The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Spider-Man > Spider-Man 1, 2 & 3

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-18-2015, 01:58 PM   #701
OcStat
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,244
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

The action definitely blows Amazing 2 out of the water. I was so disappointed in that, specifically.

OcStat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 03:28 PM   #702
theShape
In the shadows
 
theShape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Your mind.
Posts: 13,921
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilante View Post
As we know the fact that Venom was shoehorned into the film was the fault of the studio and not Raimi himself.

We know that Venom was technically forced into SM3 by the studio, but to me, the film itself makes it seem like Sandman is the character that was shoehorned into the film. I've always said that I think SM3 could have been an amazing movie if Sandman was removed from it altogether and Brock/Venom was utilized as the main villain/conflict.

If you think about it, Sandman in this film ultimately has little to no bearing or impact on the story itself. The story could have been told more competently and effectively if he wasn't a part of it. He really only serves two functions in the story as it is, which is to 1) provide "bigger" action/spectacle than the previous films had and 2) an excuse for Peter something to be pissed about while he had the black suit.

The retcon of Sandman killing Uncle Ben is the plot point that feels the most shoehorned into the movie. Since Sandman ultimately had nothing to do with Peter Parker and had no reason to have a vendetta against Spider-man (he escaped from prison, had an accident that gave him powers, and wanted to get money for his sick daughter), this was just a dumb way to create a coincidental connection between Sandman and Peter. The thinking behind the decision to make Sandman the real person who killed Uncle Ben is just so ass-backwards.

I know some Sandman scenes were ultimately cut, but it stands now, he goes missing for chunks of the film (while Peter is dealing with the four or five other conflicts), to the point where you almost forget that he's in the film at times. Even the scenes that were cut hardly would have added much depth or development, other than to emphasize that he was doing this "for Penny" and to explain exactly why he teamed up with Venom at the end, besides "we both hate the Spider".

Cutting Sandman and focusing solely on Venom and Harry as antagonists would have been an opportunity for the franchise to give us something other than villains with coincidental links to Peter who were created purely by chance in lab accidents that gave them powers and/or made them crazy. Yes, it's a coincidence that Brock happened be at the cathedral when Peter got rid of the black suit, but the film could have further emphasized the dark thoughts and ill will/hatred that Brock felt towards Peter and Spider-man due to previous events. The black suit then only further enhanced his negativity and gave him the means to have the power to execute his will. Harry was also a "villain" not born by chance, but one who had a storyline that developed over three films and went over the deep end after choosing to follow his father's path.

A central theme in Spider-man 3 was about the darkness that we all carry within in us, and how hard it can sometimes be to tow the line between light and dark. Venom and Harry were perfect representations of that. As they tried to show in the film, Eddie represented a dark reflection of Peter Parker. He was someone who lacked the moral compass to always do the right thing, used lies and deception to try to get ahead, couldn't get the girl of his dreams, and felt hatred towards someone like Peter who put him to shame and seemed to "have it all". Harry, on the other hand, was the classic case of a "good guy gone bad" for all the wrong reasons, largely because of his misguided perception of his familial ties and the mistreatment/neglect of a father that never respected him.

Sandman had none of that. He was pretty much just a good guy that seemed to be trying to "get by" in the wrong way (stealing) and accidentally killed someone once...but felt really bad about it. Then, when he escaped prison and got his powers, he was still just a good guy trying to do the right thing (help his sick daughter) but doing so in the wrong way. The theme of "forgiveness" that he represented (Peter needed to learn to forgive him for Uncle Ben's death) was something that could have been represented between Peter and the core cast of characters in a different way, if that was something they felt they needed to do.

As for Peter and the black suit, he didn't need the thought of Uncle Ben's killer still being at large as the motivating factor behind his "darkness", just as it wasn't needed in the comics. After receiving the black suit, the way it affected him should have been represented by his actions. Mistreating the people in his life (besides forcing them to give him cookies and milk or putting his feet on someone's desk), going "too far" with his exploits as Spider-man by unnecessarily hurting criminals, saying cruel things to Aunt May, nearly killing his former best friend (as he did), and lastly, pushing Mary Jane away and ultimately striking her down. Peter hitting MJ in SM3 was pretty much the only compelling moment that properly demonstrated the effects of the black suit, and even then...it was an accident. Instead of those things I mentioned as black suit symptoms, we had a new hairstyle and two dance sequences that chewed up screen time for virtually no reason. (Note: Three dance sequences if you count Harry and MJ's kitchen dance...)

