Well, it's about time I said something...
May. 6th, 2007 01:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenSo. Spider-Man 3.
What can I say? I'm extremely disappointed. Like you wouldn't believe how much. I realize that my unhealthy expectations of greatness didn't help me like something that couldn't possibly have lived up to the hype, but it's not even that. I honestly had lower expectations this time around than I did for Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man was a goofy great thrill ride, giddy and gleeful if not always perfect. It was fun, and it encouraged, shamelessly, everything that comics (as determined by "normal people" aka not fans) are supposed to--the fantasy, the self-gratification, wish-fulfillment, etc. It just really felt like a loving tribute to all that was fun about the spirit of the comics, specifically the light, breezy, silly ones that created Spidey in the first place.
That was a huge thing to live up to, even as a lot of Spider-Man was ridiculous. Yet, despite all that, I think Spider-Man 2 managed to exceed, surpass, and leave all expectations in the dust. It's my favorite of the franchise. As much fun as the discovery of the powers is in Spider-Man, the overall continuity, excellent pacing, characterization, and dramatic content of Spider-Man 2 is just...better. Because there was less kow-towing to the uninitiated, less catching up to do. I think this is the strength of just about any second movie in a franchise--the fact you can assume the audience already has a vested interest in and familiarity with the characters and their world--and Spider-Man 2 built on that and just soared.
I can see how this would create an even larger hill of expectation for Spider-Man 3, but that hill got eaten away steadily from the moment (I think the day after they released Spider-Man 2) the talk of a third movie began. Spider-Man 2 set in motion some serious (not just in terms of their emotional hugeness but also the severity) things to be resolved in a third movie--Harry's machinations with the new information he has about Spider-Man; Aunt May and Peter's relationship post-disclosure and upheaval of their environments; Dr. Connors' involvement in Peter's intellectual career; and, of course, MJ and Peter working without masks and deceptions to figure out their feelings and future direction. There looked to be obvious paths ahead--Green Goblin mark 2, the Lizard, MJ+Peter--and those were daunting enough, but doable. I trusted Sam Raimi as he'd gotten this project, twice, to screens in a manner both fan-servicey and movie-great.
Then something happened. As I understand it, the hard-core fans wanted some fan staples, not caring that they didn't fit with the mythos and the world base set up by the films. I wonder where the mistake was made, on what level? I'm assuming faceless, soulless execs decided that it was the hard-core fanbase were the ones driving up the box office for the Spider-Man movies. This is flat-out wrong. If I can get my Dad to see Spider-Man 2 in the theater, I promise you the movie appeals beyond the true believers. Perhaps, then, the assumption was not that only comic book geeks wanted to see Spider-Man on celluloid but that only the biggest and baddest would wow audiences over for a third time. I can't rightly say whether that's the same methodology that gave us Doc Ock to follow the Green Goblin, but I always assumed that Green Goblin was the "bigger," "badder," "more popular" (i.e. more iconic antagonist) for Spidey than Doc Ock. They're about even, really, far as I know, though I would give the Goblin the edge for the personal drama that goes with him. Regardless, something huge has to happen for a third movie because--this is the thinking--the audience is probably tired of what they've already seen. That's not an unfair assumption in most cases (derivative sequels suck--hello, Mummy Returns), but there was no sign that, with the right amount of progression and development, the same-old couldn't just be new again (the action and conflict of Spider-Man 2 is not emotionally/dramatically all that far removed from that of Spider-Man; it's just that Alfred Molina had a more compelling role than Willem Dafoe, and he was less creepy).
According to "the thinking," this meant that Gwen Stacy and Venom were in. Gwen Stacy is a needless distraction. Her most poignant story line was already co-opted by the first movie and rendered toothless by the way that one ended. The movies have also set it up such that Peter and Mary-Jane are the one-and-only pairing, and movie audiences going for two hours of a life don't really need the last-minute addition of a possible rival to a love interest who's been the love interest for forever in the movie's own timeline. That was just a poor decision. She serves as a weak means of probing the frailty of Peter and MJ's relationship, especially when you have better obstacles in Harry Osborn and, duh, the fact that Peter is Spider-Man.
