The Amazing Spider-Man Could SM4 Be the End

[VenomVsSpidey]

Eh. Which name are you? I see four asses and a bunch of good people.

Garnettzack.

Which Are You?

 

[webhead731]

Garnettzack.

Which Are You?

Ha, Webhead. I think that board is literally ran in hell. All I did was go there to answer a question when I saw mister "here's why I hate this film" and I read his post, which had a few misguided points. I figure I'll let him know it wasn't like this and he flips out. Last time I reason with someone there.

See that the one guy make a thread about me? What an ass. I was thinking about reporting abuse, but I went to the link and I get this big warning page, picky as hell, and very threatening to even the reporting user them self. I was like . Even the IMDB themselves know their boards suck so bad they don't want to help. God forbid if they make that a better place right?

 

[The Black Goo]

When they start to film SM-4 I hope they drop all this HD stuff they picked up for the SM-3 and add more bloody battered Spidey like they did in SM-1. It's like the movies got softer throughout the sequels. I still watch the battle between Spidey and Gobby and am like wow... thats not as bad or pretty close to what Spidey should have looked like after Sandy and V-man pummeled him. I say abuse the hell out of the PG-13 rating.

sarcasm = Editing out Goblin Jr. slicing at and stabbing Peter and then later getting shanked himself probably would have left the movie with a nice G rating lol./sarcasm

 

[LightningFlash]

I see four asses.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Ha, Webhead. I think that board is literally ran in hell. All I did was go there to answer a question when I saw mister "here's why I hate this film" and I read his post, which had a few misguided points. I figure I'll let him know it wasn't like this and he flips out. Last time I reason with someone there.

See that the one guy make a thread about me? What an ass. I was thinking about reporting abuse, but I went to the link and I get this big warning page, picky as hell, and very threatening to even the reporting user them self. I was like . Even the IMDB themselves know their boards suck so bad they don't want to help. God forbid if they make that a better place right?

ha, i get bashed on the spider-man 3 and JP3 boards all the time..i know how you feel. it annoys me to the mak when people say it sucks and you're like well, not EVERYONE hates it.and then it's like you just set off an atomic bomb.and i know what you mean about IMDB not helping.there's this one little prick who starts something with literally EVERYONE, and i've reported him various times.guess what happened? nothing. and the thread that you mean is hey, webhead 1731?...that guy that started that sucks,and i just got him back. read my post - dcincarnite can you get a life please? thank you. lol.

 

[Pagrebo]

Has anybody else noticed, that when a series has an "ok" or "bad" 3rd film, the 4th one tends to be a lot worse, and ends up killing the Franchise for years to come.

Examples:

Alien: 1st 2 were some of the best movies ever made, 3rd one sucked, 4th one killed the series. (AVP does not count)

Superman: 1st 2 were great, 3rd one sucked, 4th one sucked a lot, franchise ends for nearly 20 years.

Batman: 1st 2 were great (not best), 3rd one was corny, but still ok (like Sm3), and 4th one killed it for about 8 years.

I could go on and on, but maybe they should just stop while they are ahead, and later on, if anybody wants to, start a reboot.

Just my opinion, what do you guys think?

It's theories like this that just have no basis in logic. Each film is independent of the others. If SM4 sucks, it will NOT be because it suffered from some "4th film curse". It will be because Sony, Raimi, & company didn't do their jobs. It's like arguing that the movie can't handle multiple villains because it didn't work in other movies. How many villains did the X-Men movies have? The bottom line is, these are highly paid professionals putting these movies together. Will they always get it right? Of course not. But just because something's never (or rarely) been done before successfully doesn't guarantee it's failure the next time it is tried.
One final note... while SM3 was a step down from the first two (IMO), I wouldn't lower it to the level of the third Superman or Batman films. It was far superior to either of those.

 

[webhead731]

ha, i get bashed on the spider-man 3 and JP3 boards all the time..i know how you feel. it annoys me to the mak when people say it sucks and you're like well, not EVERYONE hates it.and then it's like you just set off an atomic bomb.and i know what you mean about IMDB not helping.there's this one little prick who starts something with literally EVERYONE, and i've reported him various times.guess what happened? nothing. and the thread that you mean is hey, webhead 1731?...that guy that started that sucks,and i just got him back. read my post - dcincarnite can you get a life please? thank you. lol.

lmao And I thank you for that! I have people defending me which is great. I'm only logged in at my house, not my school computer so I'll have to wait to get him back again (he just posted something). He hates the movie, but he goes to the boards. That confuses me almost to the point I want to destroy the world.

