Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

AICN-DOWNUNDER: SPIDER-MAN 3, ZODIAC, and massive changes to the Australian film industry!

First, mate by Laserbrain	May 14th, 2007 10:25:10 AM
Bewdy!
I was always confused by the AFC, the AFFC & FA by Regicidal_Maniac	May 14th, 2007 10:36:30 AM
Basically the amalgamation means that filmmakers now have just one government funding body to get rejected by instead of three. Eh, still better than none I guess.
Downunder Dude, you gotta understand... by Kid Z	May 14th, 2007 10:52:49 AM
... the USA is bought, owned and run by corporations. A corporation's only function is to maximize profits... nothing else. They don't care about plot, story structure, internal logic, etc... all they care about is maximizing their monetary returns. They also hold the view that, in all cases, "more is more". Hence the cluttering up of S-M 3 with too many villains and competing plotlines. More is more... put more villains in it, add that "Venom" character, the kids like that one, add that blonde girl... the suits just want more... more characters to them equal more profits from more toys, tie-in products, Happy Meals, etc. They do not care if it makes the flick unweildy, don't care that it makes for a lousy story and a convoluted mess of a film... they know that the film will pull in mega millions in the first couple weeks of release anyway... so what the fuck? Faced with all these notes and edicts from corporate headquarters, Raimi did the best he could.... in lesser hands, Spidey 3 would have been nigh-unwatchable. As it is, it's only semi-unwatchable.
your review by brassai2003	May 14th, 2007 10:56:34 AM
Thanks for the Zodiac review...has Pirates of the Caribbean 2 hit there yet? and if so, could you review it!
Another thing... by Kid Z	May 14th, 2007 10:57:48 AM
... I'm convinced that the infamous "dance sequence" was added in an attempt to make Spidey 3 more sellable in the Asian markets, specifically India. All the suits see is 1 billion paying customers and they have an addle-brained idea of what Bollywood's all about... "Yeah, it's a huge market, and they like to have singing and dancing in all their movies! Let's have Raimi add a dance sequence, they'll love that in Bangalore!"... Voila, out-of-place, moronic dance number in Spider-Man 3!
Good Spidey review by Abominable Snowcone	May 14th, 2007 11:13:03 AM
It says what a lot of us have been saying in a concise way.
Aunt May taught piano lessons by Logo Lou	May 14th, 2007 11:36:15 AM
She mentioned it in Spider-Man 2. So why wouldn't Peter be able to play the piano? And if the black suit enhances things, why wouldn't it enhance his piano skills? I loved the whole dance/musical scene. I still thought the movie wan't as great as it could have been, but that scene doesn't bother me in the least.
You didn't like Spidey 3? SO ORIGINAL! by Seph_J	May 14th, 2007 11:42:50 AM
Harry... why do you have this guy working here? On a film website, one that continually claims to be made BY geeks FOR geeks, how can you have someone writing on here who says "but SPIDER-MAN 3 is the only film I've seen in the past month". I mean come on..... even that annoying cunt 'Errr' who only does 'little miss' talkback headers is more qualified to write on here. No offence dude, but not writing anything for weeks, and then appearing with yet another identical SPIDEY 3 review saying how supposedly crap it was (and admitting to it being the only film they saw this month) is very poor indeed. Harry, at least you were HONEST in your Spidey 3 review, admitting to liking it. Most people cant seem to do that.
and anyone who wonders "Why was the black goo there"... by Seph_J	May 14th, 2007 11:46:17 AM
... in a SPIDER-MAN film is clearly only out on day release. Its like saying "I thought Spider-man 3 was a great film.... except from the idea of a man who does whatever a spider can... that part just didn't make sense!".
He doesn't "wonder why the black goo was there"... by Kid Z	May 14th, 2007 11:58:45 AM
... He wonders, along with the rest of us with a brain, "why the black goo was there, just literally conveniently dropped into the story, with no explanation at all."
well, those of us with a BIGGER brain also wonder... by Seph_J	May 14th, 2007 12:08:22 PM
... how is an alien symbiote conceived? I know Carnage is officially the spawn of Venom, however how was Venom created? THE FILM DIDN'T EXPLAIN IT!! BOO HOOO!!!!!! I also wanted to know if the molecular experiment dudes actually paid for the sand they used in their experiments, or if they just nicked it from the nearest beach? ITS SO IMPORTANT TO THE PLOT. My point... 'Kid Z' is that explaining WHY black goo fell out of the sky is pointless and unnecessary. Why did Spider-man choose RED clothes, when I hear PINK is IN this year?
