Dread Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Fair enough, but I won't sit in the theatre and be insulted again. That's just what I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Don't get me wrong, I walked into Spider-Man 3 in one of my Venom t-shirts at a midnight showing, and I walked out fucking pissed. But those wounds have healed and I'm ready to be scarred all over again, because maybe, just maybe, it will be as good as Spider-Man 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Ha! Imagine how I'd feel if I actually liked Venom... I'll wait for the verdict and rent it if it is overwhelmingly positive. Other than that, it's a pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 As a matter of fact, I remember most of the forty-five minute drive back to school consisting of me looking at my then-girlfriend and repeating "They fucking killed Venom." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 But atleast they answered everyones wish in 3. Kirstin Dunst as Mary Jane really needs a good slap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Actually, I was really tempted to yell, "Hit her again, she seems to like it!" at that point, as the movie had already crushed my soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 I can definitely see the argument that if the studio was demanding Venom that Sandman could probably have been omitted and if Raimi was writing as well, then he could have definitely made a better film. I do think Raimi managed to make the film gel, just about, by using the symbiote to make Douchebag Peter worsen his position in each of the the four storylines he was doing; that said, he couldn't disguise the fact that the film was too bloated and relied on various cliches and convenience to wrap up the film. I still don't think it's all that bad as an actual film. It's definitely one of the most disappointing CBMs ever, but it's not even comparable to the Quest for Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 It's definitely one of the most disappointing CBMs ever, but it's not even comparable to the Quest for Peace. Oh yes, it is. It's actually amazing how similar the two are. I would hardly say it gelled either. It just seemed to move from set piece to set piece with the only tying factor, the chick down the hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Who should have been used more, and made a love interest for Peter, not just a woman who had cake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Who should have been used more, and made a love interest for Peter, not just a woman who had cake! Wouldn't that be enough for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Who should have been used more, and made a love interest for Peter, not just a woman who had cake! Wouldn't that be enough for you? You'd think that, wouldn't you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 It's definitely one of the most disappointing CBMs ever, but it's not even comparable to the Quest for Peace. Oh yes, it is. I would hardly say it gelled either. It just seemed to move from set piece to set piece with the only tying factor, the chick down the hall. Symbiote-tinged Peter would be the tying factor, IMO, but I won't concede the Quest For Peace comparison. - QFP had worse special effects than the original film some nine years later, and were mostly a re-hash of the original Supes/Lane flying scenes. Sandman > Norman, effects-wise - The THIRD time Supes fought against the same villain/antagonist in Luthor. - Ignores the inclusion of Lana Lang from the previous film. - Needless introductions of Lenny Luthor, Lucy Warfield and David Warfield - none of which are in the comics. - Nuclear Man. Nuclear frickin' Man. - Terrible action scenes - A Terrible script - Sanctimonious throughout. - Reeve himself thought the film would end up being terrible, halfway through filming. - The site of the UN was actually filmed in Milton Keynes (one for the Brits). - It was actually worse than Superman III. Which is no mean feat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Right. Besides the following, they are completely different: -begin in space -trouble at work leading to possibly being fired -introduction of new blonde love interest -love triangle -too many villains -hatred for the hero resulting in the creation of an evil clone-like version of the hero -the death of the main villain -and a downbeat but optimistic ending. Other than the main plot points it's completely different. Oh yeah, but Jon Cryer is a better break dancer than Maguire is a disco dancer. But they're totally different right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 If Raimi had been locked out of the editing suite That's kind of what I'm talking about. Raimi may have wanted Sandman in the movie, but the studio forced their hand on literally every minute aspect of the movie. Considering how much of a fan Raimi is of classic Spider-Man lore, I can't imagine that he would want to retcon Uncle Ben's death, let alone make it SANDMAN of all people, and THEN make him a sympathetic character. However, that is EXACTLY the kind of thing that a studio would do. I mean, what was Raimi supposed to do? Say "Y'know, I think we should take out this whole thing where Sandman has a past relationship to Peter, and not make him a sympathetic villain." That might have been the right choice to make, but after two successful villains who followed that same formula (relationship to Peter and sympathetic backstory), why would any film producer or studio exec let the film do anything different? There were literally so many people at every meeting for SM3 that the meeting room was completely filled with people and then spilling out into the hallway. Raimi himself said in an interview with Empire magazine: "They really gave me a tremendous amount of control on the first two films, actually. But then there were different opinions on the third film and I didn't really have creative control, so to speak." "I wouldn't say it was anybody in particular. It was just that a lot of people had different ideas on what the film should be, and I think - good or bad - the film simply represents exactly the working situation where a lot of people have a lot of ideas about what the film should be..." “I love Spider-Man so much that I’d like to continue telling Spider-Man stories, but only under those circumstances where I think I can honour him.” So evidently Raimi is aware of the fact that he didn't "honor" Spidey in SM3. I think that regardless of whether it was his influence or anyone else's that was the problem with the film, he deserves another chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dread Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 