I am now skepticism-free.

[The Amazing Lee]

lol

Sometimes directors don't have any control.

You didn't think to point the blame at Hollywood now did you.

 

[Spade]

the only thins spectacular about Spider-MAn 3 will be the special FX and action scenes. The story is going to be bullsh1t like it was in part 2. Rami really screwed up this time... first it was the organics, then Doc Ock's neuro inhibitor chip and making him noble at the end of the movie, and now the worst thing of all... Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer! This is blasphemy and he called himself a Spider-Man fan. Instead he's a hollywood sellout.

You have to be kidding me. You do know that there are some things that will never translate well to the big screen, right? I watched Spider-Man when it came out after buying every issue I could get my hands on and had no problem with the dramatic element added to Doc Ock nor the organic webbing. The only place I have ever heard an issue with the organic webbing in is here; I don't think it adds anything less or more to the story. Spider-Man is how it should have been done. The Other is how it could have been done badly. And Doc Ock? Spider-Man has been around for decades, as have his villains. We already saw a villain gone psycho. Raimi showed us a different take in the second film. Let's all get pitchforks and burn the man alive every time he successfully tries something creative! And to futher my point- Mark Steven Johnson has admitted that not only is the Hellfire Shotgun in Ghost Rider a new addition, but that Blaze will have some of Ketch's powers. Do you think he's a sellout because he's now adapted the story for the big screen?

Geez...there aren't enough 'rolleyes' for this post...

 

[Kurt Wagner]

After the financial success of Spider-man 1, Raimi was on the list of Hollywood's top people and that alone warrants enough say in the matter to get things done his way. That's why he's to blame.

As for Hollywood, they are always to blame... it's expected of them to **** these movies up. But when a director falls to Hollywood BS, then they are to blame because they are making choices at the expense of the story. Like I mentioned before... the only thing Spider-Man 3 has going for it is great action scenes and special effects. I might be worth watching just for that alone, but I defintiely don't expect anything else in terms of story/plot quality.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

You have to be kidding me. You do know that there are some things that will never translate well to the big screen, right? I watched Spider-Man when it came out after buying every issue I could get my hands on and had no problem with the dramatic element added to Doc Ock nor the organic webbing. The only place I have ever heard an issue with the organic webbing in is here; I don't think it adds anything less or more to the story. Spider-Man is how it should have been done. The Other is how it could have been done badly. And Doc Ock? Spider-Man has been around for decades, as have his villains. We already saw a villain gone psycho. Raimi showed us a different take in the second film. Let's all get pitchforks and burn the man alive every time he successfully tries something creative! And to futher my point- Mark Steven Johnson has admitted that not only is the Hellfire Shotgun in Ghost Rider a new addition, but that Blaze will have some of Ketch's powers. Do you think he's a sellout because he's now adapted the story for the big screen?

Geez...there aren't enough 'rolleyes' for this post...

Actually I'm not kidding. I don't see how people don't see how the changes affect the character. I'm not talking about changes like a genetically altered spider... or the goblin's costume.... or raised webbing, etc. I'm talking about changes that affect the integrity of the character. Mechanical webshooters show the genius of Peter Parker and show how his mind is his greatest power than something he can shoot from his wrists. The neuro-inhibitor chip makes Doc Ock turn bad, rather than his personality alone, and making him good at the end violates his characteristics. Same thing with Sandman. and MJ/Gwen hybrid.

I don't buy that argument that that there are some things that will never translate well to the big screen. With strong writing, anythign can be adapted. The only thing that's different is the medium in which the story is told. Sure some mediums have certain strengths... for example novels portray inner thoughts of characters more effectively and have the luxury of long descriptions. But there are different techniques for achieving the same things in film and other mediums. It's all in the story.

As for Ghost Rider, I could care less since I dont know anythign about the character and am not a fan. But yes, Mark Steven Johnson should respect the way the character was written. So same thing for him.

 

[Chris Wallace]

You have to be kidding me. You do know that there are some things that will never translate well to the big screen, right? I watched Spider-Man when it came out after buying every issue I could get my hands on and had no problem with the dramatic element added to Doc Ock nor the organic webbing. The only place I have ever heard an issue with the organic webbing in is here; I don't think it adds anything less or more to the story. Spider-Man is how it should have been done. The Other is how it could have been done badly. And Doc Ock? Spider-Man has been around for decades, as have his villains. We already saw a villain gone psycho. Raimi showed us a different take in the second film. Let's all get pitchforks and burn the man alive every time he successfully tries something creative! And to futher my point- Mark Steven Johnson has admitted that not only is the Hellfire Shotgun in Ghost Rider a new addition, but that Blaze will have some of Ketch's powers. Do you think he's a sellout because he's now adapted the story for the big screen?

Geez...there aren't enough 'rolleyes' for this post...

