No. No they do not. It’s a bad movie and it was rightly called a bad movie. It’s got classic villain bloat issues that means it’s juggling too much crap to care about any of it with some WILDLY...
No. No they do not. It’s a bad movie and it was rightly called a bad movie.
It’s got classic villain bloat issues that means it’s juggling too much crap to care about any of it with some WILDLY questionable choices about how to handle the symbiote. The action scenes are also a classic mix of bad cgi, bad shots, and bad pacing.
I feel like the prequels are way overhyped now too and that’s as someone who saw it in theaters twice. That’s also a mostly bad movie but does at least have a few good action scenes
It is totally insane to me how social media has completely reversed the awful reception that Spider-Man 3 and especially the Star Wars prequels got. I saw them all in theaters and they were not...
It is totally insane to me how social media has completely reversed the awful reception that Spider-Man 3 and especially the Star Wars prequels got. I saw them all in theaters and they were not good. When Episode III came out, I remember lots of reviews were happily surprised it was actually pretty decent compared with the first two.
I don't think the prequels were good and I find it odd that they are being "redeemed". At best they were ok. As someone who saw all the Star Wars movies in the theaters, here was my opinion at the...
I don't think the prequels were good and I find it odd that they are being "redeemed". At best they were ok. As someone who saw all the Star Wars movies in the theaters, here was my opinion at the time I saw them and my opinion hasn't changed. Yes I understand that seeing something when you are a kid is different when you are an adult, but if I go back and watch other things I saw as a kid I'm able to recognize whether they are actually good or not.
Star Wars: Completely mind blowing, amazing special effects. My friends and I could hardly believe how great it was and how different it was from anything we'd every seen. The Millennium Falcon in particular was a brilliant design both inside and out. Thought about hundreds of details for years later. We didn't think about the plot much because of the spectacle.
Empire Strikes Back: Incredible hype for it and it lived up to the hype. Fantastic world building, and special effects, memorable set pieces. The plot surprises were fun.
Return of the Jedi: Slightly disappointing. Too many Muppets and Muppet humor (like a belching monster or whatever). The big set pieces and space battles had too much going on. Still the end of the movie had a good payoff and resolution. I liked the new space ships like B-Wing and A-Wing.
Episode I: I remember liking this. World building was top notch, even better than the originals. The script seemed to meander and spent too much time on pod racing and things like that. I thought the cast was very good. Didn't like Jar Jar, seemed like a return to Muppet humor which I don't hate but didn't like that here.
Episode II: It was ok. I remember being disappointed a bit. Plot had too many callbacks to the older movies. Still liked the cast.
Episode III: Hated it. It's just a depressing story about someone becoming evil and murdering little kids and turning on all of his friends. Hearing about the fall of someone is one thing, but seeing it just made me unhappy. Special effects were too busy again. I don't know why this is the most popular of the prequels, but I also don't understand the appeal of the "Saw" movies. After watching this movie in the theater we were kind of depressed and came home and watch "A New Hope" to cleanse our palate.
I agree 100% on the original trilogy, I saw all but the original in theatres (was too young for that one), but I feel completely the opposite for the prequels which I also saw in the theater. I...
I agree 100% on the original trilogy, I saw all but the original in theatres (was too young for that one), but I feel completely the opposite for the prequels which I also saw in the theater. I saw Episode One on my birthday and it was so bad that it ruined my birthday. I thought Two was better than One, but still disappointing, and Three was the best of the bunch and would have been remembered better had they not ruined it in the last 20 seconds by the infamous "Nooooooooooooooooooo".
The prequels were always as good as the original trilogy. Feel free to read that as the prequels being underrated or the original trilogy has never been quality beyond fun entertainment in the...
The prequels were always as good as the original trilogy. Feel free to read that as the prequels being underrated or the original trilogy has never been quality beyond fun entertainment in the first place.
My first experience with Star Wars was the Special Edition VHS release, and the prequels as they came out (and the Expanded Universe books). The prequel era was peak Star Wars, with its extensive world building and emphasis on the Jedi as galactic peacekeepers.
I disagree at the very least on the authenticity of the aliens. The original triligoy has ALIENS. Weird, strange, and odd life that's all comingling in this world we kinda don't get. The prequels...
I disagree at the very least on the authenticity of the aliens.
The original triligoy has ALIENS. Weird, strange, and odd life that's all comingling in this world we kinda don't get.
The prequels have, middle eastern trader stereotype, 50's diner stereotype, Japanese stereotype, banker stereotype, and more I'm sure I'm forgetting. They didn't feel like real aliens, they felt like saturday morning cartoon aliens. There's an ENTIRE RACE that looks like that and happens to all be bankers? Really? That's your world building?
It was by far one of the most disappointing things about the prequels given the extremely high quality of the original trilogy on that regard. Hated as they are, at least ewoks still feel sorta alien and not like a borderline if not actually racists stereotype.
Battlefield Earth had a race of literal loan sharks. Like I assume they weren't all bankers but all the ones we see were and it's pretty clear that banking is most of their planet's economy.
Battlefield Earth had a race of literal loan sharks. Like I assume they weren't all bankers but all the ones we see were and it's pretty clear that banking is most of their planet's economy.
Yeah, the original Star Wars movies are overrated, but that doesn't mean that the prequels didn't suck. The original trilogy was fun entertainment, but at least they were fun, and not a whole ton...
Yeah, the original Star Wars movies are overrated, but that doesn't mean that the prequels didn't suck.
The original trilogy was fun entertainment, but at least they were fun, and not a whole ton of pointless, dry boring dialog in front of green screens interspersed with pointless, corny looking CGI fight scenes in front of green screens.
Ya know, I am actually kind of inclined to agree with you to an extent. I had seen a little bit of the first Star Wars movie when I was very young, but didn't care for it. So my first "real"...
