When Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man premiered in July 2012, the general reaction seemed to be: well, it’s better than Spider-Man 3, obviously. A few passionate defenders called Amazing a better, more faithful representation of the Peter Parker and Spidey of the comic books than the Sam Raimi take, but for the most part, the movie seems to have been met with something between an affectionate shrug and an encouraging smile. But at least it was better than Spider-Man 3. Obviously.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (for serious, you guys still aren’t going with The Spectacular Spider-Man for a sequel title?) opens this weekend to kick off the summer movie season, and while the early reviews seem a bit more mixed than its predecessor’s, it almost certainly won’t be treated with the same level of derision as Spider-Man 3. Obviously.
Now, I haven’t seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet. There will be a SportsAlcohol.com editorial summit on Friday night to determine what the deal with this movie is. But I have seen The Amazing Spider-Man, and the thing about that movie is: it’s not as good as Spider-Man 3. Not nearly.
The thing about Spider-Man 3 is: it’s actually pretty good.
Not as good as Spider-Man and certainly not as good as Spider-Man 2. To be sure, Spider-Man 3 is the weakest of Raimi’s de facto trilogy, and has two major problems that feed into each other: overcrowding and retconning. Before we get to the good stuff, these problems should be addressed.
The supposed problem of villain overcrowding has been noted at least since Batman Returns in 1992, and indeed, the first series of Batman movies seemed to add bad guys indiscriminately for easy stakes-raising. But as Christopher Nolan’s Batman series has shown, multiple villains don’t have to mean jammed-up storylines: that trilogy managed to include Ra’s al Ghul, Talia al Ghul, the Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow, Mr. Zsasz, Bane, Carmine Falcone, and Catwoman. Some had bigger roles than others, of course, but that’s pretty much the same number of villains that populate the Burton/Schumacher films.
Unfortunately, Spider-Man 3 adheres more to the Schumacher model of villains, only it’s applied to the entire cast. Apart from the introductions and transformations of Flint Marko (the Sandman) and Eddie Brock (Venom) and the revival of the Green Goblin in the guise of Harry Osborn, Spider-Man 3 adds Gwen Stacy (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) and her police-captain father while continuing to utilize its beloved supporting characters (Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Betty Brant, Curt Connors) and, if anything, upping the screentime afforded to Harry Osborn and Mary Jane Watson. The movie also serves its themes of internal conflict by having several main characters toggle back and forth between personalities, essentially piling on additional characters even when familiar ones are onscreen: Peter Parker bonds with an alien symbiote that brings out a dark side to his personality. Harry Osborn loses his memory (and thirst for vengeance against Peter/Spider-Man), then regains it. Mary Jane has a real flirtation with Harry, then is manipulated by him when he re-evils.
The movie has so little actual room for its characters that it ret-cons them into the earlier films whenever possible. Flint Marko turns out to be involved in the death of Peter’s Uncle Ben, just to give him some convenient incentive to seek symbiote-encouraged revenge. Less of a direct retcon but perhaps even more ridiculous, Bernard Houseman (John Paxton), the Osborn butler for the entire series, decides late in the film to come forward and tell Harry that his father was a murderous lunatic and that Parker did not kill him, and for some reason this and only this can convince Harry to renounce his evil ways (and for some reason Bernard did not see fit to share this information sooner).
Individually, most of the movie’s characters get a moment or three where they shine. Narratively, though, Spider-Man 3 is a mess. Both of the overcrowding and retconning stem from a script that seems unfinished at best; check out that patchwork bit where local news narrates Spider-Man’s big climactic fight with Venom and Sandman. There is also, as mentioned, some whiplash-inducing twists and reversals between Peter, Harry, and MJ in terms of who is wronging who and for what reason.
AND YET: Narrative is overrated sometimes. Spider-Man 3 is a lot of fun and far more good than bad. It came out a year after X-Men: The Last Stand, and for some reason that movie got a pass as a mild disappointment from a lot of fans, while Spider-Man 3 is still held up as something as a disaster. It’s not a disaster! It’s a pretty good movie with a pretty weak script! Surely you’ve heard of this practice before. It also takes Spider-Man to some new places, which is a lot more than I can say for The Amazing Spider-Man insisting that it’s taking a different approach while more or less remaking the first Raimi movie with a minimum or imagination. If we’re going to say that Marc Webb didn’t make a terrible Spider-Man movie, then we as a culture need to admit that Sam Raimi never made a terrible Spider-Man movie.
And so:
Ten Great Things about Spider-Man 3, In No Particular Order
1. Its action sequences and special effects.
Of course, a whole lot of superhero movies boast large-scale action sequences and serviceable-to-strong special effects. Then again, Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man has exactly one semi-memorable set piece, where the Lizard and Spider-Man fight through the halls of Parker’s high school (and if I recall correctly, the set-up for this sequence is pretty weak, as it follows what seems to be either a solid fifteen hours or so of the Lizard knowing Parker’s identity but failing to attack him, say, while he sleeps at night; or Parker returning to school immediately following a major supervillain dust-up. I think it’s the former. Either way, kind of stupid).
Spider-Man 3, meanwhile, boasts a number of high-flying sequences with whip-crack editing, like the Peter/Harry battle toward the beginning of the movie, the runaway crane that threatens to demolish a chunk of Manhattan, and the Sandman’s armored truck robbery. Some of them suffer ever so slightly from computerized overload; Spider-Man 2 probably still has the series’ best-looking effects shots and action sequences. But Sam Raimi knows how to knock characters into each other with style.
