Spidey guy Raimi says `Dark Knight' has upped ante (AP)

[Raiden]

Yahoo! Article (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/spidey-guy-raimi-says-dark-knight39-has-upped-ante-ap)

CANNES, France - Like other superhero fans, Sam Raimi agrees that "The Dark Knight" raised the bar for every comic-book movie to come.

Raimi figures it can only benefit the next chapter in his "Spider-Man" franchise, the first installment of which had been the top-grossing superhero flick until "The Dark Knight" blew it out of the record books last year.

"`The Dark Knight' was brilliant, and the audience seemed to love it, and I think it rightfully raises expectations for the other superhero pictures," Raimi said in an interview at the Cannes Film Festival, where his horror tale "Drag Me to Hell" played. "Which is a great thing for everybody. For the filmmakers, for the audience."

Raimi said he expects to have the script for "Spider-Man 4" in hand within a few weeks. Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Lindsay-Abaire is writing the screenplay for the film, due in theaters in May 2011.

The director said he has discussed the story with Tobey Maguire, who stars as Peter Parker and his alter ego Spidey.

"I'm interested in making the best of the `Spider-Man' movies ever, and Tobey's really excited," Raimi said. "I'm really looking forward to that collaboration."

A part has been written for Kirsten Dunst, and Raimi said he hopes she will return as the love of Peter's life, Mary Jane Watson.

After glowing reaction for the first two movies, critical response for "Spider-Man 3" was so-so. Right after the third movie came out, Raimi was undecided about returning for more, but he said he did not like "thinking about a world where somebody else was making the Peter Parker story. I love that character."

Raimi said the break he took to make the smaller "Drag Me to Hell" has refreshed him for the return to Spidey, adding that he wanted to "take some of the more modest approach I've learned from this film into the `Spider-Man' film. I think it's exactly what it needs."

He also said he was game for the challenge of satisfying fans clamoring for bigger and better after "The Dark Knight."

"Yes, they have higher expectations," Raimi said. "The best thing I can do is be true to my character and work harder to bring him to the screen with as much truth and drama and a real conflict that means something to me. And have him grow in a realistic way to either overcome that conflict or be swallowed by it.

"I'm glad those expectations are up. I'm excited about that."

I wish the director for X-Men Origin: Wolverine had the same attitude when he was making that film; it might not have turned out as underwhelming as it did.

[American_Hobo]

Like many other people are saying, Dark Knight made it worse for the comic book movies.
Now people are expecting all the superhero movies to be extremely good.
In my opinion, Dark Knight made doom to the superhero movies.

[Joker]

Oh I predict great fun from this thread :twisted:

Raimi is right, TDK did raise the bar. Spider-Man 2 did the same thing back in 2004. Every comic book movie was compared to SM-2 back then.

[FlawlessVictory]

^Yup.

So what's the over/under on the life of this thread? Should become very entertaining. I'm ready.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/FlawlessVictory_photos/eating_popcorn.gif

[Goran]

This is very interesting:

The director said he has discussed the story with Tobey Maguire, who stars as Peter Parker and his alter ego Spidey.


So Raimi definitely has a rough story outline.

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah I don't want to hear people complaining about "Stop comparing everything to TDK" when every director in the genre is pretty much using that film as the measuring stick.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Wow, great read. Sam TRULY seems to nkow what he wants to do, and it's great to know he wants to bring alot of story and just overall things that will make it fantastic. :up:

[spider-neil]

sam seems very humble to me, he WANTS to do better, he isn't closed minded like some other directors who almost couldn't care less if the audience liked the movie as long as THEY like the movie.

fingers crossed sam knocks it out of the park like SM2 which I thought was THE best superhero movie ever until that pesky dark knight came along.

[Cosmic]

Can't imagine a world where someone else is telling Peter Parker's story? He's already done 3 blockbuster franchise pics spanning nearly a decade. How often do people get opportunities like that? Spider-Man 3 was a total mess. I'd prefer to see a different vision from a different director.

[spider-neil]

Can't imagine a world where someone else is telling Peter Parker's story? He's already done 3 blockbuster franchise pics spanning nearly a decade. How often do people get opportunities like that? Spider-Man 3 was a total mess. I'd prefer to see a different vision from a different director.


I'd personally rather give sam another chance to deliver another movie as good as SM2. I can't tell you how elated I was when I left he cinema after watching that movie. I saw it five times at the cinema and I watch it about 1 every three months on blu ray. I'll give sam the benefit of the doubt, he's made to great spidey movies and one poor spidey movie he deserves another shot.

[Adrian89]

I hope Peter won't be a wimp again!

[bunk]

The problem is that his cast doesn't have the same talent as Nolan's. I don't know how likely it is the performances from Maguire and Dunst will really be able to rival that of TDK.

[mclay18]

That's pretty much moot if everything else is pretty strong.

What Raimi is trying to say that TDK raised the bar in terms of storytelling and characters in a superhero/comic book film and that's what he wants to do for SM-4. Period.

[bunk]

All he indicates is that he wants to increase the drama and conflict, which can mean anything. It's impossible to know at this point what he really took away from TDK or how it will alter his thinking on SM4.

[mclay18]

I hope he took away from TDK is that he should focus on plot development and giving the characters room to develop. Drama and conflict doesn't have as powerful an impact if the plot and characters aren't up to par.

[GoldGoblin]

Instead of Raimi using "The Dark Knight" as a template for SM4,Raimi should use "The Spectacular Spider-Man" tv show as a template instead.

[Dragon]

Instead of Raimi using "The Dark Knight" as a template for SM4,Raimi should use "The Spectacular Spider-Man" tv show as a template instead.

No. A thousand times no.

Raimi should use TDK as a template, not from te perspective of the "darkness" end per se, or trtying to write Spidey like Bsbman or the villain like The Joker, but from the end of complexity of the characters. The characters in the Spidey films have been too one-note thus far.

[venom892]

No. A thousand times no.

Raimi should use TDK as a template, not from te perspective of the "darkness" end per se, or trtying to write Spidey like Bsbman or the villain like The Joker, but from the end of complexity of the characters. The characters in the Spidey films have been too one-note thus far.As much as I love the Spectacular Spider-man cartoon It's a different format from a movie,The SSM cartoon has several episodes to expand on things and tell a story.A movie has 120-150 mins.Different storytelling meduims.The Dark Knight is what every CB should aspire to be.As someone stated before SM2 had the crown.I hope SM4 can take the crown back for the franchise.

[DACrowe]

Interesting, I hope he does produce a great Spidey movie that surpasses SM2 and brings the fans and general audience back in favor to the franchise. It'd be a great grace note for his series.

[weezerspider]

And now there can officially be no more "STOP COMPARING IT TO TDK" comments because Sam Raimi himself has been thinking about how to use TDK and its success to better his Spiderman films. This really is great news. I loved the first two films. I love the fact that Raimi realizes they messed up on the third. I love how Raimi realizes that his franchise has even higher expectations, as does every comic book film, after TDK. He really sounds like he knows what he's doing. I'm certainly not the #1 Raimi fan, but bashing aside, its hard to argue that the first two films aren't some of the few really well made comic book films. He has made many mistakes, but he also has done some really great things in this franchise. I hope that Spiderman 4 will bring the franchise back up to par with the first two films.

[NewYorkSpider]

Character development should be a priority. Especially if you're having two villians.

[venom892]

I think Rami much like Nolan has been doing should take a break after each Spider-man film.After BB we got The Prestige and now after TDK he is making Inception.Maybe if Rami hadn't done three Spidey movies in a row we would have had a good part 3.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Character development should be a priority. That's what Sam seems to be focusing on right now, if you ask me. :up:

[NewYorkSpider]

That's what Sam seems to be focusing on right now, if you ask me. :up:

I'm glad to see Sam working more towards the characters. The development for Flint Marko and Eddie Brock was dissapointing. I have faith Raimi can make a great movie. I'm still a little upset that this movie might have Morbius. I'm willing to give him a chance to WOW me, though.

[dsfjr1190]

Blah blah blah.

Screw Spider-Man, Raimi. Get off your ass and make Evil Dead IV!

[Venom'sDad]

Is still wayyyy too soon to tell what Sam & Co. is going to focus on, what he has learn from his mistakes, and what he takes from Nolan's approach.

I'm not sold... he can't just do a 180 of Pete's & MJ's character that he has established with Tobey & Kirsten, I just can't see it happening.

[mclay18]

I do think a solid writer on board (David Lindsay-Abaire) will also help out. Abaire's work on Robots and Inkheart was all right but in all fairness, Robots had a lot of writers and Inkheart was a book adaptation.

I hope Abaire's screenplay is more "Rabbit Hole" in terms of character development and less Inkheart.

[TheScarecrow]

Like many other people are saying, Dark Knight made it worse for the comic book movies.
Now people are expecting all the superhero movies to be extremely good.
In my opinion, Dark Knight made doom to the superhero movies.

No, The Dark Knight made it worse for bad comic book movies. If Iron Man 2, Spider-man 4 etc. reach the level they should reach, they'll be accepted. What Raimi and everyone else is saying is that Nolan's raised the bar to a point where people expect to not see a "comic book film" but simply a "film". You can't phone it in anymore, which is exactly what's been happening in many comic book properties for a while now.

In saying that, Spider-man 1 and Spider-man 2 are perfectly acceptable, but I'd only count Spider-man 2 as being on "that other level" people are talking about.

The problem is that his cast doesn't have the same talent as Nolan's. I don't know how likely it is the performances from Maguire and Dunst will really be able to rival that of TDK.

It's not about having the best actors though, it's about having the right actors and I don't think that Sam has done too badly so far. There's no need to compare this to TDK because the characters Maguire and Dunst are playing are nothing like the characters Bale and Gyllenhaal played. Who is the best actors doesn't factor into it. Bale would be poor as Spider-man and Gyllenhaal...well, come to think of it, she wouldn't make a bad MJ at all.

I think that the only comparison that should be drawn is between Nolan and Raimi because there's a big difference in the type of films they put out. Nolan's films are very polished and of great quality, whereas Raimi's seem to lack the...beauty that Nolan's films have.

Raimi also needs to look into get a much better cinematographer. Apart from one or two scenes in Spider-man 3, the cinematography in this franchise has been incredibly boring and it's quite surprising what good cinematography can do to a picture. It often makes it look more...complete.

[spider-neil]

a little weird but when I left the cinema after watching SM2 I was elated but I left the cinema on a downer after watching TDK but I thought TDK was a better movie.

[Ipodman]

If SaM Raimi gets the right casting, script, etc etc, he can totally top TDK
(without someone in the main cast dying in real life)

[dark_b]

BB also raised the bar a little IMO.
but in spidey 3 we still had to watch everyone cry. MJ *bit.... every second and peter dancing like an idiot.

Dunst needs to go. she is waaay to expensive for this bad actig and her bad character.

[bryanss3]

I honestly don't care if this can "top the TDK" I just want a good movie. I'm not worried about Batman movies in comparison to Spider-Man movies or vise versa. I'm concerned about it not being anything like Spider-Man 3. Hopefully it'll come out like the first Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 combined.

[TheScarecrow]

(without someone in the main cast dying in real life)

Why do people feel the need to say ignorant, offensive things?

How on earth did Ledger dying make TDK a better movie?

[Dark Knight90!]

Unlike some of his fans on these boards... I'm glad Raimi is not quite so childish about this whole 'Batman vs. Spider-man franchise'.

A good movie is a good movie... and damn was The Dark Knight a good movie!

If Nolan's talent is reaching Raimi... then trust me, we all benefit.


There was superhero movies before The Dark Knight and superhero movies after The Dark Knight... (Umm... Punisher, the spirit, Wolverine and Watchmen lol :oldrazz:)

Lets just see what Raimi does post-TDK!

[shinlyle]

Honestly, a film is only as good as its competition....and its the same with everything. I think SM2 was better than TDK, but TDK was more of a financial success, and it's fresher in people's minds. It's the new measuring stick, and it should be. Hopefully, Raimi will rise to the occasion and raise the bar again...then Batman 3 will raise it yet again...and so on and so on.

The only winner is the audience, when filmmakers strive to do their best! As Spidey and Bats are my favorite heroes, this is a win-win for me!

[weezerspider]

(without someone in the main cast dying in real life)
:applaud You are officially the biggest moron on this board. Could you make a case his death helped sales? Sure, but his death making the quality of the movie better? Thats impossible. Your just an immature fan who can't stand to see The "Moby Dick" of Comic Book movies to NOT be about your favorite superhero. Spiderman's my favorite superhero too, but seriously, enough Batman vs Spiderman ****. TDK is easily the greatest comic movie ever. You can have personal tastes, but you can still respect a movie as a better movie and not like it or visa versa. I realize Crank is a terrible movie, but I enjoy it quite alot. I realize The Godfather is a far superior film than Dirty Harry, but I like Dirty Harry more. You can like Spiderman 2 better than the TDK, but, have respect for a superior movie. No need to be so bitter about it. I love Spiderman, but Batman has the best movie. I mean, come on,he deserves it after Adam West, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

[Ipodman]

I didnt mean to be offensive, but Heath's death upped the quality of the film because the editors of the film had to make sure his scenes were edited to the best.

[bryanss3]

what logic is that???? well he's dead we have to edit his scenes to the best quality? are you serious? Editors jobs are to do that regardless.

[mclay18]

I didnt mean to be offensive, but Heath's death upped the quality of the film because the editors of the film had to make sure his scenes were edited to the best.

That made no sense at all. To top it off, only one editor worked on The Dark Knight. :whatever:

[Crook]

No, The Dark Knight made it worse for bad comic book movies. If Iron Man 2, Spider-man 4 etc. reach the level they should reach, they'll be accepted. What Raimi and everyone else is saying is that Nolan's raised the bar to a point where people expect to not see a "comic book film" but simply a "film". You can't phone it in anymore, which is exactly what's been happening in many comic book properties for a while now.
Well I would say this has been true for quite a while, it just hasn't been brought to the forefront as much as it has been now. After all, TDK is the first film to actually have an Oscar push in a lot of the major categories. Previous to this, any other comic book film would be laughed out of the stage at the very notion of such a feat. That in itself is a major step for the genre.

