The Official "I Loved Raimi's Spider-Man' Thread - Part 1 of 99 Luft - Part 7

[Troy_Parker]

A film can make an impact, positive or negative. Hell, people STILL bring up Arnold's Mr. Freeze and the Batnipples.

 

[El Payaso]

I didn't see the scene when Peter wore make-up.

So you didn't read when I said "would have been idiotic"?

Surely you know the meaning of 'would have been'? Conditional in the past? Like 'it didn't happen but if it had happened'?

And Peter dancing was meant to be idiotic.

Yes, he turned into an idiot instead of evil. That's an idiotic approach. Because it was clear that the dancing scene was done just for cheap laughs.

He had become a swaggering jerk. That was the point.

No, he has become an evil version of himself. THAT was the point.

Again the Joker was being a full-time jerk while Peter was only temporarily in that state.

What difference does that make?

I don't think someone who tries to ruin your life and then tosses a grenade at your head qualifies as a "best friend".

So you missed the first two movies?

They were best friends dude. The grenade incident happened after he was under the simbyote influence.

Peter was defending himself. He over did it because of the effects of the symbiote.

No, he wasn't defending hi8mself. He went to Harry's to attack him ex profeso.

People laughed at my theater.

Irrefutable proof that it was a piece of gold comedy.

Man, I heard people laughing at Transformers 2 jokes.

But the dancing wasn't thrown in from nowhere, it showed Peter's degeneration. Mission accomplished.

Peter attacking Harry, Peter "killing" Sandman, Peter slapping MJ. THAT showed his degeneration. THAt's when the mission was already accomplished. The dancing scene was played just for comedy because Raimi, as many other superhero movie directors, is convinced that if people don't laugh they won't be enjoying the movie.

Was the overall idea the best way of handling of Peter's character arc? No. But then-this wasn't the story Raimi wanted to tell in the first place, was it?

Artists can perfectly make sense out of a story, even if they don't like it. Raimi's handling of this was just what he used to do in the previous movies: bad comedy. This was just a poor way to do it.

 

[Dragon]

Peter didn't look like an aggressive jerk. He just looked like a geek. More geeky than usual. I'm not going to argue whether it was funny or not, because that is all opinion and different people have different senses of humor. I have to agree with what others have said, Sam Raimi really should not have made the symbiote story into a joke.

Trying to kill Marko and Harry wasn't a joke. Flooring MJ wasn't a joke. While I might not agree with what is actually on screen, I do agree that with Peter his dark moments needed to be balanced by humor.

And let's face it- for some folks including Raimi, the symbiote storyline is kind of a joke. We're talking about an alien lifeform that turns itself into a costume to be loved. Its pretty low on the self-aspiration scale. We're also talking about a guy who wants to kill because he lost his job. Not exactly master criminal material.

It had a real impact on Peter, and after the two dancing scenes, I just couldnt take him seriously. It's a pretty dark arc and humor could have been added any where else in the movie, just not when you are showing Peter's descent into darkness with the symbiote.

Peter's descent was going to go but so far. Peter was able to get a hold of himself before he reached the deep end.

So the humor in Peter's arc is balanced against the fact that Eddie went where Peter wouldn't go and was ultimately destroyed.

Also, I don't understand this argument that Sam Raimi didn't want the villain. He gets all the credit when things are going well in spider-man 1 and 2, but then he screws up Venom and the symbiote and he isn't getting some of the blame? He still wrote it and directed it. I understand that it is mostly Sony's fault for being stupid and butting into Raimi's work, but he wasn't forced to make the symbiote arc silly and goofy.

You actually answer your own question here. Your reaction to the humorous approach to the symbiote arc is Raimi's reaction to having to make that story. If you were the director and handed the script that Raimi shot, you'd be dragging your feet, half-heartedly and it would show on the screen.

Same with Raimi in having to work with Venom at all. Especially since he had the story he wanted to tell. He wanted to explore Peter's darkside without any influence from an alien glob with an inferiority complex. He had the story he wanted to tell and that was taken from him. And just as fans were disappointed with what was on screen, so was he. Fans think that simply because THEY love Venom, Raimi was supposed to share their enthusiasm. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Dragon]

So you didn't read when I said "would have been idiotic"?

Surely you know the meaning of 'would have been'? Conditional in the past? Like 'it didn't happen but if it had happened'?

So you don't didn't get that I was being sarcastic?

Raimi didn't go as far as to put Peter in make-up. He made him dance around. It was meant to be funny. And for alot of folks it was. It isn't as if the movie wasn't a hit.

Yes, he turned into an idiot instead of evil. That's an idiotic approach. Because it was clear that the dancing scene was done just for cheap laughs.

Peter isn't evil. The symbiote only amplifies what's inside you. If evil isn't there then it isn't going to come out. Peter can be arrogant. He can be aggressive and he can rage. But he's not evil. And the scenes when Peter shows his rage are effective.

No, he has become an evil version of himself. THAT was the point.

