Spider-Man 3 Discussion Thread - Spoilers

It wasn't last night.

Maybe tonight!

 

Saw it, loved it. Great movie. A few corny lines here and there, but so what. The origin of this stuff comes from comics right? Well you can expect some corny lines considering that's all the comics are filled with it seems like.

I think the problem is the perception of viewers. For the last two films we've been treated to one villain, one main track. We were used to that. Then comes Spiderman 3. Multiple villains, multiple plots to track. It's confusing and complicated to a crowd that has been treated to the opposite from the other two Spidermans. I loved the black suit. What's everyone talking about? It did make Peter a horrible person. He was vengeful, aggressive, spiteful, jealous arrogant and demanding. He danced because of the confidence the suit gave him. It's just another expression to show the suit's power. I have nothing wrong with it. The suit brought Peter's emotions - though bad - to the front. It freed Peter. He wasn't closed in. He was open and it came off beautiful. He was confident and open and he danced around to express his joy, or more importantly, his arrogance.

I will agree that the butler scene came out of absolutely nowhere. I mean, wha? "Oh hey Harry. You know what's funny? It's really good but I wanted to wait until a later film to tell you thus preserving the plot. Your father - oh this is good - your father, yeah he killed himself. I cleaned the wounds myself bro. What? I never told you that? Heh, whoops. Boy if I told you that earlier you wouldn't have that deformed thing sitting on top of your neck. Oh well. Dinner, sir?"

All in all, good movie. I feel the movie projected what it wanted to project. It showed a dark Peter Parker who was arrogant and free in his emotions; not closed off. Because his emotions ran free, his dark feelings were allowed to grow more and express themselves. That's all. I'd dance around too if I was Spiderman, had all this extra ability and a superior air of confidence around me ... and I don't even know how to dance.

 

^Glad you got to see it tonight!

And yeah, I have the same view towards this film. I loved it, and I don't really see what everyone's complaining about.

 

I love it too and I'm dying to see it again. I'm hoping I can make it out this weekend.

 

The main complaint was that expectations were too high.

 

There's really not too much that would be inappropriate, but a few things I can think of are:

-Certain scenes with Venom. He could be scary for a 8 year old. They do the fast shot into his mouth with him screeching (as seen in the trailer), etc.

-The scene where Spidey grinds sandman's head against the subway train. Could possibly be disturbing.

-Mild cuss words (D***, H***, A**)

 

You must have heard it wrong. I believe it was "This movie is only appropriate for an 8 year old".

I'm sorry... it was just too easy.

 

Ok i HAVE to get this off my chest.

1. The film was too long
2. Spiderman's emo moment and his dancing and strutting down the street was really disturbing.
3. They still left room for ANOTHER sequel. Isn't three enough?? Just marry Peter and MJ off and then end it.


I still liked the movie though. Harry's "New Goblin" was extremely cool. ANd in a weird way, when his face was scarred he still looked cool

 

^^After seeing this one, I say 3 is not enough. I'm eagerly awaiting a 4th. And besides, marrying peter and MJ wouldn't end anything.

The scenes with venom made the kids sitting behind me scared.

 

I'd say some shots of Venom are all that you'd have to worry about. Each kid is different though. I know that when I was 8 those Venom shots wouldn't phase me.

 

Yeah, I'll agree and say that Venom is a little scary with his screeching and the way he acts. For an 8 year old, I can imagine that's a little scary. Beyond that, nothing too drastic. It's like Spidey 1 and 2 in the sense that even though it's PG-13, it can be a kids movie. What I mean by that is they certainly don't do anything in the movie to detract a younger audience. There's nothing inappropriate or anything.

 

If they can sit through LOTR, HP-GOF or Batman Begins, no problem.

 

My main complaints were that its didn't satisfactorily tie up the stories it was finished and rushed the stories it started to get it all in. It really should have been two movies and i still feel that it lost something special without Elfman's score (which I generally can't stand but hand grown to love in this series). It also seemed to lose part of the charm the first two had, while layering in an abundance of silly and unnecessary gags (some were good but they became too much...mack-daddy-emo-Parker shattered my suspension of disbelief).

 

Question: In the trailer there is a great line by (I think) MJ: "We've all done terrible things to each other, but we've got to learn to forgive or everything we ever were is lost." (Or something like that). Great line, but I didn't see it in the film. Does anyone know what scene\context it was suppose to be within the movie?


It's like Spidey 1 and 2 in the sense that even though it's PG-13, it can be a kids movie.

Technically, yes, but I would not take your kids to this movie. It's not that "un"-kid friendly, but I've noticed kids really get bored in this movie and won't sit still to watch it. The movie does not have the action to hold a grade schoolers attention and focuses heavily on relationships instead.

 

2.9 m on Thursday. #'s still are bad.

 

That line is not in the film, from MJ and good riddence. Too many clunker lines in the last two films. As to the film's length, I didn't find it long at all. And I found all the plots tied up well. As to leaving it open, that's what Sony and Marvel want to do. Keep making Spider-Man films. At one point, they've said that they would carry on without Raimi and the main cast, which is fine by me.

