Official Rate & Review Spider-Man 3 Thread! *SPOILERS*

[Trevor Goodchild]

double post

 

[Nightmare]

Trevor what do you think about the part where those kids said "wicked cool". How about the part where MJ breaks up with Peter, and peter starts breakin into tears. How about the part where MJ gets mad cause spiderman kissed gwen and she suddenly turns into a ***** at the restraunt?

 

[StylishHokie21]

How was it out of character? The theme of the movie was about turning away from revenge and embracing forgiveness. Once he learned that lesson, Spider-Man displayed that quality and forgave Sandman despite all his wrong doing. That’s what forgiveness is all about.

Spider-Man might still forgive him, but he would never just let some wanted criminal walk free. That just seems out of character for someone like Spider-Man, although Sandman isn't necessarily as bad Green Goblin or Doc Ock.

Uncle Ben yes but who are the ‘many others’? If you mean the cops and occasional innocent bystanders, then the movie is done with such subtlety that the viewer can take it in which ever way they want - from minor injuries, to permanent paralysis, to instant death. It’s this kind of ambiguity that make all those other ‘incidents’ hard to argue.

I'll give you this one. I'm not really sure where I was going with this.

Well, first of all, if you’re gonna argue that Sandman seriously injured and possibly killed people, then so can I say that Spider-Man injured and possibly killed people while he was under the influence of the symbiote. Not to mention he genuinely wanted to kill Flint and though he did, with no regret and with satisfaction in fact, if only it wasn’t for his sand powers.
Remember that scene, Spidery admits it himself: “I’ve done terrible things too.”

True, but he didn't really kill anyone while he was under the influence of the symbiote. He wasn't in control of his actions until after hitting MJ. Sandman knew exactly what he was doing. He accidentally killed a man, but either way you look at it's still murder.

Therefore, if Sandman belongs in jail, so does Spider-Man.
Otherwise, if Flint Marko would just give himself up afterwards, it would invalidate the whole forgiveness theme. So Spider-Man granted him a second chance and he should just blow it away by turning himself in? There’s no point in that, since in that case Spidey wouldn’t have to forgive him at all. Instead he could just beat the crap out of Flint and deliver him to the authorities himself.

I'm sorry, but I disagree here. What has Spider-Man done to deserve being thrown in jail?

Define ‘real’ Spider-Man.
Again, if he wouldn’t, then there would be no moral lesson to teach.

I'm talking about the Spider-Man who would beat the **** out of his enemies then leave them for the police. I'm getting tired of all these sympathetic villains to be honest. I understand there was a moral lesson, but I just didn't buy it.

How? What ending? Please elaborate.

Towards the end, Magneto declared war on the human race and had already killed some people. Once he gets cured, it shows him outside playing chess in the park. Shouldn't he be in jail?

I did smile and chuckle occasionally, I’ll give you that.
Look, I devilishly thought to myself: “Hehe, that guy is soo evil! I like it!” just like any other dedicated movie goer. I liked Heath’s performance. But as for being ‘impressed’ by it, I’ve seen other movies with the same type of character already. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys instantly comes to mind.

Fair enough. I'll admit that Brad Pitt was pretty crazy in that.

The only thing in SM3 that is better than TDK is the Sandman ending. I’m not saying that I place SM3 above TDK in quality. That’s a different story.

Ah...I see. No harm done. There's nothing wrong with that though. I personally think TDK is overrated as well.

Observing Raimi’s usual trilogy patterns, I don’t count on him doing anything of the sort that I have in mind after SM3, especially looking at what he did with SM2 after SM1. But currently I find Spider-Man and Sandman’s relationship to be the most original hero-villain idea I’ve ever seen.
Throw away comic book faithfulness and think about this for a moment:
Sandman is the only supervillain who ever gave Peter Parker the most grief…and he forgave him for it!

I think it just comes off as lazy. I know the other villains had a connection with Peter, but here I don't see why Raimi had to go in this direction.

By NY’s perspective, Flint Marko is still a very serious threat to the city and the authorities would still want him hunted down. This way forcing him to be constantly on the run. And the only one who could actually catch him simply won’t do it. Spider-Man gave a second chance to Sandman and that’s equivalent to a promise. It would go against his own standards and turn him into a real dick, if he broke it. So now they’re both at a dilemma - Flint’s only way to stop all this is to give himself up, leaving no chance to see his daughter for possibly the last few days she has to live, and Spider-Man is torn apart - should he do what the people ask him to do, since he’s there to serve and protect them, or should he keep strong to his own moral convictions? What do you think the city would think of their hero in that situation?

I suppose he gave him a second chance, but who's to say he'll turn to crime again after being let go? After his daughter is healthy again, what then? Spider-Man is certainly taking a huge risk here.

I don’t see Batman and the Joker ever having such a dynamic.

I agree with this.

Yeah, isn’t that a phrase often thrown around these parts just for void appearances.
But if you really mean it, thanks, I appreciate it a lot, there aren’t many left that do.

I really do mean it. Don't worry about what other people think of you. It's your opinion after all and this is the internet.

What did you think of Spider-Man 3 yourself?

I liked it, but wasn't blown away by it. It's flawed, but enjoyable. I still prefer the first two, but this one was is decent. If Raimi was given more control, it could have been even better than the others.

Anyways, I won't be doing the multiple quotes thing after this. I hope you understand. I'm too lazy.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Trevor what do you think about the part where those kids said "wicked cool".

The same thing I thought when I saw all those women screaming right into the camera in SM2: "Oh, shut up!"

How about the part where MJ breaks up with Peter, and peter starts breakin into tears.

cliché

How about the part where MJ gets mad cause spiderman kissed gwen and she suddenly turns into a ***** at the restraunt?

Completely justified.
I mean, wouldn't you be mad, if your partner kissed somebody else, right in front of your face? Or are you into open relationships?

Spider-Man might still forgive him, but he would never just let some wanted criminal walk free. That just seems out of character for someone like Spider-Man, although Sandman isn't necessarily as bad Green Goblin or Doc Ock.

(don’t be too offended by the sarcasm)
Spidey: “Oh, sure, I forgive you Sandman. But you’re still going down sucka! SLAM!”
Don’t you think it’s at least a little bit of a dick move? Remember my point about invalidation.

True, but he didn't really kill anyone while he was under the influence of the symbiote. He wasn't in control of his actions until after hitting MJ.

You missed the point of what I said in my previous post.
How do you know he didn’t kill anyone?
What about all those pictures of black suit Spidey mercilessly brutalizing all those thugs?
No matter what really happened, Sandman and Spider-Man had an equal violent impact on people.
And the symbiote influence didn’t stop Peter from taking the blame for it afterwards anyway.

Sandman knew exactly what he was doing. He accidentally killed a man, but either way you look at it's still murder.
I'm sorry, but I disagree here. What has Spider-Man done to deserve being thrown in jail

And Spider-Man wanted to commit murder, thought he did, was fine with it and, in fact, he enjoyed it. Just because Sandman survived, doesn’t make it ok. It’s the thought that counts, you know. Either way you look at it, it’s still murder.
If you don’t want to make an exception for Sandman because of an accident, nor there should be made one for Spider-Man because of an influence.

I'm talking about the Spider-Man who would beat the **** out of his enemies then leave them for the police.

Every hero has to practice self-restraint.

I'm getting tired of all these sympathetic villains to be honest. I understand there was a moral lesson, but I just didn't buy it.

I know what you mean. I can’t stand them either. But what makes me like Sandman’s situation, as opposed to Doc Ock’s for example, is the controversy behind it, just like the ending of SM1.
I guess that’s what it takes to win me over with a sympathetic villain.

Towards the end, Magneto declared war on the human race and had already killed some people. Once he gets cured, it shows him outside playing chess in the park. Shouldn't he be in jail?

He fled the scene and was lying low?
That has nothing to do with SM3. They don’t even have the same moral lessons.

I personally think TDK is overrated as well.

Really? Do tell.

I think it just comes off as lazy. I know the other villains had a connection with Peter, but here I don't see why Raimi had to go in this direction.

Granted it could’ve been any other b-rate villain. But Sam went for a message. And I like a good story over a faithful adaptation.

I suppose he gave him a second chance, but who's to say he'll turn to crime again after being let go? After his daughter is healthy again, what then? Spider-Man is certainly taking a huge risk here.

Exactly! That’s another point of forgiveness.
Spider-Man doesn’t know. Nobody knows except Flint Marko himself.
The ending was about one particular situation. There’s no telling what will happen beyond that but as far as Uncle Ben’s death, Sandman deserved that break.

Anyways, I won't be doing the multiple quotes thing after this. I hope you understand. I'm too lazy.

Pity, but oh well. Take care then.

 

[Venom75]

I really do think that Sandman should've been taken out of the movie altogether. Everyone thinks that Venom was "forced" in,but Sandman was someone who didn't need to be there. Peter gets the black suit and battles Harry during the first part of the film,then he gets rid of it,it finds Brock and then Venom is the villain for the 2nd half. Peter needed to fight and defeat Venom because he kinda represented the evil half of Spider-man,just as Eddie was the darker half of Peter. Peter needed to conquer that part of himself in order for him to move on and grow. So,it all made sense. But having Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer totally changed things around. I mean,Marko is supposed to be the villain but Raimi tried to throw all that out the window by saying that while Sandman killed Peter's Uncle and is a criminal,he deserves a free pass. Well,Ock wasn't really a monster either,but he gave his life to try and make up for the crimes he committed.
Harry is the sympathetic villain here,and Venom is the all out evil monster. Those two are all we needed for the film.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

yeah i agree sandman felt like the odd man out throughout nearly the entire movie. Raimi shoved him in because for some reason he loves a character who in the comics never had that much development and forced a false history of the character on us.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Bu you guys are missing the point why Raimi did all that - he wanted to tell a theme and Sandman was an essential part of it. Venom was the one that shouldn’t have been in there.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Bu you guys are missing the point why Raimi did all that - he wanted to tell a theme and Sandman was an essential part of it. Venom was the one that shouldn’t have been in there.

Sandman was not needed to tell that theme... plus the forgiveness theme was lame, sandman just dragged it down. The only forgiveness theme needed was with Harry and Peter forgiving himself, sandman was just dead weight. Sandman killed his friggin uncle and peter let him go? accident or tormented villain or not, the guy chose many of his bad actions, and the spider-man i know would not let him go. dude are you seriously that delusional to not see why so many think this movie was a major major disappointment? The Symbiote story was a HUGE plot of the film, infact arguably the main plot. It's about Peter battling himself and his inner demons. Now i would have been very happy to have the movie deal with less of his demons and make the suit seem happy and fresh and new in the first, and then dark, corrupting and venom in the sequel... for a 2 part arch, but that didnt happen, we got it all in one movie. Since we did, it still worked, peter had to battle himself, both mentally (wearing the black suit) and physically (venom). The movie was also about the responsibility of reaping what you sew, peter dealt with his own fallout caused by his actions in the black suit, and for the irresponsibility which lead to the symbiote finding brock.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Alright I lied. I'm going to continue. I'm the one who started this after all. t:

(don’t be too offended by the sarcasm)
Spidey: “Oh, sure, I forgive you Sandman. But you’re still going down sucka! SLAM!”
Don’t you think it’s at least a little bit of a dick move? Remember my point about invalidation.

