I asked everyone to wait a week before discussing SM3 with spoilers, and for the most part everyone has obliged. So if you guys want to chat about the film with spoilers--discussing specific plot point--here's where to do it.
PAD
Posted by Kathleen David at May 12, 2007 09:36 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI felt that the whole Sandman thing in the movie was a bit necessary and probably only put in for the nice special effects needed to make the giant Sandman.
What do you think? Could the film have been done without Sandman? It's not like Sandman is as major a Spidey villain as Goblin, Doc Ock and Venom are.
Not at all superfluous. Spidey's hunting of him mirrors the Goblin's hunting of Spidey; they each are driven by a misguided vengeance. They each manage to set it aside. Thematically, someone had to be there. Better to use someone who can return from apparent death and menace him in a giant end fight than someone who just disappears. So no, the narrative didn't demand Sandman personally, but he fits very well in that he's a more sympathetic villain.
Also, Sandman furthered the theme of redemption in that he chose to stop fighting (though not, admittedly, to stop running). Still think Spidey shoulda apologised for trying to kill him... but maybe they were even on that score after the severe pummelling. But then, I'd also have liked to have seen the cop-tossed-into-a-car move or something, to show that he was still alive. he certainly looked dead, with his head through the shattering windscreen and all. THAT makes Sandman a touch less sympathetic, and kinda jars with the 'OMG, you killed a guy?' vibe we got from his wife -- hinting that he'd never killed before. So is he a murderer after all? That cop prolly had kids!
In terms of effects, one of the things I absolutely LOVE in film or television is group fight scenes. Multiple combatants on each side -- harder to choreograph, and thus extremely rare, but it's one of my favorite things to see, especially when it's done with such style.
I spent much of the movie wishing the cameraman would step back about 3 steps.. all those close in headshots with a wide angle lens made Kirsten Dunst look fat and kept drawing my attention to the scar on Tobey's right cheek...
Spoilerish .. I thought the movie was fantastic up through the scene on the bridge in the park when MJ was being coerced into breaking up... that scene was so BAD (and so out of character for MJ), that it took me completely out of the movie... (the audience laughing didn't help).. and I never got it back.
yays! now I can ask questions!
1) um doesnt spidey have spidey sense?
2) how many times does harry have to die?
3) why didnt sandman get..um bonded with the metal in the locket?
4) what was the original ending?
1) Spidey pre-dodged a few times, indicating that his Spidey-sense is still there.
2) So far he's only died the once. Although it took an awful long time, considering he'd been impaled and dropped a few stories, but I guess we can chalk that up to the Goblin juice.
3) Yeah, I'm wondering why the locket didn't get dissolved into the solution along with the rest of him.
Far and away the worst bit was the butler ex machina scene, which was totally unconvincing anyway, as was the Sandman's sudden change of heart at the end.
I also didn't buy MJ's sudden career death, the sheer coincidence of Brock's presence in the church, or the extended scene with both Peter and Harry maskless in front of the whole crowd and calling each other by name.
Spider-Man 3 made my girlfriend brake up with me!
I got tickets for the first day at here request. After the movie gets out she says to me “what side (of the theater) are you parked?”. I point to the left and she says “I’m over on the Right. I’m just going to head home now.” I start to walk her to here car and she says “That’s ok. You don’t have to walk me to my car. I’m all set”. and walks off. Haven’t heard from here since.
My guess is that during the movie she must of realized how much the character of Peter Parker and I are alike. However, I am the “what if Peter Parker never became Spider-Man…and didn‘t study in school…and is now a truck driver.” I could understand if I had just started seeing her like Eddie Brock and Gwen Stacy in the movie. But this was a girl I was seeing for three months!
It was either the movie or she may have been turned off by the way I double dip my nacho chips in the cheese we were sharing.
Oh, totally unrelated question - is there any relationship between Flint Marko and Cain Marko? If we were talking DCU, there'd be no need to ask the question, since even people with differently-spelled variants of the same last name are related somehow (Sanders/Saunders)...
"Oh, totally unrelated question - is there any relationship between Flint Marko and Cain Marko?"
None whatsoever. "Flint Marko" is an alias; his real name is William Baker. The origin of his pseudonym is revealed in the upcoming FNSM annual, written by yours truly.
PAD
My thoughts are the film would have been better sticking with the idea of 50s horror Menace From Space/Russia and focusing on Venom.
I really didn't care for this film. It was the Batman Forever of the Spider-Man trilogy. Too many villains, corny dialogue, and some painful scenes (the jazz bar).
Sandman superfluous??? No, he was great. It was venom I could have lived without. But, like Raimi, I'm partial to the classic Ditko/Lee Spidey and not so much the modern McFarlane version.
I'd LOVE to have the next one be either the Sinister 6 (6! 6! 6 supervillains! Ah ah ah!) or, better yet, Doc Conner finally goes all scaly and Kraven comes to hunt him down. We'd have Spidey trying to save the life of the Lizard (who is trying to kill him) while Kraven tries to kill both of them. Cool beans.
In a perfect world (well, MY perfect world) the movie would have featured Sandman only, with the fourth film tackling Venom and Harry. As I said on the initial thread, Sandman, Venom/Brock, Harry, Peter/MJ/Gwen are all compelling stories - but none of them were done justice in the overlong and crowded film...
"None whatsoever. "Flint Marko" is an alias; his real name is William Baker. The origin of his pseudonym is revealed in the upcoming FNSM annual, written by yours truly.
PAD"
A writer actually on top of his continuity these days? The mind boggles....
My thoughts were what's gonna happen to the bit of symbiote in the lab.
My co-worker noticed that Obviously the fire in the pumpkin bomb was more intense then the super hot molten meteroite that brought the symbiote to earth.
Other than that I was grateful that Gwen and Captain Stacy weren't killed with the falling crane accident.
Though, It might have taken the movie into a more compelling direction with Brock losing his job and his gf because of Parker and Spiderman more motivation for revenger, the city turning on Spidey for his failure to save two people. This way we could have avoided the two abysmal jazz scenes.
As for the Movie, I thought they should have saved Venom him self for another movie. The black costume was perfect for the story, but they should have left it with the same ending as Web of Spider-Man #1. They should have waited until Spider-Man 5 or 6 to do a Venom movie.
I think Venom as a character works best when Peter Parker's life is going well. He has the girl, he has enough money to get by, and Aunt May is a healthy spring chicken. That (to me) is the best time to bring in the evil version of the super hero.
"Doc Conner finally goes all scaly and Kraven comes to hunt him down. We'd have Spidey trying to save the life of the Lizard (who is trying to kill him) while Kraven tries to kill both of them."
That was my thought exactly.
I think they should have cut Venom entirely. From the entire film series. The character just does not work outside the context of the Marvel Universe (i.e. without Secret Wars and the whole set-up), and it just barely works there. No writer has ever pulled it off, not Bendis in Ultimate Spider-Man and certainly not the writers of Spider-Man 3. Oh, something black and gooey falls out of the sky and lands near Peter. And then Eddie Brock happens to be praying (praying!) in the same church that Peter happens to be using to get rid it.
Only slightly less silly was Sandman's origin. He's running from the cops, he climbs a fence, and, whoops, he runs into a... um... sand... experiment... thingy. One that hasn't been mentioned before, and is never mentioned again.
The writers should have their WGA cards revoked for this movie.
And was I the only one who laughed when Harry sacrificed himself? I laughed both because it was so predictable, and because the scene was so poorly directed and acted.
Venom should have been created in this movie -- Eddie Brock's presence could have been explained by him following Spiderman around obsessively. Then in the fourth movie, Peter's life would have been perfect; perhaps preparation for a wedding with MJ, and Venom would have been the shadow of the past stalking him. Perhaps spiderman would have been blamed for some of his crimes.
In this movie, by cutting Venom and cutting or toning down many of the cheesy Peter/MJ, and evil Peter scenes, there could have been more focus on Sandman and Harry Osborne's development and personality, as well as the effects of the black suit.
The effect of the black suit should have been done more subtly, without the stupid haircut change, but perhaps with more focus on the costume's supernatural features.
Harry should have established more asa villain persona with a better costume. Eventually he would either have helped Peter because he would have realized that between Peter and his father the first is more trustworthy; or he would have decided to save MJ while continuing to despise Peter; or he would have remained a villain. He shouldn't have been killed.
Somebody else should have played MJ, and the character should have had a more firey persona.
Sandman should not have been guilty for killing Ben Parker: he should have been the accomplice of the murderer. That's enough guilt without taking away anything from the origin story.
Better direction of the fight scenes was called for. Spiderman should have kept his mask more often and bantered more. Perhaps this could have been used as a sign of his insentivity toward Sandman.
Well, for me there were only a couple of things I winced at while actually in the cinema. (There were a few more that I shook my head at in hindsight after the movie, but that's par for the course with me and movies these days...)
The coincidence of Venom dropping from the skies and stalking Peter Parker was clumsy, the 'Sandman killed your Uncle' thing felt horribly forced - though the execution of it was handled fairly adroitly - and the whole 'let's team up to kill Spider-man' was just dumb. It would have been so much cooler for Eddie to 'out' Peter as Spider-Man...
The butler bit was not too terrible, though it could have done with a bit more set-up throughout the earlier part of the movie, it was still good to see Harry come back to the light side. Hey, sue me, I'm a sucker for redemption stories...
(Hmmm..what are the odds on Harry being ressurected as the hero of a spin-off movie along with his faithful retainer? "Criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot! I must become a giant goblin..!") Then again, maybe not...
Cheers
Kraven? Please! A competently written Spider-Man should be able to dispatch him with no trouble whatsoever.
Agreed on MJ being very poorly written (not to mention costumed). And that Dunst simply can't carry her, any more than Berry can do Storm properly. And how long before someone starts connecting the dots and wonder why this woman keeps being kidnapped by Spidey's major villains? There are at least 8 million people in New York for Criminey's sake. Isn't someone going to wonder why it's always people close to Parker/Spider-man [May/MJ] who get grabbed?
Major UGH! on Marko apparently being the one who killed Peter's uncle. Such rewriting of a major continuity point just to establish a plot device really reeks.
Gwen Stacy? Utterly wasted.
As some people have remarked, it's as though there were two directors for this film. Raimi at the top of his form for the supers bits (including the superb 'birth' of Sandman), and some mediocre hack for most of the rest of the film. Pacing, editing, characterizations of the filler bits were substandard (I'm being charitable here - I was wishing I was wearing a watch at one point so that I could look at it) and enough with the whiny, shy Parker. He's been Spider-Man long enough, not to mention years out of high school, that he should have developed more self-confidence. A spine even.
But it wasn't a terrible film, just a definite letdown after the first two.
And I did love parts of it. Especially when the symbiote caused Parker to finally take the gloves off and really cut loose. Pity they had to then come up with that contrived Jazz club scene to remind him about why he usually does hold back. Seems he doesn't grasp the idea that there's a reasonable in-between where he can stand up for himself and not just trash around indiscriminately, or let himself be used as a doormat.
Fuller: Only slightly less silly was Sandman's origin. He's running from the cops, he climbs a fence, and, whoops, he runs into a... um... sand... experiment... thingy. One that hasn't been mentioned before, and is never mentioned again.
Funny, how with movies (comics too) what one person sees as bad element in the story, another sees as something great. The origin of Sandman was one of the things my friend liked best about Sandman--a simply, not over-explained origin.
Personally, I think there is only one thing about this movie that I would complain about. (That's not to say that I thought the movie was otherwise perfect, but this is the one thing I don't buy.)
Peter forgives Sandman. Fine; no problem with that, but then he just let's Sandman go. I mean, he didn't try and stop him. He would have failed, especially after the beating he just took. But he didn't even try. Shoot, he didn't even tell Marco to turn himself in; he just let him go. The guy still killed his uncle, even if it was an accident; he's still a crook. He still threaten MJ's life. Spidey may forgive him, but that doesn't mean he gets a "get out of jail card."
Anyone know what the deal is with the butler? Plot device aside, it seems that in a multi-million dollar movie they could have gotten an actor that didn't seem to be reading off of cue cards. Sheesh!
Other than that, I thought it was a fine movie. Coulda been better, but not a bad way to spend $20 and a couple of hours IMHO.
There was one scene where he was yelling "Marko!".. I could not resist calling back "Polo!" It did get a few laughs.
And the butler.. it was "DUde.. where did Alfred come from?" He just shows up pretty much out of the blue to tell Harry that Peter didn't kill his dad.
It was a good superhero movie, but it was the worst of the Trilogy. I'd still see it again when it comes on cable.
"It was a good superhero movie, but it was the worst of the Trilogy. I'd still see it again when it comes on cable."
you summed it up nicely for me.
"Kraven? Please! A competently written Spider-Man should be able to dispatch him with no trouble whatsoever."
And a competently written Kraven could give Spider-Man some serious trouble. Any character, if well written, could give him trouble.
Kraven's one of my favorite Silver Age villains, because unlike just about every other villain of that era, he's not after monetary wealth or world domination. He just wants to hunt.
And plus he was featured in my absolute favorite Spider-Man story ever, Kraven's Last Hunt. Heck, they could just film that story and have a great movie on their hands.
Personally, it was my favorite of the three. I thought the various stories interwove very nicely, on a narrative and thematic level. The four-way fight at the end was enough to justify it even lacking everything else. Peter and MJ were both acting badly (Peter moreso, in my opinion), and I though Kirsten Dunst was at her peak. I do wish they hadn't done girl hostage over again (they did that last movie!), but the fight was still well worth it. And I very much liked that she did actually take action to save her own life, rather than simply relying on the boys.