RE: Why does this column exist? by DocBosch	May 14th, 2007 12:24:55 PM
Because a whole lot of (notable) movies are made in Australia and NZ.
The pain, the pain... by half vader	May 14th, 2007 12:26:48 PM
Ohhhh Lat. You got me this time. Here I am thinking fuck me is he ever gonna release another AICN/DU column with the Dad-joke bonus, and POW. I've a good mind to grab you by the noise and pull up very very quickly. A nostril wedgie, if you will. Or even if you won't. Yeesh. And stop calling me 'Vadar', you spelling-challenged writer you. The 'pointy dance' sequence was just an extension of the 'raindrops are falling on my head' thing, Kid Z. It's not like it was without precedent, as most seem to claim. Yes it went too far but at least it was enjoyably awful! Also, what IS with the black goo implausibility thing (I'm with you Seph)? THey actually set it up fairly concisely with Peter and MJ lying on the web watching the METEOR SHOWER. Everyone seems to forget that bit. How much screentime exactly do you want to waste getting the goo to Spidey in a 'realistic' way? The romance/menace twist/gearchange is actually quite nice and economical. It's not like that story element requires any more suspension of disbelief than the central conceit, as Seph said. Same with everyone bagging the 'computery' effects but conveniently ignoring the atrocious old-school rear-projection. Or again forgiving/ignoring the appalling jingoism with the American flag that disrupts the scene and story flow for a bit of fucking chest beating? Save your verbal assault for the Godawful newsreader chick at the end, and the kid that says "wicked-cool". They deserve it. And those mugging extras, and "Nuff said" and... And why are we getting new releases consistently now even before the States, but we have to wait 'til Zodiac completes its domestic run and they palm their shitty scratched prints off on us? It ain't right, damn it.
DocBosch by half vader	May 14th, 2007 12:33:29 PM
Also, Hollywood is overrun by Aussie actors. The only thing is most Americans (and even sometimes American casting directors) don't realise because said actors are infinitely better at doing American accents than vice-versa. Interesting to see if Johnny Depp can handle it when he plays that doctor. Although he has had a lot of warmup time with pom accents. Maybe Gillian Anderson could do it too...
I liked Spidey 3 immensely.... however by Seph_J	May 14th, 2007 12:35:23 PM
that newsreporter chick in the climactic fight was indeed godawful. I dont know if being English enables me to hear when someone can't speak a line in English convincingly, or if it was obvious to EVERYONE that the delivery of her lines was painful to listen to. A lot of things have got a bad wrap in this film... but the only thing that really deserves it (and yet seems to have been missed) is that woman.
I agree with the SM3 review by misnomer	May 14th, 2007 12:45:25 PM
although, I'm not quite as forgiving. I still want Raimi and Tobey et all on board, but they should be in control, not the studio. Unlike EVERYONE, I actually really liked the dance scene and the pointing...totally how the movieverse peter parker would act. The story arc I would have cut out would have been Pete and MJ's problems; totally the weakest part of the script. Theres alot of padding too that could have been chopped - that time could have been given to Sandman and the black suit. Venom got enough screentime as far as I'm concerned. And yes, the news reporter has to go.
"Boxing Day of 1906" by YokoTits	May 14th, 2007 01:27:37 PM
This guy's a dork. AICN doesn't need any more of those.
C'mon Seph... by Kid Z	May 14th, 2007 01:56:48 PM
...I don't need a molecular breakdown of the material comprising the black goo (symbiote)... I DO expect better storytelling than to just have it drop out of the sky and have it land conveniently next to the protaganist of the story. That's just expecting a bit too much suspension of disbelief. It's the kind of haphazard scripting one would expect from an early Silver Age or Golden Age comic... one that current era Marvel would probably publish a maxi-series to ret-con an explanation for.
Concur by michaeljbyrd	May 14th, 2007 02:49:06 PM
I do, that the symbiote was weak "here ya go" storytelling. More here ya go moments are the Sandman/Venom 10 second fight/shake hands/go kill Spidey scene. And of course the butler. I did enjoy it, however it was lackluster.
Also, bout Harry's review by michaeljbyrd	May 14th, 2007 02:53:18 PM
I don't think he was as honest as you'd believe. When he likes a film, he gushes on and on and on. You have to scroll down for miles. Not so with this one. It was all defense and not good defense.
The fact that you didn't like Zodiac as much as.... by Err	May 14th, 2007 03:07:29 PM
Fight Club shows that you suck at reviewing films. You fail.
Mao Money, LOL! by P2Rock	May 14th, 2007 03:08:58 PM
Err... this is a joke right? Just checking.
You dumb left wing fuck hole by fuckyoucocksucker	May 14th, 2007 04:53:02 PM
First of all, why the fuck should taxpayers money fund shit Australian films? And second, this country has never been run better under the current government. You're a dumb, bitter, left wing, cry baby fuck hole loser. Go fuck yourself cry baby.
aussie by silent 1	May 14th, 2007 05:26:52 PM
aussie films are shit except for kenny.
hey fuckyoucocksucker by Happyfat73	May 14th, 2007 05:52:31 PM
Janette Howard called... she wants you to get your lips off her husband's cock. Don't worry, though, you'll have plenty of time to fellate him when he's unemployed (which aint too far off now). Now, despite your display of boorish wankery, I agree that Aust film needs to break free of the yoke of govt film funding. Not necesarily because films shouldn't be funded by taxpayers, but because the current system favours films with a cultural imperative over films with an imperative to entertain. Thus, we end up with boring, cultural fare like Jindabyne.
Never run better... by Tourist	May 14th, 2007 06:30:43 PM
I agree with removing taxation funding for all Australian media. I also think we should abolish funding for non defensive millitary operations, and also get rid of the small army of ride on lawnmowers needed to tackle the lawn around parliment house. Ever heard of conrete? Pebbles? Forcing Australian production companies to make profitable films, might actually have the effect of creating a real film industry, producing films that aren't self indulgent, lazy tripe. However, the 10Ba scheme and 10B schemes really should not be abolished. Thats my money the Government steals, so offering to steal a little less if you invest in a motion picture is not a big ask.
i think by onefatman	May 14th, 2007 07:24:36 PM
fuckyoucocksucker needs to take a breather and settle the fuck down. Why does anyone who ever criticises the current government in any way automatically becomes a left-wing commie bastard? Also, silent 1 did you see suburban mayhem? absolutely amazing.
also by onefatman	May 14th, 2007 07:29:45 PM
Ease up on the old latauro - Browncoatjedi the reason there's an AICN-DU is that we have a journalist who's (usually) willing to commit his time to providing reviews for this website, and there's enough of an industry to provide him with the content to offer. I'm sure that if someone from Peru decides they've got enough to write about regularly and if there's enough of an audience who want to read about Peru's film scene then nothing would stop it. Latauro, I think you're doing a good job - dad jokes and all. Oh except for the giant gaps in posting. Maybe you should organise some more Aussie contributors to pick up your slack when you're bazura-ing? If you pay for the movies I'll go review them for you.
I still don't get the Alien3 bashing by ewokstew	May 14th, 2007 07:33:31 PM
The only real problem with Alien 3 is that there was an Alien 1 and 2 that it had to follow in the footsteps of. That and the crappy composite effects from the now defunct Boss Films.
As a matter of fact by ewokstew	May 14th, 2007 07:37:08 PM
Fincher's worst films are still better than a lot of other director's best films.
hang on seph by slappy jones	May 14th, 2007 07:40:15 PM
soyou are trying to imply that people who say they hated spider man 3 are not being honest? that we actually allloved it and decided we would just say we hated for no reason whatsoever? fuck i hate that kind of arguing "oh you just hate it because its cool too" or " i know its cool to hate it at the moment" fuck that is the worst kind of arguing...lame lame lame. I could just as easy say taht you only say you like spider man 3 because everyone seems to hate and you are just trying to be different. but that is not the case at all is it...see how ridiculous it sounds.i have seen long detailed list of reasons why some of us passionately dislike spider man 3 but no one seems to defend the film itself rather they just attack or abuse the people who hated it. even the whole lucas thing...everyone just attacked star wars rather than actually explain how spider man wasn't silly. because it was silly...and regardless of what lucas has made he is right. spider man 3 is a very very silly movie.
