Bloom, IN Hoosier Alliance viewing of Spiderman 3

I guess a better scrip . LOL
Dont get me wrong, I dint hate it or anything, Ill buy it on BD to complete the triogy butIt just wasant what I wanted or expexted in a 3rd Spider Man movie.
And yes ,7 min of kick @$$ action in a 2hrs 10 min movie is over before it started in my book. LOL

 

I'm so sick of what I consider to be ridiculous complaints about "SPIDER-MAN 3" needing a "better script"...or not having "much of a story". Pretty much everyone on Earth loved Part 2...and there was less of a story/script, and a lot less going on in general in that entry than there was in "3". Why do you think it needed a "better script"? Because it featured Peter doing things you would never do to someone you loved? Again, did you totally miss the point of the film? Have you never experienced a dysfunctional relationship with a friend or family member? This is what happens. They hurt people they love because they're acting out of fear, anger, hate, jealousy, and blind rage. Peter did the things he did because he was acting on all the sides of himself that he repressed for years. I'm not sure how the script could be "better" to address your complaints regarding those aspects of the film.

Not to mention the complaints regarding the "lack of action". You know what makes a great story and film, in my opinion? Humanity, emotions, relationships between the characters that mean something. "3" had that in spades...

So what if there wass only 7 minutes of a battle royale in the ending? That's enough for me. There are plenty of films that have tons of FX and tons of battles, and guess what? They suck. Just look at movies like "Aliens VS Predator", "Ghost Rider", etc. They're pieces of garbage.

Whatever...I apologize for any perceived hostility. It's just that I get really upset when a quality, good movie like "SPIDER-MAN 3" comes around...and it gets kicked into the dirt by what I perceive as underappreciation by the general public. The sad thing is, in my opinion, most people can't appreciate the film because, as I've said in a lot of other posts on other boards in the past two days...most people have never truly allowed themselves to experience the depth of love and tragedy that Peter experiences in "3". Americans tend to view humanity and emotions as weakness...and men who experience true love and emotions are considered to be p*ssies. So, they mock a film that portrays a sensitive hero who experiences true pathos.

So, they trash a film like "SM3", which has better effects, story, acting, emotions, music, etc. than most films. Meanwhile, they flock to see and adore crap like "xXx", "Armageddon", "Men in Black II", "Alien VS Predator", Talladega Nights", etc.

 

HEY ....I LOVED MIB II.
Dont worry Lito , Its just my opinion. Im glad you loved it & you loving it is the only thing that should matter, not me or any movie critic or anyone else. I just wanted to hear what everybody thought of it, not get another argument started.

 

Eric,

You're right, I know, I know. It's just...it's SPIDEY, damnit!

Oh well...I know not everyone will love it. And, you're right...I love it, and that's all that matters!

P.S. - MIB II sucks big waffle cones! Sorry! I love the first one...the second? Eeeeesh! Donkey droppings!

 

I thought it was pretty good. I like both Spidey 1 and 2 better, but this one wasn't bad. There were some parts I thought were WAY too campy, and some parts really made me groan. I think my suspension of disbelief got up and left the theater when the meteorite carrying the symbiote landed TEN FEET AWAY FROM PETER. I mean seriously, what are the odds of that? Why couldn't they have had the symbiote escape from a lab somewhere, and bind with Spiderman when he comes to save the day? I can think of a million more believable ways for the symbiote to join with Spiderman, other than the astronomical odds that it falls from the sky and lands next to his bicycle. Despite the absurdity of this, I managed to get back into the movie when the whole New Goblin and Sandman stuff kicked in. The effects and battles were spectacular as usual, but like everyone else I must agree that there were two many stories going on at once. You had Peter battling the symbiote, his relationship with MJ, Harry's amnesia, Brock's jealousy, the Sandman's motivation, the truth of what happened to Uncle Ben... There just wasn't enough screentime for it all. I think they tried fitting too many eggs in one basket.

Still, I enjoyed myself and the overall fun factor was pretty high for me. And as silly as some parts of the movie were (i.e. dancing in the streets) I can't deny they made me chuckle repeatedly. Not as epic as the first two, but a fun film that was worth my monies.

 

SPOILER WARNINGS!!!!! -

Again, the complaints about the "conveniences" of certain plot devices (aka the black goo origin sequence) remind me of complaints I used to hear from people when I first started working at ShowPlace 11 and sat in on screenings of the first "Mission: Impossible";

I would always watch the train sequence in the finale...and when the helicopter blew up and sent Cruise hurtling through the air, I would always hear people groan outloud and say, "Yeah, right. Give me a break!" To which I would respond..."Oh, for Pete's sake, people! You had no problems buying the last two hours of the film in which people wear latex masks that are SOOO good that they can fool their own spouses with them...and in which Tom Cruise performs feats of derring-do that would make Indiana Jones reel with disbelief...and NOW you're complaining about this one little detail?"

