Oh gosh, it's as bad as I remember... rotfl

Oh snap!

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/a...dancingyr1.gif

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/a...emoparker2.gif

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/a.../emoparker.gif

These gifs rule, plain and simple. I could watch them all day. Damn, I loved this movie. I may have to go back for more tomorrow.

It's even worse if you imagine a person actually doing that without any kind of music playing that was playing during the movie....Just real life, no music, and they're doing THAT in front of a department store.

I, personally, never said it was better or worse than any of the movies you named. I just find it silly that a few of you who really liked the movie can't take that many people have been disappointed with Spider-man 3 and have to make excuses that "it's a pack mentality" or some sort of fan-boy conspiracy instead of just (mostly ;)) normal people giving their humble opinions on a movie.

People (myself included) have listed detailed reasons why this movie didn't work for them or wasn't as good as the previous two. It has actually been refreshing to see so many posts with actual thoughts and descriptions as to why they disliked or even hated the movie instead of just throwing out the usual, "it sucked" comments.

But yet, if you disliked some or all of the movie, you are accused of being a disgruntled comic book geek, having a pack mentality to bash, etc. What happened to just having an opinion?

You liked it...fine. I didn't call you a fan-boy, a Raimi apologist, or a emo-Peter lover. Don't throw people who didn't like it into a group.

As far as the other movies you named in comparision...I would put Spider-man III alongside Superman III and Batman Forever (actually, I liked Forever better than Batman or Batman Returns...but none of the Batman movies compare to the re-boot Batman Begins). They are both movies that I enjoyed sections of and there were areas that I had serious issues with. Both were semi-enjoyable movies but failed to live up to their predecessors (for most people).

Now comparing Spidey 3 to Batman & Robin or Superman IV...well, that's hitting below the belt. It was nowhere...NOWHERE near as bad as those movies. The last big-name sequel I would put with Forever or Supes IV would be Pirates of the Caribbean II. But what do I know...look at all the money it made...even with poor word of mouth.

Just got back from seeing this again. Loved it! Of course it's flawed but it's still a great ride!

Well said! :thumbsup:

I'll never understand why people on the net have to get in such an uproar when some people don't like something they like and spout off a bunch of non-sense.

It's just movies, people have different tastes.

I thought it was pretty awesome. I can't compare it to others since this is the first feature film I've seen at an IMAX (we have a brand new IMAX and this was the premier movie).

See, here's why I have a problem with many of the people who have been bashing Spider Man 3 - the hyperbole they've used would be more appropriate for Batman & Robin or Superman IV. It doesn't match Spider Man 3. Saying that Spider Man 3 is a horrible movie just seems like a stupid comment. I mean, in a world where horrible movies like Batman & Robin, Superman IV, Catwoman exist, saying that Spider Man 3 is at that level just strikes me as either completely ignorant or just overly emotional (or totally unrealistic).

It's one thing to say that you don't like a movie. There are PLENTY of people who don't like even the greatest movies. I love Citizen Kane, but there are a hell of a lot of people who don't. But they don't call it a "bad" movie, they just say that they don't like it. Now, Spider Man 3 is clearly no Citizen Kane, however, it is better than a lot of Comic Book Superhero movies. Within the genre it clearly is better than a lot (Superman III & IV, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Supergirl, Catwoman, Hulk, Ghost Rider, etc, etc.), so using the kind of hyperbole that should be reserved for a movie as bad as those just doesn't make sense.

Now whether or not it is because someone sees all the criticism of a movie and thinks it has become "cool" to bash it, and falls in with the crowd so as not to be laughed at for finding the movie entertaining even if flawed, or because someone is just angry that it isn't as good as it could have (and perhaps should have) been and is venting that frustration using extreme terms in detailing its "badness," doesn't matter. No matter how you slice it, Spider Man 3 ISN'T a horrible movie. Disappointing? Maybe. Flawed? Definitely. But then how many movies aren't flawed?

I guess it just seems that too many people are holding Spider Man 3 to a standard that just isn't realistic for Raimi & company to achieve every time out. But a lot of the things that are being criticized are just brief 2-3 minute bits of Raimi's quirky sense of humor. They're a tiny part of the movie, and they're funny. Get over it.

