Raimi on past and present

[E.Brock]

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/19/sam-raimi-opens-up-about-spider-man-past-and-present/

[Dragon]

Interesting interview but the interviewer was also a bit of a jerk. Who thought the Spidey franchise was finished? Spidey 3 may not have been great, but it wasn't disasterously bad. All the bad stuff really came from one element, which was the relationship with Peter and MJ. Venom fans may have been unhappy that the movie wasn't about him, but the bases were covered with the character. He even had a more solid motivation than in the comics for wanting Peter dead.

But MJ simply came off as a total ***** and iy just made Peter seem like an idiot for pursuing her at all.

But back to the interview, it's funny that it's thus far escaped Sam that while he really believes he understands Peeter, so little of that is shown onscreen. That Peter has been throughout the franchise presented as this near-austistic dullard who can't see beyond a childhood crush. I really hope we see more of who Peter really is in this new film.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Wow, interesting interview. I don't like how the interviewer was automatically assuming S-M3 was bad though. ALot of people (including me) thought S-M3 was awesome.

[SpeterMan3]

I think there should be a Raimi interview thread with all the others merged. There's gonna be a lot of interviews, and we don't need a thread about every one, right? Btw, here's another one. http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8347

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Another great interview! :up:

[Venom 1988]

Wow, interesting interview. I don't like how the interviewer was automatically assuming S-M3 was bad though.

Because it was

[DACrowe]

Can I then say that interviewers should ask Michael Bay, "So how will Transformers 2 not suck like the last one?"

[LightningFlash]

Wow, interesting interview. I don't like how the interviewer was automatically assuming S-M3 was bad though. ALot of people (including me) thought S-M3 was awesome.

And a LOT more people thought it was a horrible movie.

That's why the interviewer said what he said.

Can I then say that interviewers should ask Michael Bay, "So how will Transformers 2 not suck like the last one?"

Yeah, if you want.

But look at how many critics and fans enjoyed Transformers more.

[Immortalfire]

"What would I have done differently? I would have done everything differently, every single shot. " A strategic way of saying "I'd have done it without Avi Arad hanging over my head", perhaps?

[bryanss3]

yeah the interview seems like he really doesn't like Raimi at all
I know that a lot of people really didn't like Spider-Man 3, so if given the chance to go back and change it, what would he change? "What would I have done differently? I would have done everything differently, every single shot. I think in every picture that I've ever made. Everything that I've done torments me. I really would like another chance except I'd be too embarrassed to ever really try to do them again and no one would want to see the same movie just done differently." Well, he did do that with Evil Dead II didn't he? But anyway, I think that's a standard response for any director, but still interesting to hear from Raimi.
I don't think that is the standard response I think the standard response would be "everyone has opinions but I'm proud of it" or if he tried to defend it in some way. He said he himself didn't like it and he wishes he could have done it better. thats honest not standard.

[Spider-ManHero12]

And a LOT more people thought it was a horrible movie.

That's why the interviewer said what he said. Anyobdy who didn't like it doesn't think it's horrible. They were probably just dissappointed with it.

[LightningFlash]

No...a lot of people did call it horrible. And it was because of its many flaws and ridiculous retcon.

Fanboys call it disappointing, because it was such a letdown from the first two installments. Other people, and most critics, stated that it was horrible and I call it a tremendous fail.

[mjbull23]

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/19/sam-raimi-opens-up-about-spider-man-past-and-present/

I enjoyed the interview, allthough brief, it conveyed some of Rami's dissapointment wth the last film. He sincerely cares, and he want's to take the character to a new level of depth that hasn't been seen onscreen yet.


I like Sam alot, I am rooting for him. Evil Dead 1 and 2 and SM 1 and 2 are enough reason to garner my admiration for his skills and talents as a film maker.

[Spider-ManHero12]

No...a lot of people did call it horrible. And it was because of its many flaws and ridiculous retcon. The people who call it horrible (specifically, ignorant people that only see comic movies because they feel like it an have no understanding of the character) are the ones who are ignorant to film making. For example, some kid in my school once said that he was pissed that Rocky lost the match in ROcky Balboa, which is why he thought it sucked. ROcky didn't win, but he whent the distance, which is all that matters. Basically, people like that won't say "oh this film was meh. It was dissapointing." They will say "oh this is the most horrible thing on earth."

[Ethermatic]

I've got nothing against Sam Raimi, but the more I watch his three Spider-Man films, the more I just wonder why they messed with so much. I can understand when things are changed when adapting a book to film. But a lot of characters, scenarios and stories were changed and when I see that he ended up bringing Gwen Stacy into 3, I wonder why it was at all necessary to change so much.

Truth be told, I think the second film is the only one I can stand anymore. I really, really wish they would've just rebooted the series and followed the comics a bit more. So many classic stories to mesh and tell.

[Infinity9999x]

Can I then say that interviewers should ask Michael Bay, "So how will Transformers 2 not suck like the last one?"

For it's source material, Transformers was fine. If you were expecting an emotionally gripping and very intelligent story from a movie based off a cartoon that only existed to promote a toy line...then you were only fooling yourself.

[SpeterMan3]

When i first heard about Transformers I thought it was going to be about little kids playing with toys.

[TheCardPlayer]

Can I then say that interviewers should ask Michael Bay, "So how will Transformers 2 not suck like the last one?"

Transformers was closer to the source material than any Raimi Spider-Man films, ever were.