2. Its focus on the central trio of Peter, Mary Jane, and Harry.
Spider-Man as a movie series presents an immediate and unavoidably structural problem in that many of the best-loved comics storylines of yore feature Peter Parker as a teenager, which he could safely remain for years in the funnybook pages (you know, like Luann). In the movies, though, casting even a young-ish actor as Parker and sticking with him means that even a relatively swift sequel will nudge the actor further away from his original age, necessitating some aging of Peter along with him. One might posit that the movies have actually failed to properly try out this tactic, as Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire were both in their late twenties when playing high schooler Peter Parker (even the younger 2012-edition Emma Stone and 2002-edition Kirsten Dunst were solidly past high school ages when they entered the Spider-Man universe). But starting with a younger actor would solve the problem for, at best, probably one more sequel.
Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, though, actually does a nice job taking its characters through five years or so of growth. They’re graduating high school in the first one; adjusting to life in college and/or the real world in the second; and by the third, approaching actual adulthood. The movie confronts this uncomfortable transition head-on when Parker’s gee-whiz approach to his relationship fails to comfort MJ when she meets real failure early in Spider-Man 3. Similarly, while her eye drifting toward sullen brooder turned happy-go-lucky amnesiac turned supervillain Harry Osborn might seem like an odd retreat of territory from the first movie, it also makes sense that MJ might re-evaluate whether she and Harry have cahnged in ways that Peter hasn’t. Hardcore superhero fans and even probably lots of casual movie fans scoffed at the scene where MJ and Harry flirt over omelet-making in his massive kitchen, but I admire a superhero movie unafraid to pause for some human interaction. Harry and MJ making omelets isn’t exactly one of the hallway-tracking shots from Elephant, you know?
3. Specifically, Franco’s performance, his best as Harry Osborn.
Franco has an odd presence on screen. He can be troubled and magnetic, like on Freaks and Geeks, but many of his traditional movie-star roles bring out his bland side (though his work as an Ash-like jerk of a phony wizard in Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful is undervalued). He can be hilarious in movies as varied as Pineapple Express and Spring Breakers, while being straight-arrow dull in ensembles like the upcoming Third Person. The part of Harry Osborn ostensibly calls upon Franco’s charisma, sincerity, and menace, but in the first two movies he sometimes gets lost in the flash of the more dominant villains. But due to the aforementioned journey from anger to happiness to Green Goblinosity, Franco gets a lot of stuff to play in Spider-Man 3. From a plot perspective, probably too much. It’s still satisfying, though, when he finally teams up with Peter for a showdown with Sandman and Venom.
4. Even more specifically, his smug pleasure and pie appreciation after observing the destruction he hath wrought over Parker and MJ’s relationship.
5. A superhero story that hasn’t really been told before.
Even before a symbiotic menace from outer space gets its gunky hooks into Peter, he’s experiencing some major ego boosts. Spider-Man 3 finds him balancing his love life, nerd live, and secret superhero life, and feeling pretty psyched about it. In other words, Spider-Man 3 isn’t about the costs of being Spider-Man; it’s about the costs of success. That is actually super-interesting, because the usual superhero sequel finds things getting worse for the hero due to bigger/badder threats, the death of someone close to him, or some other exterior force. Here, Peter Parker is the reason for a lot of the bad stuff that happens to him. He’s not even indulging in insane arrogance or hubris, just pride. He may face a severe punishment for it, but that’s still an interesting counterpoint to the first movie’s post-9/11 rah-rah stuff.
6. The parts where Peter Parker has an emo haircut and dances and stuff.
When Parker becomes infected with the alien symbiote, he turns bad, and many a proud dipshit have proclaimed how fucking lame it is that Bad Peter Parker wears his hair in emo bangs and struts around like a dork. But as Dr. Curt Connors explains to a cookie-munching, milk-guzzling Parker on his payphone, the symbiote amplifies characteristics of the host. So Parker’s unassuming dorkiness becomes aggressive dorkiness, much to the disgust of women on the street who recoil as Parker gives ’em the old finger guns. Of course Bad Peter Parker vaguely resembles a wolf in a Tex Avery cartoon; haven’t we always suspected that The Mask was also a portrait of extremely dorky superherodom?
Also: beyond entirely justifiable plot mechanics, these goofball dance sequences are delightful, standing with Dr. Octopus attack in Spider-Man 2 as the Sam Raimi-est of any scenes in the trilogy not involving Bruce Campbell. The quick hair-blowing zooms in the sequence at the jazz club, the smash cut to Parker’s lips as he whispers “now dig on this”… this is why you pay Sam Raimi to make his Spider-Man movies. Even a fraction of that playfulness would be nice to see from Marc Webb, who got his start making the stylistically bold 500 Days of Summer and brought almost none of that invention to his superhero movie.
7. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock.
