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

[Kevin Roegele]

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.

You're absolutely right. People have no right to like or dislike what they choose. Hollywood has gone to all this trouble of making these huge blockbusters, and it's only fair that you like and enjoy every single one, which I'm sure Webhead does, or else he would be contradicting himself.

 

[Venom'sDad]

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.

You make some valid points and obviously Spiderman is my favorite comics character. I did enjoy the film, maybe not as much as the first two; however with that said, lets be totally honest here and this is just my opinion.

First of all you are comparing the first Bats film to the third Spidey film. Lets see if Bats can sustain the longevity that Spidey has already accomplish... the first to succeed mind you.

However, since we are comparing the two, Batman did have a story that actually complemented the villains well with each other, in the context of a story.... be it small unpopular villains. Something that Spidey3 fail to do with major villains. That's one of two problems that I always had with Spidey3, but I agree with you, that did not, imo, make it a bad film worth constantly bee-yat-ching about.

I relative enjoy the film and understood what the story was trying to tell. The average movie goer probably didn't. We have knowledge of the charcters and their villains, so we tend to nick-pick more that the average fan. Spidey is the best of the best, some don't let people opinions affect your feelings. Some have heart felt opinions and other have opinions based off jealosy.

I love Batman Begins and can't wait for TDK, and have ridicule my second favorite hero Superman, not b****ed about it, but ridicule it with heart felt criticism, but Spidey has set the bar for others to beat. Everyone will try to not him off the top.

 

[UltimateJustin]

A minority of fans were done with the Spiderman movies before the third came out. The majority of the people who dislike it arent hating on it just because its popular, but because they think it has problems. I think people claiming its a disaster are exaggerating and that people who claim its perfect or even what they expected are kidding themselves. Its enjoyable throughout, and should be taken for what it is, a parable for the struggle of bisexual youth to gain acceptance not just in the straight community, but in the gay culture at large.

 

[Kaizer104]

A minority of fans were done with the Spiderman movies before the third came out. The majority of the people who dislike it arent hating on it just because its popular, but because they think it has problems. I think people claiming its a disaster are exaggerating and that people who claim its perfect or even what they expected are kidding themselves. Its enjoyable throughout, and should be taken for what it is, a parable for the struggle of bisexual youth to gain acceptance not just in the straight community, but in the gay culture at large.

=/... Are you sure you're watching the right movie...?

 

[Blader5489]

A minority of fans were done with the Spiderman movies before the third came out. The majority of the people who dislike it arent hating on it just because its popular, but because they think it has problems. I think people claiming its a disaster are exaggerating and that people who claim its perfect or even what they expected are kidding themselves. Its enjoyable throughout, and should be taken for what it is, a parable for the struggle of bisexual youth to gain acceptance not just in the straight community, but in the gay culture at large.

<---the Batman boards are that way

 

[Cosmic]

Re: Came up with this; do you agree?

Sorry, but no. Regarding fan complaints, or rather, the unprecedented level of fan satisfaction with Batman Begins, the liberties that were taken with the characters just simply made sense. Even for people who didn't care for some of the creative choices that were made, they at least had to acknowledge that they weren't arbitrary or damaging. Simply put, there just wasn't a whole lot there for fans to argue and complain about, because it was well-planned and executed.

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.

Again, no. The thing here is, Batman Begins was a just really good movie. If you can't understand why, then you can try to actually read the reviews, and some of them will explain it for you. I'm sure that plenty of visitors to this site are more than willing and able to break it down for you.

 

[The Joker]

You're absolutely right. People have no right to like or dislike what they choose. Hollywood has gone to all this trouble of making these huge blockbusters, and it's only fair that you like and enjoy every single one, which I'm sure Webhead does, or else he would be contradicting himself.

LOL!

A minority of fans were done with the Spiderman movies before the third came out. The majority of the people who dislike it arent hating on it just because its popular, but because they think it has problems. I think people claiming its a disaster are exaggerating and that people who claim its perfect or even what they expected are kidding themselves. Its enjoyable throughout, and should be taken for what it is, a parable for the struggle of bisexual youth to gain acceptance not just in the straight community, but in the gay culture at large.

Say what?

And what the hell is up with your signature dissing Stan Lee? Stan is a creative genius. You're confusing Stan with Bob Kane.

 

[shogunrua]

well I'll start with a personnal comparision. Some years ago in gym class, we had to do the cartwheel with no hands and I was pretty good at it. When we had our test, the teacher gave me a 5 (the best mark here is 6) and told me "the cartwheel you did deserved a 6, but comparing with those you did before it wasn't that good". And I think I can apply the same logic for what I think about SP3. On his own it's a great movie. But when you put it on the level of the others, it's less good. And because the hype was so great for this movie that a lot of people might have been disapointed. Well at least it's the way I see it, just my opinion

 

[chaseter]

I think most critics dislike the 3rd because it was just an entirely different movie in my opinion than the first two. Most critics and fans loved the first 2 and the third was just so different in many ways that they felt it was inherently bad because of it. Ock and Goblin had loads of development that built up the momentum of the action scenes...3 inevitably had less of it because of the 3 villians and the symbiote. On that note, I judged it as being worse than the last 2. Same can be said with X3. SM3 was a good film with good everything, it just lacked some important development. For that I remain giving it a B while the last two got A's.