First you're contradicting yourself. Above you say he doesn't turn evil. Now you're saying he does. And- who says he's supposed to turn evil? The personality shift doesn't happen in the comics. This influence from the symbiote is from the 90's cartoon (And was pretty cartoonish). But again, Peter was observing his own misjudgement and personal demons which would ultimately lead to his understanding that Marko could've made a mistake in shooting Ben.

What difference does that make?

That's the reason the Joker was so far beyond Peter with the extremely ridiculous act of dressing as a female nurse, whereas Peter just had some fun with doing Saturday Night Fever on the street.

So you missed the first two movies?

They were best friends dude. The grenade incident happened after he was under the simbyote influence.

Reality check. People change. Relationships change. People who love each other desperately begin to hate each other. Harry stopped being Peter's best friend when he sent Ock after Peter to get info on Spidey.

I said myself that due to the symbiote influence Peter over-reacted with the grenade. But it doesn't change the fact that Harry was trying to kill him.
It's ridiculous that you blame Peter and give Harry a pass.

No, he wasn't defending hi8mself. He went to Harry's to attack him ex profeso.

He went to Harry's to confront him over all the evil **** Harry had been doing to ruin Peter's life. And it was Harry that took a slugfest to the level of lethal when he tried to stab Peter.

Irrefutable proof that it was a piece of gold comedy.

Yeah, laughter tends to mean something is funny.

Man, I heard people laughing at Transformers 2 jokes.

And those films remain popular. Or should the world wait for your advice on what is and isn't funny? I sure as hell wish they'd wait for mine, then scripts like "The Hangover" would be burned after reading.

Peter attacking Harry, Peter "killing" Sandman, Peter slapping MJ. THAT showed his degeneration. THAt's when the mission was already accomplished. The dancing scene was played just for comedy because Raimi, as many other superhero movie directors, is convinced that if people don't laugh they won't be enjoying the movie.

Look, I agree that dancing was over-the-top. I agree that the film was sub-par. I don't agree that it was the tragedy that many fans make it out to be. I honestly think that fans were mostly disappointed about Venom being beaten in one fight and carry that disappointment over to trashing the film overall. Venom should have been beaten in one fight. He's a low-class villain.

Artists can perfectly make sense out of a story, even if they don't like it. Raimi's handling of this was just what he used to do in the previous movies: bad comedy. This was just a poor way to do it.

B***S***. No artist wants to be making a film or telling a story they don't like. EVERY director has a clunker on their resume' because they weren't telling a story they believed in or were working under conditions they didn't want. Like I said above, fans expected THEIR love for Venom to inspire Raimi to make the movie they wanted. Wasn't going to happen.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Joker was so far beyond Peter with the extremely ridiculous act of dressing as a female nurse

Christ....

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Yeah I normally defend SM3 but I gotta disagree with you there, Dragon.


Now I do defend the dance, but the nurse outfit wasn't out of character for the joker. Now, I could be wrong, but hasn't he disguised himself as a chick in the comics at one point too? I think I saw one...could just be some weirdo fan-manip though.

 

[Dragon]

Yeah I normally defend SM3 but I gotta disagree with you there, Dragon.


Now I do defend the dance, but the nurse outfit wasn't out of character for the joker. Now, I could be wrong, but hasn't he disguised himself as a chick in the comics at one point too? I think I saw one...could just be some weirdo fan-manip though.

I'm not saying dressing as a nurse was out of character for the Joker. The reason I brought the nurse thing up at all is because I believe Picard brought up the point that no comedy should be displayed in showing Peter moving toward his darkside. I simply said that characters can be dark and yet display comical and even ridiculous behavior and used the nurse thing as an example of that.

 

[Dragon]

Christ....

Straight-up dude, you're a frickin' puppet.

TDK was a good film but had many flaws to. For example- there's so much griping here about Venom being short-changed, but in TDK Two-Face was equally short-changed. Two-Face is supposed to be a villain of nearly the stature of the Joker, but he was relegated to a plot-point.

There were tons of plotholes:

HTF did Two-Face escape the car wreck that killed Eric Roberts?

What exactly were the "Two-Face murders"? Two killings that no one would've connected to Harvey Dent.

After Nolan goes to so much trouble displaying on the ferries the will and heart of Gothamites (Even the criminals) why would he think that Gotham would collapse because of Harvey Dent's disgrace- since Gotham was already so used to political corruption? That's comic book writing not the "realistic" writing that Nolan's films are creditied with. Not to mention that Dent's killings were caused by psychological trauma, so he wasn't really to blame anyway.

Wayne believes he can retire because Harvey Dent can take his place in defending Gotham- But the landmark case that Dent wins- could only have been won because there was a Batman.

There are many more.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I'm not saying dressing as a nurse was out of character for the Joker. The reason I brought the nurse thing up at all is because I believe Picard brought up the point that no comedy should be displayed in showing Peter moving toward his darkside. I simply said that characters can be dark and yet display comical and even ridiculous behavior and used the nurse thing as an example of that.

That'll be great if Peter actually seemed dark and not comical dark the entire film.

