I need to say this again. Why the fuck did they big topher grace for venom? Like what the fucking fuck.
Also, venom in the movie missed venoms best characteristics. When I saw the 1st Spiderman I said "ooh I cant wait for Venom to be in the movie!" the min I left the theatre. Seriously, this is an epic fail on so many different levels.
I usually go to see big summer popcorn films, regardless of reviews, just to see...but I have absolutely NO interest in Spiderman 3 after reading, well, everything about it.
That movie looked like some shitty cinema until I saw the preview which revealed to me that the movie starred none other than the baddest motherfucker in Hollywood, Danny Trejo.
You see, Ms Edith. This is what you get for arguing with me. I've been reading this comic semi-religiously since the 3rd grade. This movie was exploitation trash through and through, I kept waiting for Kevin Sorbo to make a cameo. Also, don't blame the character Venom. The whole symbiote war series is amazing.
oh I know Sam rocks. He made he evil dead series, darkman. Classic camp movies and did spidey 1 and 2 dayum well. But when he ruined such a good series, it just can't be forgivin.
So watched it over the weekend as the other choices were truly shit. Wasn't expecting the world but i still don't even get the point of this film. I actually quite enjoyed evil Toby considering the man gives me the creep anyway but apart from that the film seemed to have no real plot, no focus and the sentimentality was actually quite nauseating.
Can anyone confirm that Raimi was taking the piss when spidey posed in front of the American flag prior to the final fight? Please let him be taking the piss.
And as far as people complaining it had to much love story in it, come on man, Spiderman is a love story whether you like it or not...all classic comic book heroes have their problems of being human as well as supernatural...Peter Parker's achillies heel is his love for MJ, it is what fuels the story...just like Batman's achillies heel is his preoccupation with revenge rather than justice...classic superhero stories are about this conflict, without this conflict you dont have a superhero story.
it's a 1200 lb bulldog with a cop moustache named Lockjaw
I never saw the original comics but this was in some monstrous compendium of marvel characters... haha. They must have really been running dry of ideas.
LockJaw is realness. Inhumans member who hangs w/ Ben Grimm on the regular.
LockJaw is realness. Inhumans member who hangs w/ Ben Grimm on the regular.
wow this is hilarious. but where's his mustache? he shaved it?
i had another picture scanned but it seems like him/it and the thing are enemies
That's the first appearence when the FF meet the Inhumans. They fought but then both families have been allies since.
Lockjaw has thought to be a dog. But Marvel recently revealed that he was an actual person that was exposed to the Terrigan Mists(all Inhumans are exposed) which mutated him into a "dog". Dude can actually talk as well but chooses not to.
If everyone seems to know that Spiderman 3 sucks, why does everyone go see it?
People are either
or
or both.
uh, or curious. or want to judge for themselves.
a lot of people loved little miss sunshine and i hated it
honestly oliver, i don't understand this response when you recently watched Crash even though there were numerous threads about how much it sucked.
Aud - that previous comment wasn't aimed at you. You clearly stated that you wanted to see the film before any reviews came out so it's not like you wandered into the multiplex after the fact; you were committed to catch it regardless.
My point is more in terms of the people who contributed to this weekend's $60 million follow-up take. You can draw any number of conclusions about that, including: 1) there was nothing else up against it (boredom), 2) people wanted to see what everyone else had seen the weekend before (sheep), 3) people are willing to go see a sequel simply because it returns their favorite characters even if things like plot, script, narrative, acting, directing are all supposedly slipshod (sheep-ish but of a different flavor), 4) they want some distraction that a good popcorn film, ideally, can deliver (boredom).
Just so we're really clear here: I never put myself above any of these kinds of movie-going behavior. I've seen a lot of bad films - including many sequels - for all the reasons stated above. I'm more than happy to admit, "hey, I went to go see [fill in horrid blockbuster movie] because it seemed like the thing to do OR I wanted to be distracted for two hours too."
But seriously, I don't suspect that you are defending the sequel-itis fervor of the movie industry as being an act of altruism. The movie industry is betting on people being bored and/or sheep to flock to so-called "critic-proof" sequels and thereby justify why they just spent $300 million + for production and marketing costs. The expectation is inherent and explicit: they're depending on any number of forces that have nothing to do with the film on its own merits and most of those, I would argue, can be distilled into the idea of viewer boredom/need for distraction and general conformity (baa baa).
In any case, I'm not at all clear how "Crash" and "S3" are comparable here. I've already stated, very clearly, that "Crash" - despite being a shitty film - is a completely teachable film for a course on race/class/gender/popular culture. My desire to screen it has nothing to do with its artistic merits. If I were teaching a class looking at cinematic adaptations of comic book movies, I might very well screen "Spiderman 3" for that as well, regardless of what I feel about the movie as a work of art or entertainment.
Apples et oranges. Choosing a film for pedagogy is not the same as figuring out where to spend your $10 on a Friday night.
Now you can feature "How The (Black)Symbiote Spider-Man Costume Undermines African Americanism" in your class.
LOL.
