Spiderman 3 compared to 1 & 2 - Why the hate?

[©KAW]

So my opinions are much like the Raimi movies.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

The entire trilogy was a complete mess.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

My biggest problems with Spider-Man 3 that I didn't have with SM1 or SM2 was that the humor seeped into scenes and subplots it really didn't belong in, like the symbiote. Instead of the symbiote's influence being self-destructive, like many thought it would be after seeing the trailer, the symbiote's influence made himself look like a jackass in a sequence that felt like it came out of a parody of Spider-Man 3, not what the actual film.

Couldn't agree more.

The thing is, Spidey one and two, while still being enjoyable to watch, haven't really held up as 'good' movies compared to newer films like TDK, Thor, First Class, Captain America etc.

In hindsight we can see the flaws, the little plot holes, the silly humour; and to me that's why it makes sense to reboot. Change the tone to suit the trend of more 'quality' in a superhero film and not just comic booky kiddie fun.

But back when you first saw them? Well I know I was only a teenager then, so that impacted my judgement too, but I adored those films. I saw them multiple multiple times. I remember coming out of the cinema after SM2 and being unable to stop thinking about it for days

The difference with SM3, is that it was NEVER good.

I don't dislike things about it because I've had some perspective and time to reflect on it's flaws.

I actual came out of the cinema angry and disappointed.

 

[Anno_Domini]

So my opinions are much like the Raimi movies.

Dude, you said the same, repeated childish crap about Green Lantern as well.

"Fake Iron Man movie" comes to mind.

 

[©KAW]

Double-D-Post

 

[©KAW]

Iron Man is what they (Warner Bros./Director) were going for with Green Lantern and failed miserably. What can I say, Spider-Man and Green Lantern are not on par with good/great film making.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Iron Man is what they (Warner Bros./Director) were going for with Green Lantern and failed miserably. What can I say, Spider-Man and Green Lantern are not on par with good/great film making.

The next time I go to church, I have to thank God for not letting you become a director.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Couldn't agree more.

The thing is, Spidey one and two, while still being enjoyable to watch, haven't really held up as 'good' movies compared to newer films like TDK, Thor, First Class, Captain America etc.

In hindsight we can see the flaws, the little plot holes, the silly humour; and to me that's why it makes sense to reboot. Change the tone to suit the trend of more 'quality' in a superhero film and not just comic booky kiddie fun.

But back when you first saw them? Well I know I was only a teenager then, so that impacted my judgement too, but I adored those films. I saw them multiple multiple times. I remember coming out of the cinema after SM2 and being unable to stop thinking about it for days

The difference with SM3, is that it was NEVER good.

I don't dislike things about it because I've had some perspective and time to reflect on it's flaws.

I actual came out of the cinema angry and disappointed.

I still love SM1 and SM2, especially SM2. These movies weren't "comic-booky kiddie fun", they were more so a "superhero love story/coming of age tale".

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Iron Man is what they (Warner Bros./Director) were going for with Green Lantern and failed miserably. What can I say, Spider-Man and Green Lantern are not on par with good/great film making.

Wow.....just wow.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Another thing I really didn't like in Spider-Man 3 was Sandman. Ugh. It felt like Raimi was trying to copy what he did with Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2, which was making him sympathetic and give him a personal connection to Peter Parker, and fails on both counts. Further more, Thomas Hayden Church's performance as Sandman bored me. His personal connection to Peter is done in a way that requires retcons that invalidate the reasons for Peter even being Spider-Man, and the sob story about the sick daughter falls flat on its ass. Why couldn't he be some hoodlum who gets sand powers and have that be that? It really made Raimi seem inflexible and uncreative.

 

[Venom75]

Another thing I really didn't like in Spider-Man 3 was Sandman. Ugh. It felt like Raimi was trying to copy what he did with Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2, which was making him sympathetic and give him a personal connection to Peter Parker, and fails on both counts. Further more, Thomas Hayden Church's performance as Sandman bored me. His personal connection to Peter is done in a way that requires retcons that invalidate the reasons for Peter even being Spider-Man, and the sob story about the sick daughter falls flat on its ass. Why couldn't he be some hoodlum who gets sand powers and have that be that? It really made Raimi seem inflexible and uncreative.

Truthfully,I never wanted him in the film. His screen time should've been given to the symbiote and Venom. We really didn't need him in there anyway. He was more or less there for Spidey just to have someone to be pissed at. Couldn't Harry have played that role?

 

[Godzilla2014]

Truthfully,I never wanted him in the film. His screen time should've been given to the symbiote and Venom. We really didn't need him in there anyway. He was more or less there for Spidey just to have someone to be pissed at. Couldn't Harry have played that role?

