Does Spider-man 3 change your opinion of previous movies in the series?

[Secret_Riddle]

Well, does it?

I mean, this is my opinion, but Spider-Man 3 should have been the best movie ever, and its not, and i think its the worst of the series.

I think it also makes Spider-man 2 a lesser film, because the plot lines that carry between 2 and 3 arent resolved well, and it left a bad taste in my mouth regarding the series.

It makes Spider-Man 2 look like the godfather in terms of quality though.

Any other thoughts? Im particularily interested in people who would have a different opinion then mine which means SPIDER-MAN 3 fanboys!! you're welcome here and i promise you wont get any persecution from me.

Opinions are a persons right.

 

[The Joker]

I think it also makes Spider-man 2 a lesser film

It makes Spider-Man 2 look like the godfather in terms of quality though.

Is that not a contradiction?

To answer your question, no, it doesn't change my opinion of the earlier movies. I liked them before, and I still like them now.

Only thing SM-3 shows, is that Raimi should be left to his own devices, and Arad and Ziskin need to butt out!

 

[Secret_Riddle]

Is that not a contradiction?

To answer your question, no, it doesn't change my opinion of the earlier movies. I liked them before, and I still like them now.

Only thing SM-3 shows, is that Raimi should be left to his own devices, and Arad and Ziskin need to butt out!

Yah it kinda is a contridiction, should i clarify?

I'll try..I used to love Spider-Man 2 on a very emotional level, i felt very connected to the characters and looked forward to seeing what happened to them in 3.

I was so dissapointed in 3 though that the emotional connection is severed, which kills some of my love for the first 2 movies.

Im just saying as a film lover, spider-man 3 makes spider-man 2 look like the godfather on terms of true cinematic quality.

 

[The Joker]

Yah it kinda is a contridiction, should i clarify?

I'll try..I used to love Spider-Man 2 on a very emotional level, i felt very connected to the characters and looked forward to seeing what happened to them in 3.

I was so dissapointed in 3 though that the emotional connection is severed, which kills some of my love for the first 2 movies.

Im just saying as a film lover, spider-man 3 makes spider-man 2 look like the godfather on terms of true cinematic quality.

Ahhhh, gotcha!

Yeah, I can understand how you would feel that way. There was alot of missed opportunities and wasted potential. It really was a case of biting off more than you can chew.

In any event, don't let it hamper your enjoyment of the first two movies. They are still great movies in themselves. It's like not enjoying the early seasons of TV show, because the later seasons are crap.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Definitely not. Spider-Man 3 was sloppy in certain areas, but it was still enjoyable. In fact, I'd say it was the most enjoyable of the three, IMO.

I was blown away by Spider-Man. Spider-Man 2 exceeded my expectations. Spider-Man 3 was sort of mixed bag for me. It was entertaining, but at times felt rushed.

 

[Blader5489]

The plethora of action sequences in SM3 make the other two movies (especially the first one) duller by comparison. Don't get me wrong, the Doc Ock fights will always rank among the coolest in the trilogy, but seeing Spidey web up random criminals and save kids from fires just doesn't compare to the battles or crane disaster in SM3.

Also, in terms of action, New Goblin >>>>> Green Goblin.

 

[DACrowe]

No. If sequels diminished originals I would have to hate Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Halloween, the first two Aliens, the first two Terminators, Pirates of the Carribean, and so forth. I don't. I think those are all good to great movies (the Godfathers being amazing).

With that said I was disappointed by SM3 but felt it was still a pretty good movie, a highly entertaining one and maintained the strong characters from the first two. It just introduced a lot of stuff that didn't need to be there (the symbiote, Venom, Gwen Stacy, etc.). But I sitll think Peter/MJ/Harry played very well in it and the ending is very good.

But even if it sucked I'd pretend it doesn't exist kind of like what I do wit hthe Jaws sequels, or all the Halloween movies after II or the Schumaucher Batman movies, etc.

The only time I think a sequel botched the originals badl yenough to hurt them was X3, simply because X2 ended on a cliffhanger and the resolution in X3 was horriffic. SM2 did not end on that much of a cliffhanger and the bit that was there (Harry finding his father's things and Peter's alterego) was resolved in a satisfying fashion.

Even if it wasn't does DAD ruin Goldfinger? Does Jaws: The Revenge make Jaws bad? Does anyone even care about The Godfather Part III?

And so on.

 

[Mr. Socko]

^Good post, I agree DA.

