Spiderman III

[w.axl.rose]

Exclusive: Spider-Man 4 Villains Revealed... Already?!

When Spider-Man 3 was being prepped Sam Raimi and Columbia Pictures tried to hold the announcement of Venom for as long as they possibly could... confirming the news just before Comic Con in July of 2006. But here we are, the day Spider-Man 3 hits theaters, and your good pal here has the skinny on who you will see in Spider-Man 4 - with or without Sam Raimi (hater of all things symbiotic).

Before I hit you with the news, let me make it clear that we got this news from a 100% reliable source working on the film. He's the one who told us Venom was the villain in Spidey 3 and nobody believed us. So here you have it, the biggest announcement of 2008... NOW!

Our regular scooper tells FreezeDriedMovies that plans are underway for Spider-Man 4, which were (obviously) set up in the third film. In the third entry, Dr. Curt Connors (played by Dylan Baker) looks at a piece of symbiote with Peter Parker. The movie then travels along it's path without another mention of that "piece" of symbiote. This is the set up for Spider-Man 4 where that small piece of alien symbiote becomes CARNAGE. Yes Cletus Kasady is coming to the big screen, one of Spider-Man most horrifying and evil villains. Not only with Parker have to deal with the red lean mean killing machine, but Connors is set to become the long awaited LIZARD! these two villains have all been CONFIRMED for Spider-Man 4. There is talk of the Black Cat making her first appearance, but that's all but official.

So there you have it. Spider-Man, The Lizard, Carnage... and hopefully NO Sam Raimi. Avi Arad, please find someone who CARES what the fans think!

http://www.freezedriedmovies.com/blog/index.php?/archives/64-Exclusive-Spider-Man-4-Villains-Revealed...-Already!.html

[pilferk]

I haven't seen it yet, but I've seen enough previews to know it looks as though it'll be just what I'm expecting: a big-budget-over-the-top-special-effects-Hollywood-blockbuster-superhero movie, and that's just fine by me!

See, that's what I went in expecting.....a summer popcorn flick.

And it's what I got.  I wasn't expecting an acedemy award winning picture.  I wasn't expecting a fan boi circle jerk.  I wasn't expecting anything other than what I got: A major studio-ized, big budget, high octane, special effects laden joy ride that would enjoyably kill 2 hours.

And, again, that's what I got.  So I liked it.

[25]

Avi Arad, please find someone who CARES what the fans think!

Yeah, because "fans" always know what they're talking about and their input always makes things so much better. The "fans" just love them some snakes on a plane.

Does anyone else find the idea of a movie website begging Avi Arad to do something for "the fans" to be absolutely hilarious?

[Izzy]

The more pressing issue is what a bad job Mr Raimi made of this film.

With all the bad dialogue, effects and plotting - i honestly wonder if Bryan Singer or Brett Ratner (the go-to guys for crap superhero films) could have made it any worse

Man, I've let you spout your rubbish for long enough, but I'm not having that one.

Do you want to know who ruined this movie? You! Well, people like you.

If you fan-boys-without-a-clue (ie. those who saw the cartoon) got a clue, hadn't have made a big fuss about bloody Venom then the studio (ever intent on what will make a good film!, eh? (we were just talking about money, right?)) wouldn't have forced him to be crowbarred in there.

It's not Sam's fault that he couldn't make his movie, it's yours.

Ah the ol' classic. A director makes s shite film and its the studios fault! Do i hear David Fincher moaning about Fox's meddling in Alien3?

...now we go one step further - its the movie going publics fault! - oh yes those devils with their 'standards!'

Venom was in the film for 7 mins 22 seconds,

Sony must really have been demanding!! - So demanding that they even let him kill Venom off despite the obvious pay off he'd be in a future sequal!!

I assume it was also Sony that insisted on scenes that went nowhere? - ''oh look a crane...thats gone mad! Better go stop it, ah what the hell.....''

Was it the clever guys in Sony's feminist division insisting on two songs minimum?

Was Raimi ordered to dumb down the acting to the level of Hollyoaks?

I assume including 'the twist' was some hip Sony idea to promote something?

...and OBVIOUSLY Sony execs demanded the Butler scene!

Get a clue, atleats bring a credible argument

[metallex78]

Well, I went to see it last night, and I can see where allot of you are coming from.

