Just watched all 3 back-to-back.....

[El Payaso]

I saw them again too. One per week and must say I'm glad I did.

The first one was much better than I remembered. The second one has always been very good and the third one also wasn't as bad as I recalled (I only had seen it once at the theater).

I still say my main gripe with the whole series is Raimi's humour. For me it can't be worse, forced, unnecessary, unfunny, silly. The good humorous parts are too drowned amongst the unfunny ones.

 

[Visionary]

LOL! The symbiote story most definitely does NOT need 3 movies to be told. The animated series did it better in 60 minutes than Spider-Man 3 did in 2 and a half hours.

Three movies my foot.

It's much easier to execute comic book stories in animation. I can name countless episodes of Supes, Bats, Spidey, X-Men...not to mention Spawn, that's 20 times better than their movie versions.

 

[The Joker]

It's much easier to execute comic book stories in animation.

Why?

Why does the writing of a storyline differ for animation? That makes no sense at all. Because it doesn't differ.

The only difference is the quality of writing. Movie writers just execute sh1tty ideas on their movie scripts.

Example: Cartoon Venom wants to destroy Spider-Man himself for what he's done to him, and won't let anyone stand in his way of doing that. Even whups Rhino and Shocker together when they try to take out Spidey.

Movie Venom goes straight to Sandman for help in taking down Spidey. Despite the fact that Venom is supposed to be a loner and supposedly a superior version of Spider-Man.

 

[JerseyJoker]

Just look at X-Men, it is MUCh easier to do an adaptation of a comic book story via animation than film.

Cause when you bring it to film, atleast in certain aspects, it makes it "real" and that means you need to make changes so it doesn't come off as too cartoony or how Howard the Duckish.

 

[Visionary]

Because it was.

What was so horrible about it?

You mean you can look at the rooftop scenes, and honestly say what was horrible about it? Or Peter smashing into the billboard (next scene) seeing him running home. Hello, how about us seeing the Mofo hit the ground first. Not to mention, the first big fight scene with GG (T'was Power Rangerly done). You need to head on over to the movie mistakes site and check for yourself, it had tons editing mistakes. Except back then, we actually had the balls to admit it. Now, we're turning into Batman Begins type fools, who think everything's a gem. It's funny, people actually think I don't remember them taking apart SM1/SM2 second by second, and bashing the living hell out of Raimi with damn-near every decision he's made. Oh well, I guess it was a dream. Hell, like the previous movies too, but come on, "well contructed"...I didn't hear anyone saying that back then. And anyone who did, got bashed for it. They just wanted Raimi's head on a platter. Thus is why the bashing for SM3 just sounds like the good ol' days to me.

Well, I'm not one of them.

Indeed you are.

And, you're a geek too, Oscar. So, don't use the word like you're speaking of something different to yourself.

7 years registered and frequenting a message board about superheros. You're an out and out GEEK!

Yeah, but you know I love it when you point me out as a geek. It's something that seems to bother you. I can always tell when one brings up when I registered. It's cute.

 

[Visionary]

Why?

Why does the writing of a storyline differ for animation? That makes no sense at all. Because it doesn't differ.

The only difference is the quality of writing. Movie writers just execute sh1tty ideas on their movie scripts.

Example: Cartoon Venom wants to destroy Spider-Man himself for what he's done to him, and won't let anyone stand in his way of doing that. Even whups Rhino and Shocker together when they try to take out Spidey.

Movie Venom goes straight to Sandman for help in taking down Spidey. Despite the fact that Venom is supposed to be a loner and supposedly a superior version of Spider-Man.

Of course the writing structure is different. There was no Harry story to finish in the animated series. The movies wasn't 95% about The Symbiote/Venom, the cartoon was. There was no Rhino story or Shocker story. Now if the movie was just about Venom, you could compare.

Again, you're mixing comic book world and movie world, two different animals. The cartoons usually focus much more on the comic books than the movies do. Look at Batman Begins, in my opinion, the animated version of Ras' two parter is way better than the movie version. Take X-Men, The Phoenix episodes are better than the movie. Hell, just about any episode of Supes is better than Superman Returns, especially Lex Luther. Not to mention the animated Supes/Bats films, they're just better than either of their movies...all 5 of them. Don't get me started with Spawn movie vs. Spawn animated series (and the new cartoon that's coming up).

 

[The Joker]

You mean you can look at the rooftop scenes, and honestly say what was horrible about it?

