BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

The Big Spiderman 3 thread

  
  

Page: 1 ... 89101112(13)14

 
 
Triplets
21:48 / 08.05.07
When MJ kissed Harry I felt a huge injured fragile-male-ego geek chorus of "whore!" on the entire theater

The Chocolate Accomplice and I had a discussion about this during and after the movie. In terms of just S-M 3 we felt MJ seeking solice in Harry made sense seeing how their relationship was crumbling. Although, we were screaming at her to just talk. to. Peter. about her shitty luck on stage for about half the movie.

In the wider context of the three films, though, we felt MJ had been written quite badly in terms of her fidelity. Recapping from memory, she ditched John Jameson at the alter for Peter, then she has that mistaken kiss with Harry. But, you know, these aren't real people, so it gives a disturbing look at the writer's views on women and relationships to be honest.
 
 
Mug Chum
22:38 / 08.05.07
Yeah, actually leaving the guy at the altar (and he apparently was a very nice dude) was all sorts of fucked up and embarrassing (that girl enters with the note, I'm pretty much "OMG that... bitch!" and the shot of her running is a mix of "yeeee!" and "trip and fall!"). But, yeah, it might say more about the writers than the characters.

[threadrot]
I just saw a recent comic scans where MJ tries out for Superhero. She's named... Jackpot. As in, "Face it, tiger. You've just hit the jackpot" (read that and add to that as you wish). And she's dressed like a (oh my...) slot machine, with 777 on her belt.
(I guess it's still better than "radioactive fluids gave her cancer")

(edited due to unintentional emoticon usage in deeply weird context)
 
 
FinderWolf
01:22 / 09.05.07
(O/T), but I think writer Dan Slott, who put that Jackpot character in there - is teasing us i.e. is it really MJ? Or someone who knows MJ's speech patterns/pet names for Peter and puts on a red wig? A stalker wannabe superhero, perhaps? The idea of it really being MJ is so ludicrous that I'd like to believe Marvel won't go there. (This was in the Free Comic Book Day Spider-Man book, by the way, illustrated by Phil Jimenez)
 
 
FinderWolf
01:24 / 09.05.07
>> Most of the action, takes place at night, and is completely indecipherable.

Did anyone else feel this way? Dark costumes against a night sky with tons of lights in skyscraper windows as the camera plummets and careens through the sky amidst hyper-rapid-editing cuts like a music video...made it hard to make out some of the action.
 
 
Tim Tempest
20:48 / 09.05.07
SPIDER-MAN 3 REVIEW
BY
ODDMAN




******SPOILER WARNING********
































Fuck.


























*********END SPOILER WARNING**********
 
 
---
05:57 / 10.05.07
Hah, I'm glad I didn't go to watch this the other day. After reading some of these posts I'm just waiting and renting it on DVD. I didn't even like Spiderman 2 so I can't see it being worth going to the cinema for this at all, if people are saying it's worse than that, and the comments about cheesy stuff have really turned me off it. If they'd have grown some balls and made it darker throughout I'd have already been, but this just sounds too lame. :/

I thought the whole thing would've grown up a bit with the darker element of the black suit/Venom, but it doesn't sound like it so I'll pass.
 
 
FinderWolf
13:09 / 10.05.07
Wow. I echo Cam's quote that Spider-Man 2 is a 'near-perfect' movie...I'd even go so far as to say it is a PERFECT comic book movie. I think the first one is pretty great overall, too. So yeah, 3 is not in the same league as 1 or 2. There is some entertainment to be had in 3, don't get me wrong, but it's just nowhere near as well-written as the first 2, I felt.
 
 
Spaniel
16:42 / 10.05.07
I especially like the bit where Harry Knowles calls Lois Lane a "cunt".

Nice one Harry.

Jesus
 
 
FinderWolf
17:28 / 10.05.07
The evil emo Peter dancing stuff is pretty funny (and suitably Raimi-wacky-comedy-esque), but how does he instantly become an amazing jazz pianist, able to improv a song instantaneously when he jumps up on stage?? It reminded me of the comedy scene from ANCHORMAN where Will Ferrell plays jazz flute in the jazz club (and at one point Ferrell goes nuts and pops out from under a table playing the flute).