Straight-up dude, you're a frickin' puppet.

Well, as I always said...."Call me Scarface, mother****er!"

TDK was a good film but had many flaws to. For example- there's so much griping here about Venom being short-changed, but in TDK Two-Face was equally short-changed. Two-Face is supposed to be a villain of nearly the stature of the Joker, but he was relegated to a plot-point.

Nolan had always said his version of Two-Face wasn't a true villain to that type of caliber and so what we saw of TF, it showed what kind of version Nolan wanted to perceive. Harvey Dent was a "white knight" that Joker corrupted and he only went out for revenge. He didn't have some kind of villainy plot that guys like Joker or Ra's had.

Venom, on the other hand, WAS short changed because he was still the villain that we see in cartoons and read in the comics that wanted to destroy Peter and his life and he was downsized as to have to ask for help from Sandman.

There were tons of plotholes:

HTF did Two-Face escape the car wreck that killed Eric Roberts?

Minor plothole, but that gives a few answers: Dent buckled his seat belt while he shot and obviously killed the driver while Maroni didn't have his belt buckled. Should we have seen Dent escape? I don't know...should we have seen Joker escape Wayne's penthouse too?

What exactly were the "Two-Face murders"? Two killings that no one would've connected to Harvey Dent.

With Joker being MIA, it was seemingly understood that one would have blamed the killings on someone, but Gordon only thought the killings would have been blamed on Dent since he left the hospital without anyone seeing. It "could have" been connected to Dent, but before anyone could say otherwise, Batman wanted the blame focused on him.

After Nolan goes to so much trouble displaying on the ferries the will and heart of Gothamites (Even the criminals) why would he think that Gotham would collapse because of Harvey Dent's disgrace- since Gotham was already so used to political corruption? That's comic book writing not the "realistic" writing that Nolan's films are creditied with. Not to mention that Dent's killings were caused by psychological trauma, so he wasn't really to blame anyway.

The judicial system would've still blamed it on Dent even through psychological trauma. He could've received help, but he would've also ended up being placed in Arkham Asylum for that psychological treatment. And Dent put away most of the mobs for what he did. To have a DA become a murderer would have placed those criminals back unto the streets. Is it absolute great writing? No, but no one said TDK is flawless. It's just a great film. Being a great film doesn't mean a film HAS to be flawless. Spider-Man 2 is a great CBM, but it even has its flaws.

Wayne believes he can retire because Harvey Dent can take his place in defending Gotham- But the landmark case that Dent wins- could only have been won because there was a Batman.

This is actually a problem I had as well because someone like Dent couldn't deal with a villain if someone else like Joker shows up, such as Riddler per say. Although, we know Bruce Wayne can't do this for a long time, hell, he even retired between TDK and TDKR, but at least someone that cared so much like Harvey Dent would have helped if Wayne did retire.

There are many more.

Of course there are. What film DOESN'T have flaws? Shall I name the flaws for Raimi's trilogy now?

 

[Web face]

I still think that humor should not have been mixed in with the symbiote story. I mean, after the goofy part, the dark scenes seemed like they came out of no where tbh. Maybe I am remembering wrong or something because I haven't watched it in a while, but it just seems like overall, it was a bad mix of humor and darkness for that part of the movie. I know, it seems like I am asking for nothing but dark, but it just seemed a bit too silly to me. I don't think he should have went for laughs like that. I guess I can understand why Raimi screwed up with the whole Venom thing, but I still think he could have done better, even if he didn't want it.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The judicial system would've still blamed it on Dent even through psychological trauma. He could've received help, but he would've also ended up being placed in Arkham Asylum for that psychological treatment. And Dent put away most of the mobs for what he did. To have a DA become a murderer would have placed those criminals back unto the streets. Is it absolute great writing? No, but no one said TDK is flawless. It's just a great film. Being a great film doesn't mean a film HAS to be flawless. Spider-Man 2 is a great CBM, but it even has its flaws.

What film DOESN'T have flaws? Shall I name the flaws for Raimi's trilogy now?

All movies have flaws. I mean, do you think that Two-Face in TDK was at all realistic? It was so awesome, but a bit far fetched, especially when Nolan tries to be realistic. But it was awesome.

 

[Dragon]

That'll be great if Peter actually seemed dark and not comical dark the entire film.

Killing Marko wasn't comical. Blowing Harry's face off wasn't comical. Cleaning house at the Jazz club wasn't comical. Your exaggerations are ridiculous.

Nolan had always said his version of Two-Face wasn't a true villain to that type of caliber and so what we saw of TF, it showed what kind of version Nolan wanted to perceive. Harvey Dent was a "white knight" that Joker corrupted and he only went out for revenge. He didn't have some kind of villainy plot that guys like Joker or Ra's had.

Venom, on the other hand, WAS short changed because he was still the villain that we see in cartoons and read in the comics that wanted to destroy Peter and his life and he was downsized as to have to ask for help from Sandman.

So it's okay for Nolan to alter Two-Face but not okay for Raimi to alter Venom, even though Raimi actually added better drama to Brock's story.

