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

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.

Wow, I'm surprised. You were pretty rough there for awhile on SM3. I was so hugely disappointed by SM3, especially since I loved SM1 and 2 so much. It was just too convoluted and schizophrenic and Eddie Brock/Venom was awful. But, I guess I'll give the movie another shot as well. :word:
 
Wow, I'm surprised. You were pretty rough there for awhile on SM3. I was so hugely disappointed by SM3, especially since I loved SM1 and 2 so much. It was just too convoluted and schizophrenic and Eddie Brock/Venom was awful. But, I guess I'll give the movie another shot as well. :word:

It was too much story for 2 hours. And some of the solutions were rushed and forced (Bernard the butler scene). And then, there's the dancing/singing scenes.

But the action is great, Sandman is good. So, yes. The basic enjoyable factor is still there.
 
Just out of curisity why do people hat the "singing scenes" so much. Yeah Dunst's voice is weak and only average at best, but that is the point. HEr character isn't that good of a singer and that is why she lost her job (though in reality there is no way she'd get past chorus girl with that voice in musicals). But they were both book enders and small nice ltitle songs that we only heard half of each time. I didn't find them destracting but useful.
 
I think everyone should listen to the commentary (Director + Cast version), and you will get a much better understanding and respect for the movie they made. Atleast i did. Specially hearing Topher, speak perfectly about Secret Wars and being the resident geek of the group. And you see that the whole MJ/Harry stuff was justified and worked well, bringing you back to SM 1, where Harry for a brief moment was innoncent and had MJ, everything Parker didnt at the time.

And for the Venom stuff, i love Venom, hes just cool, but no need to waste three movies on him at all. If you where going to have any villian have more than one movie arc, it would either be GG or Doc Oct, easily.

The way they handled Venom i though was fine, yeah small screen time, but you know what, if you give Venom an entire movie, and its PG-13, he wont be killing anyone, and he doesn't have any outside goals other than hurting Peter, so random Spidey/Venom fights throughout 2 1/2 hour movie would get pointless, leading to a final fight that we have seen probably 3-4 times already?

How they did it was good, cause the real plot of the story they made, if you look at it, is not a Spider-Man/Venom/Sandman plot, its a Peter Parker/Harry Osborn/MJ plot. Where Peter is gaining a this ego, and is enhanced by the symbiot, where then MJ/Harry play into it all. Than you have the Sandman stuff to help teach Peter about forgiveness, and Venom just there to appease the auidence.

And for anyone that complains about time, and blame it on Riami, get a clue about the movie industry. Sam has no control about that, its the boss' at Sony that control how long they think a movie should be, so if they feel that the stuff that got cut out (Eddie at the park with Sandman/ Sandman's daughter/wife at the final fight) had to go...Sam and the editors at to give in.
 
That was a very good point on Venom. His random fights with Spidey for a full movie wouldn't make much of a movie. I do think they rushed the movie a litte though. They crammed too much stuff in one movie. I liked Spiderman 3 when I saw it in May, I still like it, but it is, without a doubt, the worst of the three.
 
I also watched all 3 back to back. Still really enjoy the first one, think the second is the best, and the third is the weakest. If anything, it's worse on DVD.
 
Not just superhero movies either, a lot of time best stories come from there being personal connections between the main characters.

If there was none, then why should our hero or the auidence care about the villian in the first place? They wouldn't, yeah you can get away with that in the comics, but in film, its an important quality to stick too.
 
It's not just spidey film it's in all the superhero gene movies (The Villains always have a connection to the Heroes)

No, they don't. The movie makers just choose to do it that way.

The Dark Knight will hopefully prove that is so by having no connection between Batman and The Joker.
 
No, they don't. The movie makers just choose to do it that way.

The Dark Knight will hopefully prove that is so by having no connection between Batman and The Joker.

Not if Batman has a hand in creating The Joker.
 
Seeing as how The Joker is already established at the end of Begins, that's not likely.

