Spider-Man 3 [may contain spoilers]

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Aside from BLATANLTLY trying to tie in the new character, the death (as the catalyst for Peter's change) worked BECAUSE it was random violence, something he could've prevented if he'd just reached out.

I've been thinking about this one a lot in the last couple of days because it was the real thing that bothered me the most about the movie. But now I'm starting to wonder...isn't it still, technically, random violence? Isn't it STILL something he could have prevented if he'd grabbed that guy instead of letting him run past with the money?

I mean, the circumstances change slightly, but Peter STILL could have prevented his Uncle's death by stopping the first guy. Especially since, from the way Sandman was talking, he was actually listening to Ben and pretty much ready to just drop the gun and leave.

I dunno, maybe it does change it, but the thing about Spidey is that, while Uncle Ben's death is the catalyst that gets things going for him...its not the real event, if you ask me. The real event that triggers how Spidey acts, to me, was already left out of the movies. I've always felt like it was Gwen Stacey's death that was the thing that really set him into his ways, while Uncle Ben's death just put him on the path.

 

[Someone]

I can suspend my disbelief so far, even if it's a superhero movie.

[sblock]A meteorite falling so close of spiderman, carrying a tailor-alien was a hit. The guy that killed his uncle falling into an ongoing, non-watched experiment and becoming a supevillian was another, big one. The guy that got his life ruined by Parker killed it. Everything else then just gathered around the corpse and continued beating it.[/sblock]

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Intersting, well-thought out points, AMG.
And I think I kinda agree about the Gwen Stacey death. (Do you read "Ultimate SPider Man"? Well worht the look for a new take on the established series.)

But I still feel that Uncle Ben's death needs to be ISOLATED from the "Spidey VIllians/Mythos". It gives it that much more of an emotional punch. By tying it in, even peripherally, to the "Mythos", it makes it all seem that much more re-meditated and "connected", which is, IMO, a big mistake.

And, movie-wise, it just felt completely "tacked on" to integrate the new character.

 

[frankthedm]

I though it was well known Rami did not like venom. I went in expecting the portrayal to be really rotten and felt we were lucky to get what we got..

The thing that ticked me off the most, though?
The ret-conning of Uncle Ben's death.
Aside from BLATANLTLY trying to tie in the new character, the death (as the catalyst for Peter's change) worked BECAUSE it was random violence, something he could've prevented if he'd just reached out.

By tying Sandman in to the death, you rob the whole event of it's emotional punch WRT Spidey. AND then you make the killer sympathetic? WTF?

Totally agree. His entire superhero career was based on making up for that one bad decision of his own. Uncle Ben’s death is supposed be what drives Peter because his choice made all the difference. Parker is sane and chooses to do what he does to make up for that . He was not sent on a life long vengeance quest by having his parents shot while he stood helplessly by. He is making amends for his own mistake.

 

[JRR_Talking]

not a great movie, but i was expecting this after all the reviews

was betta than reviews made it out to be

some good 5 or 6 comedy moments (bruce, spiderman boots, JJ blood pressure, john travolta, etc)

final fight was good.

spidey CGI was pretty bad, everyone else was ok

Awesome trailer for fantastic four though!!

John

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

BATMAN & ROBIN is the really bad George Clooney one, with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Uma Thurman. And SPIDERMAN 3 is its 10-year-delayed identical twin.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Too much on Peter's and Mary Jane's life, who cares, I don't know why Mary Jane has such a big role in the movie, we want Black Cat action!

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I can suspend my disbelief so far, even if it's a superhero movie.

[sblock]AThe guy that killed his uncle falling into an ongoing, non-watched experiment and becoming a supervillian was another, big one.[/sblock]

Now, to be fair, high-energy weird physics experiments in the Marvel Universe are historically poorly-monitored and badly-designed. This is how many superheroes and supervillains get their powers, and it's a nice thing that the movies reflect that.

Of course, it'd be nice if the science was at all close to being real (I'm looking at you, "drowning the fusion reaction" in Spider-Man 2).

Brad

 

[Desdichado]

Isn't this the thread for spoilers? Anyway, I'm not blacking anything out; that's too much trouble in a thread where the title specifically warns of spoilers.

-Lets get this out of the way, far too much crying and singing in this movie. Heck Spiderman did a musical number.

So? Granted, I'm a big fan of musicals from the 40s, 50s and 60s, but given Mary Jane's desire to be an actress on Broadway, it's not at all like this was gratuitious singing. I thought it fit the storyline quite well.

-They definately rushed the venom storyline. This really should have stayed two movies. People, non comic book fans, left the movie theater wondering "what that black thing was". It was never explained what venom's powers was and why he would have wanted revenge against peter parker.

I'll agree that Venom was a bit rushed, but--uh, excuse me? Why does Venom want revenge against Peter Parker? Is it somehow possible that you fell asleep during all the Eddie Brock scenes? There were a ton of them; it was one of the main story strands that was developed almost from the get-go. If you're talking about the suit wanting revenge, you're projecting. The suit was not sentient in the movie. The revenge angle was all about Brock.

