• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sam Rami Admits he screwed up Spiderman 3

Started by Ares,

62 posts in this topic

Turtle

Turtle

Posted
Posted
I would love to get an apology for the third X-Men film.
If it makes you feel better I don't believe it's part of continuity anymore.
It is part of the continuity, it's just on another timeline, as the original series is to the new Star Trek movies. Logan still felt the relief of seeing Jean again and the to some extent Scott, in his It's a Wonderful Life moment. Singer just righted some character wrongs moving forward.

 

Whatever happened to Allan Cumming's as Nightcrawler behind the scenes? Does anyone know why he never returned to the franchise?

I was a big fan of X-Men 1 and 2. 3 was a gigantic disappointment. Even worse IMO was the fact that Singer did not return in order to shoot Superman Returns. I really enjoyed DOFP, loved that Singer moved the events of 3 out of the main timeline.

 

I think I remember reading somewhere that Allan Cumming didn't want to go through the make-up process again.

 

The make-up was the primary reason I heard he didn't come back, too. It was quite extensive...something like 9+ hours every day to apply it.

 

He did voice the nightcrawler character in the X-Men movie game for Xbox 360 (playable characters: Wolverine, Nightcrawler, and Iceman). The game took place in the time between the 2nd and 3rd movies. Among the more memorable things was a fight between Nightcrawler and Multiple Man (which would be AWESOME on the big screen). In th end, Nightcrawler takes issue with all the violence the X-Men see on a regular basis and that violence clashes with his pacifist beliefs. He leaves the team on good terms with Professor X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turtle

Turtle

Posted
Posted
After watching the 3rd movie, I didn't even bother with the ASM movies.

:o

I assure you that the two Garfield Spider-Man movies were of superior quality compared to the last Sam Rami/Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movie.

 

Completely disagree.

 

In my opinion, Tobey is still a better Peter Parker, the acting is still better throughout, and the movie is grounded in a better overall universe from the first two Raimi movies.

 

The last two Garfield movies are in a bizarro world of their own with some non-sensical sub-plots, TMNT style special effects, and cringe worthy over acting. If as a part of the Sony leaks, I'd have found out it was actually written as a PARODY, I'd TOTALLY get it.

 

It'd still need a few more obvious jokes, and maybe some bathroom humor, but otherwise, it's already there.

 

Unfortunately they wrote that garbage with a straight face.

 

I'd watch S3 before ever watching ASM or ASM2 again.

 

I've got to agree with Chuck on this one. ASM was ok, though there were plenty of things I didn't like about it. The Spidey suit design, the Lizard design, and the characterization of Peter Parker/Spider-man come to mind. The characterization bugs me the most. What makes early era Peter Parker/Spider-man so relatable is the fact that even though he's got superpowers, he still struggles in his civilian life because he's a diminuitive science dweeb from a poor family. He's got very few friends, he's not super handsome, he has trouble talking to girls, and he rarely had extra money to do social things. None of that came to the surface with Andrew Garfield's portrayal.

 

Comic-book Spider-man tends to frustrate his opponents (and allies) with dumb jokes and nicknames. It's a technique he developed to throw off his opponents to give him an edge against foes much more powerful than himself. Andrew Garfield's Spider-man just comes off as cocky. While comic book Spidey is corny/funny, Garfield's Spider-man comes off as just offensive and I don't find myself rooting for him.

 

And I can't comment much on ASM 2. My wife and I watched the first hour...up through the Electro scene in Times Square...and turned it off. The dialogue was terrible, the pacing was sluggish, and the few action sequences brought me right out of the movie. Spidey must have injured/killed dozens of people in his attempt to save Max in the beginning. Did he care? (shrug)

 

That's enough for now...I'll write on Spider-man 3 later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dale Roberts

Dale Roberts

Posted
Posted
After watching the 3rd movie, I didn't even bother with the ASM movies.

:o

I assure you that the two Garfield Spider-Man movies were of superior quality compared to the last Sam Rami/Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movie.

 

Completely disagree.

 

In my opinion, Tobey is still a better Peter Parker, the acting is still better throughout, and the movie is grounded in a better overall universe from the first two Raimi movies.

