100% agree. The only real purpose he serves is to give Peter someone to be mad enough to lash out at aggressively, which could've been accomplished with far less contrived situations that didn't necessitate retcons.
Being made before Disney ate everything and films in general degraded again. But they were actually bad anyway.
Understanding what tone is helps. Raimi might bore me but there is nothing negative or sapping. But if I flip on anything MCU... it's radiating melancholy and aggression like the people who make the product don't sample it to find out it's nihilistic.
Venom was misused and a late entry. Sandman was given centre stage.
Symbiote's storyline has to be split into two parts - rejecting the suit and Eddie coming for revenge are two separate arcs.
They tried to have their cake and eat it too by suggesting that the original robber being there startled Flint and made him fire his gun, meaning Peter still may have prevented Ben’s death. It’s just not as clean though, and still introduces an outside factor Peter couldn’t control which dilutes the lesson.
It lessens the impact massively. It turns a very specific mistake into a part of a string of happenstances that may have happened anyway for all we know.
The setup is so iconic and perfect that even the comics, which have done everything from Spider Gods to Sons Past, haven’t touched it. I wonder if that was always an idea, or if someone Sony’s interference created it.
I really, really hated that retcon. It was completely meaningless, over complicated a very simple concept, and was such a contrived way to connect Peter to Flint.
Flint should’ve just been a criminal, maybe one Spidey arrested. But the connection to Peter never worked.
>about 3 is retconning Uncle Ben's death so that Peter wasn't responsible anymore.
He still was. Had Peter stopped the guy Flint wouldn't have accidentally shot Uncle Ben. He would've gone back home. We saw that he was close to doing that before his partner startled him.
I feel like 3 should have taken a lot more from Conway and Dematteis’ Harry Green Goblin stories, and that should’ve been the bread and butter of the film. The first two movies were essentially about Peter, MJ, and Harry. 2 had more focus on MJ, so 3 should’ve been more about Harry. He shouldn’t have had that snowboard outfit either, he should’ve had a full on costume. I honestly wouldn’t have even minded him being Hobgoblin just so Sony got their toy money, as long as we got that focus. It really felt like Harry was set up as the “final boss” of a trilogy with a redemption right at the end, but because of Venom and Sandman he felt like his arc was on the backburner.
If anything, Venom needed a duology all to himself.
>If anything, Venom needed a duology all to himself.
Venom is one of those characters like Two-Face or the Lizard that really requires prior movies to set him up. In Venom's case just one movie of Black Suit Spidey will do, with him removing the suit at the end creating Venom as a cliffhanger. They actually seriously considered splitting SM3 in two but like Harry Potter 4 they decided against it because they couldn't figure out what point to split it at, even tho like I just explained it obviously should've split after the church scene.
It doesn’t seem hard to figure out. >Church scene happens, but no Eddie and we don’t see where the Symbiote goes >Rest of movie happens >Cut back to the church, and Eddie goes in praying. Symbiote overheard Eddie and latches on. End credits.
Frick off, Venom and Bully Maguire were the best parts of the film.
Venom was the best part, it was Sandman who was unnecessary
and
The real thing that sucks about 3 is retconning Uncle Ben's death so that Peter wasn't responsible anymore.
have the right idea. The entire point of Spider-Man becoming a hero is to atone for not stepping up and doing the right thing and in turn costing his Uncle Ben's life. That's something that even the TASM duology got right.
>We would've had Campbell Mysterio. The pay off
Campbell Mysterio wasn't in the cards until the fourth one, and he was only ever meant to be a cameo in a montage.
Venom was the best part, it was Sandman who was unnecessary
There are good arguments to be made for either Sandman or Venom, but both of them together created an imbalance that squeezed Harry out of the picture. It’s telling that Harry’s Goblin was just called “New Goblin” in the credits and all the merchandise, as if so much time was spent trying to fit the other two new baddies that they never found time to decide if Harry should be Green Goblin 2 or Hobgoblin. The costume just being a flying snowboarder instead of a proper Goblin at all also points to the idea that they just tried to minimize his part all together, complete with convenient amnesia for the second act. In the end you had a movie where none of the three villains got adequate time to shine. Studio politics aside, the movie really should’ve gone one of two ways.
1. Harry is the main villain out for revenge. He uses Sandman as a flunky to soften Peter up, and Peter is too distracted by his grudge against Sandman as Ben’s real killer to realize what’s going on. In the end Peter chooses forgiveness, something Harry is unable to do as he spirals out of control and self destructs.
