# Spider-Man 3 [may contain spoilers]



## Goodsport (Apr 29, 2007)

The 2007 summer movie season kicks off on Friday, May 4th. 


-G


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 30, 2007)

I've got my Spidey 3 IMAX tickets reserved for the 5th.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 30, 2007)

I am just not getting up for Spider-Man, I am sure it will be fantastic action and visuals but it's a pirates life for me, then there is Harry and Stardust yet to come.  

Is is possible to be burned out for big summer movies?


----------



## sckeener (Apr 30, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Is is possible to be burned out for big summer movies?




Nah...it is just possible to get sick from all the popcorn.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2007)

I feel like it's going to be slim pickin's this summer.  Very interested in Spider-Man 3, though .. I feel like the trailers have shown all of the relevant plot points.  Not interested in Pirates or Harry Potter or Shreck or Fantastic Four.  Can't think of what else is coming out...


----------



## Umbran (Apr 30, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Can't think of what else is coming out...




A short list...

Spider Man 3 - May 4
Shrek the Third - May 18
Pirates of the Carribean 3 - May 25
Fantastic Four 2 - June 15
Ratatouille - June 29
Transformers - July 4
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - July 13
Underdog - August 3
Stardust - August 10


----------



## DonTadow (Apr 30, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I feel like it's going to be slim pickin's this summer.  Very interested in Spider-Man 3, though .. I feel like the trailers have shown all of the relevant plot points.  Not interested in Pirates or Harry Potter or Shreck or Fantastic Four.  Can't think of what else is coming out...



LOL Man that's everything. This is going to be a much better summer than last year, even if it is all sequel prone.  
FF looks great
Shreck looks good
Pirates is going to be awesom
Spiderman looks good
Halloween remake will finally pull together the mythos with the original story

I"m sure there are a couple others that are slipping me, but this is going to be better than the gladiator summer (the summer where a whole lot of good movies came out, one of them was gladiator)


----------



## mmadsen (Apr 30, 2007)

*Spider Man 3 - May 4*
The first two have been solid.

*Shrek the Third - May 18*
I'm not a huge fan of the first two, but I assume the third will be worth watching.

*Pirates of the Carribean 3 - May 25*
I really hope the third movie is better than the second, but I fear it will continue the sequel-escalation -- everything's got to be bigger with more special effects!  Sigh.

*Fantastic Four 2 - June 15*
I did not see the first movie -- it looked awful -- but the trailers for this one have caught my eye.

*Ratatouille - June 29*
_Bien sur_, I will see the next Pixar movie.  How could I not?

*Transformers - July 4*
No, thank you.

*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - July 13*
The Harry Potter films always include plenty of good CGI and plenty of awful CGI.  I can't stand bad CGI.

*Underdog - August 3*
I'm not sure what to think.

*Stardust - August 10*
I did not realize this was coming out!


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 30, 2007)

What is Stardust?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 30, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> What is Stardust?




An earlier thread with some info is here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=191897


----------



## Banshee16 (Apr 30, 2007)

Bourne Ultimatum is opening up in August, as well.

Banshee


----------



## Darthjaye (Apr 30, 2007)

Don't forget to add 28 Weeks Later in the May 11th slot


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 30, 2007)

From boxofficemojo - looks like anticipation is high for Spider-man but then it is the next big release. 

What is your most anticipated movie of the summer? 
29.4% Spider-Man 3 
19.8% Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 
12.6% Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 
9.3% Transformers 
6.3% The Simpsons 
5.1% The Bourne Ultimatum 
3.5% Live Free or Die Hard 
2.1% Shrek the Third 
1.7% Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer 
1.6% Other 
1.4% Knocked Up 
1.4% Ocean's Thirteen 
1.3% Rush Hour 3 
1.1% Ratatouille 
0.9% Hostel 2 
0.7% Hairspray 
0.7% Evan Almighty 
0.6% Stardust 
0.3% I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry 
0.3% Nancy Drew 
0.1% Surf's Up


Note this is what on Jan 03, 2007:

What is your most anticipated movie of 2007? 
21.4% Spider-Man 3 
16.9% Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End 
12.4% Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 
8.3% 300 
6.3% The Simpsons 
6.1% Transformers 
4.6% The Bourne Ultimatum 
3.1% Grind House 
2.7% Shrek the Third 
2.6% Other 
2.5% Live Free or Die Hard 
1.8% American Gangster 
1.7% His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass 
1.6% Zodiac 
1.4% Rush Hour 3 
1.3% Fantastic Four 2 
1.1% Hairspray 
0.9% Ocean's Thirteen 
0.8% Ratatouille 
0.7% I Am Legend 
0.7% National Treasure 2 
0.5% Ghost Rider 
0.5% Evan Almighty 
0.2% Enchanted 
4,375 users polled. (This poll is now closed.)


----------



## Aeolius (Apr 30, 2007)

Given that I never see movies without at least a few of my kids in tow, I can say with confidence that Shrek 3 and Rataouille are on the must-see list.

