Spider-Man (The Raimi Trilogy)

[Legionmaster]

Oh and Spider-Man 3 would have been better without Venom. It'd have been better had it been the Sandman alone.

Easily. That whole script needed an editor with a chainsaw.

[Crocodile]

Oh and Spider-Man 3 would have been better without Venom. It'd have been better had it been the Sandman alone.

Easily. That whole script needed an editor with a chainsaw.

Well that and in all honesty Venom is an angsty betamale with Spider powers. Who's just mad Peter has nice things, and he wants nice things.

Goblin 2 was a rehash of Green Goblin, but not as lethal

Sandman was really the best villian of the three. And the most threatening.

Maybe could do without the whole "he shot Uncle Ben: thing. Still a man trying to save his daughter made for a more interesting villain than the other two combined.

[Legionmaster]

Well and it's just flat out bad storytelling to have Venom appear so late in the film (literally right before the climactic fight).

[zilla103192]

why did they need to create a Goblin for the 3rd movie??? WHY?

You can OBVIOUSLY see the Hobgoblin mask in Harry's lair, and there are a slew of other goblins in the comics. Why did they have to go and give us that batman knock off with a flying snowboard?

/rant

[shinmattiathekaiju]

Maybe Spiderman 3 wouldn't have been a train wreck if it wasn't for the executive meddling.

[kaiju115]

Oh and Spider-Man 3 would have been better without Venom. It'd have been better had it been the Sandman alone.

Honestly, Sam Raimi had no intention putting Venom in the 3rd film, but apparently someone told him to put Venom in the film at the last minute. In truth, Sam Raimi should have ignored the idea and saved it for later, or at least ended the movie with a transformation of him, to get us all hyped for a fourth installment.

Anyway, the 1st film was great, the 2nd film was equally as good, the 3rd one definitely the weakest of the three, but I didn't think was a bad as everyone said. I'm still waiting to see a live action Carnage, but I doubt that will happen.

[Living Corpse]

They managed to take a lame villain like Doc Ock and make him awesome by simply replacing his spandex and visor with a tranche coat and sunglasses.

Doc Ock was always awesome. he's had some good stories centered around him.
Doc Ock is really one of Spidey's better villians.

Nope.

The Doc has always been lame in my book except for this movie version.

[Gorosaurus Rex]

I honestly don't get the adoration that the first film gets. Its good, and in some ways alot of campy fun. The best part is easily Willam DaFoe's Norman Osborn.

However, the second Spider-man is a wonderful film. I honestly think it's only trumped by The Dark Knight as being one of the best comic book movies ever made. I understand why its somewhat romantic and quite tone might work with some, but I love it.

Three isn't awful, but it's easily the weakest of the three. Too many plot threads and too many scenes that just dont work make for a movie that's sort of a mess. All the parts concerning the Sandman are great, and Harry Osborn is pretty strong as well, but they are one of the few aspects that work.

[Sydney Aradi]

I adore all three Sam Raimi Spidey films. Were they Oscar worthy? No. But to me, they were a lot of fun. Sure Spiderman 3 was the weakest of the trilogy but IMO its not the worst film of the world hell it's not even a truly bad film. IMO Spiderman 2 is better than Dark Knight because, to me Spidey 2 had the perfect balance of fun & somewhat seriousness (while TDK IMO an okay film was just too complex & dull for my liking) and also Spiderman 2 had some pretty good acting especially from the actor who played Doc Ock

[Berzerkgodzilla]

I like the first one and I adore the 2nd one

I however hate the third one, I was kinda embarassed watching it when he was walking down the street thinking he was all hot shit

[Huan_of_Valinor]

the first one is okay, it was really good when it came out but most of the CGI has not aged well and the story is sorta meh with some slight editing hiccups here and there. the movie is still tons of fun and has some awesome moments

the second one is amazing. probably the best post Superman (1978) pre- Dark Knight superhero movie, Doc Ock is a great villian

i've never seen the 3rd one, i lost all intrest when i saw the trailer tbh. i thought it looked really stupid, and wasn't surprised when my friends and co-workers said it was terrible. no interest in seeing it

[tymon]

I saw the second movie in theaters with my family, and we all agreed it was horrendous. Melodramatic and cheesy. I have no idea why it's so highly regarded.