I like the point someone made in the thread about the black suit-vision making Peter think all the ladies loved him as he walked down the street, but later we see the reality that the ladies are turning away from him with disgust. (or is he literally attractive & sexy at first and then later, as the events of the film progress, his character becomes more repulsive and eeevil and so cute women on the street are repulsed by him?) Not sure if that's what the director intended, but it was fun nonetheless. It's a niggling detail, but what else are message board threads for?

however, we do see Betty Brant suddenly wanting to cozy up with evil emo new-wardrobe Peter, so someone in real life was affected by his new look...
 
 
FinderWolf
17:30 / 10.05.07
a friend of mine pointed out:

>> >Speaking of Uncle Ben: So isn't Peter supposed to feel better, now that he knows he had *nothing* to do with his Uncle's death? Letting that guy go with the money didn't cause Ben to die...it was Flint Marko who shot him....so Peter should feel some relief/exoneration, right???

And I thought "huh, good point, I never thought about that." But I think this might fall under the 'even the filmmakers didn't think about this as hard as some of the audience does' category.
 
 
---
01:03 / 11.05.07
On Venom from that Harry Knowles interview :

"Raimi is a Silver Age Spider-Man fan… like me. He’s a Steve Ditko and John Romita Spidey fan. Raimi has admitted to not liking the character of Venom – and frankly I agree.

Sam Raimi doesn’t get or like the character, and in the film it shows. He doesn’t get the Black Suit Saga. He doesn’t get why a goofy, muscle-beach, spandexy, CRITTERS-mouthed tongue-wagging and drooling slobbering character that talks in wavy speak… why is he cool?

I can’t answer that, because I don’t get the character either. I’m sure those of you who are fans love the character, I’m really not trying to be-little Venom, I just don’t get it. You do.

But that’s exactly why someone, that loves the Venom character – and could enthusiastically create that character should have directed a SPIDER-MAN vs VENOM movie… the character should never have been placed into Raimi’s SPIDER-MAN series. Venom is a totally different series. What Raimi has been making is a Silver-Age SPIDEY… a Steve Ditko Dorky Spidey… and That Version of the character, should never have been involved in the retarded black suit saga – and the Venom stuff."

Is this right? Doesn't Raimi even like the char of Venom? Meh, the more I read about this the more I'm thinking of just going to cinema to see what all the fuss is about. Then I can come back and whine like a crazy person. (or in shock, say how I liked it.) The thing is that I hate the Goblin char. Is that around for a lot of the film?

Is it worth going if you're mainly off to see the black suit/Venom part of the story, and how Peter/Spidey changes and deals with it?
 
 
FinderWolf
01:31 / 11.05.07
Raimi has said many times that he never liked Venom all that much, but that Alvin Sargeant's script made him care about the character and he was happy with the way his movie treated the character. Take from that what you will.

the Venom stuff is only about 40% of the movie, if that. But when he's on screen, for the most part he does look pretty cool. And Raimi handles the black suit/symbiote goop/glop creeping around very well, I thought.
 
 
CameronStewart
01:40 / 11.05.07
From a recent iterview with Raimi:

Q: One of those characters, Venom, is a newer villain in the comic books. He's from the '80s and '90s, as opposed to Sandman, who hails way back to issue 4 in the 1960s. Why the new baddie mixed in with such an old one?

A: I had never read Venom in the comic books, since they came after my time. Because of that, I didn't have a natural inclination toward him. And when I read those comics, at [producer] Avi Arad's urging, I didn't understand where Venom's humanity was. I know that kids think he looks cool, and they think he's a good villain for Spider-Man. I actually didn't. What was it about Peter's own makeup that this villain represented some weaker or darker side to? Just looking like a dark version of him is not enough for me. The more I read [Venom stories], the less interested I became. But then Avi said, ''Look, you've got to be less selfish. You've got to learn what it is these kids love about Venom.'' So I tried to open my mind up. Then Alvin developed a character that I did understand, and did appreciate.

