I watched these two movies over the last few days because I've seen alot of despite towards both of them, on this board, as well as others.

X3 -

First, I can understand alot of the annoyance towards X-Men 3. Killing off Xavier was lame, having Cyclops have only a cameo before being killed off, Mystique being 'humanized,' and the biggest one for me is that there was only 2 big action sequences.... Jean Gray's house and Alcatraz Island.

The danger room was badass. They finally found a good actress to play Kitty, Ellen Page, who is easily the best actress under 25. Colossus had a great expanded role, although no character arc. Angel... had a combined 3 minutes of screentime.

Many people were expecting to be bitching about the director, Bret Ratner, but he did a damn good job, IMO. Phoenix is the highlight of the whole movie, the character arc was great, the conflict with Logan who was in love with her... and having to kill her. But remember that the Phoenix always rises. Plus Famke Janssen was freakin hot - can't believe she was 39 when this was filmed...

Yeah, this was the weakest of the trilogy, but it sure as hell was better than the average comic book movie.

S3 -

As for Spider-man 3, for me, this was the real sequel to the 2002 original, which is IMO, the best super-hero movie of all time. Spider-man 2 was good, but the villains were almost the exact same. Both Doc Occ and Goblin were scientists, who had an accident with their experiments resulting in a evil split-personality. Both had mentor relationships with Peter Parker, and at the end, both died tragically.

The reason Spider-man 2 was great was because of the character arc of both Harry and Mary-Jane... Harry and MJ finding out Peter was Spider-man, Harry starts to hate him, and MJ falls in love with him.

Spider-man 3 took a huge leap from the first two because it took balls of having three villains. That was a huge risk that paid off... all three villains were badass. Yes, we don't see much of Venom, but he was still badass. Yeah, the 'jazz dance scene' was lame, but could've been worse. Peter's bad-boy image was... well, it was funny. 'Is little Goblin Jr going to cry?' was easily the funniest line in the movie.

Overall, of all the 'third movie in the franchises' that came out this year, this one was easily the best.

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

Overall, do you guys really dislike these movies?

Funniest thread of the year? I think so.

Really, I'm absolutely blown away by the fact that you could post absolutely nothing in so many sentences.

Oh Pardon Me, I should have just put 'Why do think these movies suck?'

I bow down to your keen sense of judgment and criticisms of new topics, oh great Gatsby, teach me now to post good topics... please...please...please... :blink: :wacko: :unsure: :roll:

Well first, It'd help to actually have an educated opinion on things.

It doesn't really help your case when you use words like "balls" and "badass."

Because that basically tells me that you pretty much know nothing about what actually makes a good film, let alone a good screenplay or enticing dialogue.

Spider Man 3 and X-Men 3 were gigantic disasters that both had extremely amateur screenplays and overall flawed stories.

Spider Man 3 in general was the larger travesty of the two, considering that Spider Man 2 is the second greatest Super Hero film of all time.

You see, the measure of a good Super Hero film is not "how much balls it has" or how much of a man crush you have on Peter Parker, it's something completely different.

A good Super Hero film does not focus on the powers. Spider Man 2 was a film about Peter Parker, not about Spider Man. It was that everlasting character struggle that Peter had that made the film so enticing, his constant battle between what's right and his happiness, it made for excellent drama.

Spider Man 3 on the other hand, didn't learn anything from Spider Man 2, Spider Man 3 wasn't about anything.

Spider Man 3 was about cranking out as much lame and cheesy special effects as possible.

All three of it's villains were ultimately forgettable.

The ONLY villain in the movie should've been Harry, and Sam Rami didn't treat the Hob Goblin arc with any respect. Instead of using the arc to again show the types of Sacrifices that Peter makes to be Spider Man, they used it as an excuse to dish out a bunch of horribly cheesy special effects sequences.

Sand Man...zzzzzzz. Who cares? His revelation about Uncle Ben was irrelevant, that story was finished a long time ago. Peter knew that he wasn't capable of killing that man the minute he started backing up against that window, and there's no way he would've done anything to Sand Man.

Venom was pointless, very very pointless. He came with some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard in film history, he seemingly wants to kill Peter Parker because Peter got him fired, so yeah so much for the motive. And he gets about 2 minutes screentime, before he randomly teams up with the Sand Man so they can have the FINAL CLIMACTIC SHOWDOWN, HO HO.

Also, why add Gwen Stacy into the mix? Wasn't there already enough time being dedicated into the last few films with the Mary Jane/Peter romance? Why bother with it? Why add in any more catalysts.

Another mistake? Having Mary Jane and Peter be together. While it made for a great ending in the second film, it only managed to be a shot to the foot in the third film because there was really nothing else to do with it, and all we were really given was a bunch of uninteresting melo drama.

So really when it comes down to it, you're wrong.

Maybe Spider Man 3 entertained you. But I think that says more about you then it does Spider Man 3.

True, I shouldn't use 'balls' and 'badass.' I could have written a lengthy review for each movie, I was just in a hurry when I was typing.