Minor plothole, but that gives a few answers: Dent buckled his seat belt while he shot and obviously killed the driver while Maroni didn't have his belt buckled. Should we have seen Dent escape? I don't know...should we have seen Joker escape Wayne's penthouse too?

Not minor at all. If the crash was certain to kill Maroni, then Dent would have certainly died as well. And your explanation is more hilarious than anything the Joker could have done. Dent was buckled and Maroni wasn't???? are you frickin' kidding me?

With Joker being MIA, it was seemingly understood that one would have blamed the killings on someone, but Gordon only thought the killings would have been blamed on Dent since he left the hospital without anyone seeing. It "could have" been connected to Dent, but before anyone could say otherwise, Batman wanted the blame focused on him.

Right. Which was a contrivance to merely make Batman an enemy of the state. As I said, even if Dent was blamed for the crimes, the idea that Gotham would somehow fall apart because another politician came up dirty is just plain silly.

The judicial system would've still blamed it on Dent even through psychological trauma. He could've received help, but he would've also ended up being placed in Arkham Asylum for that psychological treatment.

Which is where he ends up anyway. Haven't you read a single Batman comic book?

And Dent put away most of the mobs for what he did. To have a DA become a murderer would have placed those criminals back unto the streets.

Not in any court system in the U.S. buddy. DA's have been placed in jail for corruption and their cases still don't automatically get thrown out. They may be investigated for wrong-doing, but that's takes a long time. The crooks would never be immediately released.

Is it absolute great writing? No, but no one said TDK is flawless. It's just a great film. Being a great film doesn't mean a film HAS to be flawless. Spider-Man 2 is a great CBM, but it even has its flaws.

Yeah, but Spidey 3 doesn't get that pass, right?

This is actually a problem I had as well because someone like Dent couldn't deal with a villain if someone else like Joker shows up, such as Riddler per say. Although, we know Bruce Wayne can't do this for a long time, hell, he even retired between TDK and TDKR, but at least someone that cared so much like Harvey Dent would have helped if Wayne did retire.

Exactly. This is a fallacy of logic in a very important part of the story. And I'm referring to the major case that Dent wins- but only because Batman brings the guy back from Hong Kong- So Harvey Dent doesn't really accomplish anything in the film, although he's presented as Gotham's savior. And moreover- No way China would have stood still while some nutjob vigilante from America would kidnap one of their leading (richest) citizens. There'd have been a monster of an international incident.

Of course there are. What film DOESN'T have flaws?

You certainly have acted as if it doesn't.

Shall I name the flaws for Raimi's trilogy now?

When have you done anything but?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Killing Marko wasn't comical. Blowing Harry's face off wasn't comical. Cleaning house at the Jazz club wasn't comical. Your exaggerations are ridiculous.

The bold...really? REALLY? And you said MY exaggerations are ridiculous?

Sure, I'll give you those two; when it comes to the battles, yes, we saw some badass moves from Peter from the influence of the symbiote. I apologize if my exaggerations are ridiculous, but c'mon now...the jazz club WASN'T comical? That dance number was, once again, pathetically unwatchable. I only snapped back once Peter snapped at MJ.

So it's okay for Nolan to alter Two-Face but not okay for Raimi to alter Venom, even though Raimi actually added better drama to Brock's story.

Again, you don't understand. I am fine with Eddie for the most part although he needed more development, BUT...Venom deserved more. MUCH more. And to be used as what he is, a villain that may be one of Spidey's greatest villains. Two-Face may not have turned out to be a great villain for Batman, but rather than physically, what Dent did tore Wayne up emotionally.

Not minor at all. If the crash was certain to kill Maroni, then Dent would have certainly died as well. And your explanation is more hilarious than anything the Joker could have done. Dent was buckled and Maroni wasn't???? are you frickin' kidding me?

It's hard to take anything you say towards me seriously, so...awesome

But hey, at least I'm a step above Peter dancing still t:

Right. Which was a contrivance to merely make Batman an enemy of the state. As I said, even if Dent was blamed for the crimes, the idea that Gotham would somehow fall apart because another politician came up dirty is just plain silly.

This is far different than what Gotham had gone through because, from our understanding, Gotham had dirty politicians, but never someone that was all about good and became dirty over a loved one's death. There's a difference.

Which is where he ends up anyway. Haven't you read a single Batman comic book?

But did Dent try to save the city beforehand? Did he try to bring down the entire mob faction beforehand which would've just collapsed after Dent's fall?

Not in any court system in the U.S. buddy. DA's have been placed in jail for corruption and their cases still don't automatically get thrown out. They may be investigated for wrong-doing, but that's takes a long time. The crooks would never be immediately released.

I never said they'd be immediately released buddy, but much faster if the DA that was going to lead them into jail did something as what Dent has done.

Yeah, but Spidey 3 doesn't get that pass, right?

When a film has more flaws than even mild storytelling, no, it does not.

You certainly have acted as if it doesn't.