(Bold text in Raimi's answer mine)

This is the part I really don't get. Arad says "stop being selfish. Stop making the movies you want. Stop making very popular movies that are successful commercially and critically. Stop making us a billion dollars in box office revenues."

Although I guess Spidey 3 has beaten all the records, so Arad was right...
 
 
CameronStewart
01:43 / 11.05.07
Oh and for the record, I shared Raimi's disdain for Venom but I actually quite liked the movie iteration - I thought Topher Grace's Eddie Brock was far better than the comics character.
 
 
Mug Chum
04:48 / 11.05.07
Te, watch it if not only for the chance to see some wild action scenes on big screen. The movie overall is fun, even if a proportioned bad taste comes along. And it's worth it (and relatively rare) to watch superhero-ish action like that on film and on a huge screen. And if you're a comic book fan, c'mon, this is what your 8 year old self would dream of, no matter how awful.

-----

Am I the only one thinking that Arad's input is the same sort of thing that pretty much fucked comics in the long run in the nineties? I mean, my non-comic reading friends came out of the cinema as frustrated as a comic book fan would. They left their money (weekend records!), but it doesn't look like they would go for anything similar in a while. It does seem like Marvel's behavior is way too focused on short run profits than in a long time investment. It might be starting to leave a bad taste in people's mouth overall (with what I'd assume to be my friends' disposition to go see a superhero inspired film after SP3 or XM3 compared to what it was after SP2, XM2 or even FF * -- that were pretty much the reason films like Ghostrider and Daredevil had any sort of profit at all...).

Or I could be talking crap. Maybe people have short memory on such things. Or just didn't left the cinema with the bad sort of "eww, silly superhero" taste in their mouth like I did instead of "yeee, silly!" or "wow cool" -- something about Venom, the nineties and today's brand of seriousness reeks of silliness cringe more than a "silly" golden-age comic; it makes the "infantile in a bad way" stuff be more visible as such, the film's "come and get us, Spiderman" and drama or the comic's "I'll eat your brain like maggots" or whatever.

PS: Jesus, that aintitcool link sure comes off as if straight from Jack D. Ripper's mouth in Dr. Strangelove...
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:32 / 11.05.07
I quite enjoyed the film actually. It's not something I'd be in a hurry to see again but I didn't leave feeling I'd been cheated out of my money.

I personally quite liked the film origin of Venom. It seemed to me to be a very comic book introduction, the sort of thing that would happen in Stan Lee's world ("But wait! What's this falling to Earth behind our young lovebirds? Something that hides a hideous horror?"). Bam, it's an alien, it's a symbiote, on with the show.

I think they could have left Green Goblin as an opening act and not bothered with the Harry Osbourne: Match Breaker stuff. It's obvious Peter and MJ's relationship's coming apart all by itself and doesn't need super-villain help to reach critical mass.

All the Sandman stuff was good. I think they got what Flint's all about. Shockingly powerful superhuman but the brains of a petty thug who can only think about making his hands into anvils or growing really big.

Venom was underused really. But part of the black costume story is Peter nearly losing out to the symbiote whilst he's wearing it. I thought Topher made a good Eddie Brock, even without the suit he's the anti-Parker in his journalistic amorality. Venom looked damn good though.

Oh and for the record, I shared Raimi's disdain for Venom but I actually quite liked the movie iteration - I thought Topher Grace's Eddie Brock was far better than the comics character.

He did need that big, scary mullet he had in the nineties though. Massive, obviously fake blond mullet.

This is the part I really don't get. Arad says "stop being selfish. Stop making the movies you want. Stop making very popular movies that are successful commercially and critically. Stop making us a billion dollars in box office revenues."

I think that's fair though. There are a few people out there (and I'm one of them) who think that Venom's a great Spider-villain who had a lot of potential to be part of a really good story for a film. I can't see the film being much better if you cut-and-pasted Vulture (although, Ben Kingsley...w00t!) in Venom's place as "third bad guy".

(Mind you...an aerial duel between Goblin and Vulture would have been visually nice)

Venom's a popular character and I think that keeping a character like that out simply because Sam Raimi hasn't read much stuff with him in would have been a shame.

Anyway, my Venomlust has been fed now.