I'm going to skip two of your complaints about plot contrivances which--honestly, aren't any more contrived than several in the earlier movies, and certainly less contrived than the original source material on which this movie is based.

-Instead of using Dr. Conner to identify the symbiote's weakness, they instead have Peter coincodently decide to take off his spiderman suit in the church. He doesn't know that sound hurts it yet, so its amazing when bell rings and he realizes it is in pain. Why is Spiderman stripping in public. Also, they never say that the suit is hard to take off. As a matter of fact, we see spider take off the suit twice, so it got real confusing when he tries to take it off in the church and it doesnt want to go.

I'm left again wondering if you had to have fallen asleep during some key moments in the film. Dr. Conner's specifically warned Peter early on that if you allowed symbiotic creatures to bond with you that it could be difficult to unbond. So when Peter--after having accepted and used the suit extensively--has trouble taking it off, that was all foreshadowed earlier. Not confusing at all.

As for why he was in the church taking if off; that's because he was up on the bell tower of the church when he decided that the suit needed to go. A nice coincidence, but not a plot whole; just a coincidence.

- There's no intro scene between Eddie Brock and Venom, which is a classic comic book introduction. Actually, no one ever calls this thing venom. It never has a name.

Whoop de doo? Am I to understand that several of your complaints are now that that the movie doesn't resemble the comic books enough? I refer you back to Spiderman and Spiderman 2 to recalibrate your expectations.

- The jump the shark moment was when the green goblin, whom had tried to kill Peter twice so far in the movie, and had just had half of his face blown off by Peter, decides to help spiderman take out sandman and Venom. Forget the comic book history here, As far as this movie goes, Venom has a better chance of helping out spiderman than the green goblin[/quote]
I'm not even 100% sure what your complaint here is, but it sounds vaguely like more fanboi "d00d, they got it all wrong!" stuff again. I think you're projecting characterizations from the comic book characters onto the movie characters even though the movie characters never indicated the motivations that you were expecting. I thought Harry's switch made perfect sense, in terms of how his character had been portrayed and developed over three movies. Sure; it wasn't the comic book Harry, but so flippin' what?

-MInor gripe- did anyone notice how they changed up the green goblin mask. This is a hollywood thing where they want as much of the actors face to show as possible. Thus we kept seeing Topher Grace's face as he was venom. Everytime he talked we had to see Togher Grace. It began to get annoying

No, it didn't.

-Too much too soon. They could have done this whole movie with just the sandman being the villian and it would have come across so much better and simpler. Instead they kept switching between so many scenes and cuts.

This is the only one where I sorta agree with you; they tried to do a bit too much here. Sandman--being the least interesting villain of the three, having no obvious connection to the storyline going on with the other two (the redemption/forgiveness theme with Harry dovetails nicely with the black suit slash Venom storyline IMO, but felt really forced with Sandman) and having a weak retcon type introduction into the story in the first place makes him the obvious cut to me. I'd have been happier if they had decided that if they really need to show Sandman that they did it in a big opening action sequence, not unlike a James Bond movie, just to show that Spiderman does indeed fight supervillains other than just what the movies demonstrate. Give the setting a little depth, give us a nice action sequence, a little fanservice for comic book guys who want to see more supervillains on film, but don't tie him integrally to the rest of the plot and don't have him reappear.

Also, the Venom deally felt rushed. I think less Sandman means we could have seen more Venom. He's the one who felt sorta like an add-on here.

 

[DonTadow]

Isn't this the thread for spoilers? Anyway, I'm not blacking anything out; that's too much trouble in a thread where the title specifically warns of spoilers.

So? Granted, I'm a big fan of musicals from the 40s, 50s and 60s, but given Mary Jane's desire to be an actress on Broadway, it's not at all like this was gratuitious singing. I thought it fit the storyline quite well.

How does a musical fit into a superhero story. I"ve never seen a superman that has him chasing down non-plot storylines. This was badly out of place, especially how mary jane sings two songs. One badly on purpose. Why are we subjected to that. Thiscould have easily been written out and she referred to it in a newspaper article the next day.

I'll agree that Venom was a bit rushed, but--uh, excuse me? Why does Venom want revenge against Peter Parker? Is it somehow possible that you fell asleep during all the Eddie Brock scenes? There were a ton of them; it was one of the main story strands that was developed almost from the get-go. If you're talking about the suit wanting revenge, you're projecting. The suit was not sentient in the movie. The revenge angle was all about Brock.

A bit? Venom was in 20 minutes of the movie. Eddie Brock wanted revenge from the venom but because things wer eso rushed, we don't get to know that the suit has thoughts of its own. Because they decided not to develop venom, it left a lot of people wondering what that black thing was.

And this is where we disagree. Doc conners said that the suit was sentient. So which is it. Is the suit sentient or not. Who cares lets steel some more special effects from the Mummy.

I'm going to skip two of your complaints about plot contrivances which--honestly, aren't any more contrived than several in the earlier movies, and certainly less contrived than the original source material on which this movie is based.

Outside of the batman movies, where has such crazy, unexplained coincidences happened. The previous spidermans did a lot to explain, even if its star trek science, how the powers were gained. Here we get a suit on a magical meteor, an important, dangerous science experiment guarded by a six foot gate, scientists doing an experiment and don't get alarmed that a 200 lbs bird just flew into their experiment and someone going into a church in the middle of the day to ask god to kill someone.

I'm left again wondering if you had to have fallen asleep during some key moments in the film. Dr. Conner's specifically warned Peter early on that if you allowed symbiotic creatures to bond with you that it could be difficult to unbond. So when Peter--after having accepted and used the suit extensively--has trouble taking it off, that was all foreshadowed earlier. Not confusing at all.

Take the spiderman name off of this movie and I guarantee it lands in your top 10, I think the name and pretty graphics is causing you to stretch and reach for answers for an inexplicable laughable plot. I think you missed my point entirely. Spiderman never had a problem taking the suit off the entire movie.
PLus spiderman has no knowledge of it being vunerable to sound. This is one of the many places that the writers got lazy. Doc Conners could have easily said, hey pete, this thing doesnt seem to like loud noises. That would have taken one line and been more plausible than............

As for why he was in the church taking if off; that's because he was up on the bell tower of the church when he decided that the suit needed to go. A nice coincidence, but not a plot whole; just a coincidence.

How many buildings in new york. millions probably. He happens to be on a church. And not just a church but one with a bell. but a bell that he clumsily hits. A bell no one is alarmed at for ringing at an odd hour. And the only person whom heres Peter parker over the loud bell is his rival eddie brock whom just happens to be there, praying for his death... in that church.. where there are thousands at in new york. That has a bell.

Whoop de doo? Am I to understand that several of your complaints are now that that the movie doesn't resemble the comic books enough? I refer you back to Spiderman and Spiderman 2 to recalibrate your expectations.

No my main complaint is that both of the other movies pullled as much from the comics as possible. This movie seemed to make things up as it went, rewrite whatever history that either the comic or its own movie history made for the sake of needing a plot device. Rewriting ben's death, that really takes away from the first movie and spidey's motivations. I suggest you watch the first two movies and compare the plot to this one. HOw many 'absurd coincidences can you find'.

I'm not even 100% sure what your complaint here is, but it sounds vaguely like more fanboi "d00d, they got it all wrong!" stuff again. I think you're projecting characterizations from the comic book characters onto the movie characters even though the movie characters never indicated the motivations that you were expecting. I thought Harry's switch made perfect sense, in terms of how his character had been portrayed and developed over three movies. Sure; it wasn't the comic book Harry, but so flippin' what?

Again, not a fanboy, actually hate spiderman becauase hes such a quitter and marvels universe is not something I enjoy. But of course yo uresult to name calling because you are listing every coincidence in this movie and probably thinking "gee it is a lot of stupid stuff". I"m talking solely about the movies history. For 3 movies the green goblin has hated peter. For mos 120 minutes in this movie the green goblin (harry) has been trying to kill peter. 15 minutes ago, peter parker burned off half of the green goblins face. Now, just take these motivations, and this is within this movie. Why on earth is the green goblin helping out spider man. WAs it because of the convenient memory regain of the butler. Where the heck did Harry's father, whom is haunting him go. And what about the effects of the syrum, that was said in the first one to be the cause of the delusions and the craziness.

No, it didn't.

Watch the movie again, all but once when venom speaks, He takes the venom mask off.

This is the only one where I sorta agree with you; they tried to do a bit too much here. Sandman--being the least interesting villain of the three, having no obvious connection to the storyline going on with the other two (the redemption/forgiveness theme with Harry dovetails nicely with the black suit slash Venom storyline IMO, but felt really forced with Sandman) and having a weak retcon type introduction into the story in the first place makes him the obvious cut to me. I'd have been happier if they had decided that if they really need to show Sandman that they did it in a big opening action sequence, not unlike a James Bond movie, just to show that Spiderman does indeed fight supervillains other than just what the movies demonstrate. Give the setting a little depth, give us a nice action sequence, a little fanservice for comic book guys who want to see more supervillains on film, but don't tie him integrally to the rest of the plot and don't have him reappear.

Also, the Venom deally felt rushed. I think less Sandman means we could have seen more Venom. He's the one who felt sorta like an add-on here.

I don't walk the fence., kinda, a bit. Those are words you use when you can't make a stance. Thsi was two movies that they crammed into 1.5 hours and ruined because of it. It took ten years, but batman and robin finally ha a companion. I just wanted a good movie. Sandman was a far more compelling villian in this movie than the roll d100 random venom encounter.

Of course, my opinion depends on why you go to the movie. I like a good plot. The special effects are secondary and are only interesting if the plot moves into them well, which didn't happen here. I have a high-end graphics card in my computer, I can get all the pretty CGI I want on any countless number of games. I like a movie to give me a good that makes me enjoy the protagnist and hate the antagonist. Not laugh anytime either comes on the screen.