The "I hated Spider-Man 3" Thread!

[Vile]

Plus, you know, trying to kill his best friend and trying to justify another murder (he thought) he committed.

SAM JUST DOESN'T GET IT!

Was this before the hip-thrusting of Ruthlessness or after the cookie-eating of Debauchery?

 

[TomPiltoff]

I don't mean any harm, but to me Spider-Man 3 was the darkest of the series that I enjoyed. Don't get me wrong, it had a few silly moments but the first two Spider-Man movies, especially the second movie, were campier than this one (Remember in Spider-Man 2 the elevator scene and the "Raindrop keep falling off my head" sequence, among other things?).

Call 'raindrops' campy if you like, but I think it was a great way to exhibit Peter Parker as a happy human being. At the end of the day Spider-Man 2 is 'darker' because it deals with the pitfalls of real human emotion, rather than ham fisted monsters from space.

 

[Krazy W]

Anyone ever heard 'too many cooks spoil the broth'?

Most movies usually have two parallel storylines that at some point correlate. In Spiderman 2 for example, we have Parker's conflicted personal life (with Mary Jane and Harry) and his battle with Dr. Octavius.

In Spiderman 3, we have Parker not only struggling with his emoside and his relationship with Mary-Jane again, we also have Sandman, Eddie Brock/Venom and Harry thrown into the mix for good measure. There's a complete lack of focus with this movie. They wanted to throw so much in with so little time hoping they would pull it off, but they didn't.

 

[Silver Spider]

In Spider-man 3, it was about Peter's negative emotions(pride/agression), and how his personal life and his life as Spider-man, were effected. While the symbiote, Sandman, Harry, and Eddie Brock were all catalysts.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Anyone ever heard 'too many cooks spoil the broth'?

Most movies usually have two parallel storylines that at some point correlate. In Spiderman 2 for example, we have Parker's conflicted personal life (with Mary Jane and Harry) and his battle with Dr. Octavius.

In Spiderman 3, we have Parker not only struggling with his emoside and his relationship with Mary-Jane again, we also have Sandman, Eddie Brock/Venom and Harry thrown into the mix for good measure. There's a complete lack of focus with this movie. They wanted to throw so much in with so little time hoping they would pull it off, but they didn't.

LOL That word keeps popping up.

 

[The Joker]

In Spider-man 3, it was about Peter's negative emotions(pride/agression), and how his personal life and his life as Spider-man, were effected. While the symbiote, Sandman, Harry, and Eddie Brock were all catalysts.

We know. The problem is the use of the characters, and execution of the story was poorly done.

We know what they were trying to do with the story. How they did it was where the movie failed. As someone mentioned above, there was too many characters and too many plot elements.

 

[Silver Spider]

I don't mind the so called, underdevelopment, of some of the villains. I thought they were developed enough, to serve their purpose. Sure, a couple more scenes of Eddie and Sandman, wouldn't hurt, but it didn't bother me tooo much.
Although I will say, my favorite elements of the movie, were Harry, and the symbiote.

 

[omid17]

We know. The problem is the use of the characters, and execution of the story was poorly done.

We know what they were trying to do with the story. How they did it was where the movie failed. As someone mentioned above, there was too many characters and too many plot elements.

agreed

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

i believe in Sam, i believe it was the producers fault that screwed it up. they wanted too much!

Sam "Shaimi" has been screwing up just as much as the producers. Since Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man has been robbed of his secret identity and his trademark wit time and time again. Spider-Man is not Batman. Hence, he shouldn't be portrayed as a constant serious fighting mute. And please "KEEP ON THE MASK", Spidey! With Great Power Comes "Common Sense".

 

[Screwpa!]

I liked the first two Spidey movies very much. The tipping oint for me though was when Doc Ock beat himself then died. I wanted Spidey to beat him. not for Ock to "come to his senses". Having said this, Also a problem at the end of Spider-Man 3 with Sandman. The mutual "sorries" with tears just capped the end of a terrible movie. I'm done reading Marvel comics but that doesn't mean that I don't love the characters still.

 

[Silver Spider]

^So redemption, is a lame ending to you?

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

i have a question for all of you. you complained of how spidey cries too much, like when harry died. did you want him to laugh at his best friend dying, right beside him? get real.

 

[Venom 1988]

^So redemption, is a lame ending to you?

Redemption for certain villains that shouldn't have it, yes. And while I did like the idea of Sandman's redemption, it would have worked worlds better if they did it the alternate/novilization way...with his family and giving himself up to the police.

 

[Screwpa!]

^So redemption, is a lame ending to you?

No, redemption that is done well is fine. Great "evil villains" don't just go, "I did bad, time to make it right". Plus it's a cop out in writing if you do it sequel after sequel.

 

[Silver Spider]

^But it wasn't as simple as that. Doctor Octopus and Sandman were both turned in completely different ways. How would you have done it differently?

 

[Silver Spider]

Double post

 

[Screwpa!]

I wouldn't have done it. That's what I'm saying. The villains should be beat by the heros, not by themselves. Whatever fancy ending that would involved Spidey outsmarting and/or beating down Doc Ock would have been how I would do it. Give the Sandman a heart? Cool, if that's how you want him beat but have it make sense. What was the Sandman's purpose?

I was excited to see the Sandman in a Spidey movie then I was disappointed when I saw it, that's all there is to it. Sorry if you don't like my opinion but it's how I feel. Others feel this way too.

 

[DACMAN]

I wasn't saying it was a crime; I just though was just a little strange, how she said it. People seem to jump on SM3 for those lines; which is equally unfair.

Well the difference is she is an actual extra who can at least "sort of" act. I got so tired of seeing his son, daughter, nephew, brother and so on shouting things like "WICKED COOL!"

Compared to "WICKED COOL!" "Go Spidey Go!" was fricken Shakespeare.

 

[Silver Spider]

Well the difference is she is an actual extra who can at least "sort of" act. I got so tired of seeing his son, daughter, nephew, brother and so on shouting things like "WICKED COOL!"

Compared to "WICKED COOL!" "Go Spidey Go!" was fricken Shakespeare.

Oh don't get me wrong, those lines are some of the few things I'll agree with, with SM3 haters. The "Awesome"/"Wicked cool," part was terribly out of place. The part with Raimi's daughter wasn't as bad, because it actually was kind of funny, imo(but it wasn't needed).
But other than those short segments in the final battle, nothing else seemed horribly campy to me.

 

[NUFFSAID2004]

I wouldn't have done it. That's what I'm saying. The villains should be beat by the heros, not by themselves. Whatever fancy ending that would involved Spidey outsmarting and/or beating down Doc Ock would have been how I would do it. Give the Sandman a heart? Cool, if that's how you want him beat but have it make sense. What was the Sandman's purpose?
I've felt this way all the way back since Spider-Man 2. Here you have this maniac, with four extra arms, actually killing people all through the film. You have him attempt murder on the personage of both Aunt May and Mary Jane. So all through the film you're waiting for Doc Ock to get the shalackin' he deserves from Spidey and then have Spidey save the day! However, rather we get Spidey actually "unmasking" himself, revealing his secret ID to this "maniac" and having the maniac himself saving New York?? Swell. Things only got worse in Spider-Man 3 with Sandman. This has got to be the wimpiest super-villian I've ever seen. Sandman is a thug. And a frightening one at that. In Sam Shaimi's film we get a a lame incompetent dolt. And no, he did not kill Uncle Ben. Stupid.."STUPID" way of robbing Spidey of his classic origin tale and robbing the audience of a classic Spider-Man villian.

I was excited to see the Sandman in a Spidey movie then I was disappointed when I saw it, that's all there is to it. Sorry if you don't like my opinion but it's how I feel. Others feel this way too.

No need to apologize to anyone here. You are 100 percent correct.
Their take on Sandman (*special effects aside*) was quite dissapointing, to say the least.

 

[Silver Spider]

I think Sam Raimi's take on the Spider-man movies, was able to stray away from your typical superhero movie, which is good. It wasn't your basic good guy vs. bad guy story, where the hero defeats the villain, and they all live happily ever after.
Spider-man IS a hero, therefore he saves people, like Otto Octavius, who in this movie could be considered a victim. Peter knows that it's not the real Otto killing people, so he is able to get down to the man deep inside the tentacle's influence.

Shame on Sam Raimi for giving his villains heart.

 

[DACMAN]

I think Sam Raimi's take on the Spider-man movies, was able to stray away from your typical superhero movie

By having the hero save the same damsel SIX times in three movies? SIX TIMES IN THREE MOVIES! He sure is thinking out of the box.

Shame on Sam Raimi for giving his villains heart.

For the record, people love their villians bad and their heroes good. That's why people loved the Joker. He wasn't a weepy eyed baby who only steals to help sick children. People want to see an ultra bad guy. Then they want to see the ultra bad guy get his butt kicked. People want to see evil be punished. Which is also why people hated it when Spider-Man just let the Sandman float away after all the crimes he committed.

 

[Silver Spider]

The damsel in distress is one aspect of superheroes, but the majority of the story is deeper then the average superhero movie.

People got their evil in the forms of the Goblin, the tentacles and the symbiote. Most people are good at heart, and that's what Spider-man stories are all about. Sure, the villains aren't returned to good in the comics, because the stories have to keep going. Whereas in the movies, the villains' stories usually end by the film's finish, and at that point you can save them, and not have them, as Octavius said, "Die a monster."

Technically evil got just as punished in the Spider-man movies, as the Joker did in TDK. It's just instead the evil is not the actual person, it's the seductive force that's caused them to commit crimes.

As for Sandman, I think it could have been nicer if he turned himself in, but it didn't ruin the movie for me.

 

[DACMAN]

The damsel in distress is one aspect of superheroes, but the majority of the story is deeper then the average superhero movie.

People got their evil in the forms of the Goblin, the tentacles and the symbiote. Most people are good at heart, and that's what Spider-man stories are all about. Sure, the villains aren't returned to good in the comics, because the stories have to keep going. Whereas in the movies, the villains' stories usually end by the film's finish, and at that point you can save them, and not have them, as Octavius said, "Die a monster."

Technically evil got just as punished in the Spider-man movies, as the Joker did in TDK. It's just instead the evil is not the actual person, it's the seductive force that's caused them to commit crimes.

As for Sandman, I think it could have been nicer if he turned himself in, but it didn't ruin the movie for me.

That's funny, I thought the exact same thing. I would have LOVED the ending if he turned himself in.

And I guess we're going to have to disagree on people being good at heart. Which is what the films seem to point at. Do you have children? You never have to teach a child how to lie. Or how to steal. But you WILL have to teach them not to tell lies, and not to take things that don't belong to them. I think people are selfish at heart. You have to teach people to be loving and kind. People are wicked at heart. That's why we need heroes. To show and teach us how to be better, how to be selfless, to web up and punch those that refuse to be. Otherwise, we wouldn't need heroes if most people were actually "good at heart".

 

[Silver Spider]

People are good, but yeah, it has to be brought out. People are, or at least were, innocent; but can easily get corrupted, by sin, when they've had bad guidance.

I have no desire of starting a moral/ideal debate, so I'm going to yeild to this discussion.