John August about SM3 Script...

[Cristo]

Um, Kent, Sandman NOT killing Uncle Ben would have matched with Harry NOT killing Uncle Ben without being a glaring coincidence. In fact, that would have been far better than what we did get.

 

[Cristo]

Um, Kent, Sandman NOT killing Uncle Ben would have matched with Harry NOT killing Uncle Ben without being a glaring coincidence. In fact, that would have been far better than what we did get.

 

[Prophet924]

It is funny that this fellow is being discredited due to his association with that very strange and super creepy film Willy Wonka.

I think it ultimately comes down to a did the coincidence serve as a make or break moment.I am sure the film makers saw some of these things but they were deep into the film making process to make a change. So they probably said does this make or break it.

I don't think all these coincidences ruined the film. Overall, I really enjoyed it.

Thwipp!

 

[Tony Stark]

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

HE TURNED ONE OF THE MOST BELOVED CHILDRENS CHARACTERS INTO A FREAKING CREEPY PEDOFILE!!!!!!

 

[Johnichi Chiba]

HE TURNED ONE OF THE MOST BELOVED CHILDRENS CHARACTERS INTO A FREAKING CREEPY PEDOFILE!!!!!!

That was Tim Burton's idea. Give credit where credit is due.

 

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

I loved big Fish but otherwise this guy's credits are not very good movies, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was mediocre for example.

But a lot of his points are valid, albeit you could apply them to the comics but shhh....don't tell the fans that. My actual only problem with the plot devices was the butler and the motivation of why MJ agreed to deal with what Harry said. I mean if they showed she really wanted to do this and that is why she relented to his silly request, fine. But besides that the team-up and the butler being forced to push to the climax quickly.

Still I wouldn't accuse SM2 to be free of short-cut writing (Peter being at the same bank as Doc Ock? Ock stealing money instead of equipment? Ock agreeing to Harry's deal instead of just threatening to kill him if he cooperates? The whole Ock birth scene? Harry knowing where Ock's warehouse is, etc.) but we all love that movie. Selective criticism is not constructive.

And again the guy who wrote Tim Burton's worst movie besides Mars Attacks and Planet of the Apes remake should not be criticizing this film.

Agreed.

 

[sylabdul]

this guy NAILS the main flaw in this film(among many)....whining "apologists" are the only ones NOT listening to LOGIC......

 

[OverMyHead]

we're here to talk about what flaws the script has, not how much money it makes. everyone from little kids who cry to their mamas to see spidey to comic fans to your casual movie goers will go see it just because "its the movie to see"..... hell they could have done a movie with absolute zero story (we're actually half way there at some points) and it would have made the same money. its the marketing that gets people in the door. $ does not equal a great story.

Then what equals a great story?

 

[ultimatefan]

If you guys read the post right, he wasn´t trashing the movie, just pointing out the number of coincidences. And yeah, one can claim there´s a similar amount of those in the previous 2 movies, and in a LOT of movies. I mean, in Batman Begins, a critically-praised movie, Ra´s Al Ghul HAPPENS to be the guy behind the depression that created thieves like the one who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. Years later, Bruce HAPPENS to be in the country where the League Of Shadows has its headquarters. Bruce HAPPENS to find all the equipment he needs to be Batman as unused prototypes in Wayne Enterprises. His childhood sweetheart HAPPENS to be an attorney fighting crime and corruption. Scarecrow HAPPENS to be working with both Falcone and Ra´s, and so on.

 

[Cristo]

But none of this HAPPENS to destroy Batman's orgin...

 

[Dragon]

But none of this HAPPENS to destroy Batman's orgin...

Yeah.. It pretty much does. It renders Batman's origin a bit of a joke. The spirit of his drive to become an avenger is removed.

 

[Spider - Man]

Yeah.. It pretty much does. It renders Batman's origin a bit of a joke. The spirit of his drive to become an avenger is removed.

HEY! Bats was never an avenger...he's a JLAer!

But seriously, how did they mess up his origin? In the comics, his parents got murdered which motivated him as an adult to become Batman and fight crime. They just added more details to beef it up (I mean, the original 2-page Batman origin was a bit bare-bones!). Maybe I'm missing your point, but as I read it, I just don't understand how they 'removed the spirit of his drive'. He must've been pretty driven to leave wealth and luxury for 7 years to face the elements, harsh prisons, and constant battles to learn what he needed to to come back to Gotham to fight crime. I don't get your point.

 

[Dragon]

HEY! Bats was never an avenger...he's a JLAer!

But seriously, how did they mess up his origin? In the comics, his parents got murdered which motivated him as an adult to become Batman and fight crime. They just added more details to beef it up (I mean, the original 2-page Batman origin was a bit bare-bones!). Maybe I'm missing your point, but as I read it, I just don't understand how they 'removed the spirit of his drive'. He must've been pretty driven to leave wealth and luxury for 7 years to face the elements, harsh prisons, and constant battles to learn what he needed to to come back to Gotham to fight crime. I don't get your point.

