The "I loved Spider-Man 3" Thread!
- Thread starter Jay Phat Buds
- Start date
Tempest19
Superhero
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,350
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
As said earlier- MORE people loved it than the people who hated it...
Thus far:
107 people hated it.
86 people said it was average...
208 (not counting the 10s)... said it was good-great.
Thus, statistically- the film is loved ALOT more than it is hated. Only the haters are more verbal, communative and spammers.
Prison Mike
Don't drop the soap!
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 45,091
- Reaction score
- 7,132
- Points
- 103
I thought the film was fun. Not as good as Spider-Man 2, maybe tied with Spider-man 1. I think this film is just as fun as Fantastic Four. I liked Fantastic Four and thought it was a good popcorn flick.
Sloth7d
Escapist
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,526
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I wouldn't even really count 6 as hating it. That poll is inaccurate. 7=/=average. 5 or 6 is commonly used for that.
Spider-Man Luvr28
Amazing.
- Joined
- May 10, 2003
- Messages
- 28,191
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 58
I almost cried in that movie. Really.
Eddie Brock
Golden Domer
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 25,054
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
So did I....that's right, I admitted it.
Mr Jide
Superhero
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 5,000
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Yeah. I thought it was a very good, easily the best and by a huge margin, a superior movie to the previos 2 spidey flicks.
spider-neil
spins a web any size!
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 18,205
- Reaction score
- 306
- Points
- 73
this is weird...
I saw spidey 3 again today and enjoyed it more the second time around than when I saw spidey 2 the second time around.
before I 'liked' spidey 3 now I 'LOVE' spidey 3
weird...
I saw spidey 3 again today and enjoyed it more the second time around than when I saw spidey 2 the second time around.
before I 'liked' spidey 3 now I 'LOVE' spidey 3
weird...
Mr Jide
Superhero
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 5,000
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Tempest19
Superhero
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,350
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
Same here dude.
Cypocalypse
Civilian
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Taken from my blog:
Elements In Making a Film Trilogy
Basically, a film trilogy is composed of these elements:
1. Film 1 - the first film. Duh!
2. Film 2 - the souped up version of the first film
3. Film 3 - the mega souped up version that's more grandiose than the first two, while at the same time, forming a resolution to the cliff hangers that the first two films made.
Making a good first film is difficult. But once it has been made, it's easier to make a better sequel since the formula that made the first film a success is already established. All the makers of the sequel has to do is to soup up the original. That's basically how you define a sequel's success.
The third installment, however, is a make-or-break situation. The first two films would create a dangling plot line that needs to be resolved, not to mention that the third film needs to end up with a bang, hence it needs the grandest exit that it can get.
Doing the latter is not that difficult, and probably devising a formula for the dangling plotlines' resolution isn't that superbly difficult either. The problem lies in the coherence. How do we make a coherent third film out of all these elements that we're going to merge?
The third part of the Matrix trilogy failed to do it. Terminator 3 failed to do it (like it actually needs a third installment). The Revenge of the Sith somehow managed to pull it off but Episode 1 and Episode 2 are too sucky to begin with, Episode 3 doesn't really need to resolve anything from the other two. The Return of the King ended with a bang but that's because the LOTR trilogy is just one dragging episode to begin with that's just divided into three parts. The other film trilogies I've mentioned are all in a episodic format, or have a more episodic feel to them.
The Spider-Man trilogy is challenged by the same undertaking. How should the film end in a giant, coherent, bang? Sam Raimi may not have figured it out. And honestly, I don't have an idea either on how to figure that out.
Listing down the crucial elements that needs to be coherent in the film.
1. The Spider-Man's new nemesis -- himself. Which is sugarcoated by the Symbiote. This should have been a good foundation for the philosophical concepts that would be incorporated in the film. As stated in the trailers, "The greatest battle lies within"--the perfect premise for a third film.
2. The resolution of Uncle Ben's Death - which is driven by the Sandman himself.
3. The resolution to Peter and Harry's friendship - defined by the New Goblin.
4. The resolution of Peter's relationship with Mary Jane
Merging these elements together requires an extreme intellectual undertaking, which is far more difficult than what it seems that Spider-Man has always been a kiddie film to begin with.
The film incorporated two of the most logical choices for Spidey's villains, since The Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus were already chosen initially. The problem starts with putting depth to these two villains.
