Spiderman 3 the new Godfather 3? (no spoilers)

[NozeCandy]

Well I just got back from Spiderman 3 and can honestly say it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The whole thing is absurd and just a complete summer [censored] movie. It switches from emo to love to ridiculous action to absurd scenes that almost seem like they're making fun of themselves like Snakes on a Plane did. The whole thing is just really poorly done, the acting sucked, and any more horrible conversation between Spiderman/Harry/Venom in the middle of their fight scenes and I would have just gotten up and left. The only reason I didn't leave was because I was the one who didn't drive. Just complete drivel.

[thedarknight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. They have to make it much more physically exciting. I don't think I can recall being more disappointed in a movie's fight scenes, and I am an expert at being disappointed in fight scenes. Batman Begins stomped my expectations into the dirt.

Spidey has going for it physical exuberance of a kind Batman couldn't give even if he wanted to and had the best director in the world. What we had last time for Batman was a guy who thinks a fight scene should be edited in short cuts and obscured as much as possible and, even worse played for awe on top of that. At that rate, Dave Letterman could sub in as Batman's stuntman. This kind of foggy, evasive, momentum-destroying ordinariness couldn't possibly upstage anything Spidey, even the most glaringly fake CGI.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because you didn't like the style of the fight scenes the movies won't possibly be able to surpass the Spiderman series? The jerking shot cut effect was done intentionally to give the audience a feel of what it would be like to be fighting Batman. I think Spiderman was a good comic book movie but Batman was just a good movie. They weren't really trying for the same thing but I know if I had the option I'd much rather watch Batman Begins than any of the Spiderman movies. Dismissing Batman Begins because you didn't like the style of the fight scenes is pretty weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. I don't go to superhero movies for my deep thinking. I don't get it there, and I don't expect to either. And I'm fine with that. If Batman Begins is supposed to be deep or something, then I guess we have different standards. Even if it were deep or "a real movie," that doesn't excuse that as a movie substantially built around action, the action is so unusually disappointing.

I'm well aware of what the director was trying to do. It's silly to think I wouldn't be. Obviously, I just disagree that it was a good choice. The murky look and MTV cutting style spoke of lack of ability and vision, and perhaps even confidence, to me. I'd just as soon see Fred Astaire dance in a fogged up box and see only flashes of his elbows as I would see Batman fight that way. There's just nothing to it. Superheroes are not superheroes of accounting or cake decorating or something; they're superheroes of the physical. I want to be in awe of their fight scenes, at the very LEAST. When the fight scenes are so muddled that anyone could have done them, there's a lot less than awe going on. And that's a big disappointment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blarg you're a good poster, but I need to ask you what part do you NOT understand that Batman doesn't go dancing around doing flips and going matrix like when he fights. He's not spiderman in that he can jump on buildings and swing on webs. He's a man and his fighting style is built for efficiency and breaking bones. When the military trains soliders, they don't train them to do roundhouse kicks and do a back flip, kick up jackie chan [censored]. Christopher Nolan was going for realism, and I think most people on here appreciate that kind of interpretation instead of some kiddie flick like Spidey 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very silly. Nowhere did I say Batman had to fight like Spiderman. Nowhere did I say he had to do backflips like Jackie Chan. That was poor reading.

What I said was the fight scenes were poorly filmed and that the murkiness and the editing style detracted from the excitement. All this other stuff that you're reading into it is coming from your own head, so don't blame me for it.

As for Batman Begins emphasizing realism, no it didn't. Not even close. There's very little that's realistic about that movie. Which is fine; I don't expect such things from that kind of movie anyway. But claiming it has them is really pushing things pretty hilariously far. If Batman Begins is a deep, realistic movie, we just have totally different meanings for the same words.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you view as poor editing, I view as editing for artistic reasons to depict a more realist view of Batman. What you think the fight is "murky" I think is intentionally done. If you are experienced in filmmaking or cinematography, then maybe you can enlighten all of us on the technical aspects.

I state "realism" as in a more realist approach to a comic book character versus something fantastical like X-Men, Spiderman, etc. Batman is a character that can be real as you can get for a superhero, and many fans appreciate that sort of interpretation and storytelling by Nolan.

[thedarknight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also not all comic book characters are superheros. And not all superheros are physical heroes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Batman is.


[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that Lazarus (maybe I have the name wrong) referred to Batman as 'the Detective', emphasizing that although he has martial abilities, it was his intelligence that set himself apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Batman used to star in Detective Comics. I've read hundreds of Batman comics. He solved mysteries, sure. But doing so involved running around in tights, having a headquarters in a secret cave, flying a batcopter, whipping anything imaginable out of a utility belt, swinging on buildings from batarangs, and chasing other equally bizarre guys in tights doing the same thing. It was spectacle, imagination, silly fun. It was being a detective in the same fashion as Shaggy, Scooby, Freddie, Velma, and Daphne were. Was he supposed to be smart? Heck yeah, and why not? He was already a millionaire playboy super athlete. He designed and built every kind of craft and technical gizmo imaginable. He was a boy's fantasy of competence. Intelligence? Sure, why not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you prefer that Batman in Detective Comics or Frank Miller's Dark Knight Batman?

[TheCroShow]

maybe you guys can create a spiderman 3 vs. BB thread or something? just a suggestion =O

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
What you view as poor editing, I view as editing for artistic reasons to depict a more realist view of Batman.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no necessary contradiction here.

[ QUOTE ]
What you think the fight is "murky" I think is intentionally done.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nor is there here.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are experienced in filmmaking or cinematography, then maybe you can enlighten all of us on the technical aspects.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean or why it is stated.

[ QUOTE ]
I state "realism" as in a more realist approach to a comic book character versus something fantastical like X-Men, Spiderman, etc. Batman is a character that can be real as you can get for a superhero, and many fans appreciate that sort of interpretation and storytelling by Nolan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found Batman Begins fantastical and full of crazy stuff. I didn't find this a detriment. But I didn't find it as bold a foray into realism as some other seem to. Regardless, that has nothing to do with whether it was blocked, lit, framed, choreographed, or edited well.

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
raimi wrote spiderman3.

[/ QUOTE ]

This explains everything. Why in the hell would they get rid of the previous team that made the company several billion?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread took a turn for the serious.
Can we just agree that as (movie) trilogies go, Peter Jackson's Return of the King was superb? (Although maybe it shouldn't count since they were filmed at the same time).

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the completely and totally unnecessary changes from the books that hurt them pretty substantially (like everything involving Arwen), sure. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving Liv Tyler more screen time is never "totally unnecessary."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to put her in a porn, I'll agree with this completely, but severely damaging a story just to get her in is definitely "totally unnecessary."

[Peoplez]

The only good thing in the movie was the action scenes. They were not too long and were splattered through the movie in just the right dozes. Everything else pretty much sucked. They sould've made a choice like go with

A )Sandman, Peter-M.J.-Harry-Gwen drama
OR
B )Symbiote, Venom and drop Gwen or something

Too much going on, no depth or real feeling. Too many short cuts or plot holes like some people call them.