Latauro responds to retards! by Latauro	May 14th, 2007 07:42:14 PM
Actually, I'm responding to the non-retards as well, but I liked that subject line. Here goes... Sylar-eats-brains: Did you read my review? I know it's difficult to handle complexity beyond single words like love and hate, but if you commit all of your brainpower to it, you might actually see what I thought of it! brassai2003: How simultaneously original and funny! The name of this column is AICN-Downunder. As I stated in the actual review, the rest of the world is getting this film in the coming week. Comments like yours are merely tiresome. KidZ: I like your Bollywood theory, but I do believe that Raimi was passionate about putting that sequence in. There's passion there, which is why I don't loathe it, I just can't understand what it's doing there. Browncoat Jedi: Because I live in Australia, not Peru. I wasn't headhunted. I wrote in and mentioned there hadn't been an AICN-D in over a year, did they want me to write it? Crazy thought: if you don't care about it, don't read it. SephJ: Those of you with a bigger brain, huh? Well, when I evolve a bit more, hopefully I'll be satisfied with deus ex machinas of "Where did that come from?" "Fell out of the sky" "Oh." SephJ again: Man, you nailed it! I was totally making it up when I wrote my opinions on Spidey here! It's awesome that you know me so well you can tell when I'm lying about my opinions in order to... er... um... Wow. Your theory stops holding up after you examine it for a microsecond. Weird. Err: Holy crap, Zodiac is unquestionably better at Fight Club? Could you send me the definitive list that ranks all movies in relation to one another? That way I won't make the same mistake again! Retard. fuckyoucocksucker: Exactly the user name I'd expect from someone who thinks John Howard is doing a good job. Well done.
And quickly... by Latauro	May 14th, 2007 07:45:41 PM
ewokstew: I don't hate on Alien 3, I just don't think it's one of Fincher's best. But I do agree that Fincher's worst is better than many directors' best. onefatman and others: Thank you for the kind comments. Although do we really need to characterise the Next Week bits as "dad jokes"...? Really? Oh well.
zodiac by ephor	May 14th, 2007 08:15:44 PM
saw it last night in an advanced screening. I too was surprised by the fairly "quiet" response the film seemed to get on opening in the US. This is the best film I have seen this year. And one of the best I have seen in years. I was totally engrossed from start to finish. In fact I was only aware of the time because of a huge frozen coke which left me with a full bladded about half way through. But the last time I remember looking at the time was about 7:50pm and it finished about 9:15. Somehow, astonishingly, the 2nd half runs smoother than the 1st half, which for a film of 2.5hrs plus is a pretty amazing achievement. Now, do I recall someone on this site mentioning a 3HR cut they saw which was superior? I'm hanging out for that one!
Welcome Back by Leedrick	May 14th, 2007 09:17:54 PM
So the prodigal son returns. Don't expect a fatherly embrace from me just yet, I'll wait to see how regular this thing really is. Oh I can't stay mad at that cheeky little face. Thanks for an excellent column. I know you don't listen to the retards, but for a confidence boost, know that your column is the main reason I still visit aicn. That and the "damn you michael bay!" comments. I liked your spiderman review, and after losing interest in zodiac I'll definitely check it out based on your recommendation. The last season of bazura was awesome - vote sent.
The damn newsreader by Allfather Starr	May 14th, 2007 09:45:36 PM
I too can't believe how no-one complained about her. I'm English, and it was really noticable that her accent and delivery were just terrible. Add to that the bit with the Star and Stripes, I almost puked. And Lat, don't mind the grumpy Yanks who are up too late and have nothing better to do but complain. I agreed wholeheartedly with your review of SM3. Funnily enough I went for a weekend in the Blue Mountains, you know how when you rent out one of these cottages they also have a collection of old videos there. Well they had a video of Spiderman and his Amazing Friends that we all remember from our childhood. Three episodes of that was MUCH more fun that watching Spider-Man 3. Strange but true.
