Is Spider-Man 3 Truly a Bad film? or just a good film in disguise?

Is Spider-Man 3 Truly a Bad film? or just a good film in disguise?

Spider-man 3 gets a bad rep but does it truly deserve that title?

So, a lot of people know me know that I get into fits of Nerd rage with TASM film. I do think both films are on par with one another, however Spider-man 3 is a tricky Film. No doubt it gets a rep for being remembered mostly for "Emo Peter" and doing a "terrible job on Venom". However does this film really deserve the crappy treatment it gets?

Not entirely. Before we can do that, there are a few things to make clear, Rami can be blamed for the following:

- Retconing Sandman as Peters uncle Ben's killer

- Adding Harry's Story (although originally he wanted Harry to be "somewhere in between" of becoming his father and being himself.)

- Concept of Peter to learn humility.

Everything else such as Venom, Gwen Stacy, Eddie Brock, and too much stories that ended up crushing the film itself, where all the producers fault. So the next time you want to blame someone blame Avi Arad, Grant Crutis, and the high up's at Sony.

Spider-man 3 is trying it's best to tell a good story and there are some aspects of a good one in there, its sad how it turn out, but I honestly think it gets too much of a bad rep for begin an okay film. something got me thinking, with why so many people have a problem with spider-man 3. The film gets a bad rap. is it a bad film? well no, not really, if anything you can say its on par with the amazing spider-man reboot. Now before you all start complainning about "emo peter's dancing sense." as your excuse, thats one flaw I Can agree with, but Sony found a nitche with spider-man 2, it expanded not only the universe but the characters actually grown, we got a ice story, a symphonic villain who we could relate to who already had a good relationship with Peter. Had different arcs and left with one of the best "final swings" as fans call them, out there. it had wonder action and made a lot of money.

As for spider-man 3, it was orginally going to be the new mandarin himself Sir Ben Kingsly as vulutre and Sandman. Rami didn;t wanted to have vneom but the studio made that little last minute change to him (the vulture) into venom. I guess they could of saved venom for number four, and many thigns but acordign to interviews the final product we got was the BEST case senario) I can agreeing retconning spidey's origin wasn;t good, however the movie itself wasn;t batman and robin bad. (becuase Batman & Robin was a giant toy commercial) Spider-man 3's problems where it had to many storys, and charaters, the stories were to copy the SM2 formula and had Too mcuh stories that it fell onto itself. hoenslly the theme is preplexing to find, but the action sequences where good and I liked the idea that we see spidey on top of his game as oppese to the last two films where spidery in SM2 was at his lowest so the logical thinking was to have peter get what he wanted. then add self-salutation to himself. the idea's are great, the action sequences are great, a lot of good things are in this film, then we see the black suit. i get the emo hair style, showing a different Parker, its just he was writtten mixed. he was a docuhe and it was interesting to see him become "his version of a cool guy" but i'd love to see it like an addiction. it would of been fun to see, but it came in like most of the humor. a blink of an eye.

So ask yourselves this. Is it really that bad of a film?
Posted By:
Parker2017
Member Since 6/3/2012
Filed Under "Spider-Man" 12/27/2012
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]