Ya know, I am actually kind of inclined to agree with you to an extent. I had seen a little bit of the first Star Wars movie when I was very young, but didn't care for it. So my first "real" experience with Star Wars was Episode I, and it was very much not a good movie; almost laughably so. I saw Episode II which was an improvement, but not enough to justify the expense of seeing it, and skipped out on Episode III (which I still haven't seen to this day). A few years later I actually took the time to sit down and watch the original trilogy.
It was an interesting mixed bag. I have never seen the "original cut" of IV, but it was an amazingly creative film with incredibly imaginative effects and visual design. It's kind of hard to believe that it's a product of the 70s. I think it would have been impossible to think of George Lucas as anything but a genius after seeing it. But the thing is that the movies after it had major "sequelitis"; it didn't have the same kind of creativity behind it, and it missed the je ne sais quoi that made the first movie so good. They kind of feel more like Indiana Jones movies rather than true continuations of the first Star Wars movie. They aren't bad by any stretch of the imagination, they just move in a direction that I don't appreciate. I long for a peek into an alternative universe where Star Wars wasn't terribly successful and Lucas still felt he had to give his movies his all so we could see what he could make if he were forced to be as creative as he was with the original Star Wars and THX 1138.
I do think if you didn't watch the Original Trilogy as a kid, there's a good chance you just never got on board with Star Wars that much. I saw the prequels as a kid, but I thought they were...
I do think if you didn't watch the Original Trilogy as a kid, there's a good chance you just never got on board with Star Wars that much. I saw the prequels as a kid, but I thought they were mostly boring. I didn't see the OT until I was 14. The first Star Wars movie I ever really loved, and made me go "Oh I kind of get it now" was The Last Jedi.
This is one of the things Joel Haver addresses in the video. Joel's an indie film director with specific tastes, so he will get different things out of a movie than general audiences would. He...
It’s got classic villain bloat issues that means it’s juggling too much crap to care about any of it
This is one of the things Joel Haver addresses in the video. Joel's an indie film director with specific tastes, so he will get different things out of a movie than general audiences would. He doesn't really get the problem with there being too many villains. Each villain reflects a different aspect of Peter's current life: his personal relationships, his career, and his past trauma with Uncle Ben. Peter's dealing with a lot of shit as he gets older, as do we all, so Spider-Man's life gets more complicated too.
Joel also mentions how he really likes a lot of other things people make fun of, like the Emo Peter scenes or Tobey being really expressive in a way that people like to meme about. Emo Peter shows how he's letting this power go to his head and make him a cringe and disrespectful person, and when there's something dramatic happening Peter will yell and get mad and upset rather than being a stoic superhero that only shows a little bit of emotion. He finds these make Peter more relatable and human than other blockbuster movie protagonists. He also finds the state of Peter and MJ's relationship at the end of the film very interesting and bittersweet.
Seeing Joel Analyzing Spider-Man 3 in this way really makes sense if you've seen how he talks about his own films or how he criticizes other films. He really likes seeing down to earth aspects in something larger than life, or seeing something banal portrayed cinematically, or when movies show emotional vulnerability or other relatable human emotions. From this lens, there's a lot more emotionally going on in Spider-Man 3 compared to 1 or 2, which are more normal Hollywood superhero movies. He does mention the relationship between Peter and his landlord's daughter in Spider-Man 2 as one of these less fantastical elements that he really likes.
Of course, issues like being badly shot or badly paced can be a bit subjective, and those don't necessarily ruin a film if someone otherwise really likes it.
I think the point is that that's a nerd's version of cool. It also shows how Parker is so pure in his goodness that the worst version of him is a bully, not a monster. I think this video would...
Emo Peter shows how he's letting this power go to his head and make him a cringe and disrespectful person,
I think the point is that that's a nerd's version of cool. It also shows how Parker is so pure in his goodness that the worst version of him is a bully, not a monster.
I think this video would make sense being released in like 2015, many of these points having already been made in other videos, and I don't think someone being an indie filmmaker is going to have different insight into a movie than say other film critics that have covered this film (I think indie filmmakers, especially YouTubers, way overestimate their ability to analyze film).
I like Spider-Man 3, I think it's fun, I think it's visually dynamic in a way that a lot of superhero movies now-a-days are not. But, arguing that it's more intellectual or more emotional than even say Spider-Man 2, is just a flailing argument. I'm reminded of a video essay I saw that described Quantum of Solace as a masterpiece, and how it was secretly a genius movie with so many layers to it. I don't understand the necessity to say stuff like that. I also like Quantum of Solace, it is not any of those things, I like it because it's 90 minutes of well-done action, with a quick pace and a cool aesthetic.
I don't understand why it can't just be "It's fun, I was a kid when I saw it (I assume I'm not sure how old Haver is), and it's still entertaining and has a lot to offer in that regard." Rather than injecting it with over-analysis about how it's saying something about life etc. I think when even Raimi agrees that there were too many villains, and absolutely hated having to force Venom in, it goes against the idea that it's representative of Parker's emotional state. Yes, death of the author and whatever, but ignoring that I don't think there's much textual evidence to support that reading either.
I like the first three Bayformers films, a good chunk of that reasoning is that I grew up with them. But I don't rationalize it by intellectualizing them. They're just cool entertainment and Bay is really good at shooting kinetic action. It's okay to like a movie that offers nothing emotionally or intellectually stimulating.
The problem is that these villains are fleshed out characters in the lore this movie is adopting, and in the movie they're cheap allegories for personal troubles. This is ESPECIALLY problematic in...
He doesn't really get the problem with there being too many villains.
The problem is that these villains are fleshed out characters in the lore this movie is adopting, and in the movie they're cheap allegories for personal troubles. This is ESPECIALLY problematic in spiderman because Peter often has very personal connections to the villains (Lizard, Doc Ock, Venom, Green Goblin, etc).
And just simply, it's a "too many characters" problem, which I feel is something he should get. Plenty of movies struggle with large casts. Avengers was successful in part because they got to lean on several previous films worth of character building rather than having to shove it all into one film in some awkwardly contrived manner. DC's Justice league, Eternals, and sooooooo many X men films all struggle with this, where really interesting characters wind up being pointless because they just don't have enough screen time to develop them.
