i vote all lol cause each of them is so different and each of them was excellent.
1 was all-around good, 2 was ok, and 3 was a disappointment, because A) they picked a lame villain (Sandman) and Venom wasn’t nearly as awesome as he should have been.
The fight scenes alone are worth seeing.
1 is okay, I didn’t really like it only cause the story seemed rather slow – Also, Green Goblin is my least favorite villian. I will say this though, it really felt like a true rendition to the comic.
3 wasn’t as good as both 1 and 2. I did like the whole Peter Parker turning asshole bit – I just wish they didn’t make him so Emo looking. I really liked Venom and Sandman – especially Sandman’s back story. I also liked the whole concentration on Peter’s life juggling work/school while being Spidey. What fucked up the story for me was the fact that the movie was rushed. Every character’s back story was too short. The fight scenes weren’t long enough, and Venom was killed – or so we believe unless they make a 4th to bring out Carnage. What they should’ve done rather than a tag team battle royal, was leave Venom as a 4th movie villian – seeing how popular he is, he’s a prefect stand alone. That way Sandman would have a better developed character like Doc Ock was, and Venom could also have a better story, and a prefect segway to Carnage in a 5th movie.
Eitherhow, I’d have to go for three, because I had a good laugh with Peter’s emo showdance. Go him.
YES, I DO.
1.Venom
First of all, I guess it’d be best if I came out and said it. I don’t particularly care for the symbiotes. I don’t think they even fit in Spider-Man’s rogues gallery. A lot of villains in Spider-Man are animal based. Some examples are Doctor Octopus, Rhino, The Vulture, Chameleon, etc. While sure, there are a few villains that don’t fit that description, Green/Hobgoblin, Sandman, Mysterio, etc. They still aren’t as out of place as the symbiotes. The problem for the movie, was that Sam Raimi really didn’t like Venom or want to use him. He had originally planned for the Vulture to be the second villain of Spider-Man 3, but when Venom was forced into the movie, he had to take Vulture out and go along with him. For someone who doesn’t like Venom that much (Don’t even get me started on Carnage), I think he did a fairly good job of using the character. Alot of nerds complained about Venom "not referring to himself as we", and being unmasked most of the time. Never in the movie is the symbiote portrayed as a sentient being. Thus, it doesn’t have an identity and wouldn’t refer to itself as we or he or it. The times Venom’s unmasked is when he’s convincing Flint to join him and when he’s taunting Peter. Both are good reasons to be unmasked. Would you join up with someone in a black mask with razor sharp teeth or would you be more inclined to join someone with a more human face? Then the point of unmasking in front of Peter was to show Peter who’s doing this to him. This was personal for Eddie. Peter stole his job, his "girlfriend", to a more extreme point the life Eddie wanted for himself. Eddie wanted Pete to know who’s kicking his ass and killing Mary Jane.
2. Eddie Brock
I hear complaints mostly because Eddie isn’t made purely of muscle and is a weasel in the movie. My response, he doesn’t need to be a roid freak to be Eddie. Where the comic made Eddie’s size that way to foil Pete, the movie concentrated more on making Eddie not just a jerk, but a jerk you can sympathize with. He’s full of himself and insecure. Unless you’re perfect, you can’t say you’ve never been either of these before. I know I have. It’s part of being human.
3. "Emo" Peter
Pete’s new look once he turned "bad" was a more modern take on the old cliche of the evil versions of characters that we used to see. In the past you’d see a leather jacket with the collar popped up riding a motorcycle or even a goatee. Bad Peter was obviously comic relief from the start. Once you see him strutting down the street making eyes with the ladies, it should be obvious that it was meant to be funny. Peter’s essentially a nerd at heart and when he lets pride take over, do you think he’s going to be suave? Nah, he’s likely going to act like a jackass. Which is what he did.
Anyway, I think I’ve typed way too much about Spider-Man than I should so I’m going to end it here. Long post short, I like 2 the best and I think Sam Raimi’s a great director.
3 sucked my balls
you’re genius
Even though Venom didn’t appear until the end of the movie. 🙁
I know I’m in the minority with most people I talk to about it, but I enjoyed it. A lot of complaints I hear are about Venom, Eddie Brock, and "emo" Peter. I’d like to take some time and address these complaints.I agree. I liked 3, just not as much as 2, but about the same as 1.