He's like "I'm just tired of him ass kissing this movie. He thinks it's flawless!" when I've boldly stated it is NOT flawless. No movie is flawless. Even movies that are considered great by everybody. But Spider-Man 3 does have problems. Nothing is a HUGE issue with me though. It's just things like "yeah....wish they did that differently." but I still enjoy it. What's his name mean? Does that have anything to do with DC Comics? Why all this fanboy hate with Marvel and DC? I'll admit, I dislike all of DC's heroes except Batman, but I don't flame the others. They're comic companies, let people enjoy! -_- Whiney fan boys. I love the comic books where Marvel and DC meet. I don't like Superman all that much, but I enjoyed seeing him and Spidey in the same comic. And I enjoyed seeing the classic Batman with the classic Hulk with Joker.

It's theories like this that just have no basis in logic. Each film is independent of the others. If SM4 sucks, it will NOT be because it suffered from some "4th film curse". It will be because Sony, Raimi, & company didn't do their jobs.

Exactly. There is no curse. I don't know where people pull this crap from.

 

[LightningFlash]

Exactly. There is no curse. I don't know where people pull this crap from.

No...the only curse is for the third movies.

And we've seen this already with Spidey.

Spider-Man 4 HAS a chance to be better, but the significance in the past only shows the fourth movie in a series getting worse.

Not a curse, just fact that's been proven time and time again.

I use to think Raimi wanted every movie to be brilliant, but even though he was ordered to do one thing, he did do a half-ass job, so maybe he has realized to not do that, or maybe his superiors has realized to let him do his own thing this time around.

 

[LightningFlash]

It was far superior to either of those.

See, I could be one and the only person that actually liked Batman Forever. Sure, Batman smiled and Robin was a ******, but I really enjoyed Jim Carrey's performance as the Riddler.

 

[venom892]

You mean his performance as the joker dressed as the Riddler?

 

[webhead731]

lmao! ^

Batman Forever is...well I like it enough to own it on DVD. It has its moments, but it does suck in alot of areas. It's fun to watch, Jim Carrey is not really a good Riddler, but he was funny. I like Jim, so that's what made me like Batman Forever for the most part. But I watched it on DVD the other night, it's just a funny movie. Not what Batman should be, but it's funny.

 

[Crook]

Those are all number 2's.

I see what you thought I meant. I'm aware that Spider-Man 2 was larger than Spider-Man, and Empire Strikes Back was larger than A New Hope. To the general public, Spider-Man doesn't seem to be "OMFG BEST MOVIE EVER", nor did Batman Begins.

At the time of Spider-Man, it was THE most popular comic book film with the crowd. Granted the craze didn't start yet, but it was no doubt the top king, especially with the critics and box office to back it up.

BB was also crowned the next best comic book film when it came out. Box office was so-so, but the general feelings across the board was that it raised the level of filmmaking. Just check out any of the reviews or "top 10 lists" when BB came out.

But also, to the point that the third movie made Spider-Man go downhill is what I was stating. Every third movie does that; and it's hard to name ONE third movie that was as good or better than the second film. So, yes, Spider-Man 4 COULD have a chance to be better, because it seems that every third movie suffers disappointment.

Never said it was easy. But people are focusing way too much attention on the film number. In my book, it's inconsequential. The numbers 3/4/5 don't inherently mean "lackluster" any more than 1 or 2 do. The reason why many sequels that get this far are so mundane compared to the earlier films, is because the production crew got lazy. Quality declined as a result of incompetence, not the years put into a franchise.

I hope its a fitting end to the Raimi/Maguire series. Let the next films start something new.

I still remember walking out of SM3 shaking my head and muttering "That's how its gonna end?"

To be honest, I feel the same way. As much as I hate how the series has "ended" (so far), there's just too many faults I find in the foundation to really like what they have in the future. It could be good, but if there's any leftovers from the 3rd film, it'll surely leave a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

The reason why many sequels that get this far are so mundane compared to the earlier films, is because the production crew got lazy. Quality declined as a result of incompetence, not the years put into a franchise.

A good amount of fiml franchises are like that. Though, look at the Die Hard, and Rocky films, Lethal Weapon films, etc. They are still loved by many people. Hell, Spider-Man 3 is loved by a good amount of people, including myself.

 

[webhead731]

Die Hard 3 is so underrated. That's my second favorite in that series. Rocky 3 and Lethal Weapon 3 are awesome too.

 

[dark_b]

i guess people will now start saying that raimi would do a better movie without Arad. or that he was forced into something.

dancing,hes kids,women reporter, acting(crying from Tobey,every scene of Kirsten). this is all 100% Raimi.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Die Hard 3 is so underrated. That's my second favorite in that series. Rocky 3 and Lethal Weapon 3 are awesome too.