Now, should they NOT have used the Sandman in the movie? Probably not. But they wanted to resolve the Harry/Peter thing without having the movie become a rehash of Spider Man 1. Could that have been achieved by giving Venom more time? Maybe, but you had to give Peter more time with the black suit/symbiote to become "bad" before you could have him try to get it off and have the suit go to Eddie. What's Peter going to do to show he's really "bad," kill Harry? The part where he "kills" (thinks he has, anyway) the Sandman shows just how far the symbiote has taken Peter. You couldn't have him kill Harry, so then what else could they do to show that he's gone that far? So they used the Sandman as a tool to show that Peter has changed - really gone dark side.

So, yeah, they probably could have done it in a different way, but that may not have worked any better. The whole symbiote/Eddie Brock story would have taken two separate movies to tell properly (really expand on the symbiote's influence on Peter), and they didn't want to end this movie with "Dark Side Peter," still around as a cliffhanger, or the symbiote finding Eddie Brock and becoming Venom as a cliffhanger. Either one of those would have made for better stories in the long term, but considering that NO ONE from the cast is signed for Spider Man 4, and neither is Raimi, the studio HAD to have them wrap everything up in Spider Man 3.

So, the way I see it, the only way to really have pleased the fans would have been to NOT include the black suit or Venom in Spider Man 3, and hold that for a "possible" Spider Man 4 AND 5. ....And then cue the criticism that they didn't use Venom and the Black Suit in Spider Man 3.

The way it looks now the producers couldn't win - not with the crowd we're seeing here.

I look at the glass 3/4 full - what was on the screen was mostly good, almost all entertaining, and that's OK with me. Would I have changed a few things in the script? Sure, but I can't so I'll live with them because I really liked a lot about Spider Man 3.

I agree that this movie doesn't deserve the drubbing it's taking in these parts. Was I disappointed? Yes, but I didn't leave the theater feeling as though I had just seen a colossal failure on par with Batman and Robin or Superman IV. Still haven't seen it a second time, but more due to lack of time permitting. I wish everyone would lighten up a bit.

I would agree with you if not for many people implying that if you like this movie you're an idiot. It works both ways.

If you didn't LIKE Spider Man 3, fine. That doesn't make it a bad movie. A lot of people have really enjoyed it.

(I don't like 2001, for example, but I wouldn't say it's a "bad" movie...)

If I don't like something, it is a bad movie to me. That's just my opinion.

By your token if you like something, you shouldn't call it a good movie either. :shrug:

Just don't take things so literal. When someone says something is a bad movie, it just means its a bad movie in their opinion.

It doesn't mean you're an idiot for liking it, that you have bad taste etc.

Besides, who cares what other random losers post on the internet? I've been posting here for 8 years and I've never gave a shit what others posted about movies I liked or didn't like. We're all just sharing our opinions on movies etc. Another person's opinion doesn't invalidate mine.

There's no reason to get all defensive when someone hates a movie you liked, or vice versa when they loved a movie you liked. :shrug:

Yeah, they make me laugh every time. That whole series of events was priceless. It's funny and at the same time makes a point albeit a simple one.

The reason Spider-man 3 is a bad movie is because they under developed all the characters, dropped plot lines, pulled out previously established logic, and had poor dialog. It's a bit more than "love it or hate it", there are elements you can dissect. It's an enjoyable bad movie, but still a bad movie.

Of course, it always comes down to opinion, but there honestly is just too much working against this movie, and it does reek of studio interference.

well, if this is the last one with Raimi, then I think they might just change what happened if the studio listenings too all the moaning about him not being in this one much.

That's the feeling I got from it. I would love to have seen Raimi's original idea without the Venom storyline, which definitely feels tacked on. I didn't mind the emo Parker stuff. I liked the Sandman storyline and effects. But Brock/Venom and Gwen Stacey was just a waste. I liked the first hour quite a bit, then the last 30-45 minutes was just a mess. And the big fight sequence at the end was hardly memorable.

