I actually liked Spider-Man 3…
-
ArigatouNosferatu — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 05:19 PM)
I actually think the film would benefit
without
Spider-Man in it. For me, especially after watching a second time, I thought the pace of the narrative was put on hold for that whole section. And while yes, he does bring some fun to the airport scene, he jolts the film and adds on unnecessary bulk just to squeeze him in there for future reference. -
calamb — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 12:22 PM)
Sandman was PERFECT (I will swear before a jury that Sandman's origin scene in the sand chamber is one of the single most powerful moments in ANY superhero film, and the greatest introduction to a villain I've ever seen) and should have been the films primary villain, with the exception of the symbiote/black suit Spidey. Cast a different actor for Eddie Brock and postpone Venom's transformation to the final moments of the film, or in the post-credits.
I loved the black suit for the most part, except for "emo" Peter. He should have been less of a gothic dancer and more of an angry roid-rager.
The Harry subplot was fine, but the costume and "New Goblin" title were not. If you have to make Harry a heavy-hitter in this film, then he should take up the Green Goblin mantle and give Peter some serious PTSD flashbacks from Norman, possibly even fueled by the Black Suit warping his mind. Hell, tweak the source material a bit and make Harry the Hobgoblin. Anything but that New Goblin ski suit.
And on the subject of Sandmanwhy the hell would he be tied to uncle ben's murder? He doesn't have to be. Sandman is a large enough threat anyway, and the black suit would provide the psychological stimulation for Peter to nearly kill him. This would not only add weight to the "it's the suit, not me" subplot, and it doesn't crap all over Ben's murder.
Implement these changes, and you've got yourself a stew, baby.
Then after the instant success of this film and the greenlight of Spider-Man 4, introduce Venom. -
LegendInMyMind — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 04:52 PM)
It's funny, it used to upset me so much. I was a huge fan of those first two Spider-Man movies, and I had such high hopes and expectations for Spider-Man 3. And while I thought that the action sequences were the best yet for Spider-Man (still do, actually) I was disappointed in some of the things they did. Like retconning Sandman to be Uncle Ben's actual killer and all that. Just found that it kinda ruined some of the drama from the previous films in retrospect, and it just seemed like an unnecessary revision.
BUT I look back fondly on it now. Hell, I enjoy watching it. It's funny, it's fun, it's silly, it's dramatic, it's operatic, it's a good time. It's just not a good sequel to Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. It deflated the series. There's a lot to like about the movie, I think. That being said, I do think it's a missed opportunity, and I think that there's a lot to dislike as well. Also, it was another writing pass away from being a
very
good movie. My fixes:- Remove Gwen Stacy from the movie -
So the thing about Gwen Stacy in Raimi's film is that Mary Jane was characterized as an amalgamation-character of Gwen and MJ in the first movie. That makes Gwen redundant. The whole "thrown from a bridge" thing? That'd already been done in the first movie, and it was MJ's character. She was the 'girl next door'. She was everything Gwen was all rolled into the MJ package. This eliminates the initiation of the tension between Peter and MJ. Removing Gwen Stacy also removes Captain Stacy and, therefore, does not revisit the Uncle Ben murder. - Remove the Sandman from the movie -
I know what you're thinking, "but he was the only good villain in the movie!!" Yeah, it's painful. The VFX on him were great, the action scenes he was in looked awesome. It's a hard hit, but it's addition by subtraction. Okay, so one of the themes of Spider-Man 3 was "redemption". This theme surrounded the arcs of Peter Parker, Flint Marko, AND Harry Osborn. That's a three-headed beast. The only villain you need to pay that theme off is Harry Osborn because he had been set up as the new Green Goblin in Spider-Man 2. "Why not remove Venom??" Because the studio wanted Venom. There was no removing Venom. Rather than forcing both the film/villain he wanted AND adhering to the studio's notes (which overstuffed the movie with plot and served to kinda ruin Venom), Raimi should have let go of Sandman and maybe saved him for 'next time'. - Cast Thomas Hayden Church as Eddie Brock/Venom -