Die Hard 3 was fantastic, IMO. I loved how they kept moving from one section of NYC to another.

 

[webhead731]

i guess people will now start saying that raimi would do a better movie without Arad. or that he was forced into something.

dancing,hes kids,women reporter, acting(crying from Tobey,every scene of Kirsten). this is all 100% Raimi.

I wish people would let off on the crying. It doesn't happen THAT much, and it happens when needed. I don't know how you cry cool-like or anything. I never have a problem with crying in movies unless it's over dramatic.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

I wish people would let off on the crying. It doesn't happen THAT much, and it happens when needed. I don't know how you cry cool-like or anything. I never have a problem with crying in movies unless it's over dramatic.

same here.

 

[venom892]

That was the problem it was over dramatic.

 

[SamuraiSon6]

i hope people will believe me when i say this and not think that i am just being being an apologist, but i think the real problem with the crying in spiderman 3 is that people dont handle emotions like crying well in a movie that they are not prepared for it. certain movies, you expect an amount of drama or events that make you cry, but the average person isnt prepared for that going into a spiderman movie. at least i can say that about the theaters i go to...

 

[LightningFlash]

You mean his performance as the joker dressed as the Riddler?

Yah...you got me; what was I thinking. Carrey's Riddler was acting exactly like the Joker...

lmao! ^

Batman Forever is...well I like it enough to own it on DVD. It has its moments, but it does suck in alot of areas. It's fun to watch, Jim Carrey is not really a good Riddler, but he was funny. I like Jim, so that's what made me like Batman Forever for the most part. But I watched it on DVD the other night, it's just a funny movie. Not what Batman should be, but it's funny.

Batman Forever had a nice plot; it's just certain actors failed...and O'Donnell was NEVER a good Robin...sometimes I think what Bale's Robin would've been like, haha.

One big thing was that Tommy Lee Jones as Harvery Dent...so, I guess the acid that burned Dent's skin, also changed his dark-colored skin to white skin...yah...haha. Which then makes me wonder how Billy Dee Williams would've been as Two-Face.

The only person that I liked was Jim Carrey as the Riddler. And a far away second would be Kilmer as Batman...but that's a mile-long away second.

Never said it was easy. But people are focusing way too much attention on the film number. In my book, it's inconsequential. The numbers 3/4/5 don't inherently mean "lackluster" any more than 1 or 2 do. The reason why many sequels that get this far are so mundane compared to the earlier films, is because the production crew got lazy. Quality declined as a result of incompetence, not the years put into a franchise.

Exactly...seeing the producers, director and writer(s) get lazy when it comes to a comic-book adaptation is something that puts an awful taste to one's mouth, that becomes a fan of that certain superhero...seeing Spider-Man in the first movie was an amazing film to watch...the second one was okay, but some moments were too boring...and the third, well, as the first movie EVER to make me fall asleep...so yah; you kinda guess how bad it was to me, lol.

Die Hard 3 was fantastic, IMO. I loved how they kept moving from one section of NYC to another.

Bruce Willis is the first-ever BAMF, before Jack Bauer...that's why the Die Hard franchise is sick as heck.

That was the problem it was over dramatic.

Overdramatic is this:

There is good acting when it comes to crying...Jensen Ackles does a brilliant job with this in the TV series Supernatural, but there CAN be overdramatic acting with emotion, ala Maguire does a pathetic job with "crying", or whatever you call it and it's a plain example when he did cry once and they showed it in one of the first trailers; his face did not look so fake, lol. It looked real...why they replace it, I do not know. It's like, with all the changes Raimi did during editing, with all the GOOD scenes they filmed; it's like Raimi wanted a disaster of a movie.

 

[Crook]

I'm still not getting the big deal over the crying. There's "Hollywood" crying, and then there's the "real" crying. Maguire went for the latter. I'm no teardropper myself, but I've been around plenty of people who are, to know what it looks like. And it's not at all pretty. Their faces are scrunched up into all sorts of contorted expressions, and taken out of context...yes, it looks almost funny.

The film's failure is not getting the audience to sympathize with the scene or actor. That's why it was so easy to laugh. We really didn't take it that seriously. Your best friend could pull that face, but I doubt you'd be laughing if you knew they just experienced a horrible tragedy.

 

[webhead731]

When I say over-dramatic I mean like yelling and falling to your knees and screaming the name of the person who died etc.

 

[LightningFlash]

Well he DID keep saying "Harry, Harry, Harry"...wasn't yelling, but still...added more annoyance to the scene.

And I prefer the "Hollywood" crying for a movie anyways. Just some tears works...but a crunched-up face and everything...no, it doesn't work for me, hah.

 

[zeptron]

Peter crying at the break-up scene was a bit too much for me.