The Amazing Spider-Man Can Spider-Man 4 fix Spider-Man 3?

[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.