|
Post by connork1011 on Feb 8, 2017 1:40:47 GMT
2007 saw the release of the highly-anticipated third part of Sam Raimi's smash hit Spider-Man trilogy. It was a massive success at the box office (and remains the highest-grossing Spidey flick), but critically, it was perceived as a disappoint. Many people had issues with the several plotlines, underdeveloped villains, and cheesy moments such as the infamous "Emo Peter Stride". The critical disappoint of Spidey 3 only strengthened Sam Raimi's urge to make a great fourth film, but alas, it never came to be, as Sony was more focused on getting a subpar movie out fast than taking their time to get a good movie out. Personally, I think Spider-Man 3 is an underrated superhero movie. It has plenty of emotion in it, and even if its focus shifts, it still grasps your attention. The action scenes are great and the actors do a good job for the most part. Even for all the flack the villains get, I personally enjoyed them. James Franco was a great Harry and he had a satisfying (if rushed) end to his character arc that began at the end of the first Spider-Man film. Thomas Haden Church was also a great Sandman. Sandman was by far the most visually arresting villain to me. Venom... was a joy to see on the big screen, even if he was barely on it for more than five minutes. I feel that Spider-Man 3 is by no means a great movie, but it certainly is an enjoyable one. Discuss Spider-Man 3 below... but only after you fix this damn door!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 2:37:02 GMT
I think you have to cut Sandman.
I think having Harry do a reverse of Harvey Dent in TDK (bad to good) and Venom has to be in this because it's the plot for Black Spider-Man and evil Peter. This is perfect balance.
Sandman an was too much and unecessary to the entire film. In fact, adding him made them force some B.S. Rewrite of Ben's death.
I guarantee if you just focus on Harry's transformation and redemption, all the while Brock becomes Venom earlier in the film, it's on par with the first two.
|
|
|
Post by LaurenceBranagh on Feb 8, 2017 2:54:16 GMT
I agree, not great, but enjoyable and underrated, with many great and engaging actors (Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson, James Cromwell, Bill Nunn, etc.). Less studio mandates and a tighter script, and it probably would've been a great film.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 8, 2017 11:28:44 GMT
I think you have to cut Sandman. I think having Harry do a reverse of Harvey Dent in TDK (bad to good) and Venom has to be in this because it's the plot for Black Spider-Man and evil Peter. This is perfect balance. Sandman an was too much and unecessary to the entire film. In fact, adding him made them force some B.S. Rewrite of Ben's death. I guarantee if you just focus on Harry's transformation and redemption, all the while Brock becomes Venom earlier in the film, it's on par with the first two. Yeah I agree, but apparently Sam Raimi originally just wanted Sandman as the main antagonist, it was producer Avi Arad who pushed for the inclusion of the Venom and symbiote story. Honestly they should have let Raimi make the film he wanted and saved Venom for another film.
|
|
|
Post by connork1011 on Feb 8, 2017 13:05:24 GMT
The original plan was for the more passive Sandman to be manipulated into committing crimes by Vulture, who hates Spider-Man since he got him sent to jail. Sandman would have indeed been Uncle Ben's killer, and the theme of the film would be forgiveness, with Peter learning to forgive Marko. Harry would NOT have become GG2. He would have been more conflicted to take up the mantle, as he doesn't want to hurt Peter, but at the same time he doesn't want to disappoint his father.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 13:48:57 GMT
It was offensively bad. Such a disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by connork1011 on Feb 8, 2017 14:55:24 GMT
History will be kinder to it than it will be to the two Garfield films. Agreed. The first Garfield film wasn't awful though. My main problem with it is that it's too generic. The sequel... we don't speak of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 15:46:18 GMT
At least Garfield didn't cry his way through either of his movies. When Tobey isn't flicking his emo hair in SM3, he's crying. It's unbearable.
|
|
|
Post by connork1011 on Feb 9, 2017 0:51:57 GMT
I think the crying is forgivable when his best friend Harry dies... but he does cry a bit too much. People were laughing in the theater during scenes that were meant to be sad, such as the bridge breakup scene. Heck, everyone cried in this movie. Peter, MJ, Sandman, Harry, Brock... I'm surprised Ditkovich didn't burst into tears when Peter lost his temper at him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 3:59:41 GMT
Honestly, they could have kept the Symbiote in the film, but saved Peter wrenching himself from its control at the end and having it bind itself to Brock be the stinger at the end.
|
|
sov
Sophomore
@sov
Posts: 143
Likes: 45
|
Post by sov on Feb 9, 2017 4:27:12 GMT
Well, the idea of Spider-Man 3 isn't necessarily bad, but they could've gone with a few tweaks and it should've been split into two films. Film 1: Spider-Man with the symbiote, contending with Sandman, and maybe going with the earlier concept of Vulture. Then leave it as a cliffhanger to setup film 2: with Venom, and Harry becoming either GGII or Hobgoblin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 4:48:52 GMT
Grace was okay, but I thought Hank Azaria would have been better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 4:55:42 GMT
The Raimi feel died with Darkman. He's been way too sentimental in his tone ever sense.
|
|
|
Post by connork1011 on Feb 9, 2017 12:31:55 GMT
Well, the idea of Spider-Man 3 isn't necessarily bad, but they could've gone with a few tweaks and it should've been split into two films. Film 1: Spider-Man with the symbiote, contending with Sandman, and maybe going with the earlier concept of Vulture. Then leave it as a cliffhanger to setup film 2: with Venom, and Harry becoming either GGII or Hobgoblin. That would have worked. I'm surprised Sony didn't take that route. They'd make more money by releasing two films back-to-back. In hindsight, I'm glad we got one film. With it we get a pretty coherent trilogy.
|
|
sov
Sophomore
@sov
Posts: 143
Likes: 45
|
Post by sov on Feb 10, 2017 23:04:18 GMT
Well, the idea of Spider-Man 3 isn't necessarily bad, but they could've gone with a few tweaks and it should've been split into two films. Film 1: Spider-Man with the symbiote, contending with Sandman, and maybe going with the earlier concept of Vulture. Then leave it as a cliffhanger to setup film 2: with Venom, and Harry becoming either GGII or Hobgoblin. In hindsight, I'm glad we got one film. With it we get a pretty coherent trilogy. I agree with that, as I look back on it. But I thought that way less-so at the time, and during the release of the Amazing Spider-Man films. But I suppose I'm glad things worked out as they did, 'cause I don't think we'd get Spider-Man included in the MCU right now otherwise. That, I never thought would've happened
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Feb 11, 2017 3:35:15 GMT
not so good Al.
|
|