So I took the Sandman out, tears, but I kept Church in the film as Venom. I think Eddie Brock works better not as a "creepy Parker" but as an older rival who is struggling to maintain his relevance after his once high profile career went on the decline. This would be more of an egotistical role and move away from the 'sympathetic villain' angle, which Harry Osborn would probably be anyway. Freeing up a little film time by cutting 3 villains down to two would also allow for a better usage of Harry Osborn's 'redemption' arc in the movie. This is a guy who actually died in the comics saving his friend Peter Parker's life once he realized what he was becoming and what he didn't want to be. So I'd still have Venom kill Harry while Harry's saving Peter's life, I quite liked that scene. - Start the film with 'The Wedding'
- Okay, so through two films (Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2), I think we just about covered the romance between Peter and MJ. So pulling on those threads was simultaneously redundant and annoying. We want to like Mary Jane, we don't want to think of her as an insecure, petty nag. We had enough of the courtship in the previous two films, so let's just skip ahead to the wedding and then we can put the 'romantic' stuff onto firmer ground. I think it would've made Mary Jane a stronger lead rather than just another damsel in distress (again, for the 3rd time). A 'Wedding' scene also would've proven comedy gold with JK Simmons' commentary as JJJ in attendance, watching his employee and 'surrogate son', of sorts, marry his ex-prospective-daughter-in-law. Probably would've spent more time commenting on the cost of the proceedings, I would imagine. (Hell, maybe he footed the bill, himself, given that Jonah has always had a soft spot for Peter, much to the chagrin in this instance of his son and his wife).
So those are what I would've done differently with a subsequent pass. I think removing some characters would've done the others a lot of good.
- Remove Gwen Stacy from the movie -
-
manchof1 — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 11:56 PM)
Spider-Man 3 is a diamond in the rough, its good qualities make up for its bad ones and it has the strength of the previous films to fall back on whereas TASM2 doesn't have that commodity and is a poor film through and through.
-
RepsakTK — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 04:16 PM)
It was actually Raimi who didn't wanna do Spider-Man 4, cause he didn't like Sony's involvement with Spider-Man 3 and he hated the script for Spider-Man 4 and also thought it could not be done in such short time, because Sony had already picked a release date. The conclusion = Sony are cash grabbing retards.
Drive is pure cinema. -
comicman117 — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 06:27 PM)
I enjoy aspects of it, and I like how Peter's relationship with MJ develops, but overall I'd say it's a very messy film.
"You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway". - Walt Disney -
sleeping_gorilla — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 08:08 PM)
It was the worst of the Raimi films, but not hardly as bad as most people remember it. They were trying to emulate the multiple threaded plot you would see in a Spidey Comic. I'm surprised they tried it again with ASM2 after SM3 had such a bad response.
.
Thor 2-Attack of the Clones-The 5th Element the trifecta of bad movies. -
GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 11:07 AM)
It was the worst of the Raimi films, but not hardly as bad as most people remember it. They were trying to emulate the multiple threaded plot you would see in a Spidey Comic. I'm surprised they tried it again with ASM2 after SM3 had such a bad response.
I wouldn't say ASM 2 is like SM 3 in that regard. It made sense for Electro and Harry to team up since they were both involved with Oscorp. Also Rhino is not even one of the most popular Spider-Man villains and never will be. His lack of screentime imo is nothing compared to Venom's lack of screentime in Spider-Man 3. More people wanted to see Venom in a movie than there are that wanted to see Rhino in a movie. I don't get these people saying Rhino should've been taken seriously. He's a dumb strong character and always has been.
That said a problem Spider-Man 3 had is that it made no sense for Sand Man to team up with Venom. Not to mention Electro got way more screen time and story than Sand Man or Eddie Brock/Venom got. The problem Spider-Man 3 really had is Raimi's unwillingness to do Venom justice. If he had done the movie right he would've left Venom for a cliffhanger like he did with Harry. Speaking of Harry he should've been the main villain and in fact, Sand Man shouldn't have been in the movie at all.