I have no problem with strengthening the competition. I was very glad when Spidey/Raimi was dethroned. And I'll be just as elated if TDK gets its crown taken a couple years down the line. We must remember that such stiff one-upping like this only makes it better for the audience. All of us should be happy Raimi is taking note of TDK's success.

I didnt mean to be offensive, but Heath's death upped the quality of the film because the editors of the film had to make sure his scenes were edited to the best.
I rarely do this while surfing message boards, but I actually lol'd in real life. I'm just sorry it was completely unintentional on your part. :funny:

[Octoberist]

I didnt mean to be offensive, but Heath's death upped the quality of the film because the editors of the film had to make sure his scenes were edited to the best.

Thanks for making things up like that.

[Demogoblin]

Ipodman, please be more careful about what you say.


I dont mind Raimi making comparisons between Spidey 4 and TDK. It seems inevitable. If it inspires him to do even better than before, its certainly a good thing.

[Ipodman]

Ok.... i take back my words.. even if Heath didnt die, the editors of TDK would have done an equally good job of editing his scenes.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Yahoo! Article (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/spidey-guy-raimi-says-dark-knight39-has-upped-ante-ap)



I wish the director for X-Men Origin: Wolverine had the same attitude when he was making that film; it might not have turned out as underwhelming as it did.

Don't blame Hood for Wolverine. That film was striving to be more than it was, it was obvious. And those parts that were good were because of Hood. Wolverine fell down because of outside interference.

And I have faith in Raimi because surely he has learned by his mistakes and seen what he has to compete with. Competition usually leads to an increase in quality.

[Spider-Vader]

I wish the director for X-Men Origin: Wolverine had the same attitude when he was making that film; it might not have turned out as underwhelming as it did.

But, Wolverine was half way through production when TDK came out. Plus he wanted a dark film in the first place, it was good ol' Rothman who wanted a 90 minute action fest.

[Parker Wayne]

Raimi has to step up his game after Spiderman 3 and he's pushing himself by doing this. I like hearing this from a director. It looks like Raimi's excited again to be directing the Spiderman series.

I still think Raimi's gonna take a different route and go a little more sci-fi/supernatural if the rumors of Lizard and Morbius are correct.

And with the success of Drag me to Hell there is a chance he may get his wish, though I really hope he can get them on screen, keep the intensity and Drama along with the obvious great action of each film.

[Parker Wayne]

Raimi has to step up his game after Spiderman 3 and he's pushing himself by doing this. I like hearing this from a director. It looks like Raimi's excited again to be directing the Spiderman series.

I still think Raimi's gonna take a different route and go a little more sci-fi/supernatural if the rumors of Lizard and Morbius are correct.

And with the success of Drag me to Hell there is a chance he may get his wish, though I really hope he can get them on screen, keep the intensity and Drama along with the obvious great action of each film.

[The Chris]

After seeing Drag Me to Hell I am fully confident that Sam will deliver another terrific Spider-Man film, especially since like his latest movie, he will have creative control.

[SpeterMan3]

Am I the only one who thought that TDK was just ok?

[Octoberist]

yes

[Joker]

Unlike some of his fans on these boards... I'm glad Raimi is not quite so childish about this whole 'Batman vs. Spider-man franchise'.

A good movie is a good movie... and damn was The Dark Knight a good movie!

If Nolan's talent is reaching Raimi... then trust me, we all benefit.

Very nicely put!

[SpeterMan3]

yes
Thought so...

[MessiahDecoy123]

Raimi says he loves the Peter Parker character yet he has no grasp of the character on any level outside of "love sick dweeb".

Raimi just seems to talk a alot of stuff to get fan support like "I have complete creative control", " I love Pater Parker's character", and "TDK upped the ante". In the end, he just wants support so his pay check won't bounce before SM4 is filmed.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Edit- nvm

[spider-neil]

Raimi says he loves the Peter Parker character yet he has no grasp of the character on any level outside of "love sick dweeb".

Raimi just seems to talk a alot of stuff to get fan support like "I have complete creative control", " I love Pater Parker's character", and "TDK upped the ante". In the end, he just wants support so his pay check won't bounce before SM4 is filmed.

bettie brant
liz allen
gwen stacy
mary jane watson
felicity hardy
debre wittman

okay, love is the 'center' of the peter parker character (I think its guilt and responsibility) but it has definately played a massive part in 40 years of comic telling.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Yea but Raimi needs to get the Spidey personality right. I don't think he has so far, not that duality of Pete and Spidey. Well not enough anyway.

[Venom'sDad]

Raimi says he loves the Peter Parker character yet he has no grasp of the character on any level outside of "love sick dweeb".

Raimi just seems to talk a alot of stuff to get fan support like "I have complete creative control", " I love Pater Parker's character", and "TDK upped the ante". In the end, he just wants support so his pay check won't bounce before SM4 is filmed.Exactly :up:

Yea but Raimi needs to get the Spidey personality right. I don't think he has so far, not that duality of Pete and Spidey. Well not enough anyway.
Again, I don't see Raimi doing a 180 on the type of character he fashioned in Peter, Spidey, and MJ. And at this point, I'm not sure that Tobey & Kirsten can pull off the true essence of Peter, Spidey, and MJ... which is probably why Sam & Co. wrote them that way. :(

[The Ace of Knaves]

Well I don't think he fashioned a character for Spidey. It was just Pete in the Spidey costume. I never got that sense that the Spidey persona is Pete's release, his escape from his cruddy life. Sure it's his responsibility to be a hero, but it is more than that. Spidey is a whole different character to Peter, that needs to be shown better IMO.

[Venom'sDad]

:confused: Sure he did... in a lacking way.

[The Ace of Knaves]

In a lacking way? What does that mean?

[Venom'sDad]

Come on... look at Spidey's personality. No quips or nagging arrogance like your avatar suggest. In all the battles, twice we got a sense of his "Spider-Senses". When he's just swinging or porched on top of a building or steeple, we don't get any of the analytical narrations. Spidey standing on sides of buildings; and finally, as many times we see Spidey on the prowl, only twice we see creeping/crawling, don't know he's there/detective Spidey.

But we do get Spidey removing the mask for all to see.

I do love the battles and the magestic flow of his speed and agility... but I'm a McFarlene fans so my expectation are somewhat high.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Ahhh well me and you agree then. I think.

The happy go lucky, acerbic tongued Spidey personality isn't there. It's just Parker in the Spidey suit.

[Ipodman]

I hope SM4's Spidey is like the one in Spectacular Spider-man cartoon. i loved that cartoon...

[Parker Wayne]

I hope SM4's Spidey is like the one in Spectacular Spider-man cartoon. i loved that cartoon...

Yeah Spectacular Spiderman is pretty good. It's also much funnier than Spiderman TAS

[bunk]

If I were to make a Spidey movie, it would probably be heavily narrated by whoever played Peter. That way a lot more of his humor and emotion would be conveyed. I guess narration isn't very common in film, but I'd find a way to make it work. I would probably do the same for a Batman movie but for completely different reasons.

[weezerspider]

If I were to make a Spidey movie, it would probably be heavily narrated by whoever played Peter. That way a lot more of his humor and emotion would be conveyed. I guess narration isn't very common in film, but I'd find a way to make it work. I would probably do the same for a Batman movie but for completely different reasons.

Thats pretty awesome. I've always thought about a superhero movie with narratives by the heroes. Deadpool should totally have it and just once show the narrations on the screen in yellow boxes so he can say "Am I still thinking in yellow boxes?"

[Parker Wayne]

If I were to make a Spidey movie, it would probably be heavily narrated by whoever played Peter. That way a lot more of his humor and emotion would be conveyed. I guess narration isn't very common in film, but I'd find a way to make it work. I would probably do the same for a Batman movie but for completely different reasons.

Yeah heavy narration isn't really common in films and it sometimes alienates the audiences as film is "show, don't tell genre". They tried some narration in the Spiderman films (mostly at the beginning and end of movies). I'll be honest and say as a moviegoer, I cannot see a director letting Peter think out loud most of the film without it getting a little annoying.

I mean Batman thinks a lot in the comics, but that didn't translate to any of his films.

That saying, I think they're should've been some out loud thinking on Spiderman's part, but as much as say, Spiderman TAS or the comics.

[snakeinthegear]

Well I don't think he fashioned a character for Spidey. It was just Pete in the Spidey costume. I never got that sense that the Spidey persona is Pete's release, his escape from his cruddy life. Sure it's his responsibility to be a hero, but it is more than that. Spidey is a whole different character to Peter, that needs to be shown better IMO.

I agree. I think oerall there are a few things that hinder these moies from reaching their full potential and one of them is allowing Peter's character to grow. Getting with MJ doesn't equate to character growth. It's how he deals and copes with his relationships with people now that him being spider-man was in fact supposed to give him a new found confidence. That whole love-sick dweeb attitude needs to go. Peter Parker is a man that faces crap not takes it and as for him being spider-man, we need him talking a bit more (note I'm not saying ramble on with inane and cheesy lines) and for him to wall crawl more and pull out manouvers that inspire awe and aren't just trivialsied. We need to be amazed when we see spider-man on screen doing his thing.

[snakeinthegear]

Also, I like Raimi's comments about TDK. Clearly it inspires him to do better, handle the film(story) more seriously/intelligently and of course with the success he's gathering with DMTH, he's already building up a profile to kickstart the hype for SM4, so in a way, the pressure is on, which in this cse is a good thing.
I was actually tired of Raimi's take but after the last couple of weeks, I'm now more intrigued to see what he will do with sm4.

[redfirebird2008]

Raimi also needs to look into get a much better cinematographer. Apart from one or two scenes in Spider-man 3, the cinematography in this franchise has been incredibly boring and it's quite surprising what good cinematography can do to a picture. It often makes it look more...complete.

Agree. The cinematography in BB and TDK is gorgeous thanks to Mr. Wally Pfister. That guy is one of the best in the business. Won't be long before he wins an Oscar.

[redfirebird2008]

But, Wolverine was half way through production when TDK came out. Plus he wanted a dark film in the first place, it was good ol' Rothman who wanted a 90 minute action fest.

Jackman said that Batman Begins would be a big influence on the Wolverine movie. I happen to feel that Batman Begins upped the ante before TDK did, and I still feel BB is just as good of a movie as TDK. The Wolverine producers don't have any excuse for putting out such a terrible movie, especially if their intent was to follow in BB's footsteps.

[Leenie]

The more I read about Spider-Man 4, the more optimistic I become.

From what I've been reading, it seems that Raimi wants to make the best movie he can. I couldn't ask for more at this point. Yay!

[Ipodman]

I dont think Spider-man films should follow Batman films... Sure lots of people like the dark-realistic tone of The Dark Knight, but they like the liveliness of Spidey too...
im sure Raimi will do a good job in Sm4

[weezerspider]

I dont think Spider-man films should follow Batman films... Sure lots of people like the dark-realistic tone of The Dark Knight, but they like the liveliness of Spidey too...
im sure Raimi will do a good job in Sm4

Raimi can learn alot from TDK that has nothing to do with the dark tone. No one's even mentioned the dark tone.

[bunk]

Yeah heavy narration isn't really common in films and it sometimes alienates the audiences as film is "show, don't tell genre". They tried some narration in the Spiderman films (mostly at the beginning and end of movies). I'll be honest and say as a moviegoer, I cannot see a director letting Peter think out loud most of the film without it getting a little annoying.

Yeah, it would have to be the right actor and be well written obviously. I would probably shoot myself if I had to hear Tobey/Spidey's thoughts throughout the entire movie. Some characters are more isolated than others and tend to spend more time working things out in their minds than other heroes. Spidey is one of those characters, and I think you lose something when you're dealing with a person who has certain thoughts he simply doesn't discuss with anyone.

I mean Batman thinks a lot in the comics, but that didn't translate to any of his films.

Nope, and it's because his detective side is not played up very much, and because post-Keaton he has people he routinely talks to. If I made a Batman movie, the narration would not be about feelings or worrying about others, it would be geared toward solving crimes. Basically like Rorschach, but human.

[iamlegend]

Is still wayyyy too soon to tell what Sam & Co. is going to focus on, what he has learn from his mistakes, and what he takes from Nolan's approach.

I'm not sold... he can't just do a 180 of Pete's & MJ's character that he has established with Tobey & Kirsten, I just can't see it happening.

See this worries me a bit. Because of BB and TDK everyone's obsessed with Nolan's "approach" to comic movies.

He had the right approach FOR BATMAN. Other characters require differently handling.

[The Ace of Knaves]

I don't think they mean the same tone or whatever. But the same attention to detail and a grown up story line.

[Octoberist]

I think people (mostly comic book geeks) misinterpret a lot of stuff when it comes down to it.

When filmmakers say "Hey, we were influenced by Nolan's Batman films", it doesn't mean they are going to copy the style and tone of his movies. Like what Ace of Knaves said, it's about putting to right amount of detail into the story, respect for the audience of all types (IE: Don't neglect the comic fans/don't treat the mainstream like morons), and just make a kick ass movie.

It's all about investing the time and energy in making a GOOD and ENTERTAINING movie. That's what Nolan did with batman. Jon Favs too, with his work on Iron Man. (even though he and the rest of the world was in the shadow of Dark KNight)

[TheScarecrow]

It's all about investing the time and energy in making a GOOD and ENTERTAINING movie. That's what Nolan did with batman. Jon Favs too, with his work on Iron Man. (even though he and the rest of the world was in the shadow of Dark KNight)

I agree. It's about striking the balance between comic book and film, and not just doing things willy-nilly because it's a comic book film. I disagree that Favreau (I know it's probably spelt wrong) didn't get attention for that. Whether or not I like Iron Man aside, I can see the level of work that went into making it and how it was treated as a "film" and not a "comic book film". It's not 100% realistic, or serious (and neither are Nolan's films), but it's artistic and intelligent with no winking at the audience and as little cliches as possible. That's what Spider-man needs.

Spider-man can be fun without constantly winking at the audience and using every cliche in the book. It's about being inventive, and not resting on the genre to pull you through.

