Spiderman 3

[JMeganSnow]

Okay,

[KendallJ]

Hated it.

[Michael Caution]

I think it had to do with the fact that they tried to do too many plot lines at one time and weave them together. The Sandman, Venom, and Harry. I think the conflict, i.e., struggle for values, was spread too thin that there wasn't much substance left to go around.

[softwareNerd]

We loved it!

I'm intrigued by the comma in Jennifer's post. I wonder if she meant to post more, and instead inadvertently started a thread of pithy remarks.

Edited May 13, 2007 by softwareNerd

[IAmMetaphysical]

I hated it as well. One dimensional characters, explicit altruism, package dealt selfishness, etc. The onyl saving grace was seeing venom in CG.

Why did you love it sNerd?

[softwareNerd]

Why did you love it sNerd?

I said "we" loved it, because it's a comic-book movie that I'd never see without my son in tow. So, my evaluation of it is qua comic book movie, relative to Superman and so on. Within that context of evaluation, I think it was well-plotted and well-constructed. Edited May 13, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Catherine]

I said "we" loved it, because it's a comic-book movie that I'd never see without my son in tow. So, my evaluation of it is qua comic book movie, relative to Superman and so on. Within that context of evaluation, I think it was well-plotted and well-constructed.

I would disagree completely. The CG effects were WONDERFUL, I'll give it that. Other than that, I thought it was horrible!

Setting aside the hugely altruistic nature of the movie(s), not to mention the warped sense of justice, the plot and character development were both undermined by random chance. For instance, it wasn't until the end that Sand Man reveals that he only ACCIDENTALLY killed Peter Parker's uncle, so everything working up to the fight between Sand Man and Spiderman is thrown out the window. The same can be said for the scene between Harry and his butler - who suddenly announces that his father was responsible for his own death - AN ENTIRE MOVIE AFTER THE FACT. ("Oops! LOLZ.")

One particular scene I loathed was when Spiderman tells the blonde chick (whose name I forget) to "lay one on him". It was entirely out-of-character, and just an act of desperation from the directors to tie in some sexual tension.

I realize that a lot of the incongruous parts in the movie were a product of the directors trying to tie in a lot from the comic books that were originally unrelated, but they did a pretty poor job of it, in my opinion.

[JASKN]

At points in this movie I was embarrassed for the filmmakers and actors, especially Tobey Maguire. Most of the movie was completely contrived (alien goop falls from sky, hero and girl have relationship problems out of nowhere, action pauses for hero against American flag backdrop, friend is struck by amnesia(!)) accompanied by flat out cliches (villain forces girl to dump hero, villain(s) recognize the errors of his(their) ways and all is forgiven, hero needs to think more about others than himself). And that excludes the situational nonsense, like a semi of sand in the middle of Manhattan, and why was everyone crying the whole time? I almost felt the movie would have been worth it had I gone to witness the CG exclusively and to ignore the story.

I should provide the disclaimer that I do not like the "comic book style" movies, where my preference leans toward a Batman Begins kind of movie. That is, comic book premises and characters with a lifelike approach. Why does Spiderman need to be so responsible with his powers? How could a hero (or movie) deal with an honest interpretation of a villain like Venom, a cold-blooded killer with a passion for evil? But I do not think this movie is a well-executed example even of its style, nor well-crafted as cinema.

Out of curiosity softwareNerd, was your evaluation of the movie partly through the eyes of your son, so to speak? Does your comment mean you would not enjoy a movie like this (as much?) if you were seeing it alone?

[RationalBiker]

Hmm, there were two previous Spiderman movies. Anyone who went to Spiderman 3 expecting anything substantially different from the first two, IMHO, had unrealistic expectations. The first two movies set the theme and storyline which 3 continued on with quite consistently. I agree with sNerd's perspective, it's a comic book movie. If someone doesn't like comic book movies that's certainly fine, but they should know going in that's what it is after the first two installments (unless of course they hadn't seen the first two).