You have a point here, but it's not like had to fight him. "Sandman I forgive you, but you're a wanted man still. We'll help your daughter in anyway, but you must pay the price for all the damage you've done." That's all I'm saying.

You missed the point of what I said in my previous post.
How do you know he didn’t kill anyone?
What about all those pictures of black suit Spidey mercilessly brutalizing all those thugs?
No matter what really happened, Sandman and Spider-Man had an equal violent impact on people.
And the symbiote influence didn’t stop Peter from taking the blame for it afterwards anyway.

I understand now. I'll give you this one.

And Spider-Man wanted to commit murder, thought he did, was fine with it and, in fact, he enjoyed it. Just because Sandman survived, doesn’t make it ok. It’s the thought that counts, you know. Either way you look at it, it’s still murder.
If you don’t want to make an exception for Sandman because of an accident, nor there should be made one for Spider-Man because of an influence.

I'll give you this one as well. He did try to kill Sandman to avenge Uncle Ben.

Every hero has to practice self-restraint.

He didn't really have to fight with Sandman after Venom was taken care of. They could have come to an agreement or something, but I can see why Spider-Man let him go.

I know what you mean. I can’t stand them either. But what makes me like Sandman’s situation, as opposed to Doc Ock’s for example, is the controversy behind it, just like the ending of SM1.
I guess that’s what it takes to win me over with a sympathetic villain.

What was the controversy behind SM1's ending? I didn't hear about that.

He fled the scene and was lying low?
That has nothing to do with SM3. They don’t even have the same moral lessons.

"With great power, comes great responsibility." That's what Spider-Man is all about. Letting his uncle's killer go is what I call being irresponsible to be honest. Magneto wasn't lying low. I'm sure everyone kissed and made up by the end, so the result is Magneto playing chess in the park. It's silly and doesn't make any sense. This applies to Sandman as well. It doesn't matter if he was trying to save his daughter. He still caused a lot of problems that he should pay for. That's why most people hate this movie. Besides the evil Peter scenes, they feel Sandman was underused and I agree. He should have been given a lot more screentime. I blame Avi Arad for forcing Raimi to put Venom in.

Really? Do tell.

I'd found that movie wasn't as perfect as some people were making it out to be. It was one of the best comic book movies I've seen in awhile, but it was flawed.

Granted it could’ve been any other b-rate villain. But Sam went for a message. And I like a good story over a faithful adaptation.

I agree with you here. That's what I like about Raimi.

Exactly! That’s another point of forgiveness.
Spider-Man doesn’t know. Nobody knows except Flint Marko himself.
The ending was about one particular situation. There’s no telling what will happen beyond that but as far as Uncle Ben’s death, Sandman deserved that break.

I suppose so. This part of the film just bothered me. Maybe I need to watch it again or something.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Sandman was not needed to tell that theme... plus the forgiveness theme was lame, sandman just dragged it down.
The only forgiveness theme needed was with Harry and Peter forgiving himself, sandman was just dead weight.

That was the point of the movie, take it or leave it.

Sandman killed his friggin uncle and peter let him go? accident or tormented villain or not, the guy chose many of his bad actions, and the spider-man i know would not let him go.

If you care, you can check my previous two posts to answer that fully.

dude are you seriously that delusional to not see why so many think this movie was a major major disappointment?

There was no need to get so rude.
I do understand why people don’t like this movie and I also have a pretty good idea of why each character was used. I’m only trying to enlighten you on that.

The Symbiote story was a HUGE plot of the film, infact arguably the main plot. It's about Peter battling himself and his inner demons.

I didn’t say anything about a symbiote.
I was talking about Brock/Venom.

The movie was also about the responsibility of reaping what you sew, peter dealt with his own fallout caused by his actions in the black suit, and for the irresponsibility which lead to the symbiote finding brock.

If it wasn’t for Sandman’s character, who would Peter have enough initiative to want to kill? That’s his role.
Sam wanted Sandman. Venom was forced on him by others. He has no involvement with Peter’s revenge-forgiveness theme whatsoever. Remove his character and nothing changes. He was just the end result.

Alright I lied. I'm going to continue. I'm the one who started this after all. t:

Hehe, that’s fine.

You have a point here, but it's not like had to fight him. "Sandman I forgive you, but you're a wanted man still. We'll help your daughter in anyway, but you must pay the price for all the damage you've done." That's all I'm saying.

He didn't really have to fight with Sandman after Venom was taken care of. They could have come to an agreement or something, but I can see why Spider-Man let him go.

There are no guarantees that Spider-Man, of all people, could help his daughter in exchange for his surrender.
Spidey could only act upon the things that concern him directly. And he made a choice accordingly.

What was the controversy behind SM1's ending? I didn't hear about that.

The better word for it would be ‘unconventionality’. Peter didn’t get the girl at the end, like the usual cliché. In fact he resented her for very good reasons. SM2 ruined that.

"With great power, comes great responsibility." That's what Spider-Man is all about. Letting his uncle's killer go is what I call being irresponsible to be honest.

Well, we already talked about this. There’s nothing more I can add to it.

Magneto wasn't lying low. I'm sure everyone kissed and made up by the end, so the result is Magneto playing chess in the park. It's silly and doesn't make any sense.

Why are you sure of that? There’s no evidence to support it. And since it could’ve gone either way, isn’t the more logical thing to do is to assume the way that makes more sense?
Not trying to defend X3 here in any way. I’m just debunking needless negativity do to a misconception.

This applies to Sandman as well. It doesn't matter if he was trying to save his daughter. He still caused a lot of problems that he should pay for. That's why most people hate this movie.

He made some bad choices for sure, that’s why he’s the ‘villain’.
But him saving his daughter does matter. A lot. It gives weight to justification.
But I think most of the audience is driven by the same old ‘eye for an eye’ mentality.
That’s why they can’t accept Spidey’s decision.

Besides the evil Peter scenes, they feel Sandman was underused and I agree. He should have been given a lot more screentime. I blame Avi Arad for forcing Raimi to put Venom in.

I agree.

I suppose so. This part of the film just bothered me. Maybe I need to watch it again or something.

Check it out. Maybe you’ll change your mind now that I gave you a different perspective.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

That was the point of the movie, take it or leave it.

Just because it was in the movie doesn't mean sandman needed to be in it as well. we got the point between peter and harry... and it makes more sense to just have them. why bring in a random third?

There was no need to get so rude.
I do understand why people don’t like this movie and I also have a pretty good idea of why each character was used. I’m only trying to enlighten you on that.

look i know what characters were used for, and i get the gist of them fitting a theme, but sandman was dead weight. And the movie would have been perfectly fine with that. He didn't ADD anything, thus making him dead weight.

I didn’t say anything about a symbiote.
I was talking about Brock/Venom.

Brock and venom wasn't pushed though, he just wasnt expanded upon enough. But he fit in far more then sandman did, considering peter was responsible for his creation.

If it wasn’t for Sandman’s character, who would Peter have enough initiative to want to kill? That’s his role.

well the symbiote story in all incarnations never needed peter to be "so angry with someone" that he kills... the symbiote did all that for him... made him beat his villains to near death. why add that mess of a convoluted story? esp when it makes sandman out to be spidey's top villain?

Sam wanted Sandman. Venom was forced on him by others. He has no involvement with Peter’s revenge-forgiveness theme whatsoever. Remove his character and nothing changes. He was just the end result.

sam wanted sandman for the special FX.. and he was a moron during production. I have a friend who was working in the art department and witnessed it first hand. Most of the art department was enraged and confused at how horrible the movie was turning out to be. But they did there job, and got paid. I think you got it backward... Venom was peters rage incarnate. and was created from that rage. Sandman was not needed with his forced story.

 

[Venom75]

The biggest thing I didn't like about Sandman was the same thing many others didn't care for,the story being changed around so that he was now Ben's killer. As many people have mentioned,it changed the whole dynamic of Spidey's origin. Captain Stacy calls Peter and his aunt in to his office and says,"Um,yeah. I think Flint Marko killed Ben Parker,but we didn't really know about it untill now. All I can say is...oops!" I mean,c'mon. lol
With Marko,are we supposed to hate him or feel sorry for him? His story(like Brock's)was never really explored and left a lot to be desired.
The whole revenge/forgiveness theme that was needed could've easily been put upon Harry's shoulders. Again,Harry could've taken over the mantle of the "sympathetic" villain that Sandman tried to be. As a character,I don't think Marko fit into the theme of the film like Harry and Brock did. Both Harry(New Goblin) and Brock(Venom) were filled with darkness and revenge. The major difference between the two is that Eddie let his darkness destroy him,Harry didn't. Sandman,as I saw,had no such darkness inside him. As he put it,"I'm not a bad person. I've just had back luck." He really didn't fit,imo.
I think most people wanted to see a dark Spider-man film. A film that would put a Spider-man vs. Venom battle at the forefront. That's how the marketing people at Sony made it seem. All the ads showed the symbiote or black suit Spidey and they really played up Venom being in the film(although,known to many of us at the time it would only be for 8 minutes).
I liked Church as Marko and if this were another Spidey film I would've liked to have seen more of him,but I was far more fascinated with Peter's battle with the black suit and the birth of Venom,and what made Eddie Brock so twisted.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The biggest thing I didn't like about Sandman was the same thing many others didn't care for,the story being changed around so that he was now Ben's killer. As many people have mentioned,it changed the whole dynamic of Spidey's origin. Captain Stacy calls Peter and his aunt in to his office and says,"Um,yeah. I think Flint Marko killed Ben Parker,but we didn't really know about it untill now. All I can say is...oops!" I mean,c'mon. lol
With Marko,are we supposed to hate him or feel sorry for him? His story(like Brock's)was never really explored and left a lot to be desired.
The whole revenge/forgiveness theme that was needed could've easily been put upon Harry's shoulders. Again,Harry could've taken over the mantle of the "sympathetic" villain that Sandman tried to be. As a character,I don't think Marko fit into the theme of the film like Harry and Brock did. Both Harry(New Goblin) and Brock(Venom) were filled with darkness and revenge. The major difference between the two is that Eddie let his darkness destroy him,Harry didn't. Sandman,as I saw,had no such darkness inside him. As he put it,"I'm not a bad person. I've just had back luck." He really didn't fit,imo.
I think most people wanted to see a dark Spider-man film. A film that would put a Spider-man vs. Venom battle at the forefront. That's how the marketing people at Sony made it seem. All the ads showed the symbiote or black suit Spidey and they really played up Venom being in the film(although,known to many of us at the time it would only be for 8 minutes).
I liked Church as Marko and if this were another Spidey film I would've liked to have seen more of him,but I was far more fascinated with Peter's battle with the black suit and the birth of Venom,and what made Eddie Brock so twisted.

couldnt be said any better than this *claps*

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Just because it was in the movie doesn't mean sandman needed to be in it as well.

That was Raimi’s initial idea.

we got the point between peter and harry... and it makes more sense to just have them. why bring in a random third?

Harry didn’t have that big of an impact as Sandman did.
I’ll take a ret-con over a forced break up any day.

look i know what characters were used for, and i get the gist of them fitting a theme, but sandman was dead weight. And the movie would have been perfectly fine with that. He didn't ADD anything, thus making him dead weight.

He did - as I said, he was the whole reason for Peter’s revenge.

Brock and venom wasn't pushed though, he just wasnt expanded upon enough. But he fit in far more then sandman did, considering peter was responsible for his creation.

He did fit. But that’s not the argument.
As far as sacrifices are concerned, he’s the best candidate to go.
Imagine this for a moment:
Take away Brock’s character, and what does it change in the movie other than the Bugle plot line?
Take away Sandman, and who should Peter/Spidey concentrate his anger on? Harry? Why? Peter has no reason to hate Harry.

well the symbiote story in all incarnations never needed peter to be "so angry with someone" that he kills... the symbiote did all that for him... made him beat his villains to near death. why add that mess of a convoluted story? esp when it makes sandman out to be spidey's top villain?

Why not?
And that’s not a convoluted story…faaar from it.
It has a reason, again, Raimi’s theme.

sam wanted sandman for the special FX.. and he was a moron during production.

The movie itself shows that that’s not true.

I have a friend who was working in the art department and witnessed it first hand. Most of the art department was enraged and confused at how horrible the movie was turning out to be. But they did there job, and got paid.

Enraged by what? ‘Enraged’? Jesus! It’s just a movie!
Just because you or somebody else doesn’t like something, doesn’t invalidate the importance of that thing.
You don’t like Sandman’s involvement. Fine. But you have no basis to call him useless.

I think you got it backward... Venom was peters rage incarnate. and was created from that rage. Sandman was not needed with his forced story.

As I said, he was the result of every thing that was going on in the movie. And that’s fine. But Sandman was directly involved in it.

The biggest thing I didn't like about Sandman was the same thing many others didn't care for,the story being changed around so that he was now Ben's killer. As many people have mentioned,it changed the whole dynamic of Spidey's origin. Captain Stacy calls Peter and his aunt in to his office and says,"Um,yeah. I think Flint Marko killed Ben Parker,but we didn't really know about it untill now. All I can say is...oops!" I mean,c'mon. lol

I don’t like people changing crucial parts of their own story with ret-cons myself.
But with the idea that Raimi wanted to convey, the end justifies the means.
Antipathy towards the rewrite is not a valid point against the importance of Sandman’s story.
Not that it seems like you’re defending spideyboy’s argument…

With Marko,are we supposed to hate him or feel sorry for him?

Why does it have to be so black and white?

His story(like Brock's)was never really explored and left a lot to be desired.

That’s true.

The whole revenge/forgiveness theme that was needed could've easily been put upon Harry's shoulders.

As I asked a few sentences above - what would Peter need to forgive Harry for?
Their story is about Peter trying to reason with Harry, while Harry tries to have his revenge on him.
If Peter was to take revenge on Harry for whatever reason, it would turn the whole plot around and destroy the initially established idea behind it.
Brock/Venom is absolutely the same thing. Brock wants revenge on Peter for humiliating him. Not the other way around.
Sandman puts revenge into Peter’s hands so to speak. That’s how our hero learns forgiveness.

Again,Harry could've taken over the mantle of the "sympathetic" villain that Sandman tried to be. As a character,I don't think Marko fit into the theme of the film like Harry and Brock did. Both Harry(New Goblin) and Brock(Venom) were filled with darkness and revenge. The major difference between the two is that Eddie let his darkness destroy him,Harry didn't. Sandman,as I saw,had no such darkness inside him. As he put it,"I'm not a bad person. I've just had back luck." He really didn't fit,imo.

Harry, like Ock, wasn’t really ‘sympathetic’. He was misguided.
While, Venom, like Norman’s GG, was the irredeemable villain.
Sandman is the perfect middle man in this.
In SM1, Green Goblin asked for forgiveness but didn’t deserve any. In SM2, Doc Ock deserved forgiveness but ended up sacrificing himself. In SM3, Sandman is neither fully evil, nor fully good. Which makes Spidey’s decision even so more admirable, since he shows us, as a true hero, that Flint does deserve a chance, at least this once.

I think most people wanted to see a dark Spider-man film. A film that would put a Spider-man vs. Venom battle at the forefront. That's how the marketing people at Sony made it seem. All the ads showed the symbiote or black suit Spidey and they really played up Venom being in the film(although,known to many of us at the time it would only be for 8 minutes).

Hmm, I think you need to rephrase that a little bit. It sounds like you’re basing fan expectations on the marketing campaign.
Otherwise, that’s true.
But Sony’s marketing decisions are hardly the movie’s fault.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

That was Raimi’s initial idea.


Harry didn’t have that big of an impact as Sandman did.
I’ll take a ret-con over a forced break up any day.


He did - as I said, he was the whole reason for Peter’s revenge.