[TheScarecrow]

It's all about investing the time and energy in making a GOOD and ENTERTAINING movie. That's what Nolan did with batman. Jon Favs too, with his work on Iron Man. (even though he and the rest of the world was in the shadow of Dark KNight)

I agree. It's about striking the balance between comic book and film, and not just doing things willy-nilly because it's a comic book film. I disagree that Favreau (I know it's probably spelt wrong) didn't get attention for that. Whether or not I like Iron Man aside, I can see the level of work that went into making it and how it was treated as a "film" and not a "comic book film". It's not 100% realistic, or serious (and neither are Nolan's films), but it's artistic and intelligent with no winking at the audience and as little cliches as possible. That's what Spider-man needs.

Spider-man can be fun without constantly winking at the audience and using every cliche in the book. It's about being inventive, and not resting on the genre to pull you through.

[Venom'sDad]

See this worries me a bit. Because of BB and TDK everyone's obsessed with Nolan's "approach" to comic movies.

He had the right approach FOR BATMAN. Other characters require differently handling.

I don't think they mean the same tone or whatever. But the same attention to detail and a grown up story line.

Exactly Ace. :up:

Legend, you are missing the point. If you read my rants over the last year, you would know I have been advocating Mature Writing, Realistic Themes & Motivation. Not the goo-goo ga-ga G rating that everyone can understand. These kids are more ahead of their time than we give them credit for.

Nolan used a more mature approach to comic book films... so did Fav(IM). I wish Sam would as well. Again, he claims to know the characters so well, but gets them so wrong. Who knows what Sam will get from Nolan's approach. I don't think it will be much. He has already established how the characters will be portrayed.

[Ipodman]

So SM4 should have 3 villains like SM3 and TDK???

[Mike_D202]

Blah blah blah.

Screw Spider-Man, Raimi. Get off your ass and make Evil Dead IV!

:up:

[The Ace of Knaves]

So SM4 should have 3 villains like SM3 and TDK???

Who ever said that?

And TDK didn't have 3 villains, it had 1.

[rashad]

Raimi said the break he took to make the smaller "Drag Me to Hell" has refreshed him for the return to Spidey, adding that he wanted to "take some of the more modest approach I've learned from this film into the `Spider-Man' film. I think it's exactly what it needs."

This was one of the more important parts of the article. Doing huge blockbuster films like these can drain the hell out of anyone. He's been attached to this franchise for nearly a decade! I for one, am happy to see that Raimi has a renewed spirit.

Learning from mistakes, attempting and learning new techniques and styles from working on various projects, and also seeing other successful comicbook films from his peers can all serve Raimi well in his approach for Spidey 4. I think both TDK and Iron Man raised the bar.

[[A]]

And TDK didn't have 3 villains, it had 1.Yes. The Chechen. Criminal mastermind.

[Demogoblin]

I don't think they mean the same tone or whatever. But the same attention to detail and a grown up story line.

Thats the one thing that I would like to see in more comic movies: smarter scripts. We know the characters are capable of intelligent stories but the movies are always watered down. Besides that, keep Nolan's approach to Batman films.

[Reikowolf]

What I got from it was that comic book movies do not need to be dumbed down. They can still have great box office success and not have to appeal to audiences of all ages. If the story is good, it will draw the audience regardless.

The dark knight was not suitable for children, but the toys sold very well.

This may mean that Spider-Man 4 may take a more mature tone *not dark*

[Reikowolf]

Who ever said that?

And TDK didn't have 3 villains, it had 1.

scarecrow was in it for the shortest cameo ever
Two face was in it.
and the joker

heh

but I know what you mean. the attention was drawn to one pivotal figure instead of all 3 fighting for screen time.

[luke1234]

Whenever you hit a mature tone though its hard not to go darker. I think its time to go deeper into Spider-man and not Peter parker. Peter parker worries about relationships while Spider-man has to handle greater issues like death, murders, and real crime from New york City. It would be intresting to see Spider-man fail at something in this film. They kinda did it with 2 when he went into the burning building and saved the girl but someone died on the top floor. Have that same philosophy towards being a superhero. You win some and you lose. Its a dark philosophy especially towards kids but not as dark as the dark knight which proved that evil can overcome good.

[Demogoblin]

That would make for a great sub plot. Spidey tries as hard as he can to save a group of people but one of them gets killed, leaving Spidey feeling guilting and JJJ calling him an accessory to murder.

[Venom'sDad]

I disagree... I think we have had enough of Peter being down & out. Lets try seeing a few films where he secure with who he is and what he does. Save that sub-plot for Spider-Man 7... or maybe never!

[The Ace of Knaves]

I don't mind seeing Pete as a depressed little nob, because that's what he is usually like in the comics.

But when he puts that mask on he should be completely different. The Spidey personality and the Parker personality are completely different. That hasn't been shown so far, well not enough.

[Venom'sDad]

:confused:... I have never known Peter to be a depressed nob... he is a very considerate & concern person; but depressed, nah.

Man, I just LUV your avatar.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Well not depressed, but tortured you know?

The Spiderman persona should be a release of sorts for Peter. Where he can let loose and be free. But obviously still have the responsibility of being a hero.

What I'm getting at is that Spidey is a different personality to Peter, and that hasn't really been shown in any of the movies apart from the first one, but not much in that either.

[Venom'sDad]

I gotcha... that's a good point. I think that's one of the many reasons why many here have being saying lets see Spidey quip more; because that's something Peter rarely do.

[Infinity9999x]

Well not depressed, but tortured you know?

The Spiderman persona should be a release of sorts for Peter. Where he can let loose and be free. But obviously still have the responsibility of being a hero.

What I'm getting at is that Spidey is a different personality to Peter, and that hasn't really been shown in any of the movies apart from the first one, but not much in that either.

This has been a huge complaint of mine. Spider-man and Peter Parker should be as different as Batman from Bruce Wayne.

Spider-man is the outlet for everything Peter holds in. During his normal life, Peter is reserved, quiet, not very confident, and non-confrontational. Spidey is in your face, funny, witty, confident, and even cocky. He's Peter's chance to be what he never was able to be before he got bitten by the Spider.

And it's always irked me that Raimi hasn't been able to understand that.

Also, the biggest argument I see against the quips is "they can get annoying." Well, yes, depending on how they're written, they could be very annoying, but that's why you have to have a good writer. My favorite version of Spider-man's humor is Bendis' early stuff on Ultimate Spidey. His jokes there weren't so much quick one liners as a humorous commentary on the fight he was in. It wasn't just random insults, the jokes actually had some intelligence to them, which fits, because Peter is a smart guy.

The whole "they could be annoying and distracting" thing is really just an excuse for the writers to be lazy. It's hard to pull off comedy like that and make it work, but it's part of Spider-man's character, and they shouldn't ignore it.

[HughJackFan420]

i have to tip my hat to Raimi. the man is an awesome director and i wouldn't really bash him for Spidey 3. he didn't have much control of that flick after all. but i do sense the passion he has to making a great Spidey 4 picture. unlike Brett Ratner who has no passion and thinks comedy mixed w/action is always a good idea sorry not when it comes to superhero movies. but if i can give any advice to those making these superhero movies starting w/one word. CLIFFHANGERS. fans love cliffhangers. i mean how many of u guys watched Spidey 2 and got excited over the whole Green Goblin 2 possibility? i know i did. grant it that the X-Men franchise is not up there w/the Spider-Man series X-Men does have 1 up over the Spidey franchise and that is by not killing the villains. I believe that was the X-Men series success. Now you combine the 2 CLIFFHANGERS and NOT KILLING THE VILLAINS. not killing the villains opens up the possibilities for cliffhangers. I mean how much better would you feel about Spidey 3 if there was a cliffhanger that consisted of Venom surviving and a possible Carnage intro? or even in Spidey 2 a Doc Ock cliffhanger showing him surviving? Even though Woverine and X-Men The Last Stand wasn't as great as it should've been, just having the the cliffhangers in them (Wolverine multiple endings especially the Deadpool one & Professor X after the credits in X-Men TLS) made up for the disappointments. so if you're listening directors (or Hollywood) CLIFFHANGERS + DON'T KILL OFF THE VILLAINS + STAYING TRUE TO THE COMIC SOURCES = SUCCESFUL SUPERHERO MOVIE W/SATISFIED FANS

how much would The Dark Knight have sucked if Joker died? hmmmmm??

[HughJackFan420]

This has been a huge complaint of mine. Spider-man and Peter Parker should be as different as Batman from Bruce Wayne.

Spider-man is the outlet for everything Peter holds in. During his normal life, Peter is reserved, quiet, not very confident, and non-confrontational. Spidey is in your face, funny, witty, confident, and even cocky. He's Peter's chance to be what he never was able to be before he got bitten by the Spider.

And it's always irked me that Raimi hasn't been able to understand that.

Also, the biggest argument I see against the quips is "they can get annoying." Well, yes, depending on how they're written, they could be very annoying, but that's why you have to have a good writer. My favorite version of Spider-man's humor is Bendis' early stuff on Ultimate Spidey. His jokes there weren't so much quick one liners as a humorous commentary on the fight he was in. It wasn't just random insults, the jokes actually had some intelligence to them, which fits, because Peter is a smart guy.

The whole "they could be annoying and distracting" thing is really just an excuse for the writers to be lazy. It's hard to pull off comedy like that and make it work, but it's part of Spider-man's character, and they shouldn't ignore it.

i have to disagree w/you a lil. in Spidey 1 & 2 Peter was terrified of telling MJ how he felt about her. he would always let people step on him. he basically was a little kiss ass, whiney b&^*@ but once he put on the suit and hid behind the mask he would say some witty things like "Nice outfit...did your husband make that for you? "Here's you're change" I might agree with u if you would say that there not as clever witty typical Spidey smart a%& lines and these movies could use more of that while he's kicking butt and taking names

[Octoberist]

I do have to admit that I like Spidey as a wise-cracker, since he can't do it as Peter Park. I think Spidey 4 should have some witty quips, and I think it's possible without going overboard. You could say it's a natural progression of the Spider-Man persona, on Parker's part.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Yea as he gets more confident in his own skin (well, Spideys skin) he should start to show it. Either with witty one liners or just doing crazy **** while swinging through the city or something.

[dark_b]

there should be some drama.

but i dont want a sad peter again because of MJ or because the public doesnt like him.

if you are a good writte you will find something new. but i dont have faith in sony and raimi after all they had the right idea to have Gwen in the final battle. but then they went back with ''ohhh MJ is in danger''

[Parker Wayne]

there should be some drama.

but i dont want a sad peter again because of MJ or because the public doesnt like him.

if you are a good writte you will find something new. but i dont have faith in sony and raimi after all they had the right idea to have Gwen in the final battle. but then they went back with ''ohhh MJ is in danger''

Yes I'm sick and tired of MJ.

"Oh no I hate my boyfriend because he's a more loved by the city than I am and I'm such a crappy actress."

God she was such an annoying b****.

[Symbiote666]

Either with witty one liners or just doing crazy **** while swinging through the city or something.

I understand that it's a big part of the character, but I can never see it working on film.

One or two here and there could work, like his "I'm the Sheriff" line in SM3, but I think it's only going to go against the grain if he does it as often as he does in other things. SM1 and SM2 had humor mixed in and it felt natural, but SM3 was aiming to be funny and 'awesome', and it paid the price.

Personally, I think it's one of the things that need to be sacrificed or toned down to make the character work. (Work in the general "character" sense, not as a complete 100% adaptation of him).

[luke1234]

there should be some drama.

but i dont want a sad peter again because of MJ or because the public doesnt like him.

if you are a good writte you will find something new. but i dont have faith in sony and raimi after all they had the right idea to have Gwen in the final battle. but then they went back with ''ohhh MJ is in danger''

if theres some drama, its because of dr. connors and his family. Or spider-man not being able to save someone. I swear to god if i have to deal with his relationship problems one more movie im gonna be pissed!:cmad:

oh and leave the one liners to hellboy. I dont know if spidey could pull it off without it sounding mega cheeszy

[dark_b]

if theres some drama, its because of dr. connors and his family. Or spider-man not being able to save someone. I swear to god if i have to deal with his relationship problems one more movie im gonna be pissed!:cmad:

oh and leave the one liners to hellboy. I dont know if spidey could pull it off without it sounding mega cheeszyconnors was in two movie.
if he is the villain he will be connected to peter.

[FrostBite]

i have to disagree w/you a lil. in Spidey 1 & 2 Peter was terrified of telling MJ how he felt about her. he would always let people step on him. he basically was a little kiss ass, whiney b&^*@ but once he put on the suit and hid behind the mask he would say some witty things like "Nice outfit...did your husband make that for you? "Here's you're change" I might agree with u if you would say that there not as clever witty typical Spidey smart a%& lines and these movies could use more of that while he's kicking butt and taking names

My favorite to this day is still "Hey kiddo, let mom and dad talk will ya?"

[chaseter]

I am glad that Raimi is conscious of quality.

[iamlegend]

Whenever you hit a mature tone though its hard not to go darker. I think its time to go deeper into Spider-man and not Peter parker. Peter parker worries about relationships while Spider-man has to handle greater issues like death, murders, and real crime from New york City. It would be intresting to see Spider-man fail at something in this film. They kinda did it with 2 when he went into the burning building and saved the girl but someone died on the top floor. Have that same philosophy towards being a superhero. You win some and you lose. Its a dark philosophy especially towards kids but not as dark as the dark knight which proved that evil can overcome good.

While the Dark Knight certainly had it moments where this seemed true... The climax sent precisely the opposite message, when the citizens and criminals alike refused to become what the Joker was.

I don't understand everyone's obsession with making things DARK DARK DARK... The real world doesn't always suck, you know.

[Demogoblin]

there should be some drama.

but i dont want a sad peter again because of MJ or because the public doesnt like him.

if you are a good writte you will find something new. but i dont have faith in sony and raimi after all they had the right idea to have Gwen in the final battle. but then they went back with ''ohhh MJ is in danger''

I think the main reason was that Bryce found out she was pregnant and no one wanted to risk her doing the action filled finale.

[Metal Spidey]

I don't get what Dark Knight did that was so amazing.

[Parker Wayne]

While the Dark Knight certainly had it moments where this seemed true... The climax sent precisely the opposite message, when the citizens and criminals alike refused to become what the Joker was.

I don't understand everyone's obsession with making things DARK DARK DARK... The real world doesn't always suck, you know.

Yes! I never thought the Dark Knight over-the-top dark and depressing. I think it struck the right chords. The scenes with the ferry and the bombs was a really powerful scene that showed not everyone who's not Batman, Gordon, Fox, Dawes, or Alfred were bad people and that in the end, even though things were gonna be worse before they get better, there is hope for Gotham City.


I think another direction to go could be Spiderman's influence on this city, something that was prominent in the train scene in Spiderman 2 and to a lesser extent in Spiderman 1 at the bridge scene, but not seen at all in Spiderman 3.

[SpeterMan3]

I don't get what Dark Knight did that was so amazing.
Me either. I mean, I liked it and it was good, but... I don't know why everyone sees it as some amazingly fantastic thing. I was wondering where Batman was during the whole thing, and when he was there I was a little bored. That's just me, though. Feel free to flame me, everyone.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I do have to admit that I like Spidey as a wise-cracker, since he can't do it as Peter Park. I think Spidey 4 should have some witty quips, and I think it's possible without going overboard. You could say it's a natural progression of the Spider-Man persona, on Parker's part. Well, I think if we put wisecracks alot in the fights, it may distract the GA and bascially everybody from the battle. Yeah, he'll have some wisecracks during the battles like in the other films, but not as much as he does in the comics. Remember, as I have said, what works in comics doesn't alwasy work well on screen, you know what I mean.

I really have no problem with how many wisecracks we've been getting in these films. They've all be funny, lol. So, I can't wait to hear more of them in S-M4. :up:

[venom892]

But we hardly get Wise cracks.Just a few more wouldn't hurt the battle I think.

[NinjaCarm]

Wait a minute? Did Raimi pass over Batman Begins after Spider-Man 2? He coulda upped the ante after that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

:whatever:

[NinjaCarm]

But we hardly get Wise cracks.Just a few more wouldn't hurt the battle I think.

Nice avatar...:grin:

[American_Hobo]

I don't get what Dark Knight did that was so amazing.

Yeah me too.
Dark Knight was good, but overrated.
I still prefer Batman(89) over Dark Knight.

[TheScarecrow]

I don't get what Dark Knight did that was so amazing.

It was a pop-culture event that, for the first real time, pushed the validity of films based on comic books to the point that it came *this* close to getting a nomination for Best Picture Oscar (the Producer's Guild who form a core part of the vote for the BP Oscar nominated it for their own awards, but when the nominations were open to the wider Academy it somehow got lost in the sea of "credible" movies). Even if you're not a fan of the stories or the characters, at least appreciate it on a technical level. The film really is a damn near masterpiece.

1. The acting in it was superb - across the board. Very hard to fault anyone.
2. The writing was terrific - far better than the writing for any other comic book movie we've ever seen and on par with the other greatest action movies. Again, very nearly got a nomination for the Oscar because it got the guild nomination here as well.
3. Visually it's an absolute triumph. Wally Pfister's cinematography (for the second time) has taken an ordinary city and made it extraordinary. How he never won more awards for both Begins and TDK is beyond me.
4. It pushed the bounds technologically with its use of the IMAX camera, and reverts to old-style filmaking techniques by investing more time and effort in the use of real stunts and the rejection of unnecessary CGI - giving some of the best special effects we've ever seen.

But more or less - it's about the credibility it provides to the genre and the fact that comic book movies can be the source of smart, intelligent and artistic films without the need to wink at the camera.

[Venom 1988]

Wait a minute? Did Raimi pass over Batman Begins after Spider-Man 2? He coulda upped the ante after that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

:whatever:

True...only thing was sadly Batman Begins did not have the hype that The Dark Knight did...he probably glanced over it

[TheScarecrow]

Batman Begins isn't immune from scrutiny, though and Raimi had no reason to doubt himself after Spider-man 2. His film was the pinnacle of the genre. It has received a far better reaction from critics and a much higher box office.

The only thing I think Batman Begins would have influenced with Raimi (and this is just me speculating, here) was "Gee, I can do multiple villains!".

[spider-neil]

batman begins is irrelavent to SM2 quite simply because SM2 is better. a lot better. I watched them both recently and thougth the ending of BB was rubbish whilst I enjoyed SM2 as much as the first time I saw it. I'm not surprised sam took little notice of BB.

[The Ace of Knaves]

The ending of BB with the whole "OMGZZZ IT'S GONNA BLOW!!" crap was pretty...well, crap. But I thought BB was a great movie.

I actually prefer the first Spidey film to the second.

[TheScarecrow]

^ While I like Begins better than Spider-man 2, I can understand why others would feel differently.

But I agree that Raimi had no need to care what others were doing at this point. Raimi had changed the genre, at this point Nolan had not. But I do think that multiple villains working in Begins might have put it in Raimi's head. Up until that point (with the exception of X-Men) no superhero movies with multiple villains had really been good.

[Ipodman]

For me, i enjoyed Batman Begins way more than Dark Knight.

[spider-neil]

truth to be told after watching SM2 I said to my brother that sam should leave on a high because no way was he going to top that movie. prophetic or what?

going back to BB, a decent reboot but imho not better than SM2 or SM1, too many parts where the movie drags and as I said eariler I thought the ending was plain rubbish. I was amazed at the rave reviews it got, putting spidey to one side, iron man is a much better introduction to a character.
BB, an overrated movie that people are now calling what it is because they now have TDK to fall back on.

[Venom'sDad]

1. The acting in it was superb - across the board. Very hard to fault anyone.
2. The writing was terrific - far better than the writing for any other comic book movie we've ever seen and on par with the other greatest action movies. Again, very nearly got a nomination for the Oscar because it got the guild nomination here as well.
3. Visually it's an absolute triumph. Wally Pfister's cinematography (for the second time) has taken an ordinary city and made it extraordinary. How he never won more awards for both Begins and TDK is beyond me.
4. It pushed the bounds technologically with its use of the IMAX camera, and reverts to old-style filmaking techniques by investing more time and effort in the use of real stunts and the rejection of unnecessary CGI - giving some of the best special effects we've ever seen.

I have to totally agree with you on that... and I'm primarily a Spiderman fan 1st and Superman fan 2nd... that's saying alot for me.


The ending of BB with the whole "OMGZZZ IT'S GONNA BLOW!!" crap was pretty...well, crap. But I thought BB was a great movie.

As oppose to "I wont die a monster" :whatever:


I actually prefer the first Spidey film to the second.I totally agree... but I maybe a little bias because Green Goblin is my favorite villain.


But I agree that Raimi had no need to care what others were doing at this point. Raimi had changed the genre, at this point Nolan had not.
This, I agree with. I have to admit it although I'm not a Sam Raimi fan. However, Sam has been surpassed.

[luke1234]

Now does this spider-man film become more realistic? It seems audiences are more interested in superhero flicks that are grounded with reality and deal with realistic problems. If you look at Iron Man and Batman, these films are pretty out there but they fall back on realistic terms and are not too far fetched. "I can believe that someone can build a suit with all the technology we have" "I can believe that a terrorist and a vigilante duke it out." but can i go as far to say "A human spider fighting a giant lizard...well that can happen". Spider-man is a superhero that is not grounded in reality and I hope Raimi is aware of this while making it.

[Joker]

truth to be told after watching SM2 I said to my brother that sam should leave on a high because no way was he going to top that movie. prophetic or what?

Yeah, SM-2 is a hard act to follow. Everything just fell into place. Raimi was on top form. Best Spidey movie so far, hands down.

SM-4 has a chance to reach that kind of greatness, now that they've given Raimi full creative control. At least we know he'll be using characters that he wants to use and is passionate about, and not ones that the studio lumbered on him.

[spider-neil]

Yeah, SM-2 is a hard act to follow. Everything just fell into place. Raimi was on top form. Best Spidey movie so far, hands down.

SM-4 has a chance to reach that kind of greatness, now that they've given Raimi full creative control. At least we know he'll be using characters that he wants to use and is passionate about, and not ones that the studio lumbered on him.


what I like about sam is he acknowledges his flaws and seems determined to do better. sam could (rightly?) hold up his middle finger and say SM3 was a success (which it absolutely was at the BO) and say I'm going to do more of the same which is what shoemacker(sp) did with B&R after the dreadful (but successful) batman forever but sam wants to return to what made SM1 and 2 a success (quaility wise rather than box office) even though SM3 did better than both at the world wide BO.

sam comes across as humble and aware of his flaws he deserves success and most of all he deserves a second shot at SM.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Yea I don't think Raimi is so thick skinned that he can't admit SM3 wasn't the best he could of done. I think he will have learned by his mistakes last time out.

[Sentinel X]

truth to be told after watching SM2 I said to my brother that sam should leave on a high because no way was he going to top that movie. prophetic or what?

going back to BB, a decent reboot but imho not better than SM2 or SM1, too many parts where the movie drags and as I said eariler I thought the ending was plain rubbish. I was amazed at the rave reviews it got, putting spidey to one side, iron man is a much better introduction to a character.
BB, an overrated movie that people are now calling what it is because they now have TDK to fall back on.SM2 can EASILY be topped. It was good but not THAT good. :o

[webhead731]

I just hope they keep it so it feels like a sequel to the other three films rather than a new direction.

Example of a fail would be Batman Returns to Batman Forever. Doesn't feel like a sequel to me at all.

[spider-neil]

SM2 can EASILY be topped. It was good but not THAT good. :o


well, not EASILY. sam himself didn't with SM3 and none bar nolan has.
There STILL isn't a superhero action scene that can hold a candle to the clocktower/train sequence, not even in TDK.

[Infinity9999x]

truth to be told after watching SM2 I said to my brother that sam should leave on a high because no way was he going to top that movie. prophetic or what?

going back to BB, a decent reboot but imho not better than SM2 or SM1, too many parts where the movie drags and as I said eariler I thought the ending was plain rubbish. I was amazed at the rave reviews it got, putting spidey to one side, iron man is a much better introduction to a character.
BB, an overrated movie that people are now calling what it is because they now have TDK to fall back on.

See, I have just never understood the extreme praise SM2 has gotten. It's a good movie, and when I put aside all my thoughts of the comics, it's very good, but there are so many key things they missed in terms of the mythos that I just don't get why so many people here thought it was amazing.

I agree on BB however. I still think it's one of the best superhero movies, but when it first came out there where people claiming it should get nominated for best picture, to which i just went :dry:

It was insanely overhyped, especially here, for a while, but now people are putting a better perspective on it.

[Joker]

This is why I love the Hype. So many different flavours of opinions. Reading the last few pages you have people saying, "I don't think Batman Begins was the best", "I don't think Spider-Man 2 was the best", "I don't think The Dark Knight was the best", "I think Batman '89 is better than all of them" etc.

:woot:

[luke1234]

This is why I love the Hype. So many different flavours of opinions. Reading the last few pages you have people saying, "I don't think Batman Begins was the best", "I don't think Spider-Man 2 was the best", "I don't think The Dark Knight was the best", "I think Batman '89 is better than all of them" etc.

:woot:

Batman Returns all the way! I think its funny how its always between batman and spider-man though.

[Demogoblin]

I like em all, and all for totally different reasons. Hows that for straddling the fence? :oldrazz:

[chaseter]

I don't think SM2 can easily be topped but it can be topped.

[spider-neil]

Batman Returns all the way! I think its funny how its always between batman and spider-man though.

because they have given the best movies the genre has to offer (and the first two superman movies).

[Sentinel X]

well, not EASILY. sam himself didn't with SM3 and none bar nolan has.
There STILL isn't a superhero action scene that can hold a candle to the clocktower/train sequence, not even in TDK. I disagree: Hulk vs Military (Hulk 2003), Nightcrawler white house scene (X-men 2), and Hulk vs Abdomination (The Incredible Hulk) were all great action sequences that are on par with the Spider-man train fight.

...and perhaps its not "EASY" (the all caps made me stress the "easily' a bit too much) but it can certainly be done without breaking too much of a sweat. There are so many good stories I can see in my minds eye AND action sequences that can be used with Spider-man.

This is why I love the Hype. So many different flavours of opinions. Reading the last few pages you have people saying, "I don't think Batman Begins was the best", "I don't think Spider-Man 2 was the best", "I don't think The Dark Knight was the best", "I think Batman '89 is better than all of them" etc.




Its TDK for me....but even that can be topped (by a spidey film too) let alone Spider-man 2.

[Parker Wayne]

I disagree: Hulk vs Military (Hulk 2003), Nightcrawler white house scene (X-men 2), and Hulk vs Abdomination (The Incredible Hulk) were all great action sequences that are on par with the Spider-man train fight.


I still don't think those action sequences were better than the clocktower/train sequence. Well, in terms of pure action, all those are up there, but the overall weight of the drama of the scene in Spiderman 2 easily makes it better.

I mean, he stopped a train, got unmasked, and the crowd didn't take a picture or anything. They were appreciative and even tried to stand up for him against Doc-Ock. That scene was wonderful. The only other scene that I can compare to it (even though it didn't as much action) was the ferry scene and the bombs in TDK.

[Jack O Lantern]

Now does this spider-man film become more realistic? It seems audiences are more interested in superhero flicks that are grounded with reality and deal with realistic problems. If you look at Iron Man and Batman, these films are pretty out there but they fall back on realistic terms and are not too far fetched. "I can believe that someone can build a suit with all the technology we have" "I can believe that a terrorist and a vigilante duke it out." but can i go as far to say "A human spider fighting a giant lizard...well that can happen". Spider-man is a superhero that is not grounded in reality and I hope Raimi is aware of this while making it.

So you're telling Sam Raimi, the director of the most fanicaling succesful superhero franchise of all time, what the audience wants? Yeah good luck with that.

And for the record, best comic book movie ever? A History of Violence

[spider-neil]

I disagree: Hulk vs Military (Hulk 2003), Nightcrawler white house scene (X-men 2), and Hulk vs Abdomination (The Incredible Hulk) were all great action sequences that are on par with the Spider-man train fight.




no offence but I don't think those three exmples come CLOSE to the excitement of the train sequence, and frankly I thought I was watching tekken with the hulk abomination fight.

maybe the plane sequence in superman returns comes close and even then I give it to the train sequence for the length, excitement and weight of the scene in context of the movie.

