Surely Harry should save Peter because he's like his brother?

[Kevin Roegele]

A lot of people seem to be agreeing with me-! What is wrong with you people?

 

[pjspider1C]

A lot of people seem to be agreeing with me-! What is wrong with you people?

I've never agreed with you. I think Spider-Man 3 was fine, butler included. I don't want to get into a heated debate over it though. I'm comfortable with agreeing to disagree.

 

[batman11]

I've never agreed with you. I think Spider-Man 3 was fine, butler included. I don't want to get into a heated debate over it though. I'm comfortable with agreeing to disagree.

He said a lot of people, he never said you specifically.

 

[chaseter]

I agree wholeheartedly with Kevin...the scene was terrible, awful, stupid, lame, and WTF'ish. I think Raimi was trying to harken back to the golden era of films(black and white) when stuff like that usually happened. A maid or a butler said a revelation that changed the plot. But you put that in a movie that appealed to a different crowd and it DID NOT WORK! A freaking butler that has had 3 scenes in the whole series and one Harry hardly ever talked too is going to make Harry go save his two best friends in the whole wide world...yea right.

 

[Karea07]

worst part of the movie IMO

 

[pjspider1C]

If you didn't like it in the movie, then I suggest you read the novel. They do a bit more developing Bernard as well as some other characters and I think it works quite well. Possibly even better than the movie.

And if you have read the novel and still don't like it... well, then I guess I'll agree to disagree with you.

 

[UltimateJustin]

You're right, the butler who had 3 lines in the entire trilogy up until the explanation scene was a much better choice. I think the majority of the people on this board are in agreement that either A) Harry should have come to terms with what happened by himself, or B) Harry should have had a final confrontation with Norman.

But you're right, what they chose to do was much better.

I agree with a and b too, I dont agree with cutting out Harry's scenes before that happens. I think in that situation, leave him manipulating MJ so that they've all done "terrible things to each other", a line not even used in the movie, but a concept that I like.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

If you didn't like it in the movie, then I suggest you read the novel. They do a bit more developing Bernard as well as some other characters and I think it works quite well. Possibly even better than the movie.

And if you have read the novel and still don't like it... well, then I guess I'll agree to disagree with you.

The novel is really it's own entity. I'm guessing someone like Peter David wrote it. And I'm sure he elaborates on the story to fill 200 pages. And I'm sure it's good. But what happens in the book doesn't really make the film itself any better.

 

[pjspider1C]

^ I understand that. They can't put everything into the book that was in the movie because then it'd be probably be 3 hours long. But at least if you read the novel, you can have a better understanding of what they were shooting for in the film.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

^ I understand that. They can't put everything into the book that was in the movie because then it'd be probably be 3 hours long. But at least if you read the novel, you can have a better understanding of what they were shooting for in the film.

Possibly, but how do you know which parts of the novel were intended to be in the film, and which were just added by the author of the novel to make it work better as a novel?

 

[pjspider1C]

That's the freedom that novels have. They can elaborate more and expand on things because the reader can pick up the book and put it back down at their leisure. In a movie theatre, an audience member has to sit through the whole movie because that's what they paid for. Yes, they are different entities, but they're both telling the same story.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

That's the freedom that novels have. They can elaborate more and expand on things because the reader can pick up the book and put it back down at their leisure. In a movie theatre, an audience member has to sit through the whole movie because that's what they paid for. Yes, they are different entities, but they're both telling the same story.

I absolutely agee with you 100%. My point, however, is that however good the novel is, it has no effect on how good the movie is, and vice versa.

 

[pjspider1C]

^ Yeah, I know. You didn't need to point that out to me. All I'm saying is that if you read the novel, you may have more appreciation for what happens in the movie.

 

[WorthyStevens]

I agree with you in that I think a much more powerful scene would have been for Harry to again see Norman, and this time stand-up to him.

While I don't think the Bernard thing was as horrible as some, I just think closure-wise, Harry needed to confront Norman rather than simply learning that Norman was to blame for his own death.

I agree to some sorts.

Just keep the whole Bernard telling Harry about his father stuff (but maybe change the dialogue around a bit) because Harry needs to find out about it somehow, and then extend it to what you're proposing. Harry becomes disillusioned about the revelation, which suddenly his father reappears in the mirror. Then, the final confrontation between the father and son.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

^ Yeah, I know. You didn't need to point that out to me. All I'm saying is that if you read the novel, you may have more appreciation for what happens in the movie.

Fair enough.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I agree to some sorts.

Just keep the whole Bernard telling Harry about his father stuff (but maybe change the dialogue around a bit) because Harry needs to find out about it somehow, and then extend it to what you're proposing. Harry becomes disillusioned about the revelation, which suddenly his father reappears in the mirror. Then, the final confrontation between the father and son.

Another thing; Harry was going insane, wasn't he? He was hearing the Goblin laugh in his head, seeing visions of his father. So just having the butler give him a rational explanation of what happened shouldn't make any difference.

Surely the vision of Norman should have appeared to Harry and said, "Bernard is lying, Peter killed me."

There really, really needs to be a scene where Harry confronts his vision of his dad one last time, and makes him disappear or something. Like when Gollum argues with the evil side of himself, and tells it, "Leave now and never come back.." Harry needs to purge himself.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

I dont think Peter would have saved Harry,he refused Peter`s help.But in a good sence,at least that was similar to the comic.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I dont think Peter would have saved Harry

Sure he would! Peter tries to save everyone. He even tries to save Eddie from the symbiote.

 

[WorthyStevens]

Another thing; Harry was going insane, wasn't he? He was hearing the Goblin laugh in his head, seeing visions of his father. So just having the butler give him a rational explanation of what happened shouldn't make any difference.

Surely the vision of Norman should have appeared to Harry and said, "Bernard is lying, Peter killed me."

There really, really needs to be a scene where Harry confronts his vision of his dad one last time, and makes him disappear or something. Like when Gollum argues with the evil side of himself, and tells it, "Leave now and never come back.." Harry needs to purge himself.

What I think would've helped Harry accept Bernard's revelation more would be for Harry to also remember Peter trying to tell him earlier that he didn't kill Norman.

And I agree about a final confrontation, it needed to be wrap up Harry's visions of his father.

 

[TheCaptain22555]

Harry should've saved Peter because of their history, but I didn't mind much the Bernard explanation.

 

[chaseter]

^ Yeah, I know. You didn't need to point that out to me. All I'm saying is that if you read the novel, you may have more appreciation for what happens in the movie.

The novel has nothing to do with the movie and they should be both standalone outlets. Another reason why X3 was so dumb was because of their horrible reason why Nightcrawler wasn't in the movie was explained in the crappy game. It shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't have to read a book to get a better feel or understanding for a movie. Books are great by themselves and the same with movies...they should explain everything in the movie and not leave any questions for the audience to go and read the book.

 

[pjspider1C]

I finished the novel before the movie came out. I guess I just had a different perspective on things when I saw the movie. I know the novel and the movie should stand apart and each be good in their own right. And in my opinion, each of them are good even when they stand alone.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The novel has nothing to do with the movie and they should be both standalone outlets. Another reason why X3 was so dumb was because of their horrible reason why Nightcrawler wasn't in the movie was explained in the crappy game. It shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't have to read a book to get a better feel or understanding for a movie. Books are great by themselves and the same with movies...they should explain everything in the movie and not leave any questions for the audience to go and read the book.

Without wishing to stray into XIII territory, the explanation for Nightcrawler's absence was lame. They could so easily have said that he had become a priest of some sort, even for underground mutants. But no, he just can't stand the violence.

 

[chaseter]

^Exactly, which is another reason why this movie didn't flesh out some things that should have been. I hope Raimi's cut really does expand this movie and flesh out Eddie Brock, Gwen, Sandman, and some other things.

 

[Blader5489]

I doubt Gwen gets any significant additional development. She was the SM3 equivalent of John Jameson: merely a love interest to complicate Peter and MJ's relationship. Making MJ's love interest John Jameson and Peter's Gwen Stacy is really just a nod to fans than anything else.