1.Venom
First of all, I guess it’d be best if I came out and said it. I don’t particularly care for the symbiotes. I don’t think they even fit in Spider-Man’s rogues gallery. A lot of villains in Spider-Man are animal based. Some examples are Doctor Octopus, Rhino, The Vulture, Chameleon, etc. While sure, there are a few villains that don’t fit that description, Green/Hobgoblin, Sandman, Mysterio, etc. They still aren’t as out of place as the symbiotes. The problem for the movie, was that Sam Raimi really didn’t like Venom or want to use him. He had originally planned for the Vulture to be the second villain of Spider-Man 3, but when Venom was forced into the movie, he had to take Vulture out and go along with him. For someone who doesn’t like Venom that much (Don’t even get me started on Carnage), I think he did a fairly good job of using the character. Alot of nerds complained about Venom "not referring to himself as we", and being unmasked most of the time. Never in the movie is the symbiote portrayed as a sentient being. Thus, it doesn’t have an identity and wouldn’t refer to itself as we or he or it. The times Venom’s unmasked is when he’s convincing Flint to join him and when he’s taunting Peter. Both are good reasons to be unmasked. Would you join up with someone in a black mask with razor sharp teeth or would you be more inclined to join someone with a more human face? Then the point of unmasking in front of Peter was to show Peter who’s doing this to him. This was personal for Eddie. Peter stole his job, his "girlfriend", to a more extreme point the life Eddie wanted for himself. Eddie wanted Pete to know who’s kicking his ass and killing Mary Jane.Those are nerds for you. I hate when they complain about every little thing. I remember when it leaked out that it was originally supposed to be the Vulture and Sandman, as a matter of fact, it made more sense. However, I was hoping The Lizard would’ve been the 3rd villain since Dr. Connors had cameos in both 1 and 2, unfortunately, he became a stupid video game villain instead. Like I said in my previous post, Venom seemed to come out to early in the franchise. Since he’s so popular, he could’ve been done as a 4th stand alone villain, To keep the franchise fresh. I mean look at Harry Potter, the franchise is half ways done, and it’s still popular with every new installment. It’s not like it’ll flop in the box office. I hate when companies force themselves in the creative process. You would think they’d have trust in him with the success of 2.
I also agree about the reasons for unmasking himself – I just wish they would’ve kept the surprise a bit longer. I do however agree with them on the fact that he was unmasked most of the time.
2. Eddie Brock
I hear complaints mostly because Eddie isn’t made purely of muscle and is a weasel in the movie. My response, he doesn’t need to be a roid freak to be Eddie. Where the comic made Eddie’s size that way to foil Pete, the movie concentrated more on making Eddie not just a jerk, but a jerk you can sympathize with. He’s full of himself and insecure. Unless you’re perfect, you can’t say you’ve never been either of these before. I know I have. It’s part of being human.I agree, he didn’t have to be a bodybuilder. I actually liked that about him, He was average like Peter, and like Peter, he just wanted things to go his way for once.
3. "Emo" Peter
Pete’s new look once he turned "bad" was a more modern take on the old cliche of the evil versions of characters that we used to see. In the past you’d see a leather jacket with the collar popped up riding a motorcycle or even a goatee. Bad Peter was obviously comic relief from the start. Once you see him strutting down the street making eyes with the ladies, it should be obvious that it was meant to be funny. Peter’s essentially a nerd at heart and when he lets pride take over, do you think he’s going to be suave? Nah, he’s likely going to act like a jackass. Which is what he did.I understood the whole Good/Bad cliche – Notoriously made popular by Star Trek. In fact, I liked that he was cocky, but still a nerd, as to show that he’s still Peter, just with a different attitude.
i like lengthy comments =P
The first Spider-Man was fine. Good acting, great sets, and… Willem Dafoe. There was nothing wrong with it. However, the second installment surpassed it.
Spider-Man 3 was a huge disappointment. None of the charm of the original movies was present in it. There were too many characters and not enough character development. The action scenes were good but that didn’t save it. However, with all it’s faults I still enjoyed watching it. However, I couldn’t rate it above a 3/5.
And that’s why I chose Spider-Man 2.
It either means that J Jonah Jameson is the son of the "werewolf" (whatever that means), or his bastard son is in fact a werewolf.
None of them are good. None of them are certainly one of the better movies ever made. Out of the three, I choose 1. The Willem Dafoe factor. Simple.
http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/item/2000/1486/144584-venom_400.jpghttp://www.spiderman-3-movie-buzz.com/uploads/uploadForumPhotos/medium_Eddie%20Brock%20Transformed%20Into%20Venom-jxdi1c5a.jpg
Tell me, which looks cooler?
Tell me, which looks cooler?
The one that doesn’t have the foot long tongue.