Yes, the Venom stuff feels tacked on, and was allegedly included due to studio pressure. As played by Grace, though, the Eddie Brock character is pretty interesting. He starts off looking like a cocky jerk version of Peter Parker, reflecting the kind of aggression that Peter often eschews in his personal life. But though Grace doesn’t have much screen time, the movie is typically generous, as Raimi’s Spidey movies often are, about his transformation into a villain, framing it as coming from a place of hurt rather than evil. Brock may be an asshole, but there’s a real sadness to his pleading with Parker not to reveal his doctored photos, or the way he calls Gwen Stacy his girlfriend after a single coffee date. He doesn’t seek out the symbiote that turns him into Venom any more than Peter does (and yes, another problem with Spider-Man 3 is its bizarre reliance on coincidences for plot turns: the symbiote lands from space near Peter Parker; then, when he’s trying to get rid of it, Brock walks into the very same church — to pray for Parker to die! — and gets infected), and his creepy smarminess when he goes full-on villain is pretty funny.
8. J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson.
Obviously he’s in all three Raimi Spider-Man movies, but consider this: any movie with Simmons as Jameson has something going for it. One thing the Marc Webb movies could have done to win me over is to have Simmons play J. Jonah Jameson in the new series regardless of the continuity do-over, like how Judi Dench played M to Pierce Brosnan and then to a rebooted Daniel Craig. They have not, as yet, done this.
9. It doesn’t focus at all on setting up further sequels.
Raimi did allegedly have a plan to survive this movie’s unpleasant production and make a Spider-Man 4, which was eventually scotched by Sony for being too expensive and for using the unsexy villain the Vulture. But while I would have liked to see that movie, Spider-Man 3 doesn’t end with a cliffhanger for part four, nor a credit cookie promising further plot twists. It doesn’t even really tease the long-presumed possibility that Curt Connors (played by Dylan Baker in the movie) would become the Lizard, as must have been a plan at some point (the Lizard did make it into Amazing). As messy as the movie’s storytelling is, it’s actually trying to tell its stories in this movie, rather than abandoning story threads to be resolved in the sequel, as Amazing did with the mystery surrounding the death of Peter’s parents.
10. It ends, in fact, on a bittersweet note.
Lots of geeks — you know, sensitive types — complained that Peter Parker spends so much of these movies crying like a little pussy girl baby etc. etc. etc. Congratulations, geeks: you officially became Flash Thompson with this complaint. The movie’s climax ends not only with the Sandman giving himself to the wind and Harry Osborn dying in aid of his best friend, the movie itself actually goes for a low-key denouement that moves Peter and MJ toward reconciliation, but does no more than that. In the jazz club where she works now, they embrace, and the movie fades out. This is arguably the ballsiest of modern comic-book movie endings in that it emphasizes the human emotions of the movie, not how Spider-Man will be back in a jiff to kick some more ass.
So yeah, even a compromised and sloppy Raimi Spider-Man movie has more going for it than a lot of superhero movies. You can probably draw a line from some of the disgruntlement over Spider-Man with the general fan orthodoxy that has poisoned, sometimes faintly and sometimes fatally, a lot of adaptations in the years since: the idea that a movie is a gift to “the fans,” rather than a filmmaker expressing something particular. The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t risk alienating Spider-Man fans because it takes very few risks at all with its material. I will allow that it is probably better than Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, and that Emma Stone is delightful. But that’s as far as I’ll go.
- The SportsAlcohol.com Podcast: The Biggest Holiday Movies of 1995 - December 22, 2025
- The Long-Awaited SportsAlcohol.com Anniversary Podcast Double Feature: 1985 and 2005 - November 30, 2025
- The SportsAlcohol.com Podcast: Oscars Special 2025! - February 25, 2025
How come no one complains about the amount of time The Amazing Spider-Man spends on Peter Parker doing skateboard tricks?
Skateboarding, pulling at your puffy hair: not emo
Dancing at Jazz clubs: emo
Wow thanks for this article. I have to admit I am coming around to liking this film a lot more than I have in the past (and this is coming from someone who still saw it 5 times on its cinema release). Its definitely become a guilty pleasure of mine. The main thing I will say in its defense is that while it definitely ain’t the sum of it’s parts, just look at those parts!
Agreed! It’s imperfect, but the best stuff in it is inspired.
Wrong. Wrong on every level. Andrew Garfield is the type of guy who would pick on Peter Parker in school. No one wants to see a Peter Parker standing up to bullies in school or doing skateboard tricks. Only real fans of the comics, people who’ve actually spent a good part of their lives reading comics will know that The Amazing Spiderman movies were an insult to spidey fans.
Nope,tobey maguire the better spiderman not Andrew Garfield.
nah.. andrew garfield is a better spiderman and not a emo
peter parker inthe comics standing up to bullies in school even the tobey mcguire did that.what a idiot.
TASM movies was more closer to the comics
It’s kind of funny how wrong you are
isfunny because he´s right
Says the guy with a basketball related picture for his profile pic, nice try flash, but no one gives a fuck about what a jock thinks about superheroes lol
jajaa that is your a “great argument”? nice try to the next theme.
Nobody cares the pathetic insult of a fanboy who don´t know any shit about spiderman and believe the that peter parker must be a guy without personality or self love
“That is your a “great argument”?
