Came up with this; do you agree? About fans and critics complaining.

[Figs]

True. Overlooked that. You're right there.

But still, alot of people just will never be happy or they just wanna find soemthing to complain about.

I do agree with you that there are people out there who just complain so they can get attention. I'm one of the ones that didn't like Spider-Man 3 nearly as much as the first two. The main reason was, and I'm a Raimi fan since Evil Dead days, he went overboard with his silly style sense of humour. I don't care how great of a comic Spider-Man fan you say you are, that was a load of **** making him emo like and strutting around. The entire time he had the symbiote suit in the comics it just made him a little crazier/tougher on the bad guys he would be fighting. It didn't make him some pompous ass.

Those scenes aside from the over emotional crying all the time really ruined it for me. I was excited as hell that Sandman was picked while others *****ed. He was actually I think when it all comes down to it, my favorite thing out of the whole movie. I saw the first two multiple times in the theatre and this one I saw once and as I walked out I had that empty feeling of "no real reason to watch that again".

Although I shouldn't, I still can't help but hope for that rumoured Directors Cut since Raimi had said the studio wanted him to cut out a lot.

 

[BubbaGump]

Batman Begins! t:

Spoiler

Runs like hell out of the Spider sub-forum.

 

[DACrowe]

Well BB is just hands down a beter movie. While it is true Goyer's screenplay isn't anything to write home about 9he is not known for subtle plots or complex dialogue), Nolan crafted it into an amazingly well paced and fascinating story and it was just beautiful to watch along with several great performances in it, most notably Bale bringing what should be a "been-there-done-that" type of origin movie to life as new, fresh and humane.

But i do agree this movie was doomed for the following reasons:

1) The second movie was so good and in an attempt to outdo it, they were going to have to sacrifice the simplicity that made that film run so smoothly and effortlessly.

2) By including Venom almost every fanboy had their own movie in their head of how it would go and when that impossible dream would not be realized there would be a backlash. Nevermind, that RAimi made the decision to change the character into a dopplenganger and give the villain only 10 minutes of screentime. Which in retrospect, is hard to argue with considering developing the symbiote on Peter was morei mportant to the story. But fanboys would NEVER be satisfied.

and

3) The trailers marketed it as something it was not. While RAimi dabbled in a larger scope with his characters in this, outside of the climax, he never went for the EPIC scope. And while he made this film darker than the first two, he counterbalanced that by trying to make it the funniest as well. In the trailers it is a dark epic hyped up to resemble something similar to BB. That was never the movie. So people went in expecting one thing and got another.



Now, I personally think it is a good movie. An extremely flawed one with an uneven pace, too many subplots and while every scene works on its own (even the dancing bits, which by themselves are hilarious and work) the sum of their parts is unbalanced. But most of the complaints aren't that, most of the complaints are it wasn't dark but had silly elements and not enough Venom.

At the same time, Raimi did inject the movie with some serious pathos and humanity. Sandman wasa truly sympathetic, Harry's storyline was quite sad and competently done and arguably Peter's arc was well accomplished as well as MJ. At the very least you felt what those characters were going through so the end at the funeral and dance club at the end hit the right notes of somber recognition. The reason is despite all of this movie's imperfections is it did have a soul and an artistic integrity, because Raimi and the actors (besides Dunst) still loved these characters and wanted to make the audience care.


But it is not typical summer fare. It did not just give audiences what they want and had some weighty stuff in between the light. This sort of inbalance (actually very common in all other Raimi films without Spider-Man in the title) is perhaps too much. While movies like Transformers or Fantastic Four 2 or POTC3 are heartless, as in they are brainless movies without much heart or passion to the point the characters go through the motions (did anyone know or care of Megatron's emotions or hear a single Deceptacon deliver a line besides him? What about any Autobot besides Prime and arguably Bumblebee?)....they were prepackaged. They all came in shiney wrappers and played it safe with formulaic storytelling (well Pirates was more just random throw everything on the wall and see what sticks storytelling) that appeased the masses. It may be Independence Day with robots and Shia LaBoeuff, but it is comfortable and takes no risks and asks the audiences not to think too much.