 

The last two Garfield movies are in a bizarro world of their own with some non-sensical sub-plots, TMNT style special effects, and cringe worthy over acting. If as a part of the Sony leaks, I'd have found out it was actually written as a PARODY, I'd TOTALLY get it.

 

It'd still need a few more obvious jokes, and maybe some bathroom humor, but otherwise, it's already there.

 

Unfortunately they wrote that garbage with a straight face.

 

I'd watch S3 before ever watching ASM or ASM2 again.

 

I've got to agree with Chuck on this one. ASM was ok, though there were plenty of things I didn't like about it. The Spidey suit design, the Lizard design, and the characterization of Peter Parker/Spider-man come to mind. The characterization bugs me the most. What makes early era Peter Parker/Spider-man so relatable is the fact that even though he's got superpowers, he still struggles in his civilian life because he's a diminuitive science dweeb from a poor family. He's got very few friends, he's not super handsome, he has trouble talking to girls, and he rarely had extra money to do social things. None of that came to the surface with Andrew Garfield's portrayal.

 

Comic-book Spider-man tends to frustrate his opponents (and allies) with dumb jokes and nicknames. It's a technique he developed to throw off his opponents to give him an edge against foes much more powerful than himself. Andrew Garfield's Spider-man just comes off as cocky. While comic book Spidey is corny/funny, Garfield's Spider-man comes off as just offensive and I don't find myself rooting for him.

 

And I can't comment much on ASM 2. My wife and I watched the first hour...up through the Electro scene in Times Square...and turned it off. The dialogue was terrible, the pacing was sluggish, and the few action sequences brought me right out of the movie. Spidey must have injured/killed dozens of people in his attempt to save Max in the beginning. Did he care? (shrug)

 

That's enough for now...I'll write on Spider-man 3 later.

.

Sorry, Spiderman #3 was just so ridiculously horrible, I would rather watch grass grow. That stupid dance scene in the club was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in film. Actually everything to do with the black costume was stupid and had nothing to do with the comics. It didn't turn Peter evil or release his "wild" side, it tried to bond to him.

 

I don't think I'll ever watch Spider-man 3 again. And Kirsten Dunst is just plain too ugly to be Mary Jane.

 

I would go with the Garfield movies just for Emma Stone as Gwendy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azkaban

Azkaban

Posted
Posted
After watching the 3rd movie, I didn't even bother with the ASM movies.

:o

I assure you that the two Garfield Spider-Man movies were of superior quality compared to the last Sam Rami/Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movie.

 

Completely disagree.

 

In my opinion, Tobey is still a better Peter Parker, the acting is still better throughout, and the movie is grounded in a better overall universe from the first two Raimi movies.

 

The last two Garfield movies are in a bizarro world of their own with some non-sensical sub-plots, TMNT style special effects, and cringe worthy over acting. If as a part of the Sony leaks, I'd have found out it was actually written as a PARODY, I'd TOTALLY get it.

 

It'd still need a few more obvious jokes, and maybe some bathroom humor, but otherwise, it's already there.

 

Unfortunately they wrote that garbage with a straight face.

 

I'd watch S3 before ever watching ASM or ASM2 again.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turtle

Turtle

Posted
Posted
After watching the 3rd movie, I didn't even bother with the ASM movies.

:o

I assure you that the two Garfield Spider-Man movies were of superior quality compared to the last Sam Rami/Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movie.

 

Completely disagree.

 

In my opinion, Tobey is still a better Peter Parker, the acting is still better throughout, and the movie is grounded in a better overall universe from the first two Raimi movies.

 

The last two Garfield movies are in a bizarro world of their own with some non-sensical sub-plots, TMNT style special effects, and cringe worthy over acting. If as a part of the Sony leaks, I'd have found out it was actually written as a PARODY, I'd TOTALLY get it.

 

It'd still need a few more obvious jokes, and maybe some bathroom humor, but otherwise, it's already there.

 

Unfortunately they wrote that garbage with a straight face.

 

I'd watch S3 before ever watching ASM or ASM2 again.

 

I've got to agree with Chuck on this one. ASM was ok, though there were plenty of things I didn't like about it. The Spidey suit design, the Lizard design, and the characterization of Peter Parker/Spider-man come to mind. The characterization bugs me the most. What makes early era Peter Parker/Spider-man so relatable is the fact that even though he's got superpowers, he still struggles in his civilian life because he's a diminuitive science dweeb from a poor family. He's got very few friends, he's not super handsome, he has trouble talking to girls, and he rarely had extra money to do social things. None of that came to the surface with Andrew Garfield's portrayal.

 

Comic-book Spider-man tends to frustrate his opponents (and allies) with dumb jokes and nicknames. It's a technique he developed to throw off his opponents to give him an edge against foes much more powerful than himself. Andrew Garfield's Spider-man just comes off as cocky. While comic book Spidey is corny/funny, Garfield's Spider-man comes off as just offensive and I don't find myself rooting for him.

 

And I can't comment much on ASM 2. My wife and I watched the first hour...up through the Electro scene in Times Square...and turned it off. The dialogue was terrible, the pacing was sluggish, and the few action sequences brought me right out of the movie. Spidey must have injured/killed dozens of people in his attempt to save Max in the beginning. Did he care? (shrug)

 

That's enough for now...I'll write on Spider-man 3 later.

.

Sorry, Spiderman #3 was just so ridiculously horrible, I would rather watch grass grow. That stupid dance scene in the club was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in film. Actually everything to do with the black costume was stupid and had nothing to do with the comics. It didn't turn Peter evil or release his "wild" side, it tried to bond to him.

 

I don't think I'll ever watch Spider-man 3 again. And Kirsten Dunst is just plain too ugly to be Mary Jane.

 

I would go with the Garfield movies just for Emma Stone as Gwendy.

 

Definitely not saying that Spider-man 3 doesn't have cringe-worthy moments (not a fan of the dance scene either), just that I prefer it to the ASM installments with Garfield. I know opinions are split, but I think Tobey was the superior Peter Parker/Spider-man (though the effects are pretty good in the ASM movies).

 

Spider-man 3 is a missed opportunity. I think if they treated it like a 2-part movie (similar to what Matrix, Pirates, Harry Potter, and others have done), it could have been great.

 

Movie 1 could focus on the Sandman. The casting for Sandman was great. Church really looks the part of Flint Marko and the acting is just fine. Focus on his story as a desperate, reluctant criminal. He's a man who doesn't want to hurt anyone, but he'll do anything to save his daughter. LEAVE OUT ALL THE STUFF ABOUT SANDMAN KILLING UNCLE BEN!!! Sandman could be a sympathetic villain who is well more than a match for Spider-man in their early meetings.

 

Introduce the Symbiote however you want...just make it less random than it happened in the movie. Luckily landing near the only Super-hero in this version of New York is just too convenient. Make it so the symbiote is attracted to the radiation in his blood or something. Figure it out. Anyway, Spidey gets the new suit and sees that he's getting more aggressive (injuring bank robbers and muggers instead of just capturing them), but chalks it up to the stress in his regular life. The suit enhances his abilities and ultimately gives him the edge over Sandman. Sandman gets locked up, which gives him a reason to hate Spider-man, which sets him up for a future Sinister Six movie.

 

All the while, introduce the new characters you want like Gwen Stacy and Eddie Brock. Cast someone other than Topher Grace. The same Peter/Eddie story applies...aggressive Spidey makes a fool out of Eddie and costs the latter his job. That will come into play in the next movie. There's no need for Harry to become the next Goblin quite yet. Leave him as the wedge that's being driven between MJ and Peter. This leaves room for Gwen. By the end of the movie, Spidey shouldn't have any major suspicions about the suit's true nature. As far as he knows, his aggression could just be stemming from the stress in his personal life. The movie should close with the Symbiote (unbeknownst to Peter) giving the audience some sign that it is indeed sentient.

 

Movie 2 could start with Peter's suspicions about the nature of the suit (talking to Dr. Connors, personal research, etc.) and his attempts to remove it. Eddie has become obsessed with Spider-man in an unbalanced stalker sort of way...Eddie just sees it as a way to get his job back. This could lead to the bell tower where Spidey webs Eddie to the bottom to keep him out of danger while he deals with a threat at the top. Once the danger is neutralized, the bell rings and Peter takes the opportunity to separate himself from the suit, which of course falls onto the trapped Eddie.

