• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Spiderman

So we're getting a Spidey film where he has to go up against Sandman, Green Goblin Mk II and Venom? Bloody hell - I hope with that many major players, we're not going to lose any character development (Re: Batman & Robin). Still, Raimi has managed to deliver the goods before, so here's hoping.

BTW - if Vulture's in Spidey 4, it's gotta be Ben Kingsley. Johnny Knoxville for Electro.

And Damian Lewis for Cletus Cassidy!

Hell, we could even end up with the Sinister Six...
 
Don't forget this film also has Gwen Stacey in it.

I mean, were they worried they wouldn't get to do more films, and wanted to get the whole story in? When do the clones turn up?
 
i could live with electro, as long as they do something about that f*ck awful outfit...
 
From The TimesApril 26, 2007

Shock revelation: why Spider-Man’s real name isn’t Peter Parkour

Kevin Maher
This summer, Spider-Man is back, in his biggest and boldest adventure yet! And he looks completely fake!

Yes, making the leaping, climbing, swinging, diving and building-scaling antics of Tobey Maguire seem even slightly realistic has always been problematic. And, unsurprisingly, for Spider-Man 3, they have again resorted to the rendering room to produce a computer-generated hero who is as convincing on screen as the Super Mario Bros.

But it could have all been so different. It has been revealed that Sam Raimi, the director of the Spider-Man movies, had discussions last year with the ace French wall-climber David Belle about bringing some much-needed urban grit to his franchise. Belle is the undisputed king of the death-defying street acrobatics called parkour, known in the UK as free running and was last seen leaping over roof-tops and down stair-wells in a BBC promo. Parkour hit the mainstream last year when it was featured, to devastating effect, in an early sequence of Casino Royale.

Raimi was on the right track. Belle, however, perhaps sniffing a sell-out, told him that he wasn’t interested. “I’d rather appear on a poster with my own name,” he told The New Yorker.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 705550.ece
 
Had the pleasure of being on the red carpet at the Spidey 3 Premiere the other night and thoroughly enjoyed it. Venom and Sandman are well realised, the effects for the parasitic outfit being particularly outstanding IMO.

I have to comment as well about the long fight shots, where it'd be easier to cut fast, close ups and falls, the camera follows the action in a nice wide, vertigo inducing manner. I liked that.

Was it as good as the others? Certainly has to be seen if even for the evil Peter Parker "travolta" sequence. (It's the old good Kirk / bad Kirk thing!). The Spiderman fan I was with thought it delivered. For me personally, Spiderman 2 was the best. It was more Spiderman than Peter Parker, where as 3, while not as good as the first, is more Peter Parker than Spiderman.

The Bruce Campbell cameo is a joy!

mooks (IMHO) oot
 
Real-life spider-men? Italian researcher says it's possible

A new Spider-Man film swings into cinemas soon, but an Italian researcher said on Thursday he was working on a project that could lead to real-life versions of the comic book character.

Nicola Pugno, a 35-year-old researcher at the Polytechnic University of Turin, said he has worked on a form of adhesion for about 10 years that could lead to something like a spider-man suit.

Like many other researchers, he said he was using the gecko lizard as an example.

"It's a field that can have very interesting applications in science, like in space, for example," Pugno said. "An astronaut could use a suit with a suction-cup adhesion system."

He estimates a suit like that could be constructed in another 10 years.

The gecko's feet are covered with tiny hairs called setae that allow for strong adhesion to different types of surfaces. Pugno is seeking to mimic the effect of the setae, though several problems remain to be worked through.

His suit, he said, is to include extremely fine, sticky filament.

"One of the problems that has arisen is the control of the adhesion, because remaining attached to a wall is not difficult," he said. "All you have to do is attach it with superglue. But then how do you detach it and re-attach it again?"

A self-cleaning mechanism also has to be developed for the system, he said.

"A gecko that walks in the sand has to clean his feet after a few steps," he said.

Despite his work's obvious Spider-Man similarities, Pugno said he has no particular interest in the hit movies and that science is what fascinates him. Science fiction, he said, "leads to nothing."

http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=96822552
 
they have again resorted to the rendering room to produce a computer-generated hero who is as convincing on screen as the Super Mario Bros.

i think that's a bit mean... admittedly it wasn't quite there in the first movie... but i thought the 2nd was uber slick... the crazy fights were tight like you wouldn't know you weren't watching the real thing...
 
But I quite like the very-obviously-cgi-acrobatics, because this cartoonish element sits well with a movie franchise which so celebrates its comic book origins. As much as I admired Batman Begins, I had a sneaking suspicion that the director, producers et al were faintly embarrassed by the provenance of their central character.

I've heard mostly good things about Spidey 3 so far; definitely on my list of things to see this year.
 
Saw it to day and mostly enjoyed it.