BrowncoatJedi by scumbag	May 14th, 2007 10:00:29 PM
More people care about this column than care about you, so why the fuck do YOU exist?
half vader by Leedrick	May 14th, 2007 10:21:22 PM
So because you can see a meteor in the sky, it means there's a good chance one will land right next to you? Everyone in new york would have seen that. The convenience of it landing right next to him is just stupid.
AICN-Australia by NudeGobblin	May 15th, 2007 12:19:47 AM
I'm an Aussie (won't tell you that my job is riding a lawnmover around Parl House...) but can someome tell me where the 'cool' bits of news are in this thread?
Well, uh. yeah Leedrick. by half vader	May 15th, 2007 12:22:35 AM
In so much as it's just a plot device. "A letter will arrive' you know. Why expend energy and screentime on how it got there when where it's going or who it gets is much more important? You really want that movie to be even LONGER so everyone can be satisfied that an ALIEN GOOmonster had a logically sound trip and airtight reason for finding a man who can stick to walls? And sorry to give them the benefit of the doubt but the impression I got was that there were a few more than one. Surely not everyone is so anally retentive that they need to see ever- oh. Sorry. Forgot where I was. Dramatic licence for crying out loud. What about the goblin? It's not exactly believable for a host of reasons that he'd be the new bad guy with even more advanced gear - certainly no more than the meteor silliness, but it's all beside the dramatic point. How ridiculous is the Sandman? It's like saying JJJ's intercom would NEVER be that loud. You'd be right, but it'd be a lot less funny too. Can we agree to disagree on this one? Arguing convenience seems a bit bloody redundant my friend. In films like this it's more often than not that emotional logic wins out, wanky as that sounds. I'm just saying it's small stuff so don't sweat it! Back to work for me.
Small stuff indeed.... by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 12:30:42 AM
If you wanna moan about every plot point, you could just say theres no way anything that happened in any film ever, would ever really happen... therefore the only films that are any good, are tapes of unedited CCTV footage... because everything that occurs in that could actually REALLY happen. Remember, scripts are SCRIPTED. And yes, somebody did sit down and decide what happens. Thats the truth!
Ok, because i'm kind... by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 12:43:56 AM
... I will give you all a reason why the BLACK GOO attached itself to PP's bike. I don't believe it... but if its SO important to you all, here is the animated series "Return of Venom" solution: The BLACK GOO was sent to Earth by Dormammu. Now, I dont see why somebody from the Dark Dimension wouldn't have enough power to guide the meteor to a particular forest where they know PP just happens to be. Seems plausible to me. So now you can sleep confident that there are absolutely NO PLOT HOLES WHATSOEVER in Spider-man 3.
My $0.02 on the black goo by Happyfat73	May 15th, 2007 12:50:13 AM
For me the thing about the black goo that annoyed me wasn't so much that it just happened to land near Parker, so much as the fact that it conveniently hid under his bed until the plot dictated it should emerge. That's lazy script-writing in any language. Also lazy script-writing: The Sandman's tacked on sick daughter, then stumbling into the worst contained scientific experiment in the history of science. I wanted to like Spiderman 3 so much. I was predisposed to like it and I would have given it a fair bit of leeway. Unfortunately it was so uneven that I can't give it a free pass. It would go from plodding scenes of sappy sentimentality to brain-jarring CGI camerabatics in a matter of seconds. When it comes out on DVD, I'll probably rent it and just skip to the action sequences.
BLACK GOO by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 12:58:55 AM
Maybe it hid in Parkers room because its a metaphor for the darkness the lurks inside all of us. As in.... its pretty much hiding in all of our bedrooms.... and the strongest of us choose not to embrace it. Black Goo = turning to the dark side. Anakin did it... he chose to. The potential for it was 'hiding in his' blood from birth. I'm sure if the scriptwriters didn't want the BLACK GOO to wait in PP's room for most of the film, they could easily have just had the meteorite hit later in the story and attach itself to Parker immediately. But THAT would have been lazy writing.
I didn't think Sandman's daugter was tacked on at all.. by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 01:03:57 AM
... you can't really say that a characters MOTIVE for doing something is tacked on. Thats like saying Luke Skywalker joined the alliance for fun... but then decided to tack on his desire to fight the empire. Haden Church was the best thing about Spidey 3.