That's you; and I feel sorry for you that you think that.

When have you done anything but?

Oh, I haven't mentioned half of the complaints I have for the trilogy.

 

[Dragon]

I still think that humor should not have been mixed in with the symbiote story. I mean, after the goofy part, the dark scenes seemed like they came out of no where tbh. Maybe I am remembering wrong or something because I haven't watched it in a while, but it just seems like overall, it was a bad mix of humor and darkness for that part of the movie. I know, it seems like I am asking for nothing but dark, but it just seemed a bit too silly to me. I don't think he should have went for laughs like that. I guess I can understand why Raimi screwed up with the whole Venom thing, but I still think he could have done better, even if he didn't want it.

I think the dark stuff flowed perfectly for what the story was. They established Peter's anger over Marko being on the loose. He joins with the symbiote and "kills" Marko. Harry destroys Peter and MJ's relationship and tries to kill Peter. Peter's rage sends him after Harry and while defending himself he takes things too far. He has a showdown with MJ over what he perceives (And to a point he's right) as her betrayal. There was good structure to all of that.

Yes, there were alot of missteps in 3. Raimi acknowleges it. Everyone else does. Honestly for me, the biggest problem wasn't Venom, but the relationship with MJ. It was horribly handled (Although that was the case throughout the trilogy IMO). I kept thinking that even if Peter and MJ reconcile, he really has nothing to look forward to. I really didn't understand why he loved her.

Yeah, the dancing was goofy but forgivable. The crying in the park was alot worse to me. I also didn't like that Marko was relegated to being just a special effect.

 

[Web face]

I seriously think that the movie would have benefited greatly if the whole dancing thing was taken out and more stuff from the novelization. The dancing might be forgivable, I mean it's been 5 years and it's being rebooted, it's about time we stop complaining about it. But still, I don't think it should be compared to when Joker dressed as a nurse.
Also, about Harvey Dent. The guy didn't seem like he had a plot really, just screwed up in the mind and doing whatever. So when he shot the driver, I don't think he really cared if he was going to die or not, he just got lucky. To me, it is about as much of a plot hole as Peter getting superpowers from a spider bite.

 

[Dragon]

The bold...really? REALLY? And you said MY exaggerations are ridiculous?

Sure, I'll give you those two; when it comes to the battles, yes, we saw some badass moves from Peter from the influence of the symbiote. I apologize if my exaggerations are ridiculous, but c'mon now...the jazz club WASN'T comical? That dance number was, once again, pathetically unwatchable. I only snapped back once Peter snapped at MJ.

I wasn't referring to the dancing in the Jazz club, but when he kicks everyone's ass and socks MJ. That wasn't comical.

Again, you don't understand. I am fine with Eddie for the most part although he needed more development, BUT...Venom deserved more. MUCH more. And to be used as what he is, a villain that may be one of Spidey's greatest villains. Two-Face may not have turned out to be a great villain for Batman, but rather than physically, what Dent did tore Wayne up emotionally.

Why did Venom deserve more and Two-Face not? Two-Face is a far more interesting villain than Venom. Venom is merely a visual- the "Evil Spider-Man". But when you get into his story there's nothing there. Someone who wants revenge for nothing. Every Venom story is just a long fight scene with him ranting throughout and Spidey being a little ***** whimpering and begging for Venom to stop.

It's hard to take anything you say towards me seriously, so...awesome

But hey, at least I'm a step above Peter dancing still t:

No you aren't. The buckled seat explanation makes Peter dancing seem brilliant.

This is far different than what Gotham had gone through because, from our understanding, Gotham had dirty politicians, but never someone that was all about good and became dirty over a loved one's death. There's a difference.

Again, only in the geeky comic book world. People survive the loss of great leaders like Martin Luther King, or Kennedy. The country survived Nixon being shown to be corrupt during Watergate (And he was a very popular president). Hell there's hardly been a president in the last 50 years without scandal. So a city as tough and hardcore as Gotham would certainly survive Dent's loss. In fact they'd likely be expecting him to turn out to be dirty.

But did Dent try to save the city beforehand? Did he try to bring down the entire mob faction beforehand which would've just collapsed after Dent's fall?

He may have been trying, but he was failing. It was only because of Batman that he succeeded. Batman did all the work and Harvey was given the glory.

I never said they'd be immediately released buddy, but much faster if the DA that was going to lead them into jail did something as what Dent has done.

They wouldn't be released at all. Unless their legal team could find some evidence of wrong-doing on Dent's part their sentences would remain in place.

When a film has more flaws than even mild storytelling, no, it does not.

It doesn't have that many flaws. You in fact keep harping on the same few. And maybe they are serious flaws. But for some of you its really just an obsession.

That's you; and I feel sorry for you that you think that.

Don't.

Oh, I haven't mentioned half of the complaints I have for the trilogy.

With all of the posting energy you've put into griping about Raimi's films you really should have gotten it out of your system by now.