Venom, however, could have been fine. There could be a way to put off the Lizard, despite the fact that Connors had been a continuous theme through the first two movies (again, the progression was there even if all that was there was the temptation and tribute: in Spider-Man, we heard the name; in Spider-Man 2 we met Dylan Baker as Connors). Increasing Connors' role was the right choice, then, if he wasn't going to become the Lizard in Spider-Man 3. So, fine, the Lizard can wait, so long as the development is in place to get to him soon. Venom is a suitable bad guy, and the alien costume storyline is enough to get to the midpoint of the movie and let Venom take over for the rest. Compared with the steady disintegration of Harry's integrity, an early conflict with the "New Goblin" (::shudder::) leading Peter to choose to use the alien suit would be great dramatic material.
Unfortunately, though Spider-Man 3 did end up going this route, it waited too long and moved too soon. Let me explain. The alien costume decision didn't happen immediately after Harry went evil. Harry's subsequent de-fanging by brain damage really removed any need for Peter to rely upon extra power to succeed in defeating Harry. There's also the question of why the symbiote waited until a random moment to infect Peter at all, but that's no worse an abuse of logic than found in your average comic. Regardless, it needed to happen sooner in the film to justify Peter's reliance/need for it and his immediate acceptance/defense of it in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was A Bad Thing To Play With. No symbolic relation to Harry's own turn for the dark side, no dramatic heft.
Then there was them going too fast with introducing Eddie Brock and immediately ingratiating him into the environment that will give him both the professional and personal reasons to dislike Peter and Spider-Man. I think the kid playing Brock wasn't bad--he got across Eddie's desperation and mean edge in the short time he was allowed--but he wasn't built into the story and ended up feeling last-minute, just like Gwen. If he'd been introduced now and brought in as a villain in the fourth movie, the timing would have been perfect. A rival for Peter on a professional level is a new stressor, one mercifully less melodramatic than the constant competition for Mary-Jane (which can only happen so often before it's devoid of any dramatic weight--yet another problem with the pacing of Spider-Man 3). Because it focuses on Peter, not Spider-Man, not MJ. That's why Spider-Man 2 makes you care more--it's concerned as much with Peter Parker as it is with the onus of his being a superhero. A successful superhero movie remembers that it is the character we care about; otherwise, his/her getting powers just doesn't move us (this is why Mary Sues, pardon my French, fucking suck). Like Harry, Brock needed to be involved with Peter more before he could turn on him or threaten or challenge him enough to be a real problem (beyond just causing bodily harm or public nuisances). Brock needed to be in the film, but Venom needed to happen later. The evolution of the Lizard ought to have been template, not something to be pushed aside.
And the Sandman was just...what the fuck? I think Thomas Hayden Church brought a huge degree of sympathy to a one-note, nothing characterization. The ret-conning of what happened to Uncle Ben seemed to exist solely to give that actor an excuse to be in another dream/flashback despite Uncle Ben's untimely death. Another thing shoe-horned in at last minute to connect someone unconnected to the previous mythos. One addition out of nowhere, fine (see Doc Ock, Peter's "hero" according to Harry in Spider-Man 2). We could have taken the alien costume/Venom story line had it been done well. But that and Gwen Stacy and Sandman? Someone must have twisted Sam Raimi's arm really hard. Because he had the elements to make any one of those stories work and he was forced to put them all together. When I heard about all these elements, I lost a lot of expectations of greatness, retaining only the ones I had for faith in the Raimi. I truly believe he had a vision at one point, and someone decided instead they needed to sell three villain action figures and it all went to pot.
Sigh. Disappointment abounds. Because there were brilliant moments, bits of humor and cheek and touching comicy-realism, but they got drowned out by the melodrama, the furious leaps between set pieces and CGI sequences. It felt out-of-step with the first two movies, which is especially hard to take because there were some of my favorite Spider-Man story lines brought to the screen in this movie. And, if they'd have been done in the style of the first two films, it would have been the stuff of legend. Venom done with the justice Doc Ock got? Priceless. Brilliant.
And now I fear for a fourth movie. I've all but heard there is one. Raimi wants all his principles back to do another; I don't think he'll get them. Tobey Maguire has seemed to buck the cowl since the first film (what with the rumors of his "back pain" being a hold out for more money for a project he was sure would not only type-cast him but indelibly mark him as Peter Parker no matter his other accomplishments, a la anyone except Christian Bale who's ever played Batman). He seems wrung out with role, and a lot of that came through in Spider-Man 3, making him seem his age. Peter Parker has always been about being the older-than-he-appears guy, in costume and out; Tobey's got the baby-face to pull it off, but the exhaustion with the material is denying the fun of the intellectually mature child he's meant to be as Peter. He clearly wants out, and I think he'll get it (especially after this last one).
I have never liked Kirsten Dunst as MJ ever. She's an MJ, too. Mary-Jane Watson has to have spunk, and she was never written as having any and Kirsten Dunst never brought any extra sass to the part to compensate. It's bad enough she's written as the go-to girl for any guy of her generation to get his rocks off (Flash Thompson, Harry, JJ's son, Peter), Kirsten Dunst doesn't have to add to that by playing her straight out as Waffly Girl In Distress #20594584578 who is still inexplicably beloved. She's an MJ. A Mary-Jane would have at least done something to merit the interest, right? As for Dunst, she's not getting too old--god help her, when she can't play at being "charming naif" any longer, her career is over--but she's got some detachment from what's going on that's less exhaustion and more disinterest.
About the only ones I'd bet on are the staff of The Daily Bugle. J.K. Simmons has said that more people recognize him as J. Jonah Jameson than as any other character he's ever played (and he played some doozy of a character on Oz that gave people nightmares and he's a recurring Law & Order guy which gives him incredible face time for that character compared to JJ), and he obviously has immense fun with it. There's great energy in the scenes at The Bugle, too. And, of course, there is always the magnetism of Bruce Campbell which is never to be denied (OR DOUBTED!).
But, yeah, I don't think even the pull of Raimi will get the leads back onto the set (and God help us all if they do a Spider-Man without him). I don't particularly want another Spider-Man film either. Unless it's to make the movie that should have been the third. In that case, I could probably stick fingers in my ears, go "La la la!" and pretend Spider-Man 3 didn't happen and that we're more or less picking up from Spider-Man 2. If they pick up the right threads, that is. Which, seeing how badly those threads got snarled, shredded, and cut in Spider-Man 3, is not at all a given. Alas.
What can I say? I'm extremely disappointed. Like you wouldn't believe how much. I realize that my unhealthy expectations of greatness didn't help me like something that couldn't possibly have lived up to the hype, but it's not even that. I honestly had lower expectations this time around than I did for Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man was a goofy great thrill ride, giddy and gleeful if not always perfect. It was fun, and it encouraged, shamelessly, everything that comics (as determined by "normal people" aka not fans) are supposed to--the fantasy, the self-gratification, wish-fulfillment, etc. It just really felt like a loving tribute to all that was fun about the spirit of the comics, specifically the light, breezy, silly ones that created Spidey in the first place.
That was a huge thing to live up to, even as a lot of Spider-Man was ridiculous. Yet, despite all that, I think Spider-Man 2 managed to exceed, surpass, and leave all expectations in the dust. It's my favorite of the franchise. As much fun as the discovery of the powers is in Spider-Man, the overall continuity, excellent pacing, characterization, and dramatic content of Spider-Man 2 is just...better. Because there was less kow-towing to the uninitiated, less catching up to do. I think this is the strength of just about any second movie in a franchise--the fact you can assume the audience already has a vested interest in and familiarity with the characters and their world--and Spider-Man 2 built on that and just soared.
I can see how this would create an even larger hill of expectation for Spider-Man 3, but that hill got eaten away steadily from the moment (I think the day after they released Spider-Man 2) the talk of a third movie began. Spider-Man 2 set in motion some serious (not just in terms of their emotional hugeness but also the severity) things to be resolved in a third movie--Harry's machinations with the new information he has about Spider-Man; Aunt May and Peter's relationship post-disclosure and upheaval of their environments; Dr. Connors' involvement in Peter's intellectual career; and, of course, MJ and Peter working without masks and deceptions to figure out their feelings and future direction. There looked to be obvious paths ahead--Green Goblin mark 2, the Lizard, MJ+Peter--and those were daunting enough, but doable. I trusted Sam Raimi as he'd gotten this project, twice, to screens in a manner both fan-servicey and movie-great.
Then something happened. As I understand it, the hard-core fans wanted some fan staples, not caring that they didn't fit with the mythos and the world base set up by the films. I wonder where the mistake was made, on what level? I'm assuming faceless, soulless execs decided that it was the hard-core fanbase were the ones driving up the box office for the Spider-Man movies. This is flat-out wrong. If I can get my Dad to see Spider-Man 2 in the theater, I promise you the movie appeals beyond the true believers. Perhaps, then, the assumption was not that only comic book geeks wanted to see Spider-Man on celluloid but that only the biggest and baddest would wow audiences over for a third time. I can't rightly say whether that's the same methodology that gave us Doc Ock to follow the Green Goblin, but I always assumed that Green Goblin was the "bigger," "badder," "more popular" (i.e. more iconic antagonist) for Spidey than Doc Ock. They're about even, really, far as I know, though I would give the Goblin the edge for the personal drama that goes with him. Regardless, something huge has to happen for a third movie because--this is the thinking--the audience is probably tired of what they've already seen. That's not an unfair assumption in most cases (derivative sequels suck--hello, Mummy Returns), but there was no sign that, with the right amount of progression and development, the same-old couldn't just be new again (the action and conflict of Spider-Man 2 is not emotionally/dramatically all that far removed from that of Spider-Man; it's just that Alfred Molina had a more compelling role than Willem Dafoe, and he was less creepy).
According to "the thinking," this meant that Gwen Stacy and Venom were in. Gwen Stacy is a needless distraction. Her most poignant story line was already co-opted by the first movie and rendered toothless by the way that one ended. The movies have also set it up such that Peter and Mary-Jane are the one-and-only pairing, and movie audiences going for two hours of a life don't really need the last-minute addition of a possible rival to a love interest who's been the love interest for forever in the movie's own timeline. That was just a poor decision. She serves as a weak means of probing the frailty of Peter and MJ's relationship, especially when you have better obstacles in Harry Osborn and, duh, the fact that Peter is Spider-Man.
Venom, however, could have been fine. There could be a way to put off the Lizard, despite the fact that Connors had been a continuous theme through the first two movies (again, the progression was there even if all that was there was the temptation and tribute: in Spider-Man, we heard the name; in Spider-Man 2 we met Dylan Baker as Connors). Increasing Connors' role was the right choice, then, if he wasn't going to become the Lizard in Spider-Man 3. So, fine, the Lizard can wait, so long as the development is in place to get to him soon. Venom is a suitable bad guy, and the alien costume storyline is enough to get to the midpoint of the movie and let Venom take over for the rest. Compared with the steady disintegration of Harry's integrity, an early conflict with the "New Goblin" (::shudder::) leading Peter to choose to use the alien suit would be great dramatic material.
Unfortunately, though Spider-Man 3 did end up going this route, it waited too long and moved too soon. Let me explain. The alien costume decision didn't happen immediately after Harry went evil. Harry's subsequent de-fanging by brain damage really removed any need for Peter to rely upon extra power to succeed in defeating Harry. There's also the question of why the symbiote waited until a random moment to infect Peter at all, but that's no worse an abuse of logic than found in your average comic. Regardless, it needed to happen sooner in the film to justify Peter's reliance/need for it and his immediate acceptance/defense of it in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was A Bad Thing To Play With. No symbolic relation to Harry's own turn for the dark side, no dramatic heft.
Then there was them going too fast with introducing Eddie Brock and immediately ingratiating him into the environment that will give him both the professional and personal reasons to dislike Peter and Spider-Man. I think the kid playing Brock wasn't bad--he got across Eddie's desperation and mean edge in the short time he was allowed--but he wasn't built into the story and ended up feeling last-minute, just like Gwen. If he'd been introduced now and brought in as a villain in the fourth movie, the timing would have been perfect. A rival for Peter on a professional level is a new stressor, one mercifully less melodramatic than the constant competition for Mary-Jane (which can only happen so often before it's devoid of any dramatic weight--yet another problem with the pacing of Spider-Man 3). Because it focuses on Peter, not Spider-Man, not MJ. That's why Spider-Man 2 makes you care more--it's concerned as much with Peter Parker as it is with the onus of his being a superhero. A successful superhero movie remembers that it is the character we care about; otherwise, his/her getting powers just doesn't move us (this is why Mary Sues, pardon my French, fucking suck). Like Harry, Brock needed to be involved with Peter more before he could turn on him or threaten or challenge him enough to be a real problem (beyond just causing bodily harm or public nuisances). Brock needed to be in the film, but Venom needed to happen later. The evolution of the Lizard ought to have been template, not something to be pushed aside.