That is why those movies are unsurprisingly more popular. But also why no one will watch those movies in a year from now unless they're on cable.

At any rate the best summer blockbusters this year was easily Harry Potter and Bourne Ultimatum. Those movies worked and went against the grain without biting offm ore than they can chew (like SM3). Still liked Spidey, though. And I'd take a flawed Raimi movie over a streamlined by the numbers Michael Bay movie any day of the week ofr the record.

 

[DACrowe]

I do agree with you that there are people out there who just complain so they can get attention. I'm one of the ones that didn't like Spider-Man 3 nearly as much as the first two. The main reason was, and I'm a Raimi fan since Evil Dead days, he went overboard with his silly style sense of humour. I don't care how great of a comic Spider-Man fan you say you are, that was a load of **** making him emo like and strutting around. The entire time he had the symbiote suit in the comics it just made him a little crazier/tougher on the bad guys he would be fighting. It didn't make him some pompous ass.

I just want to point out that you are using TAS as your marker. The symbiote had NO AFFECT on him in the comics other than it was trying to bond with him. It did not make him more aggressive or violent. It did not have the same affect a drug would have on a person (like in the movie) or steroids like in TAS.

This was never a factor in the comics.

 

[Blader5489]

And speaking of the cartoon, need I remind anyone of this?

 

[The Joker]

And speaking of the cartoon, need I remind anyone of this?

You mean that outfit that lasted 2 seconds?

No, you don't need to remind us of that.

 

[Blader5489]

You mean that outfit that lasted 2 seconds?

Two seconds?

The point is, the idea of the symbiote influencing Peter to (futilely) look hip was also something taken from TAS.

 

[Cyrusbales]

However people fail to realise the lacklustre writing and lack of characterisation in these films, which is often substituted out for cliche's and simple one liners, not actually involving any dialgoue as the characters only have quips and monologues.

 

[Mr. Socko]

And how about lack of villains?

Sandy is just the old sympathetic man who broke out of prison to see his ill daughter and accidentally killed Uncle Ben. Then just unfortunately fell into a random sand-molecular-atomizer. He just has a case of bad luck.

Harry, or as they call him "New Goblin," was just a misguided man because he thought his best friend killed his father

Venom...well he doesn't even count

 

[The Joker]

And how about lack of villains?

Sandy is just the old sympathetic man who broke out of prison to see his ill daughter and accidentally killed Uncle Ben. He just has a case of bad luck.

Harry, or as they call him "New Goblin," was just a misguided man because he thought his best friend killed his father

Venom...well he doesn't even count

Huh??

How does that not make them villains, though? It's their evil actions that define them as villains. Magneto just want to help the survival of his own kind. But, the methods he chooses to do so are wrong. Does this make him any less a villain?

Ra's Al Ghul in Begins was fighting for justice. He just chose the wrong methods in doing so. Is he any less a villain?

Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 was trying to rebuild his life's work, again, choosing evil tactics to do so.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Huh??

How does that not make them villains, though? It's their evil actions that define them as villains. Magneto just want to help the survival of his own kind. But, the methods he chooses to do so are wrong. Does this make him any less a villain?

Ra's Al Ghul in Begins was fighting for justice. He just chose the wrong methods in doing so. Is he any less a villain?

Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 was trying to rebuild his life's work, again, choosing evil tactics to do so.

I know they're villain, I wasn't being serious lol

Sorry about the msundstin'

 

[fallenAngel]

Well BB is just hands down a beter movie. While it is true Goyer's screenplay isn't anything to write home about 9he is not known for subtle plots or complex dialogue), Nolan crafted it into an amazingly well paced and fascinating story and it was just beautiful to watch along with several great performances in it, most notably Bale bringing what should be a "been-there-done-that" type of origin movie to life as new, fresh and humane.