 

[Dragon]

I seriously think that the movie would have benefited greatly if the whole dancing thing was taken out and more stuff from the novelization. The dancing might be forgivable, I mean it's been 5 years and it's being rebooted, it's about time we stop complaining about it. But still, I don't think it should be compared to when Joker dressed as a nurse.
Also, about Harvey Dent. The guy didn't seem like he had a plot really, just screwed up in the mind and doing whatever. So when he shot the driver, I don't think he really cared if he was going to die or not, he just got lucky. To me, it is about as much of a plot hole as Peter getting superpowers from a spider bite.

Dent had a mission to make everyone involved in Rachel's death pay, so he certainly had a reason to survive the crash. His getting lucky is no explanation at all. Especially for a film that people credit with being realistic.

Like I've said, people give flaws in TDK a pass while ripping into flaws of the same level in 3. For example, your comparison of Dent surviving the crash with the spider bite is definitely farther gone than comparing Peter dancing and the Joker dressed as a nurse.

 

[Web face]

Wow. I guess I uh... I failed. I was wrong AND I pushed the comparison lol. I still don't see Harvey Dent surviving the crash as a plot hole. Not after some other scenes, like when the Joker blew up the police station, and everyone died but him. Also how the cops didn't just shoot the joker when he held a cop at knife point. Not a bad movie at all, I still enjoy more than most superhero movies, but I think it is at most as good as BB, because that movie is looking better than when TDK came out. I'm not saying TDK gets a pass for its flaws, I mean I put a lot of money into it and I have praised it, so I kinda deserve to point out some flaws (but which movie doesn't have flaws?)

 

[Anno_Domini]

I wasn't referring to the dancing in the Jazz club, but when he kicks everyone's ass and socks MJ. That wasn't comical.

So the one part where he pushes down Mary Jane? Hell, Peter should've done that WITHOUT the symbiote's influence.

Why did Venom deserve more and Two-Face not? Two-Face is a far more interesting villain than Venom. Venom is merely a visual- the "Evil Spider-Man". But when you get into his story there's nothing there. Someone who wants revenge for nothing. Every Venom story is just a long fight scene with him ranting throughout and Spidey being a little ***** whimpering and begging for Venom to stop.

What we got of Nolan's version of Two-Face was fairly enough. Plus, I am not asking for a film where Venom has a film on his own as the villain, but a Venom that is just more...it's hard to explain, but I just quite frankly didn't enjoy Venom in Spider-Man 3. Him wanting/needing Sandman's help was just a silly plot device to only get the two villains in the same final battle.

No you aren't. The buckled seat explanation makes Peter dancing seem brilliant.

Nope; I'm still above Peter dancing

Again, only in the geeky comic book world. People survive the loss of great leaders like Martin Luther King, or Kennedy. The country survived Nixon being shown to be corrupt during Watergate (And he was a very popular president). Hell there's hardly been a president in the last 50 years without scandal. So a city as tough and hardcore as Gotham would certainly survive Dent's loss. In fact they'd likely be expecting him to turn out to be dirty.

Even with Nolan's "realism", this IS a comic book film and people still try to bash Nolan's Batfilms because of that one word. As you said, only in the "geeky comic book world" and it's true. Gotham will be lost when its "white knight" is destroyed, so they kept his "legacy" alive and that's why they are in a "peace time" during some of TDKR...until Bane comes into the scene.

He may have been trying, but he was failing. It was only because of Batman that he succeeded. Batman did all the work and Harvey was given the glory.

Because Batman was unselfish and didn't want the glory. He just wanted to be whatever Gotham wanted him to be. Batman doesn't do anything for the glory.

They wouldn't be released at all. Unless their legal team could find some evidence of wrong-doing on Dent's part their sentences would remain in place.

Which could have very well happen.

It doesn't have that many flaws. You in fact keep harping on the same few. And maybe they are serious flaws. But for some of you its really just an obsession.

I beg to differ. I could start from the very beginning of the film and run down all the way to the end with flaws of the film. I CAN'T do that with a lot of films out there; maybe one, two, three or four flaws but S-M 3 has SEVERAL. It's difficult to think of what good that film brought, so no, it's not "harping", it's telling what I believe is the truth.

Don't.

I do, simply because you insist I have this one film as the greatest of all time when I've NEVER called it the best film out there or just because I don't mention its flaws. I suppose you assume I should be giving out the flaws of every CBM even though it doesn't come up in a conversation.

With all of the posting energy you've put into griping about Raimi's films you really should have gotten it out of your system by now.

I'm not using any "posting energy", but I would to give out every flaw I have of Spider-Man 3.

And once again, I don't gripe about Raimi's trilogy. I just really hate Spider-Man 3 and it puts a bad taste on the entire trilogy in what Raimi created with two great films. One more, someone who thinks I hate the trilogy just because I badmouth Spider-Man 3. How sad.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Dent had a mission to make everyone involved in Rachel's death pay, so he certainly had a reason to survive the crash. His getting lucky is no explanation at all. Especially for a film that people credit with being realistic.

