The "I loved Spider-Man 3" Thread!

[Chris Wallace]

I loved this movie!!! It got real loose and just had fun. It was fun to watch as well as intense.

Great job cast and directors. Thank you for making this!

I stopped posting on the boards for a while, largely because of this movie. I loved it, but I encountered a lot of naysayers. When I saw the bashing that it was getting here, I just decided I was tired of arguing with fans who are apparently never happy w/anything. Now I don't care. In my eyes, 1 & 2 had just as many detractors so I choose to just ignore them like I have for the last 6 years.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Its literally astonishing the difference it makes to Spiderman 3 when you watch Spiderman and Spiderman 2 right before watching it, for some bizare reason it makes Spiderman 3 SUCH a better experience.

 

[Stupify_me]

Its literally astonishing the difference it makes to Spiderman 3 when you watch Spiderman and Spiderman 2 right before watching it, for some bizare reason it makes Spiderman 3 SUCH a better experience.

I disagree I say watching 1 and 2 before hand just points out number 3's flaws that much more. Don't get me wrong I don't hate Spiderman 3 I just think it was a huge disappointment in comparison right along the lines of X-3

 

[shinlyle]

I stopped posting on the boards for a while, largely because of this movie. I loved it, but I encountered a lot of naysayers. When I saw the bashing that it was getting here, I just decided I was tired of arguing with fans who are apparently never happy w/anything. Now I don't care. In my eyes, 1 & 2 had just as many detractors so I choose to just ignore them like I have for the last 6 years.

I feel you. I rarely ever post in the Movie forums at all, now. Everyone hates how Venom was treated, or hates the dancing, or blah blah blah.

It's an opinion...meaning no one is right or wrong.

Me, I've been going back and watching this film every now and again, and I still love it. It was a GOOD movie...just not a GREAT movie. Spider-Man 2 still gets watched more than part 1 or 3...simply because(IMHO) it's a better film.

It had it's flaws, but I took some time a couple weeks ago and watched all three. It's the only great superhero movie trilogy thus far. Could part 4 be better? Absolutely!! I hope it is. Still, the Spidey 3 "Haters" can rant all they want. I'll bet they have the 2 disc collector's edition of SM3 sitting on their shelves right beside 1 and 2....just like I do.t:

 

[Stupify_me]

I feel you. I rarely ever post in the Movie forums at all, now. Everyone hates how Venom was treated, or hates the dancing, or blah blah blah.

It's an opinion...meaning no one is right or wrong.

Me, I've been going back and watching this film every now and again, and I still love it. It was a GOOD movie...just not a GREAT movie. Spider-Man 2 still gets watched more than part 1 or 3...simply because(IMHO) it's a better film.

It had it's flaws, but I took some time a couple weeks ago and watched all three. It's the only great superhero movie trilogy thus far. Could part 4 be better? Absolutely!! I hope it is. Still, the Spidey 3 "Haters" can rant all they want. I'll bet they have the 2 disc collector's edition of SM3 sitting on their shelves right beside 1 and 2....just like I do.t:

Actually owning it doesn't mean much. Some people like my self simply collect all the comic book movies that are at least watchable. Hell I even own both Fantastic four movies.

 

[Stevens25]

I used to get upset at people for not liking the movie(although I can see why),but then I realized that not everyone is gonna like every film. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I thought Spider-man 2 was considered by most everyone as the best comic book film ever,but I was shocked to see that alot of people hated that movie. I don't think that there's any film that's ever been made that everyone just loves completely. Maybe Jaws?
When it comes to Spidey 3,as I've said,I loved it but I do hate the lack of screentime for Venom/Brock and there are flaws. Then again,every movie has flaws. I don't mind that people may not like it,but what bothers me is when people call it the worst(comic book)movie they've ever seen. Even if if was bad,I don't think it was that bad!

 

[Silver Spider]

I used to get upset at people for not liking the movie(although I can see why),but then I realized that not everyone is gonna like every film. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I thought Spider-man 2 was considered by most everyone as the best comic book film ever,but I was shocked to see that alot of people hated that movie. I don't think that there's any film that's ever been made that everyone just loves completely. Maybe Jaws?
When it comes to Spidey 3,as I've said,I loved it but I do hate the lack of screentime for Venom/Brock and there are flaws. Then again,every movie has flaws. I don't mind that people may not like it,but what bothers me is when people call it the worst(comic book)movie they've ever seen. Even if if was bad,I don't think it was that bad!

Amen.

 

[FNSpidey]

I stopped posting on the boards for a while, largely because of this movie. I loved it, but I encountered a lot of naysayers. When I saw the bashing that it was getting here, I just decided I was tired of arguing with fans who are apparently never happy w/anything. Now I don't care. In my eyes, 1 & 2 had just as many detractors so I choose to just ignore them like I have for the last 6 years.