The evil emo Peter dancing stuff is pretty funny (and suitably Raimi-wacky-comedy-esque), but how does he instantly become an amazing jazz pianist, able to improv a song instantaneously when he jumps up on stage??

In a deleted scene that exists only in my mind Ursula teaches the symbiote to play. I have an image of them side by side at crappy old piano playing chopsticks.

YOU CANNOT TAKE THIS FROM MY BRAIN!
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
07:54 / 11.05.07
I agree with Cameron about the whole Venom thing. I preferred this version, and it all felt giddy and fun like the comics I'm fond of.

It confounds most peoples expectations of what the Venom storyline should be - it treats it with a daftness and just fills it all with the sort of excuberant joy common from the pop song like comics spider-man originally was ---- Gleefully silly instead of dark and tortured. Wonderful. The venom thing turned around in to something with a little dark heart of joy. Like a goth who cant help wearing power puff girl t-shirts. Because spider-man is never actually dark, is he? He cant be, hes rubbish at it. And thats why he's so great.

I think everything that happens in this film was infinitely preferable to this guy who goes on about ripping his own eyes out.

Also - DANGER! PARTICLE PHYSICS, KEEP OUT!

Taking a cue from that, it kind of tells you what to expect from every element of the film. The drama is ramped up to the same giddy levels as the science, and that's all as it should be. In Raimiworld - much like Stan Lee world before it - this is just how things are, and things like that, they make me like this film more and more. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me, and the more joyful it becomes.

This is the Peter Parker that promises to take you to the zingiest wing ding in town. He goes to a fucking jazz club, and tells you you're gonna dig this joint. This whole section was hilarious... all that was missing was Gwen and MJ chatting about how hot Peter is as he whizzes by on his little scooter. Reminded me of the cartoons too, which I was always fond of.

It has all the properties of a symbiote...
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:53 / 11.05.07
Reminded me of the cartoons too, which I was always fond of.

Oh please oh please oh please Spiderman and his Amazing Friends in the next one.
 
 
Benny the Ball
12:49 / 11.05.07
I didn't understand why MJ didn't just say "Pete, Harry's gone mad and is making me break up with you - he's over there, he flew into my house and strangled me to make me do this - go punch the bastard!" or something...
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:12 / 11.05.07
It's even more confusing that Petey, after coming out of the superhero closet to her neglected to mention that Norman was the loon who dropped her off the bridge and that Harry was more than a little vengence-crazed pre-head-injury.

Y'know, it's the kind of thing people should mention if they've spent a whole previous film worried about people they care about getting hurt because they're a super-hero.

I'm kind of loving the slow-burn on Dr Conners though. I can't help my fatbeard nature but everytime I see him my brain is muttering "Lizardlizardlizardlizard.".

If we don't get a little "Die warmblood!" action I will be sorely disapointed.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
13:29 / 11.05.07
I was left really flat and disappointed by this flick, and I can't really explain why without pedantically detailing loads of moments that just seemed to have the wrong tone and weight: expository dialogue of video-game standard, crazy cartoon moments, a lack of any sense of emotional or physical cause or consequence. To give (or repeat) just a few examples: Peter's standing around without his mask on; his Anchorman/Groundhog Day piano genius and superhuman dance showcase; the fact that a puny kid could beat up three bouncers and walk out of the bar without any follow-up; the loose, slack cutting of overlong scenes like the kid selling Jonah a camera, or Spidey tipping sand out of his boots; the fact that MJ can walk off stage mid-song without anyone commenting; Gwen hanging from a skyscraper while her dad and boyfriend seem only mildly concerned or curious; the canned cheesiness of MJ and Harry's pancake and twist scene; the solemn hamminess of all the moral lessons. Even the extras seemed to be overacting.