In all seriousness though, one could very easily read racism into this idea that the "Black" costume is what turns Spiderman (or Venom or whoever) "evil". That's not even a stretch - the connection between Black-ness/villainy/evil is old as dirt and it definitely has racial overtones.
I wouldn't construct a class around that point, however.
My point is more in terms of the people who contributed to this weekend's $60 million follow-up take. You can draw any number of conclusions about that, including: 1) there was nothing else up against it (boredom), 2) people wanted to see what everyone else had seen the weekend before (sheep), 3) people are willing to go see a sequel simply because it returns their favorite characters even if things like plot, script, narrative, acting, directing are all supposedly slipshod (sheep-ish but of a different flavor), 4) they want some distraction that a good popcorn film, ideally, can deliver (boredom).
that's still doesn't cover all the areas for me though which is what i took issue with in the first place cause it seemed like such an over-simplification. like i said, what about people who generally don't agree with the move critic consensus? you know, especially when crits like peter travers' & richard roeper's 'votes' are being counted. crits IMO. i try not to follow reviewers because there are so many of them that i disagree with and i'm a see it to believe it movie goer. i think people who decide what movies they're going to watch solely on critics' reviews are the sheep actually.
i brought up crash not to question why you decided to screen it to your class, but just because you sounded surprise that it was awful when it has been discussed ad nauseum here how shallow it was on the issues of race and racism
Now you can feature "How The (Black)Symbiote Spider-Man Costume Undermines African Americanism" in your class.
LOL.
In all seriousness though, one could very easily read racism into this idea that the "Black" costume is what turns Spiderman (or Venom or whoever) "evil". That's not even a stretch - the connection between Black-ness/villainy/evil is old as dirt and it definitely has racial overtones.
I wouldn't construct a class around that point, however.
Dancin' to James Brown and Mr. Bojangles up in the Jazz bar isnt that much of a stretch. Add the high sex drive to the mix......How come dude didnt become a Goth/Metal cat? I honestly wasnt offended, but certain things tend to set off my "Black Spider Sense".
The Black/Venom costume was initially Marvel's way of changing the image of Spider-Man while going through copyright/ownership proceedings against Jack Kirby. Thor grew a beard. Capt.America went Black w/ the US Agent get-up.Hulk went back to Grey.Iron Man went black w/ War Machine( Rhodey is a Brother).
I wasn't surprised at how bad "Crash" was. I was stunned by how much worse it was then even my low expectations. But my point was that I didn't screen it out of pure curiosity, nor the desire to "make up my own mind." I expected it to be bad and was hoping its bad-ness would be useful for a critical class discussion (little did I expect practically my entire class to co-sign on it. That surprised me).
I'm just saying the context is different. Picking what to show for class vs. what I'd go out and see on my own often have little in common.
And the point isn't that critics should rule the day. There's a lot of films that people really seem to love that the critics hated (see Michael Bay's entire career, for example). What is notable about "Spiderman 3" however is how much negative reviews its drawn from just random people. The word of mouth on the film has simply not been good either. I think the original question therefore applies: why are so many people going to see a film that's been panned from top to bottom (albeit, I don't think anyone's claiming it's "Glitter"-bad)?
I wasn't surprised at how bad "Crash" was. I was stunned by how much worse it was then even my low expectations. But my point was that I didn't screen it out of pure curiosity, nor the desire to "make up my own mind." I expected it to be bad and was hoping its bad-ness would be useful for a critical class discussion (little did I expect practically my entire class to co-sign on it. That surprised me).
i definitely understand that. i wasn't saying that you screened it out of curiosity or to "make up your own mind." my point was that there is more than 3 reasons (being bored or a sheep or both) to watch a bad movie.
I wasn't surprised at how bad "Crash" was. I was stunned by how much worse it was then even my low expectations. But my point was that I didn't screen it out of pure curiosity, nor the desire to "make up my own mind." I expected it to be bad and was hoping its bad-ness would be useful for a critical class discussion (little did I expect practically my entire class to co-sign on it. That surprised me).
i definitely understand that. i wasn't saying that you screened it out of curiosity or to "make up your own mind." my point was that there is more than 3 reasons (being bored or a sheep or both) to watch a bad movie.
Accepted...but Audamn...do you really think that most people went to go see the movie, after opening weekend, out of innocent curiosity? I'm not trying to be cynical, just realistic.
Comments
Also, venom in the movie missed venoms best characteristics. When I saw the 1st Spiderman I said "ooh I cant wait for Venom to be in the movie!" the min I left the theatre. Seriously, this is an epic fail on so many different levels.
I did go see "hot Fuzz" today.
That movie looked like some shitty cinema until I saw the preview which revealed to me that the movie starred none other than the baddest motherfucker in Hollywood, Danny Trejo.
Now I GOTS to see it.
Herm
Man. don't get carried away. Sam Raimi rules. He does however like cliches.
People are either
or
or both.
the same reason why anybody clicks on your posts.
uh, or curious. or want to judge for themselves.
a lot of people loved little miss sunshine and i hated it
honestly oliver, i don't understand this response when you recently watched Crash even though there were numerous threads about how much it sucked.