Here's my problem with BB's origin.

1. Making Ra's part of the origin, including the convolution of Watanabe turning out to not be Ra's.

2. removing Bruce travelling the world and acquiring his skills from numerous masters. Not just in martial arts, but detection, escape artistry, slight of hand, what have you. Batman's supremacy, and why he stands next to Superman as being one of the most effective crimefighters is because of his multitude of skills, not just because he has "ninja" skills (I put this in quotes, because the martial arts skills he studies in the film are BS anyway). It's ridiculous to make it appear that Bruce is the best martial artist in the world. What Bruce is, is just about the best strategist in the world. And having him develop many skills instead of just one more effectively shows his obsession.

3.That they use the cheesy, cliche' main guy goes for training and in a short time is superior to the guys who've been training for many more years than he has. Having Ra's tell Bruce that he was now chosen to lead his assault on Gotham is even more outlandish. Why GOTHAM? Why not London or Washington?

4. For my money, Batman '89, without showing the origin presented a far more obsessed Bruce Wayne than BB.

By comparison, Marko killing ben did essentially nothing to change Spidey's origin, wheras the above points and more that I didn't list made Batman's origin very different, IMO.

 

[dodus]

I just don't get the obsession over coincidences. To me it seems as though most of you wanted the plot to be a little more clever, or subtle, with the way key events related to each other, which is totally understandable. But to use the nebulous term coincidences betrays a lack of understanding of logic--there are no coincidences in life, only events and actors related by cause and effect. If you want to get at the movie for a less-than-as-creative-as-possible sequence of events, that's completely justified. Too many "coincidences" is not.

As for the article, I think his first suggestion about using a meteor "shower" is 100% on point. From there, it descends into the typical overzealous nitpicking.

 

[DieSmiling]

4. For my money, Batman '89, without showing the origin presented a far more obsessed Bruce Wayne than BB.

Is this a joke? When does Michael Keaton come off as remotely obsessed? Or angry, or happy, or intense, or in love, or anything? He just comes off like a huge weirdo. I know some people are Bamtan '89 fanboys, but I have no idea how you can act like Michael Keaton's performance was a better representation of Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale's. That's just absurd, they aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Dragon]

Is this a joke? When does Michael Keaton come off as remotely obsessed?

Yup. His "party" is an opportunity to study and spy on his guests. He doesn't appear at the DA's press conference because he's out on rooftops kicking ass. He doesn't sleep. During the Joker's attack at cityhall, he became near catatonic.

Or angry,

Geez, the fact that he has no place in his life for love or anything other his obsession, kinda says that.

or happy,

Is Batman supposed to be happy? But he did show a sense of humor.

or intense,

ABSOLUTELY. Far more than Bale.

or in love, or anything?

Yes. In the scenes with Kim Basinger he did indeed appear to be a man in love, albeit one who was fighting to deny it because he knew it couldn't last.

He just comes off like a huge weirdo. I know some people are Batman '89 fanboys, but I have no idea how you can act like Michael Keaton's performance was a better representation of Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale's. That's just absurd, they aren't even in the same ballpark.

True, in that Bale's performance doesn't match-up in the least. His poorman's "dirty Harry" bat-voice, his "golly-gee" manner as Bruce Wayne. His childish attempt to appear a "playboy". His complete lack of intensity. No. That wasn't Batman. Bale was more badass in Shaft. And talk about being in love? That geeky, teen-love relationship he had with Holmes didn't even approach the type of love or passion a man like Bruce Wayne would have. Peter Parker is a better lover than Bales' Bruce Wayne. The only thing Bale had was a passable (not nearly satisfying however) resemblance to the comic book Batman, which was wasted since they only placed him in Burton's bulletproof Batsuit, logically developed for a guy like Keaton, who doesn't have an impressive build.

 

[Danny Elfman]

Burton and Nolan's Bruce Wayne are two very different person that are hard to compare.
Nonetheless, I do agree that Burton went more further into the psychology of his character than Nolan (you can call him a "weirdo", the point was to show that he was as crazy as The Joker...the guy dresses up like a giant bat you know). But I'm pretty sure that the british director will bring new elements in the upcoming sequel...

 

[Dragon]

He just comes off like a huge weirdo. I know some people are Bamtan '89 fanboys, but I have no idea how you can act like Michael Keaton's performance was a better representation of Bruce Wayne than Christian Bale's. That's just absurd, they aren't even in the same ballpark.

Another couple points. One would have to be a "weirdo" to BE Batman. Even Bale admits that in Begins.

