Current Events > Man remember when everyone said Spider-Man 3 (2007) was a terrible movie?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Now not only is it looked as one of the best Spider-man flicks but also something of an iconic film itself.

https://youtu.be/nVmXsBNfwHY

---

the mid 2000s were so fuckin awesome in retrospect

---

just because it's memeable doesn't mean it's good.
same deal with prequel trilogy.

---

Who says it is one of the best ? That movie is still horrible .

Also it sucks that Peter becomes bad after he gains confidence.

---

Spider Man 3 is like a 6/10 movie at worst, cringe and all. It was hamstrung by studio mandate.

If they kept Venom for a fourth movie, the third movie might have been the best. Seriously, if they kept the symbiote but kept Venom himself for another movie, the movie would have focused on Peter Parker's heightened emotions, his relationship with James Franco and a theme of forgiveness and moving on.

---

why does he work as a photographer when he is a brilliant scientist

---

I wonder if TC has ever said anything that isn't nonsense.
---

Christian RULES posted...

Now not only is it looked as one of the best Spider-man flicks but also something of an iconic film itself.

Citation needed.

---

MrMallard posted...

Spider Man 3 is like a 6/10 movie at worst, cringe and all. It was hamstrung by studio mandate.

If they kept Venom for a fourth movie, the third movie might have been the best. Seriously, if they kept the symbiote but kept Venom himself for another movie, the movie would have focused on Peter Parker's heightened emotions, his relationship with James Franco and a theme of forgiveness and moving on.

Venom deserved to be in the movie; he was the villain fans wanted most. Raimi is just a trash director. And 6/10? Shit was 4 at best lol

---

Ricemills posted...

just because it's memeable doesn't mean it's good.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX23r272kqg

modern classic

---

Ricemills posted...

just because it's memeable doesn't mean it's good.
same deal with prequel trilogy.

This is...outrageous!

This is unfair!

Scotty_Rogers posted...

Venom deserved to be in the movie; he was the villain fans wanted most. Raimi is just a trash director. And 6/10? Shit was 4 at best lol

Wrong.

---

I watched it again recently ish and it's just terrible.

---

Scotty_Rogers posted...

Venom deserved to be in the movie; he was the villain fans wanted most. Raimi is just a trash director. And 6/10? Shit was 4 at best lol

This

Shoulda been Vulture like Sami wanted instead of them tryna squeeze 3 villans in it

---

Where money

---

Scotty_Rogers posted...

Venom deserved to be in the movie; he was the villain fans wanted most. Raimi is just a trash director. And 6/10? Shit was 4 at best lol

I'd love to agree with you, but in a post-BvS world, Spider-Man 3 looks a lot better in hindsight. Less than a quarter of this movie is out-and-out bad, with Topher Grace's Venom standing out as either the worst or the second worst part of the movie due to lack of development.

I don't have it in my heart to bash Spider-Man 3 after Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad had the audacity to exist in the state they were in. The corny Raimi-esque dancing, the emo hair and Topher Grace's Venom is one thing - at the end of the day, the movie still has entertaining subplots like with James Franco's character and the Sandman stuff which plays into the Symbiote plot. It still feels like a watchable movie for a majority of its runtime, even with its caveats - with a bit of trimming, and by setting up Venom for a fourth movie instead of squirting him all over the screen at the end, it might have been fine at the time.

I genuinely enjoy Spider-Man 3 as both a comic book movie and as a movie in general - even though I don't even like it as much as the first Spider-Man movie. Its central conflict isn't predicated on the flimsiest possible basis, and it doesn't feel like a 4 hour snoozefest like BvS does despite being the same length as BvS. It's a 6/10 movie at worst.

---

It's so bad it's good.
---

MrMallard posted...

I'd love to agree with you, but in a post-BvS world, Spider-Man 3 looks a lot better in hindsight. Less than a quarter of this movie is out-and-out bad, with Topher Grace's Venom standing out as either the worst or the second worst part of the movie due to lack of development.

I don't have it in my heart to bash Spider-Man 3 after Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad had the audacity to exist in the state they were in. The corny Raimi-esque dancing, the emo hair and Topher Grace's Venom is one thing - at the end of the day, the movie still has entertaining subplots like with James Franco's character and the Sandman stuff which plays into the Symbiote plot. It still feels like a watchable movie for a majority of its runtime, even with its caveats - with a bit of trimming, and by setting up Venom for a fourth movie instead of squirting him all over the screen at the end, it might have been fine at the time.

They should have just devoted the whole movie to Venom. No one was asking for Sandman, and there was nothing interesting about another Green Goblin. Harry's whole motivation was contrived to begin with.

---

Scotty_Rogers posted...

They should have just devoted the whole movie to Venom. No one was asking for Sandman, and there was nothing interesting about another Green Goblin. Harry's whole motivation was contrived to begin with.

And yet the Sandman plotline was arguably the best part of the movie. Having him be Uncle Ben's killer, and to have Peter's anguish over this being amplified by the Symbiote, was an engaging plotline. And while I agree that the ongoing Harry Osborne storyline is hit and miss, having Harry and Peter's situation boil over due to the Symbiote was a pretty engaging direction too. Peter maiming Harry and blinding him in one eye was an unexpected twist, and Harry coming to Peter's aid and his subsequent death at the end of the movie added to the theme of forgiveness.

The weakest part of this movie was Venom himself, and I maintain that if they made a Spider-Man 4 with Tobey McGuire where it's him vs Eddie Brock as Venom, it would have been a better solution than cramming Venom in at the end. Venom actually gets the screentime and development he deserves, and Spider-Man 3 is slightly more coherent than it ended up being. Not to mention, saving Venom for a potential fourth movie adds an engaging sequel hook to tide hardcore Spidey fans over.

You would have gotten that Tobey McGuire Venom movie you want if they had shown just a little bit of restraint in this movie and kept Venom as a sequel hook. The Sandman was fine, the Symbiote was fine, and while the Green Goblin stuff was hit and miss I thought it wrapped up neatly enough by the end. The weakest link in this movie was Venom, and they could have mitigated some of the damage they did with this movie if they kept him for a potential Spider-Man 4.

---

MrMallard posted...

And yet the Sandman plotline was arguably the best part of the movie. Having him be Uncle Ben's killer, and to have Peter's anguish over this being amplified by the Symbiote, was an engaging plotline. And while I agree that the ongoing Harry Osborne storyline is hit and miss, having Harry and Peter's situation boil over due to the Symbiote was a pretty engaging direction too. Peter maiming Harry and blinding him in one eye was an unexpected twist, and Harry coming to Peter's aid and his subsequent death at the end of the movie added to the theme of forgiveness.

The weakest part of this movie was Venom himself, and I maintain that if they made a Spider-Man 4 with Tobey McGuire where it's him vs Eddie Brock as Venom, it would have been a better solution than cramming Venom in at the end. Venom actually gets the screentime and development he deserves, and Spider-Man 3 is slightly more coherent than it ended up being. Not to mention, saving Venom for a potential fourth movie adds an engaging sequel hook to tide hardcore Spidey fans over.

You would have gotten that Tobey McGuire Venom movie you want if they had shown just a little bit of restraint in this movie and kept Venom as a sequel hook. The Sandman was fine, the Symbiote was fine, and while the Green Goblin stuff was hit and miss I thought it wrapped up neatly enough by the end. The weakest link in this movie was Venom, and they could have mitigated some of the damage they did with this movie if they kept him for a potential Spider-Man 4.

The symbiote plotline could've good if they flesh it out more like what they did in venom. It was a narative mess trying to juggling from one plotline to another. Remember when avi arad not around trying to pressure raimi to put all 3 villain for no reason other than it looks cooler.

I hate Sandman for the simple reason that Raimi desperately needed to tie him to Spider-Man's civilain identity like the previous 2 movies. And that he needed to be yet another tragic villain.
It's great when you add some depth to a villain. It isn't when you're doing it for the 3rd time in an attempt to garner sympathy

I didnt know people hated it until The Amazing Spiderman came out. Thought it was well liked when it first came out.

---

TreyFlowers posted...

the mid 2000s were so fuckin awesome in retrospect

---

MrMallard posted...

And yet the Sandman plotline was arguably the best part of the movie. Having him be Uncle Ben's killer, and to have Peter's anguish over this being amplified by the Symbiote, was an engaging plotline.

Him being Ben's killer was a dumb retcon to begin with. Sandman isn't necessary at all; it's common sense to just go with the villain fans want most.

And while I agree that the ongoing Harry Osborne storyline is hit and miss, having Harry and Peter's situation boil over due to the Symbiote was a pretty engaging direction too. Peter maiming Harry and blinding him in one eye was an unexpected twist, and Harry coming to Peter's aid and his subsequent death at the end of the movie added to the theme of forgiveness.

No one cares about Green Goblin 2.0. People want a brand new villain.

MrMallard posted...

The weakest part of this movie was Venom himself, and I maintain that if they made a Spider-Man 4 with Tobey McGuire where it's him vs Eddie Brock as Venom, it would have been a better solution than cramming Venom in at the end.

Or instead of cramming him in, you just make the whole movie about him because he was who fans wanted.

---

It's a bad movie which killed Venom's career.

MrMallard posted...

I'd love to agree with you, but in a post-BvS world, Spider-Man 3 looks a lot better in hindsight.

Shit films don't get better just because other shit films are released.

---

I want you to stop welching
---

IloveJesus posted...

Shit films don't get better just because other shit films are released.

Spider-Man 3 has trash parts, but I don't think it's completely trash. And having seen complete trash, it makes me appreciate the non-trash parts of a better movie.

---

I've never walked out of a movie, but I was REALLY close to walking out on Spider-Man 3.

---

The Bush years fucking sucked (00 - 08)

---