As for the church scene: I've consistently heard people asking how Spidey got to the church, and why Brock was there. Well, at the start of the jazz bar scene, we see Brock skulking after Peter. So he was there to catch the dance and see Peter leave afterwards. When Peter does leave, he's feeling awful, hears bells, looks up, sees the cathedral. The camera pans up, zooms in, cuts to a closer image, Spidey is there. That's pretty clear. Then, later, we see Brock walking into the church. Since the film had already established that he was there, it's pretty easy to assume that he lost Peter and simply got the idea to go into the church. Bit of a coincidence, but not a huge one, since it does actually make sense.
A couple of leaps to take, there, but since I'm sick of Hollywood movies that spell everything out, I'm not at all complaining. =)
Kraven's one of my favorite Silver Age villains, because unlike just about every other villain of that era, he's not after monetary wealth or world domination. He just wants to hunt.
Plus with the fur stole, slippers, and leopard spandex, Kraven had that Freddie-Mercury-style menace going for him.
I thought Sam Raimi proved, with the Evil Dead trilogy and Darkman that, while he's a wonderfully creative director, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a script.
Venom from a random meteorite. Harry waking up in a soap opera hospital with a properly placed head-bandage. Peter strutting down the street like he was Bruce, the almighty.
If the symbiote needs to come from space then have it come down in a shuttle with John Jameson. They introduced him in part 2, why not use him. Plus, you could open with a big scene of Spidey preventing the shuttle from crashing into a city. Immediately after which, the suit is drawn to Peter's powers and latches on to him. Get this going early so you have time to play with the corruption.
Anyway, John Jameson's being held responsible for the potential crash, so JJJ's on a major tyrade. Harry nearly kills Peter near the beginning with his new Goblin suit. And Eddie Brock, a yuppie paparazzi, is wedging his way into Peter's job.
Then come the attacks. Several times, Spidey's lured into traps and assaulted by a group calling themselves the Enforcers. Replace the comic Enforcers with some better known villains: Sandman, Electro, Vulture, Chameleon, etc. Pick three. Don't get too deep into their origins or motivations. They're just a group of hired thugs constantly attacking Spider-Man.
I suggest the Enforcers because you could do the whole "Who's the Big Man?" story. Is it Harry? Is it JJJ? Neither, of course, it's Brock!
Anyway, with the suit, start the corruption early and subtley. No strutting, no italian suits, no abusing Ursula's cookie-baking abilities. Just start a slow, gradual submission to agression and paranoia. By the middle of the film, he drives MJ away and she goes to Harry. And it's her, not the poorly acted butler, that convinces Harry to let his quest for vengeance go. "Think about it, Harry. That's just not Peter."
At the end of his corruption, Peter learns from Dr. Connors what the suit is and that it's succeptable to loud noises. After lashing out at Aunt May, Peter starts fighting. Seeing the bell tower, he drags himself in, against the power of the suit, and sheds it before the clanging bells. The suit slithers away into a dark corner to heal and Peter passes out. He comes to, but can't find the suit.
The final battle begins, where the Big Man is revealed as Brock, Harry shows up to help, and JJJ is caught in the middle (subplot about him personally investigating Big Man which, of course, makes him look guilty).
At the end, MJ is with Harry (setup for Gwen in part 4), Dr. Connors testifies about the symbiote at John Jameson's trial, and Brock, broken and humiliated, sulks in an empty church. The same church. And, as he starts to rant about Peter Parker, the symbiote draws near. It leaps on him. CUT TO BLACK. The end. Save Venom for 4.
Whew. Sorry to go on and on like that, but I've just been thinking about this a lot lately and this seemed like a decent place to vent.
When I got out of SM3, I though tit was thoroughly mediocre. The more I think about it, the more I think I was being generous.
Overall, the movie was weak. There were too many storylines happening (Sandman is tortured but bad! Peter's a dick -- and after the symbiote, an uber-dick! Harry's evil, no he's good, no he's evil! Venom is, um, there! Mary Jane was an star actress the last movie, but she's kicked down to waitressing after one bad roll this time around!)
The low point was the butler explaining how he's 1) been an accessory after the fact to murder and kidnapping, and 2) sure the Green Goblin's death was an accident -- even though the New Goblin dies *exactly* the way the butler says couldn't have happened.
I left feeling let down, and the news that they're planning three more movies only fills me with dread of what else they'll do wrong. (Then again, it's fun to speculate who they'll get to play the Black Cat!)
I think you're dead on with the Jameson/Suit connection, though I'm not crazy for the Enforcers/Big Man stuff.
I actually just assumed (and I thought I read it somewhere) that the suit would come down with Jameson so when it just landed with some random rock I sat jaw-dropped stunned for several minutes. Then I shook my head in disbelief and confusion. Then I dumped the bucket of popcorn on the person in front of me and my head exploded on the side wall of the theater.
What was the scene where Parker was talking with Conners about the sample...something about it resembling something from the past that was brought back to Earth? I didn't catch what he was saying but I think he was hinting at what it was?
Finally saw it this afternoon. Pretty good. Not as good as the second, but the second was so good, it would’ve been too hard to top it, so I was just glad that this one was good as it was. Someone mentioned that one of them was Flash Thompson. Flash got into the same college chemistry class as Peter???
The 2 or 3 jerks in Peter’s class who pick on him seemed a bit out of place. Is this college, or high school? One was odd enough. What was with two or three of them? And what did this have to do with anything?
Okay, so why is that demolecularizer laying out in the middle of an open grassy field with just a dinky fence around it to keep out people who might venture or fall into it? One of the scientists thinks it’s a bird. Can they not tell the difference between a bird and a human being? If their instruments can’t tell the difference, then doesn’t this illustrate the need to have such a device indoors?
Why didn’t Spidey’s spider sense warn him of Harry’s first attack on him?
Definitely didn’t like that retarded fold-up mask that Harry had, for the same reason I didn’t like it on the cast members in the Lost in Space movie: Where does it go? There are no folded-up components of it behind his head, nowhere on his costume where it seems it could go.
So Kirsten Dunst died her blonde hair red to play MJ, and now Bryce Dallas Howard—a natural redhead—had to dye her hair blonde to play Gwen? Why didn’t the just switch roles? (:)) Btw, does anyone think Elisha Cuthbert would’ve made a beautiful Gwen?
I didn’t care for the sound effects of the I-beam and the crane crashing into the building. It didn’t seem layered, or deep enough for such a large sound.
Brock tells Jameson that he hired him last week. And Robbie and Pete point out that Pete’s been there for “years”. That and the fact that Flint Marko has been in prison for “6 years” means that this movie doesn’t take place in rapid sequence right after the first and second ones. But Brock was mentioned in the first movie.
Wow, that maitre d’ sure looks familiar! He be one of triplets, and his brothers work as the usher at the theater in Spider-Man 2, and the wrestling announcer in Spider-Man. But even if that’s true, how can one of them be French? Was he raised in France apart from his two brothers? Or is he just some pretentious snob from Queens? :)
If the symbiote formed itself into Peter’s new costume where did he get a sample of it still in goo-form to show Connors?
Why does Peter tells Aunt May that Spider-Man killed Sandman? What makes him think that if a guy can exist as sand—at times with its particles dissipated into a sandstorm—that watering him down into mud will “kill” him?
When Norman appears to Harry and asks if he remembers, Harry says, “Yes, Father. I remember.” Did Harry really address his father like that, and not with simply “Dad”?
After the amnesia-cured Harry threatens MJ, she calls Peter and asks him to meet her “at the bridge in the park.” Which park? And for that matter, which bridge? Central Park has a slew of ‘em.
Okay, so why didn’t MJ just tell Pete that Harry threatened her, even after their meeting in the park? Was she ever planning on telling him?
Spider-Man’s spider sense allows him to sense diffuse threats on the general order of hours, or even things that could potentially be a threat to him, but again, it doesn’t go off during his meeting with Harry in the diner.
When the church bells go off, Eddie enters the bell tower and looks up. An upshot shows us what he sees from the bottom floor, and it’s clear that he’s way too far away to see anyone in the belfry. But in the next shot of Eddie, he says, “Parker!”
The fx of Venom and his mouth? AWESOME!!!!!!!
Venom versus Sandman? Good. But waaaaaaay too short. I know it wasn’t the point of the scene, but I would’ve liked to have seen it extended just a tad, and in something other than just shadows on the wall, just because it was such a cool face-off.
Venom taunts Sandman with his knowledge that Sandman needs money for Penny. How did Venom find this out? Peter didn’t have that knowledge, so it’s not like he got it from the symbiote.
After Harry arrives on the scene, he and Spidey have a heart-to-heart for a moment. Um, guys? MJ, ya know? She’s still up there in that web? Hello? Guys?
Once that giant sandman appears, the authorities should do two things: First, they should evacuate everyone since they now know that this guy is huge. Second, they should be able to figure out that water would be a weapon against him, and have brought in the fire department.
Peter’s reaction to Harry’s impalement seemed rather sedate.
The novel touched upon this point: The revelation about what happened between Marko and Ben Parker would’ve likely happened with or without Peter’s intervention with Carradine at the wrestling arena, and removes the ongoing guilt he feels, which served as the basis for Spider-Man’s creation. Even if the gun going off was some type accident caused by Carradine distracting Marko, wouldn’t such an event have occurred without Carradine?
A writer actually on top of his continuity these days? The mind boggles....
So far, to me, it just seems to be PAD and Dan Slot are the only ones who are.
Things I liked:
-Most of the casting. Thomas Hayden Church was born to play Sandman and Topher Grace was a great choice to play an Anti-Peter. Of course, I'd watch Bryce Dallas Howard read a phone book, so I have no complaints about her as Gwen.
-The special effects.
-The fact that Evil Peter is still a dork. The symbiote may have brought out his dark side, but it couldn't give him style.
-I seem to be one of the few people who actually liked the jazz club scene.
Things I didn't like
-For a character who supposedly is the most protective of his secret identity in the whole of the Marvel Universe, and who, as a photographer, has to have some clue just how many cameras and camera-phones there are in the Big Apple, he spends a hell of a lot of time with his mask off, even when there's a whole plaza full of people below, just waiting to catch a glimpse of him. Which leads to...
-Peter, in the middle of a crowded restaurant: "Yeah, that's nice MJ, but the other day, when I was swinging around as Spider-man, because, y'know, I, Peter Parker, am Spider-man..."
-Butler: "Peter, who is Spider-Man, didn't kill your dad, Harry."
Harry: "Gee, Jeeves, that would've been nice to know a couple of years ago, before I pumped myself full of psycho-juice, tried to kill my best friend, fell five stories onto my head, and had half my face melted off."
-My voice is but one in the chorus that thinks all the pieces were there for two good movies, but it sadly ended up being only one half-assed movie. I suspect Scott Kurtz of PVP Online may have been more right than even he suspected when he said that it looked like Raimi wanted a Sandman movie and the studio wanted a Venom movie.
-*Sigh* Yes, Spider-Man loves America. We get it already. The gratuitous flag-wanking was forgiveable in the first one, so soon after 9/11, but you aren't going to get blacklisted for not giving enough screen time to Old Glory in your superhero movie. He's not Captain America or Superman, so give it a rest.
-Maybe I've just become a big softie in the last couple of years, but I wanted some sort of happy ending for Penny Marko, or at least something better than a big fat dangling plot thread.
-Mary Jane, who knows squat about evil symbiotes, seems all too eager to run back into the arms of the man who about took her head off. Which also reminds me. Peter (who has to hold back considerably to keep from killing muggers and such), in a rage, backhands MJ, and there is not so much as a bruise to be seen? Maybe Mary Jane should be out patrolling the streets.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: NoelCT at May 12, 2007 11:49 PM
"Whew. Sorry to go on and on like that, but I've just been thinking about this a lot lately and this seemed like a decent place to vent."
I really like your ideas. Especialy with Jameson. It solves one of the problems with this movie, the flow of the plot. The plot felt like it was written by the same guy who shot the fight scenes.
It seems many people have in their minds good udeas for a fourth movie with Venom. Alas, we'll never have that movie.
I'm not sure Brock should be the 'Big Man'. How about Kingpin? No need for much explanation. He's a criminal mastermind. He doesn't like Spiderman. Also he's not usually fighting himself, so it leaves the cool fight scenes for Goblin and Sandman and potential others.
I'm not sure about the enforcers idea. The best thing in this movie was Sandman, and I'd like to keep him the way he was more or less. I didn't have a problem with the way he was created. Perhaps if they hooked him early on with a corrupting influence like Kigpin or Harry Osborne that would have worked out.
Should Harry have adopted the personna of Hobgoblin? I just don't think they are going to use the original character, since two gliding villeins are enough for a movie franchise.
Havin Sandman be the real killer of uncle ben is just plain wrong and lazy writing.
Sure it helps make the forgiveness theme more powerful for THIS movie . . .but it muddles the clear and classic origin for the overall movie universe.
WHile Peter is still responsible - it's more indirect. It lessens one of his most important character traits and that's his GUILT over letting the thief go that later murders his uncle. . . not letting the thief go that later runs by another man, who is then startled and who then accidentally shoots his uncle.
They sacrificed a pillar trait of the main character to advance a subplot of a one movie villain?
Wrong!
