Can Spider-Man 4 fix Spider-Man 3?

[DACMAN]

Raimi really dropped the ball when he made the Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. We've heard that the same guy that played the burglar is coming back. Do you think it's possible to revisit his death AGAIN and fix what Raimi screwed up?

[VenomVsSpidey]

:dry:

[Eldarion]

Just leave the Uncle Ben history behind, as well as the Osborns (Green Goblins), that chapter is closed. Sandman might return as part of the Sinister Six, i've no problem with that but forget what happened before. New trilogy, new start based on other villains and other problems concerning Peter Parker.

[The Joker]

No, it can't be fixed. The damage is done. And retconning it would make the whole story of revenge and forgiveness with Sandman pointless. And they're not going to do that.

I reckon the killer returning in SM-4 is going to be something along the lines of a Mysterio illusion or dream sequence.

[DACMAN]

Right. But what would be the point in even revisiting the guy when he didn't kill uncle Ben?

[The Joker]

He was a large part of the whole scenario, of course.

[Spider-ManHero12]

:dry: This. :up:

[Vis]

890 million dollars...they ain't fixing shiz. :o

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

Raimi really dropped the ball when he made the Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. We've heard that the same guy that played the burglar is coming back. Do you think it's possible to revisit his death AGAIN and fix what Raimi screwed up?

forget that, if you have read what david's script called for you would hang your head in shame. I have no faith anymore in these so called writers. Yeah, they can write but they dont know jack ***** about the material.

[DACMAN]

What did it call for? You've read the script for 4?

[bullets]

Right. But what would be the point in even revisiting the guy when he didn't kill uncle Ben?


I still try to reason it was his fault Uncle Ben died, Guilty by Association , I guess.

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

What did it call for? You've read the script for 4?

Check out the spider-man 4 script thread for more.

first off the spelling and grammar of his script of pretty bad but its a first draft. Here is my problem with the script.

# 1 Remember what happened in spiderman 2 ? When mj found out who spiderman was, and he revealed to doc ock who he was as well to reason with him to stop the machine ? Same thing happens in David's Script. Gwen stacy comes out of the cafe and a truck is about to hit her, since peter isnt in costume he has no choice but to swing in and save her. Thats where she realizes that peter is spider-man. During the end of the movie, Spider-Man asks for doctor connors help because aunt may is dying of radiation isotope poisoning. When he asks why he should help him peter responds that its because he is one of his students at ESU. Then connors figures out that its peter parker. In the comics, the only stacy that figured out who spider-man is was cap george stacy. Peter wanted to tell gwen so bad but, when she started blaming spider-man for what happened to her dad, he decided it wasnt best to say anything to her at all. The way David did it in his script was not only cheesy but way too predictable and very close to how mj found out who spider-man was which was by accident. I can imagine the complaints coming out of not only fan's mouth but others who have watched the original films and compare it to the second film. We need something different and fresh. Something that will have fans saying, you know this makes sense and it sucks so bad that peter cant tell gwen who he really is because of the conflict he already has with mary jane and the problems with his double life.

# 2 As aunt may is in the hospital bed and peter thinks she is asleep one again, he tells her everything and says he is sorry and blames himself for what happened to her. She ends up waking up and says I forgive you.

# 3 Roderick kingsley moving into the osborns mansion and suddenly discovering the osborns liar ? thats very weak and I doubt anyone wants to see hobgoblin for the sequel.

# 4 Making mary jane once again into a I3itch and the excuse as to why she is breaking it off with peter is kinda weak and not really convincing.

# 5 J jonah jamesons lines and scenes were very weak and not funny at all. Plus peter being upgraded to an editor and using spider-man as pictures even if its selling out his character ?

# 6 I am so happy that the lizard is being used, but he speaks ? Kinda hard to imagine. Plus, while your reading the script you dont feel for the character of doc connors or that there is a human being inside that beast. I just dont feel the conflict at all and thats why in my version of the script I am using Kravens last hunt storyline. Instead of using vermin, I am substituting him with the lizard.

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

also the fact that the fights scenes between spider-man and the lizard are not that great. He calls the lizard fang face ? MAJOR cheesy lines might I add. Thats something spider-man would call morbius. Plus when JJ is trying to come up with a name for the lizard, killer croc is mentioned which we all know is a DC character. This is how bad it is to get an award winning writer to write a script for a super hero film yet he knows NOTHING of the character nor bothers to research. Why else do you think that Gary Ross is re-writing the script ? It seems like David just watched all of the other films and made his own mind up.

The lizard isnt like any of the other spider-man villians. He is deadly and todd mcfarlane brought out the best in him. The problem is that marvel and Company thought that what he was doing with the character was too dark. If you want to make spider-man 4 successful then go with that. You should have seen what spidey looked like after battling with the lizard. Dont water the character down like they did with venom in spider-man 3 which is sadly what it looks like they are doing. Yet, they dont understand that fans and people were really upset with the last movie and just because it made the most dont mean it will happen again. I am happy that they want the emotional drama in the film but you dont get a broadway writer to pull that one off especially with the lizard storyline involved and fight scenes. I dont blame sam raimi at all for whatever happens because he is a good guy and he certainly wants to do whats best for everyone. Its just that as far as having full creative control over a movie isnt exactly true. The heart of the movie comes from what the actually writer does with it. If I was in hollywood I would rather have people who are seriously experienced in those comic book characters then take a chance with someone no matter how experienced they are dont have a clue about the characters or history. You cant just take those characters and read a little about them then make up your own story. It's the very same reason as to why fans scream for reboot or remakes.

Now I want to ask you all something ?

Would you rather have an award winning writer who does not have a clue about the characters or storylines write the script ?

Or someone who is so dedicated to the characters that if you ask them a question they are like a human encyclopedia when it comes to that ?

There are alot of comic book fans out there and I am not saying that all comic book fans should write the scripts. Only those who are experienced in the particular character that they are doing. For example, If anyone asked me to write a script for a fantastic four movie, I would say no because I never read those comics and no matter how badly i research it I would not be able to capture what another fan who is experienced in that area would be able to do.

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

I have seen alot of scripts based on movies including all of the spider-man ones and when I compare it to fans who have written those scripts. There is no doubt in my mind that those fans make those writers look like morons. Its sad because these fans take thier own time to do these things yet hollywood pays these writers millions for something that should be used to wipe your behind with and call it a day.

Heck, I would even prefer the original writers from the comics to write the damn scripts. If you had todd mcfarlane write the script with the lizard or venom involved it would totally without a doubt surpass the dark knight.

Speaking of the dark knight, the reason it was a success is because both the director and his bro wrote the damn thing and that my friends is creative control !

[VenomVsSpidey]

Stop posting your scripts spider-man2029

[bullets]

What the Hell?

[Vis]

also the fact that the fights scenes between spider-man and the lizard are not that great. He calls the lizard fang face ? MAJOR cheesy lines might I add. Thats something spider-man would call morbius. Plus when JJ is trying to come up with a name for the lizard, killer croc is mentioned which we all know is a DC character. This is how bad it is to get an award winning writer to write a script for a super hero film yet he knows NOTHING of the character nor bothers to research. Why else do you think that Gary Ross is re-writing the script ? It seems like David just watched all of the other films and made his own mind up.

The lizard isnt like any of the other spider-man villians. He is deadly and todd mcfarlane brought out the best in him. The problem is that marvel and Company thought that what he was doing with the character was too dark. If you want to make spider-man 4 successful then go with that. You should have seen what spidey looked like after battling with the lizard. Dont water the character down like they did with venom in spider-man 3 which is sadly what it looks like they are doing. Yet, they dont understand that fans and people were really upset with the last movie and just because it made the most dont mean it will happen again. I am happy that they want the emotional drama in the film but you dont get a broadway writer to pull that one off especially with the lizard storyline involved and fight scenes. I dont blame sam raimi at all for whatever happens because he is a good guy and he certainly wants to do whats best for everyone. Its just that as far as having full creative control over a movie isnt exactly true. The heart of the movie comes from what the actually writer does with it. If I was in hollywood I would rather have people who are seriously experienced in those comic book characters then take a chance with someone no matter how experienced they are dont have a clue about the characters or history. You cant just take those characters and read a little about them then make up your own story. It's the very same reason as to why fans scream for reboot or remakes.

Now I want to ask you all something ?

