Spider-Man 3, Too Kiddy?

[Still A ThorFan]

At first I really enjoyed it, but the more I've seen it (online at a very special website) the more kid driven it seems to me. Which bothers me because that is what also in my opinion ruined Ghost Rider. The studios always want to cater these films to kids.

When was the last time you seen a kid buy a comic book? I've been shopping at Midtown Comics here in NYC for 5 years and I tell you with all honesty that I almost never see a kid there buying a comic book. Instead I see young adults.

These kids don't even know jack about Spiderman, all they know is that he is on their bookbags and in their toy chest. My point? Stop marketing these films to kids, it ruins it for the true fans.

 

[El Payaso]

Marketing movies for kids will bring more money to the execs so I doubt they'll stop doing it.

Nothing against children, but the problem is that they think kids are idiots.

 

[BatJeff7786]

That wouldn't really work would it? I mean, everyone here pretty much got intco comics when they were kids, that's how this stuff starts.......

 

[El Payaso]

Ah yes. Still the more mature comic movies are still the best ones for me.

When they're kid poriented they feel like they can do anything - plotholes included- and no one will notice or at least they'll go, meh, it's meant to be for children anyways.

 

[Visionary]

All PG-13 comic book films are too kiddy in my eyes, even Batman Begins, which didn't seem dark and gritty to me (watch The Crow). I personally have always felt that directors are holding back their true potential, when they are thrown into a PG-13 comic book world. There was a time when Raimi, Nolan & Singer made R-rated films, and didn't give a sh:t about a children audience--but now they're force by Studio-Heads on how to try and sell more tickets, by not going with your gut.

This would never happen with an R-rated comic book film, where the writers and directors have leeway to produce what they want. And a movie like "300" proves that you can pack a huge ass (Adults/teens/children) audience around the globe without a PG-13 banner. Yeah, you read right, there were children watching 300...and loving it. Not that a comic book film has to be gory like this, perhaps something like Terminator/T2.

I'm telling you, the masses are starving for an R-rated ICON/Big Name comic book movie. The day this happens, and it will, when the right moment arises, you will never see anyone making a PG-13 comic book film ever again...I await that day.

 

[TheCaretaker]

i mean Venom is soooo kiddy right, get out of here to appeal to kids doesnt make it kiddy.

 

[webhead731]

I agree about Ghost Rider. It was good, but too kiddy.

Spider-Man movies can be kiddy to a certain point but they need to have plenty more darker type stuff.
Really, Spider-Man 3 is the least-kiddy of them all. The sexual jokes, the language, and the darker tone of the movie make it like that. It wasn't as dark as I thought it would be, but still, it was pretty dark.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I found the film very simplistic and basic, definately appealing more to the younger and more immature audiences who consider actiona nd effects etc, more important than narrative and character.

 

[weezerspider]

It had its cheesey/kiddy moments, but it didn't ruin it for me. Ghost Rider pissed me off cuz he never fought, he just made the baddies look in his eyes. Still, GR is a good movie.

 

[bullets]

its a double edged sword .... the kid audience brings big money to ensure sequels and better special effects while the cornyness weighs the film down

 

[Visionary]

Really, Spider-Man 3 is the least-kiddy of them all. The sexual jokes, the language, and the darker tone of the movie make it like that. It wasn't as dark as I thought it would be, but still, it was pretty dark.

I have to agree with this.

Still, I would love to have seen Raimi doing this movie with an R-rating (like most of his other films). You can't really push the whole "DARK" aspect to its fullest in a comic book film with a damn PG-13, knowing that there's merchandise to sell to kids.