And maybe it hid under his bed... by Happyfat73	May 15th, 2007 01:09:09 AM
... because it struck up a friendship with one of Peter's wankerchiefs. The point is, I'm seeing a lot of apologists clutching at straws to justify some really weak plotting. And don't even get me started on the whole amnesia bit! The direction and production of the film are top notch - it's just a pity that the script was weaker than Freddy Mercury's immune system.
clutching at perfectly valid straws by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 01:14:36 AM
to justify plot devices which are perfectly justifiable. The amnesia bit wasn't lazy plotting because it didn't last very long. It's not like the reason Goblin helped Spidey was because he had amnesia. He REMEMBERED again. The amnesia just makes life more difficult to Peter when he does finally remember. Lazy plotting would be the example I mentioned; if the amnesia was permanent and they teamed up BECAUSE of the bump on Harrys head.
Actually Seph... by Happyfat73	May 15th, 2007 01:24:57 AM
I'm kinda enjoying your justifications for these things. You're right, Harry did remember... and then decided to help Spidey after Jeeves sauntered into the room to deliver a maddeningly convenient lump of exposition. As for the amnesia... just HAVING amnesia in this film is a black mark. There should be a moratorium on Amnesia in movies. And the sick daughter is tacked on because she's shown at the start of Flint Marko's character arc and then only vaguely referenced thereafter as an excuse for him to steal money without being a total prick. I wonder if her name was MacGuffin? To be fair though, the Sandman effects were outstanding and the scene of Sandman learning to form a human shape was a really great scene.
massive changes to the Australian film industry by Alonzo Mosely	May 15th, 2007 01:36:24 AM
They bought a new camera...
Vader and Seph by Leedrick	May 15th, 2007 01:43:07 AM
I agree there are other things that make the script lazy. I don't know why you use that in defense of the film. Why have anything make sense? It takes up too much time! Just make a big fight scene with random baddies!!! It could have been done better, so why not? Removing one of the villains could have made space for it.
Question for An Aussie by Thornie	May 15th, 2007 01:53:29 AM
Hey, anyone... Lat... all u Aussie guys float in the same circles.... is the guy that's producing that new Tyrese Gibson movie, Condition Dead, the same Clint Morris from Moviehole? coindecence? Saw it here : http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire /index.php?category=3&id=41257
A weird thing about Spidey Three by Franklin T Marmoset	May 15th, 2007 03:06:35 AM
I've been reading everyone's complaints, nit-picks and whatnot (and enjoying Seph_J's spirited defense) and while I agree with almost all of them, I still liked the film. Strange. Spider-Man 3 is riddled with problems (and adheres perfectly to Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy structure - Part 1: Great - Part 2: Greater - Part 3: Intermittently enjoyable clusterfuck) and yet I really liked it and can't wait to see it again. I don't know what that means.
Spidey 3 by bender7	May 15th, 2007 03:49:29 AM
Good review actually, I felt the same. The movies biggest problem was that it was patchy. By the finale all belivability and impact had gone. Venom was horrible, I mean I think Raimi see's Venom and Carnage as the same character. I liked the 'Emo' Spidey bit though, it reminded me of the Evil Supes in Superman 3
Sylar-eats-brains, by raw_bean	May 15th, 2007 04:05:30 AM
if you were as intelligent as Latauro, you might know that people from Peru are Peruvians, not 'Peruians'. And good luck trying to bait Lat into another response defending Australia: I think he's probably realised you're only hoping to inflate your feeling of self-worth and he'll probably now ignore you now. Take what you can from this post, it's all you're getting from me.
Amnesia in films = black mark.... by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 04:17:09 AM
...Yeh, that Memento had a really lazy script didn't it.
Leedrick I agree... by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 04:26:51 AM
... the (guilty) reason why I like the 90s animated Spider-man series SOOOO much, is because they do have characters, and the stories are given, however it really is just 20 minutes of action and fighting. And they aren't scared to throw 10 villains into a story. X3 was bad because character integrity was forsaken. (Any mutant who chooses to cure themselves is like saying HEY IM A BLACK MAN, but now I can be white!! Yay!!!). Raimi wouldn't and doesn't screw his characters. But he does try to bring a little bit of COMIC BOOK action to his COMIC BOOK film. Why is having two villains a bad thing? (Harry ain't a villain... he's part of a very important subplot about a friend). Try reading a few comics, or watching a few cartoons. See how many villains Spider-man traditionally fights in each. Spider-man 3 was a restrained movie.