Some fans will never be satisfied no matter what. It goes back to an argument I've raised many times before; a great many comic fans have had their favorite characters' movies cast, written, directed & shot in their heads for so long that they are automatically resistant to anything that deviates from their own pre-conceived visions. Many just want it to follow the comics to the letter, no matter what. Some I honestly think go to the theater looking for things to complain about. That's just the way it is. Me-I go to the movies to be entertained, & as long as they don't just take a giant whizz on the storyline & throw everything I love about it out the window, as long as I genuinely enjoy the movie, I'm a happy camper.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

true. can't satisfy everyone. But the spider-man movies will still be successful among the general public. I'll admit I enjoyed watching the first one multiple times in the theater despite my complaints with the character changes. At least that had a good story, action and was entertaining. But the second was inexcusable in my opinion since it didn't really offer anything new except better action and special effects... which is why I don't feel that same level of hype for this 3rd movie as there was for the 1st movie. I hope I'm wrong though when I watch it in IMAX... (IMAX makes it a much better viewing experience).

 

[Spidey-Sean]

I have to say I believe the maturation of these movies is really encouraging. If you really take the time to watch these movies looking for character development and the moral questions that Peter has been battling besides villians, I think they are quite successful. I think Spider-man 2 was much much more than a leap in special effects and action, as we got the classic storyline of Peter giving up being the hero, the ever increasing insanity and alcohol abuse of Harry, the development of MJ's character in relation to the struggling Peter, and even Aunt May's struggle to survive on her own all alone. Not to mention the way Doc Ock showed Peter what was possible with his life, and what could go wrong as well.

I guess what I'm getting at is the emotional aspects of Spider-man have been seriously fought for, and it shows. These movies are much more than 'who is Spidey gonna' fight next?', which practically defined the the downfall of the older Batman movies. I think you can see other superhero movies emulating what Spidey started, like Batman Begins or even Superman Returns trying to focus on the person behind the superhero, instead of the superhero themselves.

Finally, I am also encouraged to see the Spidey movie makers aknowledge this on the DVD releases and the commentaries; you can tell they are devoted to making the Spider-man movies the best they can be. Spidey 2 came out about 2 years after Spidey 1, and now they have even more time to make Spidey 3, (closer to three years), and that's encouraging as well. I'm very confident in this series and where it is going for the third installment. 'Nuff said.

 

[Chris Wallace]

plenty of people said the same thing about the last stand when its trailers came out.

it's very easy to sell a whole film based on less than five minutes of footage which represents 1/40th of the whole thing.

I mean you wouldn't buy a car based purely on seeing pics of the wheels and the steering wheel alone, would ya?

Now that I think about it, you're wrong. Early buzz surrounding X3 was largely negative. And I can't think of one time a trailer truly misled me; that 2 to 5 minutes tells you what direction they're going overall, & that's what it's supposed to do.

 

[Arcturus]

i'm looking forward too everything in sm-3, i can't wait to see how everything unfolds.

2007!

 

[Marvel Spider]

EDIT: nvm

 

[Bats123]

EDIT: nevermind

 

[Anno_Domini]

Superman 3 was a laughable flop. Batman Forever, while more good than bad, (IMO) heralded the doom of the franchise. TMNT 3 was largely forgettable. Blade Trinity was a colossal failure & X3, despite its commercial success, was almost universally panned by critics & fans alike. But now I'm convinced that the curse is broken. Having seen that awesome trailer, how could "Spider-Man 3" be anything but the third installment comic fans have been waiting for?

This is funny now.

 

[The Joker]

LOL!!! Hilarious thread bump.

The irony of this thread now. Spider-Man 3 broke no curses. It just re-enforced them

 

[Dragon]

The real hilarity is that it's the people that supposedly hate this movie that seem to be the most obsessed with it. I mean, how much of your life did it take to dig up a six year old thread? In fact how much of your lives have you invested in griping about a 5 year old movie that even the people who made it seem to have moved past?

 

[Marvel Spider]

The real hilarity is that it's the people that supposedly hate this movie that seem to be the most obsessed with it. I mean, how much of your life did it take to dig up a six year old thread? In fact how much of your lives have you invested in griping about a 5 year old movie that even the people who made it seem to have moved past?

Well I can't answer this question, since I found this link elsewhere and didn't look for it.


BTW, cool Spidey CG fan film you made.

 

[cloverfan98]

Hey I like the whole trilogy including SM3 so yeah I'm skepticism free!

 

[Picard Sisko]

Lmao

 

[Anno_Domini]

The real hilarity is that it's the people that supposedly hate this movie that seem to be the most obsessed with it. I mean, how much of your life did it take to dig up a six year old thread? In fact how much of your lives have you invested in griping about a 5 year old movie that even the people who made it seem to have moved past?

Of course someone who enjoyed the film can't enjoy the real hilarity of this

 

[Dragon]

Well I can't answer this question, since I found this link elsewhere and didn't look for it.