The Venom story line would have been better as a film in itself however.
 
Garudian review (and they sneaked in a great idea for a film too):

Spider-Man 3


** (Cert 12A)

Peter Bradshaw
Friday May 4, 2007
The Guardian


Global warming continues. The magnolias are blooming obscenely early. The sky is an unseasonable blue. The burning sunshine seeds tiny flowers of skin cancer on our puckered flesh. And the long, hot summer of pointless film sequels is underway. In the coming months, it seems as if every film will have a digit after the title - a worryingly high digit, mostly, like the first half of a catastrophic scoreline in which the second half should read: Entertainment Factor Nil.

Tobey Maguire is back for the third and probably not last time in the role that he almost deserted mid-series over money wrangles - an act that might have snapped the delicate webbing connecting him to an A-list career. Like Orlando Bloom in the Lord of the Rings films, Maguire has grown older in the series that made his name, and now, at 31, is pretty long in the arachnid fang to be living in a single bedsit, doing an undergraduate degree and popping round to his Aunt May for some home-cooking before climbing into the old Spidey suit for the evening. As he gets older, in fact, his obvious eligibility for a villain role becomes more obvious. The weird, sleepy-lidded gaze and unnerving grin is on show as Peter Parker saunters around the Manhattan streets, beaming at the world. This odd look does not get any more reassuring as Maguire gets older.

All superheroes have to be "dark" now of course, to demonstrate their seriousness and non-geekiness, and Spider-Man is no exception. This, evidently, is the film in which he goes over to the dark side, with a new dark cozzy, kept in a separate trunk under the bed and worn - sans mask - under his shirt, when he wants to feel super-bad.

SM3 has its moments, but it's over-long and messy with a number of disjointed storylines. There's no clear villain to boo and, by the end, no clear hero to cheer. Instead of one obvious, compelling enemy, there are two. Or three if you count another who pops up right at the end.

Spidey's new chief opponent is the Sandman, a handle with unfortunate associations with getting small kids off to sleep. He is played by square-jawed Thomas Haden Church (known from Alexander Payne's bittersweet male-menopause comedy, Sideways). As escaped convict Flint Marko, he blunders into a nuclear particle test facility with a perimeter fence about as secure as the Blue Peter garden. There, in time-honoured fashion, he finds himself zapped with nuclear rays while trapped in a kind of sandy-bottomed crucible, and his body's molecules absorb sand, which makes his limbs all crumbly and sandy, but gives him the power to reform as a huge, sandy giant.

Meanwhile, Peter Parker gets bitten by a sort of sticky, spider-webby stuff that has peeled off a meteor recently crash-landed in Central Park - and, er, that's it. A meteor. That's the only explanation. A plot development that must have caused writer-director Sam Raimi a good 20 seconds of Biro-chewing.

So Spidey becomes all lean'n'mean'n' horrible. In his civvies, Peter Parker starts wearing his hair in a kind of floppy fringe and he appears also to be sporting eyeliner, as if he has been bitten by a radioactive Simon le Bon. When it comes to fighting the Sandman, dark-clad Spider-Man realises that, like the Wicked Witch in Oz, his opponent is fatally susceptible to water. He sprays him with acrid liquid and instantly the Sandman is turned into the equivalent of a sludgy skipful of builder's rendering. But, for some reason, Spider-Man forgets about this childishly simple "liquid" method for fighting Sandman during their final confrontation; there's lots of pointless squad-car throwing and roaring, when all he needed to do was chuck a large bucket of water.

And then there's Goblin Jr, played by James Franco, the son of Willem Dafoe's sinister Goblin - and Goblin Jr is, as always, fantastically dull, both as a villain and, in his alter-ego mode, as Parker's tense rival for the affections of Mary-Jane Parker, played by Kirsten Dunst. Oh, and there's another villain who shows up late in the day. And with a film this long (two hours and 20 minutes), that's very late.

Despite its attempts to be dark, SM3 pretty well abandons the complexity and real-world pain that made the first two movies interesting. And Peter Parker's journey into psychological cruelty is more camp than anything else - which Raimi appears to concede by sending the whole thing up, and turning Parker into a black-clad finger-snapping hipster, a one-man rat-pack of spite. The series is now beginning to resemble the Christopher Reeve Superman movies at their later sequel stage: a fair bit of zip, and some terrific-looking Manhattan streetscape battle scenes, but no satisfyingly unified story, and muddied by the fact that the love interest now knows the hero's secret identity.