More stuffs by Latauro	May 15th, 2007 05:20:55 AM
raw_bean: That was part of the reason I stopped responding to him. The rest was that I had no idea what he was talking about. (Apparently I cure cancer now... and I didn't realise "Peruians" meant "Peruvians" until you translated!) Thornie: I believe it is. Mr Moviehole seems to be quite active in the producing world at the moment. Spidey: There's a big difference between a plot hole and lazy writing. A plot hole is Norman Osborne turning up in film three as if nothing had happened to him. Lazy writing is meteor lands, goes after Peter, then waits half the film before attaching himself to him. I don't need to know its complete history, and I don't need to know its molecular makeup. I need suspension of disbelief (as do we all), and this took me out of the story. Big time. And I've seen Spidey fight multiple villains in comic books, but this isn't a comic book. Compare the running times of the films to the decades worth of Spider-man comics.
Latauro by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 06:32:26 AM
Norman Osborne wasn't in Spider-man three you anus. This is Harry's perception of what his father would think of him. Did you really think that was a physical return of Norman Osborne? haaaa. I dont understand how BLACK GOO meteorite landing near PP could possibly take you out of the story about a boy who acquires the powers of a fucking spider. What does the running time have to do with anything?
Seph_J by Latauro	May 15th, 2007 07:51:49 AM
Obviously, I was speaking in hypotheticals. Yes, I did have enough grasp of the incredibly complex plot to figure out that Norman did not physically appear. I also don't accept that "boy acquires powers of spider" is an automatic free pass to let them do whatever they want. If the next film features ghosts, time traveling vampires and 2D animated sidekicks, will you be upset with the direction the film took? Or will you simply say "boy has spider powers" and wave your hand dismissively? All films have an internal logic. Yes, the Spider-man films feature people gaining extraordinary abilities, but care is taken to explain why Norman becomes the way he becomes, why Dock Ock becomes the way he becomes, etc... There is care taken with the story. When they stop taking this care and instead give us two seconds of "meteorite lands with black goo that follows Peter", I feel a little patronised. As do many of my fellow viewers. What does the running time have to do with anything? Well, the first story that included Venom wasn't told hurridly during a four-way climactic battle, was it? In the comics, Venom was established, then he returned, and returned again... Once these villains had been established in their own right, THEN they were involved in multiple fights. The Spider-man comics wer able to do a lot with these villains because many stories were told over a long period of time. In the movies, we only get two hours with each villain, and aside from upping toy sales, I don't see what is gained from having multiple villains stepping on each others' toes.
I would say having an entire by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 08:04:42 AM
I would say having an entire origin movie for every villain would not be very entertaining. tThe first Spider-man film came under fire for having SPIDER-MANS origin. Do you really think Venom's ORIGIN needed more time? What more could be done? I would argue that Venom needed more screentime for action, but the origin was simple, concise and fine. Ghosts and time-travelling vampires? You think Marvel doesn't have these? Dude, do your research. Internal logic is fine by me.... therefore (as I previously said) jus believe that DORMAMMU sent the BLACK GOO to earth, and deliberately had it fall in close proximity to the powerful host of Spider-man. I myself am comfortable enough with the universe, and happy enough with the characters to understand the type of plots the Marvel uses, and I am able to suspend my disbelief accordingly. This I am able to do because I understand that for me to gain any enjoyment from watching and reading such stories, I must be able to do this little thing. People who can't accept a narrative device to further the plot shouldn't watch these films.