** Spoilers **

With that in mind, I enjoyed the movie, but I did not like it as much as 1 or 2. One of the reasons is because a certain type of character relationship that is portrayed between Peter and M.J. This is the same thing that happened between Lana Lang (and other characters) and Clark Kent in Smallville and it happens SOOOOOOO often it drives me crazy. These two people grow up together. They come to know each on an extensive and intimate level and yet the slightest misperception causes M.J. to TOTALLY forget who Peter is and what's important to him. Just like Clark who saves Lana countless times, who consistently demonstrates he's a good guy, who time and time again helps his friends and makes the "right" decisions, Lana would always doubt him over and over again no matter how much evidence in reality told her she should trust him. In M.J.'s case, when she's feeling down and things aren't going her way, she doesn't confide in the one person she should know loves her. Instead she expects him to somehow telepathically know that something is wrong. Instead she sees things than can easily be misinterpreted and assumes the worst in his character. ARRGGHHH!!!

[hunterrose]

SPOILERS ensue...

Spider-man 3 wasn't the OMG movie I was hoping it would be, but I thought it was pretty good.

Thematically, I thought this movie was a bit stronger than the first two. To me, Spider-man 3 was about revenge and forgiveness/redeemability.

Peter uses bad judgment with Gwen Stacy and the symbiote, MJ messes up with Harry and in not telling Peter what's going on, Sandman made his mistakes, Harry treats his friends badly, Eddie Brock does the wrong thing in pursuit of a job etc. Largely, the movie says that people can pick up the pieces from their mistakes if they're willing to try. Most of the characters realize that you have to let some things go, and that stubbornly obsessing over the mistakes others make will only make you unhappy.

In terms of revenge, the movie made a strong point that revenge isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Kissing Harry doesn't make MJ feel any better, "killing" Sandman doesn't get Peter any positive response from Aunt May, Harry's treatment of his friends doesn't gain justice, dancing up a storm with Gwen in order to spite MJ only makes things worse for Parker, getting Eddie Brock fired really doesn't help PP/Spidey.

Another thing I liked is that the characters largely didn't blame other people and situations for their plights. Spidey didn't blame the symbiote for the way he acted, Harry didn't excuse his behavior on account of Green Goblin juice, MJ didn't justify alienating Parker because she (presumably) was threatened, Sandman felt guilty over Uncle Ben's death even though it was an accident. The big exception is Eddie Brock, and it could be argued that his blaming others for his problems played out consistently with the theme.

I REALLY wish they hadn't killed Harry; what was the point????

My #2 gripe was that Eddie Brock/Venom wasn't as developed as he should've been. In the comics, Eddie not only dislikes Peter Parker for personal reasons, but also dislikes Spidey for not being enough of a vigilante to do whatever needs to be done to protect the innocent. The comic book Eddie actually wants to be a good guy, but uses bad means to his end. The movie's Eddie didn't care about Gwen almost falling to her death or about using his Venom powers for good, apparently only caring about prestige, status, and revenge. More complexity would've been good.

In M.J.'s case, when she's feeling down and things aren't going her way, she doesn't confide in the one person she should know loves her. Instead she expects him to somehow telepathically know that something is wrong. Instead she sees things than can easily be misinterpreted and assumes the worst in his character. ARRGGHHH!!!

Agreed

[JMeganSnow]

I'm intrigued by the comma in Jennifer's post. I wonder if she meant to post more, and instead inadvertently started a thread of pithy remarks.

Yes, and I editted it but it didn't seem to take. *sigh* Probably a result of me hitting the wrong button or something. What I meant to say is that I thought the movie was bad because the plot is a disjointed mess that doesn't add up to anything . . . when it got to the end I was thinking, "where the heck did this come from?" I think they tried to follow the events in the comic book too much when it came to what happened with the Venom entity but they had a clash because the events of the previous two movies didn't follow the comic books in some aspects. Needless to say they had an issue.