Joel also mentions how he really likes a lot of other things people make fun of, like the Emo Peter scenes or Tobey being really expressive in a way that people like to meme about. Emo Peter shows how he's letting this power go to his head and make him a cringe and disrespectful person, and when there's something dramatic happening Peter will yell and get mad and upset rather than being a stoic superhero that only shows a little bit of emotion. He finds these make Peter more relatable and human than other blockbuster movie protagonists.
This probably would've been fine if it wasn't a spiderman movie. Given it's a character who's core ethos is "with great power comes great responsibility", and venom is supposed to show what peter could be like if he didn't feel that way, having "cringy, emo, edgy, over expressive dude" feels like a major letdown for what should be one of the moments everyone was waiting for. This is, again, also harmed by the "too many characters" issue because there is more than enough great content to just have venom be the sole issue of the film, but instead it's sharing screen time with way too much. It's not as bad as when WB decided to just waste doomsday in batman vs superman while totally spitting all over the lore, but it's up there.
You just cannot take a landmark character/moment in a series, cram it in with a bunch of more cliche stuff, and then wing the representation and expect it to go over well. I also think people give too much credit to the intention for some of it (ah yes he's SUPPOSED to be cringey), but that can be argued either way so whatever.
He really likes seeing down to earth aspects in something larger than life, or seeing something banal portrayed cinematically, or when movies show emotional vulnerability or other relatable human emotions. From this lens, there's a lot more emotionally going on in Spider-Man 3 compared to 1 or 2, which are more normal Hollywood superhero movies. He does mention the relationship between Peter and his landlord's daughter in Spider-Man 2 as one of these less fantastical elements that he really likes.
Right, but the whole point of genres, especially when they're getting sequels, is you kinda know what you're getting into.
Spider man 3 could've been the BEST french art house film ever made and people would be rightly pissed. I'm glad it's more to his tastes, but it's hard for me to say that "well if you don't consider it a sequel to two other spider man movies, it's a good movie" because even on its face that feels silly. And then I get into the whole "but the dialogue sucks, the pacing sucks, the fights suck, the cgi sucks, etc" thing.
As I said elsewhere, I'm glad people like the film, but it's really not a good film. I like plenty of films that are, by almost any standard, objectively bad, and plenty of others that almost no one else would like (Breen for the first and Greenaway for the second...although I more have respect for the second as I've never sat through an entire one).
Just saw Phantom again in the theater today and man, that is not a good film. It drags, the editing, script, camera work, pacing all are not good. It’s not always -bad- but as a whole it is not...
Just saw Phantom again in the theater today and man, that is not a good film. It drags, the editing, script, camera work, pacing all are not good. It’s not always -bad- but as a whole it is not great film making.
You probably forget "in my opinion" somewhere in a comment? I pretty much enjoyed it, even while I do not like previous Spider Man movies. Upd: its absolutely ok to like or don't like different...
You probably forget "in my opinion" somewhere in a comment? I pretty much enjoyed it, even while I do not like previous Spider Man movies.
Upd: its absolutely ok to like or don't like different things. We all different in the end.
Not really. It's well know that art is subjective and plenty of people can like whatever they want. There are however a variety of objective manners that you can look at something. A 4 year old's...
Not really.
It's well know that art is subjective and plenty of people can like whatever they want.
There are however a variety of objective manners that you can look at something. A 4 year old's finger painting might be someone's style, but there's no denying that the Sistine Chapel took a lot of very talented work to create, even if you don't like it.
There are a lot of very weak weird arguments for why spiderman 3 is secretly good. There's a few decent ones, but like...you can't say that's good CGI. It's just not. You could argue it's good pacing, because that's more subjective, but most would disagree.
And if you look at easier to rate metrics, like popularity, ratings, sales, reception, etc, yeah...it's not liked. Commercial or even cult success isn't a great indicator of art either, but it's pretty easy to rate.
Point is, I totally respect that you and others like the movie. Everyone has different tastes and finds value in different things. But from the standpoints of "talent", in which people spend years of their career learning to be good at these things, spider man 3 is a low effort cash grab.
Thank you for thoroughful answer. I will have to think more about it. My points: From technical point of view art can't be measured and quanitified. We can't say that this painting is 5% more...
Thank you for thoroughful answer. I will have to think more about it.
My points:
From technical point of view art can't be measured and quanitified. We can't say that this painting is 5% more artfull than another painting, same with movies, songs, etc.
Some group of people with more expirience (experts) decided that this painting is art, but its only a group of people. What if other group of people (also experts) decided that this painting is not so much art? This happens quite often when new style, new direction of art appears (Im not an expert and not a historian but as I remember this happened with impressionalists, modern art, pop art, etc.etc.). Also, art is not universal. I could be wrong, but I remember that some art pieces lost their art value and remain valuable only from historian perspective.
I have feeling that some art pieces should be globally recognized as art, but again, we can't quantify value of these pieces..
Sometimes hating certain things becomes a meme, pineapple on pizza or the Star Wars Prequels, for example. With how much everyone online loves hating things, sometimes it's refreshing to hear...
Sometimes hating certain things becomes a meme, pineapple on pizza or the Star Wars Prequels, for example. With how much everyone online loves hating things, sometimes it's refreshing to hear someone take a moment and say "this thing is pretty good, actually. Maybe we were too hard on it..." Or, at the very least, giving these hated things credit for what they actually are instead of just laughing at it.
In a Seinfeld way where every novel aspect has been done better by better films? Or in that it's a mystery why this movie has influenced cinema the way it has?
A New Hope also does not hold up
In a Seinfeld way where every novel aspect has been done better by better films? Or in that it's a mystery why this movie has influenced cinema the way it has?
Mostly the first, but also because the few years and influx of dollars really helped Empire and Jedi hold up better to the test of time. The pacing of New Hope also dragged on. Confirmed watching...