Even will all the over-stuffed story points, Eddie Brock still had a passable level of development throughout the film that led to him becoming Venom. If the movie had just given more time to his story and not Sandman's, I actually think Venom could have wound up being Spider-man's most memorable on-screen villain. It would have been great for them to really emphasize both Peter and Eddie's descents into darkness, leading up to that defining moment in the cathedral (which could have came a bit earlier in the film) -- a moment that allowed Peter to come back into the light, and allowed Eddie to only go further into darkness, despair, and hatred.


/end essay

__________________
I'll be there... around every corner, in every empty room, as inevitable as your guilty conscience...
theShape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 03:41 PM   #703
OcStat
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,244
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

I was always most excited to see what was going to happen with Harry Osborn anyway, leading up to Spider-Man 3. A whole movie with Harry plotting against Peter would have been a lot of fun to watch.

OcStat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 03:55 PM   #704
theShape
In the shadows
 
theShape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Your mind.
Posts: 13,921
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OcStat View Post
I was always most excited to see what was going to happen with Harry Osborn anyway, leading up to Spider-Man 3. A whole movie with Harry plotting against Peter would have been a lot of fun to watch.

Yeah, and they pretty much botched it.

__________________
I'll be there... around every corner, in every empty room, as inevitable as your guilty conscience...
theShape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 04:48 PM   #705
Vigilante
Newbie First Class
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 22
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theShape View Post
We know that Venom was technically forced into SM3 by the studio, but to me, the film itself makes it seem like Sandman is the character that was shoehorned into the film. I've always said that I think SM3 could have been an amazing movie if Sandman was removed from it altogether and Brock/Venom was utilized as the main villain/conflict.

If you think about it, Sandman in this film ultimately has little to no bearing or impact on the story itself. The story could have been told more competently and effectively if he wasn't a part of it. He really only serves two functions in the story as it is, which is to 1) provide "bigger" action/spectacle than the previous films had and 2) an excuse for Peter something to be pissed about while he had the black suit.

The retcon of Sandman killing Uncle Ben is the plot point that feels the most shoehorned into the movie. Since Sandman ultimately had nothing to do with Peter Parker and had no reason to have a vendetta against Spider-man (he escaped from prison, had an accident that gave him powers, and wanted to get money for his sick daughter), this was just a dumb way to create a coincidental connection between Sandman and Peter. The thinking behind the decision to make Sandman the real person who killed Uncle Ben is just so ass-backwards.

I know some Sandman scenes were ultimately cut, but it stands now, he goes missing for chunks of the film (while Peter is dealing with the four or five other conflicts), to the point where you almost forget that he's in the film at times. Even the scenes that were cut hardly would have added much depth or development, other than to emphasize that he was doing this "for Penny" and to explain exactly why he teamed up with Venom at the end, besides "we both hate the Spider".

Cutting Sandman and focusing solely on Venom and Harry as antagonists would have been an opportunity for the franchise to give us something other than villains with coincidental links to Peter who were created purely by chance in lab accidents that gave them powers and/or made them crazy. Yes, it's a coincidence that Brock happened be at the cathedral when Peter got rid of the black suit, but the film could have further emphasized the dark thoughts and ill will/hatred that Brock felt towards Peter and Spider-man due to previous events. The black suit then only further enhanced his negativity and gave him the means to have the power to execute his will. Harry was also a "villain" not born by chance, but one who had a storyline that developed over three films and went over the deep end after choosing to follow his father's path.

A central theme in Spider-man 3 was about the darkness that we all carry within in us, and how hard it can sometimes be to tow the line between light and dark. Venom and Harry were perfect representations of that. As they tried to show in the film, Eddie represented a dark reflection of Peter Parker. He was someone who lacked the moral compass to always do the right thing, used lies and deception to try to get ahead, couldn't get the girl of his dreams, and felt hatred towards someone like Peter who put him to shame and seemed to "have it all". Harry, on the other hand, was the classic case of a "good guy gone bad" for all the wrong reasons, largely because of his misguided perception of his familial ties and the mistreatment/neglect of a father that never respected him.

Sandman had none of that. He was pretty much just a good guy that seemed to be trying to "get by" in the wrong way (stealing) and accidentally killed someone once...but felt really bad about it. Then, when he escaped prison and got his powers, he was still just a good guy trying to do the right thing (help his sick daughter) but doing so in the wrong way. The theme of "forgiveness" that he represented (Peter needed to learn to forgive him for Uncle Ben's death) was something that could have been represented between Peter and the core cast of characters in a different way, if that was something they felt they needed to do.