Would you rather have an award winning writer who does not have a clue about the characters or storylines write the script ?

Or someone who is so dedicated to the characters that if you ask them a question they are like a human encyclopedia when it comes to that ?

There are alot of comic book fans out there and I am not saying that all comic book fans should write the scripts. Only those who are experienced in the particular character that they are doing. For example, If anyone asked me to write a script for a fantastic four movie, I would say no because I never read those comics and no matter how badly i research it I would not be able to capture what another fan who is experienced in that area would be able to do.
It sounds like Sony have a mess on their hands with the new writers. I loved the animalistic and deadly nature that McFarlane gave The Lizard, that's what I want on screen, without mind control of course--I want an evil deadly Lizard. Ironic, with all of the characters in Marvel's universe why would they name Killer Croc? I told you that the Daily Bugle/JJJ in these films are absolutely horrible, who's going to take The Lizard seriously if he's mentioned as a freakin' joke. My guess is, Sony is only interested in selling Spidey's merchandising to little kids, period.

I can't stress enough that the main problems with the Spider-Man films are that they're too juvenile, corny and cheesy, to the point where the movies remains limited, in terms of what you can do with the characters, stories and villains. Not to mention, none of the writers or director understand Spider-Man.

No WRITER who comes in contact with the Spider-Man films thinks in terms of a complex, action packed and smartly written film, where it's geared toward older teens and up, but has kids loving it like Lord of the Rings. Every writer they bring in thinks that Spider-Man is nothing more than a little kids property--where they can easily cash in on a big check. That's why they're all writing it like a Hanna Montanna movie. In the hands of Sony it's impossible to get a really great film with the quality level of Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings or Terminator 2. Which is a shame.

[sauronthegreat]

I think that an extended edition of Spider-Man 3 could fix the film. Spider-Man 3.1 should not just be an extended edition, but a director's cut with some altered scenes. If everything that was made for the film was in there the film would be much better.

[Venom 1988]

Speaking of the dark knight, the reason it was a success is because both the director and his bro wrote the damn thing and that my friends is creative control !

You do realize that both Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan wrote the script for Spider-Man 3? That logic doesn't work for everything....

[Angel_Faerie]

I don't think anything needs to specifically be "fixed". I liked Spider-Man 3 personally. It isn't my favorite of the series, and I do see its flaws, but on the whole it could have been worse. It's nowhere NEAR Batman and Robin levels of bad. I do agree that Spider-Man 4 needs to be a better film. It needs to be a darker film while not staining the character himself. Spidey isn't Bats. He isn't a dark character at his core, but the situations he finds himself if can be. And that's the sort of thing we need. Another thing is Mary Jane needs to not be captured by the villain. Sam should have used the original idea of Gwen being the one captured by Venom. It would have made more sense, since Gwen was Eddie's girlfriend (in his mind, at least, if you've read the novelization. Spidey 3 would have been better had it been closer to that). Sure it's suspenseful to have the girl Peter loves be in peril, but three times in a row is too much. Try something different. Something new. In this day in age where intelligent storytelling and movies with heart have been pushed aside for generic plotlines and cookie-cutter screenwriting, we need a change. I pray Sam has learned this and Spider-Man 4 blows everyone away like Spider-Man 1 and 2 did.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I don't think anything needs to specifically be "fixed". I liked Spider-Man 3 personally. It isn't my favorite of the series, and I do see its flaws, but on the whole it could have been worse. It's nowhere NEAR Batman and Robin levels of bad. I do agree that Spider-Man 4 needs to be a better film. It needs to be a darker film while not staining the character himself. Spidey isn't Bats. He isn't a dark character at his core, but the situations he finds himself if can be. And that's the sort of thing we need. Another thing is Mary Jane needs to not be captured by the villain. Sam should have used the original idea of Gwen being the one captured by Venom. It would have made more sense, since Gwen was Eddie's girlfriend (in his mind, at least, if you've read the novelization. Spidey 3 would have been better had it been closer to that). Sure it's suspenseful to have the girl Peter loves be in peril, but three times in a row is too much. Try something different. Something new. In this day in age where intelligent storytelling and movies with heart have been pushed aside for generic plotlines and cookie-cutter screenwriting, we need a change. I pray Sam has learned this and Spider-Man 4 blows everyone away like Spider-Man 1 and 2 did.


If BDH wasnt preggers at that time, you can be assured, it would be gwen needing the rescue. but i agree on everything that you said, cept SM3 was my fav. of the series.:woot::cwink:

[Venom 1988]

If BDH wasnt preggers at that time, you can be assured, it would be gwen needing the rescue.

Thats not the reason why they changed it...

[VenomVsSpidey]

Thats not the reason why they changed it...


yeah it was, originally gwen was to be captured, and late into filming the found out she was pregnant.

[Venom 1988]

No it was because Raimi felt "needed" to be changed because according to him it would have been more emotional to both Peter and Harry if it was MJ.

[DACMAN]

I read that too.

[bullets]

Now I'm confused. Gwen could of Been involved as well or at least something in there where Eddie/Venom threatens her.

[Eggyman]

I hope they don't do a retcon. Just leave it. The only thing that should be brought over from 3 is Harry's death, and everything else should be blissfully forgotten/not mentioned.

[Vis]

Forgotten?

You obviously don't know Sam Raimi very well. Oh, he's gonna bring back the memories...damn near all of them.

[Eggyman]

I don't know him at all - he just makes some films I like. You make it sound so exciting, Vis. Grainy flashbacks? If they want to retcon 3 then they have a lot more to do than just say sorry about Sandman being a nice guy who kills people because he has bad luck and doesn't want to hurt Spidey as he turns into a monster and squashes him with his big rock hand. They'd need to do a sh**load of stuff that they shouldn't even think about attempting. A SH**load, I swear. Best thing to do, just shake it off, pretend it was Dallas or something where Pete wakes up with a wet patch on his bed, crying because his girlfriend's a whore and he can't afford any cupcakes.

Just ignore the whole sorry mess.

[Vis]

Oh he won't be fixing anything, he'll be pouring on more crap we don't like by re-visiting SM1, SM2 and SM3.

[Eggyman]

I think they should retcon the colour they painted the kitchen in the first one. It was simply ghastly.

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

You do realize that both Sam Raimi and his brother Ivan wrote the script for Spider-Man 3? That logic doesn't work for everything....

Again you failed to do your research. I also spoke to sam myself ( when I was working as an actor on the set of spider-man 3 and not reading the BS on the internet just in case you want to pull the " how do you know... I thought so BS again " ) about this way when filming was being done. I dont care how talented you are... if your halfway done with the script with shooting starting in a few months and someone ( avi arad ) tells you well the fans want venom so give them venom. There is NO WAY IN HELL with that much pressure and an idea already in mind that you will be able to pull off a great story. He was NOT familiar or interested in Venom and is more of a fan of the classic villians.

You dont have to take my word for it, there is an article out there about this. For someone who says they have " sources " you seem to really be out of touch with whats going on lately or even in the past.

[Venom 1988]

Er...no, everyone knows that the Arad stepped in on his creative control and wanted Venom in the movie. I didn't fail to do anything, you're acting like that is some top secret info. I simply replied to your statement, where at the time it "seemed" that you did not know/realize that Raimi wrote the script for SM3. That's all, no need to over analyze a simple situation.

[david icke]

If they want to retcon 3 then they have a lot more to do than just say sorry about Sandman being a nice guy who kills people because he has bad luck and doesn't want to hurt Spidey as he turns into a monster and squashes him with his big rock hand.

Sandman was trying to kill Spider-man as Spider-man had tried to kill him, and as far as he knew this was still SM's plan as it was in revenge for a killing Sandman was responsible for. If Spider-man kills Sandman, Sandman can't get the money to save his daughter's life, so he has to kill Spidey.
But, he then witnesses Spider-man doing his upmost to save Venom who tried to kill him. He also witnesses the conversation concerning the black suit and how it changed him and Eddie. So Sandman puts 2 and 2 together and realises that Spider-man was not himself when he tried to kill him and that it's not his plan any longer. Sandman also reflects on the reason for his revenge and apologises and comes clean with what happened.
Spider-man accepts this as he himself is guilty of actually trying to murder as opposed to Sandman's somewhat accidental murder of Uncle Ben.