It also reminds me of the time I watched "Jurassic Park" with my sister for the first time. She started complaining in the scene where the jeep in the tree barely misses killing Grant and the boy as it plummets to the ground; "Oh, come on! They would SOOO be dead!" At this point, I paused the film, turned to her and said..."You have NO problems with the idea of them cloning dinosaurs and filling in the missing dino-DNA with frog DNA...but THIS scene you have a problem with?!!"

So, I ask you this; you have NOOO problems suspending your disbelief to buy the premise of a so-called "Man-Spider" who can not only spin organic webs from his wrist, but also climb buildings with his hands and feet, display the strength of 20 men, and police New York in a way that no possible human ever could...but, NOW you're complaining about the black goo meteorite coincidence? My eyes just rolled in their sockets so severely that I'm afraid I sprained some sort of ligament...

If you expect/want realism and no coincidences...then stay at home, sit in a rocking chair on your front porch, and watch the cars drive by. THAT'S realism. If you go to a movie titled "Spider-Man 3"...WHICH IS ABOUT A "SPIDER-MAN" (or any other genre pic, for that matter)...and expect/want to enjoy the film...then, don't be pedantic in regards to plot devices that require a suspension of disbelief, please.

'Nuff said. Checkmate. Game over. The end.

Again, I hate to sound so venomous (no pun intended)...but, I get irritated when people talk about the lack of realism in genre pics like "Spider-Man 3" or any other film of that type. It's a movie, people...it's not supposed to be realistic...you're supposed to suspend your disbelief.

I can tell you right now...if you had problems with the whole black goo meteorite thing...then, you'd better not go see "Indiana Jones IV", "Pirates 3", "TransFormers", "Iron Man", etc..

 

HUGE SPOILER WARNING!!!! -

One more point...

"I can think of a million more believable ways for the symbiote to join with Spiderman, other than the astronomical odds that it falls from the sky and lands next to his bicycle. Despite the absurdity of this..."

Did you ever stop to think that the reason they did it this way was to further enforce the overriding theme of fate that is prevalent throughout the "Spider-Man" films? Peter was destined to become Spidey and a hero...Peter was destined to be with Mary Jane...Harry was destined to live the life he did, to fall from grace, and to ultimately find redemption...and the sybiote was destined to join with Peter.

Sometimes in life, there aren't coincidences. Things happen that you cannot even fathom the odds of...but they happen for a reason...because of fate. The odds of me finding a near-perfect wife, a woman who makes me happier than I ever dreamed I could be were slim to none; I was convinced I was destined to go to Grad School on the East Coast. But, I didn't get into any of the schools I applied for, despite the musical talents and skills I possessed. None of the IU faculty or my peers could understand why I didn't get into the schools. Then, during a pretty depressing time for me after this fact, a month later, I met Jennifer...and the rest is history.

I believe it's fate...I believe we were destined to be together...and that's why I didn't get into grad school. That's why I personally believe that "absurd" coincidences that you can calculate and determine are factored by "astronomical odds" are not coincidences...they're fate. I think that was the intention of the filmmakers...and I have no problem swallowing that premise.

Also, it was a scooter...not a bicycle. Oops, I was being pedantic just then! Poop! (Nothing wrong with a little self-deprecating humor.)

(I said self-DEPRECATING...not self-deffecating!)

 

wow, this topic has generated a lot of posts,

I mean, I spent a little time looking up ID-s I was unfamiliar with,
guess the Hoosiere alliance is bigger than I know.


anyway, with all this excitement over this film,
I will make an extra effort to try to see it
before it ends up on the Turner Classic Movie channel

 

I CANT wait till Pirates III !
Sorry Lito

 

Uh, yeah, that's sort of what suspension of disbelief is about. I can pretend that a radioactive spider bites a nerdy kid and he is granted superpowers. But when a meteor happens to land right next to his, excuse me, scooter, and then follows him home, yes, that breaks my suspension of disbelief. That's just a convenient way to move the plot. It's not the same as Peter's powers, because I have no problem accepting the premise that a spider bite allows him to shoot webbing out of his hands. Whereas with the symbiote, there is no premise. There's no explanation of how or why this meteor happened to land at EXACTLY the right spot at EXACTLY the right time next to the only living being on the planet with spider-powers. There's no explanation at all, and without a premise to accept, my SoD rejects the idea.

Now I apologize for straining your eyes, but honestly if you could get past your Spidey-bias I think you might agree with me. Movies are about storytelling, and fantastical elements don't make bad fiction. But how far can you go? What if in Spiderman 4, Spiderman evolved into a giant space-spider with an appetite for planets, and then eventually consumed entire galaxies. Would you be okay with that? After all, it's just a movie. It's just fiction, anything goes. Right?

I mean, seriously Lito. The meteorite landing next to Parker's scooter was just a mulligan for the writers who probably didn't have the time or budget to flesh out the symbiotes meeting with Parker. They just decided to have it crash next to his scooter when he was out in the park with MJ one night. I didn't say it ruined the movie for me, just that it was a goofy moment that broke my SoD. Because it was a silly moment, and in a purely SoD perspective, it was more unbelivable than men made of sand and flying hoverboards.

1. Get over yourself.
2. I never said I wanted realism, I just make the point that there was one ridiculously lucky coincidence in the movie.

I did, until the film became completely retarded for about 30 seconds.

Right, like you've never had a problem with a plot point in a movie before.

 

It's not my "Spidey-bias" that makes me think your argument behind having a problem with the meteor idea is ridiculous (to me). It's that you can't simply just "go with it". Yes...it is a HUGE conincidence. Yes, it might seem unbelievably lucky...but, again...IT'S A MOVIE!

"It's not the same as Peter's powers, because I have no problem accepting the premise that a spider bite allows him to shoot webbing out of his hands. Whereas with the symbiote, there is no premise. There's no explanation of how or why this meteor happened to land at EXACTLY the right spot at EXACTLY the right time next to the only living being on the planet with spider-powers. There's no explanation at all, and without a premise to accept, my SoD rejects the idea."

What about the way Peter was bitten by the genetically manipulated spider in the first film? It's basically the same exact premise as the symbiote-meteor...

Peter's class just happened to be in that EXACT lab on that EXACT day. One spider just happened to get loose. The spider, out of all the people in the lab, just happened to land EXACTLY on Peter. The spider just happens to decide, for no apparent reason, to bite Peter. There's no explanation at all...no premise to accept. Same EXACT idea with the symbiote. That's why I say, again, the filmmakers did it that way in the first and third film to illustrate a point; it was destiny.

Perhaps you don't like the idea because you had different expectations as to how the story should have played out because of previous knowledge of the whole symbiote story. I don't know. All I know is, when you look at the two "origin" moments (genetic-spider...symbiote)...they both require you to just accept the notion of fate and get over yourself. As far as how the meteor landed there; how...it fell from the heavens. They were watching a meteor shower, remember?

"Now I apologize for straining your eyes, but honestly if you could get past your Spidey-bias I think you might agree with me. Movies are about storytelling, and fantastical elements don't make bad fiction. But how far can you go? What if in Spiderman 4, Spiderman evolved into a giant space-spider with an appetite for planets, and then eventually consumed entire galaxies. Would you be okay with that? After all, it's just a movie. It's just fiction, anything goes. Right?"

I'll address this in a PM...but...

You know me, and you know I wouldn't be down with a story like that because it doesn't have any place in the Spider-Man universe. But, I don't have a problem with Raimi and company spinning their own web of stories in regards to the origins of these characters and their powers, the stories can be as fantastical and go "as far" as they wish...just so long as they maintain some element of truthfulness to the original comic book continuum.

"I mean, seriously Lito. The meteorite landing next to Parker's scooter was just a mulligan for the writers who probably didn't have the time or budget to flesh out the symbiotes meeting with Parker. They just decided to have it crash next to his scooter when he was out in the park with MJ one night. I didn't say it ruined the movie for me, just that it was a goofy moment that broke my SoD. Because it was a silly moment, and in a purely SoD perspective, it was more unbelivable than men made of sand and flying hoverboards."

I think that this argument holds no merit. You're saying that the writers of this film (a film that had a budget of over $250 million dollars...a film that had three years to be made) didn't have the budget or time to "flesh out" the story? Again, I don't think that's a valid argument; the facts behind the making of the film simply don't back it up. The writers and creators of the film pretty much had a blank check and rubber stamp from Sony to do whatever they wished. I truly, honestly believe that they wrote the scene the way they did to further illustrate the idea of destiny/fate. I don't think that's such a hard concept to swallow in a film universe abo

 

By the way...this was meant as a joke against me...basically saying that I was also being pedantic not only in regards to this fact, but in regards to my defense of the plot point in question.

Perhaps the fact that I was poking fun at myself was not clear...I thought it was, and I'm sorry if this offended you.

 

Im just gonna hsvr this thread closed,I don't want anyone losing any one's friendship over an opinion.

 

Eric,

I see your point...but, I also don't think you need to close the thread. It's a debate...people can debate and still be friends.

My best friend, George and I debate politics all the time...and we're like brothers.

A long as we keep it civil...things should be fine.

Did this topic seriously need to be locked?