What worked for me about 1 and 2 was the sense of "realism" ~ the films decided on a certain tone and approach, and apart from accepting the existence of a few superheroes, they felt detailed, concrete and consistent. The tone in 3 was crazily uncertain ~ from exchanges of supposed emotional gravity, to zany comedy... switching from one genre to another across a scene-change. Within that uneven context, it was very hard to buy the characterisation and any sense of emotional power. Parker and MJ sold that in the first two films, but I think for that to work, it relies on a solid base... not a world where people can behave pretty much as they like with no explanation or effect, because it's "a comic book movie". Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were more like teen dramas with superpowers; they were Dawson's Creek ~ but they were consistently within that mode, rather than Dawson's Creek that keeps switching over to an animated cartoon or Jim Carrey comedy, and back to Dawson's Creek.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
13:38 / 11.05.07
Also, you know, I'm really sick of Mary-Jane as a character. I'm not sure if she was stronger in the previous two, but she's such a fucking waste, and actually such a throwback to the oldest and most tedious damsel-in-distress archetypes of adventure fiction. It's such a waste of Kirsten Dunst, who has a really interesting face, especially as she gets older. She's not really classically and conventionally beautiful, as MJ knows when she meets the more obviously-modelly Gwen Stacey; she's got these spikey little teeth, and she and Maguire both have cutely matching double-chins, soft round the edges ~ and Dunst really does something with MJ's attempts to stay bright and brave even when she's so tired and washed-up and feels like a failure.

But really, as a character, does she do anything else but act as the prize between two scrapping guys, and hang around screaming to be rescued? Lame.
 
 
FinderWolf
13:39 / 11.05.07
>> I didn't understand why MJ didn't just say "Pete, Harry's gone mad and is making me break up with you - he's over there, he flew into my house and strangled me to make me do this - go punch the bastard!" or something...

Yep, many people had this critique/thought as well, judging from many reviews.

Dr. Connors' lab shows a bunch of petrified lizards and lizard statutes in the background...who knows what they'll use for villains in the next movies, or if the next movies will even get made...but I guess Spidey 3's box office receipts guarantee more movies will be made, regardless of cast, writers, director, etc. (I know Sony confirmed Spider-Mans 4, 5 and 6, but I'll believe it when a director and cast in place...Warner Bros. says they're making a JLA movie and 5 other comic properties, but I file those too under the 'I'll believe it when I see it' category)

And I heard a rumor that Sony wants to use CARNAGE as a villain for a future Spidey movie...why on earth would they use Carnage, who is essentially Venom all over again but with some red in his design...?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
13:58 / 11.05.07
Would it have hurt to make the characters act like real people instead of stereotypical comic characters.


It's fucking Spider-Man, for cry-eye! Jebus.

Unfortunately, the large percentage of reviews seem to think the same sort of thing is a valid criticism, such as "SM3 pretty well abandons the complexity and real-world pain that made the first two movies interesting" and have already declared it a flop and run great features about the curse f the threequel based on this.

I don't really understand these two responses, in italics. How is it inappropriate or invalid to expect, or enjoy, things like consistent characterisation, emotionally powerful moments, a sense of personality development and plausible dialogue, just because the source material is a comic book? A comic book doesn't in any way rule out those qualities; and even if the source material was simplistic, there's no reason a film couldn't bring something more to it.

It could be claimed that the Spider-Man movies are based on a relatively "fun", shallow and uncomplicated Lee and Ditko period, but I don't think that's true of the first two in the series.

The idea that it's about Spider-Man, so it's inappropriate to ask for any kind of plausible, interesting and consistent characterisation, seems a very limiting approach to me.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
14:12 / 11.05.07
My response on this page is a little bitty, sorry ~ it's because I haven't let myself look at the thread before seeing the film, and now I'm going back over the last three pages.

But one more thing:

When MJ kissed Harry I felt a huge injured fragile-male-ego geek chorus of "whore!" on the entire theater instead of "well, Pete had it coming and Harry is a really nice guy",

I was in a totally empty theater (10.45am showing!) but this idea didn't cross my mind. I felt she really sold MJ's reasons for kissing Harry ~ as noted above, she's weary, she's neglected, she feels like a personal failure, Peter keeps just banging on about himself and what a fucking icon he is, she probably feels dowdy and unglam next to this genius model girl Peter's been hanging around with ~ and Harry's handsome (more classically than Peter), rich, charming, a painter, dancer and cook. She just wants to feel a bit flattered and sexy for a moment. And after that brief moment, she feels guilty as hell, and worse than ever. That's how I read it.
 