As for Peter and the black suit, he didn't need the thought of Uncle Ben's killer still being at large as the motivating factor behind his "darkness", just as it wasn't needed in the comics. After receiving the black suit, the way it affected him should have been represented by his actions. Mistreating the people in his life (besides forcing them to give him cookies and milk or putting his feet on someone's desk), going "too far" with his exploits as Spider-man by unnecessarily hurting criminals, saying cruel things to Aunt May, nearly killing his former best friend (as he did), and lastly, pushing Mary Jane away and ultimately striking her down. Peter hitting MJ in SM3 was pretty much the only compelling moment that properly demonstrated the effects of the black suit, and even then...it was an accident. Instead of those things I mentioned as black suit symptoms, we had a new hairstyle and two dance sequences that chewed up screen time for virtually no reason. (Note: Three dance sequences if you count Harry and MJ's kitchen dance...)

Even will all the over-stuffed story points, Eddie Brock still had a passable level of development throughout the film that led to him becoming Venom. If the movie had just given more time to his story and not Sandman's, I actually think Venom could have wound up being Spider-man's most memorable on-screen villain. It would have been great for them to really emphasize both Peter and Eddie's descents into darkness, leading up to that defining moment in the cathedral (which could have came a bit earlier in the film) -- a moment that allowed Peter to come back into the light, and allowed Eddie to only go further into darkness, despair, and hatred.


/end essay
That is a very good point well made. Never thought of it that way before simply because Sandman has more screentime than Venom. In fact, Spidey's top 3 villains are Green Goblin, Doc Ock and Venom so it would only make sense that the first set of live-action films feature them all without interruptions from the likes of Sandman. Saving Venom for last of course as he has the most potential to destroy Spider-Man and New York City in general, heck imagine if Carnage had been in that film instead of Sandman!

Vigilante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2015, 07:00 PM   #706
Venom75
I'm symbiotic!
 
Venom75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburgh,Pa.
Posts: 1,862
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

Even after all this time I'm still obsessed with this film. Found these images online...





__________________
-I'm a Freddy Krueger,Spider-man and Venom(the Eddie Brock version) FANATIC!

Official fan of The Raimi Spider-man Trilogy 2002-2007

Never Forget 9/11/01
Venom75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2015, 07:07 PM   #707
Venom75
I'm symbiotic!
 
Venom75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburgh,Pa.
Posts: 1,862
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theShape View Post
We know that Venom was technically forced into SM3 by the studio, but to me, the film itself makes it seem like Sandman is the character that was shoehorned into the film. I've always said that I think SM3 could have been an amazing movie if Sandman was removed from it altogether and Brock/Venom was utilized as the main villain/conflict.

If you think about it, Sandman in this film ultimately has little to no bearing or impact on the story itself. The story could have been told more competently and effectively if he wasn't a part of it. He really only serves two functions in the story as it is, which is to 1) provide "bigger" action/spectacle than the previous films had and 2) an excuse for Peter something to be pissed about while he had the black suit.

The retcon of Sandman killing Uncle Ben is the plot point that feels the most shoehorned into the movie. Since Sandman ultimately had nothing to do with Peter Parker and had no reason to have a vendetta against Spider-man (he escaped from prison, had an accident that gave him powers, and wanted to get money for his sick daughter), this was just a dumb way to create a coincidental connection between Sandman and Peter. The thinking behind the decision to make Sandman the real person who killed Uncle Ben is just so ass-backwards.

I know some Sandman scenes were ultimately cut, but it stands now, he goes missing for chunks of the film (while Peter is dealing with the four or five other conflicts), to the point where you almost forget that he's in the film at times. Even the scenes that were cut hardly would have added much depth or development, other than to emphasize that he was doing this "for Penny" and to explain exactly why he teamed up with Venom at the end, besides "we both hate the Spider".

Cutting Sandman and focusing solely on Venom and Harry as antagonists would have been an opportunity for the franchise to give us something other than villains with coincidental links to Peter who were created purely by chance in lab accidents that gave them powers and/or made them crazy. Yes, it's a coincidence that Brock happened be at the cathedral when Peter got rid of the black suit, but the film could have further emphasized the dark thoughts and ill will/hatred that Brock felt towards Peter and Spider-man due to previous events. The black suit then only further enhanced his negativity and gave him the means to have the power to execute his will. Harry was also a "villain" not born by chance, but one who had a storyline that developed over three films and went over the deep end after choosing to follow his father's path.

A central theme in Spider-man 3 was about the darkness that we all carry within in us, and how hard it can sometimes be to tow the line between light and dark. Venom and Harry were perfect representations of that. As they tried to show in the film, Eddie represented a dark reflection of Peter Parker. He was someone who lacked the moral compass to always do the right thing, used lies and deception to try to get ahead, couldn't get the girl of his dreams, and felt hatred towards someone like Peter who put him to shame and seemed to "have it all". Harry, on the other hand, was the classic case of a "good guy gone bad" for all the wrong reasons, largely because of his misguided perception of his familial ties and the mistreatment/neglect of a father that never respected him.