And the 'says more about you than it does Spiderman 3' comment, what are you doing on a forum? To read 'wrong opinions' to remind yourself how 'correct' you are? Or do you like posting topics with a whole lot of 'yes men' responses?

Do you reguard anyone complementing anything about these films as the same as an Uwe Boll fan?

Pretty much.

These quotes say more about you than your opinions on X-Men 3 and Spider-man 3.

Anyone else have any opinions on these two movies?

I agree with Gatsby, but I don't really want to get into this.

In any case, Spiderman 3 is easily the best movie in the trilogy- the emo/jazz scene made me laugh so hard it brought tears to my eyes. Classic. I just hope they weren't serious.

I'm glad somebody made this topic. Cause in general...I agree. While they weren't GREAT movies, they were good enough for me, and it is a huge annoyance when people keep trying to grade them as the "WORST MOVIES EVER!"
Because whenever they do such things, they lose all credibility in my eyes. Simply because they didn't like it, or the movies didn't live up to the others as well as their expectations, does not make them the 'worst movies ever'. Just not as good as the others. As a stand alone, I think these movies would have been very great indeed.

People act as if Steven Seagal never existed when they make these claims... :roll:

Or anything Uwe Boll has touched...

Or in the comic movies genera, 'The Hulk,' 'Elektra,' 'Fantastic Four 1 & 2'

Fuck you, Under Siege, Under Siege 2 and Executive Decision are some of the best action movies of all time.

My problems with X3?

Phoenix was terrible and had no relation to the comics, the only similarities were that she had red hair.

Wolverine/Jean/Cyclops triangle. No, no and no. The entire point of Wolverines interactions with Jean in the comics are to show that she is loyal to Scott, that she could have Logan any time she wants, but she doesn't want to. Killing off Cyclops in the first ten minutes shat on 20 years of storytelling.

The story as a whole? A very bad rip off of the Dark Phoenix saga.

The film was advertised as a comic book movie, but it wasn't. It distanced itself from the comics too much and changed aspects of the characters, setting and world.

A good comic book movie is Blade, because it stayed in the spirit of the original comics but was able to do it's own thing.

A bad comic book movie is the first AVP, it distanced itself from the comics by making the Predators incompetent morons, anyone who has read AVP: Duel or AVP: Eternal would know that the Predators are meant to be superior. But yet again it was advertised as a comic book movie.

Spiderman 3?

I think Gatsby has said all that needs to be said.

Just because there are worser films doesn't mean that Spider Man 3 and X-Men 3 are good and comparison.

The reason I'm ok with Fantasic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer sucking, is because the first movie also sucked.

The reason I'm not ok with Spider Man 3 sucking is because Spider Man 2 was a fucking masterpiece.

Spider Man 3 was a gigantic joke, and I found myself laughing more then anything at scenes that wearn't even meant to be funny. You see, Sam Rami decided to film Spider Man 3 like he filmed the films in his Evil Dead series, full of satire, unserious conflicts, and that was the wrong way to film Spider Man 3.

However you seem completely incapable of serious discussion and are only capable of making one sentence posts that don't counter anything or have any relevance to the actual discussion.

Because I'm not here to change your minds, I just want to hear opinions. And since you're only here to listen to people agree with you... why bother debate?

And, I'm not here to change people's minds on X-Men 3 or Spiderman 3. I just like to hear opinions about if they really did despise it...

No, I listen to people who disagree with me.

But only when they actually make sense, which is something you're not capable of.

Insulting other people really makes you sound more intelligent.

You telling me about what is intelligent and what is not makes me giggle.

Lol, I'm not ;)

Those efforts to show why the films are not as bad as reviewed....well where pretty lame..

Gatsby was spot on about Spiderman 3....It was simply to many charcters that had too little meaning into the whole plot..

Now now ladies but your toys back in your prams.

Darth Big Boss, not everyone is going to agree with you. Get used to it.

The real question is how well do you know these characters outside of the lame movies?

I've been reading spider-man and x-men comics for 20 years, since the age of 3 and therefore my opinions on the movies are bound to be harsher than the average movie goer.

First of all, all 3 spider-man movies were garbage and that is because Sam Raimi simply doesn't understand the character(s).

organic web shooters vs mechs?

Um mechs please. Spider-Man isn't a mutant and the mechs were a 1 of a kind device that highlighted peter parker's intelligence. However, Raimi made it so that Peter couldn't possibly be smart enough to create mechs, yet we have him design and create an intricately stiched spider-man costume made of fine fabrics in no time.

From Peter getting hit in the head multiple times with a book bag, or having someone giggling while he reflects light into Peter's eyes (for no reason) like a 3rd grader--while at college no doubt. The 'Rain Drop' montage could have been handled with less goofiness, namely without the 'Rain Drop' song. Peter dancing like a fool on speed, awkward chocolate cake girl scene, the elevator scene, the unmasking(s), just to name a few. These are elements that need to be avoided by a director, no matter who wrote them, especially in a comic book film. Sometimes, Raimi actually adds to this problem.