He did fit. But that’s not the argument.
As far as sacrifices are concerned, he’s the best candidate to go.
Imagine this for a moment:
Take away Brock’s character, and what does it change in the movie other than the Bugle plot line?
Take away Sandman, and who should Peter/Spidey concentrate his anger on? Harry? Why? Peter has no reason to hate Harry.


Why not?
And that’s not a convoluted story…faaar from it.
It has a reason, again, Raimi’s theme.


The movie itself shows that that’s not true.


Enraged by what? ‘Enraged’? Jesus! It’s just a movie!
Just because you or somebody else doesn’t like something, doesn’t invalidate the importance of that thing.
You don’t like Sandman’s involvement. Fine. But you have no basis to call him useless.


As I said, he was the result of every thing that was going on in the movie. And that’s fine. But Sandman was directly involved in it.


I don’t like people changing crucial parts of their own story with ret-cons myself.
But with the idea that Raimi wanted to convey, the end justifies the means.
Antipathy towards the rewrite is not a valid point against the importance of Sandman’s story.
Not that it seems like you’re defending spideyboy’s argument…


Why does it have to be so black and white?


That’s true.


As I asked a few sentences above - what would Peter need to forgive Harry for?
Their story is about Peter trying to reason with Harry, while Harry tries to have his revenge on him.
If Peter was to take revenge on Harry for whatever reason, it would turn the whole plot around and destroy the initially established idea behind it.
Brock/Venom is absolutely the same thing. Brock wants revenge on Peter for humiliating him. Not the other way around.
Sandman puts revenge into Peter’s hands so to speak. That’s how our hero learns forgiveness.


Harry, like Ock, wasn’t really ‘sympathetic’. He was misguided.
While, Venom, like Norman’s GG, was the irredeemable villain.
Sandman is the perfect middle man in this.
In SM1, Green Goblin asked for forgiveness but didn’t deserve any. In SM2, Doc Ock deserved forgiveness but ended up sacrificing himself. In SM3, Sandman is neither fully evil, nor fully good. Which makes Spidey’s decision even so more admirable, since he shows us, as a true hero, that Flint does deserve a chance, at least this once.


Hmm, I think you need to rephrase that a little bit. It sounds like you’re basing fan expectations on the marketing campaign.
Otherwise, that’s true.
But Sony’s marketing decisions are hardly the movie’s fault.

gah im not even trying anymore... it's like arguing with a republican.. you tell them the facts and the reasons and they sit there and nod and spout the same stuff back at you.

Look sandman could have easily been ripped out of the movie, and it would have been fine, if not better. Peter didn't NEED sandman to get angry. What the smart thing to do, would have been the city HATE Spidey, not LOVE spidey, have MJ and Peters relationship get a little rocky (like foreshadowed with her grimacing face in spidey 2) still have MJ get jealous of Gwen, just to add the tension, while Harry terrorizes and even threatens peter and his loved ones lives. Introduce the black suit, have peter almost kill harry (and or some thugs) hell my earlier concept was to introduce shocker as a brief minor villain.... (his sonic blasts would let peter know sound effects the symbiote, thus the reason he goes to the bell tower (peter using his brain for once in the movies) rather then randomly going to it) black suit spidey could nearly beat shocker to a pulp too... him and harry both work. Brocks roll is expanded... peters slowly losing his job at the bugle to him, brock is extremely competitive and very jealous of peter (either due to having a fox (gag cuz it's kirsten and not how MJ should look) for a girlfriend or the fact he notices his gf (gwen) falling for peter. hell brock could think gwen is cheating on him with peter.. and become enraged. in the end, brock tries to get a big scoop, maybe on shocker? maybe on something else.. either way it falls through and he becomes a laughing stock, he's fired, becomes venom.. and begins to torment the hell out of peter. He kidnaps MJ and Gwen. Harry comes to the rescue at peters side and helps rescue the girls and defeat venom.

No need for sandman in there at all.. less convoluted story with still the theme of responsibility, redemption, and forgiveness with much less of a mess. Crisper, Cleaner, truer to source material, and not crammed with crap.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

gah im not even trying anymore... it's like arguing with a republican.. you tell them the facts and the reasons and they sit there and nod and spout the same stuff back at you.

Lol, you're the one who's not listening.
I give you plenty of good reasons why Sandman has to stay in the movie but you give none why he shouldn't.

Introduce the black suit, have peter almost kill harry (and or some thugs)

Why would Peter want to kill Harry?
Where's the revenge initiative?

No need for sandman in there at all.. less convoluted story with still the theme of responsibility, redemption, and forgiveness with much less of a mess. Crisper, Cleaner, truer to source material, and not crammed with crap.

Problem is, you're not just taking Sandman away. You're changing the whole story to fit your own idea.
And as I pointed out before, you can't take away Sandman, without significantly changing the plot.
That point goes against your argument of him being 'useless'.

 

[Venom75]

Maybe it's just my opinion,but I don't think anyone is wrong. Obviously,I think Sandman should've been removed and have the villains be just Harry and Venom. I think that would've worked great. I'm not saying you're wrong at all,Trevor,but that's how I feel. Of course,if Sandman was left in and Venom saved for part 4 then that could've worked out as well.
I just don't think there's a wrong answer here,just a difference of opinion.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I agree, Venom.
I'm perfectly ok with personal preference and dislikes, I’ve said that a couple of times in my posts. But I'm arguing against spideyboy's point because he wants to go beyond that and for some reason is trying to prove his theory of ‘dead weight’ solely based on his own personal grudge against Sandman.
Thing is, SM3 is what it is because of every major character. You could take any of them away only because you didn’t find him appealing enough. You guys chose Sandman and that’s fine. But then it would’ve been a completely different movie and not necessarily better. You just like to think that way because of your concentrated antipathies towards a particular villain. That makes it more about you than about the movie itself. And to use your own opinion as basis for your theory, is not a very wise thing to do.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Lol, you're the one who's not listening.
I give you plenty of good reasons why Sandman has to stay in the movie but you give none why he shouldn't.