 

Venom, being invisible to Spidey's spider-sense and knowing all his secrets, is a much bigger threat than just being fast and hitting hard. Eddie could torment Peter by visiting Aunt May, MJ, Gwen, or anyone else Peter cares about without even looking like Venom. Peter will look like a nutcase trying to convince people that this perfectly nice guy is a maniac. Cues could be taken from the 90's cartoon if anyone has ever seen Venom's origin there. Their costumed battles could be a lot of Venom trying to expose Spider-man's true identity to the public in a humiliating way. Remember, he's not trying to kill Peter, he's trying to make him suffer. The movie could be a lot of Venom just toying with Spider-man/Peter Parker. It shouldn't end with Eddie's death, merely the separation of Eddie from the Symbiote. This opens up the possiblity for use in a Sinister 6 movie, Carnage, or whatever. Venom can be a very complex character, but he wasn't utilized well in Spider-man 3. Devoting a movie just to him and no other villains would be the correct way to treat the character.

 

I can even picture a movie poster to this one...a battered, unconscious, unmasked Spidey webbed to a brick wall with black webbing with spotlights moving toward his face.

 

And I think Emma Stone is great. Easy A was great. Even the House Bunny had its moments. But Bryce Dallas Howard was about as close as you could get to the look of a Romita Sr. Gwen Stacy in real life. As far as Gwen Stacy goes, Howard over Stone any day of the week! :sumo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Balls

Dr. Balls

Posted
Posted

Spider-man 3 is one of the few movies that I thought was almost purposely made to be bad. At the time, I figured Sam Raimi was fired, or one of the movie executives banged his wife or something and he did the movie as a disgruntled, slighted director. I found it hard to believe that someone who made the first two films could actually create that bad of a third one completely on accident.

 

Of course, life rarely works out that way - but it sure seemed plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr 9.8

Mr 9.8

Posted
Posted
Still don't understand the attraction people have with Emma Stone.

 

She has MLA (look it up, slang) and every time she purses her lips I think she's going to poop.

 

:o:facepalm:(tsk)

Modern Language Association? Medical Library association? Music Library Association? That's what I get when I search MLA. :taptaptap:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Pontoon

Dick Pontoon

Posted
Posted
It's one of the few I've only watched once. I was looking to see if I had it on DVD and I think I might've even skipped buying it....

 

What I remember... is that it was overly ambitious and a bit disoriented in it's story telling. Topher Grace will always be Eric Forman to me. Not really a fan of Venom. The dance scene was... not a good idea. And the concept of Sandman being the one who killed Uncle Ben and then Spider-man forgives him and let's him go free because he feels sorry for him, almost made me ill.

 

 

Yeah, but what about that scene with the crying? Or the other scene with the crying? And don't forget the scene afterwards with the crying!

 

:sick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
It's one of the few I've only watched once. I was looking to see if I had it on DVD and I think I might've even skipped buying it....

 

What I remember... is that it was overly ambitious and a bit disoriented in it's story telling. Topher Grace will always be Eric Forman to me. Not really a fan of Venom. The dance scene was... not a good idea. And the concept of Sandman being the one who killed Uncle Ben and then Spider-man forgives him and let's him go free because he feels sorry for him, almost made me ill.

 

 

Yeah, but what about that scene with the crying? Or the other scene with the crying? And don't forget the scene afterwards with the crying!

 

:sick:

 

Oh yeah... that was embarrassing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
The movie isn't great but it's not as terrible as some make out. I thought the Sandman was great in it.

 

Sandman was wonderful. I thought they captured his character perfectly.

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimjum12

jimjum12

Posted
Posted
The movie isn't great but it's not as terrible as some make out. I thought the Sandman was great in it.

 

Sandman was wonderful. I thought they captured his character perfectly.

 

(thumbs u

 

..... same here. While the movie had it's share of rough spots, the Sandman carried it across the goal line for me. The dancing scene that everyone hates was OK for me ... when taken in context with the fact that the alien costume was SUPPOSED to make Peter behave in a bizarre and scandalous manner. I can't help but wonder how the movie could've been if Sony had more faith in the Sandman as a stand alone antagonist. The three ring circus approach was still "ok" and I do re watch it from time to time. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing