Doctor Strange : OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
I don't know? My expectations were so high for Spider-Man 3 that it was harder to ignore the flaws. Once Spider-Man started narrating, things didn't feel right. Then once Peter goes to see Aunt May, I was like, okay, this is not going to be as good as the first two. Because the pacing already didn't feel right. Then it just got worse and worse from that point. The people in my theater even laughed once Peter Parker started crying because MJ dumped him. So yeah, that tells you something. Also if you're a Venom fan, you're going to feel raped once you come out the theater. So yeah, I can see people who don't read comics enjoying this. It's a guilty pleasure, but I expected something more.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
Well I agree with your point on the pacing being inconsistent and yeah from a comic book standpoint it did absolutely ruin the source material.
Yeah I guess this it is just a guilty pleasure.
Yeah I guess this it is just a guilty pleasure.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
Most of what's entertaining about it comes from Sam Raimi's directorial skills.
The biggest problem I have with the film is basically the same problem Raimi himself had with the film: he didn't want to do the symbiote/Venom story at this stage of the series, and honestly, everything that's really wrong with the film has to do with the symbiote and Venom.
If your theater is a space safe from ideas and opinions, you're doing theater wrong.
The biggest problem I have with the film is basically the same problem Raimi himself had with the film: he didn't want to do the symbiote/Venom story at this stage of the series, and honestly, everything that's really wrong with the film has to do with the symbiote and Venom.
If your theater is a space safe from ideas and opinions, you're doing theater wrong.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
Pretty much this. I found Venom to be so underwhelming in this picture. In addition they should have let the man do it when he wanted to not when they wanted to. The casting was off, the way he looked was off. Just everything about it was off, and that's really hard to look passed in a fanbase that actually adores Venom a lot.
I've baited my hook with my own underwear. Is it wrong that I hope to catch a fish I can relate to?-Ragdoll.
I've baited my hook with my own underwear. Is it wrong that I hope to catch a fish I can relate to?-Ragdoll.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
That's bull! Even the scenes without Venom the movie still had problems. Hell, Venom was only in the movie for 8 minutes. Sam Raimi was planning to have 3 villains in the movie from the very beginning. Venom's role was originally suppose to be for the Vulture. So yeah, Spider-Man 3 would still have problems with or without Venom. However, I probably would have been more forgiving about Spider-Man 3 if Venom wasn't in it. Then again, I remember complaining about the lack of Venom in Spider-Man 3. Because at that time, Sandman was the only villain confirmed for the film. But I remember wanting to see Venon in live-action since 2002.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
That's bull! Even the scenes without Venom the movie still had problems
What's bull? o,0 I never said the movie didn't have any other problems. I said that venom was hard to look passed.
Sam Raimi was planning to have 3 villains in the movie from the very beginning. Venom's role was originally suppose to be for the Vulture. So yeah, Spider-Man 3 would still have problems with or without Venom
I can not imagine the vulture making it anything but worse. Yes, it would. Never said anything to the contrary.
Then again, I remember complaining about the lack of Venom in Spider-Man 3. Because at that time, Sandman was the only villain confirmed for the film. But I remember wanting to see Venon in live-action since 2002.
Personally I didn't like how they used Sandman in this either but that's partially because I think he was miscast. I'd still like to see a live action venom to be honest, an actual one not what we got in this movie.
I've baited my hook with my own underwear. Is it wrong that I hope to catch a fish I can relate to?-Ragdoll.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
Vulture was going to be a much smaller role than Venom though. He was simply going to be a villain jailed by Spider-Man, wrongfully some how, in the beginning and later teams with Sandman for revenge. They talk about it on the commentary. Ben Kingsley was cast.
Can't, I'm afraid. Matinee of Le Miz. Christ, I'll call you.
Can't, I'm afraid. Matinee of Le Miz. Christ, I'll call you.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
I didn't say Venom was the only problem, I said everything that had to do with the symbiote and Venom was the problem.
This includes the symbiote randomly showing up and attaching itself to Peter's bike, all the Emo Petey stuff and then eventually the miscast Eddie Brock becoming Venom.
The only thing that really worked about that aspect of the film for me was when Peter figured out how to remove the symbiote.
