George Lucas calls Spider-Man 3 'silly'

[fabman]

Although there is a heavy dose of irony in his statement, all he had to say in prefix of said statement was, "Compared to the first two S-M movies...", and no one would have batted an eye. Same could be said of his second trilogy in comparison to his first.
At the end of the day, although his remark smacks of egomania, it is likely that this is what he meant. This is the first I have ever heard him comment on the quality of the franchise, therefore this is the one true opinion he has of the movies being on a qualitative decline. And you know what? He's right. The only thing Sony can do to shut up all critics is to roll out an unbelievable S-M4.

It's way more simple: George Lucas thinks he's a great director. But the last good film he directed is the original Star Wars. I don't see The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as Lucas' films. Irvin Kerschner has directed the best Star Wars film. Lucas is just jealous that the Spider-Man films are better received than his previous attempts...

 

[miller man]

It's way more simple: George Lucas thinks he's a great director. But the last good film he directed is the original Star Wars. I don't see The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as Lucas' films. Irvin Kerschner has directed the best Star Wars film. Lucas is just jealous that the Spider-Man films are better received than his previous attempts...

True enough; it's just that I believe misery loves company, so Lucas would kick this film while it's down. I just think that Sony & Raimi have to bear the deserved criticism for a lackluster entry into the franchise, no matter who it comes from. Not that they care what George Lucas thinks, but I do hope that the collective criticism motivates the producers (and whatever director lands the job) to fall back on the inspiration they had for the first two movies, so that one-trick pony directors like Lucas cannot show such audacity.

 

[fabman]

Yeah, but Spider-Man 3 is better received than you may think. Not as well-received as Spider-Man 2, I agree, but still well-received by the general audience.

 

[miller man]

Yeah, but Spider-Man 3 is better received than you may think. Not as well-received as Spider-Man 2, I agree, but still well-received by the general audience.

I guess you're right, but I think that speaks more to expectations of the general audience, who seem to hold these films to a lower standard than we do, rather than the actual substance contained therein.

Look at it this way, it's likely that S-M1 will domestically be the highest-grossing S-M flick of the three, and I would argue that it's because of a well-struck balance between the two extremes that are 2 & 3 (Coming-of-age ridden angst and light-hearted campiness.)

If only 3 had 1's spirit, energy and comic-book feel combined with 2's focused characterization and sharp script, we could have had something extraordinary.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

It's way more simple: George Lucas thinks he's a great director. But the last good film he directed is the original Star Wars. I don't see The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi as Lucas' films. Irvin Kerschner has directed the best Star Wars film. Lucas is just jealous that the Spider-Man films are better received than his previous attempts...

I think he's just bitter that the Spider-man team chose ex-employee John Dykstra's rival FX company as opposed to his own ILM for the bulk of the FX work. It seems to me his estimation is that if it's not a movie using ILM for its FX it's crap and therefore deemed something to attack.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Although GL is correct in his way to simplistic criticism of SM3, I find it tacky that he talked about another director's work in that way. It makes him seem jealous because the first SM kicked the crap out of Ep1 in reviews and boxoffice and audience reception. Hell the crappy SM3 is still way better than any of the lastest Starwars movies. Sorry but, he's the one to talk.

If Spielberg said it was silly I think people would take his opinion more seriously but Lucas..Uh Jar Jar Binks anyone? Hell the best movie of the original trilogy wasn't even directed by him!

 

[fabman]

But the fact is: Steven Spielberg or any other director wouldn't have said something like this because it's, simply, not professional and mature but just a pathetic thing to do / say.

 

[The Kid]

check the sig

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Word of mouth in my neck of the woods has been very negative towards Spidey 3. Also in particular the first comments I always hear are, people hate the jazz dance scene, also they hate the singing by MJ. Nobody seemed to give a crap about Gwen since they didn't flesh anything worthy out.

