• 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

NewEnglandGothic

NewEnglandGothic

Posted
Posted
Time to break out all three Spider-Man DVD's and watch these over a few nights. I'll see for myself how the trilogy altered over time.
Did this last summer. The first two do hold up pretty well, like the first two X-Men. There are forgettable scenes, mainly the Kirsten Dunst ones trying to act in plays. I do agree with other posters saying they were trying to cram two movies into one for the third opus. Another poster suggested they should have made a part 1 and part 2 movie set. I disagree. Whenever they do that the first installment is always the placeholder for the main climax second movie. Why would a movie with an all-new villian and plot need to be part of one movie? Sure, build it up a little installment to installment, but we don't need a lot of LOTR false endings here, it's Spider-man. Sometimes it really works, Kill Bill, most of the time, it doesn't. Here's a more rational idea, do one villian per movie and focus on that like they were originally doing. :idea:

 

Spider-Man 3 was a clearcut case of studio greed selling swampland to the mainstream and trying to get away with it under the Spider-Man banner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
Time to break out all three Spider-Man DVD's and watch these over a few nights. I'll see for myself how the trilogy altered over time.
Did this last summer. The first two do hold up pretty well, like the first two X-Men. There are forgettable scenes, mainly the Kirsten Dunst ones trying to act in plays. I do agree with other posters saying they were trying to cram two movies into one for the third opus. Another poster suggested they should have made a part 1 and part 2 movie set. I disagree. Whenever they do that the first installment is always the placeholder for the main climax second movie. Why would a movie with an all-new villian and plot need to be part of one movie? Sure, build it up a little installment to installment, but we don't need a lot of LOTR false endings here, it's Spider-man. Sometimes it really works, Kill Bill, most of the time, it doesn't. Here's a more rational idea, do one villian per movie and focus on that like they were originally doing. :idea:

 

Spider-Man 3 was a clearcut case of studio greed selling swampland to the mainstream and trying to get away with it under the Spider-Man banner.

The amazing thing about Spider-Man three was it was probably the last of the old school way of doing super hero movies, as the next year(2008) the Nolan Dark Knight and the beginning of the Marvel cinematic universe with Iron Man debuted.

 

2008 was the year the comic book movies started to get good and great on a consistent basis because Dark Knight and Iron Man laid down the modern blueprint on how to make a great super hero movie.

 

Just compare pre-and post 2008 super hero movies, and we will see the vast majority of good superhero movies are post- 2008, and the vast majority of stinker superhero movies are pre-2008.

 

I bet if the Raimi Spider-Man 3 came out in 2009 it would have turned out better.

Raimi never knew that his Spider-Man 3 would seem lame and dated years later compared to the Nolan Dark Night and the Marvel cinematic universe style of movies.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
Time to break out all three Spider-Man DVD's and watch these over a few nights. I'll see for myself how the trilogy altered over time.
Did this last summer. The first two do hold up pretty well, like the first two X-Men. There are forgettable scenes, mainly the Kirsten Dunst ones trying to act in plays. I do agree with other posters saying they were trying to cram two movies into one for the third opus. Another poster suggested they should have made a part 1 and part 2 movie set. I disagree. Whenever they do that the first installment is always the placeholder for the main climax second movie. Why would a movie with an all-new villian and plot need to be part of one movie? Sure, build it up a little installment to installment, but we don't need a lot of LOTR false endings here, it's Spider-man. Sometimes it really works, Kill Bill, most of the time, it doesn't. Here's a more rational idea, do one villian per movie and focus on that like they were originally doing. :idea:

 

Spider-Man 3 was a clearcut case of studio greed selling swampland to the mainstream and trying to get away with it under the Spider-Man banner.

The amazing about Spider-Man three was it was probably the last of the old school way of doing super hero movies, as the next year(2008) the Nolan Dark Knight and the beginning of the Marvel cinematic universe with Iron Man debuted.

 

What was the 'old school way' of doing superhero movies?

 

2008 was the year the comic book movies started to get good and great on a consistent basis because Dark Knight and Iron Man laid down the modern blueprint on how to make a great super hero movie.

 

What is the 'modern blueprint' on how to make a great superhero movie?

 

Just compare pre-and post 2008 super hero movies, and we will see the vast majority of good superhero movies are post- 2008, and the vast majority of stinker superhero movies are pre-2008.

