Sequels In retrospect - I'm disgusted with the series.

[Daredevil_2003]

Bale has not 'sold out', whatever the **** that means, and he will not have any trouble getting work anytime soon, methinks...

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Ah. That's what I thought but I just wanted to make sure before posting a reply.

What about Batman Forever and X3?

Yes, both left alot to be desired. A LOT. But they were both successful. BF was a major blockbuster. And in X3's case the movie was actually quite good. BF was meh at best but still...it was the fourth film that killed that franchise.

Batman Forever was alright, but very dissapointing and the neon lights don't fit Batman, IMO. X3 was good as well, but it seemed like a film all about action and no story, but I've seen worse superhero films than X-3, so I'll give it that. Kelsey Grammar as Beast was a perfect choice, IMO.

 

[FaT_tONle]

How is that selling out?

Maybe if you said Bond sure...

I just look at that crew... McG and all... the producers... I have no respect for those people as film makers. And now we are talking about a trilogy??? Bale signed to 3 pictures??? That's selling out IMO. I hope they kill the character off... but I doubt that will happen. Why does Daniel Craig turn down Thor? Because "I can't be both Bond AND Thor". Why Bale signs on to another commercial flick like this is beyond me... and he isn't getting any younger. I just look at guys like Leo, Damon, Pitt... these guys don't do these commercial films in MULTIPLE franchises... and I think Bale is more talented than all of them. I just don't think he knows what he wants to accomplish at this point in his career. He better be careful.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Also, I donb't know why people say Tobey won't be in alot of films. He's starring in an upcoming film called "Brothers". It supposedly comes out in Febuary, but shouldn't there be a trailer by now?

 

[Daredevil_2003]

Batman Forever was alright, but very dissapointing and the neon lights don't fit Batman, IMO. X3 was good as well, but it seemed like a film all about action and no story, but I've seen worse superhero films than X-3, so I'll give it that. Kelsey Grammar as Beast was a perfect choice, IMO.

I totally agree, just pointing out that SM3 is no different than the others, IMO, it's still a dissapointment. Just happens to be the least dissapointing.

 

[The Joker]

Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man 1
Spider-Man 3

That's how I'd rank the Spidey movies. Spider-Man 3 was appalling. It's still hard to fathom how the quality could have dropped so dramatically between SM-2 and SM-3.

 

[Visionary]

The point is the Spider-Man series was just too watered down, too kiddy oriented, and had too much flat acting... which IS a reflection of the director.

Thanks Raimi.

This is my biggest problem with series. And it's also the fault of Marvel/Sony, for looking at Spider-Man as a Hannah Montana meets Ben 10 type property, guided only by making money. If this doesn't change, I feel sorry for The Lizard and SM4 as a whole creatively. I just don't know how to convince two studios (Marvel/Sony) that they are handling the Spider-Man films with kid gloves. Soon, they will start to lose huge money from each film; as people gravitate away from the superhero made ONLY for CHILDREN and selling TOYS.

 

[p4poetic]

How is SM too kiddy oriented?

This is my biggest problem with series. And it's also the fault of Marvel/Sony, for looking at Spider-Man as a Hannah Montana meets Ben 10 type property, guided only by making money. If this doesn't change, I feel sorry for The Lizard and SM4 as a whole creatively. I just don't know how to convince two studios (Marvel/Sony) that they are handling the Spider-Man films with kid gloves. Soon, they will start to lose huge money from each film; as people gravitate away from the superhero made ONLY for CHILDREN and selling TOYS.

The Spider-Man 1994 animated series covered all of this you know. Batman the animated series covered the same thing. Both shows were for children.

Ah. That's what I thought but I just wanted to make sure before posting a reply.

What about Batman Forever and X3?

Yes, both left alot to be desired. A LOT. But they were both successful. BF was a major blockbuster. And in X3's case the movie was actually quite good. BF was meh at best but still...it was the fourth film that killed that franchise.

SM3 was successful financially as well (TDK only sold a few million more initially during the weekend).

 

[TheVileOne]

Again with the elitism and the idea of kids liking Spider-man being so horrible.