 

[GothamProtector]

George Lucas can say anything he darn well pleases. He's made movies that are in the Top AFI list, won Oscars (Not many but his companies have a few), owns his own film company, ushered in the digital age, made Jurassic Park possible, and made 6 films that millions of people know every word, and every scene by heart. Yes Jar-Jar was silly, but Lucas created him from the ground up. No studio supervision, no producer telling him to have Darth Vader appear in Episode I to 'Please the fans'. Lucas made the film on his own. Also, we as movie viewers have the right to say a movie is bad or good. We have no right to tell Lucas, a professional filmaker that he has no right to an opinion. That's just nonsense. Everyone has the right to their opinion. (Now on the other hand if Raimi called ROTS silly, I'd be all up in arms about it!)

 

[miller man]

But the fact is: Steven Spielberg or any other director wouldn't have said something like this because it's, simply, not professional and mature but just a pathetic thing to do / say.

I could not agree more with that statement, and it should send the message home to Sony (and Raimi, if he chooses to continue with the franchise) that when George Lucas of all people is calling your movie silly (and he's correct), you've got some serious work to do to right the ship for the next one. Regardless of who says it, really, any heavy criticisms towards your franchise should be viewed as unacceptable and the status quo should change, and the standard should evolve. That's all I'm saying.

 

[fabman]

You know, the fact is that Sam Raimi isn't your conventional Hollywood director. He wouldn't bother giving you the same things in a sequel. And that's what's so great about him: with every chapter it'll be something fresh and new, and not everybody likes that. It's the same with Evil Dead, there are guys who say "gimme the gore already and shut up," they watch the first one. The other guys who want gore and humour watch Evil Dead II, etc.

...aaaand - it's the same with the Spider-Man movies. Even if they're heavily connected in terms of storylines they really are different. But you can't say Spider-Man 3 is a lackluster or just bad. That's not possible. You can say you didn't like it, then it's okay, but saying that the movie is crap... no! Spider-Man 3 isn't a conventional blockbuster, Sam Raimi gave us really something rare. A mix of genres and emotions and that's something you won't find in many mainstream movies.

 

[GothamProtector]

/\ That's not what people go to see Spidey films for. The first movie was perfect in almost every way. You had a good mix of action, and emotioal turmoil, and in only a little over an hour and 45 minutes. Spider-Man 2 was able to expand on both, making the film about 20 minutes longer, and giving us more of what Spider-Man 1 great. Spider-Man 3. Where to begin. I'll give you this: it started off fantastic. We see Peter learning the consiquences of the second film, and showing up early for everything. We even see him try to reason with Harry with no success. The downside of all this is that we don't get to see Spidey for almost 40 minutes. Sure there's a glimpse of him at the beginning, but that doesn't count. This is Spider-Man 3. Not Peter Parker 3. Spidey is in the film for a grand total of about 30 minutes. In a 2hr40M movie, that's just unacceptable. Imagine a Spider-Man comic series where Spidey doesn't show up for 6 issues. The sales would plummet. I understand that we have to see Peter's side of things too, but did we really need 2 hrs and 10 mins of it? What happened to that perfect mix of things in Spidey 1 and 2? I tell you what happened: Sam Raimi listened to too many people. He had Arad, Sony suits, and even probably Ivan Raimi telling him what to put in the film. That's what it felt like. 10 different directors making the movie. It destroyed the formula of the series that made the films so great. Sam Raimi should have put his foot down and said, "Look, I'm making the film my way or I'm leaving." I hope that the Raimis come back for Spidey 4, but have it in their contract that no one outside of the director and writers can interfere in the story. I think Spidey 3 would have turned out a lot better if this happened in 2005. And as to the statement that Spielberg wouldn't say something like what Lucas said: People say stuff like this all the time. You just never hear about it. And don't forget what I said earlier, Lucas can say anything he darn well pleases. If Lucas said this about any other movie, no one would say a thing about it.

 

[fabman]

But Peter Parker is Spider-Man and vice versa. I'll probably reply better later, it's too long of a post.

 

[mjbull23]

Gotham, you make a great point. We just did not see as much Spidey as we needed to. It felt like this movie was just trying too hard to do to much in a short amount of time. There were so many backstories unfolding throughout the entire movie that there was no way it could have possibly worked.