The action scenes were dull and I found myself kind of wishing that Spiderman would bite it so Harry could get the girl,seriously. Did anyone notice the little gaffe at the end where Brock pulls off Spiderman's mask but he's inexplicably wearing it shortly thereafter and it's all ripped up? Did I miss him putting it back on or something?

Edit: Yeah, what Catherine said!

Edited May 13, 2007 by JMeganSnow

[aequalsa]

SPOILERS ensue...

Spider-man 3 wasn't the OMG movie I was hoping it would be, but I thought it was pretty good.

Thematically, I thought this movie was a bit stronger than the first two. To me, Spider-man 3 was about revenge and forgiveness/redeemability.

I thought it was moderately bad and agree with what has been mentioned above, but there was one element that I liked. I kept expecting him to defend himself in the "black suit made me do it" kind of way. Like a drunk who hits his wife or kids "because of the alcohol". I was pleasantly surprised by the little pro freewill speech at the end and his taking reponsibility for his actions.

[Michael Caution]

Most of the movie was completely contrived...action pauses for hero against American flag backdrop

I actually found this to be one of the more redeeming qualities of the movie. Staying true to the genre of comic book heroes, figures like Superman and Captain America and Spiderman illustrate how great America is and aren't afraid to show it. They know that it is exactly because of values America stands for and fights to defend that makes it worth celebrating. And to show Spiderman next to the American flag right before he rushes into action to fight for the values he defends adds to the overall message of the film.

[softwareNerd]

...was your evaluation of the movie partly through the eyes of your son, so to speak? Does your comment mean you would not enjoy a movie like this (as much?) if you were seeing it alone?

I can't say that I wouldn't enjoy it as much if I saw it alone, but that I would not go see it alone. Not sure if that makes sense; but, I suppose I could sum it up as saying that the genre does not appeal to me, but my comment should be taken as a rating within the genre. So, no, it wouldn't make it to my own "top 10" movies list.

On the other hand, my comment is not "through my son's eyes" so to speak, because he seems to love whatever super-hero movie he sees, and if you ask him for a favorite, the most likely one will come from whichever couple he happens to have seen recently. So, no, the way I'd put it is that, of the various movies he pulls me along to, this one was among the better ones.

I usually forget the details of these movies pretty fast, but I remember disliking the latest Superman, so I can try contrasting the two, from whatever I remember. Both had cool graphics, but if I remember right, Superman was a little better; but, to me personally, the graphics are of near-zero value. Of course, both had good guys fighting bad guys, but I thought the superman villain showed less psychological motivation than the Spiderman ones and was also more of a caricature (which is usually relative when it comes to comic book villains). In contrast, the Spiderman writer tried to give both the villains some authentic motivation for their actions. Both movies also had a love story component, but in Superman the couple's motivations were unconvincing, whereas here I was actually impressed by the realistic depth of motivations depicted. Comic book movies sometimes go from one fight to the next with the rest just an excuse to show the fights. Spiderman too; but less than any others. To me, personally, the extent to which the fights are not simply glued together is an important part of whether I would enjoy it. In terms of theme and character, all these movies have a good-versus-evil theme, but Spiderman wove in the theme of forgiveness and the hollowness of revenge in a manner that was not too clumsy. Added to this was the depiction fo two types of character, when Spidey tries to be more "with it", and the need for an individual to choose what he wants to be.

As an aside, the villains' motivations, the forgiveness theme and the false dichotomy presented by the two types of "roles' Spidey tries to play are all drawn from conventional morality; but, I ignore that aspect.

[JMeganSnow]

I'm not even sure it was better than Superman Returns, but I think that's just because there were too many coincidences (like Brock being at the church) that weren't handled well. Coincidences just grate on me.