But i do agree this movie was doomed for the following reasons:

1) The second movie was so good and in an attempt to outdo it, they were going to have to sacrifice the simplicity that made that film run so smoothly and effortlessly.

2) By including Venom almost every fanboy had their own movie in their head of how it would go and when that impossible dream would not be realized there would be a backlash. Nevermind, that RAimi made the decision to change the character into a dopplenganger and give the villain only 10 minutes of screentime. Which in retrospect, is hard to argue with considering developing the symbiote on Peter was morei mportant to the story. But fanboys would NEVER be satisfied.

and

3) The trailers marketed it as something it was not. While RAimi dabbled in a larger scope with his characters in this, outside of the climax, he never went for the EPIC scope. And while he made this film darker than the first two, he counterbalanced that by trying to make it the funniest as well. In the trailers it is a dark epic hyped up to resemble something similar to BB. That was never the movie. So people went in expecting one thing and got another.



Now, I personally think it is a good movie. An extremely flawed one with an uneven pace, too many subplots and while every scene works on its own (even the dancing bits, which by themselves are hilarious and work) the sum of their parts is unbalanced. But most of the complaints aren't that, most of the complaints are it wasn't dark but had silly elements and not enough Venom.

At the same time, Raimi did inject the movie with some serious pathos and humanity. Sandman wasa truly sympathetic, Harry's storyline was quite sad and competently done and arguably Peter's arc was well accomplished as well as MJ. At the very least you felt what those characters were going through so the end at the funeral and dance club at the end hit the right notes of somber recognition. The reason is despite all of this movie's imperfections is it did have a soul and an artistic integrity, because Raimi and the actors (besides Dunst) still loved these characters and wanted to make the audience care.


But it is not typical summer fare. It did not just give audiences what they want and had some weighty stuff in between the light. This sort of inbalance (actually very common in all other Raimi films without Spider-Man in the title) is perhaps too much. While movies like Transformers or Fantastic Four 2 or POTC3 are heartless, as in they are brainless movies without much heart or passion to the point the characters go through the motions (did anyone know or care of Megatron's emotions or hear a single Deceptacon deliver a line besides him? What about any Autobot besides Prime and arguably Bumblebee?)....they were prepackaged. They all came in shiney wrappers and played it safe with formulaic storytelling (well Pirates was more just random throw everything on the wall and see what sticks storytelling) that appeased the masses. It may be Independence Day with robots and Shia LaBoeuff, but it is comfortable and takes no risks and asks the audiences not to think too much.

That is why those movies are unsurprisingly more popular. But also why no one will watch those movies in a year from now unless they're on cable.

At any rate the best summer blockbusters this year was easily Harry Potter and Bourne Ultimatum. Those movies worked and went against the grain without biting offm ore than they can chew (like SM3). Still liked Spidey, though. And I'd take a flawed Raimi movie over a streamlined by the numbers Michael Bay movie any day of the week ofr the record.

I really like this and I agree. Spider man 3 if anything was just over ambitious and would have done better if it had kept with what worked in the past movies, like Bourne. But like Bourne that would have made it good and reliable but less fresh and a bit too familiar.

If anything, had it not been for Venom's death I'm sure people would be more accepting of this movie because even if they still thought it sucked there would be hope for future movies. Because unlike X3 (love it or hate it) this movie did not bury the future of the franchise and was basically just a big (or small) step in the wrong direction.

It's just when it comes to third movies there seems to be a desire to out do the preceding movies in scope and size even if it just makes a mess of things, such as in At Worlds End case, which people won't even remember in five years. I've already forgotten about it. But for better or worse I think people will remember Spider man 3, mainly because of the complaining about the dancing, crying and emo haircut.

 

[fallenAngel]

Ultimately, I think people are too concerned with the opinions of others, and not happy with their own opinions.

Ask yourself; does a movie have to be generally accepted as good for you personally to believe it's good? I.e. "I think this movie is good, but I'd better check out what people on Hype! are saying first."

And if you believe people are nitpicking in their complaints....well, then why should it concern you anyway? If someone lets their opinion of a film be tarnished by minor, irrelevent complaints, then why do you care what their opinion is anyway?