[marvel001]

i hope spidey 4 blows everyone's minds away. i love all three films, and yea the 3rd one did have somethings in it i didn't agree with, but it was still a good movie imo. but the reason i want this to be epic is so that all of those spiderman 3 hypocrites who loved raimi after the 1st two and then wanted him out after the 3rd one to blown away by it, just because there's one "bad" movie out of the 3 doesn't mean the director should go, and i hope this would be a lesson to them. go spidey 4!

[Venom'sDad]

Personally, I hope Spider-Man 4 is good for the sake of the my favorite character and the franchise. I hope Sam can pull it off... I really do. I just don't think given what he has established, he can. Here's wishing.

[Infinity9999x]

I still don't think those action sequences were better than the clocktower/train sequence. Well, in terms of pure action, all those are up there, but the overall weight of the drama of the scene in Spiderman 2 easily makes it better.

I mean, he stopped a train, got unmasked, and the crowd didn't take a picture or anything. They were appreciative and even tried to stand up for him against Doc-Ock. That scene was wonderful. The only other scene that I can compare to it (even though it didn't as much action) was the ferry scene and the bombs in TDK.

These are two of the things that actually knocked that sequence down a notch for me.


This is why I love the Hype. So many different flavours of opinions. Reading the last few pages you have people saying, "I don't think Batman Begins was the best", "I don't think Spider-Man 2 was the best", "I don't think The Dark Knight was the best", "I think Batman '89 is better than all of them" etc.

Haha, I agree. Another thing I find interesting, is how the hype goes through fads of sorts. When a good superhero movie comes out, there's a brief time where it's pretty hard to critique anything about that movie without being flamed. We all saw it with BB, and with TDK obviously. But I remember way back when, all of four years ago when I first joined, I first started opening up about my problems with SM2 and was promptly flamed for it. It's nice when you can get to a point where you can simply discuss the movie without having to worry about that anymore.

[SpeterMan3]

Yeah, I'm also glad that people can express their opinions right now without everyone going "Flame on!"

[Ipodman]

[...]
I think its funny how its always between batman and spider-man though.

i think its because these two characters have the most colourful villains

[iamlegend]

i think its because these two characters have the most colourful villains

That, and Batman and Spider-Man have essentially always been the most pimped out heroes from their respective companies. Both have been all over legitimately every media platform more than any other two heroes combined.

The fact that they're more street-level heroes has something to do with it to. Easier to make things believable than, ya know, Krypton Man, etc.

[spider-neil]

That, and Batman and Spider-Man have essentially always been the most pimped out heroes from their respective companies. Both have been all over legitimately every media platform more than any other two heroes combined.

The fact that they're more street-level heroes has something to do with it to. Easier to make things believable than, ya know, Krypton Man, etc.

they are also two of the three most regonisible heroes on the plant. you could in all likihood show a picture of spider-man to a 2 year and they'd able to tell you who it was.

[dark_b]

what I like about sam is he acknowledges his flaws and seems determined to do better. sam could (rightly?) hold up his middle finger and say SM3 was a success (which it absolutely was at the BO) and say I'm going to do more of the same which is what shoemacker(sp) did with B&R after the dreadful (but successful) batman forever but sam wants to return to what made SM1 and 2 a success (quaility wise rather than box office) even though SM3 did better than both at the world wide BO.

sam comes across as humble and aware of his flaws he deserves success and most of all he deserves a second shot at SM.who does that? show me quotes from a director that would talk like that.

the only reason Raimi is talking like that is because SM3 got a lot of hate from the fans.

[spider-neil]

who does that? show me quotes from a director that would talk like that.

the only reason Raimi is talking like that is because SM3 got a lot of hate from the fans.


not by talk I mean actions and I gave the example of shoemaker(sp).

as for SM3 and the hate from the fans, he could ignore it if he wanted to, the ratio of fans to joe public is ridiculously low and the majority of people I've spoken to who weren't fans enjoyed spider-man 3.

[dark_b]

they enjoyed spiderman 3 or they enjoyed the money shots and action?

because after 2 years i want to know who liked MJ or crying peter in SM3.

[NinjaCarm]

I'm glad Raimi came out with these kinds of statements, if anything, it's hopeful. But there's so much he has to look at. How can Spidey 4 be amazing?

Some amazing scenes of Spider-Man in action, I mean amazing! I want a scene of Spider-Man chasing down burglars where Spidey seems menacing, camera following him up a building that is just eerie in a way the viewer is just in awe. That's what we need in this movie - awe!

And Toby Maguire - if he wants it to be great, then step it up man, both Raimi and Maguire, get dramatic, get genuine and real with the acting please, don't just stand there with the droopey eyes and look befuddled, show some umph!

People will follow the story but put the Amazing back in Spider-Man.

[SpeterMan3]

The movie does need to be amazing and awesome, and I expect nothing less. Not exactly specifically what you're saying (which does sound great), but something that will leave us with the same feeling.

And I just noticed that I can have a sig, lol.

[SP1D3RxV3N0M]

not by talk I mean actions and I gave the example of shoemaker(sp).

as for SM3 and the hate from the fans, he could ignore it if he wanted to, the ratio of fans to joe public is ridiculously low and the majority of people I've spoken to who weren't fans enjoyed spider-man 3.

I'm a fan and I enjoyed it.

[SpeterMan3]

So did I, but as far as fans go, I think we're a minority.

[SpaceWay2009]

I agree. We need spectacular and amazing actions! Well, that's one of the things we need.

[redfirebird2008]

The dark knight was not suitable for children, but the toys sold very well.



TDK had a special circumstance surrounding it. The Joker toys immediately became collectibles when Heath Ledger died.

[redfirebird2008]

BB, an overrated movie that people are now calling what it is because they now have TDK to fall back on.

Uh, no. Batman Begins is every bit as good as The Dark Knight IMHO. Both are flawed in their own way. For one thing, Batman Begins has much better storytelling.

[Sentinel X]

Please,
Spider-man 2 is more overrated than Batman Begins (and I would say I definitely love Spidey as a character far more than Batman).
I think they're both good films but Batman Begins is better.

[Project862006]

batman begins is a better film for batman/Bruce Wayne imo

anyway i think tdk was good because it did its job just like x2/sm2/iron man did it followed its comic counter parts in every sense

[redfirebird2008]

Please,
Spider-man 2 is more overrated than Batman Begins (and I would say I definitely love Spidey as a character far more than Batman).
I think they're both good films but Batman Begins is better.

Other than TDK, Spidey 2 is the most overrated superhero movie ever. Iron Man comes in third on my list of most overrated superhero movies. Mind you, I like all three of those movies a lot but they received a ridiculous amount of praise that wasn't really all that deserved. Iron Man was pretty fortunate to come out the same year as TDK. TDK has received a lot more backlash than Iron Man. IM2 won't be able to sneak in under the radar though. I fully expect it to be overpraised just like SM2 and TDK, and at that point there will be plenty of people to point out that it's really not the best thing since sliced bread. Batman Begins deserves every bit of credit given to it after the disaster of Batman & Robin.

[Dog Logan]

I'm glad Raimi thinks TDK upped the ante because I want him to see the best possible job done with SM-4, but I doubt it'll be better than TDK, though it'd be nice if it was.

[Joker]

Other than TDK, Spidey 2 is the most overrated superhero movie ever. Iron Man comes in third on my list of most overrated superhero movies. Mind you, I like all three of those movies a lot but they received a ridiculous amount of praise that wasn't really all that deserved.

Bloody hell!

You're a hard man to please. Is there any comic book movie that you do think deserves all it's praise?

Batman Begins deserves every bit of credit given to it after the disaster of Batman & Robin.

Well that's not saying much. Almost anything would look good after Batman and Robin. Begins was great. But not because it came after Batman and Robin.

[TheScarecrow]

I'm glad Raimi thinks TDK upped the ante because I want him to see the best possible job done with SM-4, but I doubt it'll be better than TDK, though it'd be nice if it was.

If it tried to copy TDK, then no it couldn't be better. But if it applied the approach Nolan and co took to a real Spider-man formula, it could be. Spider-man movies are great for different reasons to Batman movies.

[Dog Logan]

I'm not saying SM-4 should copy TDK but take notes on it on how to really handle the characters. TDK was pretty true to the source material in a lot of aspects with how the characters were handled, I'd like to see the same with SM-4. As someone said in this thread before, when Peter is Spider-Man he doesn't seem like a different person, and he's supposed to. He's supposed to be very, very different. And MJ also hasn't been MJ since movie one.

[redfirebird2008]

Bloody hell!

You're a hard man to please. Is there any comic book movie that you do think deserves all it's praise?



Well that's not saying much. Almost anything would look good after Batman and Robin. Begins was great. But not because it came after Batman and Robin.

Yes it was great without the comparison to B&R, but it is one of the strongest reboots of a franchise that there's ever been. Such a stark contrast between the rock bottom of B&R and the quality of BB.

[redfirebird2008]

Bloody hell!

You're a hard man to please. Is there any comic book movie that you do think deserves all it's praise?

Hmmm...I'm not a hard person to please so much as I can enjoy these movies without calling them the best thing ever, which is a phrase that got thrown around way the hell too much with movies like Spidey 2 and TDK. And hell, the first Spider-Man is overrated too. :hehe: I actually feel X2 is underrated, so maybe that's one of the few comic book movies that I felt deserved all of its praise.

I will say that I thought Heath Ledger's Joker was the greatest adaptation of a superhero character. The portrayal of the Joker in TDK is deserving of the utmost praise. Brilliant stuff from the writers and the actor.

[Joker]

Hmmm...I'm not a hard person to please so much as I can enjoy these movies without calling them the best thing ever, which is a phrase that got thrown around way the hell too much with movies like Spidey 2 and TDK. And hell, the first Spider-Man is overrated too. :hehe:

It's not that people call them the best thing ever. It's just that they're hailed as the best so far in the comic book movie franchise.

And no matter which hero I prefer, I'd have to agree with the general consensus that Iron Man, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and even X-Men 2 are the A-list as far as comic book movies go.

I will say that I thought Heath Ledger's Joker was the greatest adaptation of a superhero character. The portrayal of the Joker in TDK is deserving of the utmost praise. Brilliant stuff from the writers and the actor.

Agreed all the way. He really set the bar high for comic book movie villains.

[Infinity9999x]

Please,
Spider-man 2 is more overrated than Batman Begins (and I would say I definitely love Spidey as a character far more than Batman).
I think they're both good films but Batman Begins is better.

I'd agree with your statement about SM2. Like I said before, I've never understood the hype it has.

However, looking at it purely movie-wise and setting my feelings for the comics aside, I think SM2 may have a tighter script. BB's 3rd act could have been better, and it was quite underwhelming compared to the other two.

I still much prefer BB, but it is what it is. SM2 is actually quite low on my totem pole of superhero movies (well, low in the light that it's not in the top 5 of my top 10) simply because of all the problems I have with Raimi's handling of the major characters within the mythos.

[redfirebird2008]

It's not that people call them the best thing ever. It's just that they're hailed as the best so far in the comic book movie franchise.

And no matter which hero I prefer, I'd have to agree with the general consensus that Iron Man, Spider-Man 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and even X-Men 2 are the A-list as far as comic book movies go.



Agreed all the way. He really set the bar high for comic book movie villains.

X2 is the one that is a bit underrated out of the most praised superhero movies. And heck, the original Superman has sort of gotten lost in the shuffle because of all the recent movies, but it's a great movie in its own right and the single most influential superhero movie.

[redfirebird2008]

I'd agree with your statement about SM2. Like I said before, I've never understood the hype it has.

However, looking at it purely movie-wise and setting my feelings for the comics aside, I think SM2 may have a tighter script. BB's 3rd act could have been better, and it was quite underwhelming compared to the other two.

I still much prefer BB, but it is what it is. SM2 is actually quite low on my totem pole of superhero movies (well, low in the light that it's not in the top 5 of my top 10) simply because of all the problems I have with Raimi's handling of the major characters within the mythos.

BB's third act does fall apart, but so does pretty much every other superhero movie including TDK. BB's third act doesn't fall apart any more than SM2. Hell, all three SM movies have ridiculously cliched endings involving Mary Jane. :hehe:

[Dog Logan]

I think another superhero movie that's a bit underrated is TIH.

[redfirebird2008]

I think another superhero movie that's a bit underrated is TIH.

Agree with this. Good movie that got lost in the shuffle because of TDK and Iron Man.

[Infinity9999x]

BB's third act does fall apart, but so does pretty much every other superhero movie including TDK. BB's third act doesn't fall apart any more than SM2. Hell, all three SM movies have ridiculously cliched endings involving Mary Jane. :hehe:

I think TDK's 3rd act was weaker not because of poorer writing (which was the case in BB I felt) but because it ran too long. I can understand Nolan wanting to include Dents arc all within TDK, but the fact is he wasted massive amounts of potential with Two-Face. Ending it slightly after the capture of the Joker would have made it nearly flawless.


And I do agree that the SM movies had very cliched endings, but so do most Superhero movies. (Heck, so do most movies when you come down to it.) However, when you take SM2's script and put aside the horrible treatment of some characters, I think it works better than the ending of BB did. Doesn't mean I like it more though, because I don't.

[redfirebird2008]

I think TDK's 3rd act was weaker not because of poorer writing (which was the case in BB I felt) but because it ran too long. I can understand Nolan wanting to include Dents arc all within TDK, but the fact is he wasted massive amounts of potential with Two-Face. Ending it slightly after the capture of the Joker would have made it nearly flawless.


Well yes, up to and including the explosion of the hospital (Nurse Joker), TDK was pretty much a flawless action movie.

[Infinity9999x]

Well yes, up to and including the explosion of the hospital (Nurse Joker), TDK was pretty much a flawless action movie.


In some ways, I'm more disappointed in the treatment of Two-Face then I was with Venom.

