The Dark Knight Why Nolan Should have quit BATMAN

[webhead731]

I'm sure I'll enjoy Batman 3 for what it is...but we know fans. Expectations get too high, movie is a letdown no matter what.
I mean, I love Spider-Man 3, and I think X-Men 3 is pretty good. I was super excited for both, but I had doubts and knew what to expect really. And the more sequels, the more nitpicks we'll hear. The Dark Knight was mainly successful due to Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. If he was not memorable, the movie wouldn't have been as big. Good? Yes. Just not "teh best ever" like some people say.

My 2 cents.

 

[Alex Logan]

I'm sure I'll enjoy Batman 3 for what it is...but we know fans. Expectations get too high, movie is a letdown no matter what.
I mean, I love Spider-Man 3, and I think X-Men 3 is pretty good. I was super excited for both, but I had doubts and knew what to expect really. And the more sequels, the more nitpicks we'll hear. The Dark Knight was mainly successful due to Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. If he was not memorable, the movie wouldn't have been as big. Good? Yes. Just not "teh best ever" like some people say.

My 2 cents.

I don't agree.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Did it ever occur to this guy that A) maybe Nolan enjoys making movies like TDK and Inception that are on a larger scale & include action, and B) that just because the movies are large scale and have action doesn't mean Nolan is sacrificing his potential & creativity, instead he's applying it to ideas & characters that work much better in larger worlds.

Just because Nolan made some great movies on smaller scales doesn't mean he has to stay there if he doesn't want to. It's kind of funny that people like this worry about Nolan making 'this' type of film instead of 'that' type of film, when the reality is that Nolan is making films like the Batmans and Inception because that's what he wants to do. This is a guy who grew up loving James Bond, Star Wars and the Donner Superman, it wouldn't surprise me if Nolan desires to make more blockbusters after Batman.

Great post.

While he may not be an auteur, he does make blockbusters for the thinking man, and that's something we need more of, not less of.

Amen to that statement.

I'm sure I'll enjoy Batman 3 for what it is...but we know fans. Expectations get too high, movie is a letdown no matter what.
I mean, I love Spider-Man 3, and I think X-Men 3 is pretty good. I was super excited for both, but I had doubts and knew what to expect really. And the more sequels, the more nitpicks we'll hear. The Dark Knight was mainly successful due to Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. If he was not memorable, the movie wouldn't have been as big. Good? Yes. Just not "teh best ever" like some people say.

My 2 cents.

Spiderman 3 and X-men 3 didn't bomb with fans because of too high of an expectation. It was because they genuinely sucked. They both had elements in them that made fans very angry and went against the style of the first too movies. IMO they were abominations.

I trust Nolan on this one. He seems to have the best understanding of a comic book character I have ever seen on film, and he has had a vision that spans over three movies. This is just the final part of that vision, so I can't see it being drastically different from the first two films, both of which are incredible.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

SM3 did not bomb with fans. It was met with a lukewarm/mediocre reception. Besides, that's mainly here and the internet. I know more people who liked SM3 than those who didn't.

 

[Brother Jack]

I'm sure I'll enjoy Batman 3 for what it is...but we know fans. Expectations get too high, movie is a letdown no matter what.
I mean, I love Spider-Man 3, and I think X-Men 3 is pretty good. I was super excited for both, but I had doubts and knew what to expect really. And the more sequels, the more nitpicks we'll hear. The Dark Knight was mainly successful due to Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. If he was not memorable, the movie wouldn't have been as big. Good? Yes. Just not "teh best ever" like some people say.

My 2 cents.

No. That was a big part of it, but it was not in any way the only factor in the film's success. The fantastic marketing campaign and audience's positive reaction to Batman Begins would have ensured it's success. Also don't confuse the movie's quality with it's box office returns, it would have been a great film without the billion dollars it made.

I do agree that scrutiny can be extreme among fans, but at the same time most second sequels, like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3, are just plain disappointing. If Batman 3 is as good as the previous two (and I'm sure it will) it will be an exception.