2. Harry starts as the main villain out for revenge, but is beaten by Peter in the black suit. When Venom emerges, he offers Harry another chance at victory which Harry accepts in a Faustian bargain. Ultimately Harry has a change of heart and saves Peter, choosing forgiveness, something Eddie Brock is unable to do as he spirals out of control and self destructs.
I’m both versions, the narrative remains largely unchanged, but there’s more breathing room. Peter is pulled in fewer directions and Harry gets time to shine.
>Harry is the main villain out for revenge. He uses Sandman as a flunky to soften Peter up, and Peter is too distracted by his grudge against Sandman as Ben’s real killer to realize what’s going on. In the end Peter chooses forgiveness, something Harry is unable to do as he spirals out of control and self destructs.
I’m sort of on this train, but without the “real killer” thing. Sandman should’ve just been a thug Spidey put away early in his career, which lost him time with his sick daughter, so he has a grudge that Harry exploits for his plots. Then in the final battle everything goes too far, and Flint stops fighting and takes responsibility for his actions after Harry dies saving Peter from something. Also, instead of just letting him go, Spidey agrees to let Sandman spend time with his daughter, and then turns himself in.
To still give Spidey a grudge, just have Sandman do something that causes someone Peter cares about to be hurt. In the middle of a rampage, maybe Jameson gets injured, or even MJ.
Hell it could even be as simple as he really was the robber’s accomplice and picked out Ben’s car, but fled when the robber killed him. It would preserve the robber being at fault but still create a thread of blame for Peter to pursue.
That’s actually a fair point. Still makes Sandman a bit overly convenient, but better. >This was the accomplish to Ben Parker’s murder.
>It was supposed to be an easy job, get the money and go. Then next thing I knew, he was shaking down an old man. Before I could stop it, he shot him and took his wallet. I ran. It wasn’t part of the plan.
Just anything but “real killer”. The burglar being let go then killing Ben is so tight that you can’t do anything else.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Spider-Man 3 really is a good case for how future franchises would start to learn from certain mistakes. Nowadays something like the Sandman twist would be planned from the start, but back then sequels weren’t always a guarantee, and Rami wasn’t thinking “maybe I should spare the robber for a bigger role later”.
2 years ago
Anonymous
One real complaint I do have with Raimi was his obsession with every villain connecting to Peter directly. Sandman in this regard felt extremely forced, and while Brock knows who Peter is in the comics, it felt a bit overly convenient that he, Harry, AND Flint had a direct connection to Peter at the same time. It would’ve been nice to have had a villain who was just a powerful enemy and only had a grudge with Spidey.
I, for one, think that amnesia works kind of brilliantly in Spider-Man 3. I mean, think about it, at that point in time Peter find out that his revenge was never technically completed, and in the movie Harry forgets that he thinks Peter killed his dad. Peter in turn is in the exactly same shoes as Marco.
Exactly my feelings.
It's interesting to see how Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was a drama film while Webb's Amazing was an attempt to be a romance movie disguised as a superhero film but due to Sony this wasn't as envisioned as the director wished it to be
Webb had literally nothing to do with those movies moron, the man doesn't exist. If anything it felt like Snoy was forcing the romance to get the Twilight audience
Time. Hated on release, but nostalgia hits hard, and over time the series became loved. Happens with so many movies. You can see it happening right now with Man of Steel.
>You can see it happening right now with Man of Steel.
This baffles me. I don't think much of capeshit fans but I thought we all at least agreed on what about that movie doesn't work for Superman's character.
so much soul and a lack of making fun of itself. It can be corny but these movies took themselves seriously and felt genuine, especially the first two and it's characters. People want to shit on the Peter MJ stuff but it worked for me and was cute
1 is pretty great, 2 is the GOAT superhero movie, and 3 is just meh but not so bad if you're just in it for certain scenes that tie up the trilogy, primarily related to Harry
Also I loved No Way Home but largely just due to it being a pseudo continuation of some of the Raimi arcs
>Also I loved No Way Home but largely just due to it being a pseudo continuation of some of the Raimi arcs
This. I was afraid of how they would write the villains but they pulled it off as well as anyone could. Even seeing the 3 Peters interact was fun.
>Also I loved No Way Home but largely just due to it being a pseudo continuation of some of the Raimi arcs
This. I was afraid of how they would write the villains but they pulled it off as well as anyone could. Even seeing the 3 Peters interact was fun.
tbh I wouldn't be surprised if No Way Home is gonna be one of those films that people look back on in a few years and think "why did everyone say they loved this so much?"
It's almost entirely reliant on cribbing from the Raimi trilogy, and even a little bit of the Amazing films, for any sort of impact. All the big moments are dependent on the audience knowing other films, rather than on the strength of the MCU's own Spidey or the movie itself.