Worst of all, it's crippled by an inflation of villain-value. Where once a single baddie would do, now you need two or three. As he scampers around the bathtub of popular culture, Spidey is beginning to exhaust everyone's patience. The time has come for someone to produce a rolled-up newspaper the size of a subway train and bring it down with an almighty crash.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/C ... 55,00.html
 
I also watched it a few days ago. I thought Sandman and Venom were well done, and the casting of Topher Grace wasn´t even the mistake I thought it would be. But I could definitively have lived with Evil Peter having been done in a more subtle way, without any Saturday Night Fever. I also think people who didn´t read the comics will have no idea what is happening with the symbiot thing. After it attaches itself to Parker, it just looks as if he is wearing a black suit. There is no indications that it is anything other than just a piece of black fabric rather than an alien lifeform.
 
just saw this yesterday, everyone i knew there who were into comics loved it, most of the rest of the audience didnt have a clue what was going on and all seemed quite bored, i loved it tho, deffo my favourite of the 3.
 
big imo.

i thought this one blew chunks :( the effects are very very good, and i loved the shoggoth-ish venom parasite when it was crawling around, and the sandman 'landslide' reintegration thing type scene was a work of art... that's about the only good thing i've got to say for it...

...the plot was painfully bad, cheap and like something from a 50s b movie, and there were so many cheesy developments i kept going 'ffs' to myself... parker manages to be such an asshole in the first part of the movie it's hard to care about him, and it goes from bad to worse when the venom thing makes him turn all emo (think floppy hair and black eyeliner!)...

it's well grim...
 
If water makes Sandman go soggy, how did he cry at the end?
 
I preferred the way Spidey captured the Sandman in the original comics - he used a vacuum cleaner and sucked him up!

If you look at http://www.theregister.co.uk, you see that George Lucas doesn't think too much of Spiderman 3 due to its lack of substance. Pot, kettle, black, George, pot, kettle, black.
 
I saw it at the weekend - the FX and action sequences are truly astonishing, but the plot was annoyingly coincidence-driven. Especially in the way in which the Venom suit discovered Peter Parker.

I mean, he's lying there with MJ on a big web, watching a meteor shower. And one of these meteors just happens to land a couple of yards away. This meteor itself must be virtually unique, in that it contains an alien lifeform. Credibility is further stretched when this lifeform clambers out and attaches itself to Peter's moped (Peter, of course, being the only human being out of billions who has spider-powers!)

Okay, so I know it's not wise to talk about credibility stretches in the context of a superhero movie. But when those credibility stretches are so obviously the result of lazy storytelling, then it's just not good enough. Enjoy the spectacle, yes - but prepared to be bummed-out by the seriously poor story construction.
 
JOy to some agony to others:

Spider-Man to return for three more films

Monday, May 7 2007, 15:10 BST

By Matt Houghton


Sony Pictures has revealed that Spider-Man will return for a further three films, after the franchise broke US box office records upon its opening.

The third Spider-Man film was the most successful yet, taking £74 million on it first weekend.

Michael Lynton, the chief executive at Sony, claimed that there would be "as many as we can make good stories for".

He went on: "Everybody has every intention of making a fourth, fifth and sixth on and on.

"Everybody's been so busy trying to get this one out that that's been the focus. When everybody comes up for air we can think about how to make the next one."

www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a46231/spid ... films.html
 
...there would be "as many as we can make good stories for".

Which would be two. Time to stop before it ends up like another Friday the 13th.
 
Xanatico said:
...there would be "as many as we can make good stories for".

Which would be two. Time to stop before it ends up like another Friday the 13th.
I don't know, there's about 45 years worth of comics to draw on...
 
I thought the film was total bollocks.

I cant really be arsed to go into why.
 
Oh deary me.

This film is dreadful! Venom looked better in the ropey 90’s animated series.

Actually, I can't go on. I agree with Painy2.

I can't wait for the Silver Surfer and Transformers to break my heart this summer too :cry:
 
I saw this the other night and actually quite enjoyed it! :shock:

Raimi and his brother (et al) know their stuff (re - early spiderman comics) and nothing seemed to me to be any less ridiculous than anything displayed in those infantile 'tat' rags!

There were a few plot points that should have been elaborated upon - how Venom knew about the Sandman's history and child - the way that history (reguarding Parker's uncle's death) kept re-writing itself, and the Americanised 'lovie' shite and that whole dance scene in the jazz club need reviewing/ removing! And it could have done with losing a good (bad) 20/25 minutes of footage. But, it's a f*cking kids film! Come on! Lighten up!

And Bruce Campbell doing his John Cleese stuff was just ace!
 
Ok you got me Fro.

I spent an next hour or so after watching the filum, doing Bruce Campbell impressions of doing French Maitre De (?) impressions, inbetween doing evil (or just bad?) Jazz dancing to my girlfriend. :oops:

Still in two minds though
 
Well, I heard so many negative thoughts about this film - and REALLY would have watched ANYTHING else! But, you know, it's just a bit of fun! And, I think, works on that level.

All I can 'honestly' say is that I enjoyed it! The people with me hated it.

Make of that what you will!

I will now, never, 'review' another film, ever!
 
Back
Top