Spider Man III

[UpandAtom]

Re: Better Spidey 3 ending? *spoilers*

Originally posted by muffinpeddler
I just got back, and I LOVED the movie! But I think I have a better ending. Okay, so here's the ending I propose! This is after Mary Jane and Spider-Man are back together. We return to the scene of Venom's death and the camera slowly pans to the black mark on the floor left from the pumpkin bomb. It slowly pans to the very corner of the room, where we see a pulsing red and black blob. The camera moves in closer, and Carnage's face springs out and envelops the camera. Fade to black. Start credits.

I think that would've been awesome, and it's possible because asexual reproduction IS how Carnage was created.

I think they just should have ended the movie with Eddie Brock's transformation into Venom and have the character have his own movie instead of having to be teamed up with Sandom. But I like the whole Venom enveloping the camera idea you suggested.

[j03superbat]

Originally posted by Another-One
No body = Not dead.

Problem: pumpkin bombs don't leave bodies. If Venom's not dead, then is the Oscorp board of directors still alive?

[Who]

Spider Man III gets a 10/10 from me. I liked it better than the first one but not as much as the second. I enjoyed the story. I liked the Green Goblin costume better in this one as well. Sandman and Venom were excellent villains. Jamison was hilarious as usual. As was the Matradee that Bruce Campbell played. Like the other two movies maybe we get too much Peter Parker and not enough Spiderman. Also, I think they tried to make Peter too nerdy in this one. He is almost a characterization of himself.
If they do another Spiderman movie I think I would like to see Mysterio and the Rhino as villians. Or maybe the Kingpin and the Lizard man.

[Ireallylikethisshow]

This was DEFINITELY the best of them all! It was so hilarious, and they really brought it up a couple of knotches! (The other movies weren't half as good as this one!)

[red-K glory]

I thought this movie was awesome! but it is incredible how many people hated it. most of the people I have talked to do not like Spiderman 3 because "it had too many villains" or "Why Sandman? of all the villains they could have used why did they use a stupid guy like Sandman?" or "it was just a chick flick, nothing more" or "they could have done better with Venom" and so on. It just annoys that people are way too critical with this movie, I think people should just kick back, relax and enjoy the movie. I think Spiderman 3 was just as good as the first two Spidey movies and in some ways, it is better. But overall I think the movie lived up to expectations pretty well.

[TheHitMan76]

Well it'd be nice if Venom didn't have about 15 minutes in the movie, would be even better if Topher Grace wasn't Eddie Brock/Venom.

I mean it's like "That 70's Venom", he's too small and girly to be venom.

[j03superbat]

Originally posted by red-K glory
most of the people I have talked to do not like Spiderman 3 because "it had too many villains" or "Why Sandman? of all the villains they could have used why did they use a stupid guy like Sandman?" or "it was just a chick flick, nothing more" or "they could have done better with Venom" and so on. It just annoys that people are way too critical with this movie, I think people should just kick back, relax and enjoy the movie.

That would be easier if the movie was actually good. Danny Elfman's absence is notable; the score is cheesier this time and I remember one scene where it did not go well with what was going on AT ALL. The pacing and editing for the first part (alternating between Harry in the hospital and Sandman's origin) was horrible. Making Sandman Uncle Ben's killer added nothing to the story; Gwen Stacy added little to the story; Venom and Sandman teaming up was solely for the story and Venom's knowledge about him came out of nowhere. The movie built up Eddie Brock to be some big menace, but in the end he's only a villain for about twenty minutes, in which time he only manages to kill Harry. Forget what you know about Venom - even if you didn't know who he was and even if you weren't a fan, you'd still say he got the shaft. There was too much stuff going on, it's several minutes too long, and the only redeeming qualities are J.J. Jameson, Bruce Campbell, the action (I didn't think there wasn't enough or that there was "too much crying"), and seeing Venom in all his glory for about five cumulative minutes.

Make no mistake, I'm dissing this movie as a moviegoer, not as a fanboy. If I were being "too critical", I'd be complaining about the look of the black suit, the depiction of the symbiote, the underuse of Venom's tongue, putting Mary Jane in danger for the third act AGAIN (no, wait, that might be a legitimate complaint), Peter's dance number (eww), the lighting in some scenes, sound editing, obvious CGI use in a few scenes, other arbitrary things that I didn't actually pick up on but am just mentioning as an example of being too critical, and I'd be whining a helluva lot more about making Sandman the killer of Uncle Ben. I wouldn't stop. It's stupid.

You know, it's not even sheer enjoyment. I'd rather watch Batman Forever for mindless popcorn fun. There's a movie that really doesn't think or take anything seriously, but has enough action pieces to hide that. SM3 tries to think. It tries to be good. You can "see" Sam Raimi behind the camera going, "I love you, Sandman, no matter what anyone else thinks." Avi Arad meanwhile thinks fans will love it because he twisted Raimi's arm and got him to include Venom.

Spider-Man 3 isn't a mess. It's not Catwoman or Batman & Robin. It's too well made to fall in that category. And it has Bruce Campbell. Instead, it's a major disappointment, the worse entry into the series, and an example to future movies of what to avoid.

[Backward Galaxy]

Originally posted by j03superbat
Spider-Man 3 isn't a mess. It's not Catwoman or Batman & Robin. It's too well made to fall in that category. And it has Bruce Campbell. Instead, it's a major disappointment, the worse entry into the series, and an example to future movies of what to avoid.

I agree. I don't think you have to be a fanboy or nitpicky to be highly critical of Spider-Man 3. And it's not a mess, but it is flawed.

I found myself entertained. I definitely think I liked it more than j03... but I can't imagine myself sitting down to watch it for a second time and NOT fast forwarding through most of the Mary Jane storyline.

On top of that, making Sandman Uncle Ben's killer really was completely unnecessary. It wasn't motivation for Peter to act like a dirtbag, because he was being influenced to act that way by the symbiote (and because his girlfriend was acting like a baby). It wasn't motivation for Peter to go after Sandman, because Spider-Man is a superhero and he's gonna go after Sandman anyway. And the whole "I forgive you" theme was taken care of with Harry. I think it was just too much of a stretch to thematically link all the storylines together (Harry forgiving Peter, MJ forgiving Peter, Brock NOT forgiving Peter, Peter forgiving Sandman, etc...).

And with regard to Venom... even if you knew nothing about the character, could you come out of that film, having seen what you saw, thinking that he was one of the best Spider-Man villains? Based on Spider-Man 3, can you really think of Venom as anything but a gimmick character?

I'd also like to point out the thematic flaw in the "forgiveness" storyline that they introduced by having the butler make the speech to Harry. If the movie was about forgiveness, then Harry never learned that lesson, because he found out he was WRONG about Peter and there was nothing to forgive him for. If they were really trying to hammer home the forgiveness theme, then Harry should have forgiven Peter while still believing that Peter killed his father. As is, Harry didn't forgive Peter, because Peter didn't do anything wrong. That's not a nitpick... it's a thematic discontinuity.

[Jephael]

My biggest issue with the movie is how you can tell Sam Raimi cared more about Sandman than Venom. I mean just look at how much time was spent on Flint Marko's transformation in the first half of the movie while Eddie Brock's transformation took place in under a minute!

If Sandman was gonna be such a major aspect of this movie, then they should've done it as a 2-parter and have Brock's transformation be the cliffhanger for Part 4!

[superhippie2000]

Released: 30th October 2007
SRP: $36.95 (2-Disc)

Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced single ($28.97) and double-disc ($36.95) editions of Spider-Man 3 which stars Tobey Maguire. Each will be available to own from the 30th October. The film will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5. Surround track.

Extras on the single-disc will include a commentary with Director Sam Raimi and Cast Members Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, and Bryce Dallas Howard, a second commentary with Producers Laura Ziskin, Avi Arad and Grant Curtis, Editor Bob Murawski and Special Effects Supervisor Scott Stokdyk, a Snow Patrol Music Video, bloopers, and a photo gallery.

The two-disc edition will include all that, along with 11 featurettes:

Grains of Sand - Building Sandman,
Re-Imagining the Goblin,
Covered in Black – Creating Venom,
Hanging On…Gwen Stacy and the Collapsing Floor,
Fighting, Flying & Driving – The Stunts,
Tangled Web: The Love Triangles of Spider-Man 3,
Wall Of Water,
On Location Cleveland – The Chase on Euclid Avenue,
On Location New York –From Rooftops to Backstreets,
The Science of Sound, and Inside The Editing Room),
and theatrical TV spots.

Also available from the 30th October will be the Spider-Man High Definition Trilogy, a three-pack release of all three films ..ay High-Def allowing fans an exclusive opportunity to collect both Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 in high definition, along with Spider-Man 2.1 and Spider-Man 3. This will retail at around $98.95. Alternatively, you will be available to own Spider-Man 3 individually ..ay for around $49.95. Sony hasn't revealed the official artwork for these titles yet I'm afraid, but we'll bring you that very shortly.

[emily feist]

This movie was a let down for me. I could've done without Peter's cheesy dance sequence or all the villains. The ending scene seemed weird and abrupt. I loved the second film and this one really isn't in the same league. For all the crap we say about Al/Miles, they did a really good job on SpiderMan II. I think another reason the third movie wasn't as good was because the actors weren't as into it. Any interview I saw them in, especially Dunst, they were saying how it wasn't their favorite genre and how three is enough already.

[j03superbat]

Originally posted by emily feist
For all the crap we say about Al/Miles, they did a really good job on SpiderMan II.

Keep giving them crap. Their greatest contribution to Spider-Man 2 was the Peter-MJ subplot. All the Doc Ock and other good stuff came from drafts written by other people.

[SteveS]

I saw this a week or so ago and am still glad that I only paid $1.50 to see it, stupid and immature as it was. The first two movies I enjoyed, this one was laughable.

After seeing this, I felt much better about Superman Returns which I would hope would never pattern it's sequel after Spiderman 3. For me, there is no reason to ever see this thing again. (Oh, I did like Peter Parker's little dance, that was a good laugh for good reason)

[superhippie2000]

at best buy the dvd comes with a halloween trick or treat .bag kind of looks like a movie popcorn bag lol. also inside the dvds are black or red halloween spiderman masks (cant pick or choose color what you get is what you get) which are children sizes so im guessing if your an adyult with a small head it would work out for you otherwise it seems like its a good freebie just to have. also the dvds that have the masks also have postcards. im not sure if its inside the dvd case or attached to the back.

[constantine]

Disturbingly enough, the best thing about the spiderman 3 DVD was the features. Shicking...Just shocking