That’s what I thought watching it. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the final part of the movie, but before Tobey and Andrew arrive the film is a mess. The “heroes” are literally the cause of all the problems in the movie, the le quirky jokes are horrible, Holland has the charisma of a wet sock, Zendaya was irritating and I likable, Strange came off as a massive idiot, and the whole plot is perpetuated by really stupid decisions.
At least once we get Andrew and Tobey, the films basically morphs into a love letter to them. Tobey Peter is now the man we knew he would become: Strong, dependable, wise, and completely at peace with himself. Garfield’s Spidey got closure and a bigger chance to develop than his movies allowed him to. Dafoe obviously kills it once he goes full Goblin.
I appreciate it didn’t just take a giant dump on them like other properties tend to do (like Star Wars), and instead embraced them.
It’s not a good movie, but it was nice to see the boys back even if it was a cheap attempt to save a crappier Spider-Man.
>Spider-Man 1 - Perfect comic book origin movie. Even when it takes liberties on aspects from the comics, essentially understands and encapsulates the soul of the Ditko/Lee/Romita era of the comics (especially Romita). Manages to both be dynamic and cheesy, but also gives everything weight and a sense of urgency. >Spider-Man 2 - Continues to hit major aspects/feelings in the Romita/Lee era, and does a perfect job continuing the story and letting Peter and Harry grow as characters. While Otto’s interpretation is different, he works as an amalgamation of Spidey’s enemies, and works as the antagonist. Movie also gives us more insight into Peter and the decisions he has to make. >Spider-Man 3 - Actually does a lot wrong, but Franco played HarryGoblin really well when he had the chance to, and Sandman’s scenes were top notch. Also, really underrated score.
Overall, Raimi captured what Spider-Man ultimately represents, and did a great job condensing it.
Quiet, personal character moments. Seriously. Some of the best parts are the Peter Parker scenes where he's talking to Aunt May about something. Raimi understood Spider-Man and Peter Parker as a whole.
>You are… amazing. >Some people don’t think so.
Just perfectly sums up Spider-Man. No le Scooby Doo this crap, no skateboarding to Sony approved punk music. Just a moment really peeling back Spider-Man.
His criticism at 14:40 is so awful that it’s hard to imagine him being serious. >May finds out that her “son” is partly responsible for the death of her husband, and he never mentioned it before >Doesn’t know how to react, and leaves the room in shock. >Later she tells Peter that she’s proud of him for making such a hard decision, and reassures him that she loves him >HURR THAT’S NOT MUH AUNT MAY, WHY IS SHE MAD, WHY DIDN’T THE MOVIE SPELL OUT EVERYTHING FOR ME
Almost every single one of his complaints comes down to “My superhero movies can’t be cheesy” or “Why won’t they spell everything out for me”.
I love how spectacular spider-man weaved in raimi stuff with the 616/ultimate storyline. Especially the time Raimi!Ben is the one to talk Pete out of falling for the symbiote, or the time it turned out the robber who killed ben was Felicia's father.
Is Spider-Man 3 as bad as everyone says it is?
Last time I saw it was back in theaters so all I remember is liking it aside from the romance drama. Thinking of rewatching it but I don’t want to ruin the good feeling I got rewatching the first two.
The MCU Spider-Man movies are dull, lifeless, and more annoying than fun. They don’t even feel like Spider-Man films, just corporate mush using the name.
NWH’a first half was awful, but once Tobey and Andrew show up it gets good.
I fricking despise this whole "Spider-Man 3 was good" nonsense although I do personally like it for what it is. It makes me believe zoomies are convinced that the Raimi movies were one big meme and are only good because they are old funny campy movies and three is the best because it's the funniest and silliest, the first two were genuinely good and the third is garbage in comparison. Anything good about it isn't related to the humour and action the good aspect is giving you a relatively nice ending to the first two movies.
It's got some good moments but overall it's quite a severe dropoff in quality from the previous film. Following up Spider-Man 2 would've been a hard time anyways, but stuffing the plot with characters didn't help. The fight scenes and character moments are also far less interesting than in the first two films. I'm not sure there's anyone who actually likes the Peter/MJ romance in these films, but 3 devotes a ridiculous amount of time to making them both buttholes so they break up before inevitably getting back together at the end
Also, Topher Grace's Venom fricking sucks. The guy's just not intimidating at all
>Also, Topher Grace's Venom fricking sucks. The guy's just not intimidating at all
It’s not helped by the fact that Eddie is written as a smarmy dickhead instead of the honest but hard done by guy he usually is. Also he kept pulling his monster face back to talk, which in hindsight was a sign of things to come because now every masked character has a magically disappearing mask for dialogue in the middle of action scenes. Also I’m just realizing now how “nanotechnology” makes the Symbiote less unique and cool.
