What Movie Did You Just Watch

[Avaitor]

I'm sure they were cheesy, but I always thought that was part of the charm of the original series when viewed by modern standards. Also, having modernized effects that are not well-integrated into an older series and stick out like a sore thumb can look just as cheesy, if not worse, than dated effects that at least fit within the standards of their respective production for its time.

But, if the new effects do fit in relatively well for the most part, then it shouldn't bother me too much.

Yeah, I get what you mean. Like I said, some of the new effects are integrated in the show better than others, but it's really a case by case thing.

Oh, and I'd give you a list of episodes to watch, but honestly, I've only cherry-picked a handful of episodes. I generally like what I've seen, but I'm no ST expert. I might end up giving the whole series a watch for my eventual video series, though.

For now, I'd say check this article out. I agree with a lot of it, myself.

[talonmalon333]

Yeah, it is pretty cheesy, but I just think it's such a fun movie

Also, just got done rewatching Spider-Man 2. I do think it's just as good if not better than the first movie.

And now I just got done rewatching Spider-Man 3, the hated step son of the trilogy. It still baffles me that this one is called the "worst superhero movie ever made" by some. It's not as good as the first two movies, but I think it's alright.

[Foggle]

And now I just got done rewatching Spider-Man 3, the hated step son of the trilogy. It still baffles me that this one is called the "worst superhero movie ever made" by some. It's not as good as the first two movies, but I think it's alright.

I think it's pretty bad, but it's nowhere close to the worst superhero movie ever made. It's pretty middle-of-the-road as far as superhero movies go.

[talonmalon333]

And now I just got done rewatching Spider-Man 3, the hated step son of the trilogy. It still baffles me that this one is called the "worst superhero movie ever made" by some. It's not as good as the first two movies, but I think it's alright.

I think it's pretty bad, but it's nowhere close to the worst superhero movie ever made. It's pretty middle-of-the-road as far as superhero movies go.

My problem is that it's a rather unhappy film, not nearly as fun as the last two movies. And it's kind of unsatisfying. Peter and Mary Jane's story arc ends on a bittersweet but grim note.

[Avaitor]

Spider-Man 3 would be a lot better if they didn't shoehorn Venom in. The Sandman and Harry are more than enough to carry a story.

I also don't think that they needed to add Gwen in.

Edit: I said Norman? God I'm dumb.

[talonmalon333]

Also, I forgot to ask, Foggle. Why do you think it's outright bad?

Spider-Man 3 would be a lot better if they didn't shoehorn Venom in. The Sandman and Norman are more than enough to carry a story.

I also don't think that they needed to add Gwen in.

Yeah, it's definitely a movie that tried to do a little more than it could handle, which resulted in three villains, none of which came close to Doc Ock.

[Foggle]

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I still cringe whenever I think of literally any scene featuring MJ or Harry. Especially the bit with The Twist. I almost left the theatre at that point, no joke. Venom was also awful. I didn't have a problem with Sandman's storyline though, like some people did. And the "emo" moments, while ridiculously stupid, didn't bother me much.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I like the movie. I also think a lot of people are hypocritical idiots who just bash a movie when its popular to do so and don't think for themselves in some cases. Why is it that Spider-Man 3 is considered the dud of the franchise when the first 2 films had just as many stupid moments? And why is Iron Man 2 still generally accepted as a decent film in its own right when, IMO, it also has just as many stupid moments as Spider-Man 3 does (and on top of that its fucking boring)? Honestly, I would take SM3 over IM2 any day.

As for SM3, it has plenty of flaws, but I didn't hate it by any means. Venom was obviously shoehorned in their, but the poor handling of his character didn't kill the movie for me. I still found Sandman and Harry's plots to be engaging, especially since Harry's part of the story was actually built up to with the first 2 films. Most of the stuff that I see people complain about with this movie, aside from Venom being poorly handled and a bit too much going on in the plot, really falls more into nit-picky problems rather than stuff that affects the film as a whole. Like, that whole "emo" segment with Peter (which isn't even "emo" given how he's acting ridiculous rather than overtly-emotional) is a 5-minute segment in the whole movie, NOT the whole movie itself. And that right there is the biggest thing that people complain about over anything else. That hardly kills the rest of the movie for me. As for other stuff, like Spider-Man posing in front of the American flag (for all of like....1 second), and other small stuff like that is as nit-picky as you can get.

Why does nobody ever mention the good stuff from the movie? The scene where Sandman first arises is one of the best scenes in the entire original trilogy. Am I the only one who thought it was freaking brilliant? The fight scenes in this movie were also great, and once again much better than in the first 2 films. And honestly I thought Harry's part of the story was handled very well, for the most part, with just a few missteps. I like that he lost his memory for some time since it had him remain friends with Peter, so that when he got his memories back late into the movie and back-stabbed Peter, it actually meant something.

If people don't like SM3, though, then fine, but don't go saying that its the worst superhero movie of all time, because that's fucking stupid. Hell, its not even the worst Marvel movie of all time. The original Captain America film, Elektra, both Ghost Rider movies, both Fantastic Four movies, The Hulk (2003), X-Men 3, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are all far worse, IMO.

[Avaitor]

I think SM3's negative reception came from a combination of disappointment and circumstance. Disappointment in that a lot of Venom fans were hoping for his inclusion to be epic, and not a last minute resort. Circumstance in that it seemed like there was  super hero fatigue going on around the time, since most of the movies to come out during the comic book boom that Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man started out weren't on the level of those franchises, and fans tend to consider their third installments to be major steps down. while Blade Trinity and Last Stand deserve their poor reception, I can agree that Spider-Man 3's faults get magnified, even if I can't say I'm a big fan of the trilogy.

