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
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
• 
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.
I like that!
“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.
With great hype comes great responsibility
“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.