While most of the movie is fantastic, there were scenes that were outright silly. There was some good character development in the second movie along with the special effects, but this one seemed to have too much going on all at once, and had some very bizarre scenes that made it seem silly (like Peter going emo, and the dancing/piano playing in the jazz bar ).

Still pretty good for what it was, but a bit of a step down from part two.

The special effects were awesome!

[Izzy]

(like Peter going emo, and the dancing/piano playing in the jazz bar ).

I loved that sequence! Totally out of place, but a hilarious stand alone piece of film making

..and obviously the symbiote can play the piano, i mean - c'mon, what alien cant?

[pilferk]

I assume it was also Sony that insisted on scenes that went nowhere? - ''oh look a crane...thats gone mad! Better go stop it, ah what the hell.....''

Um...it did go somewhere.

In introduced Gwen as another "damsel in distress", gave motivation to Brock to dislike Spidey, and provided reasoning behind the schism between MJ and Peter (the resulting ceremony).

Again, was it the greatest cinematic construct of all time?  Certainly not.  Befiiting a summer popcorn flick?  Sure.

I think you're just expecting WAY too much out of these movies.  This is not meant to be "Gone with the Wind".....

[pilferk]

(like Peter going emo, and the dancing/piano playing in the jazz bar ).

I loved that sequence! Totally out of place, but a hilarious stand alone piece of film making

..and obviously the symbiote can play the piano, i mean - c'mon, what alien cant?

On that, we agree.  That was my one criticism: Trim the singing and dancing, and add that time to the development of the Sandman's character.

It was "too long" in some places and "too short" in others.

But still a fun ride.

[GnFnR87]

yeah i'm sick of everyone's bitching. honestly, what were u expecting? we knew there was gonna be 3 villains for a long time now, so i wasnt very suprised to see that some aspects were rushed. i still like the 2nd movie the best but this one was far from bad, it wasnt awesome, but far from bad.

i had alot of fun, and thats all i really wanted.

[Izzy]

I assume it was also Sony that insisted on scenes that went nowhere? - ''oh look a crane...thats gone mad! Better go stop it, ah what the hell.....''

Um...it did go somewhere.

In introduced Gwen as another "damsel in distress", gave motivation to Brock to dislike Spidey, and provided reasoning behind the schism between MJ and Peter (the resulting ceremony).

...all of which could have bene done with 10 seconds of dialogue

Why was Gwen in the film?

To cause friction with Parker/MJ? - perhaps, but why was that angle even there, the relationship folded because of ''new goblin'' - made all their relationship problems irrelevant when you think about it - that angle would have worked just as well if they had been engaged, hell it would have worked far better

Motivation for Brock? Lol - maybe it was the acting, the script or something else - but Brock never seemed particularly bothered, and he had all the motivation he needed when he got fired. Gwen was in jazz bars with Parker and Brock never seemed to mind, so i'm guessing spidey saving her life wouldnt have been too distressing for him!

With some careful editing dont you begin to see the film that was hidden beneath the debris?

[Axlfreek]

Spidey 4 better be good because i was extremely dissapointed with this film

[Lucky]

that movie sucked.
I've never seen so many grown up man cry like in that movie...
and those are suposed to be super heroes and super villains...
and that chick is the ugliest thing I've seen in movies since Godzilla.

[Izzy]

that movie sucked.
I've never seen so many grown up man cry like in that movie...
and those are suposed to be super heroes and super villains...
and that chick is the ugliest thing I've seen in movies since Godzilla.

which one?

I thought 'Gwen Stacy' looked like a transexual.....

[pilferk]

...all of which could have bene done with 10 seconds of dialogue

Why was Gwen in the film?

To cause friction with Parker/MJ? - perhaps, but why was that angle even there, the relationship folded because of ''new goblin'' - made all their relationship problems irrelevant when you think about it - that angle would have worked just as well if they had been engaged, hell it would have worked far better

To give Peter REASON to believe MJ was breaking up with him of her own accord.  Had it come from out of the blue, it likely would have led him to ask question.  With what had happened with Gwen, amongst other things.....it seemed reasonable to him.

Motivation for Brock? Lol - maybe it was the acting, the script or something else - but Brock never seemed particularly bothered, and he had all the motivation he needed when he got fired. Gwen was in jazz bars with Parker and Brock never seemed to mind, so i'm guessing spidey saving her life wouldnt have been too distressing for him!

With some careful editing dont you begin to see the film that was hidden beneath the debris?