Mostly the first, but also because the few years and influx of dollars really helped Empire and Jedi hold up better to the test of time. The pacing of New Hope also dragged on.
Confirmed watching with a 6 year old. Enthralled by both Empire and Jedi. Bored AF by New Hope.
Agree about Empire, but totally disagree about Jedi. Jedi is already showing signs of some of the problems that would bring the prequels down; e.g., action scene bloat, obsession with its own...
the few years and influx of dollars really helped Empire and Jedi hold up better to the test of time
Agree about Empire, but totally disagree about Jedi. Jedi is already showing signs of some of the problems that would bring the prequels down; e.g., action scene bloat, obsession with its own mythology, tonal inconsistency.
I will say that a child's opinion of a movie can be... less than reflective of its overall quality. When I was little my favorite Star Wars movie was Episode 1 because I liked Liam Neeson.
Confirmed watching with a 6 year old.
I will say that a child's opinion of a movie can be... less than reflective of its overall quality. When I was little my favorite Star Wars movie was Episode 1 because I liked Liam Neeson.
I mean the only really redeeming value of the prequels is basically the action set pieces and everyone doing their best to try and inject some humanity to a really stiff and stupid script. So on...
I mean the only really redeeming value of the prequels is basically the action set pieces and everyone doing their best to try and inject some humanity to a really stiff and stupid script.
I'll come clean: have yet to recently rewatch 2 and 3. But also Jar Jar's Half Mr.Bean, half Forrest Gump, all terrible accent, bumbling his way through Episode 1 was by far the worst bit of...
I'll come clean: have yet to recently rewatch 2 and 3.
But also Jar Jar's Half Mr.Bean, half Forrest Gump, all terrible accent, bumbling his way through Episode 1 was by far the worst bit of plotwriting of all time. Nothing else matters other than reduction of his screentime.
What really doesn’t help Attack of the Clones is that it was the first mainstream Hollywood production shot on digital. And those digital cameras were not anywhere near a suitable replacement for...
What really doesn’t help Attack of the Clones is that it was the first mainstream Hollywood production shot on digital. And those digital cameras were not anywhere near a suitable replacement for celluloid. That and everything being green screen (Phantom still had practical stuff) makes Clones look so much worse. Tech developed better with Sith, but Phantom was shot on 35.
Attack of the Clones is primarily a romance too, and it’s super boring because Lucas can’t write that stuff.
From what I hear, Phantom Menace is a bit more bearable if you watch it with the Darth Jar-Jar theory in mind. Knowing his bumbling is a form of intentional sabotage makes it a little less...
From what I hear, Phantom Menace is a bit more bearable if you watch it with the Darth Jar-Jar theory in mind. Knowing his bumbling is a form of intentional sabotage makes it a little less annoying.
Alternatively, there's a phantom cut with him cut out somewhere on the internet. So if anyone ever gets the urge to watch the prequels, that one's an option.
It has a massive amount of world building, a nice Star Trek style plot that gives it some political depth necessary to set up the fall of a civilization, and some of the best music and fights in...
It has a massive amount of world building, a nice Star Trek style plot that gives it some political depth necessary to set up the fall of a civilization, and some of the best music and fights in the series. The weak points are excessive attempts at comic relief and some of the VFX could have used a little bit more time for CGI quality to improve.
Spider-Man 3 and Prequel revisionism has been commonplace since the late 2010s now. Especially the prequels considering the reception the sequels got. Like now the internet opinion is that...
Spider-Man 3 and Prequel revisionism has been commonplace since the late 2010s now. Especially the prequels considering the reception the sequels got. Like now the internet opinion is that Spider-Man 3 and the Prequels are good.
All of those things came out when I was a kid, and I like Spider-Man 3 but I never got the prequel revisionism. The sequels are much better even Rise of Skywalker which is shot, edited, and acted better than the prequels.
Controversial take: I think Hayden Christensen played Anakin Skywalker exactly as he was presented in script: a man who was taken to the Jedi from the arms of his mother, reuniting with a woman he...
Controversial take: I think Hayden Christensen played Anakin Skywalker exactly as he was presented in script: a man who was taken to the Jedi from the arms of his mother, reuniting with a woman he had a crush on, after having it pounded into his head that crushes are bad because you shouldn't form attachments, and we watch him stuck between the girl he's dreamed about and the cult that has been filling his head with grandiose purpose. He seems wooden and unsure what he's doing because Anakin is. That's my theory on all of it, and the shame of it is, the horrible writing and acting of the rest of it obscures it all.
On one of the DVD/Blu-ray releases there's a behind the scenes where you see Lucas coaching Christensen through the "I killed them all" scene. It's crazy because every take is worse, more stilted...
On one of the DVD/Blu-ray releases there's a behind the scenes where you see Lucas coaching Christensen through the "I killed them all" scene.
It's crazy because every take is worse, more stilted and awkward like the version that got put in the movie, and Lucas pushes further that direction every time.
IIRC Lucas also has some quote about the scene in Phantom where the child is leaving his slave mother behind forever to join an order of warrior monks who shun all attachment, about how they had to do several takes because all the actors were "trying to be too emotional."
I just don't think he's great at coaching actors or reading/capturing emotion on film.
The prequels have gotten a lot of redemption since because of all the Expanded Universe shows/comics/books that have fleshed out the characters. They have decent 'bones', it's just the execution is odd in a lot of places.
Yeah, I mean Christensen has other roles where we can see he can act. I don’t think anyone in those films comes off looking good. Lucas is just really bad with dialogue (American Graffiti aside),...
Yeah, I mean Christensen has other roles where we can see he can act. I don’t think anyone in those films comes off looking good. Lucas is just really bad with dialogue (American Graffiti aside), A New Hope has a lot of wonky lines but it doesn’t have that tin ear effect because the cast would push back.
I'm not sure most other would even say they're pretty good, just that they're not the irredeemable messes they're said to be. The bad majority doesn't erase the bits that are good, so if you're...