I mean, Venom was forced on Raimi (which isn't an excuse for Raimi's poor treatment of him, but still), and you could obviously tell Raimi didn't care for the character. You could tell Nolan obviously respected and cared for the character of Two-Face, however, I think he made a premature artistic decision in deciding to "kill" him off. Two-Face is such a complex character, one much more so than the only revenge driven one in TDK and eons more than the one in BF, and it's really too bad Nolan couldn't have saved him for the second movie.

[redfirebird2008]

In some ways, I'm more disappointed in the treatment of Two-Face then I was with Venom.

I mean, Venom was forced on Raimi (which isn't an excuse for Raimi's poor treatment of him, but still), and you could obviously tell Raimi didn't care for the character. You could tell Nolan obviously respected and cared for the character of Two-Face, however, I think he made a premature artistic decision in deciding to "kill" him off. Two-Face is such a complex character, one much more so than the only revenge driven one in TDK and eons more than the one in BF, and it's really too bad Nolan couldn't have saved him for the second movie.

Nolan didn't want him to be a mob boss as portrayed in other mediums. He chose to go only with the revenge angle, which was disappointing but I think they did a hell of a job with it in terms of doing what they wanted. My problem with the ending of the movie is not the Two-Face angle but rather the ferry boat/sonar/SWAT sequence.

[Infinity9999x]

Nolan didn't want him to be a mob boss as portrayed in other mediums. He chose to go only with the revenge angle, which was disappointing but I think they did a hell of a job with it in terms of doing what they wanted. My problem with the ending of the movie is not the Two-Face angle but rather the ferry boat/sonar/SWAT sequence.

I'm not just talking about the mob boss stuff, I'm just talking about all the themes Two-Face plays into and represents. The entire aspect of duality, the fact that he's the living persona of a line Batman/Bruce has to walk daily, and the idea that he is the living embodiment of a struggle we all go through internally each day. The battle between the best and worst parts of ourselves.

And I actually loved the Ferry and Swat sequence, I thought that was fine.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm not just talking about the mob boss stuff, I'm just talking about all the themes Two-Face plays into and represents. The entire aspect of duality, the fact that he's the living persona of a line Batman/Bruce has to walk daily, and the idea that he is the living embodiment of a struggle we all go through internally each day. The battle between the best and worst parts of ourselves.

And I actually loved the Ferry and Swat sequence, I thought that was fine.

I know what you mean about Two-Face. I was disappointed that he was basically just a guy who was out for revenge. He didn't show too much of "Big Bad Harv" prior to the accident. But for the angle Nolan was going with, I think they did a good job. It's a different spin on the character than I prefer, but I think they achieved what they were trying to achieve.

[Dog Logan]

Agree with this. Good movie that got lost in the shuffle because of TDK and Iron Man.

Indeed it did, I think it could've been as big a success as IM but MS focused all their marketing efforts toward IM, and TIH didn't make nearly as much as it could. It should've gotten just as much focus as IM because it truly was the better film (at least for me).

[redfirebird2008]

Indeed it did, I think it could've been as big a success as IM but MS focused all their marketing efforts toward IM, and TIH didn't make nearly as much as it could. It should've gotten just as much focus as IM because it truly was the better film (at least for me).

TIH was a reboot. That's mostly what held it back. It would have done much better if it was the first movie in its franchise like Iron Man or Spider-Man. Kinda like Batman Begins was hurt at the box office by B&R, TIH was hurt by Hulk even though I actually thought Hulk was a decent movie...obviously nowhere near the catastrophe that B&R was. And I do think you are right that Iron Man was marketed much better than TIH, so that certainly played a part too.

[Octoberist]

In some ways, I'm more disappointed in the treatment of Two-Face then I was with Venom.

I mean, Venom was forced on Raimi (which isn't an excuse for Raimi's poor treatment of him, but still), and you could obviously tell Raimi didn't care for the character. You could tell Nolan obviously respected and cared for the character of Two-Face, however, I think he made a premature artistic decision in deciding to "kill" him off. Two-Face is such a complex character, one much more so than the only revenge driven one in TDK and eons more than the one in BF, and it's really too bad Nolan couldn't have saved him for the second movie.

Regardless if they did or didn't like how Nolan handled Two-Face (in which I liked), at least you got the gist of it. You at least understand where Nolan is coming from, and why Harvey is so important to the story.

Where as Venom felt so shoehorned in, that he felt irrelevant to the main story. You kinda get the motivation of Brock but at the sametime, it felt really off.

[Ipodman]

TIH is my fav Superhero movie...

[TheScarecrow]

I mean, Venom was forced on Raimi (which isn't an excuse for Raimi's poor treatment of him, but still), and you could obviously tell Raimi didn't care for the character. You could tell Nolan obviously respected and cared for the character of Two-Face, however, I think he made a premature artistic decision in deciding to "kill" him off. Two-Face is such a complex character, one much more so than the only revenge driven one in TDK and eons more than the one in BF, and it's really too bad Nolan couldn't have saved him for the second movie.

It's very, very different, though. The movie IS about Harvey Dent. Nolan acknowledges this himself. He's called Harvey Dent the 'protagonist' before and emotional core of the movie - which I agree with. I do, in a way, disagree with your assessment that Two-Face has much more depth than Nolan put on screen. I think Nolan got it essentially right, but it was much more tilted towards revenge, though.

What I do agree with is that there are many, many, many, many more story opportunities and Nolan has presented us with a double-edged sword in a way. Everyone would like to see more from Batman's second villain - but to get there we'd have to have this franchise ruined again and spend another decade waiting for the possible chance that someone will get it right again.

I'm not happy by Dent being killed off simply because of the amount of stories that can't be told on screen now - but at the same time I think it enhances TDK that he died.

Where as Venom felt so shoehorned in, that he felt irrelevant to the main story. You kinda get the motivation of Brock but at the sametime, it felt really off.

I felt like Eddie had just been put in scenes for the sake of giving him a larger role and I don't think Sam ever really thought him through. Same with Captain Stacey. Their girlfriend/daughter was about to fall from a building at one point and they were both really calm. It's like Raimi just needed two seconds to remind people they were still part of the movie.

[dark_b]

Indeed it did, I think it could've been as big a success as IM but MS focused all their marketing efforts toward IM, and TIH didn't make nearly as much as it could. It should've gotten just as much focus as IM because it truly was the better film (at least for me).didnt TIH had a similar opening like Hulk(03).and hulk(03) was promoted a lot.
if it is true maybe there just isnt interest in hulk.

[dark_b]

It's very, very different, though. The movie IS about Harvey Dent. Nolan acknowledges this himself. He's called Harvey Dent the 'protagonist' before and emotional core of the movie - which I agree with. I do, in a way, disagree with your assessment that Two-Face has much more depth than Nolan put on screen. I think Nolan got it essentially right, but it was much more tilted towards revenge, though.

What I do agree with is that there are many, many, many, many more story opportunities and Nolan has presented us with a double-edged sword in a way. Everyone would like to see more from Batman's second villain - but to get there we'd have to have this franchise ruined again and spend another decade waiting for the possible chance that someone will get it right again.

I'm not happy by Dent being killed off simply because of the amount of stories that can't be told on screen now - but at the same time I think it enhances TDK that he died.



I felt like Eddie had just been put in scenes for the sake of giving him a larger role and I don't think Sam ever really thought him through. Same with Captain Stacey. Their girlfriend/daughter was about to fall from a building at one point and they were both really calm. It's like Raimi just needed two seconds to remind people they were still part of the movie.but movies are movies. and not comicbooks.

you can not have today the joker, two face on friday and the penguin and then on monday again two face. everyone deserves hes own movie. TF got a whole movie for himself. the only reason Nolan killed him IMO is because he served hes purpose and because Nolan doesnt want to use the same villains again. he wants to do something new for the next one. and if a new director comes in? well then he should make hes own universe.

[Dog Logan]

didnt TIH had a similar opening like Hulk(03).and hulk(03) was promoted a lot.
if it is true maybe there just isnt interest in hulk.

The opening was around the same as '03 Hulk and no, it wasn't promoted as much. The majority of the time I only saw commercials during times when most people are sleep (i.e at night or very early in the morning). There was a hell of a lot more they could've done, but they didn't, and it showed through the box office earning. There is tons of interest in the Hulk, they just haven't given him the true attention he needs as far as promotion is concerned with his movies. I can't tell you how many people told me they had no clue there was a new Hulk movie out until they so happened to see a commercial, and even then they didn't see a ton of them.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Ang's Hulk was better anyway :D

[Dog Logan]

Nope, because he didn't get the Hulk right. The Hulk is the Hulk, not Godzilla. Plus, the performances were all stale & boring (except Sam Elliot, of course).

[The Ace of Knaves]

Disagree. He got Hulk right, TIH got him wrong. There was no conflict in him, no sense of amazement. All he was in TIH was big computer game character or something, there was no actual personality to the Hulk.

Was there a scene in TIH where Hulk is alone, looking at his reflection in amazement? Or flying through the air with a look of calm on his face? Or actually showing the duel personalities of Hulk and Banner? Nope. See Hulk shouldn't just be all "Hulk smash" all the time. There needs to be moments of calm and to show Hulk just wants to be left alone. He's like a big angry kid, TIH showed none of that.

Performances stale and boring? Norton looked completely jaded and/or uninterested. I love Norton but honestly, I think that was one of his weakest performances.

Then you have characterization that is completely wrong. I mean, Gen.Ross in TIH didn't give a crap that his daughter loves Banner, he was just like "That mans entire body is property of the US Army!!!". In Ang's Hulk you could sense the conflict in Ross, he was torn between duty and the love of his daughter.

I do like TIH, but IMO Ang's is better.

[dark_b]

The opening was around the same as '03 Hulk and no, it wasn't promoted as much. The majority of the time I only saw commercials during times when most people are sleep (i.e at night or very early in the morning). There was a hell of a lot more they could've done, but they didn't, and it showed through the box office earning. There is tons of interest in the Hulk, they just haven't given him the true attention he needs as far as promotion is concerned with his movies. I can't tell you how many people told me they had no clue there was a new Hulk movie out until they so happened to see a commercial, and even then they didn't see a ton of them.hulk(03) wasnt promoted a lot?

he he he :hehe:

[Dog Logan]

Disagree. He got Hulk right, TIH got him wrong. There was no conflict in him, no sense of amazement. All he was in TIH was big computer game character or something, there was no actual personality to the Hulk.

Was there a scene in TIH where Hulk is alone, looking at his reflection in amazement? Or flying through the air with a look of calm on his face? Or actually showing the duel personalities of Hulk and Banner? Nope. See Hulk shouldn't just be all "Hulk smash" all the time. There needs to be moments of calm and to show Hulk just wants to be left alone. He's like a big angry kid, TIH showed none of that.

Performances stale and boring? Norton looked completely jaded and/or uninterested. I love Norton but honestly, I think that was one of his weakest performances.

Then you have characterization that is completely wrong. I mean, Gen.Ross in TIH didn't give a crap that his daughter loves Banner, he was just like "That mans entire body is property of the US Army!!!". In Ang's Hulk you could sense the conflict in Ross, he was torn between duty and the love of his daughter.

I do like TIH, but IMO Ang's is better.

I don't think he got a lot right. In Ang's movie the Hulk was not supposed to grow, nor was his father supposed to be the Absorbing Man. The whole movie is just two hours and eighteen minutes "blagh".

You could see the conflict within both during the cave scene. Every scene with Hulk doesn't have to be him showing deep emotion. They got him just right in TIH, he was calm and collected when around Betty but otherwise always pissed off. The major thing Ang got right was the powers, but that's pretty much it.

Yes, stale and boring, and the characterization was totally off. Betty Ross acted as if she hated Banner, and even if she didn't, that was just a bad job with the writing. Banner is almost never depicted as liking transforming into the Hulk, which he does in the '03 movie, and while I did like Bill Hurt's performance more, I will agree that Elliot's performance was better.

All in all, TIH is just a better and more well rounded film. The '03 movie took too long to get to the point and by the time they did I doubt anyone cared. It's just a boring movie, I can't tell you how many times I've literally fallen asleep while trying to watch it all the way through. It's a cool movie to watch maybe once or twice a year, but I could watch TIH everyday because it's the definitive Hulk movie.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Disagreed. I don't think it is the definitive Hulk movie, there hasn't been one yet.

You might think it's boring, I think it's meaningful. I think TIH is just a dumb action movie featuring the Hulk that thinks it's more than a dumb action movie.

[Dog Logan]

Meh, that's your opinion, but I think '03 is a peice of garbage that's trying to have a deep story while failing to capture an important character.

[The Ace of Knaves]

I don't seen how Ang's failed to capture the character, it did a better job than TIH. Which just turned him into a computer game character just for the action scenes.

[spider-neil]

ang's hulk may have been too large but at least it look 'passably' real TIH hulk looked like it was made by a video game company. took me completely and utterly out of the movie. that's my fear for avatar, the entire movie hinges on them making convincing virtual actors if they aren't convincing the movie will fail.

[DarthDaveBanner]

I'm sure Ang's Hulk would have been much more accepted had it been released post Batman Begins.

[Infinity9999x]

Regardless if they did or didn't like how Nolan handled Two-Face (in which I liked), at least you got the gist of it. You at least understand where Nolan is coming from, and why Harvey is so important to the story.

Where as Venom felt so shoehorned in, that he felt irrelevant to the main story. You kinda get the motivation of Brock but at the sametime, it felt really off.

I never said that I thought Raimi did Nolan better, I simply said I was almost more disappointed with Two-Face than Venom, because I think Nolan could have made Two-Face much better than he was, whereas with Raimi, I don't think he was ever going to do much with Venom.

[The Ace of Knaves]

Venom could of been 1000x better, if they actually developed Brock.

[American_Hobo]

You guys are so right.
Venom could have been 100 times better, but Raimi just decided to not develop Brock's character.
And was it Arad or Raimi's decision to make Eddie Brock a mirror part of Spiderman and therefore casting That 70's guy for the Venom?

[The Ace of Knaves]

Not sure who's decision it was to cast Grace.