   My 13-year old son wants to see Spidey 3, so I lucked out, there. He also wants to see Pirates 3, along with my 8-year old daughter and one of my 3-year old daughters (who is completely obsessed with pirates and watches parts 1 and 2 constantly). Pirates 3 is the one I am psyched about; I'd pay to see it 10 times, in the theater.

   I skipped work to see the (animated) Transformers movie - might have to do that again with the reboot. 

   Harry Potter would be the next one on the list - the rest will probably have to wait until DVD. But then again, we've watched the "Night at the Museum" DVD about 12,457 times since buying it the other day.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 1, 2007)

Have no fear!

Underdog is here

Plot Outline: A lab accident gives a hound named Shoeshine some serious superpowers -- a secret that the dog eventually shares with the young boy who becomes his owner and friend. This is different from the original cartoon, where the talking dogs were just an average party of city life. Not that I am complaining, I’m just remarking – I’m not a purist prone to griping about such things.

Director: Frederik Du Chau (previously directed Racing Stripes in 2005, and Quest for Camelot in 1998)
Writers: Adam Rifkin (is a credited writer on Homo Erectus, Zoom, Night at the Golden Eagle, Welcome to Hollywood, Small Soldiers and Mousehunt) and Joe Piscatella. 

Release Date: 3 August 2007

Jason Lee as Shoeshine Boy (voice). Lee of a number of Kevin smith movies, voiced Syndrome in the Incredibles and now plays Earl.

Amy Adams ... 'Sweet' Polly Purebred (voice). She previously appeared in Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby and "The Office."

Peter Dinklage as Simon Barsinister. He was the dwarf who kicked the hell out of Will Ferrell’s character in Elf, and he has appeared in Threshold, Nip/Tuck and The Station Agent. 

Patrick Warburton as Cad


----------



## Angel Tarragon (May 1, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Have no fear!
> 
> Underdog is here



I'm not a hardcore Underdog fan of the animated series and since I loved C.H.O.M.P.S., I'll give the Underdog movie a chance.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 4, 2007)

Just got back from the midnight showing...GREAT! Loved it!

My only minor disappointment was 



Spoiler



not hearing Venom say 'we'.



But, that's tiny! The fights were great, and unlike some I've read, I loved the goofy type scenes. Great fun. Not to mention some fight banter, finally!


----------



## mmadsen (May 4, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Just got back from the midnight showing...GREAT! Loved it!



I'll be the counter-example.  I found it pretty weak.  There were a few good bits of character drama, and few awful bits that didn't ring true at all.  There was some excellent CGI and lots of mediocre CGI.


----------



## DonTadow (May 4, 2007)

My opinion went from a 7 to a 4 in the car ride home. THey screwed up a lot of storylines, had too many plot holes and had characters acting way out of the way they acted in the first movies.
spoilers


Spoiler



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

-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.

-Another crazy thing was the harry storyline. Somehow he threatends Mary Jane into breaking up with him, but this seems crazy.  If I know peter parker is spider man, and i know you are some dude with a few toys, i am going to put my faith in spider man.  In any case, Mary Jane never goes to tell Peter what happened, doesnt even try to explain it to him."
-Though they introduced the astronaught trip last movie, they abandoned it this time, going for the quicker venom came in on a meteor storyline and luckily finds Peter Parkers mopad to hitch a ride on.  This is so contrived that I found myself suspending my belief way to farinto the film. 

-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. 

- 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. 

- 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

-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

-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.  

- Why did spiderman just let the villian get away.  Does he work for Oakland County, Michigan?  This guy has killed, hurt and stolen from a lot of people.  

I"m very disappointed in Sam Raimi.  He obviously should have dropped part of this story if he knew he couldn't make two movies.


----------



## sedarfaery (May 4, 2007)

Okay, whoever is seeing this in th IMAX, I am jealous of. I only bought advance tickets for a screening this weekend like 3 days ago, and it was all booked.  :\ 

So, I'll be seeing it on the regular screen this weekend.


----------



## LrdApoc (May 4, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> My opinion went from a 7 to a 4 in the car ride home. THey screwed up a lot of storylines, had too many plot holes and had characters acting way out of the way they acted in the first movies.
> spoilers omitted




Well i have to agree with about every point you made. As I remarked to my wife after walking out - 3 was not the movies sequence number, it was the number of films they were writing independently before they decided to combine them for a bigger budget and as a way to escape the series as actors and directors.

Sometimes its better to ignore the fans cries for more! more! if it weakens the storytelling, and here it definitely pushed Spiderman into Batman & Robin territory in my opinion. I'm sure people will like the effects but if you analyze the root story its just a mess.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 4, 2007)

Saw SM3 last night.  Overall I was disappointed.  Definitely ranked third out of the three for me.


----------



## Remathilis (May 4, 2007)

I gotta agree. There were too many new people, not enough on time on everyone, and far too much going on. I think if they had cut sandman, it might have worked JUST as well.


----------



## jonathan swift (May 4, 2007)

Eh, I really enjoyed it. It's Spiderman, one of the campiest super heroes around. Not sure what you'd really expect other than cheesiness and over the top action.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 4, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> -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.