But I'm not a fanboy of Bats'89. I thought it was a good movie, but seriously lacking. I've said it after every Batfilm was releaesed- The defintiive Batman film has yet to be made. And Begins maintains that status quo.

 

[Spider - Man]

First of all, I'm not a huge Batman fan. As DC goes, he's probably my favorite, but I'm mainly a Marvel guy so anyway. I have read some of the earlier books but not many of the more modern ones. I haven't even read Miller's stuff. Just wanted to preface with that so you'd know where I'm coming from.

1. Making Ra's part of the origin, including the convolution of Watanabe turning out to not be Ra's.

Again I THINK ra's is a more modern character (as opposed to classical) and I don't know much about his comic incarnation except that he has the (is it called a lazarus pit?) thing that keeps him young. However I actually think that what you mention above works, for me anyway.

2. removing Bruce travelling the world and acquiring his skills from numerous masters. Not just in martial arts, but detection, escape artistry, slight of hand, what have you. Batman's supremacy, and why he stands next to Superman as being one of the most effective crimefighters is because of his multitude of skills, not just because he has "ninja" skills (I put this in quotes, because the martial arts skills he studies in the film are BS anyway). It's ridiculous to make it appear that Bruce is the best martial artist in the world. What Bruce is, is just about the best strategist in the world. And having him develop many skills instead of just one more effectively shows his obsession.

A lot of that would have been interesting. I don't know what you mean by the the BS remark (ninjutsu is one martial art I never had any interest in!) but I think that because Ra's played so big a part, that they had him be the only teacher so that they could build that father/son or older brother/younger brother relationship, the effectiveness of which I suppose depends on one's personal interprettation. I don't know how they handled that in the comics. I DO know that in the book Helltown (I don't know if it's canon), Richard Dragon is training the Question, and Bruce and Shiva show up, and the remark is made that Bruce is one of the top 4 martial artists in the world. I would have liked to see him develop more of the other skills you mention but I feel about that kind of like I feel about Spider-Man not using more of his science skills in the films: it would've been cool but didn't really take away from my enjoyment of the film for me.

3.That they use the cheesy, cliche' main guy goes for training and in a short time is superior to the guys who've been training for many more years than he has. Having Ra's tell Bruce that he was now chosen to lead his assault on Gotham is even more outlandish. Why GOTHAM? Why not London or Washington?

I think the thing about Gotham is that, within the context of the story, Gotham is supposed to be one of the BIG cities of the world, and apparently it is THE most corrupt. With Bruce being one of Gotham's 'favorite sons', with connections to all the most powerful people, he was already 'ideally placed' to carry out the plan, although in light of the end of the film, I guess that wasn't really a necessity after all.

4. For my money, Batman '89, without showing the origin presented a far more obsessed Bruce Wayne than BB.

Keaton did come off as WAY more obsessed (and had THE coolest suit of all the films IMO!). Looked like it was straight off of Neal Adams' drawing board! Batman has been portrayed differently through the years so what is 'definitive' Batman to you might differ from what it is to someone else. There are those who may even think that the campy '60s tv Batman is definitive! Some could say that definitive means how the character is most currently portrayed but I disagree. The current interpretation of Spider-Man sure isn't MY idea of 'definitive'! But I digress.

By comparison, Marko killing ben did essentially nothing to change Spidey's origin, wheras the above points and more that I didn't list made Batman's origin very different, IMO.

For me (being a Spidey fan) the change of Ben's killer DID change something of the meaning of the origin, maybe just because 'the burglar' was actually a very important character down thru the years to issue #200 of ASM. If you change that, he is no longer 'the Burglar', he is 'the partner'. It just lessens his role which is the problem I had with it. BUT considering all the other flaws with SM3, that was minor by comparison. As for BB, as I said, I'm not so big a fan that those differences mattered to me (considering I didn;'t even know about a lot of them anyway!) but thought that the basic origin (from the original 2-page Bob Kane story) ws basically intact and expanded. Could there be a better Batman? Absolutely! But I was very satisfied with BB and look forward to TDK!

 

[UltimateJustin]

Seriously, of all the coincidences and plot holes I didnt have much of a problem with the butler. I can see how you could see it as a cheap deus ex machina, but it didnt come off as one to me. People say he conveinently dishes out some information that could have been useful later, but I dont think it would have been appropraite at all for him to have brought it up before. Its kind of a delicate thing to bring up and intruding like that isnt his job. If I were the butler, I would also wait until Venom and Sandman gave me a reason to tell Harry about his father. Plus it didnt hurt that that scene had the best score peice of the movie.