 
Hieronymus
14:46 / 11.05.07
I don't really understand these two responses, in italics. How is it inappropriate or invalid to expect, or enjoy, things like consistent characterisation, emotionally powerful moments, a sense of personality development and plausible dialogue, just because the source material is a comic book? A comic book doesn't in any way rule out those qualities; and even if the source material was simplistic, there's no reason a film couldn't bring something more to it.

Hear, fucking hear. A conversation with a friend of mine who's not a comic book reader seemed to devolve to that very statement. "Oh well it's corny and hammish... it's sourced from a comic book so that makes perfect sense."

Piss. off. I happen to think comic book movies are meant to IMPROVE the comics because it forces a more cogent, sensical and logical narrative out of the scattershot continuity that comics tend to get away with. Given the bar raised in film, it's nigh expected. So to see a comic book movie peel the cheesier dialogue and goofiness verbatim from the comics, with little context and ridiculous exposition, makes the film look absurd and the comic book source even more so.
 
 
FinderWolf
15:06 / 11.05.07
it seems like the various responses to the movie do hinge on how quickly/easily audience members can shift our expectations/hopes/modality of processing the movie from the intelligent, heartfelt, well-thought out and extremely well-made first two films into the comparatively 'dumb slightly-better-than-Michael Bay-type popcorn movie with some whiz-bang effects, silliness and mediocre script' that is the 3rd movie.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
17:51 / 11.05.07
So are you all just glossing over dialogue like, to give one example, "One day Spider-Man will pay. I swear on my father's grave Spider-Man will pay" from the second film, then?

I don't really see why the movies should make the bar higher, and I'm certainly not dismissing comics as a lesser medium by saying I am glad the movie was like this. I don't really like the notion that to be a movie is to have the bar raised higher at all, like all comics are is some medium that wishes it were and can only ever aspire to be like a film. Because oh, Fuck. That.

I'm perfectly ok with what the Spider-Man comics are, and I like seeing a movie of that.

And I think you miss my point, MW, my point being that I am nigh on certain that there really wasn't a lot of real world pain and emotional complexity going on in the first two films like everyone has now decided there was. I'm just making fun of that turn of phrase, which seemed particularly absurd to me. I just can't imagine criticising a film for having too little REAL WORLD PAIN. How is your real world pain doing? Are you getting enough? Is being humiliated by Spider-Man touching you real world pain?

I'm certainly not saying because the source material is a comic book you shouldn't expect the things you want, but I might be saying that I don't see a particular amount of distance between the first two films and this one, in these terms. Remember when Aunt May made that speech about heroes and it went on far longer than necessary, and was corny and hammy? Remember how Peter Parker is and always has been, as a character, corny and hammy?

These elements were absolutely always there. But then, I liked Con Air too.

I'm sure there could have been a very dour, realistic and serious - maybe even mature! - film about Spider-Man becoming dark and brooding like Batman. I am glad there's not.

ZIP! BANG! I'm like a child!
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:09 / 11.05.07
What Suedey said. But to make this post slightly less pointless...

W: I don't really understand these two responses, in italics. How is it inappropriate or invalid to expect, or enjoy, things like consistent characterisation, emotionally powerful moments, a sense of personality development and plausible dialogue, just because the source material is a comic book? A comic book doesn't in any way rule out those qualities; and even if the source material was simplistic, there's no reason a film couldn't bring something more to it.

No, there isn't. But at the same time, there's no reason why, if the simplistic stuff is FUN and ENJOYABLE, it has to bring anything more to the party than those two qualities.

If I want comic book character with miserablism and real world pain, I'll watch a Batman flick. I don't expect those things from Spider-Man and, tbh, I don't want those things from Spider-Man.
 
 
---
18:34 / 11.05.07
Well that's what I wanted for this film tbh. A dark and brooding Spidey, because he has the black suit messing him up. Meh. Off to see it on sunday anyway, and despite the problems people have been talking about, it sure seems like there's a shitload of things going on, so at least I shouldn't be too bored. Probably just a little frustrated at the lack of darke.
 