[sblock]They DID explain why he wanted revenge. He ruined Brock's life. Now, they didn't get into the details of the Venom symbiote being rejected and all that, but they hit the important part.

The problem with the whole Venom storyline is its REALLY convoluted anyway.[/sblock]



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> -Though they introduced the astronaught trip last movie, they abandoned it this time, going for the quicker venom came in on a meteor storyline and luckily finds Peter Parkers mopad to hitch a ride on.  This is so contrived that I found myself suspending my belief way to farinto the film.




[sblock]The shuttle thing was always just from the 90s TV show, never actual comic lore. Spidey technically got the suit while off world and then later the whole symbiote thing got explained.

While it might have been easier to do the shuttle thing in the movie, it would have taken time. Sending it down on a meteor works perfectly, especially since the symbiote WAS in the rocks that were brought down, too.[/sblock]



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> -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.




[sblock]But we do have the phone conversation with Conner that explains staying with it too long with make it a permanent bond. At the points we'd seen him take it off before, he'd not been wearing it much...but by the church scene, he's been wearing it non-stop.[/sblock]



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> - 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.




[sblock]Hate to say this, but that's not jumping the shark at all. Its comic lore. While the specifics are, of course, not the same, Harry DID turn around right before he died to help Peter out. 

Personally, I thought this was one of the best moments, as I always loved Harry in the comics and the movies. The poor kid just got really messed up by his father. I'm glad they allowed him to redeem himself like he did in the coimcs.[/sblock]

For the other stuff, I can agree on some of it, but those things I figured were worth pointing out, at least.


----------



## DonTadow (May 4, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> [sblock]They DID explain why he wanted revenge. He ruined Brock's life. Now, they didn't get into the details of the Venom symbiote being rejected and all that, but they hit the important part.
> 
> The problem with the whole Venom storyline is its REALLY convoluted anyway.[/sblock]
> 
> ...



[sblock]
Thanks for teaching me something new on here. This is sweet.

The meteor thing was just way to much for me to believe. The likilhood of this one rock crashing in new york next to the biggest crime fhter in the world was astronomical. It kind of felt Batman and Robinish when they created Bane. It really doesnt let th audience know anything about the villian, and it expects the audience to trust that its powerful and bad.  There was never really any indication of what the Venom suit did and how it benefited Peter Parker other than he was more evil, grew bangs and was trying to be cast in The Matrix- the musical.  (of course this could be mostly do the the decision in the first movie to make his web slingers a natrual mutation- one of the benefits of Venom is endless Webing).  

I like the harry stuff, but once someone blows half your face off, its pretty much the end of the friendship.  Then the butler just happened to know the secret information that has driven the last two movies but failed to tell anyone.  That drove me crazy, dangit alfred, al this time iv'e been obsessing, alienating friends and trying to kill Peter Parker and you knew my dad killed himself. 

It was as if  I could look at this movie and see where they trimmed things up for time constraints and that really took away from the interesting storytelling in the previous two films.  Everytime I saw Aunt Bea, I knew that there would be no interesting dialogue, just her delivering the plot a bit. 

It did more of a job answering whats next than whats that.  I think the venom storyline could have been done well wit ha little time, but it was tacked on in the last 30 minutes of the movie.  Instead of a climax it felt like a plot device to make things more difficult for Spidey.  The movie also seemed to end without the kinda climax you see at the end of a trilogy. I was kinda hoping for the old bait and switch at the end where its really someone elses funeral they are all at.

It just comes down to time. There wasn't enough time for Spider man 3.  A lot of good ideas but nothing fleshed out.  

THere's a possibility that Fantastic Four may escape this summer as the best comic book movie. [/sblock]


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 4, 2007)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> What is Stardust?






Stardust is a fantasy film by based off a Neil Gaimen story/graphic novel.  If anything, the movie looks like going to be a sleeper more then anything else.


----------



## jonathan swift (May 5, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Stardust is a fantasy film by based off a Neil Gaimen story/graphic novel.  If anything, the movie looks like going to be a sleeper more then anything else.




Do you mean sleeper hit or put you to sleep sleeper?


----------



## Christoph the Magus (May 5, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Stardust is a fantasy film by based off a Neil Gaimen story/graphic novel.  If anything, the movie looks like going to be a sleeper more then anything else.




Ugh!  How could they make Claire Danes the star?


----------



## jonathan swift (May 5, 2007)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> Ugh!  How could they make Claire Danes the star?





Because she's gorgeous and a good actress?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 5, 2007)

This movie was hilariously terrible. Oh my goodness.

I laughed my head off, especially whenever Tobey Macguire tried to act serious. 

And, holy s***, the butler. "Ohhh, yes, sir, you know, I've known for all these years that your father killed himself, and that it wasn't your good friend Parker . . . but I thought it was so funny watching you go crazy and try to kill your friend, so I decided not to say anything until now. Really, you're quite a hoot to watch, young master Harry."

And Harry's like, "Where the hell did you come from?!"