I don't care if they think it's a retread, he should've been the main villain as the Green Goblin. But from what I've heard of Raimi's original plan for the movie Harry was always going to get the shaft. Raimi wanted Vulture and Sand Man teamed up the whole movie. With that always being the plan, Harry was always going to not be the main focus.
1, 2 Freddy's coming for you. 3, 4 better lock your door. -
manchof1 — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 01:17 PM)
Raimi was planning to save Harry becoming a villain for Spider-Man 4, having him scheme behind the scenes and building him up but Sony wanted Venom, Raimi wanted Sandman, and both felt everything needed to be wrapped up in the third entry. That is why Venom, Sandman, and Harry all became villains in Spider-Man 3.
Harry and Electro teaming up felt like an after thought since neither helped the other out to fight Spider-Man and neither had enough development to make you care about them. Also Rhino was a completely pointless inclusion since he was never a necessary part of the story. The film could have ended with anyone attacking the city and it wouldn't have changed a thing. -
RepsakTK — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 04:19 PM)
The fact that we didn't get a Lizard after establishing Curt Connors as both a teacher and friend to Peter is really sad. It could have brought so much punch to have him go up against a person he'd had a close relationship to over the course of two previous movies. beep you Sony!
Drive is pure cinema. -
KCJ506 — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 01:55 PM)
It would have been kinda redundant to have another movie with a goblin as the sole villain so soon. And even if Raimi got to do it the way he originally wanted with Sandman and Vulture, I'm certain Harry would have still been the main focus and the other two being subplots.
Its amazing how people hang around message boards of movies they dont like -
sleeping_gorilla — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 03:44 PM)
I meant they were similar in format, running multiple subplots and tying them together at the end. I felt the villain team up was more personal in Spidey 3. Spider-man used the Symbiote to try to kill Sandman, then abandoned it. The Symbiote moved to Eddie Brock who hated Peter Parker. Spidey couldn't beat Sandman without help, let along both Sandman and Venom, so he had to enlist Harry to save MJ who they both loved.
Had they split SM3 into 2 movies it could have been epic, instead of the mess. But I give them credit for the effort.
Also Thomas Hayden Church would have been a great Eddie Brock, totally miscast.
Thor 2-Attack of the Clones-The 5th Element the trifecta of bad movies. -
MrBaconsock — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 10:22 PM)
I like Spider-man 3, but not in the same way I like the first 2. Spiderman 3 was almost like a parody of itself. The drama was just so over the top that it was super cheesy yet so good.
Yes, there's a lot of silliness and nonsense and conveniences, but there are too many good and memorable moments for me to hate it.
Harry eating his pie. (So good)
Peter crying in the cafe after talking to Harry
Harry and Peter's "strawberries" fight
Peter Parker saying "I'm going to put some dirt in your eye"
Peter Parker calling Eddie Brock trash
Eddie Brock praying to God for Peter's death
Peter talking to doctor Connors over the phone while flirting with the landlord's daughter
Sandman's scene where he's coming out of the sand for the first time -
LegendInMyMind — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 06:41 PM)
Yeah, I think you're right. It was kinda the "Maximum Carnage" of Spider-Man movies compared to Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2's more 'sincere' and grounded take on the mythos. Don't know if you ever read Maximum Carnage, but it's basically the greatest, worst-written comic of superhero-dom. Even better than Knightfall. It's so insane and unending and there's not an ounce of subtlety, but the spectacle of it was awesome.
Spider-Man 3, if it wasn't as funny as it is, I wouldn't like it at all. But for whatever faults of Raimi's during the production of it, he basically threw every slapstick tool he had in his toybox at the screen and tried to make something of it. If nothing else, it's ballsy. But it's also one of the better technical films in the genre. I mean, going on 10 years later and it still looks really good.