If there was no dancing...

[DACrowe]

would you like this movie?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

The dancing never really bothered me...

But then again i'm not a huge, HUGE Spider-man fan. ( If Christian Bale started doing it... well...)


Everyone at my viewing laughed at it, and me and my friends found it amusing.


I just think the fans felt that there weren't enough dark or heavy moments to balance out the comedy.

 

[webhead731]

Dancing was funny to me. Good kind of funny. I loved the movie. It was just about as Spidey-Hokey as him walking around like a total nerd in Spider-Man 2 with Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head playing.

 

[Spider-Man '92]

I thought it was funny. There should've been more action scenes with the Symbiote Spider-Man though.

 

[drunkhomer]

it would still be a bad movie

 

[FNSpidey]

I believe things would be different, yes. Maybe not dramatically different, but still. I've read and taken part in countless discussions in which the reasons for disliking the film never went beyond the dancing, the crying, or Venom using 'I' instead of 'we'. Some people simply cannot see beyond those.

At the very least, people would dislike the film based on its actual flaws and not these petty complaints. At best, people would even appreciate the film's merits. But things would certainly be different.

 

[DACMAN]

It wasn't so much the dancing as much as the hair and he looked like a zombie or something.

 

[DeaDheaD]

The dancing was just one example of them just flat out getting the character wrong, IMO, I kept telling myself that any minute we will see the real Venom just go nuts, that Parker is really gonna start messing some things up, but nothing.

We got small glimpses of hope from Spiderman fighting the Sandman, Harry, and throwing that guy into a wall, but Venom/Symbiote just came off as an afterthought....I always thought Venom was a top 5 villain, but you couldn't tell from the movie. It was just a lack of respect for all the characters involved.

 

[DACMAN]

True dat!

 

[Arcturus]

I'm not a big fan of the dancing, but it didn't ruin the movie for me. I like Spider-Man 3, so IMO, it's trivial.

 

[FNSpidey]

Actually, the dancing was very much in character. Here is a socially problematic kid that, under the influence of the suit, suddenly decides that it's time for him to have fun and to hell with the world. He feels good and he's not going to hide it.

And enough with the "not enough Venom" complaints. The movie is a Spider-man, not a Venom film. Venom did his part in the film's theme, representing the ultimate manifestation of the symbiote and the one character who will mindlessly stick to revenge (which is very much in character for Eddie, too) until he is consumed by it and destroyed. Wanting more Venom does not make the film bad, it just shows your priorities are different.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

And enough with the "not enough Venom" complaints. The movie is a Spider-man, not a Venom film.

Someone should have told the marketing guys that

 

[DACMAN]

And enough with the "not enough Venom" complaints. The movie is a Spider-man, not a Venom film.

YEAH! DAMN YOU GUYS FOR SHARING YOUR OPINION ON A MESSAGE BOARD!



But seriously. You do realize that the "Dark Knight" is Batman and not the Joker? Yet it was an amazing movie because of the Joker?

 

[FNSpidey]

YEAH! DAMN YOU GUYS FOR SHARING YOUR OPINION ON A MESSAGE BOARD!



But seriously. You do realize that the "Dark Knight" is Batman and not the Joker? Yet it was an amazing movie because of the Joker?

Oh, you can state your opinion as many times as you want. I'm just saying that personal preferences do not in fact alter a film's quality (or lack of it).

And I'm inclined to say that "The Dark Knight" is a good film because it's well written, well acted and well cinematographed. The Joker is just a part of that (a well written, well acted part), he's not the reason for its success (nor -of course- would he be the reason for its failure, if that was the case).

 

[DACMAN]

My point is a hero is only as interesting as his villains. Stan Lee himself said that. They made the Joker amazingly interesting in TDK. They didn't make Venom that interesting in SM3 because they never gave him the chance.

 

[FNSpidey]

That doesn't really make any sense. With proper writing, the villain can become almost irrelevant to the story. 25th hour is an amazing film, but I can't really find any villain in it. The Godfather, the Machinist, Vanilla Sky (or Abre los ojos), none needed a villain. Of course, this being a comic book film, a villain is kind of mandatory, but no story should ever be written to showcase a villain.

The villain has to serve the story, not the other way around. Venom perfectly served the story Raimi wanted to tell and reinforced its themes. Altering the main story to accommodate more Venom screentime would be bad filmmaking.

Same with the Joker. He served TDK's story (that of escalation and how and if the world can cope with this new, "better class of criminal"), the story wasn't a vessel to portray the Joker's theatrics.

 

[DACMAN]

The 25th Hour wasn't a superhero movie...

And TDK was written with almost nothing but the Joker's theatrics in mind. From the opening to the very end was all an end outcome of the Joker. Which shows amazing writing.

Look, it's this simple. I like Spider-Man for many reasons, one big one being he has great villains. I like Doc Ock alot. That's why I was happy when we saw him alot in Spider-Man 2. Venom is easily one of my favorites if not favorite. I wanted to see him more. Many other people did as well. The movie was advertised as having him, which is also why I think it had such a huge opening. He wasn't in there much and people left pissed off and disappointed. We've all waited decades to see this characters on the big screen, and we finally get the fan favorite we've all been waiting for and you'd miss it if you blinked. It's that simple.