 
---
18:36 / 11.05.07
I mean, when I first saw the trailer clip of Spidey with the black suit on, and he was on top of that building and it was raining, and he's looking at the suit, I thought total fucking epic, and that's mainly what I'll miss. Will stfu now 'till I've seen it anyway.
 
 
Hieronymus
18:47 / 11.05.07
And I think you miss my point, MW, my point being that I am nigh on certain that there really wasn't a lot of real world pain and emotional complexity going on in the first two films like everyone has now decided there was. I'm just making fun of that turn of phrase, which seemed particularly absurd to me. I just can't imagine criticising a film for having too little REAL WORLD PAIN. How is your real world pain doing? Are you getting enough? Is being humiliated by Spider-Man touching you real world pain?

Not speaking for misswonderstar but I think there's something to be said for steeping a story's pathos in some kind of realistic suffering. Something identifiable. And I'd argue that the imperative for that is even more important in a world where you're trying to invoke audience identification with such an extraordinary character.

And much of the tension in Spiderman 2 was portrayed far better than this film; namely that Peter cannot get a damn break. And it was done so (I don't have Spiderman 2 in front of me so this is mostly from memory) by showing Peter clawing and fighting like hell to get his head above water. In his relationship. In his role as Spiderman. And in his educational career.

Nothing with that much emotional stock (and NONE of the Spiderman films are a study on especially dense emotion. But they're better than some) was maintained in this third film with as much care. It was hastily sped through at lightning speed, the character integrity (yes, thin as it may have been) completely discarded with the third film.
 
 
Hieronymus
18:58 / 11.05.07
Remember when Aunt May made that speech about heroes and it went on far longer than necessary, and was corny and hammy? Remember how Peter Parker is and always has been, as a character, corny and hammy?

And this might just be a flat out disagreement of view. I happen to think Rosemary Harris is able to take the lines that an other actor wouldn't be able to rescue and make them sound like the grandmotherly advice we all wish we had. For a nanosecond I thought the 'heroes' monologue might not pay off. In the end, I think she made it much better than the way it was written.

And Peter's corniness makes sense in a bumbling nerdy sort of way. It fits his character. What also fits his character, and you could see it in flickers of Tobey's acting in the first and second movie, was a darkness they never really brought to genuine fruition.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
20:07 / 11.05.07
And I think you miss my point, MW, my point being that I am nigh on certain that there really wasn't a lot of real world pain and emotional complexity going on in the first two films like everyone has now decided there was. I'm just making fun of that turn of phrase, which seemed particularly absurd to me. I just can't imagine criticising a film for having too little REAL WORLD PAIN. How is your real world pain doing? Are you getting enough? Is being humiliated by Spider-Man touching you real world pain?


Well, OK, the term "real world pain" isn't mine and I wouldn't use it. I'd use terms like "characterisation, emotionally powerful moments, a sense of personality development and plausible dialogue". I genuinely don't feel it's retcon or revisionism to believe that those aspects were there in 1 and 2, and not so much in 3.

But more problematic for me than that shift were the shifts within 3 itself ~ as I said above, it veered from twentysomething relationship drama, which works fine for me and which I think the principals do very well, to sheer cartoon illogic and wacky physical humour, almost of the Blades of Glory slapstick variety.

So, yes, I do think there was emotional complexity in films 1 and 2 ~ more consistently than in 3. I do think, again, that the lack of consistency of tone was my main problem with 3 ~ if it had been signalled as 60s goofball fun throughout, I would have fully accepted (for instance) the jazz bar scene. As it is, I enjoyed it as a set piece but I felt it marked a jarring in tone that's pretty hard to reconcile with other moments in the movie, and I think there are many such inconsistencies that for me make the film seem like a messy, uneven whole with decent scenes scattered throughout.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
20:09 / 11.05.07
I don't think the opposite of inconsistent tone is "miserablism", either, and I don't think the opposite of slapstick is "Batman flick" ~ have you seen Batman and Robin? I characterised the emotional tone generally from 1 and 2 as Dawson's Creek, above. That's not brooding or "dark", and it's not Blades of Glory either. There are other approaches, apart from those two extremes.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 89101112(13)14

 
  
Add Your Reply