Why would Peter want to kill Harry?
Where's the revenge initiative?


Problem is, you're not just taking Sandman away. You're changing the whole story to fit your own idea.
And as I pointed out before, you can't take away Sandman, without significantly changing the plot.
That point goes against your argument of him being 'useless'.

dude do you seriously not understand the symbiote? its a very VERY violent creature. a teenie feeling of anger can lead to "wanting to kill" peter never wanted to kill sandman. the black suit did. He was just angry and enraged that the police hadn't caught the killer. Peter in his right mind would never want to kill anyone. The symbiote is about losing control and not realizing what your doing. It's getting into a fight and it taking over you and where before, you'd hold back, you keep on punching and not think about the consequences. Peter should not, nor does he need to "want to kill someone"

you can easily take sandman away without changing the plot. He doesn't serve a purpose at all other then to "reiterate" the same story harry and venom give us. It's useless fluff

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree, Venom.
I'm perfectly ok with personal preference and dislikes, I’ve said that a couple of times in my posts. But I'm arguing against spideyboy's point because he wants to go beyond that and for some reason is trying to prove his theory of ‘dead weight’ solely based on his own personal grudge against Sandman.
Thing is, SM3 is what it is because of every major character. You could take any of them away only because you didn’t find him appealing enough. You guys chose Sandman and that’s fine. But then it would’ve been a completely different movie and not necessarily better. You just like to think that way because of your concentrated antipathies towards a particular villain. That makes it more about you than about the movie itself. And to use your own opinion as basis for your theory, is not a very wise thing to do.

What you're not understanding, is where Sandman adds a completely different plot, he adds one that could have been done without. essentially the only integral part of the story he served was to "piss peter off" thus making the symbiote attach to him (which if you know anything about the symbiote that part isnt even needed) Just because they utilized sandman in a way to tell a story, doesn't mean they could have told the same "main story" without him. We get the story of redemption, responsibility, and forgiveness through Harry and Venom. Sandman was just another character thrown in to fit the theme. Sandman is kinda like the third wheel on a date. He might be a good friend, and get along with ya both, but the date would be just fine without him. The plot with sandman being bens killer was not needed. Peter did not need anything more then brock, harry, and the symbiote to be pushed over the edge. In all the black suite interpretations, he was pushed over the edge due to brock and the symbiote alone. Why try to add more depth to that? it just makes things more of a mess and isn't needed. Sometimes things should stay simple.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I hate being a jerk but this is what I'm going to say to at least snap some sense into you:
I probably could reply to all that but in a way you already answered your own questions with your double post.
And it all comes down to this:

Why try to add more depth to that? it just makes things more of a mess and isn't needed. Sometimes things should stay simple.

Hurts your head, doesn't it?

EDIT!
But since I'm a sucker for arguing:
Of course Peter wouldn't kill anybody without the symbiote. But in the movie he gained a reason to kill before the black costume possessed him. It just took away Peter’s rationality and self-restraint.
And as I said to StylishHokie a few posts ago - that influence didn’t stop Peter from taking the blame, for all those terrible things he did, at the end of the movie anyway.
Of course they could’ve taken out Sandman, just like any other villain, and shifted it onto Harry, or any other villain. But that no longer would be Raimi’s vision. It would be yours. And since we’re specifically talking about Sandman’s impact on the story, it’s not a useless flaw, if the plot changes drastically after you remove it.
Just to ‘piss Peter off’? Are kidding?
The guy killed his uncle for Christ’s sake!
Raimi’s story is about a man forgiving another man for killing his sibling.
It’s about a hero learning a lesson of forgiveness after succumbing to revenge.
If you take away Sandman, you lose the main theme of the movie. First and foremost Peter is the one who has to undergo redemption. The villains are just alternate perspectives.
Harry’s character couldn’t possibly compete with that. He’s the one who just ‘pissed Peter off’ in the movie.
To top it, Harry would have to tarnish Spider-Man’s reputation and at least cripple MJ, if not kill Aunt May.
The bigger the tragedy, the more significant the impact of forgiveness.
But that, once again, would be a completely different movie.

 

[Venom75]

I wonder how things would've played out if Sandman wasn't in the film,but Harry ended up killing/injuring Mary Jane? This has nothing to do with what villain should be in the film,but it's just an idea to play around with.
Let's say Harry become so unstable as a result of the enhancers he took,combined with his father's influence,that in a desperate attempt to destroy Peter he severly injures MJ,putting her in the hospital. She's in very real danger of losing her life. Harry didn't mean for it to happen and is heartbroken by what's happened since he cares so much for her. But,this would certainly have pushed Peter over the edge,especially while still wearing the black suit. Peter and Harry(as symbiote Spidey and New Goblin)fight it out. Peter cannot seem to control his rage. He is beating the hell out of Harry and is about to kill him when,to his horror,he realizes what he's doing is wrong and it scares him. He leaves Harry severely injured and comes to see that this suit is twisting his personality,and therefore comes his decision to get rid of it. He does,and Venom is born.
Venom would then reveal himself as Eddie Brock and would maybe threaten to pull the plug on Mary Jane,threaten Aunt May and make Parker's life a living hell. Venom's ultimate goal however is the death of Spider-man/Parker. That would leave Peter no choice but to fight Venom.
The ending battle would be epic:Spider-man vs. Venom. However,it would be very apparent to Peter that he is no match for Venom. During the fight,Harry decides the try and redeem himself and he comes to Peter's aide. Harry,has finally conquered Norman Osborn's influence and comes to see that Peter did not kill his father. He is terrible guilt ridden over how he's treated Peter,as well as what he did to MJ. He wants to try and make things right.
At the end of the fight,Harry is killed by Venom and just as in the movie,Peter discovers Venom's weakness(sound)and Brock and the symbiote are killed just as they were in Spider-man 3.
As Harry lies dying,Peter comes over and they have a final conversation. Harry asks Peter,"Can you ever forgive me?" Both Peter and Harry understand that they both did terribly things but were under the influence of their anger and bitterness. In the end,they both forgive each other as Harry dies in Peter's arms.