 

[pjspider1C]

I just look at that crew... McG and all... the producers... I have no respect for those people as film makers. And now we are talking about a trilogy??? Bale signed to 3 pictures??? That's selling out IMO. I hope they kill the character off... but I doubt that will happen. Why does Daniel Craig turn down Thor? Because "I can't be both Bond AND Thor". Why Bale signs on to another commercial flick like this is beyond me... and he isn't getting any younger. I just look at guys like Leo, Damon, Pitt... these guys don't do these commercial films in MULTIPLE franchises... and I think Bale is more talented than all of them. I just don't think he knows what he wants to accomplish at this point in his career. He better be careful.

If I recall correctly, I believe Matt Damon and Brad Pitt both starred in Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen. Damon was also Jason Bourne in three films. Ian McKellan did Lord of the Rings and X-Men. I don't think signing on to more than one franchise is a terrible thing. Bale chooses roles that interest him personally, and where there's a good story to tell. He's a smart actor. He'll be just fine. Anywho... can this has nothing to do with Spider-Man... how about getting back on topic, eh?

 

[Daredevil_2003]

SM3 was successful financially as well (TDK only sold a few million more initially during the weekend).

I never said it wasn't. I just pointed out that it wasn't the only successful third film.

 

[Visionary]

It's still hard to fathom how the quality could have dropped so dramatically between SM-2 and SM-3.

Not if you're like me, and thought that SM1/SM2 could have been 10 times better than they were. A movie with Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus, should have made movies like Terminator 2 and The Matrix look like Charlie Brown and Snoopy.

Trust me when I say, the potential for a phenomenal Spider-Man film, that can only be matched and never surpassed in quality and grandeur can still be made.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I totally agree, just pointing out that SM3 is no different than the others, IMO, it's still a dissapointment. Just happens to be the least dissapointing.

I find S-M3 to be better than X3 and Batman Forever. Tbh, S-M3 was mainly meant to tie up loose ends if you think about it.

 

[FaT_tONle]

If I recall correctly, I believe Matt Damon and Brad Pitt both starred in Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen. Damon was also Jason Bourne in three films. Ian McKellan did Lord of the Rings and X-Men. I don't think signing on to more than one franchise is a terrible thing. Bale chooses roles that interest him personally, and where there's a good story to tell. He's a smart actor. He'll be just fine. Anywho... can this has nothing to do with Spider-Man... how about getting back on topic, eh?

Ocean's isn't really a commericial film with one lead guy though... they all took pay cuts compared to what they normally make. That's not the kind of franchise I was talking about. As far as Mckellan... those characters had not been adapted previously... largely unknown to the general audience. Both Batman AND John Connor??? I have never seen one guy play iconic roles like that ever... I just don't think its a good thing.

 

[Spider-Fan]

People have opinions... I don't know why people get all worked up when a new thread pops up like this. The forum has been dead before this thread popped up. Valid points are being made and that's all that matters.

I am not saying people can't have an opinion. I'm simply asking why does everyone's opinion warrant a thread instead of posting in similar threads that already exist? How is this not a valid question?

I like Batman, but not nearly as much as Spider-Man, never will. I always liked Spider-Man, from when I found my dad's old John Romita Sr issues he collected in a box. I love Spider-Man so much, I not happy with the series, it did not live up to the potential... and it makes me unhappy and sad really.

But there's always people out there that will like the less than sub par films that is given to them and guess what, they'll continue to make more of the same.

That's a great story. But, why does your opinion warrant the thread? You haven't answered my question. Why didn't you simply post in a thread that was already available to you?

 

[Venom 1988]

Don't get me wrong, I excited for Batman 3, but I don't think it'll top TDK.

Of course it wont, no one is saying it will and expecting it too. But it has pretty good chance of being a damn good film and breaking the trilogy curse.

. Let's not forget that S-M3 was the first 3rd superhero film in a series not to fail completely in peoples minds.

Uh no it still failed...the trilogy curse..and all that jazz

I find S-M3 to be better than X3 and Batman Forever. Tbh, S-M3 was mainly meant to tie up loose ends if you think about it.