And the butler's like, "Never you mind that. Go help your friend on his suicide mission. Heavens know I've been trying for years to get you to off yourself some stupid way like your old man did. Once you do, all your money goes to me! Well I'm feelin' lucky tonight!" *rubs hands together*


I need to photoshop a Hitler mustache on Emo Peter Parker. He's already got Der Furher's hair. *grin*

And the American flag.

And . . . Harry to Peter: "I'm evil! I stole your girlfriend, and now I'm eatin' some _pie_! Bwahahahahaha!"

lolz This movie sucked so bad.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 5, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> Do you mean sleeper hit or put you to sleep sleeper?





Sleeper as in the movie will enter into the box office and most likely fall alseep from lack of media hype.  Luckily, its not going to do too badly considering its lack luster competition (hopefully the Hary Potter crowd will turn out to watch it).


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 5, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> This movie was hilariously terrible. Oh my goodness.
> 
> I laughed my head off, especially whenever Tobey Macguire tried to act serious.
> 
> ...





Now did it suck so badly that you just have to see it to get a good laugh, or did it suck so badly that you felt like walking up to the ticket person and slugging him in the face for not warning you?


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 5, 2007)

I really enjoyed the movie myself- I thought it was really well done, well written and paced- at least up until the third act, which came together too quickly for my tastes. It ended well, but the transition was bad, like there were some whole chunks missing (I suspect there were probably some scenes before the final clash that were likely dropped either from the script or after filming; hopefully the latter, as I'd like to see them in a Director's Cut if so). If they were trimmed for time, I can think of some comedic scenes that played too long that IMO should have been the first on the chopping block as opposed to the dramatic ones (I loved the comedic scenes, don't get me wrong, just not if they were at the expense of some more significant plot points).

Bruce Campbell's cameo in this one was awesome.

The editing on the first fight scene was choppy and rushed. I have a feeling it won't look as bad on a smaller screen, but on the big screen, the dark sequence was too hard to follow.

Really enjoyed Thomas Haden Church's Sandman- a great take on the character, one in keeping with the character of the comic version. 



Spoiler



I didn't mind the Joe Chill/Joker-esque retcon myself; I thought it came across really well at the end. It also leaves things open to a Sandman as ally return in the future.



Also- 



Spoiler



I really liked the Blob-esque take on Venom's origin myself. I think it went right to the point- alien creature- and any further exposition was adequately covered by Doc Connor's dialogue. I do wish Mr. Evil-Dead had taken a bit more schlocky horror glee in its initial appearance, though- I'd have liked to see the symbiote suck an innocent bystander dry before latching onto Pete's ride. 



Again, very well done- really enjoyed it. It was just that all-important last act that things kind of fell apart for me. I think part of it had to do with the way the escalating conflict changed so abruptly that it didn't quite flow as well with how the story had developed up to then.


----------



## PeterGirvan (May 5, 2007)

It had some mis-steps (some melodramatic moments that looked as if they were guest-directed by George Lucas), but I enjoyed how the film tried to show the spirit and ethos of Spider-Man.

But after the showing last night in Times Square---the audience actually booed the film (rather loudly and lustily).  I was shocked. The crowd was young and what was notable to me was that they cheered the loudest when Spider-Man acted more like the Punisher than like a hero---so I wonder if many "Spider-Man" fans really are Spidey fans after all.


----------



## DonTadow (May 5, 2007)

PeterGirvan said:
			
		

> It had some mis-steps (some melodramatic moments that looked as if they were guest-directed by George Lucas), but I enjoyed how the film tried to show the spirit and ethos of Spider-Man.
> 
> But after the showing last night in Times Square---the audience actually booed the film (rather loudly and lustily).  I was shocked. The crowd was young and what was notable to me was that they cheered the loudest when Spider-Man acted more like the Punisher than like a hero---so I wonder if many "Spider-Man" fans really are Spidey fans after all.



My midnight audience was a mix of light boos and that confusing silence. I think it was because it was a disappointing movie. Maybe not a completely bad one, but It was like following up LOTR 1 and 2 with Dungeons and Dragons, the first movie.


----------



## Blastin (May 5, 2007)

Wow, folks are being brutal on this one. 
  Disclaimer:I'm a complete Spidy fanboy.
I thought it was good. I really liked that Harry turned to help Peter in the end, I also always liked his character in the comics and felt sorry for him.
  I also liked the way they did Sandman. He was always one of my favorite Spidy villains.
All that being said, I agree that things felt too rushed. I have a feeling that alot got chopped for time. I realized this when wife and I were driving home and I said about how I was surprised at the final scene with Venom and she looked at me and said "Who was Venom?" They never did name it. Overall I really liked it and was not disappointed at all. I'm really hoping that we get to see more in a directors cut...


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (May 5, 2007)

Blastin said:
			
		

> I realized this when wife and I were driving home and I said about how I was surprised at the final scene with Venom and she looked at me and said "Who was Venom?" They never did name it. Overall I really liked it and was not disappointed at all. I'm really hoping that we get to see more in a directors cut...




That's cause Venom never was in this movie.