And prior to your post, I'd never seen anything saying the Vulture was planned for Spider-Man 3, though he was in the works for Spider-Man 4 when Raimi and Sony parted ways. John Malkovich was set to play him. http://collider.com/john-malkovich-confirms-he-was-the-vulture-in-sam-raimis-spider-man-4/
Spider-Man 3 without the symbiote and Venom is actually pretty solid stuff with some really spectacular action and effects. I wasn't especially keen on introducing Gwen that way, and making Sandman into Uncle Ben's killer hit a wrong note, but other than that, I thought the stuff outside of the symbiote was pretty good.
If your theater is a space safe from ideas and opinions, you're doing theater wrong.
This includes the symbiote randomly showing up and attaching itself to Peter's bike, all the Emo Petey stuff and then eventually the miscast Eddie Brock becoming Venom.
The only thing that really worked about that aspect of the film for me was when Peter figured out how to remove the symbiote.
And prior to your post, I'd never seen anything saying the Vulture was planned for Spider-Man 3, though he was in the works for Spider-Man 4 when Raimi and Sony parted ways. John Malkovich was set to play him. http://collider.com/john-malkovich-confirms-he-was-the-vulture-in-sam-raimis-spider-man-4/
Spider-Man 3 without the symbiote and Venom is actually pretty solid stuff with some really spectacular action and effects. I wasn't especially keen on introducing Gwen that way, and making Sandman into Uncle Ben's killer hit a wrong note, but other than that, I thought the stuff outside of the symbiote was pretty good.
If your theater is a space safe from ideas and opinions, you're doing theater wrong.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
It gets worse and worse everytime I watch it.
But here's what I liked about it:
1. The fight scenes with Peter and Harry
2. Sandman coming to life scene
3. Spider-Man vs Sandman in the subway
4. As always JK Simmons was great as Jameson
But here's what I liked about it:
1. The fight scenes with Peter and Harry
2. Sandman coming to life scene
3. Spider-Man vs Sandman in the subway
4. As always JK Simmons was great as Jameson
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
Sandman: "I have a sick daughter. That makes it ok for me to break the law."
Spider-Man: "You're totally right. I was wrong to stop you from robbing people. You have a sick daughter, so it's ok that you tried to murder lots of people. Go free."
Nobody has a problem with that whole Sandman thing?
Yeah, venom was bad, but I didn't care about MJ being a whiner and the whole relationship sub-plot was bad. Not much about it was good. If you have "Rifftrax" for it, then at least you get to laugh at how bad it is.
The only redeeming part was when Harry teamed up with Spider-Man, IMO. Nothing else seemed to really work for me.
Spider-Man: "You're totally right. I was wrong to stop you from robbing people. You have a sick daughter, so it's ok that you tried to murder lots of people. Go free."
Nobody has a problem with that whole Sandman thing?
Yeah, venom was bad, but I didn't care about MJ being a whiner and the whole relationship sub-plot was bad. Not much about it was good. If you have "Rifftrax" for it, then at least you get to laugh at how bad it is.
The only redeeming part was when Harry teamed up with Spider-Man, IMO. Nothing else seemed to really work for me.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
In all honesty, the movie was NOT awful.
I am a lioness. I will not cringe for them.
I am a lioness. I will not cringe for them.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
No no no nooooope.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
Spider-Man 3 is a far cry from its two predecessors, but I honestly don't think its all that bad. Its flawed, no question about that, but what works in it works well enough to make it decent.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
I would honestly give Spider Man 3 7/10.
That sounds about right.
SM3 certainly has its moments. It's also certainly better than every DC/WB film EVER made not called The Dark Knight. It's also way better than both ASM and ASM2. It beats X-Men, X3 and Origins for sure. Destroys Daredevil and Elektra.
So as far as non-MCU, it's still a remarkable film.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
I wouldn't use the word "under rated". It's not as bad as some make it out to be. It seems a lot of people on these boards view things as also;utes; either a film is great or it's terrible. Spider-man 3 was sub par, but still much better than the two 'Amazing' films.
Re: OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
It's far from perfect but I enjoyed "Spider-Man 3" when it came out.
"Time is the fire in which we burn."
"Time is the fire in which we burn."
OT: Spider Man 3 Underrated?
It's on par with ASM and way better than ASM 2.
I mean the action was still pretty amazing, way better than any of the action from either ASM movies.
The plot was messy but not nearly as messy as ASM2.
It was definitely better than BvS and SS because those two films were stupid and boring whereas Spider Man 3 was stupid and fun.
I would honestly give Spider Man 3 7/10.