The Amazing Spider-Man Should Spidey-3 be retconned?

[NewYorkSpider]

^^ There are flaws with your post.

1.) I have said many times that I hated Spider-Man 3, and I had NEVER said I wanted a wrestler to play Venom. I did think that Raimi should've found someone that could look the part for both, and stick with the 616 version, so we would have an actual built Venom in the end. And he should've been bigger, yes, but not "slobbery bigger"...just someone that easily looks bigger than Spider-Man, and it was hard to distinguish that in a battle during the night, imo.

I don't think Raimi has control of the casting. That was Avi Arad, Grant Curtis and Laura Ziskin.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Wait, wait...just figured something out...

I wasn't even replying to a post by you, I was replying to someone else...so why the hell did you even reply to me?

I said nothing about Spider-Man 3 needing a retconned; I just cleared out what someone's post said.

So what you needed to say really meant nothing to my post.

So good job on just replying to me twice, which was just you pretty much spamming because your nonsense replies weren't needed.

Congrats.

Maybe go to the Iron Man forums next and there you can try this:

Yes?

Given the number of ^^, I thought you were quoting me.

 

[LightningFlash]

I don't care about using "^^".

If one is smart enough to understand without "^^", then good enough.

 

[The Joker]

Hey Lightning, I have to ask, and this is not a dig at you, but is there anything about the Spidey movies that you like?

 

[Arcturus]

Should Spidey-3 be retconned?

I would have to say, no, it shouldn't be. I like Spider-Man 3, but it is flawed. But that's not reason enough to retcon the movie. Rather, they should focus on making Spider-Man 4 incredible.

 

[bryanss3]

I don't think you can retcon movies that were viewed by as many people the saw the entire Spider-Man series. just cause Spider-Man 3 was a bust it doesn't make it Hulk(which IMO isn't as bad as everyone thinks) or The Punisher or Punisher: Warzone(both Punisher Movies are as bad as everyone thinks).

Studios tend to reboot(the movie word for retcon when it comes to super hero movies) when its a movie that didn't make money or got really bad reviews. a lot of people may not like SM3 but it still got a lot of good reviews and made a s*** load of money

 

[LightningFlash]

Hey Lightning, I have to ask, and this is not a dig at you, but is there anything about the Spidey movies that you like?

Lol, I don't take that as a "dig", so no need to worry, haha.

But, actually, I was a fan of the first Spider-Man film. I was a little mad that there wasn't a Gwen Stacy in the first movie, but that's just nitpicking I suppose, but I'm a huge fan when it came to Dafoe being Norman Osborn. Dafoe was brilliant in Platoon and Boondock Saints. Heck, Once Upon A Time In Mexico was good as well, so to the first film, I was a fan of. It just basically started with Spider-Man 2. A lot of people gave praises to that film, but I wasn't a fan of it. Having Doc Ock say at the end, "I will not die a monster" was not what I thought Octavius would say. And him being a sympathetic villain was pretty much boring, because Octavius is a villain much like Green Goblin: evil, but intelligent. Now Doc Ock was an intelligent villain, he also was only a villain for the wrong reasons; to try to build his machine back up and then only went after Spidey because it was part of his deal with Harry. And then Raimi did the same with Sandman, another villain that a lot of villains care about seeing, and he turned out to be another sympathetic villain. I suppose I understand Doc Ock's "turn", but Sandman made no sense for such a drastic change. And also New Goblin wasn't, at least, "my idea" of what the next Goblin should be about.

I'm not going to say my opinions on Venom, just because I know a lot of people hate the character, but it's just that I think Norman Osborn has been the only character that Raimi tried his hardest to be just like the comic's version. And also, I'm not a Tobey Maguire fan, and I would not have picked him to play Peter, nor would I have ever picked Dunst to play Mary Jane, lol. But Dafoe, Franco and Simmons were good choices, imo.

 

[Jick]

I think Norman Osborn has been the only character that Raimi tried his hardest to be just like the comic's version

I so agree with that.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

lets bury it along with all those copies of the e.t game

 

[Jack O Lantern]

 

[Adrian89]

I'm not going to say my opinions on Venom, just because I know a lot of people hate the character, but it's just that I think Norman Osborn has been the only character that Raimi tried his hardest to be just like the comic's version. And also, I'm not a Tobey Maguire fan, and I would not have picked him to play Peter, nor would I have ever picked Dunst to play Mary Jane, lol. But Dafoe, Franco and Simmons were good choices, imo.

I fully agree!!!!

 

[Papa Burgundy]

Lol, I don't take that as a "dig", so no need to worry, haha.

But, actually, I was a fan of the first Spider-Man film. I was a little mad that there wasn't a Gwen Stacy in the first movie, but that's just nitpicking I suppose, but I'm a huge fan when it came to Dafoe being Norman Osborn. Dafoe was brilliant in Platoon and Boondock Saints. Heck, Once Upon A Time In Mexico was good as well, so to the first film, I was a fan of. It just basically started with Spider-Man 2. A lot of people gave praises to that film, but I wasn't a fan of it. Having Doc Ock say at the end, "I will not die a monster" was not what I thought Octavius would say. And him being a sympathetic villain was pretty much boring, because Octavius is a villain much like Green Goblin: evil, but intelligent. Now Doc Ock was an intelligent villain, he also was only a villain for the wrong reasons; to try to build his machine back up and then only went after Spidey because it was part of his deal with Harry. And then Raimi did the same with Sandman, another villain that a lot of villains care about seeing, and he turned out to be another sympathetic villain. I suppose I understand Doc Ock's "turn", but Sandman made no sense for such a drastic change. And also New Goblin wasn't, at least, "my idea" of what the next Goblin should be about.

I'm not going to say my opinions on Venom, just because I know a lot of people hate the character, but it's just that I think Norman Osborn has been the only character that Raimi tried his hardest to be just like the comic's version. And also, I'm not a Tobey Maguire fan, and I would not have picked him to play Peter, nor would I have ever picked Dunst to play Mary Jane, lol. But Dafoe, Franco and Simmons were good choices, imo.

you gotta understand though, it wouldve been very repitivive if ock was made evil as exactly gg was. theres something about the green goblin thats just flat out more evil than ock...maybe its the suit

 

[sauronthegreat]

Goblin's suit is the only problem I have with the Goblin, and it destroyed one of my favorite villains.

I don't think Spider-Man 3 should be put aside. Yes, it was a letdown, but I think that a good Extended Edition, or better even a Director's Cut will correct many mistakes. I really hope, while doing Spider-Man 4, Sam Raimi takes some time and does a proper cut of Spider-Man 3 and changes it as much as he can.

In my opinion,
1. first thing that must be changed is the scene when Venom and Sandman meet. That was an insult to us as viewers. Ridiculous and stupid.
2. Second I would completely cut the thing with Harry telling MJ to break up with Peter, that was unnecessary part. He may see their break up in the park and then use it against Peter, but him attacking MJ the same night they had that dance and supper... that was really quick and naive.
3. More of Norman Osborn stalking Harry in the mirror.
4. One scene with Venom, on the roof of the church, him holding the cross (a la Spawn style) on the rain, while the camera is rotating around him, we get a picture how Venom really looks like in the first place. While he realizes, so do we, everything about Peter & Spidey.
5. Maybe completely change the final battle with Gwen Stacy if it was ever filmed... if yes, then definitely change that.
6. More character development for Sandman!
...and all those other deleted scenes that never made up in the final edit (god knows why)

And that would be Spider-Man 3 I personally would be happy with. It would not have a Dark Knight depth, but all those things really irritate me to date when I think of this film.

 

[chaseter]

If a costume destroyed your favorite character then If you wanted the comic version to be put on the big screen and for us to take it seriously then

 

[sauronthegreat]

I still think it's manageable, but yes, it would have to be much more grim and serious than the version we have. Plastic version of a mask with open mouth and eye-lids that go up and down... I also think that a real goblin look would even flash out more Norman's insanity.

 

[chaseter]

I hate Spider-Man because they didn't include his web gliders under his armpits Some things have to be changed but the important thing is that the essence of the character is there. If they can stay as close as they can then that is great. But, I think this is a case in which it was good that they changed the costume and it was more menacing than a man wearing a mask, purple night cap, purple shirt, and purple underwear.