No mess there to clean up at all from the pov of character motivation. The pieces are all there, although in this case they're not the usual cut and dried bad guy/good guy dynamic of a superhero movie.
They succeeded somewhat in bringing in the plotline of a superhero turning to the dark side, and part of this was the superhero not being able to get high and mighty and judge the criminal as he was just as guilty.
That's teh thing about Spider-man3, sure it has the bad Butler scene(whcih could easily have been ignored or left out, Harry simply choosing to believe Pete's version of events), and some humourous scenes involving dancing. But these scenes seem to make people hate on the whole movie and miss the point of some of the more effective plotting. It gets far too much hate, whereas Spider-man2 gets far too much praise.

[DACMAN]

What really bugs me is the fact Eddie even knows about MJ. He thought Peter and Gwen were dating. And don't give me that "the symbiot told him" crap. They never say that in the movie. Which leaves the average movie goer confused.

Also the scene with Doc Connors and Peter and the alien. He's just like "don't get that stuff on you" instead of "WOW! A LIVING ALIEN! THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING DISCOVERY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY!" Instead they're all just "wow, it seems to like you..." :whatever:

[david icke]

What really bugs me is the fact Eddie even knows about MJ. He thought Peter and Gwen were dating. And don't give me that "the symbiot told him" crap. They never say that in the movie. Which leaves the average movie goer confused.

Ok, apart from the symbiote part, he works in the same workplace as Pete did. The audience could easliy assume that he knew a little of Pete's personal life from over hearing a conversation. Office gossip type of thing. He could just be assuming that Pete is a bit of a player and goes out with more than one women at a time if he feels like it.

Also the scene with Doc Connors and Peter and the alien. He's just like "don't get that stuff on you" instead of "WOW! A LIVING ALIEN! THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING DISCOVERY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY!" Instead they're all just "wow, it seems to like you..." :whatever:

Yeah, they could have used a bit of that in the scene. Even just a low key line instead of histronics, like 'We have to submit this for study to the blah blah institute.'
(edit: Also, just realized, I don't think Pete knew it was from another planet, he didn't see that it was from a meteorite, so they didn't know it was an alien life form. Still, they could've used a little line about sending it somewhere for study as it was a new lifeform they'd discovered.)
You could say the same kind of thing about Doc Ock's experiment in Spider-man2. That would be world wide news, there would be more of a fuss about it than there was. Also, would something like that be allowed to take place in a residential area, surely with what could go wrong they would be testing it in the desert, or under government watch.

[The Chris]

No it was because Raimi felt "needed" to be changed because according to him it would have been more emotional to both Peter and Harry if it was MJ.

And in all honesty I agree with that, Yeah it was repetitive but it makes more sense. There's more in it for Harry.

[Frodo]

I don't think SM3 can be fixed. In a lot of ways it seemed the end of the francise or atrilogy i.e The Peter/Harry conflict was resolved, Closure to Uncle Ben's Death, Peter and MJ breaking up but seemingly getting back together. Now I didn't like SM3 ,but it does serve as a bookend to the first film , albeit a flawed one.

The real question for me is , if they have a good story to tell or a reason to continue with this version of the francise beyond just the money factor.

[david icke]

I don't think SM3 can be fixed. In a lot of ways it seemed the end of the francise or atrilogy i.e The Peter/Harry conflict was resolved, Closure to Uncle Ben's Death, Peter and MJ breaking up but seemingly getting back together. Now I didn't like SM3 ,but it does serve as a bookend to the first film , albeit a flawed one.


The only thing about Spider-man 3 that was a major mistake imo, was messing around with the simple and effective Uncle Ben story of Spider-man lore.
Yeah, you can still think of the guy as being guilty by association, but it still makes a simple legendary parable unnecesarily complicated.

This was the main point of what may be attempted to be 'fixed' by Papajohn coming back, but I think that aspect is done and dusted and 'unfixable'.


The real question for me is , if they have a good story to tell or a reason to continue with this version of the francise beyond just the money factor.

Well, creatively Raimi may not have been satisfied with being told what to do with the story in 3. with Venom it wasn't just including a villan but having to include the whole black suit story. So he will have his own reasons for returning, we may see a movie that's more along the lines of what SM3 would have been if he'd been left to his own devices.
I imagine what Raimi will see as the main point to be 'fixed' is his reputation, which I think took an unecessary bashing. Ok, there were elements that were wonky, but I'd say that of all all 3 films, they all have their pros and cons.
3 was crowded with plots though, if Venom had been any other villan there would have been room for more character development, as was the symbiote took up a lot of room.

[DACMAN]

The real question for me is , if they have a good story to tell or a reason to continue with this version of the francise beyond just the money factor.

Well the fact we have almost 50 years of history to use in a film says they have reason to continue. It is like James Bond or Star Trek. There are dozens of films waiting to be made based on this guy.

[snakeinthegear]

Raimi really dropped the ball when he made the Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. We've heard that the same guy that played the burglar is coming back. Do you think it's possible to revisit his death AGAIN and fix what Raimi screwed up?

What?

The burglar's returning?

I really don't understand what's going on here. Raimi and the studio mentioned earlier that they want to take spider-man in a new direction, yet Raimi seems to be revisiting the tired stuff we've already seen in all 3 movies.

I don't want to see the urglar or see any references to Ben's death. Why does Raimi find it hard to move on? This is why I wanted a new director at the very least.

Additionally, trying to fix SM3 is a waste of time. They should just focus on making the best film they can with sm4.

[VenomVsSpidey]

What really bugs me is the fact Eddie even knows about MJ. He thought Peter and Gwen were dating. And don't give me that "the symbiot told him" crap. They never say that in the movie. Which leaves the average movie goer confused.

Also the scene with Doc Connors and Peter and the alien. He's just like "don't get that stuff on you" instead of "WOW! A LIVING ALIEN! THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING DISCOVERY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY!" Instead they're all just "wow, it seems to like you..." :whatever:


actually, it's really a plot hole. it's explained in the (what should have been filmed) comic counterpart, "THE BLACK" in which the symbiote gives him his memories.

[Aparna]

I seriously wonder where you heard that Raimi's going to bring back those guys... because I highly doubt they'd make the mistake of doing that.

[omid17]

What really bugs me is the fact Eddie even knows about MJ. He thought Peter and Gwen were dating. And don't give me that "the symbiot told him" crap. They never say that in the movie. Which leaves the average movie goer confused.

Also the scene with Doc Connors and Peter and the alien. He's just like "don't get that stuff on you" instead of "WOW! A LIVING ALIEN! THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING DISCOVERY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY!" Instead they're all just "wow, it seems to like you..." :whatever:nothing was worse when Gwen was about to fall from a building, Gwens Dad " what she doing up there?" :huh:

[Frodo]

Well the fact we have almost 50 years of history to use in a film says they have reason to continue. It is like James Bond or Star Trek. There are dozens of films waiting to be made based on this guy.

True, but I'd rather see one or two good Spiderman films then a bunch of mediocre to bad ones. There are lots of villans left to use but it doesn't mean they should be used or could sustain a film i.e Sandman. When I questioned whether this version should this continue I was refering to the Raimi francise. Even Bond and Trek rebooted their francises after the ideas got stale and ran their course. The question I was Basically posing was if Raimi and Co had any good fresh idea's for Spiderman 4 regardless of the quality of
Sm3.

[david icke]

nothing was worse when Gwen was about to fall from a building, Gwens Dad " what she doing up there?" :huh:

Oh yeah, no excuse for that piece of directing. Captain Stacey seems more concerned she might have fell for some bozo rather than she's about to fall from a building.

RE: Brock knowing about MJ. I imagine they didn't bother going into the whole explanation of the suit sharing Pete's memory with Brock as there was another explanation at hand that would suffice, that Pete and Brock worked in the same office and would be privy to some personal information about each other.
(edit: I mean, it's pretty fast paced with Venom's intro, if they'd taken the time to have him in a scene where he's all 'I can read Parker's memories...' etc, it could have been a little hokey to say the least, I can see why they left it out for that type of Venom intro, if it had been a longer appearance for Venom they could have worked it out instead of trying to sqeeze it in. But, i still think it's easily explained by more menial means.)
I liked the little nod they gave to the fact that he did know what goes on in Pete's head, 'My spider-sense is tingling...know what I mean tiger?'