 

[Alex Logan]

No. That was a big part of it, but it was not in any way the only factor in the film's success. The fantastic marketing campaign and audience's positive reaction to Batman Begins would have ensured it's success. Also don't confuse the movie's quality with it's box office returns, it would have been a great film without the billion dollars it made.

I do agree that scrutiny can be extreme among fans, but at the same time most second sequels, like Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3, are just plain disappointing. If Batman 3 is as good as the previous two (and I'm sure it will) it will be an exception.

Yep.

 

[General Vulcun]

I'd also like to add that WB never went to Nolan asing him to do Batman, Nolan went to them. He heard they were planning on rebooting the franchise, and making Insomnia with WB helped make it easier for him to pitch his idea on how to jumpstart the dead franchise.

When being associated with Hollywood in general one idea that keeps coming up is that a filmmaker's creativity and integrity has to be compromised to give the studios something they not only want, but something that's going to sell to the general audience (which automatically = sloppy & stupid, in people's minds). In the specific case of superhero movies, at least at WB (back in the day), I'm sure we've all heard of that stupid formula that WB adhered to when greenlighting a superhero property. But so far with Nolan that hasn't been the case at all.

When it came to Batman Begins, WB gave him complete creative control over how he made the film (because at that point, why the hell not?). Nolan is even quoted as saying that Batman Begins is the film he wanted to make. Ideally WB would want him to get right on with making another Batman, but they let him go off and do The Prestige. He comes back (with even more creative control than before) and makes The Dark Knight, one of the most critically and financially successful films of the decade. He turns his attention to Inception, asking WB for millions to finance this original project with no intension of franchising it, as well as ideas that are foreign to most blockbusters these days. Not only does Nolan get this project greenlit, but once again, he gets complete creative control to make the film he wants to make. Why is this? Part of it is likely that WB knows what they have with Nolan when it comes to Batman and want to keep him onboard to make more (also probably why the fast-tracked Justice League film was canned), but part of it is also because Nolan has proven he knows how to weave characters and plot together tightly, that he's a reliable, talented filmmaker.

Judging by all of this, Nolan isn't trapped at all by Hollywood. If anything, WB is bending-over-backwards to please him. WB hasn't forced Nolan to make Batman films consecutively, nor have they forced him to make the films in terms with their "formula", nor did they tell him to include 'X' amount of action scenes in Inception, or whatever. He's making the films the way he wants to, with the cast and crew he wants, and WB is just letting him have it. How many other directors can say that major studios in the last decade or so have given them this much freedom to make the films they want?

 

[Alex Logan]

I'd also like to add that WB never went to Nolan asing him to do Batman, Nolan went to them. He heard they were planning on rebooting the franchise, and making Insomnia with WB helped make it easier for him to pitch his idea on how to jumpstart the dead franchise.

When being associated with Hollywood in general one idea that keeps coming up is that a filmmaker's creativity and integrity has to be compromised to give the studios something they not only want, but something that's going to sell to the general audience (which automatically = sloppy & stupid, in people's minds). In the specific case of superhero movies, at least at WB (back in the day), I'm sure we've all heard of that stupid formula that WB adhered to when greenlighting a superhero property. But so far with Nolan that hasn't been the case at all.

When it came to Batman Begins, WB gave him complete creative control over how he made the film (because at that point, why the hell not?). Nolan is even quoted as saying that Batman Begins is the film he wanted to make. Ideally WB would want him to get right on with making another Batman, but they let him go off and do The Prestige. He comes back (with even more creative control than before) and makes The Dark Knight, one of the most critically and financially successful films of the decade. He turns his attention to Inception, asking WB for millions to finance this original project with no intension of franchising it, as well as ideas that are foreign to most blockbusters these days. Not only does Nolan get this project greenlit, but once again, he gets complete creative control to make the film he wants to make. Why is this? Part of it is likely that WB knows what they have with Nolan when it comes to Batman and want to keep him onboard to make more (also probably why the fast-tracked Justice League film was canned), but part of it is also because Nolan has proven he knows how to weave characters and plot together tightly, that he's a reliable, talented filmmaker.