I'm honestly kinda worried for Doom in the MCU, because going off of their precedent his armour and cape will be completely CGI and he'll barely wear the mask so that whichever actor they get can have as much facetime as specified in the contract
I fricking despise this whole "Spider-Man 3 was good" nonsense although I do personally like it for what it is. It makes me believe zoomies are convinced that the Raimi movies were one big meme and are only good because they are old funny campy movies and three is the best because it's the funniest and silliest, the first two were genuinely good and the third is garbage in comparison. Anything good about it isn't related to the humour and action the good aspect is giving you a relatively nice ending to the first two movies.
Reminder that Spider-Man 3 was only released a year before the Incredible Hulk and the first Iron Man, meaning that the earliest MCU films arguably have more in common culturally with old comic movies than they do with current cape media. Yet people often slide the scale of time without realizing it because Iron Man is still a piece of an ongoing canon and therefore considered “modern”. This is my round about way of saying that I think Spider-Man 3’s bad reputation making people write off the whole trilogy retroactively was exasperated by Iron Man being such a game changer and The MCU being seen as “the future”. Hell at one point there was even a shared sentiment that Amazing Spider-Man, prior to release, would be a chance for the character to finally be done “right” on film. That’s how bad Spider-Man 3 poisoned the well.
I will never not find it funny that all The Amazing Spider-Man had to do was be better than Spider-Man 3 but instead decided to go head to head with Spider-Man (2002) instead and ended up being worse than both and even the possibility of joining the MCU wasn't enough to save it
I’d argue being labeled as MCU from the jump would’ve made people overlook its shortcomings. It’s really not as terrible as people make it out to be, it just got made at an awkward time and is wrapped up in studio politics and nerds taking side in a brand war. The biggest knock against AS2 was that it spent too much time setting up spin offs, but if they had done so with the understanding that it would be part of MCU, people would’ve been excited because then Doc Ock might fight Captain America or whatever. Holland was inferior to his predecessors in every way but no one cared initially because he was in the right canon. It only took seeing him side by side with the other two to make people realize what they had before.
Are you moronic? He wasn't "told it was bad", there is copious documentation of he himself being very unhappy with the production of 3. It's why he left.
This is what I hate about online discussion. Everything is either "COMPLETE SHIT" or "GENIUS! FRICK THE HATERS!". It's possible to like a film while acknowledging its flaws, or not like a film but acknowledge that it did some things well. This all-or-nothing shit is literal autism.
They're extremely sincere, they have fantastic casting (Jameson is literally perfect, Molina and Defoe both knock it out of the park). They have extremely well constructed action scenes that do a great job being dynamic and incorpating the superpowers (espeically 2). 3 is much weaker than the others but still probably better than half the superhero movies that have been made, and I think Sandman was pretty compelling.
Really the single biggest issue of rewatch is how melodramatic the Peter/MJ stuff is, especially in the 2nd film. It hurts the pacing too.
Imagine if 3 didnt have venom or the emo bullshit and was successful. We would've had Campbell Mysterio. The pay off
Venom was the best part, it was Sandman who was unnecessary
100% agree. The only real purpose he serves is to give Peter someone to be mad enough to lash out at aggressively, which could've been accomplished with far less contrived situations that didn't necessitate retcons.
Being made before Disney ate everything and films in general degraded again.
But they were actually bad anyway.
Understanding what tone is helps. Raimi might bore me but there is nothing negative or sapping. But if I flip on anything MCU... it's radiating melancholy and aggression like the people who make the product don't sample it to find out it's nihilistic.
Venom was misused and a late entry. Sandman was given centre stage.
Symbiote's storyline has to be split into two parts - rejecting the suit and Eddie coming for revenge are two separate arcs.
>venom or the emo bullshit
so the good parts?
>or the emo bullshit
S-M3 has no emo bullshit.
The real thing that sucks about 3 is retconning Uncle Ben's death so that Peter wasn't responsible anymore.
They tried to have their cake and eat it too by suggesting that the original robber being there startled Flint and made him fire his gun, meaning Peter still may have prevented Ben’s death. It’s just not as clean though, and still introduces an outside factor Peter couldn’t control which dilutes the lesson.
It lessens the impact massively. It turns a very specific mistake into a part of a string of happenstances that may have happened anyway for all we know.
The setup is so iconic and perfect that even the comics, which have done everything from Spider Gods to Sons Past, haven’t touched it. I wonder if that was always an idea, or if someone Sony’s interference created it.
