The reason why the UK audience did not like the movie

[Spider-ManHero12]

^ agreed. All the Spidey films were Amazing and the general public and us Fans loved them. If the general public or us Fans didn't love the Spidey Films then the Franchise would have died by now.

 

[Spider-Fan]

How anyone can say the general public didn't like Spider-Man 3, or any of the Spider-Man movies for that matter, is beyond me.

You see, they have to feel better about themselves, so they have to make excuses and reasons why people hated the movie (when they didn't), and when they can't get a reason, they ask others to do it.

Then those people talk about their friends that hated it too (even though your friends mostly reflect your opinion, and that is to be expected) and they distort reality.

 

[DACrowe]

Silly, silly, SILLY and stupid thread.

Now I think if you go to the internet on a site like this that is prodominately fans and fanboys you'll see stark lines that go 50/50 on love it or hate it. I personally find those terms closed minded and rarely find a movie I abbsolutely love or genuinely despise with a passion.

I liked the movie but it has problems. But people who type on the internet are usually not ones for nuance. Of course that is a gneeralization that is not entirely true.

Neither is this thread. I believe the last time I checked its average is a B and most people liked it. It is the biggest movie in the US this year and either the biggest or second (or third depending how big Harry Potter is) worldwide. It is well received. It is liked. Get over it, already.

It didn't live up to the hype but it was a good movie. You disagree fine. But the general audiences loved it. Most critics liked it with reservations. I agree with that. Sure they didn't goo themselves over it like the first two because those were better, but like Peter Travers of RollingStone said many see a movie with a 3 on the end and a franchise gross before its release of 1.6 billion dollars and they feel the need to knock it down a peg.

But at the end of the day all that matters is your opinion. What's it matter if the general public agrees or not?

But for the record the movie was a hit and was well recieved by the public, however.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

That's allright, no more needed. We get the 'idea'. You didn't like it.

I never said I didn't like it.

 

[NinjaCarm]

The problem with the film was that because the studio cut it too shreads especially the inexcuseably rushed ending, the film felt "off". Way to go Sony, we don't want a 3 hour epic film, cause the Lord of the Ring movies didnt really make any money or anything.

Sony you better make an extended cut to flesh out this "epic" type movie.

 

[Spiderine]

Close to 900 million, I guess somebody out there likes it.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Wow!!!!
Just because you don't like a thread,makes it stupid. And you are really a grown up, when you start calling people newbs. And since it is so stupid, why are you posting here?

Now this is spam of the highest order.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

You'll get no debating from me that SM3 wasn't on par with the other films, but it's hardly fair to place the blame all on poor misunderstood Venom.

 

[CFE]

It's touchy for me, being on the SM board. Personally, I'm more of a Batman fanboy, but I do like comics and comic films in general so I'll give this a shot:

Spider-Man 3, for me, was like riding a monster roller coaster after a huge meal. I enjoyed myself thoroughly during the ride, despite the few bumps along the way that made me hurl a bit, and I ultimately walked away from it feeling empty and akward.

It was the same thing after seeing X3. It's more obvious pinpointing the reason behind that (Ratner's directing style in comparison to Singer's) but I can't say that for Spidey 3. Perhaps it's because this is the first installment where Raimi himself took a stab at the writing. I'm not sure.

There's just something about it that feels...off. I can see the transition from SM1 to SM2, but not from SM2 to SM3. I can pair up SM1 and SM2, but SM3 is it's own thing that I really have a difficult time acknowledging in the overall terms of the franchise. I guess it's just because it's not where I personally would've wanted the story to go. I'm sure EVERYONE here has their own take on that.

Part of it is Venom, but not because he wasn't welcome; Venom is one of my favorite Marvel villains. But as reviewers have said before, and if you know the story behind Arad's pushing Venom onto Raimi, you can most definately feel Raimi's tolerance towards Brock as a character.

In another opinion, since that was the case, Raimi and Arad should've come to this compromise:

SM3 should've only delt with continuing Harry's arc and the Sandman. This way, Raimi and Co. would've given us a classic Lee/Ditko trilogy. Then, towards film's end introduce the presence of the symbiote, setting up a darker trilogy more in homage to Todd McFarlane and the works of the late 80s/90s with rogues like Venom, Lizard, Shocker and Chameleon.

And had it gone that way, Raimi, whose love for the original Lee/Ditko books is imminent, could've decided not to continue and Columbia and Marvel could've potentially brought on, with enough searching, a new director whose as much a fan of the 80s and 90s Spiderman as Raimi is of the original 60s Spiderman.

Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen with the hasty inclusion of Venom in SM3 which, coupled with the inclusion of the Stacys, are the two factors I feel should've been merely hinted at, if not ultimately left out of the final product.

I give Spiderman a 5/10...I'm really on the fence about it. I mean, I want to like it as much as the first two, but I honestly can't, which truthfully really disappoints me. Though to be brutally honest, I'll only shed tears if this happens to Batman...AGAIN...

Bottom Line...like the rumored X4; make Spidey 4 and make it better. I don't know how long it'll take or what it takes, but do another one. If not to just go out on a high note altogether (trying to stay PC with the SM3 appreciators) I think everyone would agree they could go out on a note higher than SM3.