You might want to watch the movie again and watch more closely how Brock reacts.  He DOES seem to mind.  And we're talking about his dislike for SPIDEY, not Peter.  He was willing to besmirtch spidey 'cause he was pissed off about what went on, at the ceremony, between Gwen and Spidey.  His dislike/hatred for PETER stemmed from getting fired.  He didn't find out until much later in the movie they were the same person.

Again, I liked it for what it was.  I think expecting more, all things considered, might not be realistic.

[Izzy]

Again, I liked it for what it was.? I think expecting more, all things considered, might not be realistic.

Spiderman 1 and 2 had no trouble offering a mature ''human'' tale, filled with great acting, effects and clever story telling

...it was too much to expect the same from part 3?

...why?

Two film limit on quality?

I didnt expect, want or need Godfather-esque performances or direction, the same level as the first two would have been just fine.

[Axlfreek]

Why the fuck would they get a skinny little shit head like Topher Grace to play eddy brock ?!

Wasn't Eddy Brock a big muscular football player ?

[Lucky]

bad peter parker looks like gay Hitler gone "Bee Gees".

+


=

[pilferk]

Spiderman 1 and 2 had no trouble offering a mature ''human'' tale, filled with great acting, effects and clever story telling

...it was too much to expect the same from part 3?

...why?

Two film limit on quality?

I didnt expect, want or need Godfather-esque performances or direction, the same level as the first two would have been just fine.

See, and there's where we're going to disagree......I don't see this as a whole lot different than the first two, other than it stroked the "fan bois" a little less directly by veering even further from the plot of the comics.  NONE of these movies have outstanding acting. Dunst's turn as MJ in the first movie bordered on wooden, and surpassed wooden in the 2nd.  Willem Dafoe played a great Norman Osbourne, but his Goblin wasn't great as it was played WAY too over the top to be taken as a "serious" acting performance. At points it made Nicholson's turn as the Joker appear understated. Molina's turn as Otto was passable, but he came off too smarmy for my tastes. There are/were plot contrivances littered throughout the first movie, more of them in the 2nd, and yes, still more in the 3rd.    The effects have been the strong suit in all 3 movies, including this one (even the critics giving mixed reviews on Spidey 3 admit the effects are still amazing.

You didn't like it.  Bummer for you.  I'm not sure, exactly, why this one pushed your buttons the wrong way while the first 2 didn't. Is it that we didn't get the "villian motivational development" that we got with Norman and Otto?  If that's your big grip, I agree.  It just wasn't enough of a factor to ruin the movie for me.

 It was a summer popcorn flick.....not the best of the 3 movies, but good enough to be entertaining for 2 hours and 20 minutes.  Given the box office numbers, even with the 60% drop off, it looks like a whole lot of other people think so too.

You say you're not expecting "Godfather" quality, but then critique it exactly like you do.  That's what's confusing me.  You seem to want realism and believability from a movie based on the fantastic, based on a comic book setting.  You seem to want deep character exposition...and I'll grant you, I wouldn't have minded a bit more dedicated to that  (especially on the Sandman front) rather than the singing and dancing....but I'm not sure this type of movie NEEDS it to be entertaining or successful.

[pilferk]

bad peter parker looks like gay Hitler gone "Bee Gees".

You know, it's funny.  When I saw him doing his "Bee Gee" walk down the street, I kept thinking: This guy should go try out for Springtime for Hitler.

[Izzy]

You say you're not expecting "Godfather" quality, but then critique it exactly like you do.? That's what's confusing me.? You seem to want realism and believability from a movie based on the fantastic, based on a comic book setting.? You seem to want deep character exposition...and I'll grant you, I wouldn't have minded a bit more dedicated to that? (especially on the Sandman front) rather than the singing and dancing....but I'm not sure this type of movie NEEDS it to be entertaining or successful.

U misunderstand, i didnt like the film because it was clumsy, amateurish and very VERY cheap

The effects were awful in numerous places, the direction sloppy, the editing non existent

I have no problem with Parker dancing away and suddenly able to play the piano, but plots that go nowhere, a running time dragged to a daft length by go-nowhere scenes and utter contempt for the audience is just going to far

Raimi didnt even manage to make the film coherant.

edit> the film is such shite i'm still discovering new absurdities to it - JJ Jameson's blood pressure tablets apparently caused him to forget it was Parker who stole his son's fiance This film cracks me up