Sandman is just a guy that transforms into a sand. Definitely it can't get any cheesier than that. Until Sam Raimi devised a plan on making him the mastermind of Uncle Ben's death and apparently this would have been a good foundation for the resolution of that part of the trilogy's story. Not to mention that the film portrayed him as a not-so-bad individual, creating gray undertones for this movie, which is a tested success for the 21st century's politically correct crowd. But then again, a guy transforming into a sand is gay and the depth to that part of the storyline cannot only be pushed that far. I'm not saying that The Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus were not cheesy in their own right but if you treat the other two as a cheddar cheese, Sandman is as cheesy as a mozarella.
Sam Raimi realized this so he did a back-up plot--Venom. Many have stated that he's an inconsequential element of the film and the Symbiote Spidey character is an impressive persona in itself. But when you're dealing with a villain that's more gay than the other villains in the first two films, you may wanna add a baddass of a villain to act as a counter effect. The problem is, Venom's origin is also gay. You can't add depth to an entity that comes from outer space. In a film where Spider-Man's supposed to be the anti-thesis of Superman's unrelatability, a story of a villain which hails from outer space (which ironically, is also Superman's origin) just can't fit. Of course, we may need to suspend our disbelief in any Spider-Man film but this side of the story just pushes the limits way too far.
So how do we put coherence in all of this? I don't know exactly. Are we going to expect that Sam Raimi should have put a more grounded villain instead like what the creators of Batman Begins did in putting Ras Al Ghul? But then again, since when did Spider-Man had a grounded, realistic villain anyway?
Or, should the movie have been separated into two films? If that were the case, then a logical plan would be putting Sandman in the first one and Venom in the next, or vice versa. But then again, can the element of grandeur be executed with the two villains doing a solo act?
But still, this a well done film considering the dilemma it was facing, with hardly a key formula to be executed will full effectiveness.
Elements In Making a Film Trilogy
Basically, a film trilogy is composed of these elements:
1. Film 1 - the first film. Duh!
2. Film 2 - the souped up version of the first film
3. Film 3 - the mega souped up version that's more grandiose than the first two, while at the same time, forming a resolution to the cliff hangers that the first two films made.
Making a good first film is difficult. But once it has been made, it's easier to make a better sequel since the formula that made the first film a success is already established. All the makers of the sequel has to do is to soup up the original. That's basically how you define a sequel's success.
The third installment, however, is a make-or-break situation. The first two films would create a dangling plot line that needs to be resolved, not to mention that the third film needs to end up with a bang, hence it needs the grandest exit that it can get.
Doing the latter is not that difficult, and probably devising a formula for the dangling plotlines' resolution isn't that superbly difficult either. The problem lies in the coherence. How do we make a coherent third film out of all these elements that we're going to merge?
The third part of the Matrix trilogy failed to do it. Terminator 3 failed to do it (like it actually needs a third installment). The Revenge of the Sith somehow managed to pull it off but Episode 1 and Episode 2 are too sucky to begin with, Episode 3 doesn't really need to resolve anything from the other two. The Return of the King ended with a bang but that's because the LOTR trilogy is just one dragging episode to begin with that's just divided into three parts. The other film trilogies I've mentioned are all in a episodic format, or have a more episodic feel to them.
The Spider-Man trilogy is challenged by the same undertaking. How should the film end in a giant, coherent, bang? Sam Raimi may not have figured it out. And honestly, I don't have an idea either on how to figure that out.
Listing down the crucial elements that needs to be coherent in the film.
1. The Spider-Man's new nemesis -- himself. Which is sugarcoated by the Symbiote. This should have been a good foundation for the philosophical concepts that would be incorporated in the film. As stated in the trailers, "The greatest battle lies within"--the perfect premise for a third film.
2. The resolution of Uncle Ben's Death - which is driven by the Sandman himself.
3. The resolution to Peter and Harry's friendship - defined by the New Goblin.
4. The resolution of Peter's relationship with Mary Jane
Merging these elements together requires an extreme intellectual undertaking, which is far more difficult than what it seems that Spider-Man has always been a kiddie film to begin with.
The film incorporated two of the most logical choices for Spidey's villains, since The Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus were already chosen initially. The problem starts with putting depth to these two villains.