CFE

 

[chaseter]

^That's about how I summed up the movie with the roller coaster analogy. Spider-Man 1 was the slow but tense build up to the top. Spider-Man 2 was the the great part of the ride with the big loop and big turns. Spider-Man 3 was all the little fast paced turns and jolts but nothing big and then it finally comes to a stop.

Spider-Man 1: 8
Spider-Man 2: 9.5
Spider-Man 3: 7.9

All in all it was a great trilogy but part 3 should have been better.

 

[SlyGuyTtjn]

This thread sucks. Did you pull it outta your a$$?

I don't care who likes it or not. I know I did, and that's all that matters.

 

[Bat Attack]

LOL, I love how the loser that started this thread changed the title from "General Public" to "U.K. audiences". LAME!

 

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

LOL, I love how the loser that started this thread changed the title from "General Public" to "U.K. audiences". LAME!

Actually, I did that.

 

[Bat Attack]

oooh, burn...*sinks back into shadowy embarassment* heh, sorry.

 

[dodus]

Why all the hate over this thread's existence? Box office aside, there is widespread sentiment out there that Spider-man 3 was not a good film. You can argue with someone who didn't like it, but you can't deny that he exists.

 

[DACrowe]

Wide spread sentiment? WHERE?

It just seems to be whiney internet fanboys for hte most part. The movie hs A B/8.0+ average on most normal movie goer sites has huge marks on exit polls and is the biggest hit of the year in the US and among the top 2 or 3 in the world.

Where is this widespread sentiment?

Oh that right, fans crying there isn't enough Venom and too much dancing. Big deal.

 

[Dr. Fate]

It's touchy for me, being on the SM board. Personally, I'm more of a Batman fanboy, but I do like comics and comic films in general so I'll give this a shot:

Spider-Man 3, for me, was like riding a monster roller coaster after a huge meal. I enjoyed myself thoroughly during the ride, despite the few bumps along the way that made me hurl a bit, and I ultimately walked away from it feeling empty and akward.

It was the same thing after seeing X3. It's more obvious pinpointing the reason behind that (Ratner's directing style in comparison to Singer's) but I can't say that for Spidey 3. Perhaps it's because this is the first installment where Raimi himself took a stab at the writing. I'm not sure.

There's just something about it that feels...off. I can see the transition from SM1 to SM2, but not from SM2 to SM3. I can pair up SM1 and SM2, but SM3 is it's own thing that I really have a difficult time acknowledging in the overall terms of the franchise. I guess it's just because it's not where I personally would've wanted the story to go. I'm sure EVERYONE here has their own take on that.

Part of it is Venom, but not because he wasn't welcome; Venom is one of my favorite Marvel villains. But as reviewers have said before, and if you know the story behind Arad's pushing Venom onto Raimi, you can most definately feel Raimi's tolerance towards Brock as a character.

In another opinion, since that was the case, Raimi and Arad should've come to this compromise:

SM3 should've only delt with continuing Harry's arc and the Sandman. This way, Raimi and Co. would've given us a classic Lee/Ditko trilogy. Then, towards film's end introduce the presence of the symbiote, setting up a darker trilogy more in homage to Todd McFarlane and the works of the late 80s/90s with rogues like Venom, Lizard, Shocker and Chameleon.

And had it gone that way, Raimi, whose love for the original Lee/Ditko books is imminent, could've decided not to continue and Columbia and Marvel could've potentially brought on, with enough searching, a new director whose as much a fan of the 80s and 90s Spiderman as Raimi is of the original 60s Spiderman.

Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen with the hasty inclusion of Venom in SM3 which, coupled with the inclusion of the Stacys, are the two factors I feel should've been merely hinted at, if not ultimately left out of the final product.

I give Spiderman a 5/10...I'm really on the fence about it. I mean, I want to like it as much as the first two, but I honestly can't, which truthfully really disappoints me. Though to be brutally honest, I'll only shed tears if this happens to Batman...AGAIN...

Bottom Line...like the rumored X4; make Spidey 4 and make it better. I don't know how long it'll take or what it takes, but do another one. If not to just go out on a high note altogether (trying to stay PC with the SM3 appreciators) I think everyone would agree they could go out on a note higher than SM3.

CFE

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[dodus]

Wide spread sentiment? WHERE?

It just seems to be whiney internet fanboys for hte most part. The movie hs A B/8.0+ average on most normal movie goer sites has huge marks on exit polls and is the biggest hit of the year in the US and among the top 2 or 3 in the world.

Where is this widespread sentiment?

Oh that right, fans crying there isn't enough Venom and too much dancing. Big deal.

It's actually more like a B-, and none of the praise has come unequivocally. I don't know man, it's definitely out there, whenever I bring up Spider-man 3 to people "Yeah, the last movie I saw was Spider-man 3," 7 times out of 10 they want to make fun of it with me (an invitation I reject, btw). Deny it if you want, but I for one can handle thinking that a movie ****ing rocks and not having everyone agree with me. Watch the generalizations though, I had no problem with the dancing.