Just because we've seen a playing card, doesn't mean that The Joker is already established. Yes, the man who becomes the Joker is out there robbing banks and killing people. But that doesn't mean he's The Joker yet :cwink:
 
Just because we've seen a playing card, doesn't mean that The Joker is already established. Yes, the man who becomes the Joker is out there robbing banks and killing people. But that doesn't mean he's The Joker yet :cwink:

Seeing as how the card is a Joker card, and Gordon tells Batman that "He's got a taste for the theatrical", I think it's very obvious that he's already The Joker.
 
Seeing as how the card is a Joker card, and Gordon tells Batman that "He's got a taste for the theatrical", I think it's very obvious that he's already The Joker.

It's not obvious to me! Again, just because he's using a Joker card doesn't mean he's already The Joker.

It's the beginnings of The Joker, to be sure. But my money's on the guy not fully transforming into The Joker, make-up, gashed smile and all, until after his initial confrontation with Batman which then tips him over the edge.

If i'm wrong and Nolan begins TDK with The Joker already made up then... well a great opportunity has been missed.
 
It's not obvious to me! Again, just because he's using a Joker card doesn't mean he's already The Joker.

Why else would he use a Joker card then? Why is he being theatrical? That's all Joker persona. Not your run of the mill bank robber.

It's the beginnings of The Joker, to be sure. But my money's on the guy not fully transforming into The Joker, make-up, gashed smile and all, until after his initial confrontation with Batman which then tips him over the edge.

If i'm wrong and Nolan begins TDK with The Joker already made up then... well a great opportunity has been missed.

If what we've heard about the script is true, and the on set pics seem to back it up, then you're in for some big disappointment.
 
Just because we've seen a playing card, doesn't mean that The Joker is already established. Yes, the man who becomes the Joker is out there robbing banks and killing people. But that doesn't mean he's The Joker yet :cwink:
Its been stated that hes already the Joker by the begining of the film IIRC.
 
Why else would he use a Joker card then? Why is he being theatrical? That's all Joker persona. Not your run of the mill bank robber.

As I said, yes, it's the beginnings of the Joker. Hints of his theatricality. But unless he's got his gash smile and white face and green hair, he's not The Joker yet!!!

If what we've heard about the script is true, and the on set pics seem to back it up, then you're in for some big disappointment.

Are you telling me The Joker already has his gash smile before the movie starts? Well I don't buy it.

At the end of Begins, he's just a bank robber who has a flair for the theatrical. At the start of TDK something has to drive him over the edge for him kick up merry hell in the second film, by becoming The Joker proper. And that something can only be Batman's intervention.
 
Are you telling me The Joker already has his gash smile before the movie starts?

We've seen pics of him and his gang robbing a bank, which happens at the beginning, and he's got the green hair, white face, the gashed smile.

His gang all have clown masks on, too
 
I know what you're saying. But i've heard that he gets his gash smile in TDK. In which case, he's not officially The Joker yet.

The gashed smile does not make him The Joker. His psychosis does that. He's already a psycho murdering clown at the beginning of the movie.

Batman has no hand in creating him.
 
We've seen pics of him and his gang robbing a bank, which happens at the beginning, and he's got the green hair, white face, the gashed smile.

His gang all have clown masks on, too

Well I heard that
he gets his gash smile from a zip-line accident which Batman causes!
 
The gashed smile does not make him The Joker. His psychosis does that. He's already a psycho murdering clown at the beginning of the movie.

Well, I disagree with you. He can rob banks, kill people, wear a clown mask and still not be Joker. That psychotic transformation comes with a symbol. That symbol, his trademark smile.

Batman has no hand in creating him.

I think you're wrong. And that at the end of the movie we'll learn that Batman did have a hand in creating him and that will be TDK's twist.
 
Well, I disagree with you. He can rob banks, kill people, wear a clown mask and still not be Joker.

So, looking, behaving, and being The Joker is not the Joker for you? He has to have a gashed smile to be The Joker?

Interesting logic.

I think you're wrong. And that at the end of the movie we'll learn that Batman did have a hand in creating him and that will be TDK's twist.

Don't get your hopes up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"