Just a rough draft mind you,but I think that might have made a pretty nice film.

 

[Steve Rogers]

The first time I saw it, I hated it. The second time I saw it, I loved it. Go figure. *shrugs*

I think the movie is a sensory overload. The first time you see it, there's so much going on that you really can't process it all. The second time, you're able to focus on it much more. For example, after watching it the first time, I seem to remember Spider-Man being "bad" and "dark" for only a few minutes. The second time, I noticed that that was the recurring theme of the film.

Really, I think it's a fine installment of the series and I'm not at all disappointed with it.

 

[TMC1982]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/board/flat/122046704?p=1

I am going to be blunt and random. Movies that are bluntly and randomly ridiculous need to be bluntly and randomly ridiculed.

Spider-Man 3 is unlike any other movie I've seen. You want to know why? Because it is one of the most annoying, cringe-inducing, and vomit-bubbling films ever made. What's worse is that it is a follow-up of two films in a series before it that I actually did like. Third time is almost never the charm, and in this situation, third time is .....

The movie is filled with some of the most hammy of hammy dialogue. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) google-eyed, Peter repeating how good she was on stage. It's pathetic and it, seriously, lacked any sense of realism. All I heard was actors there for a third movie, tired of playing the same tired characters who could have already been summed up at the end of Spider-Man 2.

The film continues with them on a “spidey-web” and sharing their hammy love for one another while, almost too coincidentally, a strange meteor falls from the sky close by. For some odd reason, Spidey's Spider-sense must've been too focused on getting his fingers wet. I seriously took that into consideration. But then, scene after scene, I realized that there were coincidences all around – every one of them paying benefit to bring on a movie which, even though is bloated with too much “sub-stories” and the like, really lacks plot.

One of the “sub-stories” of the movie involves Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) who is an escaped convict with a back-story that is the clichéd definition of a villain with good intentions' back-story. How does he get involved with Spider-Man? The fact that he killed his uncle. Ho ho. Yes... They change the origin of the previous films in order to work Sandman into the plot somehow, because, of course he can't be one of the criminals Spidey locks up and forgets about as he goes on to the next one.

But then, without this villain, there is another out of Eddie Brock, a rival photographer of Peter Parker, who only arrives in the film when needed to stir up some “crap” and leaves until he is needed for a final few minutes that made me scratch my head and question whether or not director Sam Raimi was aware that there is too much in the film, lame or not, but in this case, lame.

Of course, the meteor is important to the story, as it is what causes Spider-Man's sudden shift toward the “dark side” in which he becomes a whole new person. Uh huh. And not to add on that he follows it up by having his ego Peter Parker have an “emo haircut” that was obviously there to be stylish, or, something. I don't know. What were they thinking? I have no idea, other than to say, that at first sight of it – I could not help but cringe and assume it was a cry to get Spidey closer to the emo clique.... But once again, I have no idea.

And let's not forget about the “love triangles” and all of the picture in which Harry Osborn (James Franco) seeks revenge on Spider/Peter for killing his father, does so by taking on his father's villainous Green Goblin, and somehow loses his memory on the way and is once again nice to Peter. When did this start to happen in real life or in the movies? Maybe the movies have had it before, but never this shoddily handled and with so much witless attention to characterizations. (Once again, all that seems to be on display is an empty plot that is there to just advance a movie, or so called, one.) Harry also begins growing stronger affection for Mary Jane some more. (She may or may not feel the same as she scrolls down her cell phone contacts between Harry and her poor, poor Peter.)

Follow this up with another character in the name of Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is in this film to be saved by our hero and after that there to cause the ruckus in the relationship of Peter and Mary Jane. A scene comes later where Peter tries to impress one of the girls (Mary Jane or Gwen; not sure due to lack of proper execution of character depth) by giving a “sexy” dance that involves chairs and a jacket removal in a bar where Mary Jane must work because she has been sadly replaced by someone prettier, and with much-better-voice, on Broadway.

Other scenes scattered here and there that made me want to vomit:
1)A scene where Peter Parker struts down the streets of the city as if he were in a 70s disco flick. John Travolta you are not, Tobey Maguire.

2)Epically bad fight scenes, staged amateurishly and with visuals that seem right at home with an early 2000's video game.

3)And the overall many moments of overacting by the entire, and I mean the entire, cast. James Franco's evil look at Peter Parker in particular. So campy!

How can I finish off this randomly told review.

Just let you know, that Spider-Man 3 insults my intelligence as a film lover, and sadly, I have not told but 1/8 of what annoys the hell out of me about the movie.

Rating: 0/10

 

[webhead731]

...