[UltimateJustin]

Transformers was closer to the source material than any Raimi Spider-Man films, ever were.
Megatron being on earth for centuries, the all-spark, the complete overhaul of Spike, no Ark.. VS Peter meeting MJ first and being perpetually creepy. They are about equal.

[LightningFlash]

The people who call it horrible (specifically, ignorant people that only see comic movies because they feel like it an have no understanding of the character) are the ones who are ignorant to film making. For example, some kid in my school once said that he was pissed that Rocky lost the match in ROcky Balboa, which is why he thought it sucked. ROcky didn't win, but he whent the distance, which is all that matters. Basically, people like that won't say "oh this film was meh. It was dissapointing." They will say "oh this is the most horrible thing on earth."

And fanboys are ignorant for the fact that they can say Spider-Man 3 is such a great film, but yet Raimi did NOT do justice to Venom, Sandman, the symbiote, it ruined Uncle Ben's death, and above all, ALL three movies made Spider-Man into a pussy.

What the d-bag said about Rocky Balboa, yah, that was idiotic, but at least Rocky Balboa made the Rocky series enjoyable, instead of having it end with Rocky V, which WAS a horrible mess. Spider-Man 3, the premise at the beginning made the movie awesome, and it was supposed to be spectacular with all its hype, but a total letdown and joined the ranks of other superhero adaptation third movies such as Batman Forever, Superman III, X3...

Sam Raimi might have understood the characters of Norman Osborn and changed up Otto Octavius to fit him in Spider-Man 2(which still bothers me how Doc Ock was sympathetic, a lesson Raimi should've learned beforehand, but you can't teach old dogs new tricks I suppose), but Sammy did God-awful changes for Sandy and Venom, which weren't even close as the comics, except for Marko's clothing, and Eddie Brock was more like Ultimate Eddie Brock.

I would know what is a good movie and what's not, and I'm not ignorant to film making, as I am majoring in motion pictures and television at Academy of Art University.

Perhaps Sam Raimi learned from his mistakes, perhaps Arad won't give in his two cents over who should be in the film, but then again, Raimi helped write the story, Raimi is the one who cut the better scenes and put in pointless scenes, Raimi is the one who decided to make the symbiote turn Peter into Gerald Way, or that douche from Green Day.

That is why Spider-Man 3 was horrible. Certain scenes such as the birth of Sandman and the bell tower were amazing to watch, but having to sit through dance routines and boring-ass Kirsten Dunst only dumbs down the movie. Maguire, to me, was never a great Peter, Dunst is a terrible actress, and the only bright side of the movies were James Franco, and now he won't be in the fourth film.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Perhaps Sam Raimi learned from his mistakes, perhaps Arad won't give in his two cents over who should be in the film, but then again, Raimi helped write the story, Raimi is the one who cut the better scenes and put in pointless scenes, Raimi is the one who decided to make the symbiote turn Peter into Gerald Way, or that douche from Green Day. As muc has I didn't mind any of that, and I liked it, Sam wasn't the one who was going to put the Symbiote story in from the start. Avi was.

[UltimateJustin]

As muc has I didn't mind any of that, and I liked it, Sam wasn't the one who was going to put the Symbiote story in from the start. Avi was.
Avi Arad butting in and ruining the movie by forcing Venom into the script was awful, but Raimi was still responsible for the retconning of Uncle Ben's death, and worse of all, allowing the Sandman story to conclude without reason. There needed to be a reason why Sandman would go from beating Spider-Man to death in one scene, and then apologizing in the next. Also, there it would probably have felt like there was more resolution if Peter forgave Sandman and meant it, but in the same breath did something to bring the character to justice (like trap him in concrete a la Spectacular SM). I mean after all he broke a ****-ton of laws and killed some cops probably.

He just flies away.. man, still...

SM-3 is still good though, in the top ten superhero movies.

[Joker]

SM-3 is still good though, in the top ten superhero movies.

Not in my top ten, it wouldn't.

It's an awful movie.

[Infinity9999x]

Really, I think SM3 is pretty much exactly in the middle of the two groups of fanboys we have who comment on it most (haters and lovers).

It's not great, but not horrible. I'd put it in league with Batman Forever, Daredevil, and X3. Solid movies, pretty much straight average.

However, that said, I still lay a lot of blame on Raimi for the way SM3 turned out. Yes, Arad forced Venom in there, but (and I've been saying this a lot lately) Raimi was the one who handled him poorly. And yes, I get that Raimi didn't like Venom, but instead of giving him a crappy treatment, CHANGE HIM! I mean, Raimi had no problem doing that with any of the other villains in the series! So why not change Brock into an interesting character?

Not only that, but Raimi needed to swallow his pride and realize that the movie just wasn't going to work with three villains. He should have cut Sandman, and given most of Sandman's arc to Brock. You could still deal with the forgiveness theme with Brock. Make brock a struggling Dad who can't get meds for his sick kid because he gambles too much. He steals some of pete's photos. Pete, under black suit influence, gets Brock fired, and this gives Brock the approriate rage at Peter and Spider-man when he gets the suit. He's also plays up the angle of the person who couldn't forgive, and is thus destroyed by it. Not only that, but now you have more time to develop the black suit and Harry.

It would have tightened the narrative, and made for a better story.

Now, I'm willing to give Raimi a shot at the next two movies, but to be completely honest, I just don't like the style he does Spider-man in. The only movie I really enjoyed was SM1. I don't think he truly understands the character of Peter/Spider-man, nor MJ, and I'm not a fan of the overly campy humor. I appreciate what Raimi did for the character and the superhero film genre, but I would really rather he move on and we get someone new.

