I've heard that Forbidden Kingdom isn't all that awesome, in terms of Chan/Li fanwank. Though I'd like that to be wrong.

BTW you all for not knowing who Jet Li is & for not seeing Forbidden Kingdom.

and even more so considering that he's just a dude in a body-covering black suit...

Not sure why Sony is so high on the idea, considering the reaction to SM3. hell, even I thought that Venom was weakly executed from a "cool movie stuff" perspective.

Wasn't it like the highest grossing movie EVER or something?

I keep forgetting how this stuff works. I was gonna say how the Wolverine movie is probably going to take a hit at the BO because of X3, and then I remembered that X3 made five quintillion dollars.




this is one reason why I'm getting sick of the whole thing

I didn't have a problem with SM3 at all, I just felt that Venom was a bit underwhelming in terms of the final look, once he was in the suit. It looked a bit cheesy IMO.

Does anyone have any INTERNET evidence of this "Raimi hates Venom, Sony loves him" narrative that I've heard about for so long? Not that I disbelieve it; I'm just wondering how anyone would know about it.

Cuz to me, the black suit was a pretty huge part of SM3... I don't know what you'd have left in terms of a story if that were taken out. Sandman seems to be the one who was tacked on IMO.

Maybe hate was too strong a word but it doesn't change the fact Rami feels strongly against Venom.

Jebus people Google is you're friend.

Try googling for the answers.

Maybe hate was too strong a word but it doesn't change the fact Rami feels strongly against Venom.

I thought this was universal knowledge from the beginning of the third films production.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_2...0037557,00.html

Also explains why he went in the laughable direction he did for Spiderman's dark side. Some of it's understandable because Spiderman's the good guy and it's hard seeing/wanting him to be bad but at the same time a lame excuse to not for the sake of kids. Rami should have sat down and watched the 90s Venom sega. Spiderman goes evil because the suit is primarily evil and though it almost causes him to kill someone, knowing what he's become is more convincing and rewarding when he turns good again.

Also as against I am of continuing sequels SM 3 should have continued into SM4 with Venom the bad guy and the Harry/Sandman plots wrapped up. Also a new director wouldn't have hurt either.

Spidey 3's Raimi Talks Venom

Spider-Man 3 writer/director Sam Raimi told SCI FI Wire that he thought about introducing the new villain Venom in this sequel and continuing the story in a possible fourth film, but ultimately decided the entire story should be told in one movie. "I thought it would be unfair to [the fans]," he said of breaking the storyline up. The consequence of that decision is that fans may have to wait a bit to see the full-fledged supervillain in all his glory in Spider-Man 3.

The Venom storyline is one of only three main stories in the third installment of the webslinger franchise. In it, Peter Parker becomes affected by an alien symbiote, which turns his suit black, before it is rejected and migrates to Peter's romantic and professional rival, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who then transforms into Venom.

"So the very nature of that story demands that you either do it [as] two [parts], if you want to spend more time with Venom, which I didn't think was fair to the audience, to the fans of Spider-Man," or that you do it all at once and introduce Venom fairly late, Raimi said in a news conference. "I thought about it, I really did. And I kept reading the fans' e-mails that [producer] Avi [Arad] would send me�"'They'd better not just introduce him to tease us!' ... I felt that the fans didn't want that, from the thousands of e-mails that were sent me."

Raimi added: "Avi said, 'You're not giving me what I asked you.' ... He said, 'They want Venom. Just give them Venom already!' So I said 'OK.' But, obviously, through the very nature of it, he's only going to be in half an act or one act [at the end of the film]. I'll just make it as thorough and the best that I can [and] deliver Venom in the most complete way that I understand the fans might want him. That was my desire. I was led there." Spider-Man 3 opens May 4 in conventional theaters and in IMAX

Way to not read... I guess all those e-mails and Avi Arad saying "PUT HIM IN THE MOVIE" sailed right over your head, huh?

short and sweet: Here he is, ROAR I'M BAD GUY, kill him in the dumbest way possible...yeah that will work! *holds middle finger to fans emails*

oh I got it

but I forgot to add
*Avi: DO IT!*
*that should make Avi happy*

Sorry if I get/got it

Apparently McFarlane isn't keen on the idea.
And I agree with him.

And for IST those of you who don't know who Todd Mcfarlane is He cocreated Venom back in 1987'ish along with David Mchlinie

Venom's one of the most popular Spider-Man villians. I'm surprised nobody here(Outside of Hunter) knew this.

I've casually read some comics, saw SM3 and thought it was a pretty great movie...I imagine most average movie-goers thought the same.

Also I'm under the impression you think all 90s what have you cartoons were sh*tty. Most of 90s Spiderman was but the Venom sega they got right IMO and did everything Rami tried to do only with more cohession.

I will give you points about Parker's dark side being revealed when he thought he had killed Sandman but I have to take them away because that was mostly fueled by Parker thinking he had "again" avenged his Uncle Ben. What bullsh*t retcon.

I don't understand why people get so angsty about that retcon. It's a movie about a dude with spider powers who fights crime.

Well, retcon like that is lazy 3 movies into a series all with the same cast and director. When its "oh, hey, this guy has ties to you regarding a plot point that was already settled in the first movie...but the rivalry needed motivation," then you probably should've tried harder at developing the character independent of an existing (settled) story arc. How did it serve the story to have Sandman involved in that manner?

I was going to say something about the cartoon earlier, but I assumed everyone thought the 90's toon was pretty campy. Guess not

Gee, I wonder.

Yeah, 'cause the movie didn't already have a "death of a father/father figure" revenge story arc carried over from the previous movie...oh wait.

I was going to say something about the cartoon earlier, but I assumed everyone thought the 90's toon was pretty campy. Guess not

No, you're right, it didn't. Remember the line that got quoted about a bazillion times in the first film? "With great power comes great responsibility"? SM1 wasn't about revenge; it was about Peter stopping being a fargwad and starting to be responsible, because his actions have consequences. Ya know, setting up the whole "why is he Spider-Man" thing.

Um, I was talking about Harry's revenge arc, carried over from SM2. And, if you remember, the symbiote made Peter vengeful. Thus the movie had two "you killed my father/father figure!" revenge story lines, with Harry as a dark version of Peter/Spider-Man, then Peter as a dark version of Peter/Spider-Man, post-symbiote...and then friggin' Eddie Brock as yet another dark version of Peter/Spider-Man. Revenge for everybody! It was way, way too much.

I liked the cartoon.

I'm not saying I didn't, just saying what it was.


Just like G1- OH SNAP

But when you don't like something, you can come up with all kinds of ways to criticize it, whether or not it has anything to do with your initial dislike of it.

Meh, I could rehash the whole SM3 discussion, but ultimately if the movie didn't work for you, there's no point in continuing the debate. I don't think that this was really the core of the problem you had with the movie. But when you don't like something, you can come up with all kinds of ways to criticize it, whether or not it has anything to do with your initial dislike of it.

And you really can come up with all kinds of ways to criticize Spider-Man 3, whether or not it has anything to do with your initial dislike of the film - and they'll still all be valid criticisms.

That's how crappy that movie was.

That's how crappy that movie was.

I'd just like to say that I hated Superman Returns, and I can still be mature enough about it to sit down, watch the movie, and point out all the things I thought were done well in it.

I'd just like to say that I hated Superman Returns, and I can still be mature enough about it to sit down, watch the movie, and point out all the things I thought were done well in it.

I'm still digesting it...

Fantastic performance from Ledger, definitely. Aaron Eckhart -- who knew? Just as compelling in his own way. I stayed away from spoilers, so it was a real surprise to me that Two-Face actually emerged as a character in this film. I kind of wish we'd never really seen the other half of his face (for a while I thought that's what they were going to do), because to me that would have been more effective. But I really liked what they did with Dent, how Two-Face was really a result of Dent being tragically stuck in one particular moment of his life. To me, he best represented the central theme of the film... that whole question of doing the right thing vs. giving up vs. turning into one of these soulless people yourself vs. accepting the reality that all of us have that quality to some degree.

Which is why I'm still not sure what I think about this movie. As brilliant as Ledger was, I kind of wonder why he was in the film. He seemed to distract from the point of the movie. I would rather have seen a movie about Two-Face, honestly. But as it is... I kind of feel like, what exactly was the point of the film? "The Dark Knight" as an appellation for Batman was very well handled, with them constantly referencing "white knights" and then finally referring to Batman as the "dark knight." But again... that had more to do with Dent than with the Joker, I felt. I'm really glad that they didn't give the Joker an origin (the "wanna know how I got my scars" thing was really perfect for him), but at the same time it robbed him of a context. I kind of felt like I had to have just seen the first film in order to get engaged with his character.

And speaking of which, I noticed that Batman had like zero story arc in this film. Well, that's not true, but he certainly seemed like a background player in his own movie. But his relationship with Rachel fell totally flat... maybe I liked Katie Holmes more than Maggie Gyllenhall, maybe they didn't really connect her to Bruce's past effectively enough, maybe (again) we were supposed to have just seen the first movie so we'd have that context, but without that, she just seemed to float there. I didn't find myself buying the relationship between Bruce and Rachel, and indeed it's Harvey who has by far the strongest reaction to her death. Bruce just sort of seems to absorb it. Which didn't ring true emotionally to me, especially in light of the first film where she was such a strong presence in his life.

And unfortunately for Batman, he has to do every scene in that Husky Batman Voice, which kind of covers over any kind of emotion that he might be wanting to express. To say nothing of the costume that virtually covers his entire body. I actually wanted to laugh in a couple of places where he was trying to be serious, because the Batman voice was so affected. I mean, it works great when he's being angry and stuff, but when he's emoting, it really doesn't work so much.

It was just kind of hard for me to immerse myself in this movie. There were a lot of great parts, but I'm having a hard time coalescing them into a whole. I might want to see it again, but really the biggest question I have about this movie is "why?" Like, what's the story that's being told here? It's not just about placing classic Batman villains into the Christopher Nolan Machine and seeing what they look like when they come out, is it? Because while that's cool as far as it goes, it's also a bit masturbatory. But I might want to see it again; maybe the pieces will connect more upon a second viewing.

Ahem.

I'd just like to say that I hated Superman Returns, and I can still be mature enough about it to sit down, watch the movie, and point out all the things I thought were done well in it.

I loved the dance sequences. Honestly. They're great. They're the only time in the whole film I felt like Raimi cared about what he was directing instead of just going through the motions for a paycheck.

And Rosemary Harris did a fantastic job shouldering the thematic weight of her dialog.

And I thought that casting someone who could have just as easily played Peter Parker as Eddie Brook, instead of a hulking comic-accurate Eddie was a fantastic choice in attempting to play Venom as the dark side of Spider-Man.

But the movie's still got a lot wrong with it.