I read the end scene in PAD'S novelization and thought that maybe a comic book writer over Hollywood writers would insert some text about how Peter is still responsible, etc . .. but no, it seems that the script was even MORE ambiguous as to why the gun went off.
I LOVED the movie otherwise and don't share many of the other gripes. I don't think it was too rushed or the Batman & Robin of the trilogy. Sure, I'd have loved more development of Sandman and/or Venom - but I could've lived with everything done EXCEPT the tinkering with Uncle Ben's death. It should ALWAYS be the thief Peter let get away. That maximizes the guilt and Power/Responsibility bedrock.
Huge misstep in my opinion on Raimi's part and I'm shocked that with umpteen writers having their hands in the script no one saw this as taking away from SPidey's origin.
THis is NOT a fanboy whining over straying from comic book roots and continuity. Not at all - they do that all the time in movies. It's about negatively changing a cornerstone of the character's motivations.
PAD - any thoughts? Did this bother you or jump out as wrong when you had to do the novelization?
. . . or will Sony dispatch assasins if you critique Spidey : )
Actually, I still havent seen it.
I have read the novelization (good book Peter!) and seen the trailers and read the reviews.
I call Spidey 3 a "BUT" movie----
example....
"It was great, BUT....."
"Spider-Man 3 rocked, dude! BUT....."
Well, you get the picture....so, I'll wait for the DVD.
From what I've heard one of the producers...
Mr Avi Arad (who I still respect mostly) kind of
forced Raimi to INCLUDE Venom into this one (instead of maybe waiting for part 4 and give the character it's due.)Its rumored that he really thought since the fans LOVED Venom that it should be included into this film.
And while thats a good idea in and of itself I dont think THIS film was the best place to insert such a character.
I have also read about Venom's origin and I agree....it is a bit co-incidental that the meteorite would JUST HAPPEN to land near Peter Parker....
If ANYTHING---yeah, okay it could STILL land in New York, but as we cut back and forth to maybe wrapping up the Harry/Goblin story arc and Parker worried about all the crap you have to go thru to get married (maybe have him really try to take more spectacular pics for Jameson in order to get on staff at the paper which would make MJ mad at him for risking his life more then he usually does just being Spider-man....)
So, okay, while we juggle those couple of plot lines we show Venom attach itself to a normal Joe Blow on the street and Venom tries out this new body but its clumsy and hard to handle so then Venom jumps to a woman and THATS even clumsier....too difficult to control and in the end, too boring. (After all Venom has been around the galaxy persumably- it wants something ....Amazing.)
So then while Spidey is out chasing the better photos, say, a fire perhaps, Venom (as one of the normal humans earlier in the film) would be IN the gathering crowd at ground level watching Spidey in action.
Naturally this would make Venom quite curious.
And once Venom decides to attach itself TO Parker it would hunt him down and find him and THEN we start the second half of the film.
So, Parker acts funny during the wedding and viciously attacks Harry during a fight and Parker grows concerned and tries to figure a way to get rid of this thing before it kills somebody.
Thats more then enough to fill two hours. (Let alone two and a HALF hours.)
Oh well, its over and done and part of film history and maybe parts 4, 5 and 6 will learn from this and get Spidey back on track.
Meantime I am waiting for Rise of the Silver Surfer.
It looks like a much more fun Superhero film.
Should be great too if they don't screw up the ending. (I've already read the book)
So anyway. Peter, thanks for the opprotunity for us all to have a forum for us to talk this out.
I think the film will still hit it's expected 300 million domestic mark but I dont think it will make the top ten as they hope.
(They should have watched some of the latter Batman films...too many villians. Just throwing stuff into a film JUST to make money on the toys is never a good idea. It works well as an accident (Star Wars) but to just do it for greed, well, this is what happens.)
Oh well....maybe Spider-Man 4 will get my 9 bucks.
Oh, one other little thing.
How come this thing cost 280 million to make?
Pirates 3 (coming out memorial day weekend) only cost 200 million and LOOK at the trailer!! That film looks great!
Pirates 3 LOOKS like it cost 280 million when they actually made it for 80 million LESS then Spider-Man 3.
If anything it looks more creative with much bigger FX....and from what I've read so far the story is good as well.
maybe its just me....
Superman Returns cost alot as well and it took months to put the initial cost of 200 million in the bank.(and we'll never really know just how much money that was made for)
But it also placed FX over story, which of course, almost never really works.
1
My first instinct during and after the movie was: "If Peter Parker simply TALKED to people, his life would be less screwed up and this movie would've been half as long!" To see him stand or sit there with a goofy smirk on his face while someone's bearing their soul to him just annoyed me to no end.
I don't recall Peter being this much of a passive conversationalist in comics either, if anything Peter rarely shuts up!
"Posted by: Frank at May 13, 2007 10:49 AM
"From what I've heard one of the producers...
Mr Avi Arad (who I still respect mostly) kind of
forced Raimi to INCLUDE Venom into this one (instead of maybe waiting for part 4 and give the character it's due.)Its rumored that he really thought since the fans LOVED Venom that it should be included into this film.
And while thats a good idea in and of itself I dont think THIS film was the best place to insert such a character."
The problem is that in order to have venom you must have the black suit, which ia story in and of itself.
In this movie Spiderman had to deal with 6 villains: Sandman, Harry Osborne, Venom, the Black Suit, himself, and Mary Jane. That's too much.
If they wanted Venom they should have cut either Harry or Sandman (preferably Sandman, since less introduction is required) and toned down some of the soap opera stuff. And even then it would have been difficult.
The black sunstance should then have been the primary villein of the story from stage one, perhaps along lines similar to what you have suggested.
Micha wrote: "I'm not sure Brock should be the 'Big Man'. How about Kingpin?"
I thought of this initially. It would be a great reveal from out of nowhere. And then you could have a team-up with Daredevil, with Matt Murdock also showing up at the end to get John Jameson off the hook. The problem is that the Spider-Man and Daredevil films are owned by two different studios so it'd most likely never happen.
Micha wrote: "The best thing in this movie was Sandman, and I'd like to keep him the way he was more or less. I didn't have a problem with the way he was created. Perhaps if they hooked him early on with a corrupting influence like Kigpin or Harry Osborne that would have worked out."
I though Sandman was great, as well. Chuch uncannily looked the part, and the "re-birth" scene was gorgeous. The problem is that his entire story is unnecessary. You could argue that he taught Peter not to seek vengeance, but that's pretty much what the Harry thread is about. Or, you could argue that Sandman represents taking responsibily for one's actions, but the fall of Brock does this just as well.
My other problem was with his powers. By allowing him to absorb more Sand and making him into "Godzilla, the beach!" you give him too much power (yet Harry still takes him down with 2 small missiles?!). I prefer the early comics where he's a set volume of Sand that can contract or expand as the situation requires.
In the end, Sandman was a great story, but one that you could easily trim from an overlong movie without really losing anything.
What did everyone think of the Harry arc, overall? Other than the amnesia and butler, it was the strongest story in the movie. From his gradual submission to insanity, to being mutilated by Peter, to his eventual redemption, I thought it was wonderfully handled with some fine acting.
The make-up of his scarring, though, it look a bit healed. Shouldn't there still be some scabs or stitches or something? I know the goblin gas helps him heal quickly, but that's pretty damn fast.
And his death, while nicely handled, should have been saved for later. Imagine, in part 4, how great it would be if the Goblin still killed Gwen Stacy even though he's now good. That would provide some nice drama.
Micha: In this movie Spiderman had to deal with 6 villains: Sandman, Harry Osborne, Venom, the Black Suit, himself, and Mary Jane. That's too much.
Luigi Novi: That's stretching things. Dealing with his own inner demons is not a "villain". Nor is MJ. (How exactly is MJ a "villain"?) Nor are the black suit and Venom two separate villains. They're essentially one and the same.
I liked it. I'm just amazed films move.
(C'mon now, I'm not the only one who has waited his whole life to see Gwen Stacy, hairband and all, in real life!)
Okay, so why is that demolecularizer laying out in the middle of an open grassy field with just a dinky fence around it to keep out people who might venture or fall into it? One of the scientists thinks it’s a bird. Can they not tell the difference between a bird and a human being? If their instruments can’t tell the difference, then doesn’t this illustrate the need to have such a device indoors?
Well, maybe this is why the Marvel Universe is chock full of superheroes and villains while our sorry world isn't. Too many damn rules and warnings
Wow, that maitre d’ sure looks familiar! He be one of triplets, and his brothers work as the usher at the theater in Spider-Man 2, and the wrestling announcer in Spider-Man. But even if that’s true, how can one of them be French? Was he raised in France apart from his two brothers? Or is he just some pretentious snob from Queens? :)
Simple: he's the Chameleon. Or Mysterio.
-The fact that Evil Peter is still a dork. The symbiote may have brought out his dark side, but it couldn't give him style.
That's an interesting point, Rex. I'll have to watch it again with that in mind.
I suspect Scott Kurtz of PVP Online may have been more right than even he suspected when he said that it looked like Raimi wanted a Sandman movie and the studio wanted a Venom movie.
That seems to be a popular view. I'm a bit surprised at this point that Raimi doesn't have a lot more clout.
BTW, anyone who was worried about Spidey 3 second week grosses can relax--even with the typical 60% drop that mega-blockbusters typically get these days, its total cume after only 10 days is...$622 million worldwide!
That $200 million plus budget is looking like a bargain (although Frank has a point--where DID the money go? I would think at this point that CGI has gotten cheaper as more artists become good at it.)
(then again, I'll bet the cost of just the cast must be pretty high, one reason why the next spiderman movie may well have some new faces)
I'm sure Micha meant an antagonist and used villian interchangeably, and, in context with a superhero movie it's not that far off.
In the movie he had conflicts, physical and mental with Harry/New Goblin, Eddie Brock/Venom, Himself (revenge themes, guilt, relationship struggles), MJ (always yelling at him, breaking up with him, it fits), Sandman, The Suit itself (both an inner struggle to wear it and an outer struggle to take it off). Villians, Antagonists, Major Inner Struggles--this movie had AT least a half dozen.
Under this director none of them would have been strong enough to carry a whole movie, yet the sheer number of them were almost enough to ruin the movie itself. Somehow, as I keep saying, it remained entertaining.
As with most people I thought there was far too much plot to fit into the one movie. The pacing was rushed - especially in the first half. Felt exactly like Harry Potter Goblet of Fire in that regard.
On the way home my partner and I were discussing the various strengths and weaknesses and the idea came up that if they really wanted to shake things up:
Spider-Man 4 - written and directed by Quentin Tarantino
Now that would kick butt!
Okay, there's one curious thing about Spider-Man 3 that seems to have gone under everyone's radar.
In practically every superhero movie, everything builds up to the obvious climax of The Big Battle. Once Doctor Doom is melted/frozen into a statue, everything is saved. Once the Incredibles stop the Omnidroid, with a followup foiling of Syndrome kidnapping Jack-Jack, it's a happy ending.
In this film, the big battle occurs but it doesn't resolve much. Stopping Venom is good, but Sandman - potentially the biggest threat - just walks away, and Harry's death doesn't make the world safer. In fact, the final dance with Mary Jane seems pretty uncertain, as befits Peter Parker's normal life. They didn't even have the "pretend triumph" of the other films, with Spidey swinging through Manhattan.
Maybe this is because this is the end of the trilogy, and there's a good chance that the director and star will be different for the following Spidey films, they wanted a kind of downbeat coda, a farewell to the fan support and all that freaking money.
By the way, I liked the ending with Sandman. As a character from a film noir Blind Alley story, someone abused by God from birth and doomed to a terrible end, it was appropriate that Spidey stopped beating on him and let him try to find his way to redemption. (One question: since I don't follow the Marvel Universe fanatically, is Sandman still trying to help out heroes or has he gone back to lame villainy and being a punching bag for villains?)
Yes Czar, that's what I meant.
"Under this director none of them would have been strong enough to carry a whole movie, yet the sheer number of them were almost enough to ruin the movie itself."
The problem was that there were too many story arcs and most of them didn't get developed sufficiently and in a way where they all could fit together nicely. It felt very patchy.
"I though Sandman was great, as well. Chuch uncannily looked the part, and the "re-birth" scene was gorgeous. The problem is that his entire story is unnecessary."
I'm not well versed in Spiderman villains. It seemed to me that if they trimmed the charcter development of Sandman and left him as just a super villain they would have lost what made his part of the movie good. Most of the other story arcs suffered because they were underdeveloped, or so it seemed to me.
"What did everyone think of the Harry arc, overall? Other than the amnesia and butler, it was the strongest story in the movie."
I liked James Franco's performance very much. With the exception of Kirsten Dunst, most of the actors did a very good job. The lesson for the kinds, don't do drugs.
But I didn't like Harry's arc. It felt rushed to me.
At he end of the first movie he found out that his father had a secret identity and developed a hatred for Spiderman.
In the second movie he played a peripheral role, found out that Spiderman is Peter but didn't do anything. And in the third movie he very quickly:
gained superpowers
attacked Peter and lost
lost his memory
became friendly with Peter
made moves on MJ
regained his memory
came up with a devious plan that seemed more in place in a soap opera than a superhero movie
fought Peter again and gained a bad guy's scarred face
redeamed himself
died to redeem his/his father's/Peter's sins.
And all this he did while sharing this movie with several other story arcs + two or three stupid and unnecessary scenes.
I personaly feel this character was cheated out of decent development, especially considering all the buildup in the previos two movies.