Sure they had some sort of Black-Power Suit thing, but no Intelligent Creature.

The Black suit in this one was no Different than Iron Man's Suit, Thor's Hammer, or Cap America's Shield.

Merely a tool (with some pretty nasty drawbacks), but merely a tool.

Seems they were so rushed trying to fit everything in, any sort of Venom as an Actual entity got dropped.

And Brock Sucked.  As me wife (big Venom fan) Said "Why is the guy form That 70's SHow being such a Jerk & why do they keep calling him Brock?"

They turned Brock form a Cowardly Bully to a real jerk in the Used Car Salesman Mold.

Really, really, REALLY Pathetic.

Also, why put Gwen Staci in?  That boat sailed already.  You just needed some Cheesecake to compete with Kristen, you could have named her anything from the Big Book of Baby Names.  

Oh, & since they tried to up the Comedy in this one (Largely failing).

You care to gues what Police Chief Staci say after Spiderman saves his Daughter?  I'll give you a hint.  It ain't

"That'll do Spider.  That'll do."


----------



## el-remmen (May 5, 2007)

This is the best review of it I have read so far, by Nick Mamatas:



> I would like to propose a moratorium on the use of lockets and rings as synecdoches for character motivations within films. It's lazy.
> 
> Spider-Man 3 is also fairly lazy, though there are some good scenes in it, and it does look like the filmmakers have learned a few things. The film was a fairly decent little romantic comedy about a love triangle involving the frequently concussed and mentally ill, but then a bunch of superhero stuff happened and whatnot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 5, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> ...get rid of the Stan Lee cameos...




BAH, I say!


----------



## el-remmen (May 5, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> BAH, I say!




Hey! I said it was my favorite review so far, not that I agree with everything it says. . .   

Personally, I like Stan Lee cameos (as long as he plays himself - as he often does in the comics )


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 5, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Hey! I said it was my favorite review so far, not that I agree with everything it says. . .
> 
> Personally, I like Stan Lee cameos (as long as he plays himself - as he often does in the comics )



 Alright, alright...you're forgiven.

Say what you want about Spidey and the movies...but I shall allow no Stan Lee hating in this thread!


----------



## Aeolius (May 5, 2007)

I'll add my disappointment to the list. Saw it once; no plans to see it again.

   Toby Maguire's acting was nothing short of pathetic; especially when he tried to cry. The movie would have been better off with more Sandman and no Venom, IMO, though I still couldn't see Thomas Haden Church's performance and not think of him as Lyle in "George of the Jungle".

   I explained away the Butler as an imaginary conscience; a bit of Harry's dementia.

   And STILL no Lizard!


----------



## Wormwood (May 5, 2007)

Movie no good.

Me sad now.

Mad later.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 6, 2007)

Blastin said:
			
		

> I was surprised at the final scene with Venom and she looked at me and said "Who was Venom?" They never did name it. ...




Appearantly so many people asked this question that it caused Sony to release a venom centric tv spot which uses the word VENOM as a transition between scenes of venom (with brock's face visible) and spiderman fighting venom...


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (May 6, 2007)

This really should have been two movies, actor/director contracts be blasted to heck.

Sandman and New Goblin for movie three, with Pete getting the black suit and Eddie Brock making a nuisance of himself, and ending with Harry seriously injured due to Pete's actions in the black suit, which itself causes him to get rid of it, and using comic book coincidence timing for it to land on Brock.

Fourth movie would be mostly Venom, spending the time to really make him more of a nasty foe and less of a random encounter, and covering the redemption/sacrifice of Harry.

Make Gwen a more compelling potential love interest for both movies, and have Pete and MJ hook back up at the climax of four, with him proposing to her.

As was, the movie we got was just trying to do too much in too little time, and ended up giving the supporting baddies the short-shrift.  It had it's moments, particularly Stan Lee and Bruce "Of course I understand these things, I am french" Campbell.  I might pick this up just to have all three Spidey films on DVD, but I'll probably wait for it to hit the bargain bin before I do so.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (May 6, 2007)

The following link to scifiwire describes how Venom and Gwen were added to Spidey 3 by the producers and that Sam agreed, well you can read it for yourself.  It's Dated April 27.


http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41291

I liked the movie overall but like a lot of you thought that Venom was underdeveloped.  

Anyone else notice Flash at the funeral at the end?


----------



## Quasqueton (May 6, 2007)

Loved it. Look forward to seeing it again with my wife.

Quasqueton


----------



## IcedEarth81 (May 6, 2007)

The problem with splitting this movie in two is it will be very unlikely that all involved (Raimi, Tobey, etc) come back together for another Spidey. This was probably the last one with them, and it felt that way. 

I thought the movie was pretty good. I thought they may have had too many characters in there, but they did a good job balancing time. That is very tricky in a movie, but they pulled it off pretty well. Venom would have been better if he had two movies to develop, but again they did pretty well developing him in one movie. 