 

They are?

 

Pre 2008 Winners:

Superman

Superman 2

First Batman

The Crow

First Spider-man

Spider-man 2

Blade

Blade 2

Hellboy

Hellboy 2

Sin City

 

2008+ Losers:

Punisher War Zone

The Spirit

Jonah Hex

Green Hornet

Green Lantern

Sin City 2

ASM

ASM2

Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance

 

 

I bet if the Raimi Spider-Man 3 came out in 2009 it would have turned out better.

 

Why? The things that make it bad have nothing to do with anything since.

 

Raimi never knew that is Spider-Man 3 would seem lame and dated years later compared to the Nolan Dark Night and the Marvel cinematic universe style of movies.

 

You mean special effects? The special effects have improved? It didn't help the ASM movies - the special effects looked silly in those movies.

 

Spider-man 3 is lame for a lot of reasons, but I don't understand what you think those reasons are compared to movies over the last 7 years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewEnglandGothic

NewEnglandGothic

Posted
Posted
Time to break out all three Spider-Man DVD's and watch these over a few nights. I'll see for myself how the trilogy altered over time.
Did this last summer. The first two do hold up pretty well, like the first two X-Men. There are forgettable scenes, mainly the Kirsten Dunst ones trying to act in plays. I do agree with other posters saying they were trying to cram two movies into one for the third opus. Another poster suggested they should have made a part 1 and part 2 movie set. I disagree. Whenever they do that the first installment is always the placeholder for the main climax second movie. Why would a movie with an all-new villian and plot need to be part of one movie? Sure, build it up a little installment to installment, but we don't need a lot of LOTR false endings here, it's Spider-man. Sometimes it really works, Kill Bill, most of the time, it doesn't. Here's a more rational idea, do one villian per movie and focus on that like they were originally doing. :idea:

 

Spider-Man 3 was a clearcut case of studio greed selling swampland to the mainstream and trying to get away with it under the Spider-Man banner.

The amazing about Spider-Man three was it was probably the last of the old school way of doing super hero movies, as the next year(2008) the Nolan Dark Knight and the beginning of the Marvel cinematic universe with Iron Man debuted.

 

What was the 'old school way' of doing superhero movies?

 

2008 was the year the comic book movies started to get good and great on a consistent basis because Dark Knight and Iron Man laid down the modern blueprint on how to make a great super hero movie.

 

What is the 'modern blueprint' on how to make a great superhero movie?

 

Just compare pre-and post 2008 super hero movies, and we will see the vast majority of good superhero movies are post- 2008, and the vast majority of stinker superhero movies are pre-2008.

 

They are?

 

Pre 2008 Winners:

Superman

Superman 2

First Batman

The Crow

First Spider-man

Spider-man 2

Blade

Blade 2

Hellboy

Hellboy 2

Sin City

 

2008+ Losers:

Punisher War Zone

The Spirit

Jonah Hex

Green Hornet

Green Lantern

Sin City 2

ASM

ASM2

Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance

 

 

I bet if the Raimi Spider-Man 3 came out in 2009 it would have turned out better.

 

Why? The things that make it bad have nothing to do with anything since.

 

Raimi never knew that is Spider-Man 3 would seem lame and dated years later compared to the Nolan Dark Night and the Marvel cinematic universe style of movies.

 

You mean special effects? The special effects have improved? It didn't help the ASM movies - the special effects looked silly in those movies.

 

Spider-man 3 is lame for a lot of reasons, but I don't understand what you think those reasons are compared to movies over the last 7 years.

 

I understand what ComicConnoisseur means. After Batman Begins, the filmmakers started grounding these movies somewhat in reality. By 2008, that formula was further galvanized with The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Big-budget funnybook book movies that winked at their audience were never gonna be the same. There was gonna be a more universal theme with the characters and they were gonna take it seriously. When Heath Ledger tells Batman, "You changed things...", he was pretty on point. My 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
Time to break out all three Spider-Man DVD's and watch these over a few nights. I'll see for myself how the trilogy altered over time.
Did this last summer. The first two do hold up pretty well, like the first two X-Men. There are forgettable scenes, mainly the Kirsten Dunst ones trying to act in plays. I do agree with other posters saying they were trying to cram two movies into one for the third opus. Another poster suggested they should have made a part 1 and part 2 movie set. I disagree. Whenever they do that the first installment is always the placeholder for the main climax second movie. Why would a movie with an all-new villian and plot need to be part of one movie? Sure, build it up a little installment to installment, but we don't need a lot of LOTR false endings here, it's Spider-man. Sometimes it really works, Kill Bill, most of the time, it doesn't. Here's a more rational idea, do one villian per movie and focus on that like they were originally doing. :idea:

 

Spider-Man 3 was a clearcut case of studio greed selling swampland to the mainstream and trying to get away with it under the Spider-Man banner.