I totally agree.

I've said it before, Spidey 3 just proves that there can be too much of a good thing. If you objectively look at all Spidey films, they all have their share of flaws, most of them much more serious than Venom's use of "I" instead of "we" or half a minute of tension-releasing dancing. Spidey 2 has some pretty big plotholes, yet nobody cares. At the time we were too excited to notice them. With Spidey 3, fans expected exactly what they had in their heads and when they got something a little different, they picked up their forks and torches.

Heck, with whatever flaws it had, Spidey 3 was an involving, emotional film, while not lacking at the action department. People are praising Iron Man, which, while faithful and entertaining, lacked ANY kind of emotion. It was a flat action-humor-action-humor line. No investing in the characters, no drama, no suspense. Sandman had little character development? What about Stane? Where was his development besides being a slimey SOB?

Anyway, I digress. My point is, whatever flaws Spidey 3 had, most other films (not just comic book films) also have in spades. It just had the bad luck of being the third in the series and people got kind of full. I seriously doubt if there IS a third film curse, or people just grow too satisfied and picky after the second film. I know some films, like Batman Forever and Robocop 3, are beyond bad, but even Godfather III was badly received.

 

[Venom 1988]

Heck, with whatever flaws it had, Spidey 3 was an involving, emotional film, while not lacking at the action department. People are praising Iron Man, which, while faithful and entertaining, lacked ANY kind of emotion. It was a flat action-humor-action-humor line. No investing in the characters, no drama, no suspense.

I would disagree with that. Yes it didnt have the same amount of drama or character development as say Batman Begins or SM1, BUT I wouldn't say it was absent at all though.

Sandman had little character development? What about Stane? Where was his development besides being a slimey SOB?

Two reasons. One because Stane was simple as you said hes just a slimey SOB nothing more so theres nothing to develop. Two, he was nowhere near built up as Sandman was, so we had no expectations for him. They started to develop Sandman towards the beginning of the movie then just dropped the ball halfway.

 

[shinlyle]

Actually owning it doesn't mean much. Some people like my self simply collect all the comic book movies that are at least watchable. Hell I even own both Fantastic four movies.

True...but I don't go out and buy a movie that I actively dislike. I find it hard to believe that anyone else would, either.

Also, I own the first FF movie...but not the second.

 

[Blader5489]

I seriously doubt if there IS a third film curse, or people just grow too satisfied and picky after the second film.

Completely agree. I really don't think there is a "third movie curse", but rather, by the time the third film in a movie franchise comes out, things start to feel a little stale and people become bored with it. I think the Bourne Ultimatum is the perfect example of this--it's universally considered to be the best "threequel" of last year, but it's probably the most derivative of the trilogy. Still highly enjoyable and a nice end to the series, but it doesn't (and can't) capture the same feelings as the first two. That's the real "curse" of trilogies--the third film can't capture the novelty of the first movie or the escalating feeling of the second, and consequently, some viewers become bored and jaded.

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, like Superman III or Robocop 3 (as you mentioned), but I think for the most part, the third film of a trilogy has less to do with the quality of the film and more to do with people's expectations and perceptions of it.

 

[FNSpidey]

I would disagree with that. Yes it didnt have the same amount of drama or character development as say Batman Begins or SM1, BUT I wouldn't say it was absent at all though.

Sadly, I would. The point is, it was pretty superficial and I see nobody even acknowledging it, not to mention complaining. I enjoyed Iron Man, but it's getting HIGHLY overrated.

Two reasons. One because Stane was simple as you said hes just a slimey SOB nothing more so theres nothing to develop. Two, he was nowhere near built up as Sandman was, so we had no expectations for him. They started to develop Sandman towards the beginning of the movie then just dropped the ball halfway.

So, he wasn't developed because nobody saw the need for it? I'm sorry, but it sounds a little like double standards to me.
About Sandman, no character is constantly developed throughout a film, especially not in movie like this. Doc Ock was also developed in the beginning and then it was action until the end.

 

[FNSpidey]

Completely agree. I really don't think there is a "third movie curse", but rather, by the time the third film in a movie franchise comes out, things start to feel a little stale and people become bored with it. I think the Bourne Ultimatum is the perfect example of this--it's universally considered to be the best "threequel" of last year, but it's probably the most derivative of the trilogy. Still highly enjoyable and a nice end to the series, but it doesn't (and can't) capture the same feelings as the first two. That's the real "curse" of trilogies--the third film can't capture the novelty of the first movie or the escalating feeling of the second, and consequently, some viewers become bored and jaded.

