I actually liked Spider-Man 3…
-
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. -
-
mmainll21 — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 08:32 AM)
I like SM3 enough but I'm glad it failed at this point. It created the redundant ASM and the horrible ASM2 (the only Spiderman film I will never watch again) which help Marvel partner with Sony to have Spidey in the MCU, I think we all can be happy about that.
-
Crown_22 — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 10:45 AM)
Off topic, but you people think The Amazing Spider-Man was better than The Amazing Spider-Man 2? The first one was borderline boring and didn't feel like a Spider-Man movie most of the time. I don't get the hate for part 2 but that one felt like I was reading a Spider-Man comic book or watching one of its cartoons. The suit in ASM2 was even the best of all films. I'm one of the few that appreciates part 2 I guess.
-
mmainll21 — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 12:14 PM)
The first one was totally unnecessary and the 2nd one was really bad in my opinion. I doubt I will ever watch the first one again either because I would rather watch the original. But I do agree with you, the suit was good in the 2nd part but to be honest I have liked the suit in all of them. It's cool that you enjoy it, there are plenty of movies I love that many others dislike.
-
The_Crow18 — 9 years ago(December 07, 2016 02:17 AM)
It's a fun entertaining film that lacks the qualities that made the first two stand above in the genre, but it's still a good sequel. Flawed, but still good.
Those who didn't liked it, should give it another view. It gets better over time and it is far better film than both TASM ones.
Are You Watching Closely?
You're an idiot