That phrase alone makes it seem like people try to bash on the Batfilms moreso than any other. It's truly tragic that people think they can nitpick every scene because it's not up to par of "teh realism"

 

[henzINNIT]

I think the Harvey Dent/Venom comparison is fair. In my opinion, both were used effectively to suit the film's plot, but not used to the characters' full potential.

I have no issues with Venom in SM3. He exists as the physical embodiment of Peter's negative side, and is dispatched in an ending where Peter is humbled and learns to let go of a lot of those emotions. I can see why Venom fans felt short-changed but it's never been a problem for me.

The Sandman story is the one lost in the shuffle. A lot of scenes that help establish and re-establish his struggle were cut and he came off as very one-note in the process. I do agree with cutting the scene where his daughter tells him she can't be saved as it diminishes his choice to stop fighting, but at the same time, there's a bit of a hole in its place.

 

[El Payaso]

So you don't didn't get that I was being sarcastic?

Raimi didn't go as far as to put Peter in make-up. He made him dance around. It was meant to be funny. And for alot of folks it was. It isn't as if the movie wasn't a hit.

And for a lot of folks Transformers 2 was funny and a hit. And it was pure crap.

And no, I didn't get your sarcasm as you were the one actually comparing both situations.

Peter isn't evil. The symbiote only amplifies what's inside you. If evil isn't there then it isn't going to come out. Peter can be arrogant. He can be aggressive and he can rage. But he's not evil. And the scenes when Peter shows his rage are effective.

He tried to kill Sandman and Harry. That is evil no matter how you put it.

First you're contradicting yourself. Above you say he doesn't turn evil. Now you're saying he does.

Reading comprehension problem: I said he should have been evil but Raimi decieed to turn him into an idiot instead.

And- who says he's supposed to turn evil? The personality shift doesn't happen in the comics. This influence from the symbiote is from the 90's cartoon (And was pretty cartoonish). But again, Peter was observing his own misjudgement and personal demons which would ultimately lead to his understanding that Marko could've made a mistake in shooting Ben.

The movie itself says he was the evil Peter. Peter doesn't kill; Peter under the symbiote's influence does kill.

And I get that a cartoon can get cartoonish. But this was a movie.

That's the reason the Joker was so far beyond Peter with the extremely ridiculous act of dressing as a female nurse, whereas Peter just had some fun with doing Saturday Night Fever on the street.

Yeah, I guess there are a lot of differences when you compare two characters that have absolutely nothing in common.

Reality check. People change. Relationships change. People who love each other desperately begin to hate each other. Harry stopped being Peter's best friend when he sent Ock after Peter to get info on Spidey.

I said myself that due to the symbiote influence Peter over-reacted with the grenade. But it doesn't change the fact that Harry was trying to kill him.
It's ridiculous that you blame Peter and give Harry a pass.

What's ridiculous is you stating that Peter had a valid reason to try to kill Harry.

Even if he had, trying to kill him is not defending himself. Harry wasn't attacking Peter, it was Parker who went to Harry's place out of spite. It wasn't a response to Harry asking Octopus to bring him home but Harry seducing MJ. As it was clearly stated in the movie. Maybe if you bothered to check it...

Now please tell me when did I give Harry a pass.

He went to Harry's to confront him over all the evil **** Harry had been doing to ruin Peter's life. And it was Harry that took a slugfest to the level of lethal when he tried to stab Peter.

Because we all know that when a villiain tries to kill Spider-man, Spider-man tries to kill him back.

No, he doesn't.

He does it when he is evil.

Yeah, laughter tends to mean something is funny.

No, it doesn't. The same way as big numbers in the BO doesn't mean the movie is good.

And those films remain popular. Or should the world wait for your advice on what is and isn't funny? I sure as hell wish they'd wait for mine, then scripts like "The Hangover" would be burned after reading.

Oh, but people laughed at "The Hangover" (which, opposite to Spider-man 3 had a sequel). So according to you, that meant "The Hangover" was funny.

Look, I agree that dancing was over-the-top. I agree that the film was sub-par. I don't agree that it was the tragedy that many fans make it out to be. I honestly think that fans were mostly disappointed about Venom being beaten in one fight and carry that disappointment over to trashing the film overall. Venom should have been beaten in one fight. He's a low-class villain.

The tragedy was that it was made and that a few are today defending it.

B***S***. No artist wants to be making a film or telling a story they don't like.

Really? Do you think artists who don't want to do something actually don't like to do it?

That said, most artists have had to do things they don't like and that doesn't force them to make idiotic things like Raimi did.

EVERY director has a clunker on their resume' because they weren't telling a story they believed in or were working under conditions they didn't want. Like I said above, fans expected THEIR love for Venom to inspire Raimi to make the movie they wanted. Wasn't going to happen.

A decent movie was in order though. Raimi wasn't able to deliver.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I love the action, and those movies are hilarious, that's what matters the most now in those movies, I hope their charm doesn't end

 

[Dragon]

And for a lot of folks Transformers 2 was funny and a hit. And it was pure crap.