 

[chaseter]

well I'll start with a personnal comparision. Some years ago in gym class, we had to do the cartwheel with no hands and I was pretty good at it. When we had our test, the teacher gave me a 5 (the best mark here is 6) and told me "the cartwheel you did deserved a 6, but comparing with those you did before it wasn't that good". And I think I can apply the same logic for what I think about SP3. On his own it's a great movie. But when you put it on the level of the others, it's less good. And because the hype was so great for this movie that a lot of people might have been disapointed. Well at least it's the way I see it, just my opinion

Damn I didn't read your post before I typed my schlob but I agree.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Probably how he didnt seem to be worried about his daughter's safety and no tension in his voice or the way he acted.

Oh noes! The movie sucked because of that! boo hoo hoo.

 

[The Ones]

Oh noes! The movie sucked because of that! boo hoo hoo.

Did i say the movie sucked because of that? The guy was questioning why he thought that SCENE was bad, and i answered.

 

[Victarion]

Acutally, Begins did have 3 villains not counting the Faux Ra's-Real Ra's, Scarecrow, and Falcone. Victor Szazz was there, but it was really just a cameo.

Anyway, I think the majority of the complaints about Sandman were based around the "rules" for his power. I'm sure they were puzzled as to how he flew around in a giant sand cloud, yet only formed small sandfists when he fought with Spider-Man early one. His transformation into Uber Sandman was great, but again, I think the effects for it were viewed as "shoddy" by some critics. Plus him getting out scott free at the end, and giving no resolution to the plot with his daughter miffed the critics as well.

 

[Mr. Socko]

OP forgot about The Roman in Batman Begins.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Did i say the movie sucked because of that? The guy was questioning why he thought that SCENE was bad, and i answered.

Well, so what he had bad acting? It's still not that big of deal.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

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.

 

[Superman45]

LOL exaggerate much?

Batman & Robin was a catastrophe. Spider-Man 3 was, at worst, a misstep.

Thank you.

The thing about the scarecrow is that he didn't die in the end, Venom did. SM3 felt like SM2.5 than SM3. I'v noticed that most successful 3rd movies are successful because 2 was made with three in mind. I'm still on the fence with the 3rd Borne movie. But think LOTR3 was good. I think starwars3 and SW6 were the best of the franchise. I know many fans will argue with me but I don't care enough to argue back.

My point is is that the 2nd movie should set the ball up so three can nock it out of the park. I think Batman is heading down this road. Introduce Joker and Dent. Joker scars Dent. Prepare for 3

 

[Infinity9999x]

A minority of fans were done with the Spiderman movies before the third came out. The majority of the people who dislike it arent hating on it just because its popular, but because they think it has problems. I think people claiming its a disaster are exaggerating and that people who claim its perfect or even what they expected are kidding themselves. Its enjoyable throughout, and should be taken for what it is, a parable for the struggle of bisexual youth to gain acceptance not just in the straight community, but in the gay culture at large.

.....I think you might be reading a bit too much into that one mate. Sam Raimi directed SM3, not Bryan Singer.

 

[omid17]

.....I think you might be reading a bit too much into that one mate. Sam Raimi directed SM3, not Bryan Singer.

LOL

 

[OctaviusINC]

SM3 was very good. BB is good, but highly overrated IMO. The only thing I didn't like in SM3 was those damn Raimi kids' "Awesome! Wicked Cool!" lines. It didn't ruin the scene, battle, or movie for me. Maybe the moment though. Nothing was cringe worthy in BB to me. SM3 had moments that made me cringe. And I still loved it.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

Dude, its not terrible like some say but people essentially complain about it because Spider-Man 3 was just a big budget Bollywood movie.

Think about it. 3 exagerated dance numbers and the aspect of marriage as a central theme.

 

[bullets]

yeah i think spiderman 3 got nitpicked to death . some of it was cringeworthy while other stuff was no where near as bad as people make it out to be

 

[Mr Jide]

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.

Once again, Kevin's hit the nail on the head. I'm a marvel patriot and a loyalist to the spidey comics (even the craptastic stories). Been reading for almost 20 years and from day 1, I've been very vocal with my disgust with sm1 and 2, by which before sm3 came out I knew the formula and knew what to expect from Raimi, TMags and Dunst. Needless to say, as a series of 3 movies thus far, the spidey movies are garbage, however, sm3 excelled in the excitement and entertainment factor and thus enjoyed it the most. I've picked apart these movies to death based on my own points of view and many people here have launched hate campaigns towards me and others, (not that I give a sh1t what anyone else thinks).
My underlying reasons for thinking these movies are bad are because, had elements of the comics been used, I believe the movies would have been ultimately better. All the movies had to do were amplify what was done in the source material in some cases, as opposed to revamping the whole thing, which to this day is pointless and leaves me feeling resentment.

 

[Chris B]

All the problems that I had with Spider-Man 3 had to do the story. I think the basic storyline worked, but there were some elements that should have been executed differently or left out completely.

I didn't have a problem with them using multiple villains, which I think can work if done right. Personally, I think Raimi should've stood his ground and used the Vulture as the third villain. I've never hated the character, but I think the inclusion of Eddie Brock, the symbiote, and Venom bogged down the film. It was a mistake to use a villain with a lot of backstory in a film that I already had a convulted plot.

 

[Venom 1988]

All the problems that I had with Spider-Man 3 had to do the story. I think the basic storyline worked, but there were some elements that should have been executed differently or left out completely.

I didn't have a problem with them using multiple villains, which I think can work if done right. Personally, I think Raimi should've stood his ground and used the Vulture as the third villain. I've never hated the character, but I think the inclusion of Eddie Brock, the symbiote, and Venom bogged down the film. It was a mistake to use a villain with a lot of backstory in a film that I already had a convulted plot.

Agreed