In the two previous movies they were able to develop the villains well. You'd think it would be easy with Harry, since he was already established. But it still felt rushed and unfocused to me.
I did enjoy the movie. But it will be on my list of movies that were supposed to be good but somehow didn't work exactly right despite everybody's good intentions.
"Nor are the black suit and Venom two separate villains. They're essentially one and the same."
I don't think so. They are from the same substance, but the story of the suit affecting Peter and the story of the suit affecting Brock are two distinct stories, which was why it would have probably been better to have seperate movies for each. Although, I must admit I was looking forward to seeing Venom in this movie. But I could have waited, and the way he was handled in this movie made him very bland. He just popped up at the last part of the movie, kidnapped MJ and died. He had no time to be established as a menacing character too.
Regarding the budget, my wife heard somewhere that basically there are only a few special effect houses, and they get logjammed for the summer releases. Thus, more in demand means more money. So the effects may be less expensive for, say, ILM, but actually raise for the studio buying them. That actually makes some sense.
re: "Micha: In this movie Spiderman had to deal with 6 villains: Sandman, Harry Osborne, Venom, the Black Suit, himself, and Mary Jane. That's too much.
Luigi Novi: That's stretching things. Dealing with his own inner demons is not a "villain". Nor is MJ. (How exactly is MJ a "villain"?) Nor are the black suit and Venom two separate villains. They're essentially one and the same."
How about antagonist? I'd definitely count Sandman, Harry, Venom/suit, Brock (he was a villain before he was Venom). Inner demons are definitely antagonists. In fact, in this movie, it is the primary antagonist. I wouldn't count MJ, though. he wasn't fighting against her in any real sense.
I haven't actually seen the movie yet, but I figure (with no once to SM3 intended) I figure, C'mom, it's an action/adventure film and I've seen alot of the best bits in the adds and I'm fairly certain Spidey is going to win in the end. How much can you really spoil for me?
That being said, I have two questions: I saw Harry becoming the next Goblin since the end of the first film, but I would have bet money that he was going to be called "Hobgoblin". PAD, any insight as to why the movie did go with this obvious choice for a name?
My second question strays a bit from the movie but I'm going to ask anyway, Is the comicbook Sandman a villian or a goodguy these days? Time and budget restrict my comic purchases to "Fallen Angel", but I still take time to thumb through FNSM at the comicshop and it seems that in his recent apperance in this title you (PAD) left it fairly ambiguous as to his hero/villian status.
(I liked him better as a hero but I am aware that Mr. John "shake-up-the-statusquo-by-simply-resetting-everything-ten-years" Byrne* decreed he should be villian again. Now I don't know what to think.)
*To be fair, I did love his FF and Superman.
Since this movie will probably make around a billion dollars once dvd and cheeseburger sales come in, I hope that Raimi has full reign to do a final Spiderman movie that will tie it all up, without any outside pressure to put in any characters the fans want. The fans will go see it anyway. Just tell a good story. Would it kill anyone to actually go to some comic book writer or talent...maybe the sort of fellow who could be trusted to write the paperback adaptation, for example...and solicit some ideas? Why is Frank Miller the only one that seems to get the respect deserved?
I am a little curious about the girl across the hallway. Someone at Aintitcool news (I think it was Harry Knowles) said that she's the girl that Peter Parker is clearly meant to go after, not some supermodel or Broadway star. It's an interesting point. In the comics, at least in PAD's comics, Peter and Mary Jane seem right for each other. In the movies, not so much. But I suspect that the studio or Marvel or whoever is in charge of these things would be unwilling to mess with the Peter/Mary Jane situation (then again, they made Lois Lane a single mother so what the hell.)
In fact, the final dance with Mary Jane seems pretty uncertain, as befits Peter Parker's normal life. They didn't even have the "pretend triumph" of the other films, with Spidey swinging through Manhattan.
Maybe this is because this is the end of the trilogy, and there's a good chance that the director and star will be different for the following Spidey films, they wanted a kind of downbeat coda, a farewell to the fan support and all that freaking money.
Maybe this is because the protagonist went to his ex-girlfriend's workplace for the purpose of humiliating her, then blamed her for his actions, then hit her, and the appropriate response to Peter showing up out of the blue was for Mary Jane to club him with a stick until he got the message she's taking control of the time she spends with him.
But because the franchise-name is "Spider-Man" they felt they had to give the movie a happy ending -- for Peter Parker.
Spiderman - Coming of Age story. Very classic, and very personable.
Spiderman 2 - Continuing story themes from the first movie but a hell of a lot more fun and free.
Spiderman 3 - Ditch the theme and make everything coincidence and happenstance.
The story seemed to be the weakest part of this trilogy. Effects were prime, the costuming was great (NO Powerrangers Green Goblin Mask) and overall the production crew really knows their stuff.
Its just unfortunate that none of the written elements felt securely connected.
– A meteorite with the alien symbiote just happens to land near Peter Parker AKA Spiderman.
– The villain that actually killed Peter's uncle just happens to fall into an experiment that gives him superpowers.
– Gwen Stacy, a classmate of Peter's, just happens to be involved in a spectacular accident on a high rise.
– Peter's popularity as Spiderman overwhelms him just as Mary Jane's carreer goes to pot.
– Peter ditches the suit in a place where his photographer rival just happens to be below praying for a means to Parker's destruction....(Although this could have been the writer's way of saying that God too was out to take down Spiderman)
– Just when Peter and Harry are at odds amnesia takes away the memories that made Harry blame and hunt Spiderman.
– Peter and Gwen just happen to go to the Jazz club where Mary Jane was working.
– I'm sure I can find more when I see the movie again.
At what point in time does my suspension of disbelief break with all these coincedences?
To be fair, I really liked the movie...not nearly as much as the first too. The ending epic battle was phenomenal to watch and if Spidey movies go on I look forward to seeing him team up with other superheroes *Cough*Scarlet Spider* COUGH! I just hope they remember that the core characters need to be grounded and need to find their own way through the plots instead of having the plots hit them dead on in the face making it feel more scripted.
The Sandman re-birth scene is a thing of CGI-beauty.
The movies seem to downplay Peter's strength to boost his agility and toughness. He gets some serious poundings from villains that tears up his costume, but Peter himself never gets a bruise or a split lip.
Regarding Peter knocking Mary Jane down, it seemed to me he was shaking her off him (not knowing it was her) and she lost her balance. I don't think he was giving her a taste of the back of his hand or anything like that.
If this is Sam Raimi's last Spider-Man movie, I say next time they should get Joss Whedon as the screenwriter and Alex Proyas (The Crow, I Robot) as the director.
WHile Peter is still responsible - it's more indirect. It lessens one of his most important character traits and that's his GUILT over letting the thief go that later murders his uncle. . . not letting the thief go that later runs by another man, who is then startled and who then accidentally shoots his uncle.They sacrificed a pillar trait of the main character to advance a subplot of a one movie villain?
Wrong!
You think that's bad - have you ever read Johnathon Vachss' Batman story, where he revealed
SPOILER BELOW
P
O
I
L
E
R
B
E
L
O
W
that the death of Batman's parents was actually a hit paid for by a secret international organisation of pederasts because Martha Wayne, an "investigative sociologist" (whatever the hell that is) was about to blow their cover?
"In the comics, at least in PAD's comics, Peter and Mary Jane seem right for each other. In the movies, not so much."
I don't know if this was because of the way the scrit was written, because of Kirsten Dunst, or just a lack of chemistry between her and Toby McGuire. Maybe all of above?
"Spiderman 3 - Ditch the theme and make everything coincidence and happenstance."
"I just hope they remember that the core characters need to be grounded and need to find their own way through the plots instead of having the plots hit them dead on in the face making it feel more scripted."
That's a good way to describe one of the problems with this movie. Although I didn't have as much of a problem with the issues you mention on your list:
"– A meteorite with the alien symbiote just happens to land near Peter Parker AKA Spiderman.
– The villain that actually killed Peter's uncle just happens to fall into an experiment that gives him superpowers".
– Gwen Stacy, a classmate of Peter's, just happens to be involved in a spectacular accident on a high rise."
I think comics naturally work this way. It is a world of coincidences -- 6 degrees of seperation and al that. In the previous movies the two villains were also closely associated with Peter Parker's life. But in this movie it didn't flow right. Noel's idea above, to combine the arrival of the symbiote with the role of John Jameson (established in the previous movie) as an astronaut, seems to offer a better alternative both for the arrival of the symbiote and for a big disaster scene for Spiderman to showcase his abilities. For Sandman, it was good to connect him to the murder of Ben Parker. But I think it would have been better if he was an accomplice of the original murderer/thief.
"– Peter's popularity as Spiderman overwhelms him just as Mary Jane's carreer goes to pot."
The parallel is a necessary part of the plot. I'm not sure it was executed very well, but I don't think it was a bad idea to add this bump to Peter and MJ's relationship. In that part Peter was acting badly prior to wearing the black suit.
"– Peter ditches the suit in a place where his photographer rival just happens to be below praying for a means to Parker's destruction....(Although this could have been the writer's way of saying that God too was out to take down Spiderman)"
It would have been more reasonable if Brock was described as actually stalking Spiderman.
"– Just when Peter and Harry are at odds amnesia takes away the memories that made Harry blame and hunt Spiderman."
OK, no excuses here. That was bad. I think they did it to remind everybody that Harry is a nice guy. It probably would have been better to make him conflicted.
"– Peter and Gwen just happen to go to the Jazz club where Mary Jane was working."
I think Peter went their deliberatly to humiliate MJ. It was a bad scene, but it made sense. Perhaps if they gave up the dance scene and Peter's evil hairdo it would have worked better.
I very much like the Lizard/Kraven idea for the next movie. It would finally give us some Connors action, and it could lead into a Sinister Six movie.
The "John Jameson and the symbiote" angle was used in the 90's cartoon. While it would have been nice to see John again (if only because JJJ would have had more of a role) I am happy that they didn't go that route. If they had, they would likely have had an MJ/John plotline (with tons of AWKWARD!)
I didn't like the Butler Ex Machina at all. I'm surprised that it, and the retcon, made it into the movie.
Raimi wanted Sandman, and the studio wanted Venom? That explanation makes sense to me, both in terms of the movie as it played out and in fan terms. Who are the three biggest Spider-Man villains? The Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Venom. Which villains did these movies feature? The Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Venom.
I want to see a Sinister Six movie at some point. Sir Ben Kingsley as the Vulture! Bruce Campbell as Mysterio! Yeah!
the death of Batman's parents was actually a hit paid for by a secret international organisation of pederasts because Martha Wayne, an "investigative sociologist" (whatever the hell that is) was about to blow their cover?
It was Andrew Vachss, actually, in Batman: The Ultimate Evil. It was quite a retcon to be sure, but it doesn't really kick the stilts out from under his origin the way the whole Flint Marko thing does in SM3.
-Rex Hondo-
Ratsmith: Peter and Gwen just happen to go to the Jazz club where Mary Jane was working.
Luigi Novi: The movie made it clear that Peter went there deliberately to rub MJ's nose in shit.
I'm really surprised that more people aren't upset about the retcon and having Sandman be the killer. Not b/c it's not comics faithful, but because it undermines the Peter Parker character. Maybe I AM just too picky, LOL!
I've heard people compare this to the debacle that was Batman & Robin. First off, it's not that bad and it doesn't spoof the franchise by being campy.
But I thought of a way it's actually WORSE than Batman & Robin. At least with B & R, it was a horrible movie, but it only ruined THAT movie. Yes, it killed the franchise for a while, but it didn't ruin whatever was good about Batman or Batman Returns.
But SPidey 3? Originally, you have a teaser that Sandman is the actual killer and everyone groans and then has faith in Raimi that, "No, they'll be a twist." And yet there wasn't.
They've gone and made Uncle Ben's death an ACCIDENT caused by someone OTHER than the thief Peter let go. This now starts to lessen the emotional impact of the prior films!
Example:
SPidey 1: WHen you see Peter smugly let that thief go, you originally feel a lump in your throat knowing he will go on to murder Ben. Now? . . .not true.
Spidey 2: Peter crying telling aunt may that he failed to stop a thief that went on to kill Uncle Ben . . .Now? Not true!
SPidey 3 was filled with loads of coincidences - yes! It didn't develop Sandman that much and didn't give Venom much screen time - yes! It had the Butler machina - yes! But all that would've been forgiveable with the awesome Harry arc and Peter's journey. TO me the most unforgiveable is robbing Peter of the guilt of his uncle's death.
How many times do we in the comics see him think of Uncle Ben? How many times does Mary Jane refer to that driving force?
They've seriously undermined it in the movies. He's still responsible but in a real indirect way. IN fact, I thought in PAD'S novelization he would fix this shortcoming and have Peter realize that he's still responsible - but NO! In PAD'S novelization it's even LESS Peter's fault.
In the movie it looks like Carradine (the thief) startles Sandman and cause him to shoot. IN the novelization Sandman just says he doesn't know what happened - it was an accident.
That tells me this script was just poor when it came to keeping Peter's roots well defined. Sure, someone can say the viewer/reader should make the connection it's still Peter's fault - but I don't agree. This is such a pillar of Peter's motivations that it shouldn't be subtle and it should always be a more direct connection than the mere coincidence.
It seems like coincidences are what really ruined this film.
That said - I walked out on a high, but once you think about what they've done to Peter's character with this retcon yo wonder what the hell Avi Arad was thinking!
I remember Joe Q being asked about the retcon b4 we know it would be true and just based on the trailers. He said "In Raimi we trust."
I wonder if he still believes that. I too trusted it would be clever misdirection adn all would be fine at the end.
Didn't happen. ANd you cannot blame this on Venom being forced on Raimi. He wanted to tell a Sandman story and this seems to always have been the path he was going on. If so, Raimi actually DOESN'T get Peter Parker at all.
I think the "Sandman killing Uncle Ben" plot would have worked better if the evidence had been planted by Harry to send Spidey on a wild goose chase while he worked on his own revenge. These movies always try to make a personal connection between heroes and villains, and I just don't think it always works... certainly not for three movies (and five villains) in a row.
Reading all these comments, I'm not sure wether it is a bad movie, or simply you think that it could have been better?
I liked the movie, not as much as Spidey 2, but a very good movie.
"I didn't like the Butler Ex Machina at all. I'm surprised that it, and the retcon, made it into the movie."
Honestly? When I adapted that scene, it was number one on my list of scenes that I was convinced would never make the final cut. For the ending to work, Harry didn't need to know the truth of what happened to his father; he just needed to have faith in his friends. My jaw dropped when I went to the screening and that scene was there.
PAD
Posted by Rex Hondo
It was Andrew Vachss, actually, in Batman: The Ultimate Evil.
I knew "Jonothan" sounded wrong but didn't have reference handy.
It was quite a retcon to be sure, but it doesn't really kick the stilts out from under his origin the way the whole Flint Marko thing does in SM3.
Actually, i think it's worse, because part of the whole point of the Batman origin as originally written is the randomness - that anyone at all could have walked down that alley.
Of course, as soon as i saw the trailer with the clip that announced that it wasn't the guy Pete thought it was that killed Uncle Ben, that was two strikes against the film already before i saw it. (The mere presence of Venom was the first.)
Add me to the "prefer no butler" scene. Personally, once he said no and Peter had left, I would have had Harry looking at a photograph of him, Peter, and Mary Jane with smiles all around. As the camera moves away from Harry, Franco would convey a begrudging desire to help his friends.
Actually, i think it's worse, because part of the whole point of the Batman origin as originally written is the randomness - that anyone at all could have walked down that alley.
Well, if The Ultimate Evil is considered to be canonical, which I'm really not sure of, then it merely replaces one form of tragedy (the senseless randomness of it) with another (His mother was a hero in her own right and targeted for it). If anything, I believe (it's been a while since I've read it) it deepened Batman's resolve in his crusade against crime that his parents were not just a victim of a random crime, but were killed to protect the worst of the worst from being brought to justice.
The whole Sandman thing was just poorly contrived.
Of course, your mileage may vary... *shrug*
-Rex Hondo-
Maybe Spider-Man 3 can be treated like Star Trek V, and the fans can just pretend it didn't happen....
"For the ending to work, Harry didn't need to know the truth of what happened to his father; he just needed to have faith in his friends."
Thi seems to have been a more subtle solution. But this mvie wasn't very strong on the subtlety front with the exception of Sandman.
"Reading all these comments, I'm not sure wether it is a bad movie, or simply you think that it could have been better?"
I think it's cloer to 'it could have been better.' It wasn't bad, but it was disappointing. And coming out of a movie feeling a sense of disappointment is not a good thing. Superman could have been better too, but I didn't feel as disappointed. Lord of the Rings could have been better, but was still excellent. X3 was a little disappointing, but not that much (for me at least).
"I didn't like the Butler Ex Machina at all. I'm surprised that it, and the retcon, made it into the movie."
Honestly? When I adapted that scene, it was number one on my list of scenes that I was convinced would never make the final cut. For the ending to work, Harry didn't need to know the truth of what happened to his father; he just needed to have faith in his friends. My jaw dropped when I went to the screening and that scene was there.
PAD"
PAD:
You're dead right and Harry having faith in his friends would've been better for his character than having it spelled out . . .and besides - was it really "spelled out?" The fact he died impaled on his glider doesn't really absolve Peter. What absolves Peter is: "Harry, you're father went insane from taking the formula and tried to KILL me and MJ. Did you not see him drop a cable car full of kids and MJ off a bridge? Not sane!" Or did the media not catch that?
To quote our favorite scribe, "But, I digress"
This is for PAD:
What do YOU think Sandman being the real killer does to Spidey's origin, character and motivation? What did you think when you first saw this in the script?
I think your opinion would be interesting because of your connection to comics and your knack for character development and love for continuity.
Although continuity and comics canon is the least of the sins here. I can overlook continuity - the problem here is Uncle Ben's death being an accident tramples over motivation and character for the main protagonist, no?
Think of Batman. Batman is removed from the murder of his parents. Batman is about the randomness of crime as someone pointed out and his path is that of vengeance as well as making sure others don't have to go through what he did. It's a vigilant/crusader slant.
Spidey has really NEVER been that. He realizes that his inaction CAUSED the death of a loved one. It's MUCH more personal. There's tragedy - but there's guilt. His guilt moves him forward. His belief is that power is a responsibility and his Uncle's death is a reminder of what happens when you don't use your gifts. Now that it's an accidental death from essentially a good man (and Sandy was portrayed as a god man) it really takes away the power/responsibility matra as well.
A forgiveable retcon would simply stretch this to connect Sandy to Spidey's origin but NOT replace the key motivations. Now Uncle Ben's death is an example of Marko's bad luck, being at the wrong place at the wrong time and rounding out his all around schlub-ness.
They could've simply done this:
Carradine runs out and yells to get a car. Marko runs ahead and pulls Ben out of the car. He tells him to "Beat it old man and you won't get hurt.
Ben begins to tell him he has a choice and then Carradine runs by and says, "Come on - we gotta move!" andthen BAM! Carradine callously pulls the trigger showing he's the real bad seed.
Uncle Ben is shot and is dying in Marko's arms and Marko stays with the bleeding Uncle Ben and is aghast at what just happened.
Witnesses see him standing over a bleeding Ben while holding a gun.
Sandman is still a good guy - he's a wanted murderer over Ben's death. As an aside, there could be forensics issues with the gun - but I'd forgive this sin.
Anyhow, I'd like to know what PAD thinks of all of this. I think it's really the movie's biggest sin. It's not a slight misstep, but a fatal blow to what should've been untouched canon.
I suggest the Enforcers because you could do the whole "Who's the Big Man?" story. Is it Harry? Is it JJJ? Neither, of course, it's Brock!
The Big Man was Fredrick Foswell in the comics, which would make Ted Raimi the bad guy in a film version of the story, wouldn't it?
Given that he's appeared in every Spider-Man film, the revelation would mean something, and it would make as much sense as BM being Brock.
"I think it's really the movie's biggest sin. It's not a slight misstep, but a fatal blow to what should've been untouched canon."
The retcon was a bad thing, but it didn't ruin this movie as much as harming Spiderman's overall character and continuity. The other mistakes were more harmful to this movie in my opinion.
The retcon you propose Joe is pretty much what I've been saying. Had they made the conscientious Sandman an accomplice o the murderer this would have given enough motivation for Sandman to feel guilty and for Spiderman to feel great anger toward him without altering the original story. I don't know if it is even necessary to assume that Marko was mistakenly accused for the murder, since being an accomplice is bad enough both from his and from Peter's point of view, and would not have required any great revelations about the fact of the case, only the important revelation that Marko is a man with conscience who feels guilt.
Yes, Micha - I agree.
Sandman is responsible for Ben's death b/c he made a choice - HE pulled Uncle Ben out of the car . . .and then that choice goes wrong.
It can show that if you make bad choices, you may not have time to make them right.
Peter can still feel hatred toward's Sandman b/c had he not pulled Uncle Ben out of the car he might've never died - and then Peter can forgive playing into the theme of the movie.
But none of the above would ever lessen Peter's role. The man he let go PULLS THE TRIGGER!
What irks me is that these scripts go through so many revisions with so many writers, how in the world did they miss this?
I also agree that there are bigger problems that hurt THIS movie - but the retcon is the worst b/c it hurts the whole trilogy!
If they took some version of our rewriter on Uncle Ben's death, I could accept the movie and simply say, "They tried to fit too much in and skimped on some plot points - but it was a decent experience."
But now ANY Spidey movie that comes out, you still have Peter's role in his uncle's death watered down. That's Spidey blasphemy : (
Liek someone else said: do we pretend it didn't happen? We could, but the movie makers won't.
We'll never hear Peter say:
"Because I failed to stop a thief when I had the chance, my uncle died." It's not really true anymore.
After ruminating further, I believe it is the best choice to forget Spidey 3 existed. You may ask the benefits of such a theory, and I would have to say they are many fold. First, if there was no Venom movie, than Topher could be cast as Spider-Man for the next trilogy. Second, of course, Spidey's origin is in tact. Third, Gwen could become Peter's new love (I guess that could go either way). Four) Sandman could be brought back with the same origin (and sick little girl), just without ever meeting Uncle Ben. Five, a second chance for Harry's Goblin to be more menacing and cause more Havoc before recanting/amnesia. Six, the first two movies made this an unbelievable franchise, so it would be our duty to put the right foot forward (a foot without Spidey 3 sticking to it's bottom) to let the franchise thrive again (and not just for initial box office, but for reviewability)
Rob
One other thing, I don't think anyone has brought up before now, wouldn't JJJ hate Peter for being with the girl who stood up his son at the alter? I would think he wouldn't even be buying any photo's from him at this point....
The wild thing is I went in seeing this with two premises:
1. They better NOT have Sandy be the real killer as no matter how you write it, Spdiey's motivations are watered down
and
2. MJ cannot be kidnapped. Seriously, won't this be laughable to casual fans that EVERY movie has the SAME damsel in distress.
I was LOVING the beginning of this movie - in fact, loved EVERYTHING until MJ is kidnapped. There I just groaned a bit willing to forgive.
Then Sandman did his little3 bit and I groaned a bit more . . .but still walked out on a high. I had spidey pajamas and would crawl around the floor pretending it was a building when I was a kid ( . . okay . . .mayeb until I was 16 . . .nevermind!) so I was still on a spidey high . . .but in hindsight . . .wow - what a mess!
"Do we pretend it didn't happen?"
I'm going to pretend it happened the way I see it in my mind.
Since they remade King Kong, Planet of the Apes and many other movies, maybe on day in the future somebody will remake Spiderman 3? I doubt it, but it's nice to imagine anyway. Future producers might ignore it's effects on the continuity, like they did with the recent Batman and Superman. So you could take your grandchildren to see it and be happy. I'm still hoping that maybe someday some young director not yet born will also remake the second Star Wars Trilogy.
I agree . . . the spidey franchise could be "ultimized" in ten years.
On the suject of retcons . . . the word itself seems to have a negative connotation, but it doesn't have to be that way. I imagine it's b/c so many of them are poorly done. I'm reminded of PAD'S retcon in Hulk, which was a thing of beauty.
If I'm remembering correctly PAD was the first one to hint at Bruce being abused. This was perfect! It does nothing but enhance Bruce's origin. Through Bruce's selfless act of saving Jones he became the Hulk - but PAD'S retcon explained where the anger came from.
It's BRILLIANT! This is how a retcon can be done.
Old Sandy could've been retconned to Uncle Ben's death in a peripheral manner WITHOUT diminishing Peter's role. I would love to see how PAD would've handled this.
If the Powers That Be said:
"Look, we need to connect Sandman to Uncle Ben's death and have Peter forgive him - make it work!"
What would a PAD or a Brubaker or a Bendis do? I mention these particular writers b/c I think they are all great writers who have handled retcons or reboots of classic character's origins.
>I believe (it's been a while since I've read it) it deepened Batman's resolve in his crusade against crime
More like it helped change the DIRECTION of that crusade. Where he'd once concentrated on regular street hoods and unsane super villains such as Joker and Two-Face, he now - according to the book - spent more time against child abusers. Which isn't surprising since that's been author Vachss' crusade for years, too.
And, yes. I didn't mention anything earlier, but the flag thing in SM3 had me groaning, too. And not in a good way.
I will start out by saying that I enjoyed myself. I'll make no pretense about that at all.
The thing that probably bugs me the most is MJ getting demoted to singing-waitress. What? But she was so big in the last movie... what he hell happened there? They treat her like this is her first big production, when in SM2 was more of a larger debut. Not to mention the billboards and such in SM2. One bad openning night wouldn't shunt her to obscurity at that point.
I totally hate the "OMG, SPACE ROCK!" insert as to the origin of Venom. I'm not all that familiar with the SM-universe, but that definitely felt like a lame explaination for things. Over used for sure. "Well, we don't have time to even give the cartoon's explaination so... it's from space." I feel that in SM3 as in X-3 major plot points (Pheonix anyone?) were barely explained at all leaving the fandom unhappy and the people unfamiliar with it at a loss.
Poor Penny, she was so cute and sad, a major plot point in the development of Sandman, but APPARENTLY not important enough to close up that storyline.
Loved the Bruce Campbell cameo. Way too much. I know it gives a little "WTF? Why does this guy show up everywhere?" but come on, it's a superhero movie. You have to do something that's soley for the fans. If it took itself completely seriously and was totally canon then it would suck immensely.
I can't help but keeping comparing this movie with X-3, as both are pretty much trilogy ends. And in that light, it shines so much more brilliantly. Both had too much plot for one film, but SM3 did a much better job with it. Kinda really brings light as to an obvious struggle over the story and the script. I'll be at the theatre for SM4, 5 and 6, probably openning night, if only for that I have intense hope about my areas of nerdiness, why I was there for "Star Wars III" openning night as well.
