Spiderman 3

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by fleury

I would say Charlie's Angels takes that award. They were billboard advertising that one more than a year before, and what a load of crap that turned out to be. Still one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Even nice women didn't save the thing.

Yeah but at least with Charlie's Angels most expected it to be a steaming pile of crap. Spiderman 3 was supposed to be good dammit!!!

[theJuice]

Yea, as a HUGE spider man guy (fanboy of the comics, and especially the new Ultimate brand), was very disappointed with the third. Was surprised at how much I liked the first one, second was alright, but man, was expecting alot from the third, atleast before my enthusiasm was more than a little tempered when I heard all the bad word of mouth before the movie came out. Was hoping I would enjoy it, but damn, it was pretty bad. I remember exiting the theaters with my friends, and we were all like "Man..that was pretty bad."

[Locke]

Originally Posted by theJuice

Yea, as a HUGE spider man guy (fanboy of the comics, and especially the new Ultimate brand), was very disappointed with the third. Was surprised at how much I liked the first one, second was alright, but man, was expecting alot from the third, atleast before my enthusiasm was more than a little tempered when I heard all the bad word of mouth before the movie came out. Was hoping I would enjoy it, but damn, it was pretty bad. I remember exiting the theaters with my friends, and we were all like "Man..that was pretty bad."

Thats putting it mildly. It was more than "Pretty Bad." It was exponentially worse than "Pretty Bad."

[Flashpoint]

Declining returns for a movie series?

Take any Star Wars moment after the midpoint of Return of the Jedi and you win.

I don't know what posessed Lucas to take what was a pretty good tale of revenge and decide "cute" was the way to go, but between Ewoks, little children, Jar Jar, and the stupid droids he turned a sci fi movie for adult audiences (remember the severed arm and Han vivisecting an animal to keep Luke warm?) into a Saturday morning cartoon.

Barf.

The first Spiderman was ok. The second was the best comic book movie ever made. The third was too busy to have any hope of success.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The second was the best comic book movie ever made.

Until Batman Begins came out.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Until Batman Begins came out.

What's about Ang Lee's "Hulk"?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

What's about Ang Lee's "Hulk"?

That was just poor acting and rage-inducing CGI.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Until Batman Begins came out.

Currently the best comic book movie ever.

Every Spiderman is inferior to the X-Men series, and even that started to suck as it went.

Hulk was awful. The fact that they're trying again confirms it, but also just twists the knife while its still in the wound.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Currently the best comic book movie ever.

Every Spiderman is inferior to the X-Men series, and even that started to suck as it went.

Hulk was awful. The fact that they're trying again confirms it, but also just twists the knife while its still in the wound.

I'm excited for Iron Man with Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm excited for Iron Man with Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark.

Ahhhh, Iron Man Irony.

Tony Stark, the hero with alcohol and drug abuse problems portrayed by Robert Downey Jr, a movie star with alcohol and drug abuse problems.



Should be good though.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Ahhhh, Iron Man Irony.

Tony Stark, the hero with alcohol and drug abuse problems portrayed by Robert Downey Jr, a movie star with alcohol and drug abuse problems.



Should be good though.

Indeed.

On another note, did we jsut hijack a thread we resurrected because we were in danger of hijacking a previous thread?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Indeed.

On another note, did we jsut hijack a thread we resurrected because we were in danger of hijacking a previous thread?

This day just seems chock full o' irony goodness.

That said, Spiderman 3 sucked so hard, I was half tempted to watch it again and document every single aspect of its eggregious suckitude, but there isnt enough booze.

In the world.

This is a film that you cannot 'drink' good.

[Antithesis]

You know, I'm leery to post among a sea of people who are just incoherently hating on this movie (I wonder if I'm in the middle of some inside joke and am now a part of it) but for all you guys complaining about how your "favorite character ever" Venom (who is lame - the whole thing is NOT a Spider-Man story but thats another argument) was mistreated by the movie, you need to understand that it's come out, over and over again, that Marvel essentially FORCED Venom on Raimi even though they knew he hated Venom. Why would they do this?

They must have known that Raimi was more or less done with super-direct involvement in the movie after #3, so why not hold off on Venom for someone who enjoys him more than Raimi does? I mean, I think he actually did a pretty good job of introducing Venom into the movie series ... by far I am a bigger fan of Venom in the movie than in the comics ... but still. It was complete interference in the movie on Marvel's, and specifically Avi Arad's part.