Venom is not that scary, IMO. Even in the comics, he's not that scary. If you're kids have seen Jurassic Park and can handle dinosaurs, they can handle the Symbiote's screeching. There's no gore in this film, even with the subway scene between Spider-Man and Sandman, I'd at least say it's safe to show a little kid. At eight I could handle such scenes, but I know it's not the same for everyone.

 

Heck, the film was scary for me, and not in a particularly good way.

I will admit that I'm sort of glad that there are a lot of people that seem to want to see SP3 in another viewing, because I think that will guarantees a 4th movie. Hopefully they can make sure that the next one isn't to cluttered. It's not so much multiple villains, it's just to many plotpoints, and that clutters the story, and the majority of them weren't fulfilled satisfactorily to me, personally.

 

So after thinking about this film for a while, I've concluded that my issues (while I still enjoyed it) come from a failure on a basic storytelling level. Too many plotlines being tied together in contrived ways.

There are just too many convenient coincidences:
- Gwen just happens to be the Police Commissioner's daughter, happens to be rescued by Spiderman, happens to be one-time-dating Brock and just so happens to be Pete's lab partner
- The comet conviently lands in Central Park near MJ and Peter and the symbiote tags along on his bike - it also manages to lurk in his apartment for days without his Spidey senses going off
- Peter goes to the same church Brock is at to take off the suit
- Harry's amnesia (yes, I know it is technically canon)
- Venom teams up with Sandman despite the fact that he could probably hand Pete's $%# to him on his own
- Pete gets the black suit just in time to hear the truth about Sandman (and personally I think it would have been more compelling without the suit)

And the real shame of it is that a lot of this was avoidable.

One good suggestion I read on SHH: replace Gwen with Betty. Maybe have her actually dating Brock, but spurn him when Pete exposes his fraud - it wouldn't require much screentime. If Raimi really had his heart set on Spiderman Day, he still could have done the Gwen rescue, but just keep the whole Brock-Gwen-Pete triangle out of it. And what about JJJ's astronaut son - they set him up in SM2 and I remember a lot of early speculation was that he'd bring back the symbiote - would that have perhaps worked?

I know it's already been said, but I'll repeat it: this was enough for two films - why cram it into one? Plus, with a $250 million plus budget and a long production time they might as well have made two flicks. Sony gets two films; the audience gets better stories. Everyone wins.

 

Addressing the Gwen issue, I think that despite the fact this may be the end of the run for many of the cast and crew so far they wanted to set up further storylines for future purposes. Betty would have had better use if she were used in the messy love octagon they were trying to build, but her history seems to be on again off again. Gwen's history, while old news, gives them so much more to work from, not to mention the whole arc with her dad has the potential for so much more drama. My question is why wasn't any of this used. I hope to god they delevope the Stacy arc more in the next.

As for John, in a movie that is already crowded with too much and not nearly enough wrap-ups of lingering story lines (at least not satisfactorily) does it make sense to have a little more stuck in where John Jameson returns to Earth with this thing, when you can tell the in just a few simple shots as the meteor lands. Honestly they should have simply stuck to the Harry story, cut out Sandman (Peter doesn't need anyone to forgive...he needs that endless guilt on his shoulders) cut back the symbiote to only Peter having it and finally rejecting it during the Film's climax, and leave the film on a cliffhanger of venom escaping (while keeping who bonded with the symbiote something of a mystery for those not in the know).

Mind you this is all speculation or opinion on my part.

 

It's not convenient that Gwen's father is a police captain. That's the story from the comics. She's rescued by Spider-Man is not a coincidence. That's Spider-Man's job to save lives. Going out with Eddie Brock once, I don't see anything wrong. As to being Peter's lab partner, it goes back to the comics. Save for Eddie having coffee with Gwen, everything is based on the comics.

The Symbiote never triggers his Spider-Sense. Hell, it's never triggered in this film at all. As to being conventent, when he got the Symbiote the first time, it was rather convenient that he stuck his hand in the wrong device that frees the Symbiote instead of replicating a new suit for him.

Otherway around, but again, that's how it is in the comics. Eddie went to the same church to commit suicide and it's where the Symbiote was left by Peter, when he got rid of it.

Raimi has paid tribute to a number of story points in Spider-Man's history, in each film.

Venom teamed up with five members of the Sinister Six to take out Spider-Man, even though he has kicked his ass before without them.

Yeah, but Peter wouldn't have been as vengeful without the Symbiote. He felt guilt in the past and has stopped short of doing horrible things. With the Symbiote, he's capable of going further.

John Jameson has no hate in him like Eddie Brock. His story is that he becomes Man-Wolf. As to using the animated origin, this is easier and cheaper than having a maned space mission that brings back the Symbiote.

It's not that Sony didn't want to do it as two films. It's that Alvin Sergeant didn't try as hard as he could've.

 

If you think Spider-Man 3 was long wait until Pirates 3 comes out that movie is going to be so long my local cinema is offering showings of it with an intermission.

 

Intermissions for a 2 hour and fifty minute movie?

Audiences are such wimps these days.

 

You guys are forgetting that in the comics and in the 90's cartoon Peter's spider-sense couldn't detect the symbiote either. This was something Raimi took from the comics and used.

The movie was cluttered, I'm not going to argue that.