“Who don’t know any shit about Spider-Man”
How about I have an actual intelligent conversation with you when you learn English you moron lmao
I thought I was responding to an adult, not some learning impaired retard. Thanks for clarifying that for me though. I’ve been reading Spider-Man comics most of my life and my life has revolved around comics, so I’m sure my opinion is more valid that some dumbass who who can’t write a proper sentence. Go back to bouncing your ball outside and leave the superhero movies to people who actually know the characters.
hahaha you say “No one wants to see a Peter Parker standing up to bullies in school or doing skateboard tricks.”
oh!! surprise peter parker standing up to bullies in school (universe 6161 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f89bc85ebb6bd4f44f1852e5a84350a561f6f9c3e1635d7a0d548174297df0f3.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc0cea274fd6bd694a1b433fbe968fd39aa43713436dc2ddad02647e0b7a5fc8.jpg
OR USED MOTORCYCLE or skate
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f3ca5190ee3553dac6291c67ca06a2c1f3df39c653fd17f9dbc27cad66e80ae7.jpg
Sorry fat ass..you are only a posser who don´t know any shit about spiderman
That was ONE formal match boxing match with Flash, he never stood up to him because he didn’t want to give away his identity. And it’s universe 616, not 6161 dumbass.
That second picture is from Ultimate spiderman, a completely different universe with a different peter parker so please stop embarrassing yourself on the internet by showing everyone just how little you know about spiderman. Good job looking up shit on google, you just showed everyone you haven’t read shit about him except what youve seen on the internet. I never said he never rode a motorcyle, i said he never skated. I’m cringing as i read your comment dude, it’s pathetic as fuck. Fatass? Based off what, my comment? I can call you a dumbass because your comments show it. I know more than you’ll ever know about spiderman, go pick up a comic
is 616 asshole where say “6161” haha
Even the sam raimi trilogy has elements from the ultimate comics (the genetically modified spider, the appearance of otto etc.) and the spectacular spiderman has elements from the ultimate comics too.
Different universes with the same essence. .In both scenes he wanted to give a lesson to flash thompson.
In the 70s and 80s it was common to see teenagers use a motorcycle as it is now common to skate. Then do you complain that Peter Parker behaves like a normal teenager?
congratulations fat-ass, you tried not to know anything about spiderman good job posser and fat ass haha what a pathetic loser 😀
Sorry but I don’t agree. We are talking about the Amazing Spider-man right? You guys are idiots if you belive Spider-man 3 was better than that awesome movie. Spider-Man 3 a.) had no real plot just mess b.) Mary Jane and Peter had no real relationship they weren’t even believable unlike Gwen Stacey and Peter from the Amazing spider-man c.) Spider-man 3 was a let down while the amazing spider-man brought a new take on the peter parker making him more modern.
Nonsense.
At least you tried to give actual reasons why you think the movie is bad instead of just spewing hate like so many people are doing.
Now onto your points:
a) So what do you call Peter allowing his arrogance to take over him, destroying his relationship with his loved ones in the process and then finally overcoming it or MJ’s struggle with her career and relationship with Peter and Harry or Harry’s continuous conflicted feeling about his best friend? Even all the villains and some minor characters have their prominent subplots.
b) MJ doesn’t have a relationship because HOW DARE she wants her own life and career and that’s not consumed by her man like Gwen Stacey? Also MJ acted really selfishly because um that’s what happens when you grow up in an abusive household. It’s already been discussed.
c) I’m thinking that the cocky amazing spider-man is more like the Peter Parker consumed by symibote in this movie.
Thanks for being civilized and not cussing me out.
So response to your claim The Raimi Trilogy never focused on Mary Jane and her abuse. You just hear yelling and you can infer that she’s being abused because she was abused in the comics. I was saying that their relationship felt forced and unreal. It just seemed like she didn’t love him. Sure she ditched her fiancé which was messed up but that doesn’t mean she loves him.
Spider-Man 3’s plot was just incoherent and very weird. The only interesting part was Sandman and The Black suit.
The Amazing Spider-Man’s Peter Parker only rode a skateboard and everyone hates on him. One object. If you hate a Peter Parker for one object then one must seriously have problems.
“Thanks for being civilized and not cussing me out.”
No problem. I don’t think anyone should cuss you out since you are trying to give actual reasons.
“So response to your claim The Raimi Trilogy never focused on Mary Jane and her abuse. You just hear yelling and you can infer that she’s being abused because she was abused in the comics.”
Actually in movie 3 MJ told Peter that the criticisms remind her of the things her father said so…
Also just want to say yes I want the films to tell us more
about MJ’s family background and not just her careers.
“I was saying that their relationship felt forced and unreal. It just seemed like she didn’t love him. Sure she ditched her fiancé which was messed up but that doesn’t mean she loves him.”
No you seriously don’t understand the films if you think that’s the only incident in the films. Just looking at the incident first she KNEW exactly how dangerous it would be for her to become spider man’s girlfriend and she still decided to do it because it’s worth it and loves him? She picked someone who doesn’t even have a stable source of income to pay always pay his rents on time compared to someone who is rich and famous and popular.
MJ ditching John at the altar is messed up yes I agree but I am not sure exactly what else she could do and it’s better than entering a loveless marriage.
Now let’s look at some other incidents.
Watch the first film and see how shattered she was at the end when Peter said he only wants to be her friend, or even at the start of the film when she was the only person besides Harry to stick up for him. In movie 2 she called Peter her “best friend” even when she was dating someone else. In movie 3 see how pained and conflicted she was when Peter was being a jerk or when she was forced to dump him by Harry and how she still deeply cared about what he thinks even when their relationship is over.
The most important thing I think you should remember is
that they have been best friends for years (and Peter’s only friend beside Harry) and knew each year really well which is extremely helpful in a relationship.