Sandman is just a guy that transforms into a sand. Definitely it can't get any cheesier than that. Until Sam Raimi devised a plan on making him the mastermind of Uncle Ben's death and apparently this would have been a good foundation for the resolution of that part of the trilogy's story. Not to mention that the film portrayed him as a not-so-bad individual, creating gray undertones for this movie, which is a tested success for the 21st century's politically correct crowd. But then again, a guy transforming into a sand is gay and the depth to that part of the storyline cannot only be pushed that far. I'm not saying that The Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus were not cheesy in their own right but if you treat the other two as a cheddar cheese, Sandman is as cheesy as a mozarella.
Sam Raimi realized this so he did a back-up plot--Venom. Many have stated that he's an inconsequential element of the film and the Symbiote Spidey character is an impressive persona in itself. But when you're dealing with a villain that's more gay than the other villains in the first two films, you may wanna add a baddass of a villain to act as a counter effect. The problem is, Venom's origin is also gay. You can't add depth to an entity that comes from outer space. In a film where Spider-Man's supposed to be the anti-thesis of Superman's unrelatability, a story of a villain which hails from outer space (which ironically, is also Superman's origin) just can't fit. Of course, we may need to suspend our disbelief in any Spider-Man film but this side of the story just pushes the limits way too far.
So how do we put coherence in all of this? I don't know exactly. Are we going to expect that Sam Raimi should have put a more grounded villain instead like what the creators of Batman Begins did in putting Ras Al Ghul? But then again, since when did Spider-Man had a grounded, realistic villain anyway?
Or, should the movie have been separated into two films? If that were the case, then a logical plan would be putting Sandman in the first one and Venom in the next, or vice versa. But then again, can the element of grandeur be executed with the two villains doing a solo act?
But still, this a well done film considering the dilemma it was facing, with hardly a key formula to be executed will full effectiveness.
Mr Jide
Superhero
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 5,000
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Bro, I only complained about sm1 and 2. I never said anything bad about sm3 other than I just didn't and still dont think it'll be the summer BO champ. I always said that sm3 looked good but unlike the majority of people here, I wasn't going to be biased and declare anything until I'd seen the movie.....and after seeing the movie last night, I can finally say, yes, sm3 is a very good movie.
Mauser9910
Sidekick
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,434
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 58
Very true !
I wouldn't rank the movies personally, I think of them as a whole. I loved SM3, I wish the running time was longer.
I also want to go on record on saying that I loved this movie. By itself, it was a very good movie....but it was even better as the 3rd act to the play that is Peter's life. It made the series a great trilogy.
Many people just expected different...maybe the trailers fooled them but I picture the Spider-Man series as romantic-comedies starring Peter Parker. I love it as that.
Maybe other people wanted serious, dark action movies like Batman begins or Constantine but that just isn't Spider-Man. And I prefer it that way.
8.5-9/10
Many people just expected different...maybe the trailers fooled them but I picture the Spider-Man series as romantic-comedies starring Peter Parker. I love it as that.
Maybe other people wanted serious, dark action movies like Batman begins or Constantine but that just isn't Spider-Man. And I prefer it that way.
8.5-9/10
Eddie Brock
Golden Domer
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 25,054
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
I'm hoping this will happen to me if I see it again tonight!
shigsy2003
I'LL TAKE YOU ALL ON!!!
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,165
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I LOVED Spider-Man 3!Best of the trilogy, IMO!
Agreed
Don't worry man your not: I loved this film.
MasterChief2829
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,089
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 58
It easily surpasses 1 and 2, how the hell can anyone think it sucks?
jdogg willie
Civilian
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Sony has confirmed S-M:4, 5, & 6. It's just unclear if Raimi is going to do 4 yet, Raimi is the frontrunner to direct 'The Hobbit' which was originally supposed to be directed by Peter Jackson, but Jackson and the Weinstien's are in a quarrel.
Tobey and Kirsten have stated that if Raimi isn't directing S-M: 4, that they wouldn't come back
DyeLorean
...and the plot thickens
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 9,406
- Reaction score
- 5,544
- Points
- 103
Because it has a lot of flaws, but then again, I don't think it sucks at all. I think is a good movie, I liked it. Not loving it yet. I'm gonna see it again soon, perhaps next weekend, to see what new reactions I get.
D!
SlyGuyTtjn
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,148
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
DKDetectiveBoo Boo Bubbles (he/him)