[kufa]

I still haven't seen it, but I saw and enjoyed the first two. The reason I didn't see it yet is that it just looks un believeable! The evil villians in the previous two were at least somewhat plausible, they got their powers from technology. Spidey got his from a radio-active spider, stretching it, but hey, it was radioactive. But now the makers want me to believe theres a man made out of sand. How is that even possible? It makes no sense.

[FeatherFall]

For starters, I really liked the execution of the first two movies, with the exception of Aunt May's "give up your dreams" speech in Spidey 2.

In 3, I thought a lot of the scenes that were supposed to tug on my heartstrings fell flat. I completely agree with Catherine's opinion of the Sandman and Harry Osborne. "Oops" just doesn't do it for me. Plus, I was disappointed when Venom did not refer to himself as "we" like he does in the comics - but that is minor.

I usually don't mind when movie plots deviate from comics as long as the changes create something meaningful. In this case, all of the plot changes took away from the emotion...

---spoilers---

To begin with, Mary Jane's personality is completely different from the Mary Jane of the comics. Comic Book MJ is outgoing, witty and fearless. That chick rocks, and I can see why Peter digs her. But, this didn't really matter until the third movie when Spidey was constantly forced to deal with her insecurities and rampant whining.

The movie did not do enough to show that the suit feeds off of emotion. In the comics, this is why Venom is physically more powerful than Spiderman - because Eddie Brock is a suicidal ball of angst. This was important in the comics and deserved another five or seven minutes of serious attention in the movie. Maybe they could have had Eddie give the "Jesus, please kill Spiderman" prayer in his bathroom while he attempts suicide with some pills, and then have Spidey rip the suit off when Brock's ambulance passes by on the street, horns a blarin'.

The biggest opportunity for an emotional response was with the death of Gwen Stacey. In the comics, the Goblin (I forget which one) Throws Gwen off of one side of a bridge, and a car full of people or something off of the other. Spiderman seemingly can only save one side. He saves the carload first, and then zips around to try to save Gwen. Falling towards her, he shoots one set of webbing at the bridge and one at Gwen. He catches her head and snaps her neck.

In the movie, this would have been the perfect place to have Spidey realize that the suit is screwing with his head. The scene could have been done like this:

Spidey chases Sandman to a bridge. Sandman grabs Gwen and says, "Go away or the girl goes for a swim."

Spidey, arrogant because of the suit, says, "Try it." He rushes Sandman. Sandman throws Gwen, expecting Spidey to save her so he can have some time to run. Spidey spends some time webbing Sandman before he jumps to save Gwen. Spidey catches Gwen, but her neck or her back breaks. He could then follow Gwen's ambulance back to the hospital where Eddie Brock is getting his stomach pumped. Throw in a Harry Osborne-Gwen Stacy love interest earlier in the movie, and you have a believable reason for the New Goblin to team up with Spidey later - to get revenge for the death of his woman.

I'm not saying this is the best way to do the movie, but it beats the way they did it and it only took me a few minutes to come up with. They really dropped the ball on this one.

[IAmMetaphysical]

They should hire you to do treatments. Good ideas.

[LutherSetzer]

In M.J.'s case, when she's feeling down and things aren't going her way, she doesn't confide in the one person she should know loves her. Instead she expects him to somehow telepathically know that something is wrong.

Amen, brother!

"[A]nyone who wants to be understood, has to make damn sure that he has made [her]self intelligible."

--Ayn Rand, "The Psychology of Psychologizing"

When Mary Jane Watson started her noisy and embarrassing "Who Is Gwen Stacy?" whine fest at the French restaurant, I sat there rolling my eyes and wishing Peter Parker would cite this passage to put her in her place. Do these two naive young [presumably] virgins really need to jump into a committed engagement to marry? I advise against it.

[Mammon]

I hate this movie so, so much. It's probally one of the worst ever made.

You guys already got into the list of reasons, but let me take this down another road...

For starters, the main reason it sucked was because it had no respect for source material. Most people argue that it was based off a comic book so it's supposed to be dumb. These people make the biggest fallacy when it comes to comic books -- that they are for kids only. You know why comic book characters have been so successful? Because they and the books written about them are incredibly in-depth, well-developed and interesting.