“Spider-Man 3’s plot was just incoherent and very weird. The only interesting part was Sandman and The Black suit.”
Yeah and you just summoned up the main plot elements in the
story. And you know the theme of the movie forgiveness right? In the end, we have Peter overcoming his rage and desire for revenge and Marko admitting his terrible actions and them reaching an understanding and forgiving each other. The same goes with how Peter and Harry through a misunderstanding, had some terrible fights but then eventually came back to one another and forgive each
other. That’s pretty deep compared with most action movies you know. There are also all those subplots that might not interest you but it doesn’t make them dull or stupid.
The black suit I think is a good metaphor for how complex and dangerous human conditions are and how even someone with the noblest intentions and hearts could be corrupted by circumstances and human natures. And Peter’s struggles to overcome it felt very well to me.
“The Amazing Spider-Man’s Peter Parker only rode a skateboard and everyone hates on him. One object. If you hate a Peter Parker for one object then one must seriously have problems.”
Now you’re just making stuff up which is a classic strawman. Here are some corrections: 1) I don’t think Marc Webb’s spider-man is
an irredeemable asshole with no good qualities but he just isn’t as likeable to me. 2) People don’t hate him just because of a skateboard, it’s more of his general arrogant attitude which reminds me of the emo Peter some people love to hate on.
I ended up watching the trilogy again last night because of your claims. I believe you are right. When I said the only interesting parts were Sandman and Black Suit I meant how Sandman had a lot of motivation and character development in the movie. I love how the black suit took control of his emotions and lifestyle. The only reason I don’t enjoy Spider-Man 3 is Venom. Other than Venom I absolutely adore that movie. In response to your counter claim Yes Mary Jane did love Peter. In my defense I saw their relationship not as strong as Peter and Gwen’s relationship.
Now for your final claim many people hate Andrew Garfield(yes hate. Odd how you can hate a man you never knew personally) because a.) He acted like a dick(a dick? I don’t remember seeing that) b.)He broke his promise to a dying man(In the name of love man. I mean finding your true love is hard. You can’t just leave them. It’d tear you apart) and c.) He was a hipster(where?) who rode a skateboard.
“I ended up watching the trilogy again last night because
of your claims. I believe you are right. When I said the only interesting parts were Sandman and Black Suit I meant how Sandman had a lot of motivation and character development in the movie. I love how the black suit took control of his emotions and lifestyle. The only reason I don’t enjoy Spider-Man 3 is
Venom. Other than Venom I absolutely adore that movie.”
I am glad we reached some kind of agreement here! You just said what I have been trying to tell some people about the complex character developments happening in this movie (even the villains aren’t pure evil and can have noble intentions like Sandman trying to save his daughter just like real life). You are one of the few people in the spider-man fandom who is willing to listen to opposing views and consider them and I respect you for that.
I agree Venom wasn’t given enough time to develop as a character unlike Sandman and Harry (even though he did have a rather
interesting background) and it did a disservice to the movie, even lots of people who like this movie agrees with it. Perhaps if they left venom’s story to the planned movie 4 it might have worked out better.
“In response to your counter claim Yes Mary Jane did love Peter. In my defense I saw their relationship not as strong as Peter and Gwen’s relationship.”
I suspect it might be because Mary Jane and Peter didn’t
confess their feelings until about two-thirds of the way into the trilogy and also MJ had more of an independent life but I guess it’s more of a personal taste.
“Now for your final claim many people hate Andrew Garfield(yes
hate. Odd how you can hate a man you never knew personally) because a.) He acted like a dick(a dick? I don’t remember seeing that) b.)He broke his promise to a dying man(In the name of love man. I mean finding your true love is hard. You can’t just leave them. It’d tear you apart) and c.) He was a hipster(where?) who rode a skateboard.”
I think it’s rather stupid to hate the actor who plays a
character you dislike to be honest. There are plenty of movie characters I dislike a lot, but I would never hate on the actors who play them other than to say that actor did a really bad job. Sadly there are lots of irrational people out there in any fandom.
In all honesty I know when I am wrong. Thanks for a civilized debate. I think if Venom was saved for Spider-Man 4 it would’ve been perfect. Who knows? Maybe Tobey could’ve set up the MCU(if Sony was willing).
And thank you! You don’t even know the actor on a personal level. It’s so annoying to see people hate on good actors. Like Jared Leto. Sure he may have been bad in Suicide Squad but he killed it in Blade Runner 2049. I think this fandom(the same fandom who start this ridiculous Marvel vs DC wars) are filled with kids and only some of those kids actually have an idea of what they are talking about.
Oh yes. May I ask for your opinion on Spider-Man Homecoming?
Thank you as well for listening and thinking about everything being discussed. It’s really sad when people bash and attack actors because they don’t like the characters they played. It’s fine to be critical of actors’ performances but personal attacks shouldn’t happen.
I cannot comment on that movie right now as I haven’t seen it but might in the future.
You’re welcome. Hopefully our society can grow as a whole to the point where we don’t hate on actors because of how their character was written.
You should see Homecoming. It’s pretty good.
Peter Parker in the comics acts like an idiot many times.
He had an affair with Betty Brant who was married, broke several promises and left his job as a spiderman to see Gwen in England.