The amazing about Spider-Man three was it was probably the last of the old school way of doing super hero movies, as the next year(2008) the Nolan Dark Knight and the beginning of the Marvel cinematic universe with Iron Man debuted.

 

What was the 'old school way' of doing superhero movies?

 

2008 was the year the comic book movies started to get good and great on a consistent basis because Dark Knight and Iron Man laid down the modern blueprint on how to make a great super hero movie.

 

What is the 'modern blueprint' on how to make a great superhero movie?

 

Just compare pre-and post 2008 super hero movies, and we will see the vast majority of good superhero movies are post- 2008, and the vast majority of stinker superhero movies are pre-2008.

 

They are?

 

Pre 2008 Winners:

Superman

Superman 2

First Batman

The Crow

First Spider-man

Spider-man 2

Blade

Blade 2

Hellboy

Hellboy 2

Sin City

 

2008+ Losers:

Punisher War Zone

The Spirit

Jonah Hex

Green Hornet

Green Lantern

Sin City 2

ASM

ASM2

Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance

 

 

I bet if the Raimi Spider-Man 3 came out in 2009 it would have turned out better.

 

Why? The things that make it bad have nothing to do with anything since.

 

Raimi never knew that is Spider-Man 3 would seem lame and dated years later compared to the Nolan Dark Night and the Marvel cinematic universe style of movies.

 

You mean special effects? The special effects have improved? It didn't help the ASM movies - the special effects looked silly in those movies.

 

Spider-man 3 is lame for a lot of reasons, but I don't understand what you think those reasons are compared to movies over the last 7 years.

 

I understand what ComicConnoisseur means. After Batman Begins, the filmmakers started grounding these movies somewhat in reality. By 2008, that formula was further galvanized with The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Big-budget funnybook book movies that winked at their audience were never gonna be the same. There was gonna be a more universal theme with the characters and they were gonna take it seriously. When Heath Ledger tells Batman, "You changed things...", he was pretty on point. My 2c

 

Uh....Guardians of the Galaxy was winking pretty hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewEnglandGothic

NewEnglandGothic

Posted
Posted
Time to break out all three Spider-Man DVD's and watch these over a few nights. I'll see for myself how the trilogy altered over time.
Did this last summer. The first two do hold up pretty well, like the first two X-Men. There are forgettable scenes, mainly the Kirsten Dunst ones trying to act in plays. I do agree with other posters saying they were trying to cram two movies into one for the third opus. Another poster suggested they should have made a part 1 and part 2 movie set. I disagree. Whenever they do that the first installment is always the placeholder for the main climax second movie. Why would a movie with an all-new villian and plot need to be part of one movie? Sure, build it up a little installment to installment, but we don't need a lot of LOTR false endings here, it's Spider-man. Sometimes it really works, Kill Bill, most of the time, it doesn't. Here's a more rational idea, do one villian per movie and focus on that like they were originally doing. :idea:

 

Spider-Man 3 was a clearcut case of studio greed selling swampland to the mainstream and trying to get away with it under the Spider-Man banner.

The amazing about Spider-Man three was it was probably the last of the old school way of doing super hero movies, as the next year(2008) the Nolan Dark Knight and the beginning of the Marvel cinematic universe with Iron Man debuted.

 

What was the 'old school way' of doing superhero movies?

 

2008 was the year the comic book movies started to get good and great on a consistent basis because Dark Knight and Iron Man laid down the modern blueprint on how to make a great super hero movie.

 

What is the 'modern blueprint' on how to make a great superhero movie?

 

Just compare pre-and post 2008 super hero movies, and we will see the vast majority of good superhero movies are post- 2008, and the vast majority of stinker superhero movies are pre-2008.

 

They are?