First movie is ok. Third is garbage. I'm hoping the reboot will be better.

[kaiju115]

I adore all three Sam Raimi Spidey films. Were they Oscar worthy? No. But to me, they were a lot of fun. Sure Spiderman 3 was the weakest of the trilogy but IMO its not the worst film of the world hell it's not even a truly bad film. IMO Spiderman 2 is better than Dark Knight because, to me Spidey 2 had the perfect balance of fun & somewhat seriousness (while TDK IMO an okay film was just too complex & dull for liking) and also Spiderman 2 had some pretty good acting especially from the actor who played Doc Ock

I fully agree with you on everything that you've said.

[HeiseiGodzilla117]

Raimi's trilogy and Dragonball Evolution are the only films I've ever fan-raged over. If others want to enjoy them, that's perfectly fine. But they just don't satisfy me in the least. They lacked what I feel is the essence of Spider-man. He wasn't witty... AT ALL. On top of that, they magnified Peter's depressing side ten-fold, barely ever touching on some of the more bright times he's enjoyed in the comics. Sony just keeps letting me down. I have a feeling the same thing will be true for the reboot.

[Tyler]

I like the first two a lot. I think Spider-Man 2 is one of the best superhero movies.

The third is just frustrating to watch. It has some good stuff in it but there's so much going on. In a way the New Goblin should've been the only villain, but we've seen something like that already. So we bring in the Sandman for something new, but they go back into the death of Uncle Ben and mess that up. And then there's Venom. So yeah.

It's a mess and it makes me want to find a script for Spider-Man 3 and just rewrite it for fun. Personally I'd have two villains: Green Goblin II and Vulture.

[zilla103192]

I like the first two a lot. I think Spider-Man 2 is one of the best superhero movies.

The third is just frustrating to watch. It has some good stuff in it but there's so much going on. In a way the New Goblin should've been the only villain, but we've seen something like that already. So we bring in the Sandman for something new, but they go back into the death of Uncle Ben and mess that up. And then there's Venom. So yeah.

It's a mess and it makes me want to find a script for Spider-Man 3 and just rewrite it for fun. Personally I'd have two villains: Green Goblin II and Vulture.

I would of kept the script overall the same, just move the church scene to the very end. And have it lead up to venom for the fourth movie.

And I don't understand the whole "They messed up the whole Uncle Ben story" thing. This is the movie universe, they screwed up basically everything if you are looking for comparisons from the comics. I actually liked what they did to it. It made the storyline a bit more deep.

Still, the movie isn't that good.

[Crocodile]

Melodramatic and cheesy.

Actually, even as someone who enjoys 1 and 2, I find it hard to disagree with that.

In fact, the entire trilogy is like that.

[Gorosaurus Rex]

^ But in a way, that's sort of what gives it its charm. That's the sort of atmosphere the earlier comics give off. There's a certain level of camp and understatement that I think really make these movies work.

[HeiseiGodzilla117]

^ But in a way, that's sort of what gives it its charm. That's the sort of atmosphere the earlier comics give off. There's a certain level of camp and understatement that I think really make these movies work.

The level of silly, whimsical, light-hearted scenes and story-arcs of early Spidey are hardly found in Raimi's trilogy. I find that there is a lack of balance between tragedy and light-hearted fun in the trilogy. Instead of touching on the whole character of Parker and Spider-man, Raimi usually leans towards his darker, more depressing side. This just makes his movies feel both dry and melancholy. It just does not work for me.

[Legionmaster]

^ But in a way, that's sort of what gives it its charm. That's the sort of atmosphere the earlier comics give off. There's a certain level of camp and understatement that I think really make these movies work.

The level of silly, whimsical, light-hearted scenes and story-arcs of early Spidey are hardly found in Raimi's trilogy. I find that there is a lack of balance between tragedy and light-hearted fun in the trilogy. Instead of touching on the whole character of Parker and Spider-man, Raimi usually leans towards his darker, more depressing side. This just makes his movies feel both dry and melancholy. It just does not work for me.

Someone forgot about the Raindrops Are Falling on My Head sequence right in the middle of Spidey 2...