Judging by all of this, Nolan isn't trapped at all by Hollywood. If anything, WB is bending-over-backwards to please him. WB hasn't forced Nolan to make Batman films consecutively, nor have they forced him to make the films in terms with their "formula", nor did they tell him to include 'X' amount of action scenes in Inception, or whatever. He's making the films the way he wants to, with the cast and crew he wants, and WB is just letting him have it. How many other directors can say that major studios in the last decade or so have given them this much freedom to make the films they want?

Solid post. And I honestly can't think of anyone else in Hollywood.

The funniest part of all this is that there were people who doubted he could deliver with Inception. I'm sure there are STILL people who continue to doubt him now. Just how many quality films must this man make before he gets the credit that is due?

 

[LightningFlash]

I'm sure I'll enjoy Batman 3 for what it is...but we know fans. Expectations get too high, movie is a letdown no matter what.
I mean, I love Spider-Man 3, and I think X-Men 3 is pretty good. I was super excited for both, but I had doubts and knew what to expect really. And the more sequels, the more nitpicks we'll hear. The Dark Knight was mainly successful due to Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. If he was not memorable, the movie wouldn't have been as big. Good? Yes. Just not "teh best ever" like some people say.

My 2 cents.

Nolan shouldn't go "bigger" for Batman 3, and he has said that he won't in numerous interviews, and that's a very good thing. And because of that, expectations shouldn't be high; if there are high expectactions, then the person is a moron, lol. I believe what Nolan is doing, and I know that the studio, Warner Bros, won't be poking their heads and disrupt the process, as what Sony and Fox did with their "respected" films.

SM3 did not bomb with fans. It was met with a lukewarm/mediocre reception. Besides, that's mainly here and the internet. I know more people who liked SM3 than those who didn't.

I know a lot of people who aren't into comics and who aren't on these forums that hated the film as well. Just saying. But, I will give Spider-Man 3 some credit these days because it's a better movie than Avatar.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

Nolan shouldn't go "bigger" for Batman 3, and he has said that he won't in numerous interviews, and that's a very good thing. And because of that, expectations shouldn't be high; if there are high expectactions, then the person is a moron, lol. I believe what Nolan is doing, and I know that the studio, Warner Bros, won't be poking their heads and disrupt the process, as what Sony and Fox did with their "respected" films.



I know a lot of people who aren't into comics and who aren't on these forums that hated the film as well. Just saying. But, I will give Spider-Man 3 some credit these days because it's a better movie than Avatar.

I know people who didn't like it as well, trust me.

but we finally agree on something.

 

[Dark Phantom]

First of all, if you're on this fourm, chances are you are a fan. Obviously that goes without saying. I think what most of you are trying to say is that certain people will not be satisified with the third film. While, paradoxically, I believe there will be those who will try to ignore any flaw. Say hello to the majority of movie goers who hopped onto the TDK best-movie-ever-band-wagon, therefore creating an uprising of viewers who didn't want to conform to what was and still is popular. I digress...

The person who wrote this article actually has some valid points if our bias doesn't blind us. Nolan does have a reputation for creating films revolved around obsession. Although I don't see why that should be a complaint. Afterall, isn't that what makes Bruce Wayne-Batman? From interviews I've seen of Nolan, he's not what you would call an actors-director. Meaning, his work is purely for the aesthetic nature of film; the style. He gives his actors free reign. You take a director like Sidney Lumet, he has directed some of the finest-acted films like "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Serpico" and that's because he's very concerned with naturalism and truth. Nolan's films, while grounded in realism, are anything but. Batman Begins and TDK was full of well-written prose, but the acting tends to be executed artificially by his direction. This might attribute to the fact that Nolan's not-so-subtle story telling techinques expose what is artificial. Sometimes even pulling us out of a moment.

Does that make him a bad director? No, I adore most of his films. Even the most acclaimed directors/films of all time have deserved their share of flack. Take "Shawshank Redemption" by Frank Darabount, a film that is universally praised for it's message of hope through captivating storytelling and convincing acting. However, Darabount is criticized for being too overly sentimental in his technique. Example? Watch "The Majestic". My point is, the good comes with the bad. While Nolan has given us a respectful vision of Batman, there are some factors of the character and the world he belongs to that Nolan has and probably will miss the mark.

However, I must disagree with his overall thesis. If Nolan can't resolve his vision, then no one really should.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

While I disagree with the point of the article, I do agree to an extent that Nolan could definitely use some work in conveying emotions other than obsession and loss. Additionally his depictions of women and way of shooting action scenes still leave a little to be desired.

With that said, I do like that he is making improvements, even if it is taking a little bit. Inception's hall-fight scene continues to amaze me and is shot wonderfully, and Ariadne and Mal were both great female characters, even if the former was not as fleshed out. Also, with the themes of letting go and forgiving yourself Nolan changed his previous formula of depicting the downfall, instead choosing to show the aftermath where they pick up the pieces and better themselves, which I thought was very refreshing.

 

[webhead731]

Spiderman 3 and X-men 3 didn't bomb with fans because of too high of an expectation. It was because they genuinely sucked. They both had elements in them that made fans very angry and went against the style of the first too movies. IMO they were abominations.

I trust Nolan on this one. He seems to have the best understanding of a comic book character I have ever seen on film, and he has had a vision that spans over three movies. This is just the final part of that vision, so I can't see it being drastically different from the first two films, both of which are incredible.

Just because you think something "genuinely sucks" doesn't mean everyone does.

And you can say they didn't, but alot of fans did have HIGH expectations and it does play into how someone sees a movie. If you are too excited you are probably going to be disappointed heavily if it doesn't live up. Everyone? No. But alot of people.
And I won't argue that X-Men 3 was a slightly different style due to a new director, but Spidey 3 was the same as Spidey 1 and 2 mostly. They all have corny moments, they all have comedic moments, they all have serious moments. I think it's silly when people say Peter strutting ruined the whole 2+ hour film, yet the goofy Raindrops scene from Spider-Man 2 must have been totally epic. I mean, I'm sorry but alot of reasoning for why some movies "suck" these days are just nitpicky to me. I don't care if you hate something but don't say these little dumb or misguided reasons on why you feel that way. Not stabbing at you of course, because you really gave no reason. But I'm just saying. Really, the only time I hear complaining about the Spider-Man movies is here and IMDB. Everywhere else it's pretty much all good and dandy.

As for Nolan having the best understanding for a comic-to-film character, I disagree myself. I do love the two movies, but the realism is just a bit over-done and takes away the comic book element for me. I don't feel like I'm watching a comic film. I really liked Burton's version more. Another thing, I don't like Batman too much in these. He is cool in parts, and sometimes he looks great...but the rest of the time he is really goofy looking and he sounds so bad it's just hilarious and awesome. His fighting scenes in Begins were horribly shot, and they were done better in Dark Knight but it feels a tad robotic and slow. I really enjoyed the SWAT take out at the end though.
I also can't stand how Nolan has screwed Scarecrow over twice now. What a tiny role for him. He has probably barley had 2 minutes of screentime in the two films of while wearing the get up. Then Two-Face was great, but of course he gets killed just as fast as he came in. I had the same problem with Venom in Spider-Man 3. I really loved what they did but they just didn't give him enough time. However, I fully understand why these two were killed off, and would not want them to return because it really does work with the story.
Of course it looks like I bashed the movies there. But really, those are nitpicks. I don't hate the movies at all, I love them. I just really liked Burton's more.
Sam Raimi still did an incredible job on all three Spider-Man films to me. I know he was bit restricted with the third, but I felt he made it the best it could be with that.