Obviously the fatigue didn't really last, as Iron Man and The Dark Knight seemed to rejuvenate the way comic book adaptations were being made and received shortly after, but SM3 never really seemed to recover from its less-than-stellar reception. That's how I'd take it, at least.

[Nel_Annette]

I haaaaaate the scene where Sandman becomes Sandman. He just happens to waltz on into a science experiment while running from the law? Ugggh. Aggh. Stupid. Just... stupid.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I haaaaaate the scene where Sandman becomes Sandman. He just happens to waltz on into a science experiment while running from the law? Ugggh. Aggh. Stupid. Just... stupid.

First of all, you're not even referring to the same scene that I was. I'm specifically talking about the scene where he emerges as Sandman for the first time. Not where he gets into the experimentation field.

Second of all, he doesn't just happen to waltz in there. He is clearly on the run from the cops and obviously has no place to go and ends up doesn't exactly have the time to check where he's going in the middle of hot pursuit, so he ends up somewhere that he assumes is an empty, abandoned field. Its not exactly the best way to do a super villain's origin, I'll give you that, but stupid shit like this happened in the other Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. Why is JUST this scene the stand-out?

And if people want to talk about stupid, The Lizard's origin in The Amazing Spider-Man was idiotic movie-nonsense as well. I know that Dr. Connor was desperate to try and perfect his formula to regenerate his arm and was in a hurry since he was being shut down, but no scientist I know (and I know plenty) would ever just inject any chemical untested on humans into themselves in such a circumstances. That might work if it was shown that Dr. Connor was downright crazy before that point (and you'd have to be to do that), but he was shown to be perfectly sane and calm-minded, if a bit obsessive and overambitious, so that origin IMO was every bit as stupid any of the dumb stuff from Sam Raimi's SM movies, but you don't see anyone complaining about those because somehow those are supposed to be smarter? Yeah, I don't get people at all.

Also, on that note, why does the security in Oscorp suck so bad in that film? Peter barely has to try to make his way into a completely restricted room where he gets his radioactive spider-bite.

[talonmalon333]

I don't hate Spider-Man 3 at all. I think it's decent, which admittedly is a contrast to my opinions on Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, which I find to be great.

[Avaitor]

I have to admit, while I don't particularly care for the trilogy, I don't really have much interest to watch Amazing, either. I wouldn't be surprised if I never do.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Personally, putting nostalgia aside, I don't find any of Raimi's SM movies to be truly great. I do find them to be good for what they are, though, and they are mostly silly, somewhat dumb superhero flicks that do still have a lot of heart and emotion to them to make them feel like a bit more than just stupid fun. I think that SM3 is undeniably the most flawed of these movies, but I hate it when people bash SM3 WHILE acting like the other 2 SM movies are perfect in comparison, which is something that just baffles me.

I just find a strange oddity in how people like to pick that one particular movie apart, yet seem to completely ignore the faults of many other Marvel movies that are considered to be better. For example, why does nobody ever criticize that scene from Iron Man 2 in which Tony Stark gets drunk off his ass and then starts blasting the shit out of his own property only to get interrupted by Rhodes who just somehow manages to put on one of his suits (DESPITE having no arc reactor of his own to even mobilize one of them; and its also hilarious that Tony has absolutely no security for these insanely expensive and dangerous "weapons"); this scene is followed up by a really ridiculous fight scene that I guess is supposed to be funny but just....isn't. I remember my dad turning to me in the theater when we were watching this scene and telling me: "I don't know what the director was thinking, but this is just....stupid." And he's right, it was stupid. Just as stupid as the dance scene from Spider-Man 3, but while everybody understandably complains about that scene, almost nobody ever seems to mention that stupid shit from IM2. I just don't get the varying standards that people seem to have with these types of films, I suppose.

[talonmalon333]

Personally, putting nostalgia aside, I don't find any of Raimi's SM movies to be truly great. I do find them to be good for what they are, though, and they are mostly silly, somewhat dumb superhero flicks that do still have a lot of heart and emotion to them to make them feel like a bit more than just stupid fun. I think that SM3 is undeniably the most flawed of these movies, but I hate it when people bash SM3 WHILE acting like the other 2 SM movies are perfect in comparison, which is something that just baffles me.

I just find a strange oddity in how people like to pick that one particular movie apart, yet seem to completely ignore the faults of many other Marvel movies that are considered to be better. For example, why does nobody ever criticize that scene from Iron Man 2 in which Tony Stark gets drunk off his ass and then starts blasting the shit out of his own property only to get interrupted by Rhodes who just somehow manages to put on one of his suits (DESPITE having no arc reactor of his own to even mobilize one of them; and its also hilarious that Tony has absolutely no security for these insanely expensive and dangerous "weapons"); this scene is followed up by a really ridiculous fight scene that I guess is supposed to be funny but just....isn't. I remember my dad turning to me in the theater when we were watching this scene and telling me: "I don't know what the director was thinking, but this is just....stupid." And he's right, it was stupid. Just as stupid as the dance scene from Spider-Man 3, but while everybody understandably complains about that scene, almost nobody ever seems to mention that stupid shit from IM2. I just don't get the varying standards that people seem to have with these types of films, I suppose.

Well to be fair, don't people generally agree that Iron Man 2 was rather weak as well, and had plenty of silly parts (like the one you mentioned)?