While it doesn't for me, I could see how it could lessen the previous films for certain people. I really hated Sandman being Ben's killer. It completely nullifies the point of the thug in Spidey 1 dying. This reminds me of the case of Star Wars, but Raimi and Arad weren't able to patch up the story as well as Lucas was able to. It's what happens when you make up things as you go along and try to add tripe in that doesn't belong.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Spider-Man 3 is awesome and is the best of the series IMO. It had my favorite Villian (Venom), it had a great storyline and I loved how Peter had to fight the darkness within. It doesn't change my love for Spidey1 and Spidey2 though. All three films had great suspensful moments, great storylines, and amazing action sequances.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Hmm, no, SM3 wasn’t great, just as none of the other Spidey films were but it wasn’t forcing as much drama as SM2 was, so it was an easy watch, sillier than the other two but fine enough for me to rank it second favorite in the trilogy. It’s like a dopy relief medicine after the frustrating headache that was SM2.
If anything, it made me appreciate Dafoe’s Green Goblin even more. Don’t get me wrong, visually he couldn’t stand a chance against Doc Ock or Sandman, Flint being the most dramatically successful of the two. But to me GG was the most genuine villain in the whole franchise and was played by the best actor from the whole three film cast. As of SM3, it didn’t get any better IMO.

 

[Killing Joke926]

Like X-Men the first two rocked and the third absolutatly sucked; don't get me wrong I thought SpiderMan 3 was a fairly good movie but it would've been a hell of a lot better if they brought Eddie into the first film, developing nemesis relationship between Eddie and Pete, and the only villians in the movie should have been New Goblin and Venom. And another thing Harry should've never turned good (yet); I wanted him to be like Dafoe and go completely nuts like in the comics.

I could go on and on and on about the negatives in SpiderMan 3 but it'd probably take an entire thread just to get my say in the subject.

 

[Tempest19]

SM3 wasn't the best, but with that said it was still damn good entertainment. Could have been better, but screw test audiences and time run. I want to see the film in it's original form. Please say we'll get a director's cut (not just extended cut) of SM3. Peter says sorry because he is sorry AND BECAUSE it is Flint's dying daughter with no chance of recovery who asks Spider-Man to forgive her father! That's the ending they worked the hardest on and the one that was originally meant to be in the film before test audiences- I believe- said it was too depressing.

 

[UltimateJustin]

SM3 wasn't the best, but with that said it was still damn good entertainment. Could have been better, but screw test audiences and time run. I want to see the film in it's original form. Please say we'll get a director's cut (not just extended cut) of SM3. Peter says sorry because he is sorry AND BECAUSE it is Flint's dying daughter with no chance of recovery who asks Spider-Man to forgive her father! That's the ending they worked the hardest on and the one that was originally meant to be in the film before test audiences- I believe- said it was too depressing.

I didnt know thats why they took it out. I read an interview where they were saying it was the ending that worked the best, and even then it sounded like they were just covering up for being too wack to keep it in. Are people really still this stupid and Disney style? The ending they went with made no sense at all and they didnt seem to try hard to work in any reasoning why the Sandman would help Venom, nearly kill Spiderman and then go have a heart to heart with him just cause it was getting late.

SM3 is one of the most enjoyable summer movies, but it is not a very good movie exactly because of Arad and removing elements that made the story make sense.

 

[Mr Jide]

Hmm, no, SM3 wasn’t great, just as none of the other Spidey films were but it wasn’t forcing as much drama as SM2

Well said.

It’s like a dopy relief medicine after the frustrating headache that was SM2.

I couldn't agree more

But to me GG was the most genuine villain in the whole franchise and was played by the best actor from the whole three film cast.

QFT

 

[Mr Jide]

Only thing SM-3 shows, is that Raimi should be left to his own devices, and Arad and Ziskin need to butt out!

I'll be the first to say that, I'm not Arad's biggest fan but I give him more credit and respect him more so than the likes of Raimi.
Raimi has fundementally proven on 3 occasions that he does not get spider-man. Arad has at least given us these movies but the writers and directors are the ones that bring it to life and lets forget the fact that Marvel's producing ironman and TIH but Arad butting in into Favereu's(sp?) movie doesn't seem to have any downsides in anyway shape or form and that's mainly because the cast and crew actually get the character and know what they're doing. You people need to check out the new ironman teaser trailer, it looks awesome and seems to have handled the humour and seriousness perfectly, something Raimi should have done but wasn't competent enough to do.

 

[Eggyman]

A similar thing happened to me with the Matrix films . . . but after a time I was able to see the good in them and now count the first film among my favourite scifi films.

SM3 had some downsides, sure, but so does everything. In a lot of ways I think SM3 captured the spirit of Spidey better than the other two did, although I feel like it was more a continuation of SM1 rather than SM2 -- not sure why, maybe the tone and style of the film and the general quality.

SM1 and SM3 seem to me like teen movies (not meant to be an insult in saying that), whereas SM2 seems more classical with hints of an old Ditco comic.