[Spider-ManHero12]

but I would really rather he move on and we get someone new. That won't happen for a while .Well, not with this franchise, anway, and I'm very happy about that. I trust in Sam Raimi, and honestly, I think he'll do a fantastic job on this one.

[LightningFlash]

As muc has I didn't mind any of that, and I liked it, Sam wasn't the one who was going to put the Symbiote story in from the start. Avi was.

I said Arad brought in his two cents, meaning the symbiote and Venom, but still, Sam Raimi could have at least treated the symbiote properly. The only thing I liked about Raimi's version is of how it crawled around like a spider...which only puts emphasis on the similarities and opposites of Spider-Man and Venom.

[LightningFlash]

Not in my top ten, it wouldn't.

It's an awful movie.

I don't know how anyone could put Spider-Man 3 in their top ten.

Superman
Superman II
Batman
Batman Returns(to some fans I suppose)
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man
X-Men

And my personal favorites would be Watchmen, The Spirit, Wolverine....Steel, lol, just kidding...but it's a fun film to watch, as fun as Transformers, imo.

[Infinity9999x]

That won't happen for a while .Well, not with this franchise, anway, and I'm very happy about that. I trust in Sam Raimi, and honestly, I think he'll do a fantastic job on this one.

I can respect that. And I know we're stuck with him for a while. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate his films. In fact, I probably liked SM3 a lot more then a good number of people around here. I just have some fundamental problems with the way Raimi handles the characters in this mythos. He completely misses the duality in the character of Spider-man/Peter, and he's completely butchered MJ. Her character in the comics interests me much more than her movie counterpart. I'm also not a big fan of the comedy. I'm all for a comedic Spidey, but the comedy should come from Spider-man. I'm fine with a few funny "geeky" Peter moments, but Sam takes it and playes it to the 100th degree, and I find it too much over the top.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Sam Raimi could have at least treated the symbiote properly. He did what he felt was right, and it worked, if you ask me. He didn't just make it bad becuase he wasn't a huge fan of Venom. Sam wouldn't do that, especially with how much passion he has for Spider-Man/Marvel.

[Infinity9999x]

I said Arad brought in his two cents, meaning the symbiote and Venom, but still, Sam Raimi could have at least treated the symbiote properly. The only thing I liked about Raimi's version is of how it crawled around like a spider...which only puts emphasis on the similarities and opposites of Spider-Man and Venom.

Which is what I've been saying for a while, I mentioned it on my last post a page back.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I can respect that. And I know we're stuck with him for a while. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate his films. In fact, I probably liked SM3 a lot more then a good number of people around here. I just have some fundamental problems with the way Raimi handles the characters in this mythos. He completely misses the duality in the character of Spider-man/Peter, and he's completely butchered MJ. Her character in the comics interests me much more than her movie counterpart. I'm also not a big fan of the comedy. I'm all for a comedic Spidey, but the comedy should come from Spider-man. I'm fine with a few funny "geeky" Peter moments, but Sam takes it and playes it to the 100th degree, and I find it too much over the top. I respect your opinion, and to each his own, I guess.

[LightningFlash]

He did what he felt was right, and it worked, if you ask me. He didn't just make it bad becuase he wasn't a huge fan of Venom. Sam wouldn't do that, especially with how much passion he has for Spider-Man/Marvel.

Again....he showed NO passion for any of the characters in Spider-Man 3.

He treated Sandman as another sympathetic and weakling villain.

Spider-Man seemed to be just fine to let Sandman fly away.

And again, I believe Raimi didn't try enough at all with the symbiote and Venom; and he didn't even give Venom or even Eddie time enough to shine in the film. As with even the Stacys.

So...what "passion"? If Arad, who works for Marvel, wanted Venom, the symbiote and the Stacys in the film, why didn't Raimi keep that "passion" for all of the characters instead of being lazy and only wanting to concern with his "main three"?

[Spider-ManHero12]

He treated Sandman as another sympathetic and weakling villain. Sandman didn't have much to him in the comics besides his super powers, etc. Sam just added onto that and gave him a story, making him a sympathetic Villian, etc. I LOVE comic Sandman, but I'm just stating facts here.

[LightningFlash]

"I'm not a bad person." <--- enough said right there.

Actually, movie version of Sandman was a step down to the comic version of Sandman.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ I wouldn't compare the 2. It was Sam's vision, basically.

[hitmanyr2k]

Again....he showed NO passion for any of the characters in Spider-Man 3.

He treated Sandman as another sympathetic and weakling villain.

Spider-Man seemed to be just fine to let Sandman fly away.

And again, I believe Raimi didn't try enough at all with the symbiote and Venom; and he didn't even give Venom or even Eddie time enough to shine in the film. As with even the Stacys.

So...what "passion"? If Arad, who works for Marvel, wanted Venom, the symbiote and the Stacys in the film, why didn't Raimi keep that "passion" for all of the characters instead of being lazy and only wanting to concern with his "main three"?

What kind of impact did it have on the movie by shoe-horning Venom in it? Did it change the dynamic of the other characters? I'm not in the director's chair so how can I know? When you have a situation forced on you do you really have the same passion? Probably not. When you have any kind of artistry you want things done your way. You don't want someone in your ear telling you to do this or that. You don't want someone coming in and changing your vision. That kind of thing can sap your passion.