 

[miller man]

/\ That's not what people go to see Spidey films for. The first movie was perfect in almost every way. You had a good mix of action, and emotioal turmoil, and in only a little over an hour and 45 minutes. Spider-Man 2 was able to expand on both, making the film about 20 minutes longer, and giving us more of what Spider-Man 1 great. Spider-Man 3. Where to begin. I'll give you this: it started off fantastic. We see Peter learning the consiquences of the second film, and showing up early for everything. We even see him try to reason with Harry with no success. The downside of all this is that we don't get to see Spidey for almost 40 minutes. Sure there's a glimpse of him at the beginning, but that doesn't count. This is Spider-Man 3. Not Peter Parker 3. Spidey is in the film for a grand total of about 30 minutes. In a 2hr40M movie, that's just unacceptable. Imagine a Spider-Man comic series where Spidey doesn't show up for 6 issues. The sales would plummet. I understand that we have to see Peter's side of things too, but did we really need 2 hrs and 10 mins of it? What happened to that perfect mix of things in Spidey 1 and 2? I tell you what happened: Sam Raimi listened to too many people. He had Arad, Sony suits, and even probably Ivan Raimi telling him what to put in the film. That's what it felt like. 10 different directors making the movie. It destroyed the formula of the series that made the films so great. Sam Raimi should have put his foot down and said, "Look, I'm making the film my way or I'm leaving." I hope that the Raimis come back for Spidey 4, but have it in their contract that no one outside of the director and writers can interfere in the story. I think Spidey 3 would have turned out a lot better if this happened in 2005. And as to the statement that Spielberg wouldn't say something like what Lucas said: People say stuff like this all the time. You just never hear about it. And don't forget what I said earlier, Lucas can say anything he darn well pleases. If Lucas said this about any other movie, no one would say a thing about it.

Gotham, you make a great point. We just did not see as much Spidey as we needed to. It felt like this movie was just trying too hard to do to much in a short amount of time. There were so many backstories unfolding throughout the entire movie that there was no way it could have possibly worked.

Good points.
Contrary to what others have said, I thought that the actors did a fine job and that Raimi directed with great technical competence, but the artistic vision and inspiration from the first two films were just absent.
But my most serious criticism was that at the end of the day, I felt, who gives a s**t about this story. As I was watching, I wasn't interested in Flint Marko, Eddie Brock, or Gwen Stacy, and the emotional build-up from the first two movies concerning the main characters was lost in all the silliness. I didn't feel any empathy for any of them. And if you don't care about the characters, then you don't care about their concerns about the various themes in the movie. And if I go to the cinema and I don't care for any of the characters, especially with their previous development, then it's a bad film.
Obviously, this is just my opinion, and anyone is well within their right to disagree. But that is honestly how I felt at the time.

 

[DACrowe]

What is this "kicking the franchise while its down," stuff?

Sure it is not nearly as well received by critics as the first two, but it was still mostly postively received as opposed to the first two SW prequels.

What George is doing is seeing the biggest movie of the summer did not use ILM for SFX and as the first Spidey film topped Episode II at the BO, SM3 oblierated his opening day record for ROTS. It was just a dig at a franchise that knocked his out of the record books (at least from the top) this summer.

He wasn't kicking it while it was down, he was being caddy. Whatever, though.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. To Gotham SM2 was only 7 minutes longer than SM1 and SM3 was just under 2:20 not 2:40.

Spidey was not in the first 40 minutes in costume but the selling point of all three films has been Peter Parker's struggles. And there was the AMAZING (as in best fight in the movie, IMO) ariel fight with Harry in the first 10 or 15 minutes which I would say counts as Spidey action as he is fighting a supervillain in glorious ariel combat that could not be achieved with CGI in the first movie. So what if he wasn't in costume?

Also, I don't think the movie's problem was too little Spidey. It was too many villains and 2 out of 3 did not get enough screentime. Both Venom and Sandman were explained and given complex (well Sandman's anyway) motivations that were deeper than their ocmic book counterparts but neither were explored at all. But Peter, Harry and MJ did not suffer from that. IMO, of course.

Oh and why is everyone harping on Gwen Stacy? She wasn't meant to be a major character. Just because she is a name in the ocmics doesn't mean she is a focal point of the movie. Do we need to whine about Doc Connors or Robbie Robertson or Betty Brant not being explored any? No. The Stacys are at the same level in SM3, wit hthe room to expand in future sequels.