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, like Superman III or Robocop 3 (as you mentioned), but I think for the most part, the third film of a trilogy has less to do with the quality of the film and more to do with people's expectations and perceptions of it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Venom 1988]

So, he wasn't developed because nobody saw the need for it? I'm sorry, but it sounds a little like double standards to me.

Its no because nobody saw a need for it, its cuz there wasn't one to begin with. Why try to go above and beyond for something that isn't necessary for the character?

About Sandman, no character is constantly developed throughout a film, especially not in movie like this. Doc Ock was also developed in the beginning and then it was action until the end.

Yea but he turned from someone we could have cared about to just a regular thug......and THEN were supposed to care about him at the end. It went downhill real fast

 

[FNSpidey]

Its no because nobody saw a need for it, its cuz there wasn't one to begin with. Why try to go above and beyond for something that isn't necessary for the character?

I don't see a difference. The characters in a film are however they're written. If Stane had been written better, we could understand him and his actions. As he's written now, we simply see he's EVIL. Bottomline is, the film had shallow characters and everyone's OK because, why ask for more? The film is hip and entertaining enough.

Yea but he turned from someone we could have cared about to just a regular thug......and THEN were supposed to care about him at the end. It went downhill real fast

But the point of Sandman's character development was not to make him a lovable character, just to offer a possible justification for his behaving as a regular thug. Just because we don't see him regretting his actions until the end, after he sees their consequences, doesn't mean he's enjoying himself.

And even if you don't agree with my take on things, you could argue that the character wasn't written perfectly. As opposed to Stane's (and others') character, which wasn't written at all...

 

[Stupify_me]

I totally agree.

I've said it before, Spidey 3 just proves that there can be too much of a good thing. If you objectively look at all Spidey films, they all have their share of flaws, most of them much more serious than Venom's use of "I" instead of "we" or half a minute of tension-releasing dancing. Spidey 2 has some pretty big plotholes, yet nobody cares. At the time we were too excited to notice them. With Spidey 3, fans expected exactly what they had in their heads and when they got something a little different, they picked up their forks and torches.

Heck, with whatever flaws it had, Spidey 3 was an involving, emotional film, while not lacking at the action department. People are praising Iron Man, which, while faithful and entertaining, lacked ANY kind of emotion. It was a flat action-humor-action-humor line. No investing in the characters, no drama, no suspense. Sandman had little character development? What about Stane? Where was his development besides being a slimey SOB?

Anyway, I digress. My point is, whatever flaws Spidey 3 had, most other films (not just comic book films) also have in spades. It just had the bad luck of being the third in the series and people got kind of full. I seriously doubt if there IS a third film curse, or people just grow too satisfied and picky after the second film. I know some films, like Batman Forever and Robocop 3, are beyond bad, but even Godfather III was badly received.

I think Spidey 3 was an ok comic film, but was definitely the worst of the three. Not only the worst of the three spidey film, but definitely near the bottom of the list when it comes to all Marvel films. Spider-man 3 tried to have to much going on and ended up with zero complete stories. The film tried to be emotional, funny, and a big action film. However, it fell flat on the first two.

 

[FNSpidey]

I think Spidey 3 was an ok comic film, but was definitely the worst of the three. Not only the worst of the three spidey film, but definitely near the bottom of the list when it comes to all Marvel films. Spider-man 3 tried to have to much going on and ended up with zero complete stories. The film tried to be emotional, funny, and a big action film. However, it fell flat on the first two.

I'm sorry, I just can't agree, no matter how many times I hear it. Spidey 3 wasn't emotional? If anything, it was the most emotional of the three. Not because people were crying, as I'm sure someone will mention, but because of the complex character interactions and the low point most of them were going through in their lives. And most important of all, those were feelings any of us could actually relate to, the superhero stuff was only there to complement them. So for me, the film was emotional, luckily not too funny, and a big action film. Flawless? Nowhere near, no film ever is. But very good nonetheless.

As for your "near the bottom of the list" comment? I think that however you feel about the film, you MIGHT be exaggerating a little there.

 

[Stupify_me]

I'm sorry, I just can't agree, no matter how many times I hear it. Spidey 3 wasn't emotional? If anything, it was the most emotional of the three. Not because people were crying, as I'm sure someone will mention, but because of the complex character interactions and the low point most of them were going through in their lives. And most important of all, those were feelings any of us could actually relate to, the superhero stuff was only there to complement them. So for me, the film was emotional, luckily not too funny, and a big action film. Flawless? Nowhere near, no film ever is. But very good nonetheless.

As for your "near the bottom of the list" comment? I think that however you feel about the film, you MIGHT be exaggerating a little there.

Not exaggerating I may of misstated it's a little more toward the middle I guess.