 

[Arcturus]

You'll get no debating from me that SM3 wasn't on par with the other films, but it's hardly fair to place the blame all on poor misunderstood Venom.

I'm in complete agreement, IMO I thought SM-3 was awesome, not as good as the first two films but that's okay. And I also don't think it's fair to play the blame game on Venom.

 

[spider-neil]

all my friends who saw it and weren't spidey fans enjoyed it.
I live in the UK

 

[StylishHokie21]

Can't you ppl accept it?
Spidey 3 just wasn't as good as it was supposed to be.

How many times have I heard this? I think you need to accept the fact that people actually liked the movie. Get over it already.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

I'm in complete agreement, IMO I thought SM-3 was awesome, not as good as the first two films but that's okay. And I also don't think it's fair to play the blame game on Venom.

Venom issues aside, SM3 was not the worst movie I have ever seen. At least you could recognize the ocinic Spidey characters as wh they were representing, Topher Grace's slimmer Eddie Brock included. It's not like they pulled a Live Action Transformers movie on us by trying to recreate the wheel from scratch.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I also wanted to say that this topic is laughable. Do you speak for the entire UK audience? Does anyone really care? Was it necessary to start a new thread?

 

[Kaizer104]

You'll get no debating from me that SM3 wasn't on par with the other films, but it's hardly fair to place the blame all on poor misunderstood Venom.

Actually, now that I think about it, I agree.. I think the story could've been done without New Goblin. As Raimi put Venom, he works perfectly with the theme and Sandman does well as well. Venom works well to show what Peter may have turned into due to the symbiote's influence and continuing on his path of vengeance. Sandman does well in helping Peter learn to forgive and realize that not everything is black and white.

But then there's New Goblin flying around lobbing bombs and stealing girlfriends out of nowhere. I can understand how he fits into the "revenge" part but where exactly is he supposed to fit in with "forgiveness"? It was in a part that was removed and thus it doesn't apply for him anymore; and due to that, he doesn't quite fit. The only thing Harry really does is piss Peter off (something that could be done by others EASILY or just by Harry manipulating the strings from afar like in 2) and make him more vengeful; he helps Peter lose himself to the symbiote. Sure, having Harry and Peter resolve their differences to fight 2 more powerful foes is good, but the way it turned out ends up with something happening a bit earlier than we could have expected.

People complained about too many story plots in one movie, and right there is where the straw is sticking out of the needle stack. That's my thoughts..

 

[miller man]

It's touchy for me, being on the SM board. Personally, I'm more of a Batman fanboy, but I do like comics and comic films in general so I'll give this a shot:

Spider-Man 3, for me, was like riding a monster roller coaster after a huge meal. I enjoyed myself thoroughly during the ride, despite the few bumps along the way that made me hurl a bit, and I ultimately walked away from it feeling empty and akward.

It was the same thing after seeing X3. It's more obvious pinpointing the reason behind that (Ratner's directing style in comparison to Singer's) but I can't say that for Spidey 3. Perhaps it's because this is the first installment where Raimi himself took a stab at the writing. I'm not sure.

There's just something about it that feels...off. I can see the transition from SM1 to SM2, but not from SM2 to SM3. I can pair up SM1 and SM2, but SM3 is it's own thing that I really have a difficult time acknowledging in the overall terms of the franchise. I guess it's just because it's not where I personally would've wanted the story to go. I'm sure EVERYONE here has their own take on that.

Part of it is Venom, but not because he wasn't welcome; Venom is one of my favorite Marvel villains. But as reviewers have said before, and if you know the story behind Arad's pushing Venom onto Raimi, you can most definately feel Raimi's tolerance towards Brock as a character.

In another opinion, since that was the case, Raimi and Arad should've come to this compromise:

SM3 should've only delt with continuing Harry's arc and the Sandman. This way, Raimi and Co. would've given us a classic Lee/Ditko trilogy. Then, towards film's end introduce the presence of the symbiote, setting up a darker trilogy more in homage to Todd McFarlane and the works of the late 80s/90s with rogues like Venom, Lizard, Shocker and Chameleon.

And had it gone that way, Raimi, whose love for the original Lee/Ditko books is imminent, could've decided not to continue and Columbia and Marvel could've potentially brought on, with enough searching, a new director whose as much a fan of the 80s and 90s Spiderman as Raimi is of the original 60s Spiderman.

Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen with the hasty inclusion of Venom in SM3 which, coupled with the inclusion of the Stacys, are the two factors I feel should've been merely hinted at, if not ultimately left out of the final product.

I give Spiderman a 5/10...I'm really on the fence about it. I mean, I want to like it as much as the first two, but I honestly can't, which truthfully really disappoints me. Though to be brutally honest, I'll only shed tears if this happens to Batman...AGAIN...

Bottom Line...like the rumored X4; make Spidey 4 and make it better. I don't know how long it'll take or what it takes, but do another one. If not to just go out on a high note altogether (trying to stay PC with the SM3 appreciators) I think everyone would agree they could go out on a note higher than SM3.

CFE

A masterpiece post. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned.
Sometimes it takes Batman fans on the outside looking in to make the most sense.