This felt a bit like X3. Each was just overkill, and had a rushed feeling to it. Too many characters, too many subplots, and an incoherent storyline. Each was made to just be the biggest of the trilogy. They both reeked of corporate takeover. Even though Sam Raimi's name is listed as the director, it felt like Brett Ratner ruined this series too.

Peter/Spider-Man/Mary Jane/Harry are still underdeveloped? Just curious, what else should we know about them that would be so vital after 3 films.

Well, just got back from this and it just wasn't good. Characters would completely vanish until they were needed to advance the plot. I found myself going "Oh yeah, I forgot about him."

About the only plotline that had me invested was the one with Peter and Harry. Unfortunately they short changed that by giving Harry amnesia. Part of me thinks that was done so they could push that aside to pay lip service to everything else going on. My interest returned once Harry's memory came back and he tried to destroy Peter's life, but like everything else, it was quickly dropped to get to the next beat.

There really needed to be a scene where Peter went to see Doctor Connors after he realized what a dick he was being. Connors could have explained how to defeat the symbiont. As it was in the final movie, Peter came up with the bell tower out of nowhere.

The final battle would have been infinitely better without the repeated cuts to the news broadcast.

Why didn't Harry's butler tell him about the night his father died earlier, like I don't know, during Spider-Man 2? Did he really have to wait until the grudge led to half of Harry's face being disfigured?

Finally, when will Peter finally come to his senses and realize the girl he should be with lives right across the hall?

:lol: no kidding. We've had plenty of GOOD developement for Pete, MJ, and Harry in Spider-man 2 and to a lesser extent in Spider-man 1. Spider-man 3 should've concentrated on the new characters and included more ass kicking/action and less dancing and other shit. I think they did a great job with Sandman in terms of letting us get to know him and see what he's about but Gwen and Brock/Venom should've had more time onscreen.

Yep. You pretty much nailed it.

Three words for Spider-Man 3:
That 70's Venom!

Here's part of my problem with the way some people are bashing this movie - they're treating it as black or white. It had to be really good (if not great) or it was bad. They're grading it on a scale of an "A" or an "F" with no grades in between.

Spider Man 3 isn't as good as Spider Man 2 (or Batman Begins, or X-Men or X-Men 2....), but it's better than a hell of a lot of movies in the genre. So by that standard it really should get a "B" - a "C+" at worst.

"D's" and "F's" should be reserved for movies like Batman and Robin, Superman IV, Supergirl, Catwoman, etc. TRULY bad movies, not just flawed, disappointing movies.

There is an "in between" between Great and Bad, and there are differing levels of "Good," ("Good," "Really Good," "Really, REALLY Good - Near Great") and there's even "OK," which I could see some people attributing to this movie, but "Bad?" I don't get that - I've seen bad movies (NOTHING is as bad as Never Too Young to Die), and this wasn't bad. Not even close.

To me the "A" grade Comic Book Superhero Movies are films like Spider Man 2, X-Men 2, and Batman Begins.

I'd give "B's" to Spider Man 1, Spider Man 3 (B- maybe), Superman 1, Superman 2, X-Men, X-Men 3 (B- maybe), etc.

I'd give "C's" to Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever (C-), Fantastic Four (C+), Superman Returns (C+), etc.

"D's" would go to Batman and Robin, Hulk (D+), Spawn (D+), etc.

and I reserve "F" grades for complete disasters like Superman IV, Supergirl, and Catwoman.

There are such varying degrees of "good" or "bad" that to pigeonhole Spider Man 3 as "bad" just doesn't make sense to me since there are so many worse movies, and Spider Man 3 does several things right - and is just damned entertaining. I don't know why anyone would equate Spider Man 3 with Batman and Robin or Superman IV. I just don't get it.

While I agree in principle in this case, it's still not worth getting bent out of shape and responding by bashing others opinions.

If they want to give it an F, so be it. Who cares if it's an exaggeration or if they actually believe it? It's just people posting opinions on the internet.

Thus nothing worth getting bent out of shape about and getting in pissing matches over. :shrug:

Imagine that...people arguing on the Internet. I've never seen such a thing....