And I'll reiterate: I liked it. I'll watch it again. Even though the side of the head that Harry's injured/bandaged in the beginning changes at least twice.
3rd time is not the charm. They've made Peter in a whiny cry baby. Every ten seconds he takes of his mask and wails. It's embarrassing. At some point during the showing I was at people burst out laughing at what were supposed to be the tragic moments because it was just too much to believe.
They really need to bring Alfred Gough, Miles Millar, and Michael Chabon back from the second movie to write this one. Was JMS busy? Why didn't they just ask you (PD) to write the screenplay and the just roll right in the novelization. Arggg! When will people realize you need decent writers AND special effects. Or if not you, why not Kring who seems to be doing well with this little know show "Heroes".
The first movie was like the first time you had sex. We were so desperate for a Spiderman movie we didn't care what we got and we could ignore just how inappropriate Toby McGuire was for the part (It helped that nearly everyone else was perfect - With Aunt May being another exception. She's also been miscast). Even Kirsten Dunst, who is be quite a good actress, can't hide her contempt of Toby long enough to make her scenes with him work. When she's sharing dialog with another actor the contrast in performance is startling; acting with McGuire must be like acting with pinnochio. There's zero chemistry and it kills every scene she's in with him. I can't believe Rami wasn't seeing this.
Of course the movie isn't helped by a plot with little focus.
Rami who I normally love seemed to have joined the Tim Burton school of superhero movie making in which the first commandment is: "If the actor has to emote he must take this mask off". This in spite of the fact that half the audience is showing up specifically to see the man in the mask and in light of "V for Vendetta" proving that a decent actor never needs to show his face to make the audience invest in the emotional journey of the hero.
The best thing they could do is allow Toby and his nearly continually trembling chin to get back on Sea Biscuit with a gross of Kleenix in the saddlebags and cry his way off into the sunset.
I really hope they do an Ultimate-Spiderman with a 16yr old kid or get an actor who doesn't play an adult Parker (without losing the playful side as Spiderman) like an exposed nerve ending.
I'm sure Peter's novelization does it's best to dress up this mess.
>>Oh, totally unrelated question - is there any
>>relationship between Flint Marko and Cain Marko?"
>
>None whatsoever. "Flint Marko" is an alias; his
>real name is William Baker. The origin of his
>pseudonym is revealed in the upcoming FNSM annual,
Then one more step up: which of them (Cain or "Flint") is tied to "Man Mountain Marko"?
And jeez, how did Roy Thomas manage to not tie the three together in all his time at Marvel? He sure did that enough at DC. (Although I don't recall if he ever tied the Golden Age Robotman in to Nightwing.)
"(Although I don't recall if he ever tied the Golden Age Robotman in to Nightwing.)"
He did.
To be more specific, he tied that Robotman to the Earth-2 Robin.
I detest it when movies rewrite significant portions of continuity simply to make villains more significant.
Spoilers, of course.
If the Sandman was the guy who killed Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, but it was only an accident, then everything that drove Parker to be a super-hero is null and void.
Let's sum up. Once upon a time, Spider-Man didn't help out, and it cost him the life of his surrogate father. Because he understands that responsibility, he becomes a super-hero. Except now, Uncle Ben wasn't killed by the guy he let pass. Ben would have been murdered, no matter what Parker did to the burglar.
With great power comes the inability to save the ones you love. Nice message.
Joe, while Peter did work with the idea of Bruce Banner being abused in his earlier life, it was actually Bill Mantlo who wrote the story that brought a lot of those details to light. There is a retelling of his origin in The Incredible Hulk #312 from October 1985 that explains why his father hated him so much and what other abuse Bruce had to endure before the Gamma Bomb explosion.
I only mention this because Peter has said a number of times in the past that Bill Mantlo's stories were used to help form his take on the Hulk.
More like it helped change the DIRECTION of that crusade. Where he'd once concentrated on regular street hoods and unsane super villains such as Joker and Two-Face, he now - according to the book - spent more time against child abusers. Which isn't surprising since that's been author Vachss' crusade for years, too.
Well, for the duration of the book at least. He certainly hasn't lightened up on the regular thugs and metas of Gotham in the last decade or so. It's not all that different from when Ra's al Ghul starts up some new master plan, or Intergang decides to set up shop in his city. That becomes his new focus until they're defeated.
The Sandman retcon in the movie is much more along the lines of making the Joker the Waynes' murderer in the first Batman movie. It forces a personal connection instead of allowing their personal animosity to develop naturally, and it takes away one of Batman's primary torments, never being able to bring his parent's killer to justice.
Of course, much like the Batman retcon, the Sandman retcon is only one problem amongst many.
-Rex Hondo-
someone up top somewhere here mentioned that the only people who are doing most of the bitchin' and moanin' are the hardcore fanboys. The 'civilian' (regular mainstream) audience seem to like the film.
The problem with this theory is that Hollywood needs to be nice to the fanboys. Its the FANBOYS who go back to the theaters fifteen times day after day watching the film that catapult it into the treasured top ten spots of all time.
If you dont take care of the fanboys you really risk not having a blockbuster film.
Just my own opinion.
Well, there are fanboys and there are fanboys...
On the one hand, you've got the guys who will throw a shit-fit over every little divergence from comic canon. Organic webshooters? Blasphemy! Green Goblin not in a rubber mask? Unforgiveable! Eddie Brock not a wall of muscle? A sign of the End-Times!
On the other hand, you've got the guys who were so emotionally invested in the movie even before it came out that they seem to be psychologically incapable of seeing it as anything but every bit as wonderful as they convinced themselves it would be. Almost violently so in some cases.
Fortunately, most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the folks on the fringes tend to be the most vocal.
-Rex Hondo-
-Maybe I've just become a big softie in the last couple of years, but I wanted some sort of happy ending for Penny Marko, or at least something better than a big fat dangling plot thread.
I'm pissed off that Spidey finally has a ton of public support, was given the Key to the city, and is a beloved heroic figure, but he can't think "Hey, I bet I could ask people to raise money for Sandman's daughter." Somehow Eddie Brock knew about Marko's daughter, so Spidey ought to as well. It just made Peter seem like he was STILL insensitive to other people's problems to not try to help the guy he just forgave.
"someone up top somewhere here mentioned that the only people who are doing most of the bitchin' and moanin' are the hardcore fanboys. The 'civilian' (regular mainstream) audience seem to like the film."
I don't think so. The reviews of this movie I read -- even from one who knows nothing of spiderman's story -- contain similar complaints, more or less, to what people have been saying here. Look at rotten tomatoes. Even the reviewers that didn't hate it are quite critical.
also, rex is right. By now the movies have there own group of fans who are not necessarily comic book readers. For them the movie was a disappointment in relation to the previous two.
I for one really like the organic webshooters...
It really added so much to the character (him being more Spider then Man)
Hopefully (before they ruin the whole franchise) they can urge James Cameron back so he can show us what he can bring to the character. Of course we'll have to wait until after he finishes Avatar.
After all- the organic web shooter thing was HIS idea (from what I read long ago when Cameron was attached and the whole franchise was stuck in legalities(before Spider-Man I))
I don't know that I would want Cameron involved. My recollection is that the early versions had Electro as the main villain in a Donald Trump evil businessman role. Peter actually kills someone at one point. It was a mess from what I recall.
I'm not sure on the webshooters though. I know for sure that Raimi stated that he wanted to relate to Peter Parker and someone who is a genius and could create this wacky adhesive that 3M didn't invent yet separates him from the everyman. But this doesn't mean that the organic webshooter weren't in the Cameron versions either.
It's funny because someone mentioned and I agree that it's usually the fringes that are most vocal - either loving or hating something. I find myself in the middle, but it just seems to annoy me more b/c it's freakin' SPIDER-MAN!
I have no attachment to the canon of the comics as far as:
Oh no Power Ranger Goblin!
Peter and MJ are an almost item from the start?
Organic webshooters?!
Nope - none of that bothers me.
The Sandman being the killer - you better believe it! That's not just any old change - it detracts from the lesson Peter learned and the guilt that spurs him to action. All to tie the villain to his origin? Weak!
And if anyone "got" Peter Parker it seemed to be Raimi and then this happens? I don't believe Raimi should get a pass b/c of the studio pushing Venom on him and theoretically dooming this movie's plot, pacing and writing. Nope - this little retcon would've been there anyway as it was the Sandman's story.
Had they used any of the ideas we've mentioned to keep the thief (Carradine) as the trigger man, I culd've forgiven the other missteps. Now you've taken the movie Spider-Man and pretty much changed him for all movies past and future until they reboot the franchise ala Batman Begins.
A machina Butler scene can be forgotten.
Venom's short appearance could be cured in a future movie.
Harry's weak character arc can't be cured BUT he's a supporting cast member not the main character.
The circumstances of Uncle Ben's death will carry on for all future movies and will indellibly change the face of Peter Parker's character.
Unless of course they just ignore his whole origin and motivation, but then he just becomes any other do-gooder in a costume - which misses the whole point of Spidey.
I know there's an alternate ending with Sandman's wife and kids involved in the final scene. I wonder if there was an alternate ending where Sandman NEVER pulled the trigger and it was Carradine? Probably not. For some reason the impact of this change didn't seem to concern the Powers that Be.
I saw Spider-Man 3 on Friday.
For the most part, I liked the film, but I agree with many of the criticisms in both this and the other thread.
Marko kills Uncle Ben? No. Wrong.
Marko was there, and maybe could have given Uncle Ben a fighting chance to live if he’d started basic First Aid, but ran off instead? Better. It doesn’t absolve Peter, who let the thief- the one who pulled the trigger- run past him, but it still gives Peter something for which to forgive Marko.
Re Butler Ex Machina: Very bad. It could only have worked if the butler had been there from the beginning, and had assisted Norman Osborn in his Goblining. As others have said, Harry deciding to put his feelings for MJ ahead of his hatred of Spidey and/or his working out the “Green Goblin = killer/Spider-Man = Hero/ Dad = jerk/ Peter = best friend” formula would’ve been better.
How Butler Ex Machina could have worked (dialogue written from memory, so it may be a bit off):
INT. OSBORN MANSION. NIGHT:
BUTLER
I cleaned your father’s wounds. They were caused by his glider. Your father could only have died at his own hands.
HARRY
And you know this how?
BUTLER
My former employer was a brilliant detective who fought crime by dressing as a bat.
(off HARRY’s look)
Long story. However, I picked up a few tricks of the trade when it comes to reading clues. There’s no doubt your father caused his own death.
HARRY
NOOO!!
SHOCK CUT TO:
INT. OSBORN MANSION. HARRY’S BEDROOM. NIGHT:
HARRY sits up in bed, sweating profusely.
HARRY
God, what a horrible dream! There’s no way Dad could’ve died at his own hand. No way. Just because he was the Green Goblin and he killed several people, and threatened to kill MJ, and attacked Peter’s Aunt May in the hospital, and.... hmmmn. I wonder....
There, isn’t that much better?
What? You want Harry’s change of heart to come naturally, not because of either Butler Ex Machina or dream-inspired Butler Ex Machina? Sheesh. Next you’ll be wanting a reasonable explanation for why Spidey keeps taking off his mask.
Well, here it is: The laundry detergent he uses itches.
For Spidey to remove his mask just prior to his swinging down into the crowd was very stupid. As others have said, there were a lot of cameras around that day.
These are the times when it made sense for Spidey to be without his mask: when Peter appealed to Harry for help, and when it was ripped up in the pummeling he got from Venom and Sandman. In the former case, it made sense because Harry already knew his identity; they were in private; and it was Peter making the appeal to his best friend.
I was also going to cite the scene when Harry and Peter fought in the mansion, and say that that was also a scene where Peter was trying to get through to Harry; but then I remembered he was A) wearing the symbiote costume (and being a jerk because of the symbiote’s influence) and; B) in street clothes. So, even if he had come as Spidey, it probably wouldn’t have been to appeal to the better angels of Harry’s nature.
But getting back to the Spidey celebration scene: What was up with Spidey kissing Gwen? Especially when he knew MJ was there? If the scene had taken place after Peter had begun bonding with the symbiote, it might’ve made sense. As it is, it’s just an incredibly bone-headed and insensitive move that seems to come out of nowhere. It’s not like he and MJ had just had a fight and the kiss was a childish bit of payback.
Speaking of Gwen, someone commented about MJ being taken hostage yet again. To my way of thinking, Gwen as hostage would’ve made more sense. She’s more in the public eye with regard to Spider-Man because he saved her, and they had this big public celebration of the rescue. Plus, she’s Eddie Brock’s ex girlfriend, and abducting her would let Brock/Venom get revenge against her as well (I don’t recall Sandman having any clue who Spider-Man was, and thus he didn’t have any idea whom to kidnap. Therefore, it seems logical that it was Brock’s idea. Especially since he approached Marko, not vice versa). It seems MJ was kidnapped solely to give Peter a reason to go to Harry for help. But for MJ to have been the bait, it would’ve made more sense for Harry to have abducted her. Like I said, Gwen would’ve been a more logical target for Brock/Venom.