But I think I remember Arad going on about his character being the opposite of Peter. That he had a really horrible child hood and lived in utter poverty and stuff like that. But then, where was all that in the movie? None of that was touched on, and it would of gone some way to show what Brock was all about, showing what drives him and why he is the way he is. If they included more of that stuff, really developed the Brock character, Venom would of become a better villain automatically.

[Adrian89]

I never said that I thought Raimi did Nolan better, I simply said I was almost more disappointed with Two-Face than Venom, because I think Nolan could have made Two-Face much better than he was, whereas with Raimi, I don't think he was ever going to do much with Venom.
I think Two-Face was very well handled for the few screen time he had (and I respect that), unlike Venom who was totally screwed!

[American_Hobo]

I think Two-Face was very well handled for the few screen time he had (and I respect that), unlike Venom who was totally screwed!

I agree.
Two Face was pretty well done, but I was just a little disappointed that he didnt have much screen time.
Raimi's Venom on the other hand, was just terrible.

[spider-neil]

I'm not a venom fan (at all) but SM3 would have been so much better if

a) the movie focused on sandman and goblin jr
b) spent more time developing EBJ
c) emphasis the costume makes people evil.
no of the saturday night fever rubbish. for instance the picks pete shows JJJ of the black suit in action we should have SEEN those action sequences.
d) the final battle should have been goblin and sandman v spidey with neither character getting redemption in the end.
e) every single aspect of venom should have been push out of the movie expect the transformation in the church which should have happened before the final credits thusly

pete in black costume takes on sandman and goblin in the the heat of the battle pete KILLS goblin jr making him go to the church to remove the costume. he does this and returns mournfully to mj. you hear police sirens and its then pete realises even though he has done terrible things he still has a responsiblity, end swing sequence, then in the final scene of the movie the venom transformation. roll credits.

more screen time for eddie
more screen time for harry
more screen time for sandman
and sami can leave a character he says he dislikes (venom) for someone else to tackle.

that would have been a MUCH better movie.

[Golgo-13]

What would have made a better movie is if Sandman had been cut altogether. Make the symbiote story the focus of SM3. They should have introduced Eddy Brock in SM2, so that we wouldn't require any character development for him. Venom, and closing the Harry arc should have been the focus of SM3. Sandman felt as though he had just been thrown in there, and uprooting the perfectly sound Uncle Ben death story by making Sandman the killer just to link him to the story was absurd- especially when Raimi is always screaming about 'staying true to the characters roots'. By no means am i a Venom fan, but Sandman doesn't seem like he has enough backstory to be a main villain and carry a movie. Venom does.

[spider-neil]

What would have made a better movie is if Sandman had been cut altogether. Make the symbiote story the focus of SM3. They should have introduced Eddy Brock in SM2, so that we wouldn't require any character development for him. Venom, and closing the Harry arc should have been the focus of SM3. Sandman felt as though he had just been thrown in there, and uprooting the perfectly sound Uncle Ben death story by making Sandman the killer just to link him to the story was absurd- especially when Raimi is always screaming about 'staying true to the characters roots'. By no means am i a Venom fan, but Sandman doesn't seem like he has enough backstory to be a main villain and carry a movie. Venom does.


nothing associated with SM3 should have happened in SM2. I can't stand brock, the symbiote or venom so I wouldn't want to see any of them in my second favoite superhero movie of all time.

[Joker]

nothing associated with SM3 should have happened in SM2. I can't stand brock, the symbiote or venom so I wouldn't want to see any of them in my second favoite superhero movie of all time.

Amen to that :up:

[Golgo-13]

nothing associated with SM3 should have happened in SM2. I can't stand brock, the symbiote or venom so I wouldn't want to see any of them in my second favoite superhero movie of all time.

I'm not a Venom, Brock or Symbiote fan by any means. I just think that focusing on a major player like Venom instead of splitting the stories between Venom, Sandman and Goblin 2 would have made a much sounder, more well executed third film. As far as Brock not being in SM2. He is part of the Spiderman universe, so whether or not they showed him become Venom is irrelevant. Also, Harry finding out Pete was Spidey was directly associated with SM2. It sets up their whole battle in SM3.

[spider-neil]

I'm not a Venom, Brock or Symbiote fan by any means. I just think that focusing on a major player like Venom instead of splitting the stories between Venom, Sandman and Goblin 2 would have made a much sounder, more well executed third film. As far as Brock not being in SM2. He is part of the Spiderman universe, so whether or not they showed him become Venom is irrelevant. Also, Harry finding out Pete was Spidey was directly associated with SM2. It sets up their whole battle in SM3.


the third movie was the end of a story arch so it was always going to be about harry, so adding sandman, the symbiote, EBJ AND venom was absolute lunecy and LOADS of people posted their concerns before the movie came out (including myself) the way I see it you had

harry - a must
peter - obviously a must
mj - a must (unfortunately)

you then had
EBJ
the symbiote
venom
sandman
bascially the movie would have been better if you would have cut either sandman or the symbiote (and everything asscociated with it)
It amazes me the writters, produced and sam didn't realise this going into the movie.

techincally TDK pulled three villians (scarecrow, two face and joker) but scarecrow was a cameo, joker had no backstory and didn't need developement (who the heck doesn't know joker?) and two face who had a lot of character developement and the movie stiff felt a little chockerblock.

[American_Hobo]

This is what they shoudl've doen with Spiderman 3.
(1)Sandman (No Uncle Ben's killer)
(2)Harry as Green Goblin (No lame Rocket Racer outfit)
(3)Introduce Eddie Brock, but not as Venom

If they thought that there were no rooms for Eddie Brock, then leave him out and use him on later movies.

[spider-neil]

This is what they shoudl've doen with Spiderman 3.
(1)Sandman (No Uncle Ben's killer)
(2)Harry as Green Goblin (No lame Rocket Racer outfit)
(3)Introduce Eddie Brock, but not as Venom

If they thought that there were no rooms for Eddie Brock, then leave him out and use him on later movies.


^^^:up:

[Parker Wayne]

I'm not a venom fan (at all) but SM3 would have been so much better if

a) the movie focused on sandman and goblin jr
b) spent more time developing EBJ
c) emphasis the costume makes people evil.
no of the saturday night fever rubbish. for instance the picks pete shows JJJ of the black suit in action we should have SEEN those action sequences.
d) the final battle should have been goblin and sandman v spidey with neither character getting redemption in the end.
e) every single aspect of venom should have been push out of the movie expect the transformation in the church which should have happened before the final credits thusly

pete in black costume takes on sandman and goblin in the the heat of the battle pete KILLS goblin jr making him go to the church to remove the costume. he does this and returns mournfully to mj. you hear police sirens and its then pete realises even though he has done terrible things he still has a responsiblity, end swing sequence, then in the final scene of the movie the venom transformation. roll credits.

more screen time for eddie
more screen time for harry
more screen time for sandman
and sami can leave a character he says he dislikes (venom) for someone else to tackle.

that would have been a MUCH better movie.

I'm a big fan of Venom and I agree to that. Eddie Brock's life should've been slightly more terrible, which gives him even more motivation to his hate for Spiderman, instead of being just an idiot angry at Peter for exposing him as a liar. Like they could've explored how his father hated him among other things.

Even though Spiderman 3 sucked, it was right for Harry to be redeemed. He was just a victim of everyone around him, whether it was his father not loving him enough, believing his best friend killed his father, the realization that his father accidentally killed himself, his best friend dating a girl he loved, in the end, Harry was a victim of everyone around. But yeah there should've been more screen time for Harry to even make it look like it was a hard decision make Peter's life a living hell. He could've redeemed right at the end.

[Infinity9999x]

I'm not a venom fan (at all) but SM3 would have been so much better if

a) the movie focused on sandman and goblin jr
b) spent more time developing EBJ
c) emphasis the costume makes people evil.
no of the saturday night fever rubbish. for instance the picks pete shows JJJ of the black suit in action we should have SEEN those action sequences.
d) the final battle should have been goblin and sandman v spidey with neither character getting redemption in the end.
e) every single aspect of venom should have been push out of the movie expect the transformation in the church which should have happened before the final credits thusly

pete in black costume takes on sandman and goblin in the the heat of the battle pete KILLS goblin jr making him go to the church to remove the costume. he does this and returns mournfully to mj. you hear police sirens and its then pete realises even though he has done terrible things he still has a responsiblity, end swing sequence, then in the final scene of the movie the venom transformation. roll credits.

more screen time for eddie
more screen time for harry
more screen time for sandman
and sami can leave a character he says he dislikes (venom) for someone else to tackle.

that would have been a MUCH better movie.

I had been saying that for months before the movie came out.

However, at that point Sam, and most people assumed it would be his last movie. Arad told him he had to have Venom, so since Sam (at the time) was thinking this was his last movie, he had to cram Brock and Venom all in one picture.

However, knowing that, he should have cut Sandman, and used the time to develop Brock's character. Harry and Venom are both characters that had to have their arcs finished by the end of the movie, and that's more than enough material to fill a film. Sam should have swallowed his pride and cut Sandman.

I think Two-Face was very well handled for the few screen time he had (and I respect that), unlike Venom who was totally screwed!

Harvey Dent was handled very well. Two-Face was basically shafted. And I agree, Venom was completely screwed, whereas with Harvey, he was only partially screwed. He was still done well, but they didn't even tap Two-Face's potential.

[Dog Logan]

I don't think Two-Face got shafted at all but I would like him to return for the simple fact that we only got to see a little of the monster inside of Harvey, and not the full thing.

[spider-neil]

even though I was disappointed with SM3 I don't think its anywhere NEAR the train wreck of other number 3 superhero movies I've seen

superman 3
batman forever
x3
blade 3

dear me. oh dear dear me.

[Dog Logan]

X3 & SM-3 aren't really all that bad if you ask me but the others you listed are pretty damn bad. *shudders*

[The Ace of Knaves]

Batman Forever ain't that bad I don't think. Had some good scenes and the characterization of Bruce was better than most of the other Bat movies IMO. And Two Face was great at the start, but then descended into childish tom foolery.

[spider-neil]

Batman Forever ain't that bad I don't think. Had some good scenes and the characterization of Bruce was better than most of the other Bat movies IMO. And Two Face was great at the start, but then descended into childish tom foolery.


each to their own but I thought it was absolute rubbish, and bale's portrail of wayne (imho) is easily the best.

[The Ace of Knaves]

I guess you haven't seen the extended version?

I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about actual characterization. And the characterization of Bruce in Forever was superb, I dunno how anyone can deny that. But I'm not saying it was better than Bale's Batmans characterization, just saying that it was still very good.

[spider-neil]

I guess you haven't seen the extended version?

I'm not talking about performance, I'm talking about actual characterization. And the characterization of Bruce in Forever was superb, I dunno how anyone can deny that. But I'm not saying it was better than Bale's Batmans characterization, just saying that it was still very good.


to be fair I only saw the movie once, and that was in the cinema and I was fairly angry at the time, I'd probably have a better opinion the movie now.

[Ipodman]

SM3 was medicore, i didnt like it... X3 was abit disappointing but i liked it...
I saw the second half of Bat Forever when it ran on TV, it was pretty good.. but of course the 2 Face is nothing compared to TDK...

Having said that, a fourth SM movie shouldnt be hard to do... given the general audience took SM3 extremely well. I know some (ok most) ppl dont like BND, but SM4 could be the "Brand New Day" of Spidey movies or something like that. It continues from the trilogy, but it starts off anew...

[Infinity9999x]

even though I was disappointed with SM3 I don't think its anywhere NEAR the train wreck of other number 3 superhero movies I've seen

superman 3
batman forever
x3
blade 3

dear me. oh dear dear me.

I actually put BF on the same plane with SM3. It's not really that bad, but it tends to get ripped on more because the overall badness of B&R seems to carry over in people's opinions of BF. When you watch it again it's not that bad.

BF, SM3, and X3 are all about same imo. They're not horrible, and not great. Just average.

[Etienne]

In some ways, I'm more disappointed in the treatment of Two-Face then I was with Venom.

I mean, Venom was forced on Raimi (which isn't an excuse for Raimi's poor treatment of him, but still), and you could obviously tell Raimi didn't care for the character. You could tell Nolan obviously respected and cared for the character of Two-Face
I never said that I thought Raimi did Nolan better, I simply said I was almost more disappointed with Two-Face than Venom, because I think Nolan could have made Two-Face much better than he was, whereas with Raimi, I don't think he was ever going to do much with Venom.

Harvey Dent was handled very well. Two-Face was basically shafted. And I agree, Venom was completely screwed, whereas with Harvey, he was only partially screwed. He was still done well, but they didn't even tap Two-Face's potential.
What? :funny: That's like saying "I'm more disappointed in someone who tried to do their best and in many ways succeeded at it than I am in someone who not only didn't try but completely flubbed up what they were told to do."

[Parker Wayne]

I actually put BF on the same plane with SM3. It's not really that bad, but it tends to get ripped on more because the overall badness of B&R seems to carry over in people's opinions of BF. When you watch it again it's not that bad.

BF, SM3, and X3 are all about same imo. They're not horrible, and not great. Just average.

Batman Forever suffered because of Joel Schumacher cutting so much content from the film that some of the depth and darkness was lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Forever#Original_cut

I still think Kilmer was a better Bruce Wayne than Keaton was (despite the stupid glasses), and I liked how they introduced Robin as a a young adult with no where to live.

Spiderman 3 sucked but it's a guilty pleasure for me. Everytime its on tv I have to watch it. I'm too big a fan of Spiderman to turn away.

[SpaceWay2009]

Batman Forever suffered because of Joel Schumacher cutting so much content from the film that some of the depth and darkness was lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Forever#Original_cut

I still think Kilmer was a better Bruce Wayne than Keaton was (despite the stupid glasses), and I liked how they introduced Robin as a a young adult with no where to live.

Spiderman 3 sucked but it's a guilty pleasure for me. Everytime its on tv I have to watch it. I'm too big a fan of Spiderman to turn away.LOL...Sorry, I'm not making fun of you. :cwink:

[Infinity9999x]

What? :funny: That's like saying "I'm more disappointed in someone who tried to do their best and in many ways succeeded at it than I am in someone who not only didn't try but completely flubbed up what they were told to do."

No, because I don't believe Nolan did his best. It's like saying, "I was more disappointing in Nolan because I knew he could have realized Two-Face's full potential had he wanted to, whereas with Raimi I never really expected Venom to get a fair treatment." Especially once I realized he was being done in one movie.

It's more disappointing because I think Two-Face had more potential to be better (since I know Nolan has the skills to do it) had Nolan wanted to, and in Raimi's case, I wasn't expecting much because I wasn't a fan of SM2 anyways.

However, I'm not saying I think Raimi did Venom better than Nolan did Two-Face. Two-Face was 100times better than Venom, but he was a huge wasted opportunity, especially since we never saw Two-Face. We saw Dent, and then a scarred Dent out for revenge, but we didn't get any of the psychological input of Two-Face. Two-Face is an entirely new personality of Dents, a new person, not just a revenge driven Dent.

[American_Hobo]

No, because I don't believe Nolan did his best. It's like saying, "I was more disappointing in Nolan because I knew he could have realized Two-Face's full potential had he wanted to, whereas with Raimi I never really expected Venom to get a fair treatment." Especially once I realized he was being done in one movie.

It's more disappointing because I think Two-Face had more potential to be better (since I know Nolan has the skills to do it) had Nolan wanted to, and in Raimi's case, I wasn't expecting much because I wasn't a fan of SM2 anyways.

However, I'm not saying I think Raimi did Venom better than Nolan did Two-Face. Two-Face was 100times better than Venom, but he was a huge wasted opportunity, especially since we never saw Two-Face. We saw Dent, and then a scarred Dent out for revenge, but we didn't get any of the psychological input of Two-Face. Two-Face is an entirely new personality of Dents, a new person, not just a revenge driven Dent.

I agree that Two-Face was wasted opportunity.
But he stil was 100times better than Raimi's Venom.

Anyway, so are Two-Face fans really disappointed about this? Or they acccept it?

[Ipodman]

I find it amazing how Nolan managed to get a decent two face out, but Raimi couldnt do a proper Venom. Both characters were in their respective films from the start and only transformed 3/4 into the film.

[Infinity9999x]

I agree that Two-Face was wasted opportunity.
But he stil was 100times better than Raimi's Venom.

Anyway, so are Two-Face fans really disappointed about this? Or they acccept it?

No argument there. And I think a good amount of Two-Face fans were disappointed, but I think most of them (at the start at least) were just relieved we had such a big step up from we got in BF. And Harvey was done to near perfection, so it's hard to be too mad. Also, like I said before, Two-Face wasn't horrible, he was just underexplored, and killed off far too quickly.

I find it amazing how Nolan managed to get a decent two face out, but Raimi couldnt do a proper Venom. Both characters were in their respective films from the start and only transformed 3/4 into the film.

To be fair, Harvey was in TDK much more than Brock was in SM3. And Harvey was always part of the plan of TDK, whereas Raimi had to re-write Venom in. However, as I said earlier, this doesn't excuse Raimi. He really should have cut Sandman to give time to Brock. I know he said he didn't like the character, but it confounds me to no end that he didn't take the opportunity and make him a more interesting character.

[Etienne]

No, because I don't believe Nolan did his best. It's like saying, "I was more disappointing in Nolan because I knew he could have realized Two-Face's full potential had he wanted to, whereas with Raimi I never really expected Venom to get a fair treatment." Especially once I realized he was being done in one movie.
Well that's what I said. Your saying that Nolan's handling of Harvey/Two-Face disappointed you more than that of Raimi's on Venom. At the same time by your own admission Harvey/Two-Face was alot more developed than Brock/Venom so therefore I think it's safe to say that you think Nolan at least tried to develop the character, maybe to you he didn't do his best but he tried. Correct?
It's more disappointing because I think Two-Face had more potential to be better (since I know Nolan has the skills to do it) had Nolan wanted to, and in Raimi's case, I wasn't expecting much because I wasn't a fan of SM2 anyways.Ok, now I see. If you had just said that in the first place then we wouldn't be having this back and forth here. Now I can see where your coming from. It all comes down to you liking one character more over the other. :up:
However, I'm not saying I think Raimi did Venom better than Nolan did Two-Face. Two-Face was 100times better than Venom, but he was a huge wasted opportunity, especially since we never saw Two-Face. We saw Dent, and then a scarred Dent out for revenge, but we didn't get any of the psychological input of Two-Face. Two-Face is an entirely new personality of Dents, a new person, not just a revenge driven Dent.Dent became Two-Face as soon as he left his decision making up to "chance". Harvey always made his own luck (i.e. the double sided coin) when he goes over the edge he throws his old philosophy in life out the window thus turning into a different person. That was his turning point, his metamorphosis, when he puts trust into the flip of a coin to determine his fate as well as the fate of others.

[Etienne]

To be fair, Harvey was in TDK much more than Brock was in SM3. And Harvey was always part of the plan of TDK, whereas Raimi had to re-write Venom in. However, as I said earlier, this doesn't excuse Raimi. He really should have cut Sandman to give time to Brock. I know he said he didn't like the character, but it confounds me to no end that he didn't take the opportunity and make him a more interesting character.
Or just cut Brock all together and go with Sandman as the main villain. Didn't Raimi want the Vulture to be in SM3?

[Infinity9999x]

Well that's what I said. Your saying that Nolan's handling of Harvey/Two-Face disappointed you more than that of Raimi's on Venom. At the same time by your own admission Harvey/Two-Face was alot more developed than Brock/Venom so therefore I think it's safe to say that you think Nolan at least tried to develop the character, maybe to you he didn't do his best but he tried. Correct?
Ok, now I see. If you had just said that in the first place then we wouldn't be having this back and forth here. Now I can see where your coming from. It all comes down to you liking one character more over the other. :up:
Dent became Two-Face as soon as he left his decision making up to "chance". Harvey always made his own luck (i.e. the double sided coin) when he goes over the edge he throws his old philosophy in life out the window thus turning into a different person. That was his turning point, his metamorphosis, when he puts trust into the flip of a coin to determine his fate as well as the fate of others.

I would say I think Nolan made a creative decision to have Two-Face's arc take place completely in one movie because he thought it would make TDK overall a better film. That's open to debate, but I wasn't happy how it turned out.

And yes, there certainly was a metamorphosis, like I said, it wasn't bad, but it could have been so much more. Two-Face can fit into so many themes that you can build your story upon.

He's the living embodiment of the struggle that everybody goes through every day, the battle between their best and worst parts of themselves. Not only that, but he's also a living example of what could happen to Batman if he pushes himself too far, and what could happen to Bruce if he puts his toe too far over that line he's drawn for himself.

Besides that, Harvey is also one of our greatest fears, that the worst part of ourself will rise up and take control of us, and not only does it do that, but it's formed it's own person. Which leads us into another thing Nolan didn't touch upon, the fact that Two-Face is supposed to be a full-fledged personality that actually wars with Dent.

And while I was glad that Nolan touched up on Dent's obsession with chance, I was also disappointed that he never got into the other obession of Dent's character: Duality. And I'm not talking the hokey motif of, "I must eat two meals twice a day, and steal money from Gotham 2nd National Bank at 2pm on Feburary 2" I'm talking the duality of all things. The obsession with the light and the dark in everything and everyone, and the desire to exploit that fear in everyone.

Harvey is a literal treasure trove of interesting themes and characterizations, and while what we got was good, it could have been so much more.

And that is why I'm more dissapointed with Two-Face than Venom, beause (like you said) I do like Two-Face more, and because when you get down to it, Two-Face is just a much more interesting villain, and his potential far outweighs Venoms.

Or just cut Brock all together and go with Sandman as the main villain. Didn't Raimi want the Vulture to be in SM3?
Well, Raimi knew that he was being forced to include Venom, at which point, he should have cut Sandman and used that time to develop Brock further.

[Donald Thomas]

As much as I love the Spectacular Spider-man cartoon It's a different format from a movie,The SSM cartoon has several episodes to expand on things and tell a story.A movie has 120-150 mins.Different storytelling meduims.The Dark Knight is what every CB should aspire to be.As someone stated before SM2 had the crown.I hope SM4 can take the crown back for the franchise.

Aloha,
So do I. I think Sony,Raimi and Marvel have had the years to reflect on why SM3 got the so-so reaction.Raimi should build off of SM2 & TDK and go ALL THE WAY.
Spidey rules

[Dog Logan]

In a way I kind of think that Raimi hadn't used the Green Goblin yet. Afterall, the ultimate Batman movie (TDK) featured the ultimate Batman villain (the Joker). The ultimate Spider-Man movie should have Spidey going up against his most dangerous foe (Green Goblin). But, at the same time, this is the perfect opportunity to make one of Spidey's lesser known foes like the Lizard well known. I hope SM-4 has quality as good or better than TDK. It may be hard, but the final product will be amazing if Raimi pulls it off, which I'm sure he can.

Come on Raimi, get to work!!!!!!

[Parker Wayne]

In a way I kind of think that Raimi hadn't used the Green Goblin yet. Afterall, the ultimate Batman movie (TDK) featured the ultimate Batman villain (the Joker). The ultimate Spider-Man movie should have Spidey going up against his most dangerous foe (Green Goblin). But, at the same time, this is the perfect opportunity to make one of Spidey's lesser known foes like the Lizard well known. I hope SM-4 has quality as good or better than TDK. It may be hard, but the final product will be amazing if Raimi pulls it off, which I'm sure he can.

Come on Raimi, get to work!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure Lizard's more well known than Sandman.

[Dog Logan]

That may be true but neither are as well known as villains like the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom, who are used much more frequently. This could be Raimi's opportunity to use the Lizard and make him even more well known than he is. Sure, us hardcore fans know who the Lizard is, but your average movie goer doesn't, while everyone knows who the above three I mentioned are.

[Parker Wayne]

^ Of course. Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom are what I consider the "Unholy Trinity" of Spiderman Archnemeses.

All three are important villains in his history, and its unfortunate that Sam Raimi couldn't realize the potential Venom had for future storylines like what Goblin had. I still wish Parker referenced Doc Ock once in SM3, but that didn't happen either.

[Dog Logan]

There was potential for all three had they not been killed off. I don't see why Raimi feels the need to have every villain know Parker is Spider-Man, and then kill them off. I'd prefer they not die, and return in future installments.

[spider-neil]

There was potential for all three had they not been killed off. I don't see why Raimi feels the need to have every villain know Parker is Spider-Man, and then kill them off. I'd prefer they not die, and return in future installments.


I'm 50/50 on villians getting killed.
take lex luther, how many frigging times is he going to show up in a superman movie? luther? again? really?

with the myriad of villians spidey, bats and supes have you should ever see a villian more than ONCE unless the franchise is rebooted.
I rather see shocker and rhino rather than doc ock three times and I'm a doc ock fan.

[Venom 1988]

I'm 50/50 on villians getting killed.
take lex luther, how many frigging times is he going to show up in a superman movie? luther? again? really? I slightly disagree.
While I do agree, that there should be a new villain in each superman movie, Lex is not only a pivotal villain, hes practically part of Supes supporting cast. He should be there in every movie, even if its a small non-sequential role or cameo.

[Octoberist]

My problem with Lex is a.) He doesn't do anything new in the later movies. He doesn't have a real arc, and his motives are the same.

and b.) it's the real estate Luthor that I iffy about. If they use the tycoon Lex in future Superman movie, that's fine but I think it's time for him to step aside.

[spider-neil]

I slightly disagree.
While I do agree, that there should be a new villain in each superman movie, Lex is not only a pivotal villain, hes practically part of Supes supporting cast. He should be there in every movie, even if its a small non-sequential role or cameo.


okay then make him that or at the very least make him coporate genius like in dc canon. darkseid, mongal, brainiac, doomsday, myxistpitic(sp) matello and we have to see lex over and over and over again.
superman returns zzzzzzzzzzzz
SM3 disspointed me but I was entertained SR bored me to frigging tears.

[Dog Logan]

SR is a movie you can fall asleep on, SM-3 is a movie you can watch here and there and enjoy. As for the villains, I don't want the Lizard to be killed, because he's great, and could be a recurring villain.

[chaseter]

SM3 is a movie you can vomit with.

[spider-neil]

SM3 is a movie you can vomit with.

I thought there were several sequences that were quality even though I was disappointed with the overall movie. I have loads of problems with SM3 but at no stage was I bored.

[Dog Logan]

SM-3 has never been as bad as most make it out to be, and I can't believe people think Two-Face got the Venom treatment. Okay, here's the difference:

Two-Face in TDK = Developed character with enough screentime that was worked well into the plot and actually had something important to do

Venom in SM-3 = Random character thrown into the mix because of studio pressure and therefore having a pretty much pointless role

[Reikowolf]

SM-3 has never been as bad as most make it out to be, and I can't believe people think Two-Face got the Venom treatment. Okay, here's the difference:

Two-Face in TDK = Developed character with enough screentime that was worked well into the plot and actually had something important to do

Venom in SM-3 = Random character thrown into the mix because of studio pressure and therefore having a pretty much pointless role

well said.

There's a difference that can be seen and read throughout the movies. an element should not be added unless it helps move the plot along. Harvey Dent was an important character that served to catalyse Batman and the Joker's relationship, while Eddie Brock was tacked on. A better approach would have been to make Venom a complete badass and Sandman a complete victim of circumstance.

Prior to the meeting in the Alley, Venom kidnaps Sandman's sick daughter and holds her hostage in order to make sandman help him.

it would make the whole scene at the end where sandman says "I had no choice" make much more sense.

as it plays out. the black suit is barely a plot point as they explain it as the reason why Spider-Man gets cocky, where you could rationalize the fact that Marko killing his uncle making him just go into a darker place.... keep in mind Peter was ready to kill the car thief that killed uncle ben until he saw it was his fault that the situation happened. Now that the fault is no longer his, it allows the character to indulge in his revenge.

The twist in the end being that Spider-Man is his greatest enemy in the third movie... where he is willing to kill sandman... and disscredits the reputation he worked hard to build. Realizing that despite all his powers, he is still human and can only do so much. He then forgives the sandman but his internal struggle cost the life of his friend harry... which he may have saved if he could have reached him