When someone posts (or says) their opinion on a film, they are describing it through their eyes. Not yours. There are billions of different things which effect our opinions, both objective and subjective. Many we are not even conciously aware of.

If someone criticises a film you like, DO NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY. It simply is not important. And if it upsets you that much, you are probably in the wrong place on these boards.

well it does kill the buzz when you feel like you are the only one who liked something, we all want to share our enthusiasm and sometimes can't even understand why another person could hate something we love. But that is just human nature.

but it is a lot easier, in my opinion, to love something that other people hate than to hate something that other people love. Because like you said, if you like it, then what's the problem.

But we obviously come to these boards to share both opinions and our infatuation with these characters and when people can't agree one way or the other it makes it more interesting but also more fustrating.

 

[zanos]

Anyone ever notice how people always find something to b---- about when it comes to big blockbusters like this? BIG highly popular blockbuster sequels?

Why? I don't know. Attention? Whatever.

Let's look at Batman Begins. Was it highly anticipated?

After Batman and Robin? Yeah right. It wasn't anything like Spider-Man 3's hype.
Okay so there's two villains in Batman Begins. Three if you want to count the phoney Ras Al Ghul.
So let's see, we have:
Ras Al Ghul (fake)
Ras Al Ghul
Scarecrow.

Well there's 3 villains for you. Was Ras Al Ghul a super-popular, well known character before? No.
Was Sandman a super-popular, well known character before? No.

Are both characters cool? Well, Ras Al Ghul wasn't anything special to me, but he didn't suck. He was good enough for where he was. Sandman was awesome though. That's just my opinion.

But did fans and critics b---- about Ras Al Ghul? Not that I remember. See there you go. Alot of you guys, other fans, and critics didn't want Sandman in there. Don't lie because I've seen it before.

And in Batman Begins, Scarecrow himself had under two minutes of screentime and he was kind of a wimp. I loved him, he was my favorite character in the movie. I wish he was in it more and did more stuff besides spray gas though.
Face it, they screwed him up from the comics and cartoons. He wasn't that much of a pansy. He had very little screen time.

Did fans and critics b---- about that? Well not really from what I remember.

But boy, did people complain about Venom! About 10 minutes of screentime and a damn-good incarnation from the comics. Was he perfect? No. Do I wish he was in it more? Yeah. Did he kill the film? No.

So let's see here, Venom and Scarecrow have a bit in common in these movies, as well as Sandman and Ras Al Ghul.
Now why didn't people hate and give Batman Begins crappy reviews? Well probably because it wasn't so damn popular and hyped like Spider-Man was. For Spider-Man, I bet they were thinking "Oh Spider-Man 3! If I find little things to complain about people will listen to me more!"
Alot of people like hearing complaints and attacks at big famous movies.

Really, Batman Begins' story wasn't "Oh. My. God." great. It was really good, but would've been a crappy movie if not for good camera work and good action scenes and acting.

Spider-Man 3 was a great story too, but probably wouldn't have been as good if it's action was lacking, bad camera work and alot of bad acting.

Ever think about how people like to complain about the SMALLEST things? For some, the shot of Spider-Man in front of the flag KILLED the final battle for you.

Pathetic.

Nuf said.

Anyone ever notice how ppl always complain about other ppl *****ing?

 

[TomPiltoff]

Anyone ever notice how people always find something to b---- about when it comes to big blockbusters like this? BIG highly popular blockbuster sequels?

Maybe because not everybody enjoys the same things.

Why? I don't know. Attention? Whatever.

Ha, yeah, we're starved for attention from you.

Let's look at Batman Begins. Was it highly anticipated?

After Batman and Robin? Yeah right. It wasn't anything like Spider-Man 3's hype.
Okay so there's two villains in Batman Begins. Three if you want to count the phoney Ras Al Ghul.
So let's see, we have:
Ras Al Ghul (fake)
Ras Al Ghul
Scarecrow.