No. That was a big part of it, but it was not in any way the only factor in the film's success. The fantastic marketing campaign and audience's positive reaction to Batman Begins would have ensured it's success. Also don't confuse the movie's quality with it's box office returns, it would have been a great film without the billion dollars it made.

Read my post again. I never actually said it was the only reason for success. I said it was "mainly" due to it. I'm sure it'd be a great and loved movie that made good money. But Heath Ledger dies, and it's the biggest thing of the year at that point. People went to go see his last big performance, and he did great. It made alot of money due to his death and his performance. Without Joker and ultimately Ledger, it really wouldn't have been as big.

As for Begins success, I don't know about you guys, but alot of people around here were like "I didn't get parts of Dark Knight!" and I'm like "did you see the first one?"
"The one with Jack Nicholson?"
"...No...Batman Begins..."
"What's that?"
"gtfo."

 

[Alex Logan]

As for Nolan having the best understanding for a comic-to-film character, I disagree myself. I do love the two movies, but the realism is just a bit over-done and takes away the comic book element for me. I don't feel like I'm watching a comic film. I really liked Burton's version more. Another thing, I don't like Batman too much in these. He is cool in parts, and sometimes he looks great...but the rest of the time he is really goofy looking and he sounds so bad it's just hilarious and awesome. His fighting scenes in Begins were horribly shot, and they were done better in Dark Knight but it feels a tad robotic and slow. I really enjoyed the SWAT take out at the end though.

Goofy looking? Slow? How long has it been since you've seen the Burton films? Keaton's Batman is the robotic one, he couldn't even move his head without turning his whole body. Bale's Batman moves like a real person would have if they were fighting crime. His moves are even based on a real fighting style.

I also can't stand how Nolan has screwed Scarecrow over twice now. What a tiny role for him. He has probably barley had 2 minutes of screentime in the two films of while wearing the get up. Then Two-Face was great, but of course he gets killed just as fast as he came in. I had the same problem with Venom in Spider-Man 3. I really loved what they did but they just didn't give him enough time. However, I fully understand why these two were killed off, and would not want them to return because it really does work with the story.

Atleast Two-Face/Harvery had a purpose.

Read my post again. I never actually said it was the only reason for success. I said it was "mainly" due to it. I'm sure it'd be a great and loved movie that made good money. But Heath Ledger dies, and it's the biggest thing of the year at that point. People went to go see his last big performance, and he did great. It made alot of money due to his death and his performance. Without Joker and ultimately Ledger, it really wouldn't have been as big

Ledger death's was the NOT the main reason for the success of the TDK and most people could care less about HIS last performance. Did people run out to see Soul Men? No, they didn't. When an actor dies no one in the public really cares that much.

What they do care about is BATMAN and THE JOKER! After seeing BB and the very first trailer for the TDK people RUN out to see the TDK.

As for Begins success, I don't know about you guys, but alot of people around here were like "I didn't get parts of Dark Knight!" and I'm like "did you see the first one?"
"The one with Jack Nicholson?"
"...No...Batman Begins..."
"What's that?"
"gtfo."

Sounds like you like next to some really dumb people.

 

[Alex Logan]

Edit.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Just because you think something "genuinely sucks" doesn't mean everyone does.

I really get tired of people pointing stuff like this out.

Just because I don't preface every single comment I make with IMO, doesn't mean that I don't recognise that everything i say is MY OPINION. It's a discussion forum... that's all anyone is ever giving, is their opinion.

And you can say they didn't, but alot of fans did have HIGH expectations and it does play into how someone sees a movie. If you are too excited you are probably going to be disappointed heavily if it doesn't live up. Everyone? No. But alot of people.

Yes but didn't the fans have the same high expectations and excitement about Spiderman 2? And didn't it succeed those expecations?

I'm not saying they aren't there, i'm saying you can't blame them for a movie not being that greatly recieved.