Uhhh you sound like you're a Warriors fan that watched Spiderman 3.
Can anyone confirm that Raimi was taking the piss when spidey posed in front of the American flag prior to the final fight? Please let him be taking the piss.
Heh...Yeah that was painfully obvious but Spider-Man is just as iconic as Superman/Captain America/etc.
I heard Ditko the OG creator was a Communist on tha low, hence the red costume.
LockJaw is realness. Inhumans member who hangs w/ Ben Grimm on the regular.
wow this is hilarious. but where's his mustache? he shaved it?
i had another picture scanned but it seems like him/it and the thing are enemies
wow this is hilarious. but where's his mustache? he shaved it?
i had another picture scanned but it seems like him/it and the thing are enemies
That's the first appearence when the FF meet the Inhumans. They fought but then both families have been allies since.
Lockjaw has thought to be a dog. But Marvel recently revealed that he was an actual person that was exposed to the Terrigan Mists(all Inhumans are exposed) which mutated him into a "dog". Dude can actually talk as well but chooses not to.
Aud - that previous comment wasn't aimed at you. You clearly stated that you wanted to see the film before any reviews came out so it's not like you wandered into the multiplex after the fact; you were committed to catch it regardless.
My point is more in terms of the people who contributed to this weekend's $60 million follow-up take. You can draw any number of conclusions about that, including: 1) there was nothing else up against it (boredom), 2) people wanted to see what everyone else had seen the weekend before (sheep), 3) people are willing to go see a sequel simply because it returns their favorite characters even if things like plot, script, narrative, acting, directing are all supposedly slipshod (sheep-ish but of a different flavor), 4) they want some distraction that a good popcorn film, ideally, can deliver (boredom).
Just so we're really clear here: I never put myself above any of these kinds of movie-going behavior. I've seen a lot of bad films - including many sequels - for all the reasons stated above. I'm more than happy to admit, "hey, I went to go see [fill in horrid blockbuster movie] because it seemed like the thing to do OR I wanted to be distracted for two hours too."
But seriously, I don't suspect that you are defending the sequel-itis fervor of the movie industry as being an act of altruism. The movie industry is betting on people being bored and/or sheep to flock to so-called "critic-proof" sequels and thereby justify why they just spent $300 million + for production and marketing costs. The expectation is inherent and explicit: they're depending on any number of forces that have nothing to do with the film on its own merits and most of those, I would argue, can be distilled into the idea of viewer boredom/need for distraction and general conformity (baa baa).
In any case, I'm not at all clear how "Crash" and "S3" are comparable here. I've already stated, very clearly, that "Crash" - despite being a shitty film - is a completely teachable film for a course on race/class/gender/popular culture. My desire to screen it has nothing to do with its artistic merits. If I were teaching a class looking at cinematic adaptations of comic book movies, I might very well screen "Spiderman 3" for that as well, regardless of what I feel about the movie as a work of art or entertainment.
Apples et oranges. Choosing a film for pedagogy is not the same as figuring out where to spend your $10 on a Friday night.
LOL.
In all seriousness though, one could very easily read racism into this idea that the "Black" costume is what turns Spiderman (or Venom or whoever) "evil". That's not even a stretch - the connection between Black-ness/villainy/evil is old as dirt and it definitely has racial overtones.
I wouldn't construct a class around that point, however.
that's still doesn't cover all the areas for me though which is what i took issue with in the first place cause it seemed like such an over-simplification. like i said, what about people who generally don't agree with the move critic consensus? you know, especially when crits like peter travers' & richard roeper's 'votes' are being counted.
i brought up crash not to question why you decided to screen it to your class, but just because you sounded surprise that it was awful when it has been discussed ad nauseum here how shallow it was on the issues of race and racism
Dancin' to James Brown and Mr. Bojangles up in the Jazz bar isnt that much of a stretch. Add the high sex drive to the mix......How come dude didnt become a Goth/Metal cat? I honestly wasnt offended, but certain things tend to set off my "Black Spider Sense".
The Black/Venom costume was initially Marvel's way of changing the image of Spider-Man while going through copyright/ownership proceedings against Jack Kirby.
Thor grew a beard. Capt.America went Black w/ the US Agent get-up.Hulk went back to Grey.Iron Man went black w/ War Machine( Rhodey is a Brother).
I'm just saying the context is different. Picking what to show for class vs. what I'd go out and see on my own often have little in common.
And the point isn't that critics should rule the day. There's a lot of films that people really seem to love that the critics hated (see Michael Bay's entire career, for example). What is notable about "Spiderman 3" however is how much negative reviews its drawn from just random people. The word of mouth on the film has simply not been good either. I think the original question therefore applies: why are so many people going to see a film that's been panned from top to bottom (albeit, I don't think anyone's claiming it's "Glitter"-bad)?
i definitely understand that. i wasn't saying that you screened it out of curiosity or to "make up your own mind." my point was that there is more than 3 reasons (being bored or a sheep or both) to watch a bad movie.
Accepted...but Audamn...do you really think that most people went to go see the movie, after opening weekend, out of innocent curiosity? I'm not trying to be cynical, just realistic.