[TheVileOne]

In the comics it was because symbiote bonded with Brock and Brock knew everything that the symbiote did.

Oh well. I just say move on. Forgive and move on.

Let's face it. Spider-man comics have had some downright AWFUL stories. They existed and you get past them and still read Spider-man where some ridiculous stuff happened. It happened, acknowledge it, and move on. I say don't say NONE OF THIS DUMB **** EVER HAPPENED. The dumb **** happened, we're sorry and we are moving past that.

[david icke]

In the comics it was because symbiote bonded with Brock and Brock knew everything that the symbiote did.

Yeah, it was such a rushed intro and appearance that they didn't have the moment to do that explanation without it seeming forced or hokey I think.


Oh well. I just say move on. Forgive and move on.

Let's face it. Spider-man comics have had some downright AWFUL stories. They existed and you get past them and still read Spider-man where some ridiculous stuff happened. It happened, acknowledge it, and move on. I say don't say NONE OF THIS DUMB **** EVER HAPPENED. The dumb **** happened, we're sorry and we are moving past that.

Yeah, this is good advice for anyone who was mortified by SM3. I liked it but of course it was nowhere as good as it could have been.

It's a shame as Raimi had the 1st two under his belt and would have learned from all his experiences there, only to have Avi arad force a villan and storyline on him. That's why I think there's a good chance that SM4 will be his best one, all the experience and no-one to get in his way. This time he has to make his definitive SM movie, no doubt, this will probably be his last chance to get it as right as he can.

[Vis]

It's a shame as Raimi had the 1st two under his belt and would have learned from all his experiences there, only to have Avi arad force a villan and storyline on him. That's why I think there's a good chance that SM4 will be his best one, all the experience and no-one to get in his way. This time he has to make his definitive SM movie, no doubt, this will probably be his last chance to get it as right as he can.So that means if SM4 sucks hard, there will be no excuses not to fully blame Sam Raimi, eh?

[Spider-ManHero12]

Forgotten?

You obviously don't know Sam Raimi very well. Oh, he's gonna bring back the memories...damn near all of them. How do you know this, Vis?

[TheVileOne]

Vis, I'm sure no matter what you would anyway.

[david icke]

So that means if SM4 sucks hard, there will be no excuses not to fully blame Sam Raimi, eh?

Yes, people can post poisonous/radioactive/deadly spiders to him or throw old webs in his face at parties and fear no reprisals from the spider-gods.
I hope no-one from those Scarymovies series is reading the boards or they might appropriate the title 'sucks hard' for a series of action movie spoofs.

Raimi has made many mistakes, most of them probably in SM3, but I think he will have learnt from them. For one, he is going back to letting others handle scripting duties, instead of relying on old decrepit butlers to plug character motivation gaps. I still can't believe he did that. Anyway, it's time to move on to 'Spider-man 4 : The Lizard Sssucks Hard'

[DACMAN]

I seriously wonder where you heard that Raimi's going to bring back those guys... because I highly doubt they'd make the mistake of doing that.It's like some of you people never visit the main boards or something. It has been said over and over.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8465

[DACMAN]

nothing was worse when Gwen was about to fall from a building, Gwens Dad " what she doing up there?" :huh:

Uck... I forgot about that part. Man, some of it was so poorly written it's like my brain blocks it out.

[DACMAN]

It's a shame as Raimi had the 1st two under his belt and would have learned from all his experiences there, only to have Avi arad force a villan and storyline on him. That's why I think there's a good chance that SM4 will be his best one, all the experience and no-one to get in his way. This time he has to make his definitive SM movie, no doubt, this will probably be his last chance to get it as right as he can.

I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.

[Vis]

How do you know this, Vis?Simply put...Mr. Raimi is repetitive. He's going to bring up plot points and wallow in it--then create scenes that we've already seen in the previous films.

[Vis]

It's like some of you people never visit the main boards or something. It has been said over and over.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8465Perfect example of Raimi wallowing in the past, never moving the franchise forward. And of all things, he's messing with Spidey's Origin/Uncle Ben's Death, again. :o

[omid17]

I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.well said. I was one of those people who blamed Avi too a while back, but like you said Raimi is the one who calls the shots, and wasn't he the one who dismissed Vanderbilt's script for SM4

[TheSlag]

What really bugs me is the fact Eddie even knows about MJ. He thought Peter and Gwen were dating. And don't give me that "the symbiot told him" crap. They never say that in the movie. Which leaves the average movie goer confused.

Also the scene with Doc Connors and Peter and the alien. He's just like "don't get that stuff on you" instead of "WOW! A LIVING ALIEN! THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING DISCOVERY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY!" Instead they're all just "wow, it seems to like you..." :whatever:


Totally agree, especially with the second point. Sloppy film making and story telling. And I DO NOT CARE to hear the excuse that Venom and the story line was "forced" on Raimi... PERIOD. That is JUST an excuse, and a poor one at that.. for Sloppy.. DO NOT Care.. film making and story telling.

They had a chance to do the story right, and we got this dribble. I wouldn't even give it the respect to call it dribble actually... Dribble Lite. :down:

A chance to tell the symbiote/Black Spider-Man/Venom storyline..tell it Epic.. and Raimi simply fumbles the ball BIG TIME!!!

Such a great story line.. and we get this BS. Pity.. no not pity.. A CRIME!

[TheSlag]

Simply put...Mr. Raimi is repetitive. He's going to bring up plot points and wallow in it--then create scenes that we've already seen in the previous films.

Yes, as his track record shows.

And welcome back Oscar.. you would sorely missed. This place needs more critical thinking, and less POM POM waiving. :cwink:

[david icke]

I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.

Well, some people like pointing out the obvious, so I'll assume that those kind of people need the obvious pointed out to them.

The 3rd movie had plot strands that needed tied up, mainly the Harry plot, given that Raimi had already written a script that featured that and other villans, he didn't have much time to change the script to incorporate not only a new villan in Venom, but the symbiote, which by necesity stretches over the whole plot basically.
This led to the movie being overcrowded.

I said that in a few other posts yesterday, did I really need to go over it again and agian, especailly given that it's blindingly obvious?

edit: and the thing is, he did make it work, he did incorporate it into the movie, it's just that it wasn't as effective as it could have been if several plans for the movie had not clashed at once.

edit:It's not just the producer forcing a character on the director, it's the producer going back on his word that the director could have free reign, so the director's plans are thrown out the window.
Avi Arad just has to say 'Venom', but he doesn't have to worry about the fact that it's a long convulted story that has to start with a whole plot with Spider-man beofre that villan can even appear. That this plot on top of an already set out plot(Harry) might be too much is no concern of his, he just wants to rake in the money that he thinks Venom will bring in.

Your trying to educate me on the fact there are such things as producers?
Well, you might want to consider that there is such a thing as a BAD producer. One who puts quick money beofore good creative decisions.
Y'know, rushing a small appearance into the thrid movie instead of being patient and saving him for the next.

[Artistsean]

My Spider-Man 4 idea, Mysterio story posted here: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=331347&page=81, would redeem things for Peter and for Spider-Man.

[sauronthegreat]

I honestly believe that a good and thorough Director's Cut will fix Spider-Man 3.
I just can't wait for them to release it before the fourth film.

[Rodrigo90]

Ofcourse.

Make the villains EVIL.
Cut out the camp ****.
Take it seriously,instead of making it a "last day of pre school, so all fun and mayhem" movie.

[DACMAN]

:up: Agree 100%

[TheScarecrow]

View Post
I can't stand this excuse! Directors and writers are forced to use things all the time. That doesn't mean it has to suck. When Raimi first came on board he was "forced" to use the Green Gobin as the main villain. When Singer came on the X-Men films he was "forced" to have to use Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean Grey, and the rest. All directors are "forced" in one way or another to work with certain characters. It is their job to make it all work. It was the writers job to make the script work. But Sam is to blame twice over. He wrote the script AND directed it! When a producer comes in and says you have to use this character, it was his job as a writer AND director to then make that character work. I will never understand why some of you think they gave him a blank check to make a bad film.

Some of you people obviously know nothing about film.

But didn't Raimi already have a script? You would certainly think so since storyboards of the original script exist and Raimi was in talks with Kingsley. It's one thing to enter a project and be told what to include, it's quite another to have someone stop you in the middle and tell you take out a big chunk of the script, put in a massive new plotline and still remain on schedule.

I agree though, it does not validate the ludicrous scenes in Spider-man 3, but it does explain the movies over-arching flaws.

[SpideyFan914]

Copy&pasted from the "I Want to Evolve Peter Parker" thread:

I don't think there is any one reason that the movie failed.

I believe that Venom did, in part, contribute to their failure. This does not mean Venom is a bad villain - in fact, he's one of my favorites - but he was certainly rushed, and the symbiote even moreso. I actually did like Venom in the movie, and thought Eddie Brock was truly sinister and an appealing villain. I don't even mind that much that he was put off 'til the end - considering that Venom needs such a big build-up, there's no other way to do it.
Except, of course, spanning the idea over multiple films.
The symbiote got an even bigger shaft than Venom. Rather than taking the time to develop, it just flew down on a meteor and coincidentally landed right next to Peter Parker, and when he put on the symbiote, he turned into a punk '50s motorcycle gang member minus the motorcycle, also known as emo Peter. Yeah, the symbiote definitely needed more time to develop and show how it really twists Peter into an aggressive, vengeance-seeking, darker version of himself. Only the part where he "killed" Sandman gave off that impression at all. (And yet, it was when he "hurt MJ" that he realized he had changed - okay, that's a fault with writing.)
So whose to blame for this? The fans? Avi Arad?

But that wasn't the only problem. I think that the next problem with the movie was the inclusion of Sandman. Even worse, the idea of Sandman killing Uncle Ben. The retconning of Spider-Man's origin was not something I enjoyed - in fact, it takes a large dimension out of the character, and really creates a mess. And what's worse, by doing this, we lost even more time! Sandman didn't even have anything to do with Venom or Harry, so it became impossible to link the stories together.
So whose to blame here? Sam Raimi?

Now, one could say that this one movie should've been several. I'd agree with this, for the most part, though I certainly do not believe that the Sandman plot should have ever been. Yet MadGoblin (spideykicksbutt.com) claims that the movie's biggest problem was not in the planning, but the editing. And he does have a point - it would've been much more powerful to see Venom threaten Venom's daughter (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=331966&page=2#) (I believe this was in the original), or to see the scene where Sandman's family returns to the final battle, explaining why he disappeared for the latter end of his fight and giving a resolution to his storyline. But of course, the editors did have to cut something.
So what do we blame? The editing? Or the planning?

And those weren't the only problems either. One could certainly argue that Aunt May's haggish hairdo detracted from the power of her speeches and cost her ethos. We could point to Tobey Maguire's crying, which wasn't quite above par. Many have complained that Kirsten Dunst has lost her touch.
Where lies the blame? The costumers? Tobey Maguire? Kirsten Dunst?

There is no single problem with the movie, but many problems on many levels, and fixing just one of them or replacing just one person would not have turned into an Academy Award winner. However, it is now time to move on. Those involved should learn from the mistakes they made, and be careful not to repeat them. Replacing the whole cast and crew won't make for a better Spidey movie - rather, learning from the past as a whole, and moving on to evolve as a franchise will.

[bullets]

Copy&pasted from the "I Want to Evolve Peter Parker" thread:

I don't think there is any one reason that the movie failed.



(spideykicksbutt.com) claims that the movie's biggest problem was not in the planning, but the editing. And he does have a point - it would've been much more powerful to see Venom threaten Sandman's daughter (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=331966&page=2#) (I believe this was in the original), or to see the scene where Sandman's family returns to the final battle, explaining why he disappeared for the latter end of his fight and giving a resolution to his storyline. But of course, the editors did have to cut something.
So what do we blame? The editing? Or the planning?




Not including the daughter at the end was a big fault for me . I know they had Venom threaten the family in the videogame and it would of been a better way to tie the villians together.


I don't know why the robber will appear in Spider-man 4 but I really hope it's not that he is still alive.

[bullets]

I honestly believe that a good and thorough Director's Cut will fix Spider-Man 3.
I just can't wait for them to release it before the fourth film.


Is there such a thing?

[SpideyFan914]

Not including the daughter at the end was a big fault for me . I know they had Venom threaten the family in the videogame and it would of been a better way to tie the villians together.

Actually, that's something that would be fixed in a director's cut - they had actually filmed a scene where Sandman's family arrived at the construction site, and his daughter told him something (I forget exactly what, but it wasn't good news). That's also why he left the fight halfway through, and why he had such a sudden change in heart, and why he gave up stealing money just to be with his daughter.
However, the editors thought it was too depressing, and cut it out.

[Doc Ock]

Sam truly does realizes the mistakes of Spider-Man 3, so I think Spidey 4 will definitely be better than Spidey 3. But i'm not sure if it will fix Spidey 3.

[DACMAN]

Well if this "Vulturess" stuff turns out to be true, it would seem he hasn't learned anything from 3.

[SpideyFan914]

Well if this "Vulturess" stuff turns out to be true, it would seem he hasn't learned anything from 3.
Pfft.

[webhead731]

Raimi really dropped the ball when he made the Sandman Uncle Ben's killer. We've heard that the same guy that played the burglar is coming back. Do you think it's possible to revisit his death AGAIN and fix what Raimi screwed up?

Really?

I mean, did he really screw up the story? Because the story is Peter failed to stop a guy and that indirectly caused the death of his Uncle. That story is still there.
No way to go back now.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Really?

I mean, did he really screw up the story? Because the story is Peter failed to stop a guy and that indirectly caused the death of his Uncle. That story is still there.
No way to go back now. I have to agree. Even if you didn't like that change, the moral still remains the same. It was still Peter's responsibility.

[SpideyFan914]

Actually, I have to disagree. This was my biggest complaint about Spider-Man 3.
Why is it Peter's fault?
He let the burglar go, that burglar ran toward Marko, made him jump, and Uncle Ben died. Huh???
Seriously, it's more Aunt May's fault than Peter's now. "You wanted to take the Subway, and he wanted to drive you. If I had stopped him, he would've been sitting here, having dinner with us."

[webhead731]

Peter selfishly wanting money was mistake number one for him.
Then he lets the burglar go, and that burglar causes Flint to shoot and take his car.

Peter could have prevented the entire thing.

[Venom 1988]

Yeah but now hes more indirectly involved in Ben's death. Regardless, it was a change that was not needed.

[DACMAN]

Out of everything in Spider-Man 3, this was probably the biggest mistake. It really changed a major part of Spider-Man's origin. There was no reason for it and all it did was take some of the responsibilty away from Peter. As you said, he is now more indirectly involved in Ben's death. Which takes away from the emotional impact of it all.

[NinjaCarm]

It sounds like Sony have a mess on their hands with the new writers. I loved the animalistic and deadly nature that McFarlane gave The Lizard, that's what I want on screen, without mind control of course--I want an evil deadly Lizard. Ironic, with all of the characters in Marvel's universe why would they name Killer Croc? I told you that the Daily Bugle/JJJ in these films are absolutely horrible, who's going to take The Lizard seriously if he's mentioned as a freakin' joke. My guess is, Sony is only interested in selling Spidey's merchandising to little kids, period.

I can't stress enough that the main problems with the Spider-Man films are that they're too juvenile, corny and cheesy, to the point where the movies remains limited, in terms of what you can do with the characters, stories and villains. Not to mention, none of the writers or director understand Spider-Man.

No WRITER who comes in contact with the Spider-Man films thinks in terms of a complex, action packed and smartly written film, where it's geared toward older teens and up, but has kids loving it like Lord of the Rings. Every writer they bring in thinks that Spider-Man is nothing more than a little kids property--where they can easily cash in on a big check. That's why they're all writing it like a Hanna Montanna movie. In the hands of Sony it's impossible to get a really great film with the quality level of Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings or Terminator 2. Which is a shame.

Very well said. After seeing Spider-Man 2 in the theaters, I knew it was a step up and liked it, but couldn't help but think, "that's it? that's the best they could come up with? Spider-Man 1 all over again whining over the girl with a feel sorry for me villian with minor plot points so action can happen and no major story?"

It all just felt to simple, or in other words an extreme loss of potential. I hate Raimi and Sony for this, for catering to the massess, to the kids, to all the braindead simpletons out there. Why can't we get something bolder, complex, with the right grasp on Spider-Man for Christs sake (uhhh... watch the damn Spider-Man 60's cartoon to see how to get Spider-Man and Peter Parker done right ******* Raimi and Sony). It makes me sick the simple and feeble minded approach to this franchise. I wanna f'n vomit.

I hope this franchise goes the way of Batman (shutup everyone wanting to post Spider-Man isnt dark) - meaning this was the first attempt at the franchise and then someone who knows what they are doing with a set of balls comes around and does it over .... and right.

[bullets]

Actually, that's something that would be fixed in a director's cut - they had actually filmed a scene where Sandman's family arrived at the construction site, and his daughter told him something (I forget exactly what, but it wasn't good news). That's also why he left the fight halfway through, and why he had such a sudden change in heart, and why he gave up stealing money just to be with his daughter.
However, the editors thought it was too depressing, and cut it out.



Ah man , They really do need to release a director's cut . That shouldn't of been cut .

[SpideyFan914]

It sounds like Sony have a mess on their hands with the new writers. I loved the animalistic and deadly nature that McFarlane gave The Lizard, that's what I want on screen, without mind control of course--I want an evil deadly Lizard. Ironic, with all of the characters in Marvel's universe why would they name Killer Croc? I told you that the Daily Bugle/JJJ in these films are absolutely horrible, who's going to take The Lizard seriously if he's mentioned as a freakin' joke. My guess is, Sony is only interested in selling Spidey's merchandising to little kids, period.

I can't stress enough that the main problems with the Spider-Man films are that they're too juvenile, corny and cheesy, to the point where the movies remains limited, in terms of what you can do with the characters, stories and villains. Not to mention, none of the writers or director understand Spider-Man.

No WRITER who comes in contact with the Spider-Man films thinks in terms of a complex, action packed and smartly written film, where it's geared toward older teens and up, but has kids loving it like Lord of the Rings. Every writer they bring in thinks that Spider-Man is nothing more than a little kids property--where they can easily cash in on a big check. That's why they're all writing it like a Hanna Montanna movie. In the hands of Sony it's impossible to get a really great film with the quality level of Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings or Terminator 2. Which is a shame.

Very well said. After seeing Spider-Man 2 in the theaters, I knew it was a step up and liked it, but couldn't help but think, "that's it? that's the best they could come up with? Spider-Man 1 all over again whining over the girl with a feel sorry for me villian with minor plot points so action can happen and no major story?"

It all just felt to simple, or in other words an extreme loss of potential. I hate Raimi and Sony for this, for catering to the massess, to the kids, to all the braindead simpletons out there. Why can't we get something bolder, complex, with the right grasp on Spider-Man for Christs sake (uhhh... watch the damn Spider-Man 60's cartoon to see how to get Spider-Man and Peter Parker done right ******* Raimi and Sony). It makes me sick the simple and feeble minded approach to this franchise. I wanna f'n vomit.

I hope this franchise goes the way of Batman (shutup everyone wanting to post Spider-Man isnt dark) - meaning this was the first attempt at the franchise and then someone who knows what they are doing with a set of balls comes around and does it over .... and right.
Um.... what? No seriously - what??
How are the films catering to children with a PG-13 rating? That defies logic. Just because something's light-hearted doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, extremely dark stories can be either very good like The Dark Knight, or absolutely horrible in every way like the original Halloween - same thing for light-hearted movies.
If we ever get a dark Spidey movie, it would be with Kraven's Last Hunt. I can't see any other way to put it - Kraven is the only villain who would work in a movie as dark as The Dark Knight. And don't tell me to "shutup everyone wanting to post Spider-Man isnt dark" because it's a valid point! He isn't a dark character, so it makes no sense to turn him into one! Just because it worked for Batman doesn't mean it would work for Spider-Man - Batman's supposed to be dark, Spider-Man isn't! Simple as that!
And not being dark isn't a fault with the franchise. The appeal is in the interesting characters, the humanity of Spider-Man, the relatability of the character, the mesmerizing fight scenes, the emotionally touching scenes, etc.
What you call repetitive I call the entire superhero franchise. I don't see how you can say that either SM1 or SM2 could have benefitted from being darker. Haven't you read the original Stan Lee stories? They weren't dark at all, but were interesting because of good character development and thematics. Darkening the movies won't help with that unless it fits the theme and/or characters - which would only fit into the symbiote story (too late) and Kraven's Last Hunt (maybe someday, but don't count on it).
It isn't oversimplified either. I want to refute that, but you haven't exactly made an argument for it, so I don't know where to begin.... What makes you think it's oversimplified?

[bullets]

Spider-man does have some dark elements but he doesn't brood.

[NinjaCarm]

Um.... what? No seriously - what??
How are the films catering to children with a PG-13 rating? That defies logic. Just because something's light-hearted doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, extremely dark stories can be either very good like The Dark Knight, or absolutely horrible in every way like the original Halloween - same thing for light-hearted movies.
If we ever get a dark Spidey movie, it would be with Kraven's Last Hunt. I can't see any other way to put it - Kraven is the only villain who would work in a movie as dark as The Dark Knight. And don't tell me to "shutup everyone wanting to post Spider-Man isnt dark" because it's a valid point! He isn't a dark character, so it makes no sense to turn him into one! Just because it worked for Batman doesn't mean it would work for Spider-Man - Batman's supposed to be dark, Spider-Man isn't! Simple as that!
And not being dark isn't a fault with the franchise. The appeal is in the interesting characters, the humanity of Spider-Man, the relatability of the character, the mesmerizing fight scenes, the emotionally touching scenes, etc.
What you call repetitive I call the entire superhero franchise. I don't see how you can say that either SM1 or SM2 could have benefitted from being darker. Haven't you read the original Stan Lee stories? They weren't dark at all, but were interesting because of good character development and thematics. Darkening the movies won't help with that unless it fits the theme and/or characters - which would only fit into the symbiote story (too late) and Kraven's Last Hunt (maybe someday, but don't count on it).
It isn't oversimplified either. I want to refute that, but you haven't exactly made an argument for it, so I don't know where to begin.... What makes you think it's oversimplified?

I find you as one of those simpletons that keeps this hollow franchise afloat. Thanks for being part of the problem.

[Reikowolf]

I believe that many posters are confusing 'dark' with 'mature'

both TDK and SM3 have moments of where the characters take a rather 'dark' turn.

Peter brutally scars Harry
Harvey Dent is left disfigured because of the Joker's war on Batman

A man is captured and hung by the Joker for posing as Batman
Venom kills an entire swat team in front of a news camera

Batman takes the wrap for Harvey's murders
Spider-Man's reputation as a flawless hero is tarnished by his excessive use of force while wearing the black suit and Venom's actions.

I'm not saying they are direct parallels, but there are similarities. On top of these points, much of the violence is shown off screen which in the case of SM3 takes away from the tone; on the other side, it adds to the tone in the Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight is a much more 'mature' film. There are more character complexities and the story is generally moved along by the crime saga that envelops it.

Spider-Man 3 on the other hand seems to follow suit to its tagline: The greatest battle lies within.

The movie cannot decide whether it's lighthearted or serious, it is very clear that there were too many hands in that pot, as the movie tends to go into extremes of each which are only dead halted by an extreme of its counterpart.

Raimi had mentioned that TDK has raised the bar, I hope that means that he does not have to be afraid of making Spider-Man a more mature character. It can still have humor, but there should be a strong focus on the characters and where they are going without letting the spectacle take over the production.

[NinjaCarm]

I believe that many posters are confusing 'dark' with 'mature'

both TDK and SM3 have moments of where the characters take a rather 'dark' turn.

Peter brutally scars Harry
Harvey Dent is left disfigured because of the Joker's war on Batman

A man is captured and hung by the Joker for posing as Batman
Venom kills an entire swat team in front of a news camera

Batman takes the wrap for Harvey's murders
Spider-Man's reputation as a flawless hero is tarnished by his excessive use of force while wearing the black suit and Venom's actions.

I'm not saying they are direct parallels, but there are similarities. On top of these points, much of the violence is shown off screen which in the case of SM3 takes away from the tone; on the other side, it adds to the tone in the Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight is a much more 'mature' film. There are more character complexities and the story is generally moved along by the crime saga that envelops it.

Spider-Man 3 on the other hand seems to follow suit to its tagline: The greatest battle lies within.

The movie cannot decide whether it's lighthearted or serious, it is very clear that there were too many hands in that pot, as the movie tends to go into extremes of each which are only dead halted by an extreme of its counterpart.

Raimi had mentioned that TDK has raised the bar, I hope that means that he does not have to be afraid of making Spider-Man a more mature character. It can still have humor, but there should be a strong focus on the characters and where they are going without letting the spectacle take over the production.

I'm just tired of loss potential, with watered down themes and performances. It's time to step it up. It's been that time since the first movie. My comparison was not to say make Spider-Man darker, it was to make Spider-Man better with intelligent audiences in mind, not paint by numbers storylines and acting.

[Reikowolf]

I see your frustration.

I am a strong supporter of Raimi but I feel this should be his last one; end it on a high note with a mature and well thought out plot.

re-vamp in 3-5yrs

[NinjaCarm]

I see your frustration.

I am a strong supporter of Raimi but I feel this should be his last one; end it on a high note with a mature and well thought out plot.

re-vamp in 3-5yrs

It's extremely frustrating. Thanks for seeing my point. I grew up loving Spider-Man so much. Finding my father's box of comics, some of the John Romita and Stan Lee Spider-Man comics, seeing the Spider-Man 60's cartoon, expecting to see a funny wise cracking Spider-Man. Instead we were brought a simple movie "all about a girl". I admire Raimi for some things too, but just do dissapointing how this franchise was used.

To think of so many other directors who can take a shot at this like JJ Abrams, etc, ... loss of potential, loss of potential.

[Bruce Malone]

When i watched the movie i thought man what are the chances that the guy who killed your uncle and ispired you to become spiderman ends up by dumb luck being entangled in some science experiment and becoming a super-villain himslef?

even in the actual comics that's strecthing let alone a movie.

[weezerspider]

Actually, I have to disagree. This was my biggest complaint about Spider-Man 3.
Why is it Peter's fault?
He let the burglar go, that burglar ran toward Marko, made him jump, and Uncle Ben died. Huh???
Seriously, it's more Aunt May's fault than Peter's now. "You wanted to take the Subway, and he wanted to drive you. If I had stopped him, he would've been sitting here, having dinner with us."



Yah, I agree Peter should have stopped the burglar, but it is not his fault Ben died. He could have prevented it. A lot of things happen that we could prevent in life. That doesn't mean we should wake up every day mourning on all the things that are "our Fault". Be mature about it and realize you made a mistake, but don't take the blame for a ruthless killer. This is why Sam constantly bringing this up in ALL THREE movies is ridiculous and immature. It is a great way to get Peter to become Spiderman, but thats about all its there for. He's SPIDERMAN SO STOP WITH THE UNCLE BEN'S KILLER STORIES!!!

[GoldGoblin]

They should do a flashback of Norman Osborn stealing Adrian Toomes Flight technology,kinda like on the Spectacular Spider-Man.

[VenomVsSpidey]

naw, I'm good.

[Rodrigo90]

3 was campier than a Judy Garland movie. Im surprised during the parade scene that everybody didnt spontaneously burst into song and sing the old cartoon theme.

That song was used as comedy in 2 sang by the chinese woman with her violin and used seriously in 3 for "celebrate Spidey day"...WTF WERE THEY ON?!!?

[Boom]

If Spider-Man 4 can make up for the cluster**** that was the third film, I'll just forget that travesty ever existed.

[GoldGoblin]

I don't see how SM4 can be any good after SM3.Why,cause we have the same director who keeps giving us more of the same things that we can't stand.Examples:

1.MJ as a hostage taken by the villain.

2.The villain who is connected to Peter,like his mailman,lame.

3.The villain turns out to be a good guy.

4.Peter is a sissy.

5.MJ is a dog,and she keeps getting more screen time on every sequel.

6.Wastes characters by sticking them in there,and not giving them the respect they deserve to have good screen time for good character development.

7.Crappy villain costumes (Goblins)

8.Kills off all of the villains in every movie,nothing different,no prisons or insane asylums.


bottom line is,Raimi doesn't know how to make a good spidey movie anymore...

[Rodrigo90]

I can see that if 3 was worse. The parade scene.

Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy dancing and singing on the platform. The spectators going into rhythm and singing the goddamn chorus. MJ trying to escape the madness,but is blocked by the singing and dancing public. Spidey doing the tango with Gwen. Then Sandman appears. The singing and dancing from the citizens turns into running and screaming.

Spider-Man 3 was just camp for so many reasons. The twist with MJ and Harry. The club scene. The acting in general. LIST IS ENDLESS!!!

Kirsten Dunst let slip before at a conference that 3 was the last one.

Sam thinking to himself
"Wow I cant believe this will be my last Spidey movie. I might as well turn it into a funfest so the stars can enjoy themselves. Ill make it gay,cause I dont care about it anymore. Not since Arad screwed me over".

[DACMAN]

Very well said. After seeing Spider-Man 2 in the theaters, I knew it was a step up and liked it, but couldn't help but think, "that's it? that's the best they could come up with? Spider-Man 1 all over again whining over the girl with a feel sorry for me villian with minor plot points so action can happen and no major story?"

It all just felt to simple, or in other words an extreme loss of potential. I hate Raimi and Sony for this, for catering to the massess, to the kids, to all the braindead simpletons out there. Why can't we get something bolder, complex, with the right grasp on Spider-Man for Christs sake (uhhh... watch the damn Spider-Man 60's cartoon to see how to get Spider-Man and Peter Parker done right ******* Raimi and Sony). It makes me sick the simple and feeble minded approach to this franchise. I wanna f'n vomit.

I hope this franchise goes the way of Batman (shutup everyone wanting to post Spider-Man isnt dark) - meaning this was the first attempt at the franchise and then someone who knows what they are doing with a set of balls comes around and does it over .... and right.

Although I've enjoyed these past 3 films I think you're right. I think they'll be remembered like the first 4 bat films. Cheesy, bad writing, bad acting, but ok and fun. Hopefully the reboot will give us just as good of movies as the new Batman films.

[DACMAN]

It's extremely frustrating. Thanks for seeing my point. I grew up loving Spider-Man so much. Finding my father's box of comics, some of the John Romita and Stan Lee Spider-Man comics, seeing the Spider-Man 60's cartoon, expecting to see a funny wise cracking Spider-Man. Instead we were brought a simple movie "all about a girl". I admire Raimi for some things too, but just do dissapointing how this franchise was used.

To think of so many other directors who can take a shot at this like JJ Abrams, etc, ... loss of potential, loss of potential.

I know right! Can you imagine how good these movies would be in the hands of Abrams, Peter Jackson, Bay, or even JAMES FRICKEN CAMERON! These movies would have been amazing! Instead we got cheesy, poorly written, eye candy. I liked all three films, but I'm the first to admit they were cheesy and often, poorly written.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I know right! Can you imagine how good these movies would be in the hands of Abrams, Peter Jackson, Bay, or even JAMES FRICKEN CAMERON! These movies would have been amazing!

whoa whoa whoa...I aint starting no fight but I've read cameron's original script for spider-man....and i think i'll take batman and robin plz. and bay? naw...let him blow other things up, not new york city. not sure about abrams or jackson. but raimi was pretty much perfect.

[spider-neil]

I know right! Can you imagine how good these movies would be in the hands of Abrams, Peter Jackson, Bay, or even JAMES FRICKEN CAMERON! These movies would have been amazing! Instead we got cheesy, poorly written, eye candy. I liked all three films, but I'm the first to admit they were cheesy and often, poorly written.

to be fair to sam I absolutely love the heck out the first two movies and watch them once every few months. alright I am disappointed by SM3 but even that movie has scenes I really enjoy. I thought sam knocked SM2 out of the park, I saw that movie at least five times at the cinema, that was truly a great time to be a spidey fan and what made it even sweeter is I am a big doc ock fan.

[spider-neil]

whoa whoa whoa...I aint starting no fight but I've read cameron's original script for spider-man....and i think i'll take batman and robin plz. and bay? naw...let him blow other things up, not new york city. not sure about abrams or jackson. but raimi was pretty much perfect.


I agree but they should let raimi BE raimi. there wa only one time in three movies where I felt sam's kinetic camera and that was the hospitial scene. sam has really reigned himself in when you compare his camera style of evil dead to the spidey movies.