And I won't argue that X-Men 3 was a slightly different style due to a new director, but Spidey 3 was the same as Spidey 1 and 2 mostly. They all have corny moments, they all have comedic moments, they all have serious moments. I think it's silly when people say Peter strutting ruined the whole 2+ hour film, yet the goofy Raindrops scene from Spider-Man 2 must have been totally epic. I mean, I'm sorry but alot of reasoning for why some movies "suck" these days are just nitpicky to me. I don't care if you hate something but don't say these little dumb or misguided reasons on why you feel that way.

I know they are extremely similar scenes on the face of it. But they are actually totally different.

One is a bit cheesy, but in keeping with Parker's characterisation. It seems normal that, after a wait has been lifted, he look all geekily happy and fall over.

The other is completely out of character, for both Peter and for the Venom influence. It doesn't work because Tobey M can't pull it off, for a start. He's not sexy, he's cute... him trying to be sexy was like Elijah Wood trying to be a badass at the end of Green Street... it just doesn't work.

And FYI, I personally don't blame that scene for ruining the entire movie. There is plenty more I don't like.

Not stabbing at you of course, because you really gave no reason. But I'm just saying. Really, the only time I hear complaining about the Spider-Man movies is here and IMDB. Everywhere else it's pretty much all good and dandy.

I've never met anyone who loved Spiderman 3. I really enjoy Spiderman 1 and 2. But I hate Spiderman 3. It took my number 1 villain and made me forget why I liked him in the first place. I feel like it almost ruined the character of Peter Parker too. It just didn't understand it's source material.

I mean there was an element of that throughout the movies. The casting was always a bit strange, and they changed a few things to suit their style of storytelling. But that was all okay because they did it really well, and understood the line between creative license and just messing it up.

They just sort of got a bit too carried away with themselves I think...

As for Nolan having the best understanding for a comic-to-film character, I disagree myself.

Sam Raimi still did an incredible job on all three Spider-Man films to me. I know he was bit restricted with the third, but I felt he made it the best it could be with that.

To each his own. And it very much is that. The Spiderman films are such a different style. They definitely are more comic booky, but I think that' sort of a marvel thing. DC stories just tend to be a bit more serious and straight. Marvel tends to be a bit quirkier and funnier.

I think that's why I loved Venom so much. Because he was the only Marvel villain that ever actually scared me a bit LOL. But he wasn't REMOTELY scary in Spiderman 3.

 

[LightningFlash]

As for Nolan having the best understanding for a comic-to-film character, I disagree myself.

You disagree with a lot of critics, polls, comics-to-film ranks and et cetera then.

 

[webhead731]

Goofy looking? Slow? How long has it been since you've seen the Burton films? Keaton's Batman is the robotic one, he couldn't even move his head without turning his whole body. Bale's Batman moves like a real person would have if they were fighting crime. His moves are even based on a real fighting style.

That's fantastic, but that doesn't make it look less goofy. I mean, Burton's films look goofy in points, but come on, it's from 1989...These new ones are...well, new. That said, I still think Batman looks/moves way better in the old movies. It's hard to judge BB's fighting because it was so choppy and up close and dark...but Dark Knight had some good fights but really in most scenes it was like he was struggling to move well. Mainly in that part in the parking garage. It looked very robotic to me. I liked the way Keaton did it.
But what do I really like? Arkham Asylum. That's as much fun to watch as it is to play. That's fluid, and graceful. =)

Atleast Two-Face/Harvery had a purpose.

Well actually Venom's purpose was to show the suit on someone already deranged and evil, and to show the one character who couldn't forgive. He was so bent on revenge, and he ends up getting addicted to this power he kills himself trying to save it. I liked that.
Just should have been more of it.

Ledger death's was the NOT the main reason for the success of the TDK and most people could care less about HIS last performance. Did people run out to see Soul Men? No, they didn't. When an actor dies no one in the public really cares that much.

I honestly think it is a big contribution. Heath Ledger was a popular actor, and he dies on a movie that looks to be his best yet. Everyone went to go see it.
It's not like I'm insulting anything. I mean I know the movie would have been great and popular without any of this, but I don't think it would have been AS big.
No one really knows the truth, it's just what we assume. That's what I assume. ^

Sounds like you like next to some really dumb people.