Basically they complain that Andrew Garfield is the peter parker of the comics.
p.D spiderman 3 is a awful movie
And I don’t really care about how good the comics are since we’re discussing the merits of the movies so it just shows you have no idea what you’re talking about, lol. SM3 is awful only in the eye of someone who has no idea what they’re talking about just like all the haters out there on the Internet.
haha SM3 even only take the merits of the movie is awful:
Mary Jane subplot
Honestly throughout the whole trilogy Mary Jane is the WORST female character ever written. She’s there just to serve as a trophy for Peter/Spidey and the stereotypical damsel in distressed (IN ALL THREE) . To make things worse, she has a manipulative streak. She dated Flash, who broke up with her. Started going out with Harry, started getting the hots for Peter while still with Harry in the first movie. Leaves her fiancée in the second movie (after dicking around with Peter AGAIN) , to be with Peter. It gets even worse in the third movie. Kisses Harry while still with Parker. Breaks up with him *to keep him safe* from Harry (Seriously, he’s Spider-Man. Tell him the Goblin is back and watch him kick Harry. Simple) So romance in all three movies was a clunker,made worse in the third movie. Watch their romantic banter in the first movie again. It’s George Lucas bad.
2. Green Goblin plot
Harry’s motivation in the third movie is “You killed dad. Die!”, a misunderstanding that could be solved by a 5 minute conversation as told by Peter. Instead we get our next problem with this movie,while trying to resolve the issue (The pie was so good though)
3. The butler did it
This guy waits till his employer takes a grenade to the FACE before going “Nah bruv, your father axed himself. LOL” and Harry isn’t furious with him at ALL!
4. Emo Peter
Alright now it’s the big reasons that pull this movie down. When Spidey gets the symbiote we’re supposed to be exposed to the more brutal side of Peter. He becomes ruthless, cold and distant from his normal nice self. At the same time he’s more addicted to the power the suit has. All this could have been basis for one movie alone instead of shoved with two more villains. His apparent killing of Sandman was one good step. Then we get
We’re supposed to worry for the effects it’s having. Not laughing at his Saturday Night Fever strut and wishing someone would slap him. (Dat hair flip. Oh god) The dance scene at the bar with Gwen Stacy just to make MJ jealous. Be honest, would you believe that was a Spider-Man movie if you saw it out of context? Speaking of that scene…
5. Gwen Stacy
Gwen Stacy is a pivotal character in the Spidey lore. She came before MJ. Gwen loved Peter Parker not Spider-Man. MJ loved Spider-Man then Peter. Gwen’s death is another tragic milestone for Spidey and helped in the development of MJ’s character. Raimi chose to have MJ first instead of Gwen which is alright. However introducing Gwen just to act as a “Make ex jealous and spite Eddie Brock” is a huge disservice to the character and what she stands for. Speaking of the ex.
6. Worst Venom ever
Alright this movie had Sandman, Green Goblin and Venom. Venom is considered an iconic Spidey villain second to the Goblin.
A well built, tongue whipping creepy blight upon Spidey. We get this
Eric Foreman without toothpaste for a few weeks. Yay. Sure we get the creepy face too but most of the time it’s pulled back to show his real face so he gets more screen time. Boo to that. Oh and he’s there for like 10 minutes and gets killed by a bomb. Weak as a chihuahua.
7. Forced Sandman storyline
The idea of Peter becoming Spider-Man lies in him not stopping a thief who later kills his uncle. With great power comes, you know. In order to make Sandman more important they make him the one who killed Uncle Ben, by accident. I and a ton of people have a major issue with this retcon. Sure Peter is still responsible but indirectly now. The gravitas is lost. Apart from that his daughter is sick, which is supposed to make up for the crimes he does (It does not)
So there you go. The story was weak, the characters motivation were all a mess and studio interference (Sony pushed for Venom) marred a potential good movie. I still like it, but it’s a step down from Spider-Man 2
Original spiderman 1,2 &3 better then spiderman homecoming,lol the acting was bad in amazing spiderman Which was worst is the amazing spiderman 1&2 movie and spiderman homecoming,spiderman homecoming doesn’t count,sorry,my vote saying the worst one is the new one which sucks still, i like spiderman 3 better then homecoming which doesn’t up
haha the acting in the trilogy of sam raimi is very corny and chessy
even homecoming is better
No,it’s not as Good as original spiderman 3 movie,the amazing spiderman movie doesn’t count including the sequel,plus the homecoming the worst one,yourself is a dumbass
That’s a lie,sam ramie trilogy better marc webb double feature and way ber then spiderman homecoming doesn’t belong in this category at all,lol,shut up,lol
TASM2>>>>spiderman2
Sam raimi trilogy havea awful and a em,o peter who dance shutupa sshole
Typical of hateful comments who have no actual arguments to make, sigh.
like you?TASM”>>>spiderman3
Haha, this is pathetic considering that I always give reasons for why I disagree. If anyone is the hater, it’s you considering how you’re flaming anyone who doesn’t agree with you or defend SM3.
like you with the TASM movies even the version of andrew garfield of the movies is the version of the comics? jaja
Nothing talked about has anything to do with TASM or comics. Not sure which part of this sentence you can’t understand.
I think the best part about the narrative (and yeah I agree the plot at times doesn’t make sense but they really aren’t as bad as everyone thinks) is how amazingly three-dimensional everyone is and how they all have their own stories and struggles which really isn’t something common in super-hero movies.