That's beside the point though. It doesn't change how bad of a film it was. It doesn't change how massively involved in it he was. If he didn't like it, he could have walked, or threatened to walk. As far as I'm concerned, he polished a turd and got shit on the rag. I'll wait to see how the rag deals with part 4 before I even deign to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 As far as I'm concerned, he polished a turd and got shit on the rag. That's a pretty good analogy, actually. *applause* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 At the premiere for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs on Saturday, Bruce Campbell told Access Hollywood that Spider-Man 4 will start shooting in January 2010 and that he'll have a larger part: The actor, who has a long relationship with director Sam Raimi via his lead role in the "Evil Dead" trilogy, made memorable cameos in the first three "Spider-Man" films. However, he may have a bigger role this time around. Bruce told Access that in the next installment in the superhero franchise, he’s been told he has a major part – but didn’t yet know anything about his character. Columbia Pictures has scheduled the fourth installment for a May 6, 2011 release. http://superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=8680 Dear Lord they might actually be doing that Mysterio story. That would be the greatest thing ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 IMAX Corporation and Columbia Pictures today announced that the highly-anticipated action-adventure Spider-Man 4, will be released to IMAX® theatres simultaneously with the film's worldwide release on May 5, 2011 http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=59124 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 IMAX Corporation and Columbia Pictures today announced that the highly-anticipated action-adventure Spider-Man 4, will be released to IMAX® theatres simultaneously with the film's worldwide release on May 5, 2011 http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=59124 Yay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Dear Lord they might actually be doing that Mysterio story. That would be the greatest thing ever. I don't want him to Mysterio, I want him to be a very inept incarnation of The Chameleon. Like, he thinks he's a master of disguise but he dosn't have any of the masks or stuff that his comic-book counter-part has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Dear Lord they might actually be doing that Mysterio story. That would be the greatest thing ever. I don't want him to Mysterio, I want him to be a very inept incarnation of The Chameleon. Like, he thinks he's a master of disguise but he dosn't have any of the masks or stuff that his comic-book counter-part has. Like Ultimate Spider-Man's Shocker? That would be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Dear Lord they might actually be doing that Mysterio story. That would be the greatest thing ever. I don't want him to Mysterio, I want him to be a very inept incarnation of The Chameleon. Like, he thinks he's a master of disguise but he dosn't have any of the masks or stuff that his comic-book counter-part has. Like Ultimate Spider-Man's Shocker? That would be awesome. I just think it would be a great explanation for all his previous incarnations in the films. Like he thinks he's a master of disguise but Peter is all like "Don't I know you? Weren't you the snooty usher?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 I just think it would be a great explanation for all his previous incarnations in the films. Like he thinks he's a master of disguise but Peter is all like "Don't I know you? Weren't you the snooty usher?" Oh yeah. Nice one. I always thought that he was just a guy who couldn't hold a job, but that makes a comical kind of sense. I don't really think that I want a serious Chameleon story anyway, so that'd work just fine. Conversely, that character has witnessed several of Peter's emotional moments (the cage fight, MJ's play screw-up, the botched proposal, etc.), so he could be the character that has a random deep talk with Peter in the movie (like the doctor in SM2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 For fans the main worry is that the next film won't learn from the mistakes of the third movie, which juggled three villains (Sandman, New Goblin, Venom) and is regarded as the weakest instalment even though it brought in $891million at the global box office. Raimi spoke about the comic book movie franchise in the print edition of DVD & Blu-ray Review. Asked about complaints that there were too many bad guys in Spider-Man 3, he responded: "I think having so many villains detracted from the experience. I would agree with the criticism." So it sounds like there will be fewer foes in the next instalment. Raimi said he had learned some new lessons and storytelling tricks from his recent horror flick Drag Me to Hell which was a smaller and more intimate production. He said: "I think I've learned about the importance of getting to the point and the importance of having limitations, and I'm hoping to take that into a production where I'm actually allowed to explore with more of the tools to pull it off with a little more splendour. "I hope I don't lose that edge that I've just found. That would be my approach to Spider-Man 4: to get back to the basics." Apart from that, we don't yet know much about the story of Spider-Man 4 - Raimi says they are in the process of working out who the villains will be - and we know even less about the fifth and sixth films at this stage. There's talk that they could be a reboot with new actors and a new director, but that's unsubstantiated. Raimi was asked by MTV if he'd return to direct Spider-Man 5 and 6 but with those films so far away at this point, he has no definite answer. He said: "Every time I make one of the Spider-Man movies, I have to ask myself, is the character still intriguing to me? Do I love the character? Am I dying to tell the next story of Peter Parker and Spider-Man? And so far the answer has been yes. "I've got to be super-excited about it. If I can't reach that level of commitment and excitement, I think then there'd be somebody else better to do justice to the story. You have to ask me in two-and-half years." http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/10/sam-raimi-promises-spider-man.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I always saw Harry/New Goblin as eventually an anti hero more then villain. He was more emotional then psycho like Norman was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.