spider-Man in his search for revenge. But we've already done vengeance.

I guess we can talk about the symbiote. Some people didn't like the meteor conveniently being there, I didn't see a problem. But I would ask why go through the trouble of introducing J. Jonah Jameson's son as an astronaut in the previous movie. Couldn't they have used that in the third movie, bringing back a space sample or something? I would also question why Jameson complete ignores the fact that Mary Jane left his son at the altar and is now with the freelance photographer for his paper. But back to the symbiote, it was in his apartment for how long? It was the same thing as Harry's amnesia and Sandman disappearing. The symbiote was sitting around doing nothing for a good portion of the movie before it attached.

And when the symbiote finally attached, you didn't really learn anything about the turmoil. You didn't learn anything about what it really did to him. Peter said he felt powerful, that really means nothing because he just looked and did things like Spider-Man in a black suit. The director seemed to think by having Dr. Conners phone in periodically, you are somehow learning about the symbiote. It's supposed to make Peter more aggressive (how did he learn this from the sample) and the movie takes this as Peter changing his hairstyle, winking at women, and gyrating his hips on the street.

And this just ties in with Brock. The character had such little face time the hatred for Peter Parker was just forced. There was no real emotional build to how he could completely be broken down. The audience laughed when he was asking Jesus to kill Peter Parker since it really comes out of left field. There was no development of Brock as Peter Parker's competition. And then he becomes Venom, who just happens to team up with Sandman out of nowhere. Somehow we're supposed to believe that Sandman just believes Brock when he says Spider-Man is against him helping his daughter. Sandman will just ignore the idea that people are trying to stop him for robbing banks, or his murder of Uncle Ben... nope, it's because they want his daughter to remain sick, Venom told me so.

Now the fight scenes in the movie were good, but the development of the characters was so poorly handled. There were many good scenes in the movie, but that was all. As standalones you could watch a scene and say it was good, but they were stitched together into a disjointed movie that allowed for nothing to develop. As I said before, they should have saved Venom for the fourth movie, it's ridiculous to do a movie about the black suit with Venom when you haven't had Eddie Brock in previous movies. You use the third movie to develop the rivalry between the two. The third movie should be about Harry and the symbiote. Make the great climax Spider-Man in the black suit fighting his friend and killing him (or almost killing him). Then you can have him get rid of the suit in the church. At the very end, Eddie gets the suit and becomes Venom. Show Venom in all his glory, roll the credits. I would have left fighting Venom and Sandman out.

The fourth movie could then be about fighting the symbiote that hates him along with Eddie Brock, someone else who hates him. And then you can serve all your fans with the line, "We are Venom." Nope, they wasted it by rushing a storyline that should have taken time to develop. It should have been developed the way they developed Harry into the Green Goblin.

Alas, Spider-Man 3 joins the other bad thirds:

Superman 3

Batman Forever

Blade Trinity

Terminator 3 (They should have never made it)

X-Men 3

Sad really.

You are so right about Terminator three. They took everything that made T2 one of the greatest action flicks, and stories of all time, and blew it apart. Everything. Personally, I pretend that T3 never happened. It was just a dream John Connors had!

[Spitfire]

Originally Posted by Inner City Blues

Spider-Man 3 was horrible. They put too many subplots in this movie and it prevented development at any level. The next big problem was they would do things to characters to take them out of the picture so they could focus on other things.

And someone took the time to type out pretty much all the issues I had with it. I couldn't agree with you more.

Maybe it is a fad to hate popular stuff but when people really don't like something they really don't. And you can't tell them their jumping on the band wagon simply because of that.

[Warhorse]

I thought Spider-Man moved too slow for me. But when the action was there, I liked it. But the drama in between really dragged.

But my big question is. I thought that the astronaut from the second one was going to be Venom in this one? And why was that Sandman in there? I think the movie would have been fine without his introduction. I hate this, we think they are villains, but in the end, they had their reasons and they are really not such bad guys after all, just caught in bad situations.

I think a villain is far more convincing, and the fights more thrilling, when the villain is truly evil.

Like the Shredder!

[Peanut]

The Shredder is a joke compared to the Green Goblin or Doc Ock. Don't even bring that up.