Say What?!
In the next round of reader discussion, we're whipping out 2007's monster hit, Spider-Man 3!
Despite being one of the best selling films of all time (breaking and to this day holding records for Thursday night opening, one-day total, opening weekend, worldwide one day, worldwide opening weekend and shattering records in several countries across Europe and Asia) and currently ranking #1 in the U.S. Opening Weekend Battle Royale with $151+ million, the film is often looked at with certain eye of disregard by fandom.
Some say the movie is too long. Some say it should have had more Venom. Some say Sandman never should have been involved in Uncle Ben's death. Others actually think the movie is worthless because of a three minute musical number. Proponents of the film acknowledge the character arc of Harry Osborn. The fantastic design of both the new Goblin and Sandman. The scene of Sandman's transformation. Most importantly, the best thing about the film is that will probably the last to feature Kirsten Dunst - so long Drunky Eyes!
So what say YOU, intrepid PK'ers?
Is Spider-Man 3 given undue flak because the second film was just too good to follow up or does it really drop the ball as a trilogy-ender?
(All box office figures and records are taken from Box Office Mojo.)
Goblin
Posted to editorial on 22 April 2008
· Comments (6)
Other stuff like this: Say What, Spider-Man
I think it just had too many plots going on such that none of them were handled well and thoroughly. The same thing happened with X-men 3 Phoenix or the Cure solo would have been a decent movie, together it was just too much of a mess and everything got short shrift.
It could have been Venom & New Goblin or Sandman & New Goblin, but all three was overkill and didn't allow any of the plots to really sing.
And then the ending... I mean if I were a New Yorker and watched Spider-man just let Sandman float away, I'd be like "WTF?!?"
The only good thing about this movie was watching good boys Tobey and Topher play bad boys.
I am probably in the minority who found 3 a good film and 2 rather dull. Despite a great cast and good set-up the second film didn't pack enough story punch for me.
Now 3 - my issue with three is that it was two movies. It tried to pack in too much punch. Felt like Raimi laying groundwork incase he doesn't do the rest of the films. They introduced too many baddies and too many classic 'pals' of the spidey in a single film. And yes, the low point for me was the WAY TOO LONG musical sequences. We get it - he's cocky - stop beating us over the head with it.
But if I were trapped somewhere with no choice but to watch the 2nd or 3rd film back to back for 24 hours - I would pick 3 over 2 any day.
Any fan who was in an uproar over the "new" development regarding Sandman/Uncle Ben has obviously not been reading the comics. It was way more involved and drawn out there. Its not just the movie that did that.
And is a emo dance off any worse than Spider Totems? Or (cheap shot) One More Day?
I'm with Oraclechele. Spiderman 3 might have had a few hickups, but I'd overall rank it as a good movie.
Spiderman 2 was a snoozefest though. Call me crazy, but a movie based on a superhero should be an actionmovie with character developement spread throughout. Spiderman 2 though was more like a big characterpiece with hardly any real action involved. And personally I didn't like how the character parts were pased either.
That and the fact that Doc Oc was far less true to the comics than any other character in the three movies.
I thought Spider-Man 3 was ok. The moment it lost any chance of being beyond average was when "dark" Petey started emo-dancing. I just wanted to laugh at its absurdity.
I really enjoyed the first one, while the second and third were just ok.
I sat down at the theater expecting a typical blockbuster experience and it delivered. There were some cool action sequences, a few funny moments here and there with some melodrama thrown in as well. So I guess it was an ok movie for me considering my expectations weren't that high because of 2.