Agreed. I really don't understand why Raimi chose to use him over characters. Sandman doesn't fit his style of villain, and I think it showed in Spider-Man 3. Sandman's not really that interesting as a villain beyond his power set for fight sequences. Wouldn't the Lizard have been a better choice?

 

[Venom75]

Agreed. I really don't understand why Raimi chose to use him over characters. Sandman doesn't fit his style of villain, and I think it showed in Spider-Man 3. Sandman's not really that interesting as a villain beyond his power set for fight sequences. Wouldn't the Lizard have been a better choice?

The Lizard is a much better choice,but I think that part 3 should've just had Harry and Venom as the villains. You need Venom in there because Spidey needed to defeat that twisted image of himself in order to get past his previous actions and overcome the symbiote. But you did need someone for Spidey/Peter to be pissed at so that the symbiote could really take hold. Harry would have been perfect. It was already personal between those two. To make things worse Harry could've attacked Peter and maybe caused MJ to be hospitalized. It would've been much easier to tie Harry into Peter's anger and rage than Marko...but that's just how I feel.

 

[Godzilla2014]

The Lizard is a much better choice,but I think that part 3 should've just had Harry and Venom as the villains. You need Venom in there because Spidey needed to defeat that twisted image of himself in order to get past his previous actions and overcome the symbiote. But you did need someone for Spidey/Peter to be pissed at so that the symbiote could really take hold. Harry would have been perfect. It was already personal between those two. To make things worse Harry could've attacked Peter and maybe caused MJ to be hospitalized. It would've been much easier to tie Harry into Peter's anger and rage than Marko...but that's just how I feel.

Agreed.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Truth be told, I don't think I would mind the Uncle Ben retcon if it's implications were explored (and it didn't explicitly contradict what we already saw). What would Peter do if he found that his entire motivation for being Spider-Man, his guilt for his inaction leading to Uncle Ben's death, was a lie? After all, he never had the opportunity to stop Flint Marko, so he couldn't have prevented Uncle Ben's death, so what would that mean for him? Would he be absolved of his guilt for Uncle Ben's death? Would he quit being Spider-Man because he can't save the people he cares about the most? Would that change his views of everything that he has had to sacrifice as Spider-Man?

As is, it's used to give Peter a reason to want to kill Flint Marko, when he already has a desire to kill Harry Osborn. Why the hell is Sandman necessary in this plot at all? To top it off, the film tries to mitigate making Flint Marko Uncle Ben's murderer by having it be an accident. So now Peter became Spider-Man because Flint Marko failed to observe firearm safety.

 

[Thundercrack85]

One major problem with these movies is that they don't really have any good villains.

They have good people who go insane. In the first movie, Norman Osborn may not have been the most pleasant man, but he obviously wan't evil (he even shows empathy for Peter). Then an experiment went horribly wrong, he went nuts and became the Green Goblin.

Otto Octavius was actually a kind man, until yet another experiment went horribly wrong, and drove him insane.

Sandman and Harry Osborn weren't particularly villainous. Though at least they weren't driven crazy by some kind of an experiment (okay, maybe Sandman). Venom was actually a villain, but a pretty petty and short-lived one.

The real villain in this series seems to be the lack of laboratory safety standards...

 

[Godzilla2014]

One major problem with these movies is that they don't really have any good villains.

They have good people who go insane. In the first movie, Norman Osborn may not have been the most pleasant man, but he obviously wan't evil (he even shows empathy for Peter). Then an experiment went horribly wrong, he went nuts and became the Green Goblin.

Otto Octavius was actually a kind man, until yet another experiment went horribly wrong, and drove him insane.

Sandman and Harry Osborn weren't particularly villainous. Though at least they weren't driven crazy by some kind of an experiment (okay, maybe Sandman). Venom was actually a villain, but a pretty petty and short-lived one.

The real villain in this series seems to be the lack of laboratory safety standards...

Scientists...those bastards!

The thing is that there are villains, but of a different type from the one you're looking for. Sam Raimi prefers sympathetic villains with personal connections to Peter Parker to outright menacing villains who threaten the city at large. Villains like Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight who are malicious and sadistic aren't Raimi's style.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, but the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus aren't Raimi's characters. They are actual villains in the comics the movies are based on. The movies should reflect that. I could accept some creative leeway, but to make them all victims of science experiments is a stretch

After all, the Joker is malicious and sadistic in the comics.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Yes, but the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus aren't Raimi's characters. They are actual villains in the comics the movies are based on. The movies should reflect that. I could accept some creative leeway, but to make them all victims of science experiments is a stretch

After all, the Joker is malicious and sadistic in the comics.