I really, really hated that retcon. It was completely meaningless, over complicated a very simple concept, and was such a contrived way to connect Peter to Flint.
Flint should’ve just been a criminal, maybe one Spidey arrested. But the connection to Peter never worked.
>about 3 is retconning Uncle Ben's death so that Peter wasn't responsible anymore.
He still was. Had Peter stopped the guy Flint wouldn't have accidentally shot Uncle Ben. He would've gone back home. We saw that he was close to doing that before his partner startled him.
So how do we know something else wouldn’t have startled him instead? It’s flimsy.
I mean there was no one else around him at the time.
Who’s to say someone doesn’t walk by soon after? Or a car drives by?
Meant for
>Who’s to say someone doesn’t walk by soon after? Or a car drives by?
Yeah those scenarios don't really matter
Being easily startled makes them matter.
I feel like 3 should have taken a lot more from Conway and Dematteis’ Harry Green Goblin stories, and that should’ve been the bread and butter of the film. The first two movies were essentially about Peter, MJ, and Harry. 2 had more focus on MJ, so 3 should’ve been more about Harry. He shouldn’t have had that snowboard outfit either, he should’ve had a full on costume. I honestly wouldn’t have even minded him being Hobgoblin just so Sony got their toy money, as long as we got that focus. It really felt like Harry was set up as the “final boss” of a trilogy with a redemption right at the end, but because of Venom and Sandman he felt like his arc was on the backburner.
If anything, Venom needed a duology all to himself.
>If anything, Venom needed a duology all to himself.
Venom is one of those characters like Two-Face or the Lizard that really requires prior movies to set him up. In Venom's case just one movie of Black Suit Spidey will do, with him removing the suit at the end creating Venom as a cliffhanger. They actually seriously considered splitting SM3 in two but like Harry Potter 4 they decided against it because they couldn't figure out what point to split it at, even tho like I just explained it obviously should've split after the church scene.
It doesn’t seem hard to figure out.
>Church scene happens, but no Eddie and we don’t see where the Symbiote goes
>Rest of movie happens
>Cut back to the church, and Eddie goes in praying. Symbiote overheard Eddie and latches on. End credits.
Frick off, Venom and Bully Maguire were the best parts of the film.
and
have the right idea. The entire point of Spider-Man becoming a hero is to atone for not stepping up and doing the right thing and in turn costing his Uncle Ben's life. That's something that even the TASM duology got right.
>We would've had Campbell Mysterio. The pay off
Campbell Mysterio wasn't in the cards until the fourth one, and he was only ever meant to be a cameo in a montage.
There are good arguments to be made for either Sandman or Venom, but both of them together created an imbalance that squeezed Harry out of the picture. It’s telling that Harry’s Goblin was just called “New Goblin” in the credits and all the merchandise, as if so much time was spent trying to fit the other two new baddies that they never found time to decide if Harry should be Green Goblin 2 or Hobgoblin. The costume just being a flying snowboarder instead of a proper Goblin at all also points to the idea that they just tried to minimize his part all together, complete with convenient amnesia for the second act. In the end you had a movie where none of the three villains got adequate time to shine. Studio politics aside, the movie really should’ve gone one of two ways.
1. Harry is the main villain out for revenge. He uses Sandman as a flunky to soften Peter up, and Peter is too distracted by his grudge against Sandman as Ben’s real killer to realize what’s going on. In the end Peter chooses forgiveness, something Harry is unable to do as he spirals out of control and self destructs.
2. Harry starts as the main villain out for revenge, but is beaten by Peter in the black suit. When Venom emerges, he offers Harry another chance at victory which Harry accepts in a Faustian bargain. Ultimately Harry has a change of heart and saves Peter, choosing forgiveness, something Eddie Brock is unable to do as he spirals out of control and self destructs.
I’m both versions, the narrative remains largely unchanged, but there’s more breathing room. Peter is pulled in fewer directions and Harry gets time to shine.
>Harry is the main villain out for revenge. He uses Sandman as a flunky to soften Peter up, and Peter is too distracted by his grudge against Sandman as Ben’s real killer to realize what’s going on. In the end Peter chooses forgiveness, something Harry is unable to do as he spirals out of control and self destructs.
I’m sort of on this train, but without the “real killer” thing. Sandman should’ve just been a thug Spidey put away early in his career, which lost him time with his sick daughter, so he has a grudge that Harry exploits for his plots. Then in the final battle everything goes too far, and Flint stops fighting and takes responsibility for his actions after Harry dies saving Peter from something. Also, instead of just letting him go, Spidey agrees to let Sandman spend time with his daughter, and then turns himself in.