Think of how the movie could have gone if things were re-arranged a bit, like so:

Venom introduced in a way similar that Joker is set up in Batman Begins ... in the denouement, you see the meteor crash as Peter and MJ are having the same type of romantic thing as in the movie (night time in the park in a gigantic web), the symbiote crawl out and jump up Peter's leg ... and that's it.

Gives more time to pay off the Peter/Harry rivalry that they had set up for TWO MOVIES previous because they don't need to focus on Brock at all really ... to me one of the biggest disappointments of #3 was not enough payoff here (look at the comics for how terrible the Peter/Harry problems got).

Sandman can be introduced as was ... becoming literally and figuratively a bigger and bigger problem for Peter, along with Harry, until the end when Harry figures it out for whatever reason ...

Peter and MJ's struggles can be more due to his having difficulty juggling his involvement with her with his responsibilities or something - not the whining from her and not the emo-crap from him.

This way, everyone's pumped for #4, going on about what happened with the symbiote at the end ... and they have a whole movie to go with Brock/Venom and the problems he caused Peter AND MJ in the comics ... and make Venom far more frightening than he was. Could have been great, but remember, almost all of the problems having to do with Venom have more to do with Marvel forcing him into this movie rather than Raimi.

[Azure]

The way I see it....it didn't matter how good the story was supposed to be, how well placed the cliches were, etc, etc....this movie had horrible acting all around.

Whoever played Mary Jane was horrible, IMO from the first movie. Peter, meh....he wasn't bad, but not AS convincing as someone else may have been.

Part of the reason that Batman Begins was so good, besides the awesome storyline, were the characters. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor....and THAT made the movie MUCH better.

[CaptainCrunch]

I once saw two guys kissing in the park, and I thought that it was the gayest thing I ever saw.

Then Spiderman 3 rolls around.

It was apparent that all of the major characters mailed it in. Osbourne instantly forgetting about years of anger resentment and hatred forgotten in a flash because his butler said so. Peter Parker under the influence of Venom falling back on his baser darker more emo instincts, personally in Superman 4 which was a crappy movie, they turned Superman bad and he wasn't emo, he was a jerk. Parker ridiculous.

Sandman was a puss, fine whatever, Osbourne was a wussy sap, Venon was in and out of the movie in two seconds, and unlike the comic book, you knew that Venom was going to be in and out in one movie.

CaptainCrunch rates that movie two guys kissing

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whoever played Mary Jane was horrible, IMO from the first movie. Peter, meh....he wasn't bad, but not AS convincing as someone else may have been.

To be fair to Kirsten Dunst, her acting really wouldn't have been that much of a problem had she just been a prettier girl.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

You know, I'm leery to post among a sea of people who are just incoherently hating on this movie

We're not just incoherently hating on this movie, we're just hating on an incoherent movie.

All that other stuff about Marvel and pressure to have Venom show up for about 5 minutes of screen time and Raimi being forced and whatnot, well that's too bad and it might explain why it stunk, but it doesn't take the stink away.

[burnin_vernon]

Originally Posted by Azure

The way I see it....it didn't matter how good the story was supposed to be, how well placed the cliches were, etc, etc....this movie had horrible acting all around.

Whoever played Mary Jane was horrible, IMO from the first movie. Peter, meh....he wasn't bad, but not AS convincing as someone else may have been.

Part of the reason that Batman Begins was so good, besides the awesome storyline, were the characters. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor....and THAT made the movie MUCH better.

It was a bad movie, but it had nothing to do with the performances. What did you find so unconvincing? You can blame direction, or maybe casting, but I don't see why the actors take the heat here.

And as much as I liked Batman Begins, as great an actor Bale is; it was not a role that only he could excel at. Sometimes great actors get praise for anything. Bale could make a movie of him peeing and people would call him phenomenal.

[Buff]

It is a movie based on a comic book. It isn't supposed to be anything near a masterpiece, let alone a movie that garners even the slightest mention for any awards.

I think some people are over obsessing about, of all things, a freakin' movie.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by burnin_vernon

It was a bad movie, but it had nothing to do with the performances. What did you find so unconvincing? You can blame direction, or maybe casting, but I don't see why the actors take the heat here.

And as much as I liked Batman Begins, as great an actor Bale is; it was not a role that only he could excel at. Sometimes great actors get praise for anything. Bale could make a movie of him peeing and people would call him phenomenal.

I think the most important part of a comic 'movie' is that the actors HAVE to be play a convincing role in order to get the audience on their side.

Christian Bale does this very well in Batman Begins....Toby McGuire does it partly well in the 1st Spiderman movie, but not AS well in the 2nd, and not at all in the 3rd one.

Of course that is just my personal opinion. I never liked from the start who they selected to play the roles.