[/QUOTE]

Little bit...

But Batman Begins was more popular with fans then the average crowd. It didn't get the praise or hype that TDK did with everyone else. And really, I didn't notice any hype for TDK publicly until after Ledger died. People would ask if my Joker shirt was Marilyn Manson or some band.

I really get tired of people pointing stuff like this out.

Just because I don't preface every single comment I make with IMO, doesn't mean that I don't recognise that everything i say is MY OPINION. It's a discussion forum... that's all anyone is ever giving, is their opinion.

Fair enough, sorry. But some people really do feel that way on message boards. =\

Yes but didn't the fans have the same high expectations and excitement about Spiderman 2? And didn't it succeed those expecations?

lol, I'd say the hype for SM3 was way higher because SM2 was so good.

I'm not saying they aren't there, i'm saying you can't blame them for a movie not being that greatly recieved.

Well I'm not blaming it all on that. I just feel that's where alot of people felt disappointed. Nothing wrong with it. That's just how it is. You get really over-excited, and it's not AS good, or just okay, you feel bad about it. I'm guilty of this.

One is a bit cheesy, but in keeping with Parker's characterisation. It seems normal that, after a wait has been lifted, he look all geekily happy and fall over.

The other is completely out of character, for both Peter and for the Venom influence. It doesn't work because Tobey M can't pull it off, for a start. He's not sexy, he's cute... him trying to be sexy was like Elijah Wood trying to be a badass at the end of Green Street... it just doesn't work.

And FYI, I personally don't blame that scene for ruining the entire movie. There is plenty more I don't like.

Well, if that's how you feel, then fine. Honestly, Peter is a dork to me. It doesn't shock me that he'd get cocky and do a dorky strut around town. With a character like Spider-Man, I think this is funny. Now if it were Batman or the Punisher or Wolverine? **** no. Not acceptable. I liked the Symbiote's effect on him, making him alot angrier and more aggressive, and way more cocky and ballsy than ever before.

I've never met anyone who loved Spiderman 3. I really enjoy Spiderman 1 and 2. But I hate Spiderman 3. It took my number 1 villain and made me forget why I liked him in the first place. I feel like it almost ruined the character of Peter Parker too. It just didn't understand it's source material.

I myself have the opposite to post, except I also loved 1 and 2. I only know a small handful of people who actually hated it. The rest of my friends like it. Awesome for me.

To each his own. And it very much is that. The Spiderman films are such a different style. They definitely are more comic booky, but I think that' sort of a marvel thing. DC stories just tend to be a bit more serious and straight. Marvel tends to be a bit quirkier and funnier.

What I like so much about the Spidey movies are the messages and themes. They really are great stories to me.

You disagree with a lot of critics, polls, comics-to-film ranks and et cetera then.

Ah well. That's all I care about. Polls. Haha. This is me not riding the bandwagon, just stating what I think and staying proud of it.

 

[LightningFlash]

Ah well. That's all I care about. Polls. Haha. This is me not riding the bandwagon, just stating what I think and staying proud of it.

Actually, you're doing the exact opposite. There's a lot of people that think Sam Raimi is God's brother in the forums for SSH! t:

 

[webhead731]

SuperSeroHype?

 

[The Joker]

What a surprise that a thread made by VenomVsSpidey turned into a Spider-Man 3 discussion

 

[webhead731]

Because you brought your suck into this.

 

[LightningFlash]

SuperSeroHype?

SuperSuperHype! actually.

There was a name change three months ago...where were you??!!!??

What a surprise that a thread made by VenomVsSpidey turned into a Spider-Man 3 discussion

It happens, lol.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

What a surprise that a thread made by VenomVsSpidey turned into a Spider-Man 3 discussion

This time, wasn't even my fault t:

 

[Mister H.]

Spiderman is geared toward kids and teens. Batman is geared toward teens and adults. There is no use comparing the films.