Still doesn't excuse it for the piss poor film we got

 

[Visionary]

How is SM too kiddy oriented?

The Green Goblin reciting nursery rhymes for starters.

The Spider-Man 1994 animated series covered all of this you know. Batman the animated series covered the same thing. Both shows were for children.

I expect that from a children's cartoon made for children, but not from a PG-13 live action film.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Uh no it still failed...the trilogy curse..and all that jazz

It didn't fail, some people didn't like it, some people loved it. I don't think that really means a film failed completely.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I am not saying people can't have an opinion. I'm simply asking why does everyone's opinion warrant a thread instead of posting in similar threads that already exist? How is this not a valid question?

Me thinks you are playing the "Batman troll" card because you are tired of hearing the opinion more so than you are concerned with another thread clogging space on what has been a nonexistent forum the past few months... try not to let it affect you so much. I am not a Batman troll, I think you could acknowledge that yourself... but do I have problems when people say Nolan's Batman series is superior to Raimi's Spiderman series on every level? Not really... to each his own.

 

[Daredevil_2003]

I find S-M3 to be better than X3 and Batman Forever.

Me too. I'd watch SM3 before the other two anytime...

Tbh, S-M3 was mainly meant to tie up loose ends if you think about it.

That's definitely the point of it, but, I think it was handled very poorly...they could have:

1. Ditched Venom and removed the Sandman is the killer plot.

2. Ditched Sandman and gave Venom a proper treatment.

Ether of those two things alone could have drastically improved the film.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Me thinks you are playing the "Batman troll" card because you are tired of hearing the opinion more so than you are concerned with another thread clogging space and what has been a nonexistent forum the past few months... try not to let it affect you so much. I am not a Batman troll, I think you could acknowledge that yourself... but do I have problems when people say Nolan's Batman series is superior to Raimi's Spiderman series on every level? Not really... to each his own.

I'm not playing the Batman troll card for that reason. I follow this forum despite not posting in it much til the last few days, and this is the 3rd thread Ninja specifically has done this with. See his Get a Hint Sony! Watch TDK thread from months ago where he went on a similar rant. We have threads already related to Raimi and co coming back, plus a thread about if Spider-Man can surpass TDK. I have no problem with this discussion in those threads, but I'm tired of people thinking they have the right to voice their non-unique opinion in completely new threads when they can do the same elsewhere and still be heard.

 

[Visionary]

That's definitely the point of it, but, I think it was handled very poorly...they could have:

1. Ditched Venom and removed the Sandman is the killer plot.

2. Ditched Sandman and gave Venom a proper treatment.

Ether of those two things alone could have drastically improved the film.

Venom should not have been in the movie, period.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Me too. I'd watch SM3 before the other two anytime...

That's definitely the point of it, but, I think it was handled very poorly...they could have:

1. Ditched Venom and removed the Sandman is the killer plot.

2. Ditched Sandman and gave Venom a proper treatment.

Ether of those two things alone could have drastically improved the film.

Even though Venom didn't have a extremely perfect screen time, I think he served what he was supposed to even though he was in the film for a few minutes. I love Venom, but he's not the most in depth character, which is another reason I'm not really all that dissapointed with his screen time.

 

[pjspider1C]

Ocean's isn't really a commericial film with one lead guy though... they all took pay cuts compared to what they normally make. That's not the kind of franchise I was talking about. As far as Mckellan... those characters had not been adapted previously... largely unknown to the general audience. Both Batman AND John Connor??? I have never seen one guy play iconic roles like that ever... I just don't think its a good thing.

The version of Batman Bale is playing is not the same as previous takes on Batman - it's fresh. Same with John Connor - we've only seen him as a kid - not as an adult trying to lead a rebellion against machines. It's something new.

 

[Venom 1988]

It didn't fail, some people didn't like it, some people loved it. I don't think that really means a film failed completely.

You mean A LOT of people didn't like it. The whole movie had a different vibe from the last two and while they had their own problems, they were still pretty good in their own right.

Venom should not have been in the movie, period.

Damn right he shouldn't have been or the symbiote for that matter.