WRONG all has a one dimensional characters. mary is only a damsel in distress and villains with double personality instead of villains who chose to be villains.
only you need a only word for every character in the sam raimi movies
I love your attempt to troll everyone here who dares to disagree with you, lol.
“only you need a only word for every character in the sam raimi movies”
I have no idea what you means in here (what’s a only word?) but I presume you mean only need one word to describe a character so does that mean if I used two words to describe even one character then you’re wrong as usual.
Btw MJ (not mary) has her own career, which is more than you can say for lots of so-called love interests in the movies nowadays. In the 3 kidnappings she became more active for each movie. Too bad you’re just immersed in your hatred of everything Sam Reimi to see that.
Lois Lane in superman 1 and 2, vicky vale in Batman 1989 even batman forever with Nikole Kidman in Batman forever they contributed more than Mary Jane in 3 movies and they were more interesting and even three-dimensional characters to meet that the one dimensional mary jane.
Before mary jane there were better written characters and love interests that contributed to the plot.
Lol this is pathetic considering you never bothered to respond to what I said and just made pointless assertions that doesn’t mean anything. Even if what you said is true, it’s meaningless as we aren’t comparing mary jane against anyone else.
Why is someone who has a career of her own and became capable of fighting back a 1-D character?
hhahaha who never bothered to respond to what I said was you the comparison shows that before the trilogy of sam raimi, there are better romantic interests with career, with personality and if they contribute to the plot.
Mary Jane in the original trilogy is a complete useless for the plot even elektra from Daredevil (2003) or Michell Pfeiffer in Batman Returns. Thisfanboys trying to defend the indefensible
LOL
You are the one who couldn’t understand that comparing with other characters is meaningless. Still haven’t answered what I said you moron.
“there are better romantic interests with career, with personality and if they contribute to the plot.”
Yes so she has a career, has a personality in that she was abused at home and was moody at times and tried to hide it by pretending to be a cheerful and popular. She tried to move on from spider-man but realised she couldn’t and made her own decision to be with him despite his warnings to stay away, etc. She contributed to the plot because it was when she was in danger that motivated spider-man to act and she helped out out in the fight in spider-man 3 as otherwise venom would probably have killed spider-man. See the movie again.
“Thisfanboys trying to defend the indefensible”
Yes name calling is all you can do. It’s indefensible? Lol that’s pathetic considering there are plenty of arguments to be made that I haven’t even touched on in this post. Try to address them.
Bella Swan from twilight It comes from a dysfunctional family. but both cases never deepen. no development or evolution. personality? It does not have a single personality and like Bella Swan it don´t have any personality. Both are bland and generic.
Basically you just described a damsel in distress. Everything you mention can be replaced by another female character (betty brant. gwen stacy, aunt may, the daughter of Peter Parker’s landlord) and would not change anything.Then you’re telling me that tobey mcguire’s peter parker was not inspired by the fact that someone died in a fire or the words of his aunt may. But Mary “Bella” Jane was abducted for the last time in a forced manner. what a hero”.
Good luck for the next time fanboy =)
even Vicky Vale from batman 1989 did more than just be rescued by the hero.
Next time try to write in proper English especially the pronouns because I have no idea half the time what you’re trying to say. You bringing up Bella instead of discussing what I said is just retarded and delusional considering I already said about careers, personality, etc which you never addressed. Her job is to provide emotional support like a lot of sidekicks or love interests do you know what this means? Hint: watch the ending of spider man 2 and think about how different Peter was as a person at the beginning of 3.
“Then you’re telling me that tobey mcguire’s peter parker was not inspired by the fact that someone died in a fire or the words of his aunt may. But Mary “Bella” Jane was abducted for the last time in a forced manner. what a hero”.”
I never said that Peter wasn’t motivated by doing good or Aunt May or Mary Jane was supposed to be a hero so don’t strawman what I said. (Repeat after me: Mary Jane is a sidekick in the story) Did you know that a character could be motivated by more than one factor like real human beings? Nope don’t think so.
“a damsel in distress”? Yeah and do you think it’s realistic for her who have no supernatural powers to be able to fight off the villains by herself in a super-hero film? When she was kidnapped she actually learned to fight back watch spider-man 3 again.
Lol the fanboy is you as seen in your posts. Hypocrite. Really any other insults you throw at me is actually a compliment because I am the one who makes real arguments whereas all you do is throw insults. By the way you just stupidly assumed I am a fanboy just because you disagree with me.
sidekick? wrong!! MJ is only a damsel in distress you remove it from the plot and it does not change anything. to have a career and be an emotional support, other loving interests did it and much better (lois lane, vicky vale, dr chase meridian etc…)
the character of tobey mcguire is only written to justify the poor existence of MJ, he is not a hero who is interested in being a hero or protecting others. He should only be there so he should rescue MJ and that’s it.
Both in spiderman 2 and 3 peter is the same hooligan lacking self-love. MJ is so important that he kisses with gwen stacy on his face. ajaja just to … “go surprise” break again and return to the same position as the 1 movie.
what a fanboy trying to defend such a pathetic character like willie from indiana jones and the temple of doom.
A damsel in distress could be a sidekick as well you know. I was only refuting your retarded claim that MJ is supposed to be a hero but of course you just go around changing your story lol.
“to have a career and be an emotional support, other loving interests did it and much better (lois lane, vicky vale, dr chase meridian etc…)”
So what? We aren’t discussing how well they are done but whether it’s done at all (and there are plenty of reasons). You are obviously trying to confuse issues that have nothing to do with one another.