Read the Ulimate Spider-Man series and compare that too the movie, you'll see how the comic book is actually an incredibly well-written piece of work and the movie is, well, crap.

Going back to the respect for source material, i've seen alot of people give the excuse "Well it's based of a comic and you can't expect it to be all the same and they have to change things for the movie" well that's a given. But imagine this, an Atlas Shrugged movie comes out and the director decides to make John Galt a gay black who loves drinking Martini's and watching E! all day. He rebels against the government because they don't give him enough hand-outs and they won't allow Gay marriage, and he is an open supporter of socialism!

Would that enrage you? Would you say "it's just a movie based off a long book..." That's what I mean for respect for source content.

Now imagine this descrated version of Atlas Shrugged being played up as the real epic thing and being completely accurate and to the point. Now imagine seeing Atlas Shrugged's cool movie logo plastered on every single product you can possibly imagine. In fact, not Atlas Shrugged... SHRUGGED:TEH MOVIE! Everywhere you go you see SHRUGGED:TEH MOVIE! On shirts, cups, kiddie meals, build-a-bears, fast food chains, hats, wrapping paper, everything you can imagine.

How annoying would that be?

This is why I hate Spider-Man 3. Go to your local Wal-Mart and try to find a square inch of the store where you can't see Spider-Man 3 on a product. It's not going to happen, it's everywhere. The movie was horriable and I don't even think it was made to be a movie, just a giant commercial for all the stuff they are hoping to sell by putting Spider-Man 3 on it. It's not even Spider-Man, it's the movie version of Spider-Man, like the comic book one never existed before they made Spider-Man 3!

Remeber that apartment complex Roark designed for Keating in Foutainhead and what they did to it? It's basically like that.

[hunterrose]

You guys already got into the list of reasons, but let me take this down another road...

For starters, the main reason [spider-man 3] sucked was because it had no respect for source material.

Really?? How so?

Read the Ultimate Spider-Man series and compare that too the movie, you'll see how the comic book is actually an incredibly well-written piece of work and the movie is, well, crap.

You shouldn't compare the movies to an entire series. Better perhaps to compare SM3 to a comic book story arc - some of which are good, and some of which are very bad.

Personally, I don't see how the movie fundamentally drifts from the comic-book ideals. Not to mention that there are some Spider-man comic book storylines that are much worse than Spider-man 3.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I didn't get a chance to see Spider-Man 3 at the theaters and finally rented the DVD.

I love the Spider-Man movie franchise because it is so full of conflicts -- both melodrama (conflicts between characters) and drama (conflicts within a character). This movie did not let me down in that regard: There was both great melodrama and great drama in this movie.

However, a work of art that contains drama must be judged not only by the fact that it had drama, but how the drama is resolved. Some of the conflicts were resolved very well, and others were just resolved because of forgiveness. It is one's morality that leads to conflict resolution in any work of art that contains drama, and this one was too conventionally contrived around altruism. Which only goes to show that even though one may be a great fiction writer, as the writers of the Spider-Man movie franchise have been, philosophy is dominant.

As far as I am concerned, Spider-Man should have kicked butt, since it would have been in his own self-interest to do that. I like the way the Harry / Spider-Man conflict was resolved, since that conflict was based on a misunderstanding, but the others left me cold.

I'll give it a B- for overall movie making, but I'll probably go see Spider-Man 4, when and if it comes out, since I still want to know if Spider-Man is going to get the girl!

[Moebius]

For starters, the main reason it sucked was because it had no respect for source material.

Couldn't have been that bad, considering Stan Lee approved it and even made some cameos in it.

Spider man was never one of my favorites, but I thought they got his character pretty down pat -- a righteous, altruistic, intelligent geek who got some super powers and got in the sack with a super model. A pretty straight up fantasy for geeks everywhere.