- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why Do People Give Raimi a Pass on Spiderman 3 Because of Studio Interference?
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:11 pm
Did the studio tell him to include an emo Peter Parker? Dancing scenes? I get that they shoehorned Venom into the film but I always hear Raimi apologists act like a lot of what made the film bad wasn't his fault.
5
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:19 pm to JabarkusRussell
I honestly kinda respect Sam Raimi for putting in those shitty scenes. It's what I would have done if the studio basically took over my project and wouldn't allow me to remotely make the movie I wanted to make after delivering them box office gold twice with little interference. He gave them exactly what they wanted, and also made it as shitty as he could possibly get away with. It was a frick you to the studio system, and I sort of respect him for it.
Even without the Emo Peter Parker and the Dancing scene, the film is still an absolute clusterfrick. Too many different characters and villains with too many differing motives to where nothing makes sense. You have 3 films worth of plot in this movie, so none of it works. The first 2 were tightly paced and everything built up to the next thing. This film goes on a plot point, drops it for an hour, and then picks back up when there's no reason it should have stopped in the first place.
Even without the Emo Peter Parker and the Dancing scene, the film is still an absolute clusterfrick. Too many different characters and villains with too many differing motives to where nothing makes sense. You have 3 films worth of plot in this movie, so none of it works. The first 2 were tightly paced and everything built up to the next thing. This film goes on a plot point, drops it for an hour, and then picks back up when there's no reason it should have stopped in the first place.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:20 pm to JabarkusRussell
I blame the writers strike. Probably errantly, but I just can't help but believe that movie could have been marvelous had sandman, green goblin 2 been left out and Eddie Brock was recast. Also symbiote Peter should have been overly angry and aggressive rather than emo weird
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:22 pm to The Eric
quote:
I blame the writers strike.
Don't, because the writer's strike was after this film was released.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:23 pm to OMLandshark
I actually preferred the studio included Venom to the Sandman. It was stupid how they made him involved in his uncle's murder. I hate the Topher casting as well. I wanted more of Venom (loved his look).
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:24 pm to OMLandshark
Well then my opinion has changed and I am disappoint that it failed on so many levels.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:25 pm to JabarkusRussell
quote:
I actually preferred the studio included Venom to the Sandman. It was stupid how they made him involved in his uncle's murder. I hate the Topher casting as well. I wanted more of Venom (loved his look).
Sam Raimi didn't want him though. He was very vocal about that during the filming of the first two. He just wasn't a fan of the character, and thus shouldn't have been forced to put him in the film.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:27 pm to OMLandshark
Did Raimi get to pick Eddie Brock? If so, more blame is deserved.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:27 pm to The Eric
Should have been an all spidey vs venom war.
I understand how the comics went but the comics and cartoon developed this story much better and it did not translate well to film.
Not enough time for spidey to merge with symbiote then realize its dangerous powers and get rid of it then Brock to get it.
I understand how the comics went but the comics and cartoon developed this story much better and it did not translate well to film.
Not enough time for spidey to merge with symbiote then realize its dangerous powers and get rid of it then Brock to get it.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:32 pm to OMLandshark
Where does this theory of him intentionally tanking the movie come from?
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:33 pm to BilJ
I have never been more disgusted in watching a highly anticipated film outside of Batman and Robin. I remember sitting there in disbelief. I thought it had to be a joke.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:35 pm to JabarkusRussell
i think he thought he could make it work. he learned his lesson on spidey 4 when he ended up walking. one film too late though.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:36 pm to BilJ
quote:
Where does this theory of him intentionally tanking the movie come from?
I came up with it, but its well known that Raimi didn't want to do half that shite the studios made him do. I'm just thankful Nolan wasn't bullied around like Raimi was.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:40 pm to JabarkusRussell
quote:
Did Raimi get to pick Eddie Brock? If so, more blame is deserved.
I think the symbiote really could have worked if they just kept it simple. Make the first half about Harry vs Peter. Harry first time kicks Peter's arse, but then he comes across the symbiote. He is then powerful enough to nearly kill Harry. Then have Peter get rid of the symbiote just for it to become the main antagonist at the end in the form of Venom, with Harry and Peter taking him down at the end when they finally make ammends. There was just no need for Gwen Stacy or Sandman. It was just too needlessly complex.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:45 pm to JabarkusRussell
quote:
Did the studio tell him to include an emo Peter Parker? Dancing scenes? I get that they shoehorned Venom into the film but I always hear Raimi apologists act like a lot of what made the film bad wasn't his fault.
Studio interference is a very legit reason to give a pass to a director. The guy flat out quit in development for the fourth one. Look at Jon Favreau as well. Not a great director, but better than that shitty Iron Man II attempt. You see it all the time. Very few directors get free reign anymore. I have even suspected Christopher Nolan of falling victim to this with The Dark Knight Rises.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 10:49 pm to Froman
quote:
I have even suspected Christopher Nolan of falling victim to this with The Dark Knight Rises.
What would be a red flag in that? I think Nolan made the film he wanted to make. I seriously doubt if the studio was in charge they would have gone with Bane and Talia al Ghul as main villains, with Hardy playing Bane. Rumors are that the studio was trying to force Nolan into making the Riddler the main antagonist with Leonardo Dicaprio playing him. I think they eventually relented when they saw his plans for the script though, and clearly the Riddler couldn't do any of that shite.
I could perhaps see them forcing Catwoman on him though, even though it turned out great. Chris said he was completely against Catwoman until his brother came up with a way to put her in and give her a good arc, and then he was completely on board.
Posted on 3/5/13 at 11:06 pm to OMLandshark
Making a shitty film and duping people into paying for it doesn't really make me respect him.
Personally, I think he just made a shitty movie
Personally, I think he just made a shitty movie
Posted on 3/6/13 at 12:40 am to The Eric
No one is free of blame. That movie sucked. From Raimi to the interns they are at fault. What an abomination.
Posted on 3/6/13 at 5:34 am to Froman
quote:
Look at Jon Favreau as well. Not a great director, but better than that shitty Iron Man II attempt.
Oh frick you.
Posted on 3/6/13 at 7:58 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Where does this theory of him intentionally tanking the movie come from?
I was wondering the same thing...
quote:
I came up with it, but its well known that Raimi didn't want to do half that shite the studios made him do.
So you're just a Raimi apologist like the ones this thread is kinda bashing...
It is very possbile that Raimi just made a crap movie. Sure, maybe the studio wanted him to throw in an extra villain or two and that made the plot convoluted and confusing, but it sounds like you're making excuses for him just making a bad movie (not saying that's what you're doing..but it seems like it).
Also, you say he had made "box office gold on the first two, but the third made more BO money that either of them. And you can rest assured that Raimi was in it for the money just like the studio was, even if his vision of the third film wasn't in line with theirs.
This post was edited on 3/6/13 at 8:43 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News