[DACMAN]

whoa whoa whoa...I aint starting no fight but I've read cameron's original script for spider-man....and i think i'll take batman and robin plz. and bay? naw...let him blow other things up, not new york city. not sure about abrams or jackson. but raimi was pretty much perfect.

Yeah, I've read the Cameron script too and if that was in fact the real script it was pretty terrible. But it was so bad I have a hard time believing it was real. Every movie that guy has made is pure gold. Abrams and Jackson would have made an amazing movie. They are all about character. And Bay? I can see why some people would be reluctant about him, but I love his work.

[DACMAN]

I agree but they should let raimi BE raimi. there wa only one time in three movies where I felt sam's kinetic camera and that was the hospitial scene. sam has really reigned himself in when you compare his camera style of evil dead to the spidey movies.

I disagree. I think if they let "Raimi be Raimi" we'd end up with more dance scenes and more "wicked cool" pieces of dialogue. He loves cheese. Everyone knows that. Ever seen "Drag Me to Hell"? Hate it or love it, that movie was cheesy as, pun intended, hell. I think we have enough cheese in these movies already. If he was let loose the movie theater would turn into a giant cheese factory.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I disagree. I think if they let "Raimi be Raimi" we'd end up with more dance scenes and more "wicked cool" pieces of dialogue. He loves cheese. Everyone knows that. Ever seen "Drag Me to Hell"? Hate it or love it, that movie was cheesy as, pun intended, hell. I think we have enough cheese in these movies already. If he was let loose the movie theater would turn into a giant cheese factory.

but....I like cheese:csad:

[david icke]

Yeah, I've read the Cameron script too and if that was in fact the real script it was pretty terrible. But it was so bad I have a hard time believing it was real. Every movie that guy has made is pure gold.

The thing that makes me believe that it was in fact a genuine Cameron script is that Cameron is the kind of guy who would want to put his own stamp on it, he seemed to take the basic concept of Spider-man to do what he wanted with it, while missing out completely on what makes Spider-man special.


Abrams and Jackson would have made an amazing movie. They are all about character. And Bay? I can see why some people would be reluctant about him, but I love his work.

Bay would make a truly horrible Spider-man movie.

Abrams and Jackson would make a good one, probably on a par with Raimi though, we are lucky to have Raimi. And the fear I have over a re-boot, or when someone else takes over the franchise, is that when the movie is over, all the Raimi haters will be thinking 'Damn, those Raimi movies were not as bad as I thought they were compared to this.'
He knows the iconography, he knows how to get Spider-man on camera, he has probably brought us the best possible Spider-man action scenes humanly possible to get on camera.
Yes, there have been problems story and character wise, but there are a lot of things he has brought to these movies that I feel some are taking for granted. There is no way these will be regarded like 89-97 Batman movies, those barely managed to get a character like Batman into them, whereas spier-man is truly a feature of these films, and so it plenty of his history.

[Venom 1988]

I disagree. I think if they let "Raimi be Raimi" we'd end up with more dance scenes and more "wicked cool" pieces of dialogue. He loves cheese. Everyone knows that. Ever seen "Drag Me to Hell"? Hate it or love it, that movie was cheesy as, pun intended, hell. I think we have enough cheese in these movies already. If he was let loose the movie theater would turn into a giant cheese factory.

Yeah because he had all that crap in the first 2 movies. :whatever:

The 3rd has the cheesiest of them all and it was the one with the most studio involvement. Gee coincidence?

[SpeterMan3]

but....I like cheese:csad:
I've been obsessed with cheese since 5th grade... :csad:

[Rodrigo90]

Cheese can give you nightmares. Certainly had Sams cheesy nightmare.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Cheese can give you nightmares. Certainly had Sams cheesy nightmare.

havent had any yet.

[Rodrigo90]

Why are we talking about cheese? lol

[spider-neil]

how anyone could want bay over raimi is beyond me. TF: ROTF is without a doubt in the top 5 worst movies ever made. that movie makes SM3 look like the godfather.

as for action, the clocktower/train fight is still (imho) the best superhero action sequence commited to film.

[Spider-ManHero12]

the clocktower/train fight is still (imho) the best superhero action sequence commited to film. Amen. :up:

[webhead731]

All the Spider-Man films have cheese and seriousness in them. Hell the first one has almost as much as the third.

[NinjaCarm]

I know right! Can you imagine how good these movies would be in the hands of Abrams, Peter Jackson, Bay, or even JAMES FRICKEN CAMERON! These movies would have been amazing! Instead we got cheesy, poorly written, eye candy. I liked all three films, but I'm the first to admit they were cheesy and often, poorly written.

Thanks for seeing my point. It just makes me sick though how people eat it all up. They settle for this simple eye candy I want to throw up.

Let Raimi do part 4, and then he and the cast have got to go. Period.

Unless he amazes me with genuine acting, a good plot, a Tobey Maguire that doesn't stare into the headlights (he's awful) - he's gotta take charge, I'm sick of this pussy crap wooden faced acting. TAKE CHARGE !! He needs to steal the show w/ the semi confident Parker, a wise cracking Spider-Man, and just genuine acting!!! He was good in Joyride, a cheap B grade movie where he was great! BRING THAT TO SPIDER-MAN!

[RustyCage]

As for the OP's idea, no, I don't think anything in regards to Uncle Ben's death can or needs to be 'fixed'.

But I do think that another movie with the return of Venom could save the Venom aspect of Spidey 3 from being so appalling cause we'd know that the villain wasn't ruined and then cast aside forever. All they'd have to do is use Venom's 'death' as a means of turning him into something truly monstrous and fearsome. The voice could be a result of that, etc etc. We could get a proper Venom out of the deal. And the first time a villain has returned to give Peter trouble, as they always have in the comics.

He needs to steal the show w/ the semi confident Parker, a wise cracking Spider-Man, and just genuine acting!!! He was good in Joyride, a cheap B grade movie where he was great! BRING THAT TO SPIDER-MAN!

:applaud

[Reikowolf]

As for the OP's idea, no, I don't think anything in regards to Uncle Ben's death can or needs to be 'fixed'.

But I do think that another movie with the return of Venom could save the Venom aspect of Spidey 3 from being so appalling cause we'd know that the villain wasn't ruined and then cast aside forever. All they'd have to do is use Venom's 'death' as a means of turning him into something truly monstrous and fearsome. The voice could be a result of that, etc etc. We could get a proper Venom out of the deal. And the first time a villain has returned to give Peter trouble, as they always have in the comics.



:applaud

As I've said before, I am not a fan of Venom but I do like your idea.

Especially the part about a villain returning.

[DACMAN]

Yeah because he had all that crap in the first 2 movies. :whatever:

The 3rd has the cheesiest of them all and it was the one with the most studio involvement. Gee coincidence?

The 3rd had the cheesiest moments in it all of which were Raimi's ideas. The dance scene, the walk down the street, all Raimi. The only thing the studio pushed was Venom. And yes, the first two had it's fair share of cheese. Not to mention the studio only pushed Venom, they didn't make Raimi and his brother give Venom a treatment that would lead them to cast Topher Grace.:whatever:

Raimi loves cheese. To deny that makes it look like you've never seen a film of his. Every Raimi film is full of cheese. The one with the least cheese was the first and he's even said the studio had more control over what he did because the franchise was untested. He's said as they went along he was given more and more control. The only thing he gave to the studio was the appearence of Venom. Show me a link that spells out the fact the studio made Raimi have a dance scene and make the Sandman Uncle Ben's killer.

[DACMAN]

As for the OP's idea, no, I don't think anything in regards to Uncle Ben's death can or needs to be 'fixed'.

But I do think that another movie with the return of Venom could save the Venom aspect of Spidey 3 from being so appalling cause we'd know that the villain wasn't ruined and then cast aside forever. All they'd have to do is use Venom's 'death' as a means of turning him into something truly monstrous and fearsome. The voice could be a result of that, etc etc. We could get a proper Venom out of the deal. And the first time a villain has returned to give Peter trouble, as they always have in the comics.



:applaud

:up:

[storyteller]

This film does not need to be darker. It needs to be deeper. We need to be invested in the heroes and bad guys. I honestly should care that Mary Jane is in danger. I should care that Peter is in a relationship with her. I should have gave a damn about Sand little girl. I liked Eddie but he should have been in the movie more(still got hope for his revival).