When I first saw the trailer for Spider-Man 3 I was so excited, because the black suit/Venom was going to be in it. When
-
KthulhuX — 9 years ago(November 30, 2016 08:42 PM)
Question for you: Do you mean the three minutes where Peter had a different hairstyle, but was actually acting happy? Or the entire rest of the trilogy where he seemed like he was skating on the razor's edge of suicidal depression? Because I find it ridiculous that people label the former "emo" while ignoring the fact that the later is FAR more emo.
-
-
KCJ506 — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 01:54 PM)
Yeah, Spider-man only had about 20 minutes of screentime in Civil War. It would have been a good movie even if he hadn't been included.
Its amazing how people hang around message boards of movies they dont like -
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.