I'm not sure most other would even say they're pretty good, just that they're not the irredeemable messes they're said to be. The bad majority doesn't erase the bits that are good, so if you're willing to turn your brain off there is something you can manage to enjoy.
I welcome this more optimistic approach to deeply flawed media.
I usually agree with Joel but it was just a disappointment. Emo Peter was a terrible way of showing the symbiote's darkness. Look at 90s spiderman wearing the suit...
I usually agree with Joel but it was just a disappointment. Emo Peter was a terrible way of showing the symbiote's darkness.
Look at 90s spiderman wearing the suit
He's terrifying, aggressive and barely hanging onto control. Instead we got Peter changing his haircut, dancing down the street and bouncing around a jazz bar. It's crazy anyone thought those were good scenes that should be oj the movie.
Those show a different form of darkness, no? The symbiote seems pretty malleable in that way from a writer's perspective. If the focus truly was on ego as Joel argued, I'm not sure being deranged...
Those show a different form of darkness, no? The symbiote seems pretty malleable in that way from a writer's perspective. If the focus truly was on ego as Joel argued, I'm not sure being deranged could communicate that effectively.
As I said elsewhere, the whole point of the symbiote is to have peter break the "with great power comes great responsibility" ethos. The whole point is that spiderman absolutely could be...
As I said elsewhere, the whole point of the symbiote is to have peter break the "with great power comes great responsibility" ethos.
The whole point is that spiderman absolutely could be dangerous. Jameson is extreme, but has something of a point. This is some random person who could be throwing cars around doing what they want, which just happens to be the ultimately good thing, and ONLY because his initial arrogance and pride got checked real quick when it got one of his loved ones killed.
Venom is supposed to be the "oh shit maybe jameson has a point" moment where everyone sees how terrifying spiderman could be, and brings home that the moral code instilled in peter is vital to him actually being a hero.
Making it "oh god what if spiderman was Emo and Cringe!" is just such a letdown in comparison.
I'd argue that the symbiote is about ego at all. I've always seen it as a tradeoff of power vs control. It makes you stronger but it'll start controlling you as much as you're controlling it....
I'd argue that the symbiote is about ego at all. I've always seen it as a tradeoff of power vs control. It makes you stronger but it'll start controlling you as much as you're controlling it.
Peter lives by the idea that power comes with responsibility and he suffers for it. He can barely maintain personal relationships, his grades suffer dispite being a genius, he's barely making enough to cover rent working for someone that hates him.
The suit feeds on that. Why should he work so hard when he could be stealing? Why doesn't he just kill the villains and save all yhat trouble? Why does he let Flash and Jamison push him around?
Peter has to abandon the suit because it's turning him into a monster. It's trying to make him act against all of his ideals. Goofy dancing just doesn't get this across.
The real problem, as many have said is too many things at once. Doing the entire venom arc, while finishing the green goblin story, and cramming in sandman makes it pretty much impossible to do any of them really well.
Venom is one of our favourite characters so obviously we were so excited for this movie. After watching it though it was such a disappointment. They killed him off in the end.
Venom is one of our favourite characters so obviously we were so excited for this movie. After watching it though it was such a disappointment. They killed him off in the end.
No. No they do not. It’s a bad movie and it was rightly called a bad movie.
It’s got classic villain bloat issues that means it’s juggling too much crap to care about any of it with some WILDLY questionable choices about how to handle the symbiote. The action scenes are also a classic mix of bad cgi, bad shots, and bad pacing.
I feel like the prequels are way overhyped now too and that’s as someone who saw it in theaters twice. That’s also a mostly bad movie but does at least have a few good action scenes
It is totally insane to me how social media has completely reversed the awful reception that Spider-Man 3 and especially the Star Wars prequels got. I saw them all in theaters and they were not good. When Episode III came out, I remember lots of reviews were happily surprised it was actually pretty decent compared with the first two.
I don't think the prequels were good and I find it odd that they are being "redeemed". At best they were ok. As someone who saw all the Star Wars movies in the theaters, here was my opinion at the time I saw them and my opinion hasn't changed. Yes I understand that seeing something when you are a kid is different when you are an adult, but if I go back and watch other things I saw as a kid I'm able to recognize whether they are actually good or not.
Star Wars: Completely mind blowing, amazing special effects. My friends and I could hardly believe how great it was and how different it was from anything we'd every seen. The Millennium Falcon in particular was a brilliant design both inside and out. Thought about hundreds of details for years later. We didn't think about the plot much because of the spectacle.
Empire Strikes Back: Incredible hype for it and it lived up to the hype. Fantastic world building, and special effects, memorable set pieces. The plot surprises were fun.
Return of the Jedi: Slightly disappointing. Too many Muppets and Muppet humor (like a belching monster or whatever). The big set pieces and space battles had too much going on. Still the end of the movie had a good payoff and resolution. I liked the new space ships like B-Wing and A-Wing.
Episode I: I remember liking this. World building was top notch, even better than the originals. The script seemed to meander and spent too much time on pod racing and things like that. I thought the cast was very good. Didn't like Jar Jar, seemed like a return to Muppet humor which I don't hate but didn't like that here.
Episode II: It was ok. I remember being disappointed a bit. Plot had too many callbacks to the older movies. Still liked the cast.
Episode III: Hated it. It's just a depressing story about someone becoming evil and murdering little kids and turning on all of his friends. Hearing about the fall of someone is one thing, but seeing it just made me unhappy. Special effects were too busy again. I don't know why this is the most popular of the prequels, but I also don't understand the appeal of the "Saw" movies. After watching this movie in the theater we were kind of depressed and came home and watch "A New Hope" to cleanse our palate.
I agree 100% on the original trilogy, I saw all but the original in theatres (was too young for that one), but I feel completely the opposite for the prequels which I also saw in the theater. I saw Episode One on my birthday and it was so bad that it ruined my birthday. I thought Two was better than One, but still disappointing, and Three was the best of the bunch and would have been remembered better had they not ruined it in the last 20 seconds by the infamous "Nooooooooooooooooooo".
The prequels were always as good as the original trilogy. Feel free to read that as the prequels being underrated or the original trilogy has never been quality beyond fun entertainment in the first place.
My first experience with Star Wars was the Special Edition VHS release, and the prequels as they came out (and the Expanded Universe books). The prequel era was peak Star Wars, with its extensive world building and emphasis on the Jedi as galactic peacekeepers.
I disagree at the very least on the authenticity of the aliens.
The original triligoy has ALIENS. Weird, strange, and odd life that's all comingling in this world we kinda don't get.
The prequels have, middle eastern trader stereotype, 50's diner stereotype, Japanese stereotype, banker stereotype, and more I'm sure I'm forgetting. They didn't feel like real aliens, they felt like saturday morning cartoon aliens. There's an ENTIRE RACE that looks like that and happens to all be bankers? Really? That's your world building?
It was by far one of the most disappointing things about the prequels given the extremely high quality of the original trilogy on that regard. Hated as they are, at least ewoks still feel sorta alien and not like a borderline if not actually racists stereotype.
Battlefield Earth had a race of literal loan sharks. Like I assume they weren't all bankers but all the ones we see were and it's pretty clear that banking is most of their planet's economy.
Yeah, the original Star Wars movies are overrated, but that doesn't mean that the prequels didn't suck.
The original trilogy was fun entertainment, but at least they were fun, and not a whole ton of pointless, dry boring dialog in front of green screens interspersed with pointless, corny looking CGI fight scenes in front of green screens.
Ya know, I am actually kind of inclined to agree with you to an extent. I had seen a little bit of the first Star Wars movie when I was very young, but didn't care for it. So my first "real" experience with Star Wars was Episode I, and it was very much not a good movie; almost laughably so. I saw Episode II which was an improvement, but not enough to justify the expense of seeing it, and skipped out on Episode III (which I still haven't seen to this day). A few years later I actually took the time to sit down and watch the original trilogy.
It was an interesting mixed bag. I have never seen the "original cut" of IV, but it was an amazingly creative film with incredibly imaginative effects and visual design. It's kind of hard to believe that it's a product of the 70s. I think it would have been impossible to think of George Lucas as anything but a genius after seeing it. But the thing is that the movies after it had major "sequelitis"; it didn't have the same kind of creativity behind it, and it missed the je ne sais quoi that made the first movie so good. They kind of feel more like Indiana Jones movies rather than true continuations of the first Star Wars movie. They aren't bad by any stretch of the imagination, they just move in a direction that I don't appreciate. I long for a peek into an alternative universe where Star Wars wasn't terribly successful and Lucas still felt he had to give his movies his all so we could see what he could make if he were forced to be as creative as he was with the original Star Wars and THX 1138.
I do think if you didn't watch the Original Trilogy as a kid, there's a good chance you just never got on board with Star Wars that much. I saw the prequels as a kid, but I thought they were mostly boring. I didn't see the OT until I was 14. The first Star Wars movie I ever really loved, and made me go "Oh I kind of get it now" was The Last Jedi.
This is one of the things Joel Haver addresses in the video. Joel's an indie film director with specific tastes, so he will get different things out of a movie than general audiences would. He doesn't really get the problem with there being too many villains. Each villain reflects a different aspect of Peter's current life: his personal relationships, his career, and his past trauma with Uncle Ben. Peter's dealing with a lot of shit as he gets older, as do we all, so Spider-Man's life gets more complicated too.
Joel also mentions how he really likes a lot of other things people make fun of, like the Emo Peter scenes or Tobey being really expressive in a way that people like to meme about. Emo Peter shows how he's letting this power go to his head and make him a cringe and disrespectful person, and when there's something dramatic happening Peter will yell and get mad and upset rather than being a stoic superhero that only shows a little bit of emotion. He finds these make Peter more relatable and human than other blockbuster movie protagonists. He also finds the state of Peter and MJ's relationship at the end of the film very interesting and bittersweet.
Seeing Joel Analyzing Spider-Man 3 in this way really makes sense if you've seen how he talks about his own films or how he criticizes other films. He really likes seeing down to earth aspects in something larger than life, or seeing something banal portrayed cinematically, or when movies show emotional vulnerability or other relatable human emotions. From this lens, there's a lot more emotionally going on in Spider-Man 3 compared to 1 or 2, which are more normal Hollywood superhero movies. He does mention the relationship between Peter and his landlord's daughter in Spider-Man 2 as one of these less fantastical elements that he really likes.
Of course, issues like being badly shot or badly paced can be a bit subjective, and those don't necessarily ruin a film if someone otherwise really likes it.
I think the point is that that's a nerd's version of cool. It also shows how Parker is so pure in his goodness that the worst version of him is a bully, not a monster.
I think this video would make sense being released in like 2015, many of these points having already been made in other videos, and I don't think someone being an indie filmmaker is going to have different insight into a movie than say other film critics that have covered this film (I think indie filmmakers, especially YouTubers, way overestimate their ability to analyze film).
I like Spider-Man 3, I think it's fun, I think it's visually dynamic in a way that a lot of superhero movies now-a-days are not. But, arguing that it's more intellectual or more emotional than even say Spider-Man 2, is just a flailing argument. I'm reminded of a video essay I saw that described Quantum of Solace as a masterpiece, and how it was secretly a genius movie with so many layers to it. I don't understand the necessity to say stuff like that. I also like Quantum of Solace, it is not any of those things, I like it because it's 90 minutes of well-done action, with a quick pace and a cool aesthetic.
I don't understand why it can't just be "It's fun, I was a kid when I saw it (I assume I'm not sure how old Haver is), and it's still entertaining and has a lot to offer in that regard." Rather than injecting it with over-analysis about how it's saying something about life etc. I think when even Raimi agrees that there were too many villains, and absolutely hated having to force Venom in, it goes against the idea that it's representative of Parker's emotional state. Yes, death of the author and whatever, but ignoring that I don't think there's much textual evidence to support that reading either.