 

Pre 2008 Winners:

Superman

Superman 2

First Batman

The Crow

First Spider-man

Spider-man 2

Blade

Blade 2

Hellboy

Hellboy 2

Sin City

 

2008+ Losers:

Punisher War Zone

The Spirit

Jonah Hex

Green Hornet

Green Lantern

Sin City 2

ASM

ASM2

Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance

 

 

I bet if the Raimi Spider-Man 3 came out in 2009 it would have turned out better.

 

Why? The things that make it bad have nothing to do with anything since.

 

Raimi never knew that is Spider-Man 3 would seem lame and dated years later compared to the Nolan Dark Night and the Marvel cinematic universe style of movies.

 

You mean special effects? The special effects have improved? It didn't help the ASM movies - the special effects looked silly in those movies.

 

Spider-man 3 is lame for a lot of reasons, but I don't understand what you think those reasons are compared to movies over the last 7 years.

 

I understand what ComicConnoisseur means. After Batman Begins, the filmmakers started grounding these movies somewhat in reality. By 2008, that formula was further galvanized with The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Big-budget funnybook book movies that winked at their audience were never gonna be the same. There was gonna be a more universal theme with the characters and they were gonna take it seriously. When Heath Ledger tells Batman, "You changed things...", he was pretty on point. My 2c

 

Uh....Guardians of the Galaxy was winking pretty hard.

I knew you were gonna hang me with that. I just knew it. lol

 

When I originally wrote what I wrote, I tried not to say that they all were not gonna wink at the audience, just that they were never gonna be the same.

 

A couple of days ago, I watched The Mask. The Dark Knight is my favorite all-time funnybook movie, yet I can also enjoy The Mask. Everything doesn't have too be so serious. :)

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bird

Bird

Posted
Posted

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

In other words, a new world order?

 

BTW, I cannot watch the Dark Knight movies repeatedly, they just don't draw me in after the initial viewings. Am I alone in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimjum12

jimjum12

Posted
Posted

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

In other words, a new world order?

 

BTW, I cannot watch the Dark Knight movies repeatedly, they just don't draw me in after the initial viewings. Am I alone in that?

 

...the first is my favorite..... the second two are a bit rich for repeated viewings.... though I have been jonesing for another look at the third one. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisInBaltimore

ChrisInBaltimore

Posted
Posted

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

In other words, a new world order?

 

BTW, I cannot watch the Dark Knight movies repeatedly, they just don't draw me in after the initial viewings. Am I alone in that?

 

Not at all. The only re-watchable one is Batman Begins. The others just don't pull me in and honestly I usually fall asleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewEnglandGothic

NewEnglandGothic

Posted
Posted

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

In other words, a new world order?

 

BTW, I cannot watch the Dark Knight movies repeatedly, they just don't draw me in after the initial viewings. Am I alone in that?

I live pretty close to Boston (I actually live in New Boston), and after the continued events of lunatic rampage a couple years ago, TDK resonates a little more with me and probably a lot of boardies who live in the area, the same way New Yorkers feel about the first couple Spider-Man and Avengers movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

In other words, a new world order?

 

BTW, I cannot watch the Dark Knight movies repeatedly, they just don't draw me in after the initial viewings. Am I alone in that?

I live pretty close to Boston (I actually live in New Boston), and after the continued events of lunatic rampage a couple years ago, TDK resonates a little more with me and probably a lot of boardies who live in the area, the same way New Yorkers feel about the first couple Spider-Man and Avengers movie.

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darkowl

Darkowl

Posted
Posted

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

In other words, a new world order?

 

BTW, I cannot watch the Dark Knight movies repeatedly, they just don't draw me in after the initial viewings. Am I alone in that?

 

You're not alone, not completely anyways.

I can only watch TDK repeatedly...thanks to the Heath Ledger. I seriously cant stand Katie Holmes in Batman Begins, and the Scarecrow is lame. As for the third installment, It felt way too long, and Anne Hathaway as Catwoman...so boring. For me, there's just too many reasons not to watch the first and third repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

In other words, a new world order?

 

BTW, I cannot watch the Dark Knight movies repeatedly, they just don't draw me in after the initial viewings. Am I alone in that?