 

[LightningFlash]

I didn't mind Goblin's suit change.

I think that using the comic's version would not be taken seriously.

 

[brinomite]

Goblin's suit is the only problem I have with the Goblin, and it destroyed one of my favorite villains.

Are you referring to GG in the first film or the lame ass snowboarding goblin in 3?...actually to contradict myself, the new goblin in 3 couldve been a lot more asthetically pleasing if the mask had been re-created in a more menacing fashion...but did you or anyone else see the original concept art for Norman's costume??? it was effing amazing! but due to studio budget cuts, they had to settle for the power ranger esque suit...lemme look for that artwork right now and post it.

 

[brinomite]

^^^ok sorry i'm still looking for that GG concept art bc it was really effing badass. I remember seeing it about 6 months or so before 3 came out on these boards somewhere...hopefully i or someone else will find it. But on another note more pertinent to this thread topic, i'm not sure if it should be retconnected, it's just a shame that 3 wasted such potentially valuable characters by providing them with no character arc (aside from pete, mj, and harry)...it will be a difficult task for raimi to make 4 compelling enough to build off of 3.

 

[sauronthegreat]

I think I do remember that concept. And it would have worked great.
I was speaking of Norman's Green Goblin from the first. After that I didn't care at all for Harry and his design, because the first Goblin, the true Goblin, was not a goblin to begin with. Harry wasn't a goblin imo, I look at him as Harry using his father's weapons to avenge him. He was not insane like his father so there was no need for a goblin look, after all I am even more pleased with the design of Harry's costume than watching another "Green Goblin" like the one in the first film.
Don't get me wrong, Willem Dafoe nailed the part of Norman Osborn, but when it comes to the Goblin there isn't much credibility to his insanity. The goblin from the comics, even though I don't imply they should have kept the same look, with all those colors, (times change after all) but they should have focused on the things that made the character so unique and deranged as he is. There were a lot of goblins in films ('The Lord of the Rings' for example) and it worked. Norman could have worn a mask and be more darker and changed, more high-tech, but still remain some of his most distinguishable traits and elements.
I don't have a problem with his costume (even though it would better suit Scorpion) but I can't accept that plastic mask as a more serious and adequate solution.

 

[SpeterMan3]

^^^ok sorry i'm still looking for that GG concept art bc it was really effing badass. I remember seeing it about 6 months or so before 3 came out on these boards somewhere...hopefully i or someone else will find it. But on another note more pertinent to this thread topic, i'm not sure if it should be retconnected, it's just a shame that 3 wasted such potentially valuable characters by providing them with no character arc (aside from pete, mj, and harry)...it will be a difficult task for raimi to make 4 compelling enough to build off of 3.

This one?

 

[Mistah K88]

I don't think it should be retconned...it was a bad movie, but not "Batman and Robin Kill the Francise" bad. Also, you have to give credit to Venom (as bad as he was)...He was the only villain in this film series who died as...well...a villain. I also guess Sandman should get credit as the only villain that didn't die at the end of the movie...although it was kinda dumb to let him get away for all his crimes he did just because he turned face.

It would be a little harder to retcon some points that were brought up in Spidey 3, like the "Oh yeah, we forgot to mention" Sandman history. If anything, they should just ignore some of the most major screw ups of the 3rd movie.

 

[Milu]

Ugh people, Spider-Man 3 wasn't even a failure of Batman & Robin proportions, and a retcon is being suggested?

:facepalm

 

[Episode29]

Ugh people, Spider-Man 3 wasn't even a failure of Batman & Robin proportions, and a retcon is being suggested?

:facepalm

No kidding. There's way too much fanboy crying in this neck of the woods. SM3 was an average, not awful, film. It had good stuff and bad. Lets get on with it and move on to the next. Star Trek 5 led into Star Trek 6. Die Another Day led to Casino Royale. Weaker installments happen.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

but what about the butler scene!!!!!!!!!!! that was almost batman and robin worthy!!

and die another day lead to casino royale which was a reboot. right?