The only things I didn't like were the butler scene and the motivation for Sandman to fight alongside Venom. It would have been better had Venom offered him money (for his daughter, as that was his main motivation throughout the movie). The butler thing was too contrived, as others have said. Still, a very good movie. It's nearly impossible to top the first two movies. I don't think they did, but there are some great moments here.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (May 6, 2007)

> and for the love of Pete (Parker that is), stop hanging Kirsten Dunst off the side of major landmarks.




Seriously!
Can't she take some self-defense courses or something??  



> thought that Venom was underdeveloped.




UNDERdeveloped?
Try UNdeveloped!!



> Sandman and New Goblin for movie three, with Pete getting the black suit and Eddie Brock making a nuisance of himself, and ending with Harry seriously injured due to Pete's actions in the black suit, which itself causes him to get rid of it, and using comic book coincidence timing for it to land on Brock.
> 
> Fourth movie would be mostly Venom, spending the time to really make him more of a nasty foe and less of a random encounter, and covering the redemption/sacrifice of Harry.
> 
> Make Gwen a more compelling potential love interest for both movies, and have Pete and MJ hook back up at the climax of four, with him proposing to her.




Kinda how I was envisioning it, too.

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?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 6, 2007)

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 6, 2007)

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..  



			
				ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> 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 (May 6, 2007)

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 (May 7, 2007)

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 (May 7, 2007)

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 (May 7, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> -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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> -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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> -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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> - 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?


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> -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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> -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 (May 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Desdichado (May 7, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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?!


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.  


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 7, 2007)

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 (May 8, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 8, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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 (May 10, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> 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 (May 10, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## DonTadow (May 11, 2007)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

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



It's alive? that was all he said. He didn't determine its powers, origins or motives. 

As a matter of fact, its never addressed in the movie what exactly the suit does to him, other than make him look like a bootleg neo and act like a jerk.  He shows no powers or abilities we've never seen him do before, he justh as an attitude all of the time and eats cookies.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 11, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> It's alive? that was all he said. He didn't determine its powers, origins or motives.
> 
> As a matter of fact, its never addressed in the movie what exactly the suit does to him, other than make him look like a bootleg neo and act like a jerk.  He shows no powers or abilities we've never seen him do before, he justh as an attitude all of the time and eats cookies.




Doc Connor gave more information than just 'its alive', especially during the phone conversation.

Not only that, but you hear Peter, himself, talking about what the suit does. Mentioning how much stronger he feels, and better, etc. Sure, it could have been more detail, but it IS there.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 11, 2007)

Apparently we needed a diagram.


----------



## DonTadow (May 11, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Doc Connor gave more information than just 'its alive', especially during the phone conversation.
> 
> Not only that, but you hear Peter, himself, talking about what the suit does. Mentioning how much stronger he feels, and better, etc. Sure, it could have been more detail, but it IS there.



But to the audience, it doesn't seem like he's all that more powerful, stronger, or quicker. Why Is it an illusion or is he actually more powerful.  Of course as previously stated, all of these gripes are but branches to the movie beeing rushed and segmented so much. A decent movie would have one or two scenes that display a contrast in powers. To a typical movie goer, it looks like spidey just painted his suit black.  

And I must have missed something during the doc conners convos becuase 
1st discussion
I think its a live but i need to do more tests. be careful it likes you.

2nd discussion
I still think its alive and it may be dangeirous, be careful. 

A waste of dr. conners for this movie.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (May 13, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> 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.




Believe it or not, the Spiderman tech is like 95% plausible. The Wednesday or Thursday before Spidey 3 opened, the History Channel had an hour long special on the technology of Spiderman. A bunch of scientists were interviewed, etc and yes, Virginia, you could be a Spiderman. The radioactive spider won't work but a spiderbite that injects a funky retrovirus could rewrite someone's DNA and have the proportionate speed, agility and strength of a spider. Except for the webballs he shoots and ditto for the comic book webshooters. Yes, even Peter's personality change due to the symbiote is plausible.


----------



## Thunderfoot (May 13, 2007)

Saw it tonight - I have to say I too am disappointed.

They had a great idea, the CGI was good, the acting was better than the previous incarnations (with a certain emo exception), and the plot was awesome...
Just one problem, the script blew chunks.

As has been stated many times so far, they tried to do too much too soon.  I will say I am happy they tried to stick to the comic book lore SPIRIT of things this time.

1 - Sandman: This story got no attention and that's a shame, in the comics Spidey DOES in fact help the Sandman on the road to redeption and ultimately becomes a member of The Avengers "auxiliary" group with Spidey at his behest.  A full movie explaining the path from escapee to crime spree to redemption would have been a whole lot better.

2 - Venom: Topher Grace was a great Eddie Brock jr, too bad he was too small for the part and not annoying enough (should have pushed the envelope, but I have a feeling that was due to bad direction.)  There was practically no time devoted to the 'relationship' between the symbiote and Peter and the single 'confrontation' scene between Brock and Parker is given no muscle, it makes Parker look petty and Brock look fake. (which of course was the angle they were going for, but frankly THAT didn't even feel right.)  And the death of Brock was dumb, how are they going to bring in Carnage now?