Also, alot of the other flaws that are valid didnt bother me because being familiar with the characters, I understood the motivations (like Harry making MJ breakup, cause thats what goblins do they fxck with Spiderman) better even if the weak script didnt represent them correctly. I understand completely a casual fan seeing it as forced, but since I know why Venom would have web abilities and all this stuff, I dont need it told to me. Yes, it would have made it a better movie, but I'm not going to show this movie off to people. I'm not concerned how history sees this movie. Its no Spiderman or Big Fish, but its also no Spiderman Unlimited or Charlie and the chocolate Factory.

 

[Leenie]

Well, I disagree with him tremendously, but at least he backed up his argument, unlike a lot of other negative reviews. Good for him.

I, for one, don't mind the coincidences at all. It's a COMIC BOOK movie. Yes, I want it to be a good movie (which I think it is), but because it's coming from a comic book, coincidences are to be expected. I want a good movie, with the feeling of a comic book. Fans keep saying that they want the movie to use the source material, afterall.

Look at Superman Returns, for example. All the other stuff aside, I think that the movie took all of Superman's comic book roots, and threw them out the window. Instead of a great movie, we got another Superman I, except WITHOUT the fun and the charm. It's one of the most lifeless movies I have ever seen, and it was the most disappointing movie I've seen in a while. I glad that Spider-Man 3 didn't take the route that this movie did.

 

[Spider-Bite]

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

I know. It's really, really shocking. Not much thought was put into how to make things happen in this movie.

 

[TheCaptain22555]

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...."

Haha. Agreed.

 

[spider-neil]

doesn't matter WHO points out the plot holes and coincidences they are still valid. if shuemaker(sp) saw a comic book movie that was camp (and it genuinely WAS camp) it wouldn't be any less camp because the KING of camp made the observation it would just make the observer a hyprocrite.

I thought the original writer was valid in all his points but heres the thing comics (and therefore the movies they are based on) are BUILT on plot holes and coincedences. that's like moaning the main hero in super hero movies has super powers, like DUH!

sandman's origin
original - just HAPPENS to be on a beach when a nucular bomb test goes off
movie - just HAPPENS to fall into a particle experiment

also plot devieces are a little annoying but HARD to get around.

remove the meteor scene and try to introduce the black ooze in a quick not contrived manner so the movie flows and you can quickly move on to the GG2/PP fight.

a) jameson crash lands the space shuttle spidey investigates ooze jumps him (spidey) MINIMUN of 5 minutes

b) conners explains he is working a cure for cancer shows pete the suit, a drop lands on peter MINUMUM of 2 minutes

without losing harry's memory loss how can you have him interact with peter without him going for petes throat each time he sees him?

take the butler out of picture and remove the scene where venom offers sandman a team-up.

you're the director the movie has to climax in roughtly 15 minutes (give or take) but you have to:

a) get venom and sandman in the same place (construction site)

b) get harry to befriend peter again before he bites the dust (I've read some fans are upset harry is dead LOL are these the same fans that moan when movies deviate from the source material?)

seriously as a director how do you do it?

if harry had just turned up at the construction site claiming 'I'm here for MJ not you' the audience would just roll their eyes. so he (harry) has to deduce (no butler remember) his father died by his own glider. how exactly?

or what about sandman being at the construction site. sandman walking (or rather flying) down the street 'lum tee tum tee tum, oh what's THAT over there, its a construction site, and LOOK black webs, I'll just go and take a look'
then of course he has to team up with venom
sandman - 'look, who ever you are (no one actually SAYS venom aloud) I want to kill spider-man'

venom - 'well you can't he's mine'

sandman - 'well lets kill him together'

very hard to have a team up without contrived dialogue

a comic book movie is always going to have coincedences and contrived plot lines its the nature of the beast I can point out several plot holes in BB and SM2, two movies widely regarded as the best of the genre.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

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

My personal opinion is that the most glaring flaw of Spider-man 3 is that they really forced Venom into the movie awkwardly shoehorning him in when he perhaps they should have introduced Eddie Brock in this movie and saved Venom for the fourth movie. Sam Raimi isn't very familiar with the character and it kinda shows. I guess Topher Grace, since he had read alot of the earlier issues with Venom in it, was the guy Raimi got most of his Venom info from. As a Venom comic character fan, I was able to fill in the blanks in a few scenes because of my knowledge of his backstory from said comics. But does John Q. Public who's never picked up a Venom miniseries or Spider-man comic know anything at all about who Eddie Brock is and why he's done what he's done? In the movie they make absolutely no mention of Eddie's father Carl Brock (A man who makes Norman Osborn look like father of the Year.) and just how bitter he is with his son for being the cause behind his mother's death. I think at least one throw away scene of Eddie chatting with his dad, only to get reamed out and insulted before the church scene would have clarified things alot for the uninitiated. If they wanted Venom in a movie so badly, they really should have gotten a writer to help write the Eddie Brock/Venom scenes who knew the character pretty well.