To still give Spidey a grudge, just have Sandman do something that causes someone Peter cares about to be hurt. In the middle of a rampage, maybe Jameson gets injured, or even MJ.
Hell it could even be as simple as he really was the robber’s accomplice and picked out Ben’s car, but fled when the robber killed him. It would preserve the robber being at fault but still create a thread of blame for Peter to pursue.
That’s actually a fair point. Still makes Sandman a bit overly convenient, but better.
>This was the accomplish to Ben Parker’s murder.
>It was supposed to be an easy job, get the money and go. Then next thing I knew, he was shaking down an old man. Before I could stop it, he shot him and took his wallet. I ran. It wasn’t part of the plan.
Just anything but “real killer”. The burglar being let go then killing Ben is so tight that you can’t do anything else.
Spider-Man 3 really is a good case for how future franchises would start to learn from certain mistakes. Nowadays something like the Sandman twist would be planned from the start, but back then sequels weren’t always a guarantee, and Rami wasn’t thinking “maybe I should spare the robber for a bigger role later”.
One real complaint I do have with Raimi was his obsession with every villain connecting to Peter directly. Sandman in this regard felt extremely forced, and while Brock knows who Peter is in the comics, it felt a bit overly convenient that he, Harry, AND Flint had a direct connection to Peter at the same time. It would’ve been nice to have had a villain who was just a powerful enemy and only had a grudge with Spidey.
I, for one, think that amnesia works kind of brilliantly in Spider-Man 3. I mean, think about it, at that point in time Peter find out that his revenge was never technically completed, and in the movie Harry forgets that he thinks Peter killed his dad. Peter in turn is in the exactly same shoes as Marco.
Looking back at Spiderman 3 in 2022 really makes you realize it wasnt that bad considering all the shit cape movies in the 2010s+
Nickelback
Early 2000s naiveté and SOVL.
no expectations and a director that loved the source material
It's a drama movie disguised as a superhero film
.Modore
Well i do like drama movies so that is why i love the spiderman trilogy
Exactly my feelings.
It's interesting to see how Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was a drama film while Webb's Amazing was an attempt to be a romance movie disguised as a superhero film but due to Sony this wasn't as envisioned as the director wished it to be
Webb had literally nothing to do with those movies moron, the man doesn't exist. If anything it felt like Snoy was forcing the romance to get the Twilight audience
He is real.
And he will release the true Amazing Spider-Man one day...
Time. Hated on release, but nostalgia hits hard, and over time the series became loved. Happens with so many movies. You can see it happening right now with Man of Steel.
>Hated on release
All three movies sold extremely well.
I know.
>Hated on release
Only the third one
That sounds like a personal issue, I loved 1 and 2 the moment they came out.
>You can see it happening right now with Man of Steel.
This baffles me. I don't think much of capeshit fans but I thought we all at least agreed on what about that movie doesn't work for Superman's character.
Soul, soul is indescribable but this trilogy is full of it.
so much soul and a lack of making fun of itself. It can be corny but these movies took themselves seriously and felt genuine, especially the first two and it's characters. People want to shit on the Peter MJ stuff but it worked for me and was cute
It was a romantic dramedy first and a superhero movie second. It actually built up relationships and characters.
Heart and Sam Raimi is a competent director.
THEY SAY THAT A HERO COULD SAVE US
1 is pretty great, 2 is the GOAT superhero movie, and 3 is just meh but not so bad if you're just in it for certain scenes that tie up the trilogy, primarily related to Harry
Also I loved No Way Home but largely just due to it being a pseudo continuation of some of the Raimi arcs
>Also I loved No Way Home but largely just due to it being a pseudo continuation of some of the Raimi arcs
This. I was afraid of how they would write the villains but they pulled it off as well as anyone could. Even seeing the 3 Peters interact was fun.
tbh I wouldn't be surprised if No Way Home is gonna be one of those films that people look back on in a few years and think "why did everyone say they loved this so much?"
It's almost entirely reliant on cribbing from the Raimi trilogy, and even a little bit of the Amazing films, for any sort of impact. All the big moments are dependent on the audience knowing other films, rather than on the strength of the MCU's own Spidey or the movie itself.
Only morons would think that, these movies have always been an extension of the Raimi films
That’s what I thought watching it. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the final part of the movie, but before Tobey and Andrew arrive the film is a mess. The “heroes” are literally the cause of all the problems in the movie, the le quirky jokes are horrible, Holland has the charisma of a wet sock, Zendaya was irritating and I likable, Strange came off as a massive idiot, and the whole plot is perpetuated by really stupid decisions.
At least once we get Andrew and Tobey, the films basically morphs into a love letter to them. Tobey Peter is now the man we knew he would become: Strong, dependable, wise, and completely at peace with himself. Garfield’s Spidey got closure and a bigger chance to develop than his movies allowed him to. Dafoe obviously kills it once he goes full Goblin.
I appreciate it didn’t just take a giant dump on them like other properties tend to do (like Star Wars), and instead embraced them.
It’s not a good movie, but it was nice to see the boys back even if it was a cheap attempt to save a crappier Spider-Man.
>Spider-Man 1 - Perfect comic book origin movie. Even when it takes liberties on aspects from the comics, essentially understands and encapsulates the soul of the Ditko/Lee/Romita era of the comics (especially Romita). Manages to both be dynamic and cheesy, but also gives everything weight and a sense of urgency.
>Spider-Man 2 - Continues to hit major aspects/feelings in the Romita/Lee era, and does a perfect job continuing the story and letting Peter and Harry grow as characters. While Otto’s interpretation is different, he works as an amalgamation of Spidey’s enemies, and works as the antagonist. Movie also gives us more insight into Peter and the decisions he has to make.
>Spider-Man 3 - Actually does a lot wrong, but Franco played HarryGoblin really well when he had the chance to, and Sandman’s scenes were top notch. Also, really underrated score.
Overall, Raimi captured what Spider-Man ultimately represents, and did a great job condensing it.
Quiet, personal character moments. Seriously. Some of the best parts are the Peter Parker scenes where he's talking to Aunt May about something. Raimi understood Spider-Man and Peter Parker as a whole.
I swear, everything now is just some loud adhd fest. There’s no pacing.
THE HEART, OSBORN
Correct me if I'm wrong but was the first film the first to create the iconic scene between Spidey ,while inverted, and MJ kissing?
Soul fricking overload
>You are… amazing.
>Some people don’t think so.
Just perfectly sums up Spider-Man. No le Scooby Doo this crap, no skateboarding to Sony approved punk music. Just a moment really peeling back Spider-Man.
Did he have a point?
No, he’s trash.
His criticism at 14:40 is so awful that it’s hard to imagine him being serious.
>May finds out that her “son” is partly responsible for the death of her husband, and he never mentioned it before
>Doesn’t know how to react, and leaves the room in shock.
>Later she tells Peter that she’s proud of him for making such a hard decision, and reassures him that she loves him
>HURR THAT’S NOT MUH AUNT MAY, WHY IS SHE MAD, WHY DIDN’T THE MOVIE SPELL OUT EVERYTHING FOR ME
Almost every single one of his complaints comes down to “My superhero movies can’t be cheesy” or “Why won’t they spell everything out for me”.
I love how spectacular spider-man weaved in raimi stuff with the 616/ultimate storyline. Especially the time Raimi!Ben is the one to talk Pete out of falling for the symbiote, or the time it turned out the robber who killed ben was Felicia's father.
Is Spider-Man 3 as bad as everyone says it is?
Last time I saw it was back in theaters so all I remember is liking it aside from the romance drama. Thinking of rewatching it but I don’t want to ruin the good feeling I got rewatching the first two.
It’s pretty bad, especially compared to the first two, but honestly the ASM and MCU ones are worse (minus the second half of NWH).
MCU Spidey is pretty good tbh
The MCU Spider-Man movies are dull, lifeless, and more annoying than fun. They don’t even feel like Spider-Man films, just corporate mush using the name.
NWH’a first half was awful, but once Tobey and Andrew show up it gets good.
No, Homecoming was pure soul
It's easily the best of MCU Spidey by far, but I wouldn't say it's got soul
It really wasn’t. Vulture was basically Not-Norman, and the whole thing was based on how amazing and super swell Tony Stark was.
>Is Spider-Man 3 as bad as everyone says it is?
No. It's a really good film
movie*
It's got some good moments but overall it's quite a severe dropoff in quality from the previous film. Following up Spider-Man 2 would've been a hard time anyways, but stuffing the plot with characters didn't help. The fight scenes and character moments are also far less interesting than in the first two films. I'm not sure there's anyone who actually likes the Peter/MJ romance in these films, but 3 devotes a ridiculous amount of time to making them both buttholes so they break up before inevitably getting back together at the end
Also, Topher Grace's Venom fricking sucks. The guy's just not intimidating at all
>Also, Topher Grace's Venom fricking sucks. The guy's just not intimidating at all
It’s not helped by the fact that Eddie is written as a smarmy dickhead instead of the honest but hard done by guy he usually is. Also he kept pulling his monster face back to talk, which in hindsight was a sign of things to come because now every masked character has a magically disappearing mask for dialogue in the middle of action scenes. Also I’m just realizing now how “nanotechnology” makes the Symbiote less unique and cool.