3 - Harry: This should have been either played out over two movies or the central focus in this one, but without an extra villian, why would you need an extra hero, right?  Just bad form all around with this story line and frankly the butler had me wanting to scream at the screen, "Hey Alfred, Bruce is in Gotham, take a left and follow the coast to the mansion to DC-ville."

4 - Gwen, wait, why is she here again?:Who is Gwen, why is she in this film, why did she have less compleling screen time than Ursala the landlord's daughter?  Oh, she kissed Spidey, Big Fat Hairy Deal.  The framed it beautifully, but left her character so flat they should have used a cardboard cutout instead of an actress, they would have saved production money so that they could buy a better script.

5 - Emo Spidey: I am offended by this entire prortrayal.  If they are looking to get the 'emo dollar' by play to the market, they are barking up the wrong tree.  If they are trying to pit wholesome all-American Spiderman versus Emo Spidey, then they failed on a mammoth level that words cannot begin to describe.  And the disco number, when did this become "Spiderman Night Fever"?   I half expected him to walk out of that shop with a white polyester pantsuit with airplane collars.

6 - MJ: Dear Kirsten, when you screw your co-star and then break up, try to remember that you get paid to act like you like him, please don't look over his shoulder at the scenery in an attempt not to look at him in love scenes, please.  Also, try switching to decaf, it should help with those moods swings, or maybe Midol or Pamprin.   What was the deal with the musical numbers?  'Stunning' performance by MJ that gets her fired and her replacement can't even say the word 'wonderful (onerful)', a key word in the song.  Please.

7 - Sam Raimi: This is the man that New Line wants to replace Peter Jackson for the "The Hobbit"?  Dear God, NO!!!!!!!!  At one time he could direct, I'm sure of it, but I seriously have my doubts if he can still direct something where story, pacing and scale are not set with a stopwatch and a starting pistol.

After all my gripes, I still thought there were a few redeeming qualities in this flop, Thomas Hayden Church gave it his all everytime he was on screen, I actually felt empathy with his character.  The young lady that played Ursala didn't try to out act her stars and supported them very well, even when they forgot she wasn't self-proppelled scenery.  Aunt May was once again brilliantly played by Rosemary Harris, sweet, charming, straight from the gut, brilliant. And while poor direction eventually got in the way, James Franco tried to make Harry Osbourn a real boy.   The CGI and the attention to detail to story specific items were much better than in previous movies and the art team has got the whole building faces down cold.  If you could vote for a movie for best supporting cast and crew without aknowledging the director, the writers or stars, I would probably give this one a go.

D+


----------



## Fast Learner (May 13, 2007)

I enjoyed it, and agree with all of Hobo's points.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 13, 2007)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> And the death of Brock was dumb, how are they going to bring in Carnage now?




If they actually wanted to bring in Carnage (me say Ugh!), they could do so very easily by using the bit of the symbiote that Doc Connors has in his lab.


----------



## drothgery (May 14, 2007)

My theory here -- the biggest problem with the movie is that if you eliminated the sequence where Harry kidnaps MJ and forces her to break up with Peter, you'd have a much better tortured hero movie about Harry than about Spiderman. And didn't the villian get a tragic death in the last movie?


----------



## Vanuslux (May 14, 2007)

drothgery said:
			
		

> And didn't the villian get a tragic death in the last movie?




Aye, and the villain of the first movie died via his own actions, as Brock did.  Also noteworthy is that three out of five of Spidey's villains have redeemed themselves.  Four out of five have died or at least appeared to have died.  All have learned Spidey's identity.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 14, 2007)

It was a B. It could easily have been three movies; almost any of Spider-Man's major villains are strong enough characters in their own right to carry a movie by themselves. Harry and Venom certainly are.

I'll be interested in seeing the Director's Cut for this film; I strongly suspect a lot of exposition was cut.

I don't think we need to worry about seeing this cast again for 4, 5 and 6 (if Sony lives up to their pre- pre- pre-release hype and Marvel doesn't find a way to bring it back under it's own production umbrella); Toby's already stated he won't do 4 and even if he did, he'd want script approval. Toby's gotten too big for his britches; all the unmasked Spider-man scenes are, I will bet money one, something he demanded. Once you forget we're coming to see the character, not the actor, the actor needs to be booted from a comic book film. He was good, but there are probably a dozen that can take his place no problem. I'd look for a Jake Gyllenhall in the next one, Shia Lewasshisname if he puts on some muscle, or some new unknown.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 14, 2007)

Dunst won't be back, either, and frankly, good riddance. In a recent interview she said they shouldn't even have made this one. That's _way_ messed up, a truly crappy way to treat the people who paid her ginormous salary.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 14, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> ) allowing Harry to engineer their breakup as part of his "revenge agenda"...




A pet peeve of mine in the plot snarl where in someone wants the hero or heroe's love interest to do something and they do it all too easily and don't tell their lover. I would like to see that cliche blown apart at least once.

And MJ should have stood up for her self, told Peter she got fired and to be a little less wrapped up in himself. Be a good woman, woman, not a needy woman!  It made it harder to like the character.