You mean Peter running and jumping on the rooftops? The only bad thing there was the special fx. Nothing wrong with the editing.

Or Peter smashing into the billboard (next scene) seeing him running home. Hello, how about us seeing the Mofo hit the ground first.

The scene was a comedic one. We didn't need to see him hit the ground. We saw him smack into the board and then slide down it.

That was enough. Seeing him land on his ass wasn't needed.

Not to mention, the first big fight scene with GG (T'was Power Rangerly done).

What do you mean Power Rangerly done? Because of Goblin's costume?

You need to head on over to the movie mistakes site and check for yourself, it had tons editing mistakes. Except back then, we actually had the balls to admit it.

Most movies have lots of mistakes. The beautiful part is that most of them are not noticeable.

Now, we're turning into Batman Begins type fools, who think everything's a gem.

Ehhh, no. The Spider-Man movies are anything but gems. Especially the third one.

It's funny, people actually think I don't remember them taking apart SM1/SM2 second by second, and bashing the living hell out of Raimi with damn-near every decision he's made. Oh well, I guess it was a dream.

What are you babbling about? Nobody said there was no bashing. I said I was not one of the people who was tearing it down to pieces and criticizing every little thing.

There's a difference.

Hell, like the previous movies too, but come on, "well contructed"...I didn't hear anyone saying that back then.

Should have looked more closely then, shouldn't you.

Indeed you are.

Afraid not.

Yeah, but you know I love it when you point me out as a geek. It's something that seems to bother you. I can always tell when one brings up when I registered. It's cute.

Then you shouldn't act like you're some sort of supreme being who is not a fanboy or a geek. You're no different to anyone else here on that score.

Of course the writing structure is different. There was no Harry story to finish in the animated series. The movies wasn't 95% about The Symbiote/Venom, the cartoon was. There was no Rhino story or Shocker story. Now if the movie was just about Venom, you could compare.

You're missing the point entirely.

Spider-Man 3 had 2 and half hours. You seriously trying to tell me that with a proper script 60 minutes of that could not be catered to the symbiote storyline and Venom?

The problem with the movie script is that it was not catered for Venom. It was structured for Vulture. Until Avi Arad stuck his beak in and dumped the symbiote storyline on Raimi's lap.

Again, you're mixing comic book world and movie world, two different animals. The cartoons usually focus much more on the comic books than the movies do.

Not at all.

The cartoons just stick closer to the source material by choice. The movies make changes because they're trying to cater for everyone. Regular viewers and comic book fans.

The only problem is that the finished product usually contains weaker versions of the characters than their comic book counterparts. They don't seem to get that staying loyal to the comic books can be just as successful.

It's like what Laura Ziskin said about using Vulture in Spider-Man 3. They were having trouble trying to figure out a way to make him have a personal connection to Peter Parker.

It's not needed!!! Pointless change.

 

[Anti-Venom]

That doesn't surprise me that the three films fit well together.

Someone told me after seeing the movie that the first Peter/Harry fight comes too early in the movie. If you view Spidey 3 as one movie, that may be true. But if you look at it as the third act in one story, having that fight early on makes sense.

 

[The Chris]

That doesn't surprise me that the three films fit well together.

Someone told me after seeing the movie that the first Peter/Harry fight comes too early in the movie. If you view Spidey 3 as one movie, that may be true. But if you look at it as the third act in one story, having that fight early on makes sense.

I agree. If that fight was in the middle of the movie I wouldn't have been happy, seeing as what happened at the end of Spidey 2.

 

[Blader5489]

It's like what Laura Ziskin said about using Vulture in Spider-Man 3. They were having trouble trying to figure out a way to make him have a personal connection to Peter Parker.

It's not needed!!! Pointless change.

If you read the scanned quote, they didn't scrap Vulture just because they couldn't establish a personal connection to Peter. They did it because, without a personal connection, it would have taken a whole plot to establish him as a standalone villain, and there was just no room for that in the script.

The personal connection is a shortcut. With a script as large as SM3's, not having those shortcuts makes writing considerably more difficult.

 

[The Joker]

If you read the scanned quote, they didn't scrap Vulture just because they couldn't establish a personal connection to Peter. They did it because, without a personal connection, it would have taken a whole plot to establish him as a standalone villain, and there was just no room for that in the script.

I know why they cut him. My point is that they were trying to have Peter have a personal connection to the villain yet again.

The personal connection is a shortcut. With a script as large as SM3's, not having those shortcuts makes writing considerably more difficult.

It's lazy writing. Heaven forbid they should put some real effort into it, and write a villain who isn't related to Peter in some way.

The Dark Knight will hopefully prove it can be done with no personal ties between Batman and The Joker.

 

[Venom 1988]

edit

If you read the scanned quote, they didn't scrap Vulture just because they couldn't establish a personal connection to Peter. They did it because, without a personal connection, it would have taken a whole plot to establish him as a standalone villain, and there was just no room for that in the script.

The personal connection is a shortcut. With a script as large as SM3's, not having those shortcuts makes writing considerably more difficult.

You said this in another thread already, so Im just gonna quote what some people said to this.

Um...no. The script wasn't too busy at that point. At that point it was only Sandman and Vulture vs Spider-Man, plus the Harry plot. It wasn't until after Vulture was canned that the much bigger, much more complex black suit/Eddie/Venom plot was introduced.

Instead of setting up Vulture as a criminal previously busted by Spidey and out for revenge, they opted for a much more complex story involving an alien symbiote and a grudge that should've been brewing for 3 movies but was forced into half of 1.

They manufactured a connection with Sandman...is it so hard to do the same with the Vulture? I will be honest...Vulture sucks to me and I am glad we got who we got...but to sit there and lie to the fans is utter BS. I also love how they explain the symbiote-Peter-Venom connection yet they never said one word about it in the movie. This movie was overloaded and the Vulture-Sandman plot movie may have been a better quality film...we will never know.

 

[Blader5489]

The Dark Knight will hopefully prove it can be done with no personal ties between Batman and The Joker.

There's a difference. Nolan's Batman films don't provide any background info on their villains, they just throw them into the action. Whereas Raimi chooses to establish his villains as characters before turning them into super powered freaks.

 

[The Joker]

There's a difference. Nolan's Batman films don't provide any background info on their villains, they just throw them into the action. Whereas Raimi chooses to establish his villains as characters before turning them into super powered freaks.

That's not true at all.

Ra's Al Ghul was established as a person before we learned of his villainous intentions. How he schooled Bruce Wayne, telling him about his past and how he lost his wife to criminals, and how that anger nearly destroyed him as Bruce's nearly is to him etc.

Ra's was very much established as a person before we learned he was villain intending to destroy Gotham City.

 

[Blader5489]

Ra's Al Ghul was established as a person before we learned of his villainous intentions. How he schooled Bruce Wayne, telling him about his past and how he lost his wife to criminals, and how that anger nearly destroyed him as Bruce's nearly is to him etc.

All of which was told around a campfire in less than five minutes. His motivations were explained, but he had less backstory than Venom.

 

[The Joker]

All of which was told around a campfire in less than five minutes.

As opposed to Sandman's 2 minute scene with his family? Or Norman's one minute scene with Harry in the car? Or 2 minute scene with the army general about cutting his funding?

Come on, Blader.

His motivations were explained, but he had less backstory than Venom.

Nonsense. His story to Bruce before he burned down Wayne Manor about his past tactics in restoring balance was also hugely insightful about him and how he views justice, and how far he's been willing to go to do it.

All of his scenes with Bruce were awesome and insightful about Ra's and his views and ideals.

The most we learned about Brock personally was his delusional ideas about women.

 

[IamProdigy]

Why do people have to argue?

 

[Visionary]

I think it's that time of the month again, lol. Disgruntled geeks are known for being bleeders.

 

[DACrowe]

Well far be it from me to say Batman Begins is better than Spidey 3. Batman Begins was very good, Spidey 3 was...enjoyable, decent at best. But Nolan did not develop any of his villains pretty much. Ra's Al Ghul (as Liam Neeson) is already established when we meet him. We get a background speech that lasts 30 seconds at the 20 minute mark, but it really was all Neeson's charisma in the part. He DEVELOPS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HERO (which is pre-existing unlike in the comics), so as to establish him as a more PERSONAL villain quicker than it is in the comics (with Batman being in love with his daughter). But his evil intentions are already established and there is no arc for him. Falcone was a supporting bit, but again a scene chewing villain that was played deliciously well but we never know why he ticks this way other than he is the scum of the earth (which is realistic, but even-so we never get inside his head). The Scarecrow is again a very entertaining charismatic performance compliments of Cillan Murphey, a very underrated actor, but he is still not very complex. He is introduced as sleezy and corruptable and the only development from that is he is in fact insane and does go further insane after Batman gets a hold of him. I appreciated a through and through villain after the Spidey movies and Magneto, but was still engaging (you listening, EVERY OTHER SUPERHERO MOVIE EVER MADE?), but there was no development or arc. He was evil and the only change was when he got gassed (which is a plot device no differen than say...a symbiote that changes your emotion) and just goes crazier.

Now, I would appreciate if Raimi made villains be evil for evil's sake (mind you the only one he ever used that is that way in the comics, and I'm generalizing here, is Doc Ock). But Raimi's style is to develop his villains before they become villains and explore why they became that way and what makes them tick. This generally makes them more sympathetic because you see them as 'normal" people before they start doing henious acts (mind you I don't think it detracted from Goblin 1, Doc Ock or Venom), but htis requires more character development. The problem for SM3 is that it is overflowing with characters and two of the three villains are then underdeveloped (Sandman and Venom). But all of them are growing and going thorugh arcs.

Batman Begins was a better movie, but Ra's, Scarecrow and Falcone never really changed or grew in their movies. Heck, due to the way the plot was arranged Ra's disappears for half hte movie and Scarecrow isn't introduced until halfway through the movie, but fans don't seem to mind. And if I recall Scarecrow was dispatched by a damsel in distress with a taser like comic rleief but people liked the movie still, because Scarecrow was not a fan favorite. Venom goes out after killing a major character and needing to be double teamed ot be stopped and he still "goes out like a punk."

Just a quick look at the contrasting duality between the two films.

 

[Mr Jide]

Why do people have to argue?

Because it's much more entertaining than seeing 200 odd pages of people agreeying with each other.

 

[Visionary]

If you all say Batman's name three times in a row, like Beetle Juice, you're going to have a horde of Bat-Geeks swarming these boards. And don't blame me if you get fondled.

 

[Pablo Parker]

It's like what Laura Ziskin said about using Vulture in Spider-Man 3. They were having trouble trying to figure out a way to make him have a personal connection to Peter Parker.

It's not needed!!! Pointless change.

I´m sick and tired of "personal connections" in the spider-man films...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That doesn't surprise me that the three films fit well together.

Someone told me after seeing the movie that the first Peter/Harry fight comes too early in the movie. If you view Spidey 3 as one movie, that may be true. But if you look at it as the third act in one story, having that fight early on makes sense.

To me the fight wasnt too early in the slightest, we had already had 2 movies build up not to mention the first 10/15 mins of Spidey 3 until the fight came along. They got that part right IMO.

I´m sick and tired of "personal connections" in the spider-man films...

This i'll agree with, i still hate the fact that Sandman was Uncle Ben's actual killer, there is no need for it, and IMO his situation was sympathetic enough without him being the accidental killer.

Maybe to contrast Sandman's and Spiderman's storylines, they could have had Peter trying to get money to pay for an operation for Aunt May, and were Sandman goes about getting the money in the wrong way Peter doesnt, and Sandman eventually learns from this.

That would have been a better connection between the characters IMO.

 

[sean61675]

Why?

Why does the writing of a storyline differ for animation? That makes no sense at all. Because it doesn't differ.

The only difference is the quality of writing. Movie writers just execute sh1tty ideas on their movie scripts.

Example: Cartoon Venom wants to destroy Spider-Man himself for what he's done to him, and won't let anyone stand in his way of doing that. Even whups Rhino and Shocker together when they try to take out Spidey.

Movie Venom goes straight to Sandman for help in taking down Spidey. Despite the fact that Venom is supposed to be a loner and supposedly a superior version of Spider-Man.

I agree but even the symbiote episodes were over three episodes. And they really focused on the symbiote, Peter's struggle and finally Venom. But, remember this, Brock was in that show since the first episode so they started building his hatred for Spidey very early on (many, many episodes before he ever even became Venom). So yes, you are right in that it probably does not need more than one movie dealing with just Venom, it takes a while to build a story. I didn't feel Brock in the movie had true hatred for Peter. He acted more like an immature schmuck with a childish gripe. It would have made more sense and more of a story (to me) if Brock was actually in SM1 as a character (in lieu of just mentioned by name...at least first name...although that makes no sense since he is treated as a new freelancer in SM3) which would have made us (the audience) understand a little bit more and truly understand why he hates Peter.

Someone on here has to back me up.

 

[Arcturus]

If you all say Batman's name three times in a row, like Beetle Juice, you're going to have a horde of Bat-Geeks swarming these boards. And don't blame me if you get fondled.

lol, oh Vis. Sometimes you can be bothersome, but you know how to make people laugh.