John August about SM3 Script...

[Danny Elfman]

John August is a famous screenwriter. He wrote several Tim Burton films (Big Fish, Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and Corpse Bride). On his website, he talks about "The perils of coincidence" taking Spider-Man 3 as an example.

I disliked the film for many reasons, one being the weakness of the script (wrong motivations, poor psychology, unlikely shortcuts) and this is nice to read the point of view of a profesionnal that tries to explain why it's not working and even propose solutions.

It's worth the reading...

http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/perils-of-coincidence

 

[OverMyHead]

Now they even have a screenwriter to try and justify the sh**ty writing, lol

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's shocking how lazy that screenplay must have been, just shocking.

 

[Drizzle]

If a screenwriter chooses to criticize the Spider-Man 3 script, it shouldn't be the guy who wrote "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". But still, the guy does bring up a few good points.

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

Not too shocking, considering the result.


~HoH~

 

[Tony Stark]

Written by the guy who turned Willy Wonka into a creepy Michael Jackson like pedophile is criticizing Spider-man 3?

"Hello pot? This is the kettle calling...."

 

[DyeLorean]

Interesting, thanks for posting the link.

Strangely, we didn't come up with a topic about all those coincidences

D!

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I liked CATCF more than SM3.

 

[Warhammer]

He has very good points, and I agree with him.
CATCF, aside, at least he knows what to criticize, and does it very well.

 

[Danny Elfman]

For the people talking about Charlie : it's a pretty clumsy way to avoid the subject...

 

[pjspider1C]

In defense of Spider-Man 3, a lot of the coincidences he's referring to are because Raimi was trying to stay true to the comics and characters as much as he could.

The fans wanted Gwen Stacy. And Raimi gave them Gwen Stacy and everything her character brings to the table - her father, her relationship with Peter, etc. The only thing that's different from the comics is that she went on a date with Eddie Brock. Speaking of which...

The same goes for Eddie Brock. His being in the church the same time as Spider-Man? That's a classic moment from the comics!! And in the movie, Peter Parker tells him to "Get religion". So he does... sort of.

Same thing can be applied to Sandman.

Even Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2... he just so happens to rob the bank that Peter Parker and Aunt May are at. And he just so happens to make the inhibitor chip (the only thing that can protect his mind from the arms) out of plastic instead of metal and it just so happens to get destroyed.

Are there a lot of coincidences in Spider-Man 3? Yes. But so what? That's the way the genre is! The majority (not all, but most) of them are taken right from the comics and are properly applied to the characters. And because there's a lot of characters, there's a lot of coincidences. Big whoop.

 

[superduperhero]

I think the general idea is while there were SOME coincidences in SM2, Alot of SM3's coincidences just were'nt justified.

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

To be fair...they were at the church together for a totally different reason in the comics. It wasn't such a coincidence there.

Most of the comic references in this film were brief, and only slightly related. It's like the story of Paul Bunyan. A real guy who's story was changed. Some aspects where true...but most of it isn't exactly accurate.

Such as the team up with the heroes at the end. And Harry dying for Peter. And a few other nods, here and there.
The changing of some of those wasn't even a big deal...but the script being a written form of swiss cheese was...lots of holes...


~HoH~

 

[pjspider1C]

I think the general idea is while there were SOME coincidences in SM2, Alot of SM3's coincidences just were'nt justified.

If you ask me, they are justified because the majority of them are straight from the comics which are the source material. It's a comic book movie. And coincidentally, a lot of coincidents happen in comics.

 

[Danny Elfman]

pjspider1C, at the beginning of his text, August talks about the level of tolerance we can give to superhero films when it comes to coincidences. Of course there are many incoherencies in this kind of film and even SM1 and SM2 had theirs. But in SM3 they are just too many and they are way too important. Okay, it's a film based on comics but it has to provide its own logic. I was never a fan of the "it's in the (comic) book" argument; we are talking about films here, it's a completely different material.

And he didn't even mention the horrendous butler scene, one of the most awkward Deus Ex Machina I've seen in years...

 

[Kent]

Yes, there's a lot of coincidences in this movie. There are in the previous ones as well.

Funny thing though is, this guy doesn't seem to be capable of discerning coincidences from non-coincidences. I mean... "Gwen Stacy happens to be in Peter's class". That's not a coincidence, because she's introduced as a person in his class. If that's a coincidence then that MJ lived next to Peter, etc is as well. But that's not coincidences, it's the frickin' base of the character.
Likewise, it is clearly a coincidence that a meteorite with a symbiote strikes near Peter's bike... it is not a coincidence that the symbiote attaches itself to Peter's bike. It sensed possible hosts and went for it.

Just seems funny that someone writing about coincidences hardly knows what one is.

That said, yes... there's plenty of coincidences in there. As are there in the comics, as are there in the previous movie. Coincidence is a trait of comic book stories in general.