I'm honestly kinda worried for Doom in the MCU, because going off of their precedent his armour and cape will be completely CGI and he'll barely wear the mask so that whichever actor they get can have as much facetime as specified in the contract
>webm
I hope they don’t try that sleek nanotech shit with Doom’s armour
I fricking despise this whole "Spider-Man 3 was good" nonsense although I do personally like it for what it is. It makes me believe zoomies are convinced that the Raimi movies were one big meme and are only good because they are old funny campy movies and three is the best because it's the funniest and silliest, the first two were genuinely good and the third is garbage in comparison. Anything good about it isn't related to the humour and action the good aspect is giving you a relatively nice ending to the first two movies.
Not fond of 3 by any means but the scene with Flint "waking up" as Sandman for the first time is legitimately great
Reminder that Spider-Man 3 was only released a year before the Incredible Hulk and the first Iron Man, meaning that the earliest MCU films arguably have more in common culturally with old comic movies than they do with current cape media. Yet people often slide the scale of time without realizing it because Iron Man is still a piece of an ongoing canon and therefore considered “modern”. This is my round about way of saying that I think Spider-Man 3’s bad reputation making people write off the whole trilogy retroactively was exasperated by Iron Man being such a game changer and The MCU being seen as “the future”. Hell at one point there was even a shared sentiment that Amazing Spider-Man, prior to release, would be a chance for the character to finally be done “right” on film. That’s how bad Spider-Man 3 poisoned the well.
I will never not find it funny that all The Amazing Spider-Man had to do was be better than Spider-Man 3 but instead decided to go head to head with Spider-Man (2002) instead and ended up being worse than both and even the possibility of joining the MCU wasn't enough to save it
I’d argue being labeled as MCU from the jump would’ve made people overlook its shortcomings. It’s really not as terrible as people make it out to be, it just got made at an awkward time and is wrapped up in studio politics and nerds taking side in a brand war. The biggest knock against AS2 was that it spent too much time setting up spin offs, but if they had done so with the understanding that it would be part of MCU, people would’ve been excited because then Doc Ock might fight Captain America or whatever. Holland was inferior to his predecessors in every way but no one cared initially because he was in the right canon. It only took seeing him side by side with the other two to make people realize what they had before.
You are delusional
>It’s really not as terrible as people make it out to be
Uncle Ben died for chocolate milk.
Also crap like https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-kXvHRFeqmc
>Uncle Ben died for chocolate milk.
>"You let me die... for some Black person milk...
Pure capekino.
3 is markedly worse than the first 2 but it's still better than most of the Marvel movies that followed it.
This Spider-Man series took itself seriously and wasn’t like a “look at me everybody I’m Spider-Man worship me!” Cringe shit that is now
They were allowed to say the gamer word back then. It made for better storytelling.
Mj's nipples poking through her shirt while it's raining.
they care about spider-man
S-M3 was always good and you can't convince me otherwise. It got a bad rap because people simply didn't get it. Simple as
Even Raimi would tell you it's bad
Of course he would, after being told multiple times that the movie is bad. But he did a good job.
Are you moronic? He wasn't "told it was bad", there is copious documentation of he himself being very unhappy with the production of 3. It's why he left.
This is what I hate about online discussion. Everything is either "COMPLETE SHIT" or "GENIUS! FRICK THE HATERS!". It's possible to like a film while acknowledging its flaws, or not like a film but acknowledge that it did some things well. This all-or-nothing shit is literal autism.
Oh it has flaws. I didn't say that it was perfect. It's just that the movie is still good, and people video infact get filtered by it.
>people video infact get filtered by it.
>Video
Idk how video was formed I typed "did". People did infact get filtered
THREE WORDS
JONAH
J
JAMESON
SM3 was fricking garbage, stop using prequel memes and MCU as a scapegoat
YOU'RE FRICKING GARBAGE
*bodyslams u*
They're extremely sincere, they have fantastic casting (Jameson is literally perfect, Molina and Defoe both knock it out of the park). They have extremely well constructed action scenes that do a great job being dynamic and incorpating the superpowers (espeically 2). 3 is much weaker than the others but still probably better than half the superhero movies that have been made, and I think Sandman was pretty compelling.
Really the single biggest issue of rewatch is how melodramatic the Peter/MJ stuff is, especially in the 2nd film. It hurts the pacing too.