The movie fall's flat emotionally because it doesn't drive you to care about it's characters at all, the emotion that's there feels forced, and the character development (what little there is) is unbelievable.

 

[Venom 1988]

No one is saying it wasn't emotional, it was just a cluster**** of a mess. Too much of everything, not enough balance of all the key elements.

 

[FNSpidey]

No one is saying it wasn't emotional, it was just a cluster**** of a mess. Too much of everything, not enough balance of all the key elements.

I still don't see it. What wasn't balanced? The drama with the action? One character in relation to another? The pacing? I think it handles all these pretty well. Or is it that it had too many characters? The Godfather had lots of characters too, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think all the complaints about too many characters stem from one fan wanting more Sandman and another (or hundreds of others) more Venom. They played their part in the film's story well enough, we just wanted more of them and I don't see that as a valid criticism for a film.

Anyway, as many have mentioned before in this very same topic, I'm not interested in defending the film against vague criticisms anymore. But the fact that a simplistic, superficial and at times silly film like Iron Man, as entertaining as it may be, is getting so much praise tells me that people may actually be looking for something less in a movie and I just can't agree with that.

 

[The Joker]

Did you just compare Spider-Man 3 to the Godfather?

LOL!

 

[Venom 1988]

Ok I'll give you one of SM3s faults

Eddie Brock
I could care less about Venom getting more screen time, I wanted to see how the rise and fall of Brock and his dark side in more depth. They kept on hinting at this in interviews but very little came to show in the final product. Basically what they showed was O gee lost my job, want Parker dead now. Now that reasoning is all fine and dandy if they had developed his unstable mind a bit more, cuz before that church scene he just seemed like any other person.

 

[Silver Spider]

I still don't see it. What wasn't balanced? The drama with the action? One character in relation to another? The pacing? I think it handles all these pretty well. Or is it that it had too many characters? The Godfather had lots of characters too, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think all the complaints about too many characters stem from one fan wanting more Sandman and another (or hundreds of others) more Venom. They played their part in the film's story well enough, we just wanted more of them and I don't see that as a valid criticism for a film.

Anyway, as many have mentioned before in this very same topic, I'm not interested in defending the film against vague criticisms anymore. But the fact that a simplistic, superficial and at times silly film like Iron Man, as entertaining as it may be, is getting so much praise tells me that people may actually be looking for something less in a movie and I just can't agree with that.

I agree, I think this movie was great, and I hate it when people say this movie was horrible. Spider-man 3 is a good movie, but people are wanting to find all of the wrong in it, and completely disregard the positives, which I believe outweigh the negatives by a lot. I personally thought it was entertaining, how there were like 5 plots going at once. And I think they brought it all together at the end, pretty well.
Although I did love Iron Man, and Imo it's definantly one of Marvels best. I think it deserves a lot of the praise it gets. I don't think it's popular because of all the action, because a lot of the action-obsessed, movie-goers hated it because he barely fought anyone as Iron Man.

 

[Stupify_me]

I still don't see it. What wasn't balanced? The drama with the action? One character in relation to another? The pacing? I think it handles all these pretty well. Or is it that it had too many characters? The Godfather had lots of characters too, but it certainly didn't hurt. I think all the complaints about too many characters stem from one fan wanting more Sandman and another (or hundreds of others) more Venom. They played their part in the film's story well enough, we just wanted more of them and I don't see that as a valid criticism for a film.

Anyway, as many have mentioned before in this very same topic, I'm not interested in defending the film against vague criticisms anymore. But the fact that a simplistic, superficial and at times silly film like Iron Man, as entertaining as it may be, is getting so much praise tells me that people may actually be looking for something less in a movie and I just can't agree with that.

Vague? Most of the arguments against it are not even remotely vague. People talking poorly about this film are bring up very valid criticisms sometimes even dissecting specific scenes what's vague about that?

You pretty much lost credibility when you insulted every one who doesn't like it by saying that we want simplistic action films. I bet you nearly every one talking bat about this film loved the other two Spiderman movies as well as Batman Begins and probably really liked X-2 Even. Spiderman 3 However was not all that great. It wasn't a terrible movie just wasn't all that great either. It doesn't compare to the other movies I just listed.

 

[Silver Spider]

Ok I'll give you one of SM3s faults

Eddie Brock
I could care less about Venom getting more screen time, I wanted to see how the rise and fall of Brock and his dark side in more depth. They kept on hinting at this in interviews but very little came to show in the final product. Basically what they showed was O gee lost my job, want Parker dead now. Now that reasoning is all fine and dandy if they had developed his unstable mind a bit more, cuz before that church scene he just seemed like any other person.

I thought Eddie's development was okay in the movie, but he could have had a lot more. It really would have helped, if they hadn't deleted that scene where Eddie goes to the Stacy's house.