Edit:
A few examples from Spider-Man 2 off the top of my head:
- Doc Ock knows Connors.
- Doc Ock's sponsor is Harry Osborn.
- MJ is going to marry the son of JJJ.
- JJJ's regular photagrapher for certain events is off/sick/whatever, so Peter has to photograph the event where MJ's connection to JJJ's son is revealed.
- It's been two years since Green Goblin died (or something on that time scale), but as soon as the first new super-powered villain since then shows up, Peter loses his powers.
- Peter and May are at a bank at the same time that Ock decides to rob one, and it's the same bank.

 

[Mephistopheles]

He makes many good points.

 

[DyeLorean]

Yes, there's a lot of coincidences in this movie. There are in the previous ones as well.........

Yes, but he is making differences between fundamental coincidences and coincidences that can be easily erased my revisiting the script.

D!

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

Yes...there are a lot of coincidences in comics. There are a lot of BAD comics, too. Any story that doesn't flow well because the "productive to the storyline" thing happens WAY too often? Generally is looked at as poor storytelling. No matter what version you're talking about. Book or live action.


~HoH~

 

[JackBauer]

I'm surprised that not a lot of people are pointing out the fact that Spidey also JUST HAPPENED to luckily pick the ONE spot he could've taken the suit out. that was one of the worst ones for me.

 

[Danny Elfman]

I'm surprised that not a lot of people are pointing out the fact that Spidey also JUST HAPPENED to luckily pick the ONE spot he could've taken the suit out. that was one of the worst ones for me.

True but I don't mind that much about it. That goes in the tolerable/convenient coincidences for me...

 

[pjspider1C]

pjspider1C, at the beginning of his text, August talks about the level of tolerance we can give to superhero films when it comes to coincidences. Of course there are many incoherencies in this kind of film and even SM1 and SM2 had theirs. But in SM3 they are just too many and they are way too important. Okay, it's a film based on comics but it has to provide its own logic. I was never a fan of the "it's in the (comic) book" argument; we are talking about films here, it's a completely different material.

And he didn't even mention the horrendous butler scene, one of the most awkward Deus Ex Machina I've seen in years...

I completely understand your point of view. And to some extent I do agree. But on the other hand, Spider-Man isn't out to win an oscar for best screenplay. It's made to entertain, and it does. There are a lot of things happening in this movie. And yeah, you could go fix all the coincidences if you wanted, but that means changing the source material - which I think most fans agree, shouldn't be messed with any more so than it already has.

And am I the only one that didn't have a problem with the butler? If I was working for a guy who became an utter dick and was hellbent on avenging his father, I wouldn't want to mention anything that would piss him off because I could lose my job that he pays me a handsome amount to do. When Bernard saw Harry as his old self again, he felt as though he could talk to him again. Also, it's not weird that Bernard cleaned Norman Osborn's wounds. And it's not weird that "he's seen thing he's never spoken of". The only thing that's weird about Bernard are the size of his ears... I mean those things are huge...

 

[Kent]

Yes, but he is making differences between fundamental coincidences and coincidences that can be easily erased my revisiting the script.

D!

Sure, but he isn't doing a very good job at suggestion for correction. The symbiote doesn't need a reason to chose Peter. Peter and MJ were the closest things on hand in that scene (again, not a coincidence).

Sandman's origin tied in to the meteorites? I'm sorry, but super-origins in comics have a long tradition of being separate from each other more often than not, and Sandman really needed to be created in some kind of experiment, while Venom very much needed to come from outer space. This is on par (at least to me) of suggesting that Ock and Peter have powers the spring from the same source, because they're both vaguely animal related.

Does Sandman need to be Uncle Ben's killer? Well... excuse me... this guy calls himself a screenwriter but he couldn't spot the fundamental theme of the story? This just strikes me as strange. Clearly you could have made it so that he's not Ben's killer, but it wouldn't be just a simple re-visiting of the script. It would need a major overhaul to either change themes or find other ways to play into it.

Maybe I come off as a bit hostile... I dunno... not trying to be... but it still seems to me that some... but not all of the stuff in the article contains some pretty basic misunderstandings of concepts or just misconceptions about the movie itself. Like maybe he should've revisited the script for his article before he published it... so to speak.

Again... I concede there are coincidences in spades. I accept them because coincidences is the stuff these comic book stories are made of. As far as I can remember they always have been... it's part of the genre in a way.

 

[DyeLorean]

Sure, but he isn't doing a very good job at suggestion for correction.

I agree, his corrections doesn't benefit the script much either. But he is right about the two kind of coincidences, and how both of them play a major role in the movie, by being too noticeables.

D!

 

[Secret_Riddle]

For you guys critisizing the writer because he penned CATCF, that movie was far better reviewed then spider-man 3.