Well there's 3 villains for you. Was Ras Al Ghul a super-popular, well known character before? No.
Was Sandman a super-popular, well known character before? No.

Are both characters cool? Well, Ras Al Ghul wasn't anything special to me, but he didn't suck. He was good enough for where he was. Sandman was awesome though. That's just my opinion.

But did fans and critics b---- about Ras Al Ghul? Not that I remember. See there you go. Alot of you guys, other fans, and critics didn't want Sandman in there. Don't lie because I've seen it before.

And in Batman Begins, Scarecrow himself had under two minutes of screentime and he was kind of a wimp. I loved him, he was my favorite character in the movie. I wish he was in it more and did more stuff besides spray gas though.
Face it, they screwed him up from the comics and cartoons. He wasn't that much of a pansy. He had very little screen time.

Did fans and critics b---- about that? Well not really from what I remember.

But boy, did people complain about Venom! About 10 minutes of screentime and a damn-good incarnation from the comics. Was he perfect? No. Do I wish he was in it more? Yeah. Did he kill the film? No.

Wow, you're completely missing the point. It's not that Venom only had 7 or 8 minutes of screen time, it's what they did with it.

Scarecrow was written well, he had a role. Venom showed up just in time for Avi Arad to say "Hey look it's Venom!" and then die. There was no point.

 

[CFE]

Spiderman 3 certainly isn't the worst comic book film of all time for me, but unlike the first two it really doesn't reach that pantheon of CB Films (B89, BR, BB, S:TM, X1, X2, SM1, SM2)

SM3 falls into the mileiu of films like Daredevil, Punisher, Batman Forever, SR and X3.

Spiderman 3 isn't a BAD film, persay, but the problem is that it could've been a BETTER film. Even hardcore fans like CaptainStacy and GGVenomSandman can't be blind to that, and I don't think they are.

It's just that feeling that as good as SM3 was, it's not the right note for the franchise to end on, and it just could've been better than what we got.

SM3 was good, but a franchise like Spiderman deserves its final installment to be "Great."

CFE

 

[New Goblin jr.]

First of all, i've really enjoyed reading the posts on the particular thread. Although my opinions on the film haven't really changed(I really liked the film). What i like is that you all make really valid points for you arguments, without the over-use of swearing(wich DOES NOT further your point, it just makes you sound ignorant and boring.)
These threads points out what's great about message boards in general, pepole having a real dialogue about the films, which is really great! So thanks for creating a great place to talk about these films, wether you liked them or not.

 

[Beanjuice]

ok i really dont think we need a rate and opinon thread so im just gonna throw mine out there and leave.


forget the critics and the fans complaining, just worry about what you think, what i think is that people expected way too much from the film. this is what causes disapointment. just see the movie for what it is and not what you want it to be and you'll probably enjoy it. just like me

 

[Scissors]

I go with Webhead..

Also,Batman Begins was kinda stupid

Bruce was in that prison,why?

Never knew it happened to him in the comics..

 

[Spider-Jay]

I go with Webhead..

Also,Batman Begins was kinda stupid

Bruce was in that prison,why?

Never knew it happened to him in the comics..

Dude, did you even watch BB?

 

[omid17]

huge mistake sam raimi made was showing a lot of footage for sm3 before the movie even came out. we got the clips from ign, pretty much showed all the fight sequences, and the 7 min nbc footage was a huge mistake, i was really hyped up for sm3 because i really thought there was a lot more action involved in the third installment, but sadly each fight was like less than 5 min. except for the battle royale.

 

[omid17]

I go with Webhead..

Also,Batman Begins was kinda stupid

Bruce was in that prison,why?

Never knew it happened to him in the comics..

becauese bruce wanted to study the crimnal mind

 

[Scissors]

becauese bruce wanted to study the crimnal mind

I never kwen that was in the comics

To me is that the scene that screwed the movie

 

[Venom 1988]

I never kwen that was in the comics

To me is that the scene that screwed the movie

I never seen anyone complain about that, not even on the bat boards.