Sandman had none of that. He was pretty much just a good guy that seemed to be trying to "get by" in the wrong way (stealing) and accidentally killed someone once...but felt really bad about it. Then, when he escaped prison and got his powers, he was still just a good guy trying to do the right thing (help his sick daughter) but doing so in the wrong way. The theme of "forgiveness" that he represented (Peter needed to learn to forgive him for Uncle Ben's death) was something that could have been represented between Peter and the core cast of characters in a different way, if that was something they felt they needed to do.

As for Peter and the black suit, he didn't need the thought of Uncle Ben's killer still being at large as the motivating factor behind his "darkness", just as it wasn't needed in the comics. After receiving the black suit, the way it affected him should have been represented by his actions. Mistreating the people in his life (besides forcing them to give him cookies and milk or putting his feet on someone's desk), going "too far" with his exploits as Spider-man by unnecessarily hurting criminals, saying cruel things to Aunt May, nearly killing his former best friend (as he did), and lastly, pushing Mary Jane away and ultimately striking her down. Peter hitting MJ in SM3 was pretty much the only compelling moment that properly demonstrated the effects of the black suit, and even then...it was an accident. Instead of those things I mentioned as black suit symptoms, we had a new hairstyle and two dance sequences that chewed up screen time for virtually no reason. (Note: Three dance sequences if you count Harry and MJ's kitchen dance...)

Even will all the over-stuffed story points, Eddie Brock still had a passable level of development throughout the film that led to him becoming Venom. If the movie had just given more time to his story and not Sandman's, I actually think Venom could have wound up being Spider-man's most memorable on-screen villain. It would have been great for them to really emphasize both Peter and Eddie's descents into darkness, leading up to that defining moment in the cathedral (which could have came a bit earlier in the film) -- a moment that allowed Peter to come back into the light, and allowed Eddie to only go further into darkness, despair, and hatred.


/end essay
I've always felt the same way,and not just because I'm a Venom fan. The film was about the darkness inside us and forgiveness. The dynamic between Peter and Eddie,and Peter and Harry would've been all we needed. Besides,the selling point of the film was the black suit and Venom. Let's face it. I think most everyone(not all,but most)wanted to see that epic Spider-man vs. Venom battle. Sandman was a character not needed.

__________________
-I'm a Freddy Krueger,Spider-man and Venom(the Eddie Brock version) FANATIC!

Official fan of The Raimi Spider-man Trilogy 2002-2007

Never Forget 9/11/01
Venom75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2015, 10:26 AM   #708
UltimateWebhead
Black's the new Red&Blue
 
UltimateWebhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 9,954
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

I agree the retcon of Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer is just awful. It was poorly done and the movie probably would have been better off had they not included that plot device.

UltimateWebhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2015, 09:48 PM   #709
Venom75
I'm symbiotic!
 
Venom75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburgh,Pa.
Posts: 1,862
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?


__________________
-I'm a Freddy Krueger,Spider-man and Venom(the Eddie Brock version) FANATIC!

Official fan of The Raimi Spider-man Trilogy 2002-2007

Never Forget 9/11/01
Venom75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2015, 01:21 AM   #710
ImOctavius
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 179
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OcStat View Post
The action definitely blows Amazing 2 out of the water.

__________________
"This life is not an easy one… I've made enemies, powerful enemies, put those I love in danger."
ImOctavius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2015, 07:50 PM   #711
miller man
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 159
Default Re: Are we too harsh on SM3?

Just re-watched it last night. While there's a few things I appreciate more now, it's glaring flaws were still too much to overcome. Eight years of superhero movies since its release has also shed new light on it.

The biggest overall mistake Raimi and the producers made was in trying to top Spiderman 2. When a movie is as well acclaimed as that one was, there really isn't much to improve upon. So why cripple your own creativity in trying? The truth is, they never needed to make a better film than Spiderman 2; they simply needed to make a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy with a strong theme, memorable villain, and dignified finale for these characters we had grown to understand. Look no further than The Dark Knight Rises. In no way is that a better film than the previous one, but for the reasons listed above, it is a success in its own right.

What is a shame is that there were moments of inspiration in Spiderman 3. The seeds of a really good movie are there, but Raimi failed to trust his instincts. We all know Venom was forced upon him, but Venom's inclusion is hardly the movie's only issue. I'll never understand why one would spend $250-300 million on a film only to short change the script, especially after the previous installment was praised for its writing.

I could go on about what still bothers me and what I grew to appreciate, if anyone cares to listen.

miller man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.