 

[e-three]

I'm sorry, but the Spider-Man character doesn't exactly scream "Rated R" to me. I didn't have a problem with the corny/cheesy portions of the movie because, well, Spider-Man comics have plenty of corny/cheesy parts too! That's part of their charm. I don't think I'll ever understand why so many people want a "darker" Spider-Man. Spider-Man is not a dark character...heck, he calls himself "your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man!" And though you may say, "well the symbiote is supposed to make him darker!" the symbiote is actually not supposed to make him darker. Spider-Man's personality did not change in the comics, nor did the symbiote enhance his powers...the suit actually weakened him because it would take him on joyrides while he slept, thus making him tired all the time. The 90's animated series chose a different route, as did the movie. Hate the movie version if you want, but it's no more unfaithful to the comics than the animated series is.

Well, I went off on a bit of a tangent. But although I agree that some comics are more suited to an R-rated treatment (as bad as The Punisher was, can you imagine if it was PG-13?), I don't think Spider-Man comics are one of them. I know its not the same thing and these days its not saying much, but if some of the greatest stories in Spider-Man history can be approved by the Comics Code...heck, if some of the darkest stories in Spider-Man history can be approved by the Comics Code, then why can't they work within a PG-13 rating?

 

[WolfManEpidemic]

dont think it was kiddy at all, it was pretty funny but it also had a lot of serious content...

 

[dodus]

All PG-13 comic book films are too kiddy in my eyes, even Batman Begins, which didn't seem dark and gritty to me (watch The Crow). I personally have always felt that directors are holding back their true potential, when they are thrown into a PG-13 comic book world. There was a time when Raimi, Nolan & Singer made R-rated films, and didn't give a sh:t about a children audience--but now they're force by Studio-Heads on how to try and sell more tickets, by not going with your gut.

This would never happen with an R-rated comic book film, where the writers and directors have leeway to produce what they want. And a movie like "300" proves that you can pack a huge ass (Adults/teens/children) audience around the globe without a PG-13 banner. Yeah, you read right, there were children watching 300...and loving it. Not that a comic book film has to be gory like this, perhaps something like Terminator/T2.

I'm telling you, the masses are starving for an R-rated ICON/Big Name comic book movie. The day this happens, and it will, when the right moment arises, you will never see anyone making a PG-13 comic book film ever again...I await that day.

Hmmm...good post, really got me thinking. You're totally right.

Really, Spider-Man 3 is the least-kiddy of them all. The sexual jokes, the language, and the darker tone of the movie make it like that. It wasn't as dark as I thought it would be, but still, it was pretty dark.

I totally agree with this too. The fact that the main character acted questionably for a large portion of the movie kind of defies the morality structure of kiddy movies.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I don't think it was too kiddy but of'course the studios will cater much of it to the kids.

 

[Visionary]

Of course Spider-Man's comics are not R-rated (and mostly PG/PG-13), I always thought that the movies should go a bit beyond what you wouldn't see in the comics, because of the Comic-Code. It need not be a dark Spider-Man film.

If Doc Ock smacked you around the room with one of his tentacles, it would leave bruises, bones would break, you would bleed. None of this would happen in Spider-Man.

What would happen if The Lizard ever got a hold of a person (with no Spidey around), knowing that he hates humans, and has sharp claws and teeth? If this was THE PREDATOR, he'd rip your ass apart and you'd see the results. But in Spider-Man, The Lizard would probably just growl and knock you down. This is where the R-rating is needed, not with Spider-Man himself, but with his villains, the dialogue, the intensity, the sense of danger, etc.

 

[webhead731]

Something like that Marvel Knights Spider-Man comic would work for a movie wouldn't it? They paid attention to bruises, cuts, etc.

 

[DACrowe]

Too kiddy?

No. It's flaws are due to poor structure in the script due to too many plot points shoved in by the studio and in an attempt to keep them all in there is a good jugling act going but certain characters (Eddie and Sandman) get less screentime than they should and more plot devices than should be there are needed to push the movie along through a quick pacing to hit every point in 2 1/2 hours.

And it works. It just was flawed and could have worked a lot better without one or two of the subplots.




What RUINED Ghost Rider was a terrible writer/director who injected no soul into the material and made a vapid video game movie with terrible writing and characterization and next to no depth or sense of pace and resonance.

Sam Raimi has and never will have that problem, even in his most dire films (Quick and the Dead, anyone?).