I like the first three Bayformers films, a good chunk of that reasoning is that I grew up with them. But I don't rationalize it by intellectualizing them. They're just cool entertainment and Bay is really good at shooting kinetic action. It's okay to like a movie that offers nothing emotionally or intellectually stimulating.
The problem is that these villains are fleshed out characters in the lore this movie is adopting, and in the movie they're cheap allegories for personal troubles. This is ESPECIALLY problematic in spiderman because Peter often has very personal connections to the villains (Lizard, Doc Ock, Venom, Green Goblin, etc).
And just simply, it's a "too many characters" problem, which I feel is something he should get. Plenty of movies struggle with large casts. Avengers was successful in part because they got to lean on several previous films worth of character building rather than having to shove it all into one film in some awkwardly contrived manner. DC's Justice league, Eternals, and sooooooo many X men films all struggle with this, where really interesting characters wind up being pointless because they just don't have enough screen time to develop them.
This probably would've been fine if it wasn't a spiderman movie. Given it's a character who's core ethos is "with great power comes great responsibility", and venom is supposed to show what peter could be like if he didn't feel that way, having "cringy, emo, edgy, over expressive dude" feels like a major letdown for what should be one of the moments everyone was waiting for. This is, again, also harmed by the "too many characters" issue because there is more than enough great content to just have venom be the sole issue of the film, but instead it's sharing screen time with way too much. It's not as bad as when WB decided to just waste doomsday in batman vs superman while totally spitting all over the lore, but it's up there.
You just cannot take a landmark character/moment in a series, cram it in with a bunch of more cliche stuff, and then wing the representation and expect it to go over well. I also think people give too much credit to the intention for some of it (ah yes he's SUPPOSED to be cringey), but that can be argued either way so whatever.
Right, but the whole point of genres, especially when they're getting sequels, is you kinda know what you're getting into.
Spider man 3 could've been the BEST french art house film ever made and people would be rightly pissed. I'm glad it's more to his tastes, but it's hard for me to say that "well if you don't consider it a sequel to two other spider man movies, it's a good movie" because even on its face that feels silly. And then I get into the whole "but the dialogue sucks, the pacing sucks, the fights suck, the cgi sucks, etc" thing.
As I said elsewhere, I'm glad people like the film, but it's really not a good film. I like plenty of films that are, by almost any standard, objectively bad, and plenty of others that almost no one else would like (Breen for the first and Greenaway for the second...although I more have respect for the second as I've never sat through an entire one).
Just saw Phantom again in the theater today and man, that is not a good film. It drags, the editing, script, camera work, pacing all are not good. It’s not always -bad- but as a whole it is not great film making.
You probably forget "in my opinion" somewhere in a comment? I pretty much enjoyed it, even while I do not like previous Spider Man movies.
Upd: its absolutely ok to like or don't like different things. We all different in the end.
Not really.
It's well know that art is subjective and plenty of people can like whatever they want.
There are however a variety of objective manners that you can look at something. A 4 year old's finger painting might be someone's style, but there's no denying that the Sistine Chapel took a lot of very talented work to create, even if you don't like it.
There are a lot of very weak weird arguments for why spiderman 3 is secretly good. There's a few decent ones, but like...you can't say that's good CGI. It's just not. You could argue it's good pacing, because that's more subjective, but most would disagree.
And if you look at easier to rate metrics, like popularity, ratings, sales, reception, etc, yeah...it's not liked. Commercial or even cult success isn't a great indicator of art either, but it's pretty easy to rate.
Point is, I totally respect that you and others like the movie. Everyone has different tastes and finds value in different things. But from the standpoints of "talent", in which people spend years of their career learning to be good at these things, spider man 3 is a low effort cash grab.
Thank you for thoroughful answer. I will have to think more about it.
My points:
From technical point of view art can't be measured and quanitified. We can't say that this painting is 5% more artfull than another painting, same with movies, songs, etc.
Some group of people with more expirience (experts) decided that this painting is art, but its only a group of people. What if other group of people (also experts) decided that this painting is not so much art? This happens quite often when new style, new direction of art appears (Im not an expert and not a historian but as I remember this happened with impressionalists, modern art, pop art, etc.etc.). Also, art is not universal. I could be wrong, but I remember that some art pieces lost their art value and remain valuable only from historian perspective.
I have feeling that some art pieces should be globally recognized as art, but again, we can't quantify value of these pieces..
Sometimes hating certain things becomes a meme, pineapple on pizza or the Star Wars Prequels, for example. With how much everyone online loves hating things, sometimes it's refreshing to hear someone take a moment and say "this thing is pretty good, actually. Maybe we were too hard on it..." Or, at the very least, giving these hated things credit for what they actually are instead of just laughing at it.
Phantom Menace is legit bad though.
But then, A New Hope also does not hold up. Empire and Jedi still best, with Episode 2+3 being pretty decent.
In a Seinfeld way where every novel aspect has been done better by better films? Or in that it's a mystery why this movie has influenced cinema the way it has?
Mostly the first, but also because the few years and influx of dollars really helped Empire and Jedi hold up better to the test of time. The pacing of New Hope also dragged on.
Confirmed watching with a 6 year old. Enthralled by both Empire and Jedi. Bored AF by New Hope.
Agree about Empire, but totally disagree about Jedi. Jedi is already showing signs of some of the problems that would bring the prequels down; e.g., action scene bloat, obsession with its own mythology, tonal inconsistency.
I will say that a child's opinion of a movie can be... less than reflective of its overall quality. When I was little my favorite Star Wars movie was Episode 1 because I liked Liam Neeson.
Thats true, but they're also the primary target audience.
I’ve never been a Star Wars guy but I think it’s weird to say that Attack of the Clones is better than Phantom Menace lol.
I mean the only really redeeming value of the prequels is basically the action set pieces and everyone doing their best to try and inject some humanity to a really stiff and stupid script.
So on that metric
I'll come clean: have yet to recently rewatch 2 and 3.