I've never watched a Transformers film because I could see from the trailers they were crap. Spidey 3 wasn't. Sub-par, but certainly not crap.

And no, I didn't get your sarcasm as you were the one actually comparing both situations.

Wow. You really didn't get it. My sarcasm was about the scene with Peter in make-up. Try to keep up.

He tried to kill Sandman and Harry. That is evil no matter how you put it.

He tried to kill Sandman, which was an error in judgement. He thought he was killing a murderer. He defended himself against Harry, whose acts actually were evil.

Reading comprehension problem: I said he should have been evil but Raimi decieed to turn him into an idiot instead.

What are you Norman Bates? You just contradicted yourself AGAIN!!! Above you say that Peter is evil for trying to kill Harry and Sandman, and now you're saying he should have been but he wasn't.

The movie itself says he was the evil Peter. Peter doesn't kill; Peter under the symbiote's influence does kill.

When does the movie itself say Peter is evil? The movie shows that Peter makes mistakes. Making mistakes isn't evil. Evil is a deliberate act when you know its wrong. That's the case with Marko. He didn't mean to kill Ben. It was an accident.

And I get that a cartoon can get cartoonish. But this was a movie.

Exactly why Raimi didn't want to deal with it. The idea of the symbiote and ultimately Venom are cartoonish.

Yeah, I guess there are a lot of differences when you compare two characters that have absolutely nothing in common.

Really?

Damaged reasoning? Check.
Enlarged sense of self? Check.
Violent tendencies? Check.

They have several key things in common influencing their extreme behavior.

What's ridiculous is you stating that Peter had a valid reason to try to kill Harry.

Again the reasoning of a comic book fan. If someone tries to kill you you have right to defend yourself.

Even if he had, trying to kill him is not defending himself. Harry wasn't attacking Peter,

Tossing a grenade at him isn't attacking him?

it was Parker who went to Harry's place out of spite. It wasn't a response to Harry asking Octopus to bring him home but Harry seducing MJ. As it was clearly stated in the movie. Maybe if you bothered to check it...

I didn't say Peter went to the Mansion because of Ock. I said Harry ceased to be his best friend when he sent Ock after Peter.

Do you know what the word "spite" means? Because it was Harry who used MJ against Peter out of spite. And Harry was expecting and even looking forward to Peter's arrival. Peter does not try to kill Harry. He slugs it out with him, knowing that Harry is equally strong. Harry starts using weapons in HIS attempt to kill Peter. Peter walks away when he renders Harry helpless. Then HARRY tries to kill PETER with the grenade. Peter merely sends the grenade back at Harry. Self-defense. Harsh self-defense, but self-defense nonetheless.

Now please tell me when did I give Harry a pass.

When you called him Peter's best friend, despite all of Harry's actions to the contrary. When you say Peter is trying to kill him, and yet you seem to exclude that Harry had attacked Peter first with the clear intent to kill Peter.

Because we all know that when a villiain tries to kill Spider-man, Spider-man tries to kill him back.

No, he doesn't.

He does it when he is evil.

Not evil. Aggressive, due to the effects of the symbiote.

No, it doesn't. The same way as big numbers in the BO doesn't mean the movie is good.

It means its funny to someone. If alot of people laugh, it's funny to alot of people.

Oh, but people laughed at "The Hangover" (which, opposite to Spider-man 3 had a sequel). So according to you, that meant "The Hangover" was funny.

It was funny. Just not to me. You seem to think that something is only funny if its funny to YOU.

And haven't you heard? Spidey 3 did have a sequel. It wasn't shot because Raimi wouldn't have completed in under Sony's timetable. But they wanted it made.

The tragedy was that it was made and that a few are today defending it.

It's only a tragedy in your mind, pal. And I think that's fairly tragic.

Really? Do you think artists who don't want to do something actually don't like to do it?

Did you actually read this after you wrote it?

That said, most artists have had to do things they don't like and that doesn't force them to make idiotic things like Raimi did.

So you're saying there hasn't been a sub-par film before Spidey 3?
Are you saying that Spidey 3 is the worst film ever made?

A decent movie was in order though. Raimi wasn't able to deliver.

A decent movie is what we got. Apparently you missed it.

 

[The Joker]

I don't think you can really compare Joker's nurse skit to Peter's dancing. Joker is by nature insane, and dressing up in whimsical clothing is part of his natural persona. He's dressed in drag in the comics, too:

Joker could have dressed as a doctor, a male nurse, a janitor, an orderly etc. But he chose to dress as a nurse because it was the funniest choice of costume. He even had a 'I believe in Harvey Dent' badge on the uniform lol.

I didn't say Peter went to the Mansion because of Ock. I said Harry ceased to be his best friend when he sent Ock after Peter.

Do you think? Even though he shouted to Ock when Ock was leaving "Don't hurt Peter"?

Even when Norman's "ghost" appeared to Harry at the end of SM-2 and urged Harry to take revenge on Peter, Harry replied "But Pete's my best friend".

I think Harry only truly stopped being Peter's best friend when he found the Goblin equipment.