Lol, that’s pathetic. So Tobey never saved anyone other than MJ did he? If you believe it that just shows the depth of your delusion.
“Both in spiderman 2 and 3 peter is the same hooligan lacking self-love. MJ is so important that he kisses with gwen stacy on his face. ajaja just to … “go surprise” break again and return to the same position as the 1 movie.”
Lol MJ is now unimportant because Peter went off the rails once? Do you know anything about things that may happen in real life romance? Oh wait tell me how come Peter was planning to propose to her among other things? You clearly have no idea what the movie is saying in that scene just like you have no idea about the rest of the movie.
“what a fanboy trying to defend such a pathetic character like willie from indiana jones and the temple of doom.”
Lol this is just more delusion from you. I think MJ has lots of problems like the way she moves around so much in romantic relationships. If the definition of fanboy is making rational arguments unlike haters, then yeah it’s a badge of honour, lol.
AHAHA But Mary Jane is not a sidekick. Because I do not help Peter against some villain at all.
you said that mary jane has a career, which has been done before and much better. Mary Jane has a career. That does not give you a good character.
The trilogy only enhances the times that Spiderman saves Mary Jane. Only in the first movie do they save Mary Jane 6 times.
Peter was aware that Mary Jane was watching him. In real life. an adult person would not do that if she is mature and more if peter is supposedly already an adult in spiderman 3. ((Ironically, you were not complaining about the romance of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone when they are teenagers … I could ask the same question to you).
MJ has no problems. writers have problems that do not know how to do drama other than putting MJ’s lips with another person to make cheap drama.
Even sam raimi acepted than MJ is a pointless character. ajajaja what a fanboy
“AHAHA But Mary Jane is not a sidekick. Because I do not help Peter against some villain at all.”
Are you blind or stupid or both? I already said that her main role is to EMOTIONALLY SUPPORT Peter in his job as spider-man, which part of it isn’t clear? A sidekick doesn’t have to be fighting off villains for the hero?
Careers – So? Whether MJ’s career is done well or not is irrelevant,
we aren’t talking how good it was done only whether she has an outside
life. I have already mentioned this too many times and you just change your premises whenever you lose lol.
“The trilogy only enhances the times that Spiderman saves Mary Jane. Only in the first movie do they save Mary Jane 6 times.”
List the 6 times please but I doubt you could.
Yes, and there’s nothing wrong that Mary Jane who is just a mortal human should be fight off super-villains on her own, lol. I also know that time when MJ stunned venom giving Peter a chance to escape so your assertion is a lie.
“Peter was aware that Mary Jane was watching him. In real life. an adult
person would not do that if she is mature and more if peter is
supposedly already an adult in spiderman 3. ”
I really have no idea what you’re saying all I know is that Peter knew Mary Jane wants to date him but pushed her away because it will put her in danger until she convinced him otherwise, lol.
“Even sam raimi acepted than MJ is a pointless character. ”
Evidence needed.
“ajajaja what a fanboy
”
What a delusional hater, lol.
witha that logic the girlfriend of george glooney is a improtan character. or what a mintu still a pointless character. EMOTIONALLY SUPPORT= pathetic excuse to still to keep a character useless.
Even another mortal humans in another comic book movies . jaja what a pathetic ecuse. who person With common sense kisses a woman (gwen stacy) knowing that your girlfriend and future fiancee is watching you?
Sam raimi is the sameguy who tell tha spiderman 3 is shit
https://io9.gizmodo.com/sam-raimi-the-problems-with-spider-man-3-were-my-mist-1676733026
what a pathetic fanboy
Lol any reason I come up with can simply be dismissed by saying it’s pathetic with no reasons given? You also gave no response to the times when she was of help in fights or gave evidence that she was saved six times in the first movie.
Taken from the last post:
QUOTE: “The trilogy only enhances the times that Spiderman saves Mary Jane. Only in the first movie do they save Mary Jane 6 times.”
List the 6 times please but I doubt you could.
Yes, and there’s nothing wrong that Mary Jane who is just a mortal human should be fight off super-villains on her own, lol. I also know that time when MJ stunned venom giving Peter a chance to escape so your assertion is a lie. END QUOTE
What a retard and hypocrite you are.
Yeah Peter kissed Gwen Stacey because he was really arrogant and it has nothing to do with Mary Jane’s character but of course you’re too delusional to see that.
The link you quoted the way you uses the word shit just shows your lack of intelligence (although that’s very obvious already). If you actually read the article it clearly says that it was meant as a SELF-DEPRECATING JOKE whilst highlighting the film has problems. Do you know what this means? Nobody is denying SM3 has problems and I am not fanboy enough to say it doesn’t have problems no matter what you think. I am just being fair unlike you.
And that article has nothing to do with Mary Jane at all but it’s typical of you to bring up irrelevant stuff when you’re losing moron.
All you can do is spew personal insults with no intelligent reasons.
exist another mortal human but with more personality and with more contribution to the plot that MJ that you can replace it with another female character in the background and does not change anything
then you accept that the character of mcguire is an arrogant pathetic who did not learn anything in 2 previous films. Thanks for giving me the reason hahah fair? you’re just a fanboy who wants to ignore the amount of problems in the movie. the same movie who sam raimi acept is shit and itps his all fault.