And just like any comic writer, Raimi has the right the portray the characters in the way that suits his style. I'm not saying that he did it the best those characters ever were, but these characters go through many different incarnations by different writers, some with radically different characterizations, and others differing in their minutiae and nuances.
That said, I found Raimi's Green Goblin to be far too cartoony, and severely lacking menace. He's hammed up to the point of camp with cartoony dialogue and inconsistent and vague motivations. So yes, I will agree with you about Green Goblin.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Truth be told, I don't think I would mind the Uncle Ben retcon if it's implications were explored (and it didn't explicitly contradict what we already saw).

But it being a retcon already contradicts itself. Anything that even remotely resembles a retcon is something that shouldn't be developed and it loses the meaning of continuity.

One major problem with these movies is that they don't really have any good villains.

They have good people who go insane. In the first movie, Norman Osborn may not have been the most pleasant man, but he obviously wan't evil (he even shows empathy for Peter). Then an experiment went horribly wrong, he went nuts and became the Green Goblin.

Otto Octavius was actually a kind man, until yet another experiment went horribly wrong, and drove him insane.

Sandman and Harry Osborn weren't particularly villainous. Though at least they weren't driven crazy by some kind of an experiment (okay, maybe Sandman). Venom was actually a villain, but a pretty petty and short-lived one.

The real villain in this series seems to be the lack of laboratory safety standards...

Venom was a true villain. It wasn't just the symbiote as a plot device to make Eddie evil because Eddie was depressed and abhored Peter already.

 

[Godzilla2014]

But it being a retcon already contradicts itself. Anything that even remotely resembles a retcon is something that shouldn't be developed and it loses the meaning of continuity.

What I meant is that, if Spider-Man had left room for Dennis Carradine to have had an accomplice, who would then have been revealed to be Flint Marko in Spider-Man 3. A retcon can be an actual changing of continuity, or a revelation that changes our understanding of the events there-in.

Venom was a true villain. It wasn't just the symbiote as a plot device to make Eddie evil because Eddie was depressed and abhored Peter already.

Agreed.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Here's a video review of Spider-Man 3 that sums up most, if not all of my problems with it compared to Spider-Man 2, it's immediate predecessor:
[YT]ImML7anYPSQ[/YT]
With some rewriting to streamline the film and remedy big issues with it's plot and story, it might have lived up to expectations. As it is, it doesn't really live up to it's predecessors.

 

[Anno_Domini]

What I meant is that, if Spider-Man had left room for Dennis Carradine to have had an accomplice, who would then have been revealed to be Flint Marko in Spider-Man 3. A retcon can be an actual changing of continuity, or a revelation that changes our understanding of the events there-in.

To me, it would be flawless continuity if we saw someone with Carradine in the first film, or at least some kind of hint or reference that an accomplice fled an opposite direction, or something that gave us the knowledge that Marko was indeed there and he was the one that committed the murder wherein Spider-Man 3, we would have known that it was planned out from the beginning and not so much as something that Sam Raimi wanted to do because he didn't have a way to tie Marko in with Peter Parker or Spider-Man.

A type of retcon can alter events and change the continuity from there on as you said, but that type of situation can work in only very few elements, such as, for example, season three of Supernatural when Bela gave the Colt to a demon who we thought was Lilith but later revealed to be Crowley. Now that got many to panic but in the writings back in season three that were a mistake from the writers standpoint made sense on screen and didn't make the latter events seem like such a big leap because Bela said "they" in regards to her little conference with said demon. Maybe I'm bringing up Supernatural just because I want to, but it's a fine example, imo.

 

[Godzilla2014]

To me, it would be flawless continuity if we saw someone with Carradine in the first film, or at least some kind of hint or reference that an accomplice fled an opposite direction, or something that gave us the knowledge that Marko was indeed there and he was the one that committed the murder wherein Spider-Man 3, we would have known that it was planned out from the beginning and not so much as something that Sam Raimi wanted to do because he didn't have a way to tie Marko in with Peter Parker or Spider-Man.

A type of retcon can alter events and change the continuity from there on as you said, but that type of situation can work in only very few elements, such as, for example, season three of Supernatural when Bela gave the Colt to a demon who we thought was Lilith but later revealed to be Crowley. Now that got many to panic but in the writings back in season three that were a mistake from the writers standpoint made sense on screen and didn't make the latter events seem like such a big leap because Bela said "they" in regards to her little conference with said demon. Maybe I'm bringing up Supernatural just because I want to, but it's a fine example, imo.

Pretty much. If that had happened, then I would have gone along with Flint Marko being Uncle Ben's killer if its implications were explored for more than giving Peter a desire to kill someone, which was redundant with Harry Osborn in the film.

 

[Lord]

As nostalgia critic said too i liked Mary Jane in this movie