BTW, cool Spidey CG fan film you made.

Thanks for checking it out. Glad you liked it.

 

[Dragon]

Of course someone who enjoyed the film can't enjoy the real hilarity of this

Exactly the point. Alot of people enjoyed it. Thus it really doesn't fall into the 3rd film curse category. And like I said, it's even more hilarious that folks who don't like the film spend so much more time focused on it than folks who did. I hated Ang Lee's Hulk, Daredevil, and both FF films. But I wasn't still posting about them 5 years after their release.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Exactly the point. Alot of people enjoyed it. Thus it really doesn't fall into the 3rd film curse category. And like I said, it's even more hilarious that folks who don't like the film spend so much more time focused on it than folks who did. I hated Ang Lee's Hulk, Daredevil, and both FF films. But I wasn't still posting about them 5 years after their release.

But for the ones who still say it's an awful movie, you should just let them say it as you won't change their minds at all.

I mean, it's like someone bringing up the Bat credit card...it's been YEARS since we saw that, but people still bring it up as it ruined so many things, such as how Spider-Man 3 ruined the trilogy for so many people. I mean, we can say how we still love a movie, such as Spider-Man 2, but we can't still give our displeasure to a film like Spider-Man 3? That's silly....if we can't bring up films that we hate, why should we bother even discussing movies we love?

Plus, I don't know why this thread was bumped...but it made me laugh reading this all over again.

 

[El Payaso]

Exactly the point. Alot of people enjoyed it. Thus it really doesn't fall into the 3rd film curse category. And like I said, it's even more hilarious that folks who don't like the film spend so much more time focused on it than folks who did. I hated Ang Lee's Hulk, Daredevil, and both FF films. But I wasn't still posting about them 5 years after their release.

I kinda agree with that part.

Spider-man 3 wasn't the exact same as Superman 3 or Batman Forever. They had a sequel.

Spider-man 3 was a new level speeding up the end of the franchise.

 

[Dragon]

I kinda agree with that part.

Spider-man 3 wasn't the exact same as Superman 3 or Batman Forever. They had a sequel.

Spider-man 3 was a new level speeding up the end of the franchise.

But it didn't end the franchise. There was going to be a Spider-Man 4. Raimi just walked away from it because he couldn't make it to his standards.

But for the ones who still say it's an awful movie, you should just let them say it as you won't change their minds at all.

I mean, it's like someone bringing up the Bat credit card...it's been YEARS since we saw that, but people still bring it up as it ruined so many things, such as how Spider-Man 3 ruined the trilogy for so many people. I mean, we can say how we still love a movie, such as Spider-Man 2, but we can't still give our displeasure to a film like Spider-Man 3? That's silly....if we can't bring up films that we hate, why should we bother even discussing movies we love?

Plus, I don't know why this thread was bumped...but it made me laugh reading this all over again.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm in fact agreeing that nothing new is going to be said about the movie and that everyone at this point knows how they feel about it. I'm also saying that holding up Chris' post as if it was wrong or ironically funny isn't really fair because he might still like the film. It isn't as though the film is universally hated as with some of the other films he'd mentioned. I think at best, most folks think it's okay or fun. Even at RT, with people still dumping on the movie 5 years later, the majority of people still like the film. And unlike several of the films mentioned, it wasn't a flop. It was quite successful.

 

[El Payaso]

If anything this thread has made me more skepticism-fan. I'll never doubt it again.

But it didn't end the franchise. There was going to be a Spider-Man 4. Raimi just walked away from it because he couldn't make it to his standards.

And we all know Hollywood never replaces directors and keeps going. If they wanted SM4, they would have done it, just like they did Superman II without Donner and Batman Forever without Burton.

Not only there wasn't a sequel, but we're havinmg a reboot. Last time that happened (Batman) it was called the end of a franchise. End like in, no more of this take/continuity.

 

[Dragon]

And we all know Hollywood never replaces directors and keeps going. If they wanted SM4, they would have done it, just like they did Superman II without Donner and Batman Forever without Burton.

Not only there wasn't a sequel, but we're havinmg a reboot. Last time that happened (Batman) it was called the end of a franchise. End like in, no more of this take/continuity.

Dude, you need to stop rewriting history simply because of a chip about Raimi. The story is well-documented. They were going to make Spider-Man 4. That's fact. Raimi was unhappy with all the scripts they had and decided he couldn't make the release date Sony/Columbia had planned on, so they went with the reboot in order to maintain the rights. As far as Superman II they had to continue on the film since Donner had already shot a substantial amount of the movie. And with Batman Forever obviously the studio had a script they were pleased with even if Burton didn't feel it was right for him. Also Batman Returns wasn't a hit comparable with Spidey 3. Warner Bros. was unhappy with the box office even though the film had a decent performance.