 

[FNSpidey]

Yes, I get that. What I'm saying is that what you (or anyone) wanted from the film is not indicative of the film's quality. If I wanted Two-face from the Dark Knight and I was disappointed by his screentime in the film, that doesn't mean the film is bad. It just means, as I said above, that my priorities are different.

Although this is a bit irrelevant, TDK had good writing because its story was interesting, complex and had provoking themes. The Joker was interesting because he moved the story forward, he was the catalyst. That doesn't mean that any story featuring this Joker would automatically be great.

Plus, I know the 25th hour isn't a superhero film, but I don't see how that matters. Superhero films are first and foremost films, and should be judged as such. Seeing our favorite characters bashing each other's skull wouldn't make a good film. Quite the opposite. Good story, dialog, characters, music, production design, cinematography, pacing, those are what should matter. Any characters used should work to enhance those elements, not be there just for the sake of it, or to appeal to certain people's tastes.

In this context, Venom was needed in the film to be the one character who just can't let go of his need for revenge. He lives for it and it finally destroys him. That was the story all along and if Venom wasn't used, the Vulture would fill the exact same role. Raimi was right in his approach, as he first decided the story he wanted to tell and then used these characters to move it forward. And he achieved that without drastically altering them (Venom alway was revenge-driven), so I think he succeeded.

 

[smoothbody]

if there was no dancing,

no dark grey symbiote with silver webbing on it

no crying all the damn time.

no topher grace as eddie brock

no pregnant woman as gwen stacy

sorry it was that bad!!!

 

[sasaesq]

The 25th Hour wasn't a superhero movie...

And TDK was written with almost nothing but the Joker's theatrics in mind. From the opening to the very end was all an end outcome of the Joker. Which shows amazing writing.

Look, it's this simple. I like Spider-Man for many reasons, one big one being he has great villains. I like Doc Ock alot. That's why I was happy when we saw him alot in Spider-Man 2. Venom is easily one of my favorites if not favorite. I wanted to see him more. Many other people did as well. The movie was advertised as having him, which is also why I think it had such a huge opening. He wasn't in there much and people left pissed off and disappointed. We've all waited decades to see this characters on the big screen, and we finally get the fan favorite we've all been waiting for and you'd miss it if you blinked. It's that simple.

Well said. Sony marketed Sandman & Venom heavily, but we mainly got a Peter/harry/MJ story. Sandman & Venom, based on the theatrical cut, were not focused on as heavily as GG & Ock were in SM1 & SM2 respectively.

Hopefully we'll get that SM3 extended edition soon which puts some meat back into the movie as far as the villans go.

Also, the Jazz Club dancing scene was good & had a purpose: humiliate MJ. The others, Haryy/MJ & Peter street dancing, should have been cut.

 

[Venom 1988]

no pregnant woman as gwen stacy

I honestly don't see what was the big deal with this. Your the only person I have ever seen complain about this and you can't even tell shes pregnant. If you had no knowledge of her pregnancy while watching the movie, she just looks like a woman with curves, which is definitly not a bad thing.

 

[DACMAN]

Yes, I get that. What I'm saying is that what you (or anyone) wanted from the film is not indicative of the film's quality. If I wanted Two-face from the Dark Knight and I was disappointed by his screentime in the film, that doesn't mean the film is bad. It just means, as I said above, that my priorities are different.

Although this is a bit irrelevant, TDK had good writing because its story was interesting, complex and had provoking themes. The Joker was interesting because he moved the story forward, he was the catalyst. That doesn't mean that any story featuring this Joker would automatically be great.

Plus, I know the 25th hour isn't a superhero film, but I don't see how that matters. Superhero films are first and foremost films, and should be judged as such. Seeing our favorite characters bashing each other's skull wouldn't make a good film. Quite the opposite. Good story, dialog, characters, music, production design, cinematography, pacing, those are what should matter. Any characters used should work to enhance those elements, not be there just for the sake of it, or to appeal to certain people's tastes.

In this context, Venom was needed in the film to be the one character who just can't let go of his need for revenge. He lives for it and it finally destroys him. That was the story all along and if Venom wasn't used, the Vulture would fill the exact same role. Raimi was right in his approach, as he first decided the story he wanted to tell and then used these characters to move it forward. And he achieved that without drastically altering them (Venom alway was revenge-driven), so I think he succeeded.

Ok. I can see your point.

 

[Ziggyman]

...I thought Peter turning "evil" was probably the best part of the movie...

 

[DACMAN]

Well said. Sony marketed Sandman & Venom heavily, but we mainly got a Peter/harry/MJ story. Sandman & Venom, based on the theatrical cut, were not focused on as heavily as GG & Ock were in SM1 & SM2 respectively.

Lookin forward to 3.1 blu-ray baby!

 

[DACMAN]

...I thought Peter turning "evil" was probably the best part of the movie...

I do kind of like the whole emo=evil thing. Because, you know, they look so hideous and evil.