............what? by Latauro	May 15th, 2007 08:23:12 AM
Who the fuck is Dormammu? How does that equate with the Spider-man film having internal logic? If I need to have read specific issues of Spider-man from god-knows-how-long-ago in order to understand the black goo storyline, then there's no question -- NONE -- that the film has failed in delivering a cohesive narrative. (Seriously... Dormammu?) I like your sweeping statement that the first film "came under fire" for featuring Spidey's origin. Um... really? Was this the general consensus? I'm sure you can find one or two people who felt this way (I know Tim Burton hates origin stories), but I'm sure I could find one or two people who thought that Spider-man 3 failed because Harry's butler wasn't the main character. Don't make shit up. It wastes everybody's time (says I, arguing on a talkback). My favourite bit: your final three sentences, which -- when placed together as they are -- suggest that anyone who hasn't read all of the Spider-man comics and doesn't know that time travelling vampires exist in the MU and should therefore be introduced at random into the Spidey movies shouldn't watch these films. Is that it? Or are you suggesting that magic black goo is a narrative device? It's narrative laziness, buddy. Please stop arguing your same defunct point over and over again because you found a new order in which to place the words.
Dude, I could deconstruct your post by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 08:42:40 AM
... I could give you references to spidey 1 reviews, I could find ghost and time travelling vampire storylines (i really could) in the marvel back catalogue, and I could explain who Dormammu is.... or I could stop wasting my time. Yes I am arguing the same point again and again... because its valid. Its better than arguing 20 invalid reasons why everyone should hate spider-man 3. Therefore, consider my time no longer wasted.
Except... by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 09:01:06 AM
Firstly im gonna say a short sentence that other stupid people will laugh at, but which only highlights my own ignorance "Who the fuck is Dormammu?" This is the first part of my traditonal three-part talkback reply which usually only deals with semantics and acts as a desperate attempt to save face in a discussion in which I have failed to make my point. Insert recap brackets here, in an attempt to get another laugh: (Seriously... Dormammu?) Then, in my second part (which actually doesn't have a real point, but which only takes something small that you have said and questions it, i'm going to try to flesh out my weak 'comeback' with a genuine inquiry into where I get my information from. A simple comment such as 'spider-man 1 came under fire' prompts you to question this. Is this actually a part of my arguement? No, it was merely a way of introducing my point. I dont claim it to be fact. Im not sure which governing body actually awards the official status of something having 'come under fire', but if you know, please tell me, so I can validate my arguement in future. (dont forget the brackets again, which actually attempt to diminsh me by implying that by even responding to you I am wasting my time... ironic?: (says I, arguing on a talkback). And no real example of a three stage 'comeback' would be complete without the final sentance, which traditonally begins with the words: 'My favourite bit' which imply my post was so ludicrous that you were laughing out loud and even managed to appoint a certain section as your favourite! This one is an assumption "suggest that" but it's a cleverly disguised admission that you haven't indeed read the comics (and therefore are unable to respond to my comic related post). Now, to finish off im going to joking refer to you (buddy) and imply that you are wasting our time, with thoughtless opinions: "arguing your same defunct point over and over again". And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of what I call the 'three-stage talkback comeback' or as I like to call it, the: TSTC. A great way of saying a lot, without actually saying anything.
SPide man was amazing. I by mike_danger	May 15th, 2007 12:26:12 PM
SPide man was amazing. I here that some English guy 'Joh nCaro is gonna DIrect the next film.
SPide man was amazing. I by mike_danger	May 15th, 2007 12:26:23 PM
SPide man was amazing. I hear that some English guy 'Joh nCaro is gonna DIrect the next film.
not heard about that one mate... by Seph_J	May 15th, 2007 12:55:04 PM
whats John Caro directed before?
Where's Grindhouse?! by snurp69	May 15th, 2007 07:57:52 PM
Lat, tell me! Where did it go? Is it coming out?
hey Seph_J by onefatman	May 16th, 2007 08:28:45 PM
fuck off
More S-M3 by Power Girl	May 17th, 2007 04:34:11 AM
I agree with your comment about the mix bag of sequences within the movie that made it bearable. On the first viewing, I had a lot of trouble with the dance sequence, but on the second watch, that was one of the few scenes I enjoyed. I'll agree that it wasn't a good film, but if you can be content to take the good scenes from the movie and just enjoy them on their own merit, it makes the incredibly crowded movie watchable - despite the very lazy writing.

Talkbacks

AICN-DOWNUNDER: SPIDER-MAN 3, ZODIAC, and massive changes to the Australian film industry!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks