Spider-Man 3, as reviewed by Darkmoon (Spoilers Inside)

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Darkmoon must be a horse, though.

He always votes neigh.


*grin, duck, and run very very fast*

[Darkmoon]

Asshole.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

*snicker*

[Eibborn]

Huh. He just wanted to respond to the movie. Don't you think it's a bit rude to snatch the thread from him and banish his review to the Mine? At least keep in in the thread or something.

[Darkmoon]

Nope, I don't think it's rude, and no. If he wants to be a movie reviewer, he should review movies.

In other words, that's my way of saying "suck it".

[Zedd]

Works for me

[Caswin]

Alright.  Alrightalrightalright, I've totally got it.  Spider-Man 4.  They introduce Quentin Beck, because he's Mysterio, and you've gotta have Mysterio.  And, of course, he's making a movie, because that's what he does when he's not being nefarious.

Maybe it's an in-movie Spider-Man movie, maybe it's Fin Fang Foom, Nick Fury, whatever.  Something cool and in-jokey.  And who's that guy playing the actor playing the hero?

Nicholas Hammond.

C'mon.  You know you want to see it.

[Goatmon]

In of itself, it was an awesome picture.  For a fan who wanted venom done right, it was a significant disappointment.  They put in venom for the sake of the fans.  But, with that in mind, they should have put more emphasis on the costume and not have the share the film with two other villains, or make Venom the consistent villain in spiderman 4. Raimi should have simply not given into the pressure, and done the movie the way he originally wanted, and gone with just Sandman and Harry as the protagonists.  The film was flowing extremely well until the black costume came into the picture.

If you want to see Venom done correct, you might check out the original venom mini-arc that took place in the spiderman cartoon from the 90s.  (you can currently find it on youtube)   I have to say, it's rather sad that a 10 year old Saturday morning cartoon made venom far creepier and more intimidating than an accomplished Hollywood director. 

Some people are pointing the finger at Topher Grace, who was considered a very inappropriate choice as Eddie Brock.  The truth is, he played his part just fine.  He played the role given to him with flying colors, but the role he played itself was badly written and squeezed into a movie was hardly any room for a third villain. 

[Alondro]

Too true.  It's 'Batman Movie Syndrome'.  When you start throwing in villains, the movie will generally not hold cohesion.  The first Batman was the best.  Villains?  Only one:  Joker, played by Jack Nicholson (Who else is just naturally that insane?).   

It takes a very clever writer to tie in even two main villains in one film.  But three?  Each with a complex background and different motive?  Forget it.  Even if each part is very well portrayed, there's just too much jumping around to cover it all. 

Venom should have been saved for the primary villain in Spiderman 4, though he could have been introduced at the end of 3 as the goo sneaking off the space shuttle or whatnot in the traditional comic 'To Be Continued!' style.  Just that little hint of Venom would have worked up a fervor for Spiderman 4. 

[GabrielsThoughts]

back to the subject of spiderman 4, who else wants to see a hero's brawl?

I'm thinking:

Spiderman vs The human Torch

Emo-spiderman vs. wolverine

classic Spiderman vs.  other random X-man Character

and my current favorite

Spiderman vs evil corporate dictator Tony Stark (IRON MAN)

or they could do the Identity crisis series  from the late '90s that way no one will see spidy's face and notice it isn't Toby, and they would only need to hire someone with the same voice as Mary Jane.

[RJ]

Maybe my knowledge is a little rusty, but didn't Spiderman dump MJ and started dating Kitty Pride (Shadowcat) from X-Men? I think that could be an interesting movie idea.

[Darkmoon]

In the Ultimate Spider-Man series, he did.

Unfortuneatly, there won't be any crossovers bewteen Spider-Man and the X-Men, since Fox has the rights to the X-Men and Sony has the rights to Spider-Man.

[Caswin]

If you want to see Venom done correct, you might check out the original venom mini-arc that took place in the spiderman cartoon from the 90s.  (you can currently find it on youtube)

...or you can find it, legally, wherever disappointingly tiny DVD releases are sold.

I understand turning to piracy when it's literally the only way (as is the case for most of the Spider-Man series, among other things), but in this case, well, it's not.

[Darkmoon]

(shrugs) If they don't want to buy the series, then going to YouTube is a viable option. It's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.

[Caswin]

It's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.

Not in this case.  The Venom Saga got officially released on DVD a year or so ago and isn't hard to find.

[Zedd]

Beware when Emo spiderman fights the deadly...BOOTMAN!

[Darkmoon]

It's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.

Not in this case.  The Venom Saga got officially released on DVD a year or so ago and isn't hard to find.

Yes, completely ignoring the point I made above that your average person likely isn't looking to BUY the series on DVD anyway.

[Caswin]

It's either that or just not watching it at all. In either scenario, it's not like the TV people are making any money off of it.

Not in this case.  The Venom Saga got officially released on DVD a year or so ago and isn't hard to find.

Yes, completely ignoring the point I made above that your average person likely isn't looking to BUY the series on DVD anyway.

You said the alternatives were piracy or not watching it at all.  Ducking, ignoring, not quite the same thing.

[Darkmoon]

No, I said if they don't want to buy it, then those are the two options. Sure, they could rent it, but , while legal, it still doesn't put any money into the content owners hands. Additionally, they'd have to be able to get a hold of a rental of it. Those stores that are carrying it probably don't have all that many copies in, and the children are the ones most likely to have it out...

And kids suck for returning flicks.

[Caswin]

No, I said if they don't want to buy it, then those are the two options.

Syntax!

(Don't ask.  I do the same thing while watching cartoons, except it's "PHYSICS! ".)

Sure, they could rent it, but , while legal, it still doesn't put any money into the content owners hands.

You're sure?  That doesn't seem right, and I've got a SmartFlix FAQ that seems to say otherwise...

[Damaris]

seriously! 


Darkmoon, make me a "nitpick and die" emote.

[Darkmoon]

No, I said if they don't want to buy it, then those are the two options.

Syntax!

(Don't ask.  I do the same thing while watching cartoons, except it's "PHYSICS! ".)

Sure, they could rent it, but , while legal, it still doesn't put any money into the content owners hands.

You're sure?  That doesn't seem right, and I've got a SmartFlix FAQ that seems to say otherwise...

Here's how it works in the rental industry:

A store buys the DVD. Wow, yes, voila, money goes to the content owners... once. That's a whole 20 bucks they've made. From there, they rent it out to the consumer. The consumer watches it (likely makes an illegal copy of it, because consumers do that), returns it. The rental company keeps ALL the money they make off that rental.

Down the line, after they've made back their 20 bucks, they are in no way obligated to share any of that revenue with the content owners. They keep renting, and the content owners get nothing. And that doesn't even take into account how much the rental company makes off of late fees, rental bonus accounts (which people pay for), consumable goods, back end used-movie sales, all of which the content owners see no profit from.

So, for your logic, long run, the content owners get almost nothing from a rental scenario.

YouTube is pretty well the same scenario, by that logic. Someone goes to YouTube, pays by seeing ads while they watch things, and YouTube makes money off those ads. What's the difference?

[Alondro]

seriously! 


Darkmoon, make me a "nitpick and die" emote.

No need!  I can do it!  *waves wand over Damaris and speaks the magic words and POOF!*  There!  You are now a "nitpick and die" emote.   

[Damaris]

*shakes fist at Alondro*  Daaammmn joooo!   

[Caswin]

YouTube is pretty well the same scenario, by that logic. Someone goes to YouTube, pays by seeing ads while they watch things, and YouTube makes money off those ads. What's the difference?

Apart from legality in and of itself?  Admittedly, not much comes to mind - apart from the initial $20-or-so-per-video fee.  It's another few videos sold, and not quite so negligible, I don't think, as you make it out to be.

Surprisingly on-topic question: What separates them from those Chinese pirates that got a copy of Spider-Man 3 and started showing it before the movie was even released?

*Quietly brushes own FAQ point under the rug...*

[Damaris]

I think what separates them is the ten years that the Venom storyline has been in existance from the 90s television show, the fact that it already aired on network television, and the fact that the DVD has already been out for a while.  As opposed to the never-been-released Spiderman 3.

And I think that is the end of this particular point of discussion.

------------

The thing I think people keep forgetting about this particular movie while they complain about the villians is that as far as EVERYONE knew, there was not going to be a forth movie.  It wasn't until after production was over, and the movie was nearly out that everything came together.

If a Spiderman series of movies had been made without Venom, I know I would have been mad about it.  Venom has always been one of my favorites, and I was glad to have him get the nod at all.  I'd much rather have him get some screen time at least rather than be completely ignored in the blind hope that a new trilogy would be greenlit.  Yes, hindsight says that they should have held off- but how were they supposed to know that when all three major players (McGuire, Dunst, and Raimi) were saying they wouldn't be coming back.

[Goatmon]

If a Spiderman series of movies had been made without Venom, I know I would have been mad about it.  Venom has always been one of my favorites, and I was glad to have him get the nod at all.  I'd much rather have him get some screen time at least rather than be completely ignored in the blind hope that a new trilogy would be greenlit.  Yes, hindsight says that they should have held off- but how were they supposed to know that when all three major players (McGuire, Dunst, and Raimi) were saying they wouldn't be coming back.

Frankly, I'd rather they not include venom at all, than squeeze him in and given a hastily written role.  Venom isn't something you half-ass.  Do him right, or don't do it at all, if you ask me. 

[GabrielsThoughts]

They still have carnage, the lizard, scorpion, mysterio, the vulture, Kingpin, Iron man, as potential villans in the series.

and personally I don't really care that venom was killed in the end... oh the horror, I spoiled it, oh darn.

[Darkmoon]

They could easily bring Venom back. Even if they don't bring back Eddie Brock, that doesn't mean that some of the symbiote couldn't have survived the blast, plus there's the sample Dr. Connors has at his lab. There's ways to bring it back, one way or another.

[GabrielsThoughts]

who do you think they'll hire to play Spidey in the fourth one? I doubt anyone from the original cast is going to return, outside of the guy that plays Dr. Conners, and even that one is questionable.