Addressing a few specific complaints: In the other thread, someone had a critical comment about Harry’s painting a still life to show that he’s now “good”, a bit of a shorthand character sketch this person found hard to swallow. I didn’t interpret that scene the same way. If pre-amnesia, Peter/Spidey-hating Harry had shown a disdain for painting, and now he’s suddenly doing it, I could see some validity in that criticism. However, we have no idea whether Harry has always painted, even when plotting Peter’s destruction.
Luigi Novi asked which park and which bridge MJ meant when she asked Peter to meet her. This, to me, is a minor point. If she says “the bridge” when there are bridges galore, it seems clear that she’s referring to a specific bridge with which she and Peter are familiar.
Did the film try to cover too much territory? I think so. If Venom had to be in this film, I’d rather have had Peter’s struggles with the Symbiote and Eddie Brock’s inheritance of it take place in the latter half of this film, with Brock as Venom making his full-fledged appearance in the next. That way, Sam Raimi (whom I understand didn’t want to have Venom in the film) could have set the stage for a new director to do as he or she wished with the character in the next.
I also agree with those who suggested the symbiote could’ve been brought back by John Jameson and/or reach Peter by some other indirect way.
Of course, if Venom had just made a cameo in Spider-Man 3, then the final battle would’ve been different, by necessity. Perhaps it would’ve been Harry Vs. Spidey with MJ caught in the middle. At some point, Harry would’ve put aside his rage, anger and desire for revenge, and tried to set things right. In so doing, he sacrifices himself and thus redeems himself.
And I have to say that despite the Butler Ex Machina, I liked Harry’s arc overall. In some way’s PAD’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek prediction in a thread about Spider-Man 2 came to pass. He said something to the effect that maybe Harry would consider what happened to his father and not go down that same road (yeah, right). Well, Harry did go down that road, but he turned around and came back.
Not sure what role Sandman would’ve played in that final battle had it been Harry Vs. Spidey, but I feel he’d have been a reluctant participant. He only wants to help his daughter. Unless he was convinced killing Spidey was the only way to do that, he’d let Harry take care of the killing Spidey challenge while he (as someone commented re Venom’s statement that they both wanted Spidey dead) would be across town robbing banks.
Like I said, for the most part, I liked the film, but the script probably could’ve gone through at least one or two more drafts.
Rick
P.S. He may have been named Eddie Brock, Jr., but he definitely has a kinship with Col. Steve Austin. After all, if not with a bionic eye, how else could Eddie have seen and recognized Peter, who was several hundred feet above him and in the shadows of the bell?
Speaking of Spidey removing his mask, the only time it made sense in Spider-Man 2, within the context of the story was at the end, when Peter was appealing to Dr. Octavius to help him stop the city from going ka-boom.
There was no in-story reason for Spidey to remove his mask while trying to stop the runaway subway train. It's obvious it happened so A) we could see Peter's facial expressions as he strained to stop it; and B) so the passengers could comment that he's just a kid.
I'd have preferred that most of his mask had been torn away in the fight- just enough for us to have seen the strain on his face. That also would've been enough for people to see that Spidey was a kid.
If there were other scenes where Peter unmasked in that film, I've forgotten them.
Rick
> it takes away one of Batman's primary torments, never being able to bring his parent's killer to justice.
But he did. Well not bring him to justice, but indirectly caused his death.
Desperate to take care of Joe Chill once and for all, Batman gambles by removing his mask. He shows Chill who he really(?) is. Wayne is well enough known in Gotham that the crook does recognize him. Unfortunately, he wants to make a name for himself and breaks into a meeting of gang leaders, yelling that he knows who Bats is. They don't believe him - a third-rate punk - and want proof. He explains about Bats having revelead his face to drive home the point that Chill had killed his parents.
The gang leaders aren't so happy as it comes to them that Chill's the reason the Batman exists to make their lives miserable.
BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAN-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM
They fill him with enough lead that his next of kin will be arguing over the mineral rights for years. And then realize that "Oops, we just killed the only guy who could have told us who he was." But, yeah, Chill got justice ... of a sorts.
This was several years ago and I don't recall it making any difference to the Batman's life after the fact. He's still as driven as ever. I'm thinking that the silly change in SM3 will have the same non-effect as far as Peter is concerned. More's the pity.
"Next you’ll be wanting a reasonable explanation for why Spidey keeps taking off his mask."
I think there is a difference between the Peter Parker persona and the Spiderman persona. By removing the mask so often they reduced the appearances of the Spidey persona for more appearances of the Peter Parker persona, which in this movie wasn't well coneived.
The black suit Spiderman persona (+ cool special features of the suit) also didn't get sufficient screen time. It felt rushed. The black suit Peter Parker persona was handled very badly and received too much screen time which could have been used for better purposes.
"But getting back to the Spidey celebration scene: What was up with Spidey kissing Gwen? Especially when he knew MJ was there? If the scene had taken place after Peter had begun bonding with the symbiote, it might’ve made sense. As it is, it’s just an incredibly bone-headed and insensitive move that seems to come out of nowhere. It’s not like he and MJ had just had a fight and the kiss was a childish bit of payback."
It would probably have been better if Gwen would hae kissed him unexpectantly. But I personaly would have cut the whole Spidey celebration scene. It contributed little and wasted time that could have been used to further develop the characters.
"To my way of thinking, Gwen as hostage would’ve made more sense. She’s more in the public eye with regard to Spider-Man because he saved her, and they had this big public celebration of the rescue. Plus, she’s Eddie Brock’s ex girlfriend, and abducting her would let Brock/Venom get revenge against her as well (I don’t recall Sandman having any clue who Spider-Man was, and thus he didn’t have any idea whom to kidnap. Therefore, it seems logical that it was Brock’s idea. Especially since he approached Marko, not vice versa). It seems MJ was kidnapped solely to give Peter a reason to go to Harry for help. But for MJ to have been the bait, it would’ve made more sense for Harry to have abducted her. Like I said, Gwen would’ve been a more logical target for Brock/Venom."
You are right about that. It could also have worked if the evil Harry would have kidnapped Gwen because he perceived her to be Peter's new love interest or something like that. MJ could have been watching it fro outside worried, perhaps realizing she cares about Peter. I don't know.
"And I have to say that despite the Butler Ex Machina, I liked Harry’s arc overall. In some way’s PAD’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek prediction in a thread about Spider-Man 2 came to pass. He said something to the effect that maybe Harry would consider what happened to his father and not go down that same road (yeah, right). Well, Harry did go down that road, but he turned around and came back."
The whole process of Harry turning evil and redeeming himself was done too quickly and with insufficient depth. He was unable to establish himself as a true menacing villain, and his redemption felt cheesy. It might have worked if they'd cut the amnesia and taken more time to flesh out the process he was going through culminating in the realization that Peter is actually the good guy, combined with saving MJ. Peraps it would have been good if Harry would have demonstrated his shift to the good side by doing something completely selfless and saving Gwen?
Harry also suffered from an unfortunate aversion to masks.
"Not sure what role Sandman would’ve played in that final battle had it been Harry Vs. Spidey, but I feel he’d have been a reluctant participant. He only wants to help his daughter. Unless he was convinced killing Spidey was the only way to do that, he’d let Harry take care of the killing Spidey challenge while he (as someone commented re Venom’s statement that they both wanted Spidey dead) would be across town robbing banks."
Evil Harry could have promised to pay for Penny's treatment in exchange for Sandman working as his henchman. I think the problem would have been having two villains redeeming themselves in the same scene. As a potential rewrite it requires more finetuning in the ccontext of a completely re-written film.
"P.S. He may have been named Eddie Brock, Jr., but he definitely has a kinship with Col. Steve Austin. After all, if not with a bionic eye, how else could Eddie have seen and recognized Peter, who was several hundred feet above him and in the shadows of the bell?"
If Raimiwould have taken the time to flesh out Venom's character even a little, he could have shown that Venom knew things about Peter from the symbiote. One way they could have done this, while keeping Venom for next movie, could have been by having Peter get rid the black suit shortly before going to save MJ/Gwen, and then living the suit in the bell tower. Then, in the final scene, Eddie could have gone into the church, been taken over by the symbiote and said something that indicates that he knows Spiderman's identity, leaving the rest of the story for the next movie. For the next movie they could have found a director with a more dark style.
It's heartening to see so many of you are equally disturbed by the "Sandman is the real killer" issue.
I thought I was just being nitpicky - but it's clear that this truly does negatively affect the main character.
I agree with the above poster about this script needing a few more revisions, but I don't believe that ultimately it would have produced a different result in as far as the "Sandman/real killer" dillemma. This seems to have been Raimi's aim of a forgiveness theme.
I'm just shocked that when they had used writers like Chabon in the past, that this time around, when all eyes are watching and the cynics are expecting failure, that you DIDN'T run this by more competent writers.
It's not a plot issue - it's a MAJOR cornerstone of the main character. It really just took the wind out of movies 1 and 2 in my opinion. Peter Parker is no longer as directly responsible for his uncle's death.
I recall that when this was first mentioned and seen in early trailers that comic fandom as well as the main news sites brought up how this could undermine the main resolve and appeal of the character and his mission.
I think most of us believed it was clever misdirection to get you interested in the trailer. Now that it's out and it's not misdirection, where's the bakclash?
I see more people on other sites complaining about story points and screen time, but I think the bigger picture is being glossed over - except for in this forum.
For those that say Sandman needed to be the real killer for Peter to give in to the black suit is not valid. He only needed to BELIEVE he was the real killer.
Others say that Sandman had to be the real killer in order for Peter to forgive him for something.
Nope. Sandman could've chosen Ben and pulled him out of the car but NOT pull the trigger. That disgraceful act must always come from the man Peter let go. It's the only way to maximize the impact of the Power/Responsibility lesson.
I'm a Marvel guy through and through and a Spider-Man fan first and foremost and am really disappointed at this turn. Especially when everyone was saying how this is bigger than the previous two movies combined!
I thought Spidey would stay above the FX over story pitfall. Unfortunately that did not happen.
Give me a Spidey TV show - in high school - and blow Heroes and Lost out of the water. Give me the real Osbourne story - the Gwen Stacey story - etc . .. that would be cool. The movies have just "jumped the shark" if that's the phrase. They trampled over the appeal that made them popular.
Rick Keating
Luigi Novi asked which park and which bridge MJ meant when she asked Peter to meet her. This, to me, is a minor point. If she says “the bridge” when there are bridges galore, it seems clear that she’s referring to a specific bridge with which she and Peter are familiar.
That's an easy one. Peter and MJ are both big fans of the first "Highlander."
There was no in-story reason for Spidey to remove his mask while trying to stop the runaway subway train.
The mask (or at least one of the eyepieces) got covered with ash or soot or something during the fight and he yanked it off rather than take time to wipe it clean (which someone apparently did before they handed it back to him). They at least tried to give a reason for it - he didn't just yank it off.
Like most here, I'm in the "I liked it but..." category. It's unfortunate that Raimi was forced into including a villian (yes, Venom) that neither he nor I have any interest in. And Raimi and Avi Arad have both said basically that in intereviews - it's not just fan supposition. Tho in the interviews Arad "convinced" Raimi to do it.
I think everyone is glaring over something with the Sandman shooting Uncle Ben...it was never clear if the carjacker lived after Spidey pushed him out that window...so I think that not only changes his reason for being Spidey, but also makes him a killer...he has every reason to not ever be Spidey ever again....
Thanks, Moon Man . . .I needed another reason to be upset about the Spidey character assasination? LOL
Actually I think it's clear he died b/c at one point in SM3 Peter says to MJ "it was an accident - I told you that . . ."
So yes, indeed - Spidey KILLED the thief . . .who never shot his uncle in the first place.
. . . wonderful.
I'm wondering what PAD thinks of all this. This is an instance of immediate gratification over character development.
Micha said: "The whole process of Harry turning evil and redeeming himself was done too quickly and with insufficient depth."
If you're talking about Harry's actions in Spider-Man 3 by itself, I'd agree. But when I commented about Harry's arc, I meant the arc his character has gone through in all three films.
And I wouldn't call Harry evil. He wants revenge, but that's not the same thing. I suspect that if he'd killed Peter, he'd have hung up the Goblin gear and gone back to his normal life.
Unless he were to decide that criminals were a superstitious, cowardly lot....
ArcLight said: "The mask (or at least one of the eyepieces) got covered with ash or soot or something during the fight and he yanked it off rather than take time to wipe it clean (which someone apparently did before they handed it back to him). They at least tried to give a reason for it - he didn't just yank it off."
I guess that wasn't clear to me (I wonder if that fact was in the novelization). Maybe it'd have been better if there had been a POV shot of something obscuring Spidey's vision. Quick cut to him removing the mask in order to see.
Any chance you've got a TARDIS laying around and can go back and fix that bit?
Moon Man, Peter didn't push the carjacker/the burglar/Uncle Ben's real murderer out the window. He bore down on him in a menacing way, and the guy tripped over something and fell, as he backed away. The guy died because of his own carelessness. Peter in no way, shape, or form pushed him.
Rick
Rick-
I think in a court of law, it would still be considered murder. Like if a burgular, breaking into someone's home, caused the person to have a heart attack. They would be prosecuted for murder. I.e. if Spidey wasn't there threatening him, the action would never have happened....
Rob
Joe, I could be wrong, but I get a vague impression that you are a little unhappy with the retcon of Ben Parker's killer :)
The retcon was a huge mistake, but I think they are simply going to ignore it in future movies. So long as Spiderman behaves in the same conscientious way as before and refrains from saying something like: "I feel so guilty for not stopping the guy who accidently bumped with the guy who accidently shot my uncle," everything is going to be fine. And the previous movies will be fine if you refrain from retroactively applying the change to them.