Spider-Man has always been aimed at all ages save for certain storylines (such as Kraven's Last Hunt or anything with Carnage, The Death of Jean DeWoulff, etc.) and even at his most dire (The Death of Gwen Stacy?) he is almost always meant for all ages.

Raimi has a taste for camp and oddball humor in the likes of '30s and '40s comedies (think Bringing Up Baby or Arsenic and Old Lace meets The Three Stooges), his version of JJJ is a disgruntled/angry version of Groucho Marx in many respects. He ties this unique sense of humor in genre pieces in to the action of all the Spider-Man movies.

Was it too much? I don't think so. I think he balances it well with his darker elements to make something entertaining for all ages. His sensibilities lie very much in the '60s and '70s comics and he infuses that tone with his own style for the dark and serious with the light and silly. Stan Lee's writing was never that deep, fans forget that. And Raimi takes that style and gives it much more weight than previously seen, but at the same time uses his humor.

Some call it kiddy, but it's not. This isn't Joel Schumaucher or Tim Story. Nor is it the immaturity or lack of seriousness of Mark Steven Johnson. It is Raimi's style based on the light bereft style of the '60s and '70s comics. Some fans just want it to be like Chris Nolan's vision. That's fair, but Raimi isn't just targeting kids. He wants all audiences to enjoy it. And I think he succeeds. Some fanboys just ignore that.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

I don't know, I think the scenes with Venom would scare the crap out of kids, especially at the construction site where he's stalking Peter.

 

[chaseter]

It was too kiddy...note all the stupid kid reaction shots, the watered down script, doofus Harry, and the dark side of Peter...Emo dance scene. Sorry but I do think this movie was catered to the kid audience since they are a huge selling point. I am still hoping and waiting on an extended cut to reserve my final judgement on this film. I was really dissapointed but still have faith in Raimi and want to believe Sony and Arad did this to the movie.

 

[DACrowe]

If you dislike dark Peter then you should have no faith in Raimi. Dark "emo" Peter walking down the streets and the nightclub was Sam Raimi 100%. You want Chris Nolan or David Fincher. That's Raimi's style. It was there in SM1 when he won the ihg school fight after flipping pizza on a web into Flash's back and doing backflips as he kicked the jock's ass and sent him sailing an unrealistic 30 feet and again at the wrestling match agains the Bonesaw McGraw and the satire of wrestling fans. It was also in SM2 when he was delivering pizzas or couldn't find a drink at the party or the famous "raindrops" sequence. And whenever J. Jonah Jameson is on screen it is there.

If you didn't like the first two, why did you expect to like the third and if you hated the dancing so much why did you accept the same tone and style in the first two? Is it more acceptable when it is wish fullfillment of the nerd kicking the bully's ass than if it is the nerd dancing?

 

[e-three]

Of course Spider-Man's comics are not R-rated (and mostly PG/PG-13), I always thought that the movies should go a bit beyond what you wouldn't see in the comics, because of the Comic-Code. It need not be a dark Spider-Man film.

If Doc Ock smacked you around the room with one of his tentacles, it would leave bruises, bones would break, you would bleed. None of this would happen in Spider-Man.

What would happen if The Lizard ever got a hold of a person (with no Spidey around), knowing that he hates humans, and has sharp claws and teeth? If this was THE PREDATOR, he'd rip your ass apart and you'd see the results. But in Spider-Man, The Lizard would probably just growl and knock you down. This is where the R-rating is needed, not with Spider-Man himself, but with his villains, the dialogue, the intensity, the sense of danger, etc.

I see your point, but at least in my eyes I don't really see any of that kind of stuff significantly improving a Spider-Man movie to the point where an R-rating becomes a necessity for a good movie. I don't need to see the Lizard eviscerate someone to know he's dangerous, nor do I need to see someone's jaw break to know that Ock's tentacles will hurt if he hits you with them. It just seems like violence for the sake of having more violence.