To me Spider-Man 2 will always be the Empire Strikes Back of the trilogy (its position in the trilogy has nothing to do with this, I'm talking about quality), and Spider-Man 3 I guess you could compare to Return of the Jedi (lesser quality but with more potential to make the fans drool).

Sorry for the Star Wars comparison, but I think it works well in this case.

It's nice to post on these boards again, it's like visiting home after travelling round the world.

 

[3dman27]

no way mccay

 

[The Joker]

To me Spider-Man 2 will always be the Empire Strikes Back of the trilogy

QFT

 

[Blader5489]

SM3 wasn't the best, but with that said it was still damn good entertainment. Could have been better, but screw test audiences and time run. I want to see the film in it's original form. Please say we'll get a director's cut (not just extended cut) of SM3. Peter says sorry because he is sorry AND BECAUSE it is Flint's dying daughter with no chance of recovery who asks Spider-Man to forgive her father! That's the ending they worked the hardest on and the one that was originally meant to be in the film before test audiences- I believe- said it was too depressing.

Actually, the ending was changed not because of test audiences, but because Raimi/Maguire/Church thought it was weak. And I have to agree. The "new" ending is, to me, more powerful because Peter forgives Marko on his own, not at the request of a little girl.

 

[Immortalfire]

Nope. 3 had it's moments, but overall left like "uhhh...what was that?"

But the first two are still fantastic

 

[Cyrusbales]

Nope, I take each one as a single movie, which is why only one of them is any good.

 

[matthooper]

Well, does it?

I mean, this is my opinion, but Spider-Man 3 should have been the best movie ever, and its not, and i think its the worst of the series.

I think it also makes Spider-man 2 a lesser film, because the plot lines that carry between 2 and 3 arent resolved well, and it left a bad taste in my mouth regarding the series.

It makes Spider-Man 2 look like the godfather in terms of quality though.

Any other thoughts? Im particularily interested in people who would have a different opinion then mine which means SPIDER-MAN 3 fanboys!! you're welcome here and i promise you wont get any persecution from me.

Opinions are a persons right.

Does the terrible Godfather 3 change your opinion of Godfather 1 and 2? I should hope not.

I look at Spider-Man 1 and 2 as seperate entities from SM3. Spider-Man 1 was just what we wanted, an amazing introduction. Spider-Man 2 is a glorious continuation that ramps up the excitement ten fold. Spider-Man 3 is simply a mess, but a fairly enjoyable mess. I think of it as a seperate entity that has a loose connection to the first two. There is no reason SM3 should harm the wonderful first two films. The other 2 stand on there own as seperate films and a great duo of films. But you can like both on their own, without thinking of the other one right? So you should be able to distance yourself from 3 and not let it affect you.

SM3 shouldn't hurt your enjoyment of the first 2 because you can simply choose to not let it bother you. SM1 and 2 are what they are great films and great entertainment for Spider-Man fans and movie fans. Don't let the mess of SM3 ruin those great movies. Mostly because there is no reason to let it. If you want, just forget it. Never think of it again.

Although I was profoundly dissapointed by SM3, I absolutely love the Harry story, I choose to just think of that when thinking of SM3.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Spider-Man 3 was disappointing, but I still enjoy the first two.

 

[Mr Jide]

Actually, the ending was changed not because of test audiences, but because Raimi/Maguire/Church thought it was weak. And I have to agree. The "new" ending is, to me, more powerful because Peter forgives Marko on his own, not at the request of a little girl.

That's some funny BS. I would have thought that Marko would stop his shinanigans at the request of his ill-daughter rather than at a crying Pete, sharing sad stories and then Peter standing there like an idiot, letting sandman float away to rob another day. LOL in fact that's what spider-man 3 should have been called, sm3: enter sandman to rob another day . It just goes to show how incompetent Raimi and his silly cast are, ugh! Recast please.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Well said.
I couldn't agree more
QFT

SM1 and SM3 seem to me like teen movies (not meant to be an insult in saying that), whereas SM2 seems more classical with hints of an old Ditco comic.

I like this comparison more than your starwars one.

Spider-Man 3 is simply a mess, but a fairly enjoyable mess.

Hmm, why is it such a mess? I can agree with ‘crammed’ or ‘underdeveloped’ but it sure wasn’t a ‘mess’ or ‘rushed’ (well, for the most part anyways). I personally could keep up with it all.

Although I was profoundly dissapointed by SM3, I absolutely love the Harry story, I choose to just think of that when thinking of SM3.

Yeah, that was definitely the best part.
And yeah, that’s also why I like to think only about the action and Ock’s cool looks when I think about SM2.

I agree with you saying that you should just distance yourself from SM3, if you don’t like it that much. I do it with X3. But what if the film is in the middle of the franchise and has a substantial part in the overall plot, like SM2. I’m not saying I loath it but I sure can’t stand half of it.