The current movie is beyond repair, I'm afraid.
"Like most here, I'm in the "I liked it but..." category. It's unfortunate that Raimi was forced into including a villian (yes, Venom) that neither he nor I have any interest in. And Raimi and Avi Arad have both said basically that in intereviews - it's not just fan supposition. Tho in the interviews Arad "convinced" Raimi to do it."
I'm sorry, I don't think Raimi is off the hook. If he didn't want Venom he should have stood his ground. And if he had to include Venom he should have tried to do it in the best way possible: either as a cameo in the end leading to the next movie or as a major fully developed villain in the second half of the movie. But instead he artificially attached Venom to the movie, treated him as a second rate villain, and then discarded him. This was bad both for the people who like Venom and the ones who don't.
About the Marko/Uncle Ben angle, I look at it this way...Ben got shot because Marko was "startled" by Carradine and accidentally pulled the trigger. If Peter caught Carradine at the arena, he wouldn't have been able to startle Marko. Now you might say "well, someone else could have startled him" but that's a what if, a chance. I could easily postulate that if Peter caught Carradine, Ben might have talked Marko out of the car-jacking and he'd still be alive. Truth is, we don't know if someone else would have startled Marko if Carradine didn't show up, but we do know that if Peter did the responsible thing and caught Carradine, the events of that night would not have unfolded the way they did. If Peter caught Carradine and Uncle Ben still died, then Peter would be guilt-free, because it was out of his control. But that lingering scenario of "if I caught that guy, Uncle Ben might still be alive" is still intact, albeit in a weaker fashion. So does the retcon weaken Peter's motivation for being Spider-Man? Without a doubt. But it doesn't completely obliterate it like some people here are saying.
As far as the rest of the movie goes, I saw it twice (once at a midnight showing and the other time on IMAX) and I really liked it. Harry had a great arc, Sandman was done well (although I wish he stayed normal-sized for the final battle because his previous two fight scenes with Spider-Man were really great, I wanted more of that), and Venom was good as well...he was used exactly the way I expected him to be, so no complaints. The story was a little too ambitious for its own good (there's a lot of stuff they tried to cram in there!) but they still pulled it off, just not perfectly. The action was fantastic and all the Peter/MJ/Harry stuff was terrific. I think everyone stepped up acting wise too...and I'm sure I'll be alone on this, but I think Kirsten Dunst really turned out a great performance in this one, easily her best job of the series. There's also no doubt that these guys have another Special Effects Oscar in the bag for that Sandman scene alone.
Yeah, out of all three movies this is the one you can nitpick the most, but it also has the most going on, so I kind of expected that. Its not perfect, but definitely on par with the other two and I'll be first in line to snag the dvd when it comes out.
Ed wrote:
"So does the retcon weaken Peter's motivation for being Spider-Man? Without a doubt. But it doesn't completely obliterate it like some people here are saying"
Ed - I agree wiht your scenario. In fact that's the one I played out in my head the day I saw the movie. I'm hoping Raimi had the same thoughts too.
While it does "hurt" Peter's motivations - it doesn't obliterate them either. Just a silly thing to do. It's one of those things you just don't do like pulling on Superman's cape :)
As for whether Raimi should have stood ground and not had Venom in the movie? I don't necessarily think so. My view is, if you're going to do the movie - do it well. If you're forced to include Venom, do it well.
My guess, was that Venom would only be introduced at the end of the movie and would get away. It would leave it open for 4, 5 and 6. You could recast Tobey and Dunst but keep Topher and the other supporting cast members (JJJ definitely!)
That was my guess. I didn't think they would turn him into Venom and "kill" him so quickly.
And I think Peter with Gwen really would've amped up Brock's reasons for truly hating Peter.
I mean, he asked God to KILL Peter Parker! While none of us (hopefully) could empathize with him in this scene, we should at least feel where it comes from.
Robbing him of the job sort of suits the purpose - but what if he felt that Peter:
- stole his GIRL!
- cost him his career!
- heck - why not throw in the fact that he's in cahoots with Spider-Man as well!
But it was already 2:20 running time, so there wasn't much hope of fleshing out Brock a bit more. Too bad really b/c I thought Topher really nailed the role and had fun with it.
Some could be upset with Brock not being the Brock from the comics, but it really makes more sense for him to be the doppellganger Parker.
I saw some complaints earlier in the thread complaining about Mary Jane getting kidnapped in the end, AGAIN. I think it would've been fun if both her and Gwen were kidnapped.
Picture it, there they are, both trapped in the back of the cab.
MARY JANE: Just stay calm. I've been through this type of thing before.
GWEN: Really? So have I!
They have a nice bonding moment and then rescue themselves while everyone else is busy fighting.
"But it was already 2:20 running time, so there wasn't much hope of fleshing out Brock a bit more. Too bad really b/c I thought Topher really nailed the role and had fun with it."
I agree. Topher did a very good job as Eddie Brock and as Venom. The special effects were great too. The problem was with the script: it didn't leave time to explore the Venom character, and fit him into the story in a way that made sense. I like Venom. I think he has presence. So I felt he was wasted as a character. I would have rather seen him in the next movie instead.
"Micha said: "The whole process of Harry turning evil and redeeming himself was done too quickly and with insufficient depth.""
"If you're talking about Harry's actions in Spider-Man 3 by itself, I'd agree. But when I commented about Harry's arc, I meant the arc his character has gone through in all three films."
I felt that after laying the ground for Harry's character in the first two movies, his arc became rushed and unsatisfactory in the 3rd.
"And I wouldn't call Harry evil. He wants revenge, but that's not the same thing. I suspect that if he'd killed Peter, he'd have hung up the Goblin gear and gone back to his normal life."
Maybe I'm being narrow minded, but I expected Harry to go all the way to the dark side in this movie. I didn't like the fact that he only became vengeful, and even less the whole amnesia and the trick with Mary Jane. It seems to me that Harry was headed in the same direction of his father -- he was hallucinating and subjected himself to a substance that's supposed to make people mad, and he was obsessed. By not following through on this, I felt they took away from his character; did not complete the arc. Although James Franco's preformance was very good.
Sandman was the only leading character I felt was handled really well. Perhaps it is because Raimi cared more for him.
Desperate to take care of Joe Chill once and for all, Batman gambles by removing his mask. He shows Chill who he really(?) is. Wayne is well enough known in Gotham that the crook does recognize him. Unfortunately, he wants to make a name for himself and breaks into a meeting of gang leaders, yelling that he knows who Bats is. They don't believe him - a third-rate punk - and want proof. He explains about Bats having revelead his face to drive home the point that Chill had killed his parents.
The gang leaders aren't so happy as it comes to them that Chill's the reason the Batman exists to make their lives miserable.
BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAN-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM
They fill him with enough lead that his next of kin will be arguing over the mineral rights for years. And then realize that "Oops, we just killed the only guy who could have told us who he was." But, yeah, Chill got justice ... of a sorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Chill
Not to be a huge dork about it, but this story was published in 1948, placing it most decidedly Pre-Crisis, as well as almost six decades and two additional "reboots" out-of-date. Which is just fine by me. The fact that Batman doesn't kill is what keeps him from being just another nutbar vigilante.
-Rex Hondo-
The comments above are all largely on target I feel (apart from the one about including the Kingpin - dude he is owned by a totally different film studio, it ain't gonna happen). The movie was too overstuffed with storylines that never formed a cohesive plot and felt like a bunch of scenes strung together searching for a direction.
Sandman is handled well (other than his inclusion in the death of Uncle Ben which is cheap screenwriting to force him into the whole "forgiveness" theme) although the resolution of his daughter's story -- oh wait, there isn't one. He gets the short shrift after about the first third of the picture. Venom just gets the short shrift, period. And don't get me started on the explanation for the symbiote -- oh wait, there wasn't one!
Raimi is a great director but neither he nor his brother should be allowed near the scripting stage. Alvin Sargeant did a manful job trying to wrestle the picture together, but on the exceptional part 2 he was working with a story shaped by Gough & Millar and Michael Chabon, not Ivan frickin' Raimi.
Too much is fudged into the film and by trying to please everyone Raimi has ended up pleasing no one. It's really annoying becasue parts 1 and 2 were so great and all the ingredients were there for a killer end to the trilogy.
Don't forget, it was established back in the fifties--and held true all the way to the Crisis--that the Wayne killing wasn't a random robbery. Thomas Wayne had helped capture a Gotham gang leader, who arranged the shooting after he got out of prison; Bruce was left alive deliberately, to testify that it was a robbery, not payback.
The story works quite well, particularly when Batman confronts the gang boss, Moxon, in an old Bat-costume Thomas Wayne once wore to a masquerade.
As to this movie ... I agree it's flawed, but I liked it immensely. Three good movies is better than either Superman or Batman managed.
"Posted by Micha at May 16, 2007 01:32 PM
With great hype comes great responsibility"
Ha! Love it!
Seriously, I didn't realize just how much Raimi and his brother, Ivan (who I thought was a doctor . .. or podiatrist? (still a doctor - I know, I know) something like that) had shaped this script. I guess it shows that it wasn't handled by more experienced writers like Chabon.
The brothers Raimi, as I always suspected, come up with the beats and then hand it to experienced screenwriters. But are all the ill effects b/c the Brothers Raimi AREN'T writers?
I don't think so.
I presume many of the comments regarding the issues are made by non-writers. Therefore, I would expect that the Raimi's should've seen the HUGE issues here.
But let the $$ tally - in the end it will probably be a success. And as a fan of Spidey and Marvel, I hope it is. I just hope it doesn't lower the bar. I hope Sony and Arad and all the rest realize what was wrong here. In the end maybe we expect too much . .. which is a darn shame.
The comics have almays been, for the most part, more high-minded than the film adaptations. This always made me laugh b/c the "comic book" movie is always derided as being based on kiddie stuff - yet that kiddie stuff is often more mature and better scripted than what the Hollywood folks put out.
I will say that even after this so-so movie, Spider-Man continues to have a positive effect on my life.
Why?
Well, I believe that simple origin story I read so many years ago was one of the inspirations for me to write in the first place.
And after seeing Spider-Man 3 I'm reminded to not only write . . . but write WELL!
I STILL haven't seen this movie, I HATE MY SCHEDULE! But, anyway, having read PAD's book and memorized the first two movies,(bad habit I got there) I have to say I was never happy about the carjacker dying. But then Moon Man ponts out that it was never clear that he died. But, to point stuff out, Peter didn't push him, he tripped.
Stacie's right. I gotta get on Jeopardy! some day.
Rex - Thanks for the details. I knew the Chill story dated back a while, but not that far back. Must have read it in a reprint.
StarWolf, no prob. If there's one thing Wikipedia is pretty good for, it's for getting fairly accurate synopses of fictional characters.
I knew I had heard and read the name Joe Chill on more than one occasion, but I recently read the Enemies of the State TPB, where Batman says he never found his parents' killer. Of course, now they've re-introduced Chill with Infinite Crisis apparently.
-Rex Hondo-
"– Just when Peter and Harry are at odds amnesia takes away the memories that made Harry blame and hunt Spiderman."
OK, no excuses here. That was bad. I think they did it to remind everybody that Harry is a nice guy. It probably would have been better to make him conflicted.
Well, now, this was actually quite close to comic book continuity. Harry (when alive) was always getting amnesia and forgetting he was the Goblin.
His death was similar to the comic death as well, in that Harry repents, and dies a hero. (Spec. Spidey 200 - one of my all-time favorites.)
Joe wrote: "But are all the ill effects b/c the Brothers Raimi AREN'T writers? I don't think so."
I DO think so. Look at the EVIL DEAD films. While the directing is incredibly immaginative, the stories are a mess. Even the best written of the three, ARMY OF DARKNESS (the only one co-written with Ivan), is all over the place in terms of story.
In earlier posts on this thread, people wonder how the script could be so bad since most huge movies have a plethora of uncreditted writers. That isn't the case here. The Raimi's wrote a script and Alvin Sargent punched up the dialogue here and there as a favor to producer Laura Ziskin, his wife. There were no other writers. And, since the majority of complaints are about the story (not the action, not the effect, not the acting), most of the blame falls on them.
I love Raimi, but I hope to any higher power that will listen that he doesn't get The Hobbit.
Wow - that is mindboggling. I would've thought that with number 3 they would, more than ever, make sure the story was in tip top shape!
You know that critics anbd audiences are going to be looking for the cracks in the third installment! And you simply have someone do punch up of a script written by a director and his doctor/brother.
Oy!
Maybe the Raimis became to confident in their own genius and not aware enough of their weaknesses in this movie? we've seen it before.
I think, with parts 1 and 2, there was more studio oversight, hence extra writers. Due to the massive success, the producers put too much faith in Raimi for 3 and it backfired.
I really thought they were going to borrow from the Bendis Venom origin for the movie. I think the idea of sentient goo from space, while more easily accepted in the pages of a comic with more than 30 years of continuity, was asking too much from the movies. The movies should be a bit more grounded in the world we know. For similar reasons I'm glad they steered away from Phoenix as a cosmic force in the X-Men movies. (though X3 still needed some work)
Harry's death felt kind of cliche. I found it an unsatisfactory ending to his story arc. Maybe they could have brought Liz Allan back for a cameo at the end to be impressed by Harry's heroics. I really wanted a happy ending for him.