On the other hand, look at the hospital scene in Spider-Man 2...perfectly creepy, you're left with no doubt that everyone in that room is dead, and Doc Ock is established as being dangerous and lethal all without a drop of blood appearing onscreen. To me, that's the ideal approach to take. You might have to clarify what you mean by R-Rated dialogue though. Because the only difference I can see is that you can get away with more swear words/graphic descriptors, which again isn't going to significantly improve a Spider-Man movie. But I don't think "more swearing" is what you meant by that.

Again I personally think that the Spider-Man movies are just fine without the harsher stuff, and I don't think Rated-R movies are necessary for the character's adventures. It's not that you don't have a valid point, but I just don't think those things are important enough to where an R-Rating is needed. A PG-13 Crow or Sin City movie would be a travesty. But Spider-Man? PG-13 seems about right.

 

[danoyse]

These kids don't even know jack about Spiderman, all they know is that he is on their bookbags and in their toy chest. My point? Stop marketing these films to kids, it ruins it for the true fans.

It's not just a toy or a picture on their backpack. They love Spiderman. I told my friend's 3-year-old that Spiderman was on the cookies I just bought, and he asked me if Spiderman was in my house. I had to tell him he was guarding my cookies.

I have another friend that took his kid to meet Spiderman at Islands of Adventure, and it was like the kid was meeting Elvis. There was a kid in my sister's pre-school who once launched into the whole "this is my curse" speech from SM1.

It's not just the movies that get marketed to them. The character is. He's a Leapster game, he's got a whole Playskool toy line. There's a doll that sings 'Itsy Bitsy Spider', for god's sake.

A lot of them don't even get to see the movies. The 3-year-old I mentioned before had a nightmare about Sandman just from one of the commercials.

You can't just blame the marketing on the movies. I think all 3 movies had their corny moments, and SM3 was no exception. I agree with DACrowe, that was all Raimi.

And I would never take Spidey away from those kids...they're true fans too.

 

[chaseter]

If you dislike dark Peter then you should have no faith in Raimi. Dark "emo" Peter walking down the streets and the nightclub was Sam Raimi 100%. You want Chris Nolan or David Fincher. That's Raimi's style. It was there in SM1 when he won the ihg school fight after flipping pizza on a web into Flash's back and doing backflips as he kicked the jock's ass and sent him sailing an unrealistic 30 feet and again at the wrestling match agains the Bonesaw McGraw and the satire of wrestling fans. It was also in SM2 when he was delivering pizzas or couldn't find a drink at the party or the famous "raindrops" sequence. And whenever J. Jonah Jameson is on screen it is there.

If you didn't like the first two, why did you expect to like the third and if you hated the dancing so much why did you accept the same tone and style in the first two? Is it more acceptable when it is wish fullfillment of the nerd kicking the bully's ass than if it is the nerd dancing?

I completely understand that Parker, being the huge nerd he is, isn't going to go completely evil and Raimi hit that on the head. But the Emo stuff went on way too long. I didn't know the symbiote turns nerds into horny, angry beatnicks. The raindrops scene in SM2 was good because it was a montage. It showed all the stuff Spidey free Peter was doing and this should have been a montage as well. That is why it got old quick and ended in air humping and "DIG ON THIS!"...which was dumb. It was funny to see the girl's disgusted looks on their faces while Peter thinks he is the s***. That and the kid friendly watered down script, all the kid extras in the crowd, which were 3 scenes total with too many kids reactions, and the cutting of a lot of scenes that could have added more substance to the villians and the plot were cut so that bratty children wouldn't get restless in their theatre seats. I still hope and desperately want the extended edition, the edition Raimi took to the studio before getting word to cut a lot of it, to reserve my final judgement. I want more than anything for Sam to stay on because he delievered 2 great films and 1 alright movie.

Plus I don't think Peter swung a pizza on Flash, I think it was mashed potatoes, corn, and chocolate pudding if I am not mistaken.

 

[Dark Prophet]

It was only the Fanboys who hated the dancing since they probably dance like that in real life.