But also Jar Jar's Half Mr.Bean, half Forrest Gump, all terrible accent, bumbling his way through Episode 1 was by far the worst bit of plotwriting of all time. Nothing else matters other than reduction of his screentime.
What really doesn’t help Attack of the Clones is that it was the first mainstream Hollywood production shot on digital. And those digital cameras were not anywhere near a suitable replacement for celluloid. That and everything being green screen (Phantom still had practical stuff) makes Clones look so much worse. Tech developed better with Sith, but Phantom was shot on 35.
Attack of the Clones is primarily a romance too, and it’s super boring because Lucas can’t write that stuff.
From what I hear, Phantom Menace is a bit more bearable if you watch it with the Darth Jar-Jar theory in mind. Knowing his bumbling is a form of intentional sabotage makes it a little less annoying.
Alternatively, there's a phantom cut with him cut out somewhere on the internet. So if anyone ever gets the urge to watch the prequels, that one's an option.
It has a massive amount of world building, a nice Star Trek style plot that gives it some political depth necessary to set up the fall of a civilization, and some of the best music and fights in the series. The weak points are excessive attempts at comic relief and some of the VFX could have used a little bit more time for CGI quality to improve.
Spider-Man 3 and Prequel revisionism has been commonplace since the late 2010s now. Especially the prequels considering the reception the sequels got. Like now the internet opinion is that Spider-Man 3 and the Prequels are good.
All of those things came out when I was a kid, and I like Spider-Man 3 but I never got the prequel revisionism. The sequels are much better even Rise of Skywalker which is shot, edited, and acted better than the prequels.
Controversial take: I think Hayden Christensen played Anakin Skywalker exactly as he was presented in script: a man who was taken to the Jedi from the arms of his mother, reuniting with a woman he had a crush on, after having it pounded into his head that crushes are bad because you shouldn't form attachments, and we watch him stuck between the girl he's dreamed about and the cult that has been filling his head with grandiose purpose. He seems wooden and unsure what he's doing because Anakin is. That's my theory on all of it, and the shame of it is, the horrible writing and acting of the rest of it obscures it all.
I don't think that's terribly controversial, but it signals bad writing which is the root of most of the problems with the prequels.
The line, "I sense a plot to destroy the Jedi", may be Georgs Lucas's single greatest gift to film dialogue.
On one of the DVD/Blu-ray releases there's a behind the scenes where you see Lucas coaching Christensen through the "I killed them all" scene.
It's crazy because every take is worse, more stilted and awkward like the version that got put in the movie, and Lucas pushes further that direction every time.
IIRC Lucas also has some quote about the scene in Phantom where the child is leaving his slave mother behind forever to join an order of warrior monks who shun all attachment, about how they had to do several takes because all the actors were "trying to be too emotional."
I just don't think he's great at coaching actors or reading/capturing emotion on film.
The prequels have gotten a lot of redemption since because of all the Expanded Universe shows/comics/books that have fleshed out the characters. They have decent 'bones', it's just the execution is odd in a lot of places.
This does not surprise me, sadly. I've always felt that the further Star Wars went along, the more Lucas' dominance made him his own worst enemy.
Yeah, I mean Christensen has other roles where we can see he can act. I don’t think anyone in those films comes off looking good. Lucas is just really bad with dialogue (American Graffiti aside), A New Hope has a lot of wonky lines but it doesn’t have that tin ear effect because the cast would push back.
I'm not sure most other would even say they're pretty good, just that they're not the irredeemable messes they're said to be. The bad majority doesn't erase the bits that are good, so if you're willing to turn your brain off there is something you can manage to enjoy.
I welcome this more optimistic approach to deeply flawed media.
I usually agree with Joel but it was just a disappointment. Emo Peter was a terrible way of showing the symbiote's darkness.
Look at 90s spiderman wearing the suit
https://youtube.com/watch?v=rHP2wtX56c8&feature=shared
https://youtu.be/9w4H-91TVUA?si=nbNpjk1-F58P_ozI
He's terrifying, aggressive and barely hanging onto control. Instead we got Peter changing his haircut, dancing down the street and bouncing around a jazz bar. It's crazy anyone thought those were good scenes that should be oj the movie.
Those show a different form of darkness, no? The symbiote seems pretty malleable in that way from a writer's perspective. If the focus truly was on ego as Joel argued, I'm not sure being deranged could communicate that effectively.
As I said elsewhere, the whole point of the symbiote is to have peter break the "with great power comes great responsibility" ethos.
The whole point is that spiderman absolutely could be dangerous. Jameson is extreme, but has something of a point. This is some random person who could be throwing cars around doing what they want, which just happens to be the ultimately good thing, and ONLY because his initial arrogance and pride got checked real quick when it got one of his loved ones killed.
Venom is supposed to be the "oh shit maybe jameson has a point" moment where everyone sees how terrifying spiderman could be, and brings home that the moral code instilled in peter is vital to him actually being a hero.
Making it "oh god what if spiderman was Emo and Cringe!" is just such a letdown in comparison.
I'd argue that the symbiote is about ego at all. I've always seen it as a tradeoff of power vs control. It makes you stronger but it'll start controlling you as much as you're controlling it.
Peter lives by the idea that power comes with responsibility and he suffers for it. He can barely maintain personal relationships, his grades suffer dispite being a genius, he's barely making enough to cover rent working for someone that hates him.
The suit feeds on that. Why should he work so hard when he could be stealing? Why doesn't he just kill the villains and save all yhat trouble? Why does he let Flash and Jamison push him around?
Peter has to abandon the suit because it's turning him into a monster. It's trying to make him act against all of his ideals. Goofy dancing just doesn't get this across.
The real problem, as many have said is too many things at once. Doing the entire venom arc, while finishing the green goblin story, and cramming in sandman makes it pretty much impossible to do any of them really well.
Venom is one of our favourite characters so obviously we were so excited for this movie. After watching it though it was such a disappointment. They killed him off in the end.