And Peter never seemed evil, just sullen.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 14, 2007)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> 6 - MJ: Dear Kirsten, when you screw your co-star and then break up, try to remember that you get paid to act like you like him, please don't look over his shoulder at the scenery in an attempt not to look at him in love scenes, please. Also, try switching to decaf, it should help with those moods swings, or maybe Midol or Pamprin. What was the deal with the musical numbers? 'Stunning' performance by MJ that gets her fired and her replacement can't even say the word 'wonderful (onerful)', a key word in the song. Please.




Thinking about that, it would have made more sense if Harry had been behind her being fired; i.e. if the revenge via loved ones subplot started earlier.


----------



## iwatt (May 14, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But to the audience, it doesn't seem like he's all that more powerful, stronger, or quicker. Why Is it an illusion or is he actually more powerful.




I thought the second time Spidey/Gobo fight, it was clear that Spidey was more powerful. In the first fight he can barely hold his own, while in the second fight he kicks Harry's ass. The difference: the black suit.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 14, 2007)

I also thought it was clear


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 14, 2007)

Me too, though I'm coming from a comic fan bias and know the history.

Of course, seeing Spidey rip that steel grate off the ground (along with sizable perimeter of concrete) might've also tipped me off.

I guess you could argue that Spidey could've done that before.  He can lift cars and things.  But that kind of brute force is definitely not his style.


----------



## Vanuslux (May 14, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> And MJ should have stood up for her self, told Peter she got fired and to be a little less wrapped up in himself. Be a good woman, woman, not a needy woman!  It made it harder to like the character.




Yeah...I was a fence-sitter about MJ the first two movies, but this movie made me hate her.  I could have forgiven her getting upset at the review and for getting upset with Peter the first conversation they had about it because he was basically trying to blow it off (with good intentions).  However, when she got fired it was horribly wrong of her to not just say "Peter...stop trying to cheer me up about the review, I got friggin fired!".  She comes off as incredibly thin-skinned and it makes her attempt to be there for Peter when he's upset about finding out that his uncle's killer is at large come off as pathetic.


----------



## GSHamster (May 15, 2007)

I saw someone say that the movie was like "Raimi wanted to make a movie about Sandman, and the studios forced him to make a movie about Venom."

Personally, they never really established why the suit was bad.  Yes, he gets angrier, but he's also going through a breakup, has troubles at work, etc.  Doesn't seem that crazy to me.

In a way it sort of reminded me of that Buffy episode when Xander gets split into two halves, and he thinks it's Good Xander and Bad Xander, but it's really Confident Xander and Not-Confident Xander.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 17, 2007)

I just saw it and thoroughly enjoyed myself. No question it's the worst of the three, but I still give it a solid "8".

There were tons of cheeseball moments (and the dance number was completely ludicrous) that made me think I was watching an entirely different movie, but it is a superhero movie, so I've learned to ignore that kind of stuff.

What made up for it, in my eyes, were all the cameos and recurring characters from the previous movies - and they were given a surprising amount of screentime. I love the Willem Dafoe cameo (just like #2), and of course the Bruce Campbell character (this time a french [_french!_] maitre'd) was awesome. But also the other characters they continued with - Hoffman and Betty Brant from the Bugle, the landlord and his daughter, and my personal favorite Dr. Connors were all there, and all given some pretty decent screentime. That kind of stuff makes me happy.

So even due to the flaws (cheeseball moments, annoying MJ, some leaps of logic, Venom completely undeveloped [though no surprise, as Raimi didn't want him there in the first place]), I really enjoyed myself and think it's a great ending for the trilogy. (I do, however, have little interest in seeing any more.)


[Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the source material.]


----------



## DonTadow (May 17, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> I thought the second time Spidey/Gobo fight, it was clear that Spidey was more powerful. In the first fight he can barely hold his own, while in the second fight he kicks Harry's ass. The difference: the black suit.



????
In the first two fights he wups him pretty good.  In the first fight he puts him in a coma and causes him to lose his memory. Really no obvious difference. Now, if he would have took him out with one punch then thats difference.  

There's also some feats of strength that are the same things he could normally do.


----------



## iwatt (May 17, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> ????
> In the first two fights he wups him pretty good.  In the first fight he puts him in a coma and causes him to lose his memory.




He was running away most of the time, and seemed in trouble. It seems almost a fluke that he knocks Harry out. I pegged it on Spidey having more Hero Points than Harry, even though he was lower PL.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 18, 2007)

iwatt said:
			
		

> He was running away most of the time, and seemed in trouble. It seems almost a fluke that he knocks Harry out. I pegged it on Spidey having more Hero Points than Harry, even though he was lower PL.





Harry and Spider could have easily been the same PL, but with Harry's PP spent in each of of those goblin devices he inherited and modified.  After all, Harry was able to handle spiderman until Spiderman became Gestalt character with Venom.  Also, he was able to keep up with Spiderman vs Sandman and Venom and only really died because he used his last hero Point to intercede and Venom's kill shot against Spiderman.


----------