I live pretty close to Boston (I actually live in New Boston), and after the continued events of lunatic rampage a couple years ago, TDK resonates a little more with me and probably a lot of boardies who live in the area, the same way New Yorkers feel about the first couple Spider-Man and Avengers movie.

 

I really appreciate 'The Dark Knight' and Batman Begins' more than I do 'The Dark Knight Rises' though all three are a solid CBM experience overall.

 

With the Spider-Man franchise, the first two were outstanding for me. The third just was too much crammed into a few hours. With 'Amazing Spider-Man' I was enjoying it until halfway through the movie. The Lizard just came across too poorly delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
Time to break out all three Spider-Man DVD's and watch these over a few nights. I'll see for myself how the trilogy altered over time.
Did this last summer. The first two do hold up pretty well, like the first two X-Men. There are forgettable scenes, mainly the Kirsten Dunst ones trying to act in plays. I do agree with other posters saying they were trying to cram two movies into one for the third opus. Another poster suggested they should have made a part 1 and part 2 movie set. I disagree. Whenever they do that the first installment is always the placeholder for the main climax second movie. Why would a movie with an all-new villian and plot need to be part of one movie? Sure, build it up a little installment to installment, but we don't need a lot of LOTR false endings here, it's Spider-man. Sometimes it really works, Kill Bill, most of the time, it doesn't. Here's a more rational idea, do one villian per movie and focus on that like they were originally doing. :idea:

 

Spider-Man 3 was a clearcut case of studio greed selling swampland to the mainstream and trying to get away with it under the Spider-Man banner.

The amazing about Spider-Man three was it was probably the last of the old school way of doing super hero movies, as the next year(2008) the Nolan Dark Knight and the beginning of the Marvel cinematic universe with Iron Man debuted.

 

What was the 'old school way' of doing superhero movies?

 

2008 was the year the comic book movies started to get good and great on a consistent basis because Dark Knight and Iron Man laid down the modern blueprint on how to make a great super hero movie.

 

What is the 'modern blueprint' on how to make a great superhero movie?

 

Just compare pre-and post 2008 super hero movies, and we will see the vast majority of good superhero movies are post- 2008, and the vast majority of stinker superhero movies are pre-2008.

 

They are?

 

Pre 2008 Winners:

Superman

Superman 2

First Batman

The Crow

First Spider-man

Spider-man 2

Blade

Blade 2

Hellboy

Hellboy 2

Sin City

 

2008+ Losers:

Punisher War Zone

The Spirit

Jonah Hex

Green Hornet

Green Lantern

Sin City 2

ASM

ASM2

Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance

 

 

I bet if the Raimi Spider-Man 3 came out in 2009 it would have turned out better.

 

Why? The things that make it bad have nothing to do with anything since.

 

Raimi never knew that is Spider-Man 3 would seem lame and dated years later compared to the Nolan Dark Night and the Marvel cinematic universe style of movies.

 

You mean special effects? The special effects have improved? It didn't help the ASM movies - the special effects looked silly in those movies.

 

Spider-man 3 is lame for a lot of reasons, but I don't understand what you think those reasons are compared to movies over the last 7 years.

 

I understand what ComicConnoisseur means. After Batman Begins, the filmmakers started grounding these movies somewhat in reality. By 2008, that formula was further galvanized with The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Big-budget funnybook book movies that winked at their audience were never gonna be the same. There was gonna be a more universal theme with the characters and they were gonna take it seriously. When Heath Ledger tells Batman, "You changed things...", he was pretty on point. My 2c

 

Uh....Guardians of the Galaxy was winking pretty hard.

I knew you were gonna hang me with that. I just knew it. lol

 

When I originally wrote what I wrote, I tried not to say that they all were not gonna wink at the audience, just that they were never gonna be the same.

 

A couple of days ago, I watched The Mask. The Dark Knight is my favorite all-time funnybook movie, yet I can also enjoy The Mask. Everything doesn't have too be so serious. :)

 

To me The Dark Knight represents the evolution of serious funnybook filmmaking, for various themes, from emotional to political, that reflect our daily Modern lives.

 

I agree, but what you're saying, is that there's NOT a formula (which is what I said), but rather they do a better job of looking at each specific movie individually.

 

I like to think that's true as well.

 

But they still get some wrong.

 

That's different than what CC said, which is that essentially super hero movies after 2008 follow a formula and that's why the majority of the best films were all made after 2008. Which is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing