Spider-Man 3 [may contain spoilers]

[Desdichado]

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.

It wasn't a non-plot storyline. MJ's failure at her career while Spidey's suddenly on top of the world for the first time ever was crucial to the plot. Peter's obliviousness to MJ's predicament is a integral to 1) allowing Harry to engineer their breakup as part of his "revenge agenda", 2) allow Peter to end up with Gwen Stacy, without which the Eddie Brock story dies before it even starts, and 3) is a crucial reason why Peter starts obssessively wearing the black suit.

Granted, they didn't have to show the songs--that's an aesthetic decision which clearly you don't like. However, you could argue that without it, the whole MJ/Peter falling out--which was really, really integral to the plot--was a major plot hole.

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.

Who was wondering that? My wife--and all the wives of all the friends we went to see it with--had no idea of any of the history of Venom, and they thought it was incredibly obvious what "that black thing" was.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about; you're assuming a priori that the suit does have thoughts of it's own and that the movie let us down by not telling us that; I'm saying that if the movie doesn't tell us that, then in the movie's reality it ain't true. In which case, Venom's desire for revenge is not at all unexplained--as you claim--because in the movie's reality, the suit does not have motivation per se, it's just a parasitic creature that is drawn to strong emotions. Eddie Brock certainly had those in spades.

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.

Hmm.. I had forgotten that he said that. Still, I interpreted that to mean that the suit was able to respond to some basic stimulus around it... i.e., it recognized Peter as it's host and was drawn towards him. There's nothing in the movie that would lead you to the comic book scenario where Brock is essentially having conversations in his head with the suit, for instance. The movie suit just ain't that guy.

As for stolen special effects from the Mummy--wtf?!

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.

Pshaw! The very core of the Spidey mythology through the movies was the idea that some highly valuable eugenically engineered spider was wandering around free--nobody noticed it, and it happened to land on Peter and bite him, giving him Spidey powers. That's a doozy beyond the example you give. How about Green Goblin knowing exactly when and where his rival was going to be conducting secret tests in a hidden bunker with the military brass, so he could go blow them up?

Those kinds of coincidences are all over the freakin' place in all comic book movies. I'm honestly surprised that you're apparently trying to say that the meteor fall was somehow beyond the pale of what had already happened just in the Spiderman series alone.

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.

Huh?! So, without the Spiderman name it's a much better movie? I don't understand what you're saying. If you think I'm just falling in line because it's Spiderman and that's the only reason I liked it, you have no reason whatsoever for thinking that, since I haven't even said what I think of the other movies, or about Spiderman as a whole. That's a completely absurd assertion to make about what I would think if the movie were somehow exactly as it is yet not Spiderman.

I think you missed my point entirely. Spiderman never had a problem taking the suit off the entire movie.

No, I didn't miss yours at all; you missed mine. The other times he took of the suit, he'd only worn it briefly. This time--although we aren't shown a calendar or anything--we're led to believe he's been using it nonstop for a very long time; days at least, more likely weeks. So yeah--it's harder for him to take off now, because it's had a chance to bond with him. Exactly as Dr. Connor's foreshadowed.

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............

Yes, that would have been better. HOWEVER, as I said, the plot doesn't need for Peter to know that. It's set up so that he accidentally discovers it while in the church. You seem to think that that's a coincidence that you can't accept as likely, but I don't know why not. If Peter Parker suddenly realizes that he's been acting like a prick, why not go to a church, sit in the steeple since you're freakin' Spiderman, and think about it? People go to church for exactly that kind of thing all the time.

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.

Yeah, sure--I 100% agree on the Sandman/Uncle Ben connection. That's my biggest complaint with the movie.

I suggest you watch the first two movies and compare the plot to this one. HOw many 'absurd coincidences can you find'.

Thanks for the suggestion but as it turns out my wife and I watched both the movies on DVD just last weekend, thankyouverymuch.

As for how many absurd coincidences--there are plenty as I already stated. Maybe you should watch them again yourself.

Again, not a fanboy, actually hate spiderman becauase hes such a quitter and marvels universe is not something I enjoy.

For someone who "hates Spiderman" you seem to be taking it awfully personally when the movies deviate a little bit from the comic book tradition. In particular about the details of who Venom is.

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".

Yes, I'm sure that's it.

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.

Maybe you didn't notice it--even though it was rather hamfistedly delivered as the last line of the movie in a Peter Parker voiceover--but the theme of this movie was that it's the choices we make that define us. Harry overcame the effects of the syrum, the last several months of hating Spiderman, and even his anger at having his face blown up by Spiderman (by a bomb that he threw at Spiderman, I notice you conveniently leave out) because 1) he finally comes to realize that he's been wrong all this time about Peter, and 2) because he's a decent person who's able to overcome his darker side. Like I said; that was kinda the theme of the whole movie, after all.

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

No, you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying anything at all about how often they did or didn't do it, I'm saying that it didn't get annoying.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Rewriting ben's death, that really takes away from the first movie and spidey's motivations.

Flint was ready to walk away and not shoot Ben or steal his car. If Peter had stopped his partner back at the wrestling match, Uncle Ben would still be alive. Same scenario as before, with a twist. Doesn't diminish his sense of responsibility, but he was able to finally forgive himself and not obsess over it like a certain longjohn wearing bat-eared guy.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

It suffered from too many villians; Sandman, Venom, and Spiderman for a period. And the bangs and sour attitude made him seem like a sullen teen, not a menace. It was fun, but Spiderman II was a better movie.

 

[DonTadow]

It wasn't a non-plot storyline. MJ's failure at her career while Spidey's suddenly on top of the world for the first time ever was crucial to the plot. Peter's obliviousness to MJ's predicament is a integral to 1) allowing Harry to engineer their breakup as part of his "revenge agenda", 2) allow Peter to end up with Gwen Stacy, without which the Eddie Brock story dies before it even starts, and 3) is a crucial reason why Peter starts obssessively wearing the black suit.

Granted, they didn't have to show the songs--that's an aesthetic decision which clearly you don't like. However, you could argue that without it, the whole MJ/Peter falling out--which was really, really integral to the plot--was a major plot hole.

Cool, we both agree that showing the musical stuff was a waste of time. I don't think you really can argue that without the musical crap the plot would have disappeared. The first scene with the two, she's talking about how important her debut is, seeing the bad review in the paper and the canning on the phone. Thats 15 minutes right there for more important plot development.

Who was wondering that? My wife--and all the wives of all the friends we went to see it with--had no idea of any of the history of Venom, and they thought it was incredibly obvious what "that black thing" was.

Apparently your friends are in the minority, as sony has now put a bio of venom on the website after others complained what the heck was that black thing. Many people in our audience walked out asking what was that thing. I actually enjoyed the movie slightly more (thus a solid 3 instead of 2) because of my familiarity with the comic book.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about; you're assuming a priori that the suit does have thoughts of it's own and that the movie let us down by not telling us that; I'm saying that if the movie doesn't tell us that, then in the movie's reality it ain't true. In which case, Venom's desire for revenge is not at all unexplained--as you claim--because in the movie's reality, the suit does not have motivation per se, it's just a parasitic creature that is drawn to strong emotions. Eddie Brock certainly had those in spades.

As for stolen special effects from the Mummy--wtf?!

Most of the sand effects, which were the best in the movie, were seen in the mummy, mummy 2 and scorpion king. It was nice, but not innovative like the previous two movies.
Pshaw! The very core of the Spidey mythology through the movies was the idea that some highly valuable eugenically engineered spider was wandering around free--nobody noticed it, and it happened to land on Peter and bite him, giving him Spidey powers. That's a doozy beyond the example you give. How about Green Goblin knowing exactly when and where his rival was going to be conducting secret tests in a hidden bunker with the military brass, so he could go blow them up?

Those kinds of coincidences are all over the freakin' place in all comic book movies. I'm honestly surprised that you're apparently trying to say that the meteor fall was somehow beyond the pale of what had already happened just in the Spiderman series alone.

Maybe if you're reading 60s and 70s origins. But, we're talkinga bout this movies history, and this movie series as tried hard to move away from the campy nonsensical explanations for powers. Spiderman's origin scene was a nice 15 to 20 minute setup with a firm techno explnation that put you in the movie. Seven guards chasing a supposed excaped killer who escapes them by climbing a fence is not treating your audience as if they are intelligent.

Huh?! So, without the Spiderman name it's a much better movie? I don't understand what you're saying. If you think I'm just falling in line because it's Spiderman and that's the only reason I liked it, you have no reason whatsoever for thinking that, since I haven't even said what I think of the other movies, or about Spiderman as a whole. That's a completely absurd assertion to make about what I would think if the movie were somehow exactly as it is yet not Spiderman.

It would wind up in your top 10 worst movies of all time is what that should say. I was in another forum and we were talking about the top ten movies and I was thinking when i wrote this of how spiderman 3 creeps real close to mine.
No, I didn't miss yours at all; you missed mine. The other times he took of the suit, he'd only worn it briefly. This time--although we aren't shown a calendar or anything--we're led to believe he's been using it nonstop for a very long time; days at least, more likely weeks. So yeah--it's harder for him to take off now, because it's had a chance to bond with him. Exactly as Dr. Connor's foreshadowed.

Yes, that would have been better. HOWEVER, as I said, the plot doesn't need for Peter to know that. It's set up so that he accidentally discovers it while in the church. You seem to think that that's a coincidence that you can't accept as likely, but I don't know why not. If Peter Parker suddenly realizes that he's been acting like a prick, why not go to a church, sit in the steeple since you're freakin' Spiderman, and think about it? People go to church for exactly that kind of thing all the time.

Common sense does. Again, treat the audience like their intelligent. A plot should flow, not have hand waved places. This was just awful plot movement/railroading.

As for how many absurd coincidences--there are plenty as I already stated. Maybe you should watch them again yourself.

I did, right before i went to see the movie I watched the dvd from 6 to 10. Again, two smart movies, very good explanations and good story emmersion.

For someone who "hates Spiderman" you seem to be taking it awfully personally when the movies deviate a little bit from the comic book tradition. In particular about the details of who Venom is.

I don't care if they deviate from the comic book. Heck, I would have been satified with the cartoon origin of the astronaut ship. All movies will not be like their book origins. . I hate when they deviate from their own continuity. Doc Conners says the suit is sentient, but they don't do anything with that. We're forced to treat venom like a 50s blob movie, but even those movies tried to explain the blobs motivations. Usually, a good movie will try to hide a plot device, weave it into the plot so that the audience never sees it. This thing they put a big fat sign on top of with an arrow pointing to it that said plot device.

Maybe you didn't notice it--even though it was rather hamfistedly delivered as the last line of the movie in a Peter Parker voiceover--but the theme of this movie was that it's the choices we make that define us. Harry overcame the effects of the syrum, the last several months of hating Spiderman, and even his anger at having his face blown up by Spiderman (by a bomb that he threw at Spiderman, I notice you conveniently leave out) because 1) he finally comes to realize that he's been wrong all this time about Peter, and 2) because he's a decent person who's able to overcome his darker side. Like I said; that was kinda the theme of the whole movie, after all.

Yeah, but that negates a major plot of the first movie, which is the syrum was near impossible to escape from. Remember, his father had the same advice. that peter was not the cause of all his problems. Harry just decides at the speed of plot that its a good idea to stop trying to kill him. Maybe if they take out spidey's last fight scene with harry and cut out the silly pie eating taking marry jane story, the turnaround would have been much more palatable. I kept hoping that at the end harry would attack peter because he wanted to kill spiderman himself. Instead we get some wondertwin team up.

No, you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying anything at all about how often they did or didn't do it, I'm saying that it didn't get annoying.

Thats just a difference of movie going. I don't care about the name of the movie. For a movie, this movie was awful. If you like spiderman you probably like it a bit more.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Maybe if you're reading 60s and 70s origins. But, we're talkinga bout this movies history, and this movie series as tried hard to move away from the campy nonsensical explanations for powers...

I'm going to jump in the middle of all this to ask: are you saying a nuclear fusion experiment conducted in a Manhattan apartment is less campy or nonsensical than falling into some molecular sand experiment in the middle of nowhere? How about a lab full of genetically altered spiders that can permanently transmit their powers to people?

These movies have been campy from the start. Granted, a lot of the campiness is tongue-in-cheek, and really shows that Raimi never took himself too seriously, but I would say that's been part of the charm and allure of the movies from the get-go.

Many of your other complaints I get; this one I don't. Yes, the movie had some problems. I don't think campiness was one of them, though.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm going to jump in the middle of all this to ask: are you saying a nuclear fusion experiment conducted in a Manhattan apartment is less campy or nonsensical than falling into some molecular sand experiment in the middle of nowhere? How about a lab full of genetically altered spiders that can permanently transmit their powers to people?

These movies have been campy from the start. Granted, a lot of the campiness is tongue-in-cheek, and really shows that Raimi never took himself too seriously, but I would say that's been part of the charm and allure of the movies from the get-go.

Many of your other complaints I get; this one I don't. Yes, the movie had some problems. I don't think campiness was one of them, though.

Yes I am.

There wasbuild up and explanation of why the event ws held there. They went through good story movements of explaining (techno babble) what the machine did. This is at least giving your audience credit.

In this movie they just plopped down the device to create the villian. A little effort goes a long way into making the audence apart of the movie

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Yes I am.

There wasbuild up and explanation of why the event ws held there. They went through good story movements of explaining (techno babble) what the machine did. This is at least giving your audience credit.

In this movie they just plopped down the device to create the villian. A little effort goes a long way into making the audence apart of the movie

Ok, I see what you're saying. Basically, you were disappointed that it was rushed, correct? (Just so I'm not putting words in your mouth). I can agree with that. But I think it's a different problem then what I was talking about. All the techno-babble in the world doesn't explain the plain nonsense of conducting a nuclear experiment in one of the most populous areas in the world. If anything, it makes it more campy.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

We're forced to treat venom like a 50s blob movie, but even those movies tried to explain the blobs motivations.

They never explained the Blob's motivations in either the Blob or the Son of the Blob (aka Beware! The Blob). Unless you count "it likes to eat people" as motivation, in which case we got at least as much (IMO, more) information on the Venom symbiote in this movie.

 

[DonTadow]

They never explained the Blob's motivations in either the Blob or the Son of the Blob (aka Beware! The Blob). Unless you count "it likes to eat people" as motivation, in which case we got at least as much (IMO, more) information on the Venom symbiote in this movie.

Those 50 movies always has that one scene where the scientists try to gauge where it came from and why it eats people. Then they get eaten, but they've introduced the audience to the theories.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Those 50 movies always has that one scene where the scientists try to gauge where it came from and why it eats people. Then they get eaten, but they've introduced the audience to the theories.

What part of Doc Connors' analysis of the symbiote didn't give us the same information?