I know guys in the music industry that have talked about this very same thing. The artist wants to sound this way but their producer/studio wants them to sound that way to appease a certain demographic. The artist makes the changes but he doesn't have the same heart in it the way he did before. I'm the rebellious type. If I was in Raimi's place and I had Venom's character (who I find to be boring as sh**) thrust upon me I would have made sure I screwed it up lol.

[Cosmic]

After the travesty of Spider-Man 3, it's truly time to step aside and let someone else try their hand at it.

[UltimateJustin]

After the travesty of Spider-Man 3, it's truly time to step aside and let someone else try their hand at it.
Well guess what, that's not going to happen. Probably ever. Spider-Man 3 made more money than Spider-Man 2 so it's not like the studio even considers it a mis-step.

Also, I hate to break it to the guy above, but people under the age of 90 have figured out that the Superman movies were crap by now.

[Dragon]

I don't know how anyone could put Spider-Man 3 in their top ten.

Superman
Superman II
Batman
Batman Returns(to some fans I suppose)
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man
X-Men

And my personal favorites would be Watchmen, The Spirit, Wolverine....Steel, lol, just kidding...but it's a fun film to watch, as fun as Transformers, imo.

Anyone admitting to The Spirit being a personal favorite has no place criticizing Spidey 3. And let's remove Incredible Hulk, Batman Begins, Wolverine(????????), and Watchmen as well.

[UltimateJustin]

Anyone admitting to The Spirit being a personal favorite has no place criticizing Spidey 3. And let's remove Incredible Hulk, Batman Begins, Wolverine(????????), and Watchmen as well.
I think he was kidding about the last part. But I wouldn't put X-Men or TIH anywhere near my top ten, X2, yeah.

Spider-Man 3 will never recover from the hype it had, and it's flaws, which there are many, are inappropriately always going to be confused for "disasterous", when it is still a fun, entertaining and human film. It's leagues better than Ghost Rider, Wolverine, Fantastic Four and the down-right pathetic rush-job superhero movies. It's simply the most flawed Spider-Man movie, but still DELIGHTFUL.

[webhead731]

"I'm not a bad person." <--- enough said right there.

Actually, movie version of Sandman was a step down to the comic version of Sandman.

You're telling me that a thief we don't care about who wants his high school diploma is a step down from a character with depth and emotion? Okay. :rolleyes:

[Adrian89]

The people who call it horrible (specifically, ignorant people that only see comic movies because they feel like it an have no understanding of the character) are the ones who are ignorant to film making. For example, some kid in my school once said that he was pissed that Rocky lost the match in ROcky Balboa, which is why he thought it sucked. ROcky didn't win, but he whent the distance, which is all that matters. Basically, people like that won't say "oh this film was meh. It was dissapointing." They will say "oh this is the most horrible thing on earth."
The people who call it horrible and actually have good reasons for that are not ignorant and you should respect their oppinions. But the people like that kid from your school are just douchbags. It would be really stupid for me to say that SM1 sucked because it had no Gwen Stacy or because I hated the Goblin's costume, right?

But this is not the case with Spider-Man 3 which was very flawed and which was handled extremely bad! I never liked Dunst, but if this movie would have been done the right way, her presence there wouldn't have bothered me. This movie got screwed in every possible way though, so that's what bothered me.

[LightningFlash]

^^ I wouldn't compare the 2. It was Sam's vision, basically.

Which isn't a good one.

Anyone admitting to The Spirit being a personal favorite has no place criticizing Spidey 3. And let's remove Incredible Hulk, Batman Begins, Wolverine(????????), and Watchmen as well.

Those are your opinions, and I have mine. The Spirit was a fun movie to watch; as I enjoy intelligent ones, I also like fun ones, and The Spirit was enjoyable to watch, imo, as was Transformers and as will TF2. Wolverine, to some extent was a good movie, and a whole lot better than the first three X-Men films if you ask me. So I am glad there's at least one good X-Men film that I enjoyed out there that didn't have any secret homosexual themes.

I said TIH because I'm intrigued over Marvel's "Avengers" continuity and until they make a huge mistake, ala S-M 3, then those movies will be a personal favorite, and I hope DC tries that with Justice League.

And Watchmen will always be a favorite of mine, and I'm anxiously waiting for the director's cut.

And both of Nolan's Batman films were pure genius. Actually all of Nolan's films are pure genius.

Spider-Man 3 was neither intelligent nor fun. It was like watching something from the SciFi channel.

You're telling me that a thief we don't care about who wants his high school diploma is a step down from a character with depth and emotion? Okay. :rolleyes:

What depth and emotion?

For his "depth" to happen, shouldn't we know what Sandman is trying to do? Cure his daughter of a disease; but what disease? Where was the doctor that Sandman brought his money to? All we know is that Sandy could be taking the money for himself and lying about his daughter to Spidey just so he could fly away.

And even though I'm a THC fan, he didn't seem to strike any "emotion" to me, imo. His one tear didn't do justice. He kept saying his wasn't a bad person, and that one liner helped him get away from his wife and even from the damn "hero".

[Spider-ManHero12]

The people who call it horrible and actually have good reasons for that are not ignorant and you should respect their oppinions. I do respect people's opinions, but sometimes, people push the bashing way too far. Sometimes, they bring in childish reasons for hating the film.

[venom892]

To me it's like this

Better then SM3 are
SM1-2
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Watchmen
X1-2
Iron Man
Batman 89
Daredevil DC
Incredible Hulk
V for Vendetta


Worst then SM3
Elektra
Catwoman
Blade Trinity
Batman And Robin
Batman Forever
Hulk
FF1-2

At the Same level as SM3{Mediocre at best but not good in my book}
Wolverine
X3
Daredevil TC
Ghost Rider

[Dragon]

Those are your opinions, and I have mine.

But you're not saying the flaws in Spidey 3 are opinion. You're stating them as fact.

The Spirit was a fun movie to watch; as I enjoy intelligent ones, I also like fun ones, and The Spirit was enjoyable to watch, imo, as was Transformers and as will TF2.

So was Spidey 3 "fun to watch". Alot more fun than any of those films, and not nearly as flawed. The Spirit was horrbily written, shot, had idiotic action scenes. Although cast with talented actors, they weren't given anything to do. And worse of all, it failed to even remotely capture the "spirit" of the comic books. It was merely Miller's sad attempt at making a Batman film without Batman.

Wolverine, to some extent was a good movie, and a whole lot better than the first three X-Men films if you ask me. So I am glad there's at least one good X-Men film that I enjoyed out there that didn't have any secret homosexual themes.

.................................................. .'kay.

Wolverine wasn't better than the first 2 X-flicks. And it was equally as bad as the third. The irony is that after essentially making all the x-films Wolverine movies, when they finally make a Wolverine movie, Wolverine is such a weak character. Of course every character was weak, so I guess the film was an level playing field. Boring action scenes, no story or character development. You'd think that living for over 150 years would give Logan something interesting to say. You'd think several lifetimes on the battlefield would make him a clever strategist. You'd think 150 million bucks would offer some interesting effects sequences. None of that happened.

I said TIH because I'm intrigued over Marvel's "Avengers" continuity and until they make a huge mistake, ala S-M 3, then those movies will be a personal favorite, and I hope DC tries that with Justice League.

Well, I'd say making both Hulk films so sterile that they flop is a pretty huge mistake. Neither film managed to capture the awesome creature that the Hulk is. Mostly because of their fear of the bomb. The Gamma Bomb that is. A being of the Hulk's power can't be created in a test-tube. He needed to be born out of the cataclysm of the gamma bomb. They never display his true strength. I mean sheesh- Favreau had Ironman take out an F-22 without trying. The Hulk should be doing ten times that.

And Watchmen will always be a favorite of mine, and I'm anxiously waiting for the director's cut.

Watchmen may be a favorite of yours, but that doesn't make it a good film. It was an okay movie at best. The naivete' of the politics. The ridiculous ending, which would not have brought the world together, but made them line-up behind Russia against the US, since the US unleashed Dr.Manhattan. The failure of the basic premise of bringing "superheroes" into the real world. First, they weren't superheroes. They were people wearing weird costumes for no apparent reason. Second, you griped above about Spidey letting Sandman go. What about the Comedian? He was a rapist and unrepentent murderer yet those "heroes" let him run free.

And both of Nolan's Batman films were pure genius. Actually all of Nolan's films are pure genius.

Dark Knight was a good film. Begins was nonsense. Watering down Bruce Wayne's obsessive worldwide quest for knowledge into a short-stint at a Himalayan Ninja school. The lack of passion and drive from Bale's Bruce Wayne. Retconning Ra's to be both Bruce's mentor and involved in the death of his parents (And folk's complain about Marko's retcon?). Boring, nearly unintelligible action scenes. Misuse of the Scarecrow, and subsequently Two-Face.

Spider-Man 3 was neither intelligent nor fun. It was like watching something from the SciFi channel.

You see, if you were at least fair with your criticisms then you could be taken seriously. The fact that you lmake excuses for certain films' flaws while tearing into Spidey 3 makes your argument pretty thin.

For his "depth" to happen, shouldn't we know what Sandman is trying to do? Cure his daughter of a disease; but what disease? Where was the doctor that Sandman brought his money to? All we know is that Sandy could be taking the money for himself and lying about his daughter to Spidey just so he could fly away.

And even though I'm a THC fan, he didn't seem to strike any "emotion" to me, imo. His one tear didn't do justice. He kept saying his wasn't a bad person, and that one liner helped him get away from his wife and even from the damn "hero".

Now, this is a somewhat reasonable criticism, and definetly an area where the film went off track. But- again- you slam this from Spidey 3, while not fingering your "personal favorites" for the same missteps.

I mean, yeah, I enjoy watching bad Kung-fu movies. But I acknowledge them as being bad.

[LightningFlash]

But you're not saying the flaws in Spidey 3 are opinion. You're stating them as fact.

So the flaws I stated, you don't take them as fact, huh?

You don't think they could've been fixed and you don't see anything wrong with them within the film?

I state them as fact because Spider-Man 3 only shows that a genius should've been used to fix up the problems, the MANY problems, to make it much more viewable for me. Plus the flaws have been stated from many critics, either by Uncle Ben's death, or the fact that the rules kept making themselves up, with regarding the symbiote and how it quickly found Peter, or when Venom found Sandman so quickly and knew about Flint's daughter when even Peter didn't.

So was Spidey 3 "fun to watch". Alot more fun than any of those films, and not nearly as flawed. The Spirit was horrbily written, shot, had idiotic action scenes. Although cast with talented actors, they weren't given anything to do. And worse of all, it failed to even remotely capture the "spirit" of the comic books. It was merely Miller's sad attempt at making a Batman film without Batman.

I never read the Spirit comic books(and nice pun), so I couldn't tell you what was wrong and what was right, but what I did watch, it made complete sense to me. The writing was fine, imo, and so was the style. Actually I really liked the style of the film; it was different, much like Sin City, and it felt like a Batman:TAS episode. Sure, it might have been Miller's attempt to do something such as Batman, and the Spirit's voice is an example of it, but as someone who only heard of the Spirit, and didn't have much "love" I had for characters like I had with Venom, who Raimi destroyed, the Spirit was a nice film to just sit back and watch. Plus Samuel L. Jackson as a Nazi was brilliant.

And yes, the film did have many good actors.

Well, except for Scarlett Johansson...I'm not a big fan of her.

.................................................. .'kay.

Wolverine wasn't better than the first 2 X-flicks. And it was equally as bad as the third. The irony is that after essentially making all the x-films Wolverine movies, when they finally make a Wolverine movie, Wolverine is such a weak character. Of course every character was weak, so I guess the film was an level playing field. Boring action scenes, no story or character development. You'd think that living for over 150 years would give Logan something interesting to say. You'd think several lifetimes on the battlefield would make him a clever strategist. You'd think 150 million bucks would offer some interesting effects sequences. None of that happened.

I might have liked the first X-Men, but the other two installments, I only cared to watch once and that was all. They were all the same. Trying to push "liberal" politics unto people while watching the film, and that's not what movies should be about. Sure, you could say "Wolverine should have had more interesting things to say"...but that would be idiotic; did Yoga have anything "epic" to say after all of his years? Nope. The most unique and interesting lines came from Qui-Gon Jin, imo. And sure, the more iconic lines that Logan did say in the comics, only came out with no excitement, such as his conversation in the truck with Kayla, but to me, it was something to just look over.

The action scenes, to me, were fine. It wasn't too much, but I don't like scenes that's "over the hill" with regards to special effects. The little Wolverine and Gambit fight was a treat, with being my two favorite mutants.

Now, the script could've have been a bit better, and I do believe it should've been much more gory, as the game was even, but what can you ask from 20th Century Fox? Nothing, but one can wish that Marvel takes the rights back, as with the same with Daredevil. But I still enjoyed Wolverine moreso than all three X-Men films.

And you're right, they didn't focus entirely on Wolverine, but then they shouldn't have anyways. We needed a movie about Weapon X and Team X anyways. Wolverine isn't anything special WITHOUT the Weapon X project.

Well, I'd say making both Hulk films so sterile that they flop is a pretty huge mistake. Neither film managed to capture the awesome creature that the Hulk is. Mostly because of their fear of the bomb. The Gamma Bomb that is. A being of the Hulk's power can't be created in a test-tube. He needed to be born out of the cataclysm of the gamma bomb. They never display his true strength. I mean sheesh- Favreau had Ironman take out an F-22 without trying. The Hulk should be doing ten times that.

The Hulk movie sucked, yah, but The Incredible Hulk was given more praise and made much more money than Ang Lee's horrible film. And also, TIH was more focused with the TV series, which I think everyone should have loved. The gamma bomb doesn't work with the Avenger's continuity, as I stated which is why I enjoyed TIH most. And what happens to Dr. Banner works fine within the movie, within the continuity, and within the semi-realistic view Marvel wants.

Plus, Iron Man took out a F-22, but the Hulk took out the Abomination. We don't need to see Hulk take out a jet or a tank, he took out a beast that was stronger and faster than him, without trying to blow him up because he couldn't take him one-on-one(Iron Man vs Iron Monger).

Watchmen may be a favorite of yours, but that doesn't make it a good film. It was an okay movie at best. The naivete' of the politics. The ridiculous ending, which would not have brought the world together, but made them line-up behind Russia against the US, since the US unleashed Dr.Manhattan. The failure of the basic premise of bringing "superheroes" into the real world. First, they weren't superheroes. They were people wearing weird costumes for no apparent reason. Second, you griped above about Spidey letting Sandman go. What about the Comedian? He was a rapist and unrepentent murderer yet those "heroes" let him run free.

Watchmen is a favorite of mine, and it's a favorite to others as well. It is a good movie, and other people like it as well. That's why I say it's a great film, as it would be in my list, and I bet it is in the list of half of the posters on here.

The movie, and the novel itself was made to make fun of politics and to make fun of superheroes. So to answer your questions about the naive politicians and the "superheroes", well, that should answer your question right there...the story was to show a "documentary"-like of heroes and how politics should really take care of them. They made most of them illegal, but yet they used the Comedian as a "scape goat" with deaths of Presidents they didn't like, and "terrorists", or what they called terrorists. So that answers your other question, the other guys couldn't really do anything because Comedian was a tool, he was used illegally, but his status was to help the government. If Nite Owl or whoever wanted to stop Comedian, than Nite Owl's face would be on a wanted poster.

And regarding it's ending, I preferred Snyder's ending than a squid/octopus/whatever.

Dark Knight was a good film. Begins was nonsense. Watering down Bruce Wayne's obsessive worldwide quest for knowledge into a short-stint at a Himalayan Ninja school. The lack of passion and drive from Bale's Bruce Wayne. Retconning Ra's to be both Bruce's mentor and involved in the death of his parents (And folk's complain about Marko's retcon?). Boring, nearly unintelligible action scenes. Misuse of the Scarecrow, and subsequently Two-Face.

I think Bale did fine with Wayne. I think he portrayed the character pretty good. Not spectacular, but he was suited more as Batman anyways, which is what a comic-book adaptation should be more about, the hero and not the "regular guy".

His parent's death was fine because it was still by JOE CHILL. It wasn't a new guy, it was the same guy. 'Nuff said.

And the villains work for the films, even if short-changed as Two-Face, just because Nolan wanted Two-Face to be a "middle man" villain, and not a full one. And the villains work find with both Batman films. Sandman and Venom could work fine with Spider-Man 3, but it was their storylines that were misused and abused drastically.

You see, if you were at least fair with your criticisms then you could be taken seriously. The fact that you lmake excuses for certain films' flaws while tearing into Spidey 3 makes your argument pretty thin.

Because Watchmen's "flaws", or Spirit's "flaws" is not a "biggie" to me. I was never a huge fan of them. I was a huge fan of Spider-Man, and Venom was my favorite villain. But Raimi destroyed Spidey, imo. He made the hero very "puny", and desperate to want a girl, but really not even showing a true passion to fight crime.

And Sam Raimi also destroyed Venom. He short-changed Eddie, he did a cluster**** with Venom, and those five minutes were just terrible to watch.

I have said my opinions over and over, so I'll just say that I think Spider-Man 3, from beginning to end was a disaster and boring as hell. Nothing exciting about the film whatsoever. It had characters that I wanted to see, but they were extremely watered-down. Much like Wade Wilson in Wolverine. But again, I still believe Wolverine was even better. Hell, Batman Returns was better. And I didn't even like that movie.

Now, this is a somewhat reasonable criticism, and definetly an area where the film went off track. But- again- you slam this from Spidey 3, while not fingering your "personal favorites" for the same missteps.

Again, I can understand some points that Watchmen make, and I can make reason for certain areas that other people didn't like. But Spider-Man 3 ruined things that the first film created. And unless a Watchmen 2 comes out and brings back in Rorschach with a lame reason, then I will still like Watchmen as a whole film, as S-M 3, the entire movie was one giant flaw and used too much and accomplish too little.

[Sentinel X]

Okay, X-men isn't trying to put liberal politics into people's faces. It is a film about treating people as equals. These themes have been part of the X-men comics since the characters were first introduced.
Since when are human rights synonomous with liberal politics? :huh:

[TheScarecrow]

Watering down Bruce Wayne's obsessive worldwide quest for knowledge into a short-stint at a Himalayan Ninja school.

Did you pay attention in the movie? Bruce had been travelling the world for about ten years before Ra's found him and his "short-stint" at the 'Ninja School' was actually an extended period of at least a couple of years (I'm pretty sure that's the timeline given in the script). Don't punish the movie because you need everything spelt out for you.

Retconning Ra's to be both Bruce's mentor and involved in the death of his parents (And folk's complain about Marko's retcon?).

It wasn't a "retcon". A "retcon" is when you go back and add an element to the story which never existed when it was first told. This was the first time Nolan had told the origin story and it included the backstory of Ra's creating a depression. I don't think it's as bad as Sandman or even The Joker in B89 because Ra's didn't kill them. He didn't create a depression with the aim of killing them off. They probably never even met. All Ra's was trying to do was to destroy the city - as he so often does. He was simply active before Bruce was (which is hardly farfetched) and Bruce's parents death was a result of a victim of the poor economic conditions Ra's had created. Ra's statements to Bruce were simply to rile him up.

You need to look beyond things that are expressly stated. While I don't really agree with most of your opinions, your statements about Batman Begins are simply wrong. I'm not saying there's nothing to criticise in the movie, but you clearly never payed attention or simply expect things to be spelled out in the most obvious ways.

[Demogoblin]

Guys, less Batman talk and dissing each other opinions and more talking about what you would like to see differently in SM4.

[weezerspider]

The people who call it horrible (specifically, ignorant people that only see comic movies because they feel like it an have no understanding of the character) are the ones who are ignorant to film making.


Perhaps you don't understand film making. The plot was a mess, The writing was pathetic, the acting was sub-par and the movie was carried by special effects. High Quality movies are character and story driven films. I can honestly say I am biased. I love the character of Spiderman soo much that I enjoy Spiderman 3 to and extend. I think it is an enjoyable film, but the film really is not well-done at all. Trying to be unbiased, this is a pretty bad film. This film was really poorly done.

[Venom75]

I said Arad brought in his two cents, meaning the symbiote and Venom, but still, Sam Raimi could have at least treated the symbiote properly. The only thing I liked about Raimi's version is of how it crawled around like a spider...which only puts emphasis on the similarities and opposites of Spider-Man and Venom.

I agree with that. If Raimi didn't fully understand Venom or the symbiote then he should've done homework on it or had someone there who knew thte character. What about Topher Grace himself? He has always claimed to be a huge Venom fan. Why didn't he speak up and say,"Um,yeah...Sam? Venom wouldn't do that,or say this?"

[Octoberist]

I really think it was a situation where we had to be there to fully understand what Raimi was going through.

[spider-neil]

To me it's like this

Better then SM3 are
SM1-2
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Watchmen
X1-2
Iron Man
Batman 89
Daredevil DC
Incredible Hulk
V for Vendetta


Worst then SM3
Elektra
Catwoman
Blade Trinity
Batman And Robin
Batman Forever
Hulk
FF1-2

At the Same level as SM3{Mediocre at best but not good in my book}
Wolverine
X3
Daredevil TC
Ghost Rider


no offence but I enjoyed SM3 a HELL of a lot more than watchman which was a peice of absolute ****. I saw sm3 several times but was practically DRAGGED to see watchmen the second time. when watchmen comes out on blu ray I will probably get it only because I want to see how the did dr. manhatten other than that I could quite happily never watch that pile of dirt ever again.

[Infinity9999x]

no offence but I enjoyed SM3 a HELL of a lot more than watchman which was a peice of absolute ****. I saw sm3 several times but was practically DRAGGED to see watchmen the second time. when watchmen comes out on blu ray I will probably get it only because I want to see how the did dr. manhatten other than that I could quite happily never watch that pile of dirt ever again.


I think Watchmen comes down to more of a matter of taste. The GN is praised as the best comic ever, but it is by no means the most read ever, and that's because it caters to a very specific crowd. Watchmen isn't exactly a "picker-upper" in terms of content. However, it's plot was much more intricate and intellectual than any of the Spider-man movies.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Perhaps you don't understand film making. The plot was a mess, The writing was pathetic, the acting was sub-par and the movie was carried by special effects. High Quality movies are character and story driven films. I can honestly say I am biased. I love the character of Spiderman soo much that I enjoy Spiderman 3 to and extend. I think it is an enjoyable film, but the film really is not well-done at all. Trying to be unbiased, this is a pretty bad film. This film was really poorly done. I understand film making. We all have different opinions of films, specifically this film, but as I said, calling it horrible is pushing it too far.

[American_Hobo]

Raimi's latest movies are really terrible. I mean Grudge? Boogeyman? And Drag me to hell looks like direct-to-dvd quality.
I just hope Spiderman 4 is much better than those movies.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Actually, he didn't direct Grudge or Boogeyman, he produced them.

[American_Hobo]

Yeah I know that but he was still a producer on those movies and those movies were terrible. And Drag Me to Hell looks no different.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Drag Me To Hell is getting fantastic reviews everywhere.

[American_Hobo]

It is? LOL.
I still won't watch it though. Movie looks too stupid.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Why? I mean, it doesn't have to be R-rated to be scary as hell, if you that's what you're saying.

[Infinity9999x]

^^ Why? I mean, it doesn't have to be R-rated to be scary as hell, if you that's what you're saying.


Yeah, it is getting great reviews. And honestly, I think the rating system is all kinds of F*ed up. I mean, just because there isn't any nudity and a little blood, doesn't mean that the movie should be friggin pg-13. I saw the Unborn (which was horrible) but even so, it had extremely disturbing visuals, disturbing enough that I thought it should easily be rated R.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Yeah, it is getting great reviews. And honestly, I think the rating system is all kinds of F*ed up. I mean, just because there isn't any nudity and a little blood, doesn't mean that the movie should be friggin pg-13. I saw the Unborn (which was horrible) but even so, it had extremely disturbing visuals, disturbing enough that I thought it should easily be rated R. Exactly. :up:

[LightningFlash]

^^ Drag Me To Hell is getting fantastic reviews everywhere.

That's not saying much.

Critics liked Milk and Knowing, and those two movies sucked.

[LightningFlash]

Okay, X-men isn't trying to put liberal politics into people's faces. It is a film about treating people as equals. These themes have been part of the X-men comics since the characters were first introduced.
Since when are human rights synonomous with liberal politics? :huh:

Because Singer mostly used elements on homophobia, and not racism, religion, sex, etc.

[venom892]

Well guess what the X-men in the comics now live in San Francisco and Are fighting a bill in California that limits their rights.Sound familar?The X-men have always been a metaphor for several different prosecuted groups including Homosexuals.

[venom892]

no offence but I enjoyed SM3 a HELL of a lot more than watchman which was a peice of absolute ****. I saw sm3 several times but was practically DRAGGED to see watchmen the second time. when watchmen comes out on blu ray I will probably get it only because I want to see how the did dr. manhatten other than that I could quite happily never watch that pile of dirt ever again.Well I enjoyed more then Spider-man 3.Don't worry I take no offence in someone having a different opinion then me.Trust me I'm a huge Spidey Fan and I never thought I'd see the day I enjoyed a Watchmen movie more then a Spider-man movie.

[shinlyle]

Transformers was closer to the source material than any Raimi Spider-Man films, ever were.

Really?!

Reality called. It really wants to meet you someday!!:oldrazz:

[LightningFlash]

Well guess what the X-men in the comics now live in San Francisco and Are fighting a bill in California that limits their rights.Sound familar?The X-men have always been a metaphor for several different prosecuted groups including Homosexuals.

Wow....

so next will the X-Men travel back in time to Sodom and Gomorrah?

PLEASE SAY YES!!!!!!

:whatever:

[Spider-ManHero12]

That's not saying much.

Critics liked Milk and Knowing, and those two movies sucked. Haven't seen those, but I plan to. Anyway, how does that say Drag Me To Hell will suck?

[LightningFlash]

^^ Because one should never listen to critics.

But that's just me. Roger Ebert was prime in his time, but his views of films are very much poor in taste.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ I actually don't listen to critics often. I find them to be quite ignorant sometimes. However, even Ain't It Cool News gave this film a great review. The film just looks awesome all around.

[venom892]

Wow....

so next will the X-Men travel back in time to Sodom and Gomorrah?

PLEASE SAY YES!!!!!!

:whatever:No but back in the day Mutants were a metaphor for racism.Professor X can be seen as MLK and Magneto as Malcom X.African Americans were the most prosecuted back then these days homosexuals are the ones making headlines in terms of prosecution.So now the X-men are being used as metaphors as prosecution against homosexuals.In ten years it might be another group they are a metaphor for.