And the Sandman was just...what the fuck? I think Thomas Hayden Church brought a huge degree of sympathy to a one-note, nothing characterization. The ret-conning of what happened to Uncle Ben seemed to exist solely to give that actor an excuse to be in another dream/flashback despite Uncle Ben's untimely death. Another thing shoe-horned in at last minute to connect someone unconnected to the previous mythos. One addition out of nowhere, fine (see Doc Ock, Peter's "hero" according to Harry in Spider-Man 2). We could have taken the alien costume/Venom story line had it been done well. But that and Gwen Stacy and Sandman? Someone must have twisted Sam Raimi's arm really hard. Because he had the elements to make any one of those stories work and he was forced to put them all together. When I heard about all these elements, I lost a lot of expectations of greatness, retaining only the ones I had for faith in the Raimi. I truly believe he had a vision at one point, and someone decided instead they needed to sell three villain action figures and it all went to pot.
Sigh. Disappointment abounds. Because there were brilliant moments, bits of humor and cheek and touching comicy-realism, but they got drowned out by the melodrama, the furious leaps between set pieces and CGI sequences. It felt out-of-step with the first two movies, which is especially hard to take because there were some of my favorite Spider-Man story lines brought to the screen in this movie. And, if they'd have been done in the style of the first two films, it would have been the stuff of legend. Venom done with the justice Doc Ock got? Priceless. Brilliant.
And now I fear for a fourth movie. I've all but heard there is one. Raimi wants all his principles back to do another; I don't think he'll get them. Tobey Maguire has seemed to buck the cowl since the first film (what with the rumors of his "back pain" being a hold out for more money for a project he was sure would not only type-cast him but indelibly mark him as Peter Parker no matter his other accomplishments, a la anyone except Christian Bale who's ever played Batman). He seems wrung out with role, and a lot of that came through in Spider-Man 3, making him seem his age. Peter Parker has always been about being the older-than-he-appears guy, in costume and out; Tobey's got the baby-face to pull it off, but the exhaustion with the material is denying the fun of the intellectually mature child he's meant to be as Peter. He clearly wants out, and I think he'll get it (especially after this last one).
I have never liked Kirsten Dunst as MJ ever. She's an MJ, too. Mary-Jane Watson has to have spunk, and she was never written as having any and Kirsten Dunst never brought any extra sass to the part to compensate. It's bad enough she's written as the go-to girl for any guy of her generation to get his rocks off (Flash Thompson, Harry, JJ's son, Peter), Kirsten Dunst doesn't have to add to that by playing her straight out as Waffly Girl In Distress #20594584578 who is still inexplicably beloved. She's an MJ. A Mary-Jane would have at least done something to merit the interest, right? As for Dunst, she's not getting too old--god help her, when she can't play at being "charming naif" any longer, her career is over--but she's got some detachment from what's going on that's less exhaustion and more disinterest.
About the only ones I'd bet on are the staff of The Daily Bugle. J.K. Simmons has said that more people recognize him as J. Jonah Jameson than as any other character he's ever played (and he played some doozy of a character on Oz that gave people nightmares and he's a recurring Law & Order guy which gives him incredible face time for that character compared to JJ), and he obviously has immense fun with it. There's great energy in the scenes at The Bugle, too. And, of course, there is always the magnetism of Bruce Campbell which is never to be denied (OR DOUBTED!).
But, yeah, I don't think even the pull of Raimi will get the leads back onto the set (and God help us all if they do a Spider-Man without him). I don't particularly want another Spider-Man film either. Unless it's to make the movie that should have been the third. In that case, I could probably stick fingers in my ears, go "La la la!" and pretend Spider-Man 3 didn't happen and that we're more or less picking up from Spider-Man 2. If they pick up the right threads, that is. Which, seeing how badly those threads got snarled, shredded, and cut in Spider-Man 3, is not at all a given. Alas.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 07:01 am (UTC)It just needed one villain less, I think.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 10:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 11:21 pm (UTC)I find her ridiculously adorable. Maybe it's because she pulls off the "ethereally pale" thing really well, whereas I, um, don't.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 07:45 am (UTC)I haven't seen it yet, but I would have cut Church. Not because Church isn't a great-looking Sandman (that picture they released of him eons ago in the green shirt was a perfect representation), but yeah, the Uncle Ben thing just adds complication to a plot that looks like it could use less of it.
Maybe if they hadn't advertised it to death. But such overkill is expected when you go out in a $500m blaze. It probably didn't really cost that much, but it's certainly closer to that estimate than the studio's paltry "more than $250m" statement.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 04:42 pm (UTC)And Church wasn't bad at all. He does surprisingly much with astonishingly little, so good for him. But his story line is a distraction, and that just doesn't help the film as a whole, for all that he's the most engaged performer at times.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-06 05:59 pm (UTC)