In sm1, the first lines peter parker utters are, this story is all about a girl. That girl, Mary-Jane Watson. This proved that the movie was doomed from the start because spider-man has never ever been about Mary Jane, spider-man has been about the social responsibilities of peter parker.

However, I'll concede that the movie did start of well but then it got stupid with the cringe-worthy dialogue, half-assed action and blatant plot holes (which got hammed up into overdrive by sm3). Norman Osborn was shamefully portrayed to be a sympathetic villain, which ultimately raped and cheapened the character and Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane was a mixture of both MJ and Gwen from the comics. The sad thing is, we had a decent screen writer in the form of David Koepp who wrote a disasterous screen play and Raimi as director ho claimed to be a long time fanboy who ended up pooping all over the characters.

Another thing that ruined all 3 spidey movies was its lack of consistency. Hate for spider-man in the city is what we heard all the time but where was the evidence to support such claims? Hell, the CG was painfully inconsistent too.

spider-man 2 once again, introduced a formula that already became old. The sympathetic villain...again. This time it was Dr. Octopus. His character was robbed of so much richness that he became a joke when we saw him giving Peter love advice and poetry tips. The inhibitor chip with AI tentacles already made venom redundant by default not to mention it leaves very little for the character of Dr Connors and his Lizard persona to work with...again, who just so happens to be a rightfully deserving sympathetic villain.

In this movie, Raimi played up the whole, making peter's life a mess angle to ridiculous levels. Raimi turned Peter into a mumbling, socially inept moron who lacks initiative. Not to mention that all 3 of Raimi's movies are uninspiring, shoddy remakes of the 3 original superman movies. The drama in sm2 was boring, dull and dreary and in some cases forced. There was no chemistry between tobey and kirsten and the film's saving grace was Alfred Molina's acting as Doc Ock and of course the clock tower/train action sequence, although painfuly short lived.

Peter subconsciously robbed himself of his own powers simply because he no longer wanted to bare the responsibility of saving a city that allegedly didn't appreciate him. This was primarily fueld by the fact that he longed to be with MJ. However, despite the various perilous situations that occurred, it was only when MJ was in peril that spider-man's powers came back to full effect. This sickened me.

Also, the fact that Raimi insists that the villains have some sort of personal connection to peter is just wrong, lacks imagination and p1sses all over the source material in which inspiration is supposed to be drawn from.

I'm sorry but the first season of the 90s animated spider-man cartoon did a much better job at portraying the caharcters in the space of 20 minutes.

The episode titled, Dr Octopus armed and dangerous captured the characters beautifully, without compromising the integrity of the characters. Doc Ock in the movies should have been an egotistical and arrogant pr1ck from the get go. Sure he's passionate about his work but it's attitude and persona that makes him an unlikable person, let alone a married man with a hot middle aged wife to boot.

In terms of villainy, Dr Octopus is the closest villain to describe as peter parker gone bad and abusing his powers and NOT venom as some people would actually believe. Doc Ock sufered the eact same thing peter went through when he was younger and all that harboured hate manifested itself post experimental accident.

SM3 was just a disaster. It was supposed to be dark but it turned out to be more of a cringe-inducing comedy with peter girating and hip thrusting all over the place. Harry's butler confessing after all these years that Norman died by his own glider was abundantly retarded and made little to know sense, Gwen Stacey shouldn't have been in the film, Topher Grace should have been cast as peter parker in the first place instead of being cast as Eddy Brock, the sub plot of sandman "killing" uncle Ben was pathetically forced and was handled with no cerebral dexterity at all. MJ dumping Peter was a joke simply because Harry said so? Did she forget that her bf is actually spider-man or what? Once again, spider-man day totally ripped off superman 3. This film was just bad in every conceivable way.

The good?

Sony's marketing department all deserve medals for making unwatchable, crappy movies look interesting.

Bruce Campbel is always a joy to watch....and that is about it. The spidey movies are pretty much lame and even though the writer of zodiac, James Vanderbilt is writing the screen play for sm4, I'll once again wait for the finished product to see if the spidey movies are worth any salt what so ever. I just hope Raimi, Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire don't come back.

The original X-men consited of Beast, Jean, cyclops, angel, Ice-Man and prof X. However, saying that I thought that the first x-men movie was decent enough. I would like to have seen more from sabretooth and for storm to have a more meaningful role but as an origin movie it was ok.

X-men 2 was awesome and imo is the best mainstream comic book movie based on Marvel's characters. The opening action sequence with nigh crawler was simply amazing. The only thing that ruined this movie was the lack of character development of cyclops.

X-men 3 imo is the weakest of all 3 but is still better than spider-man 3. Angel served no real purpose, the phoenix arc should have been handled better, cyclops again is pretty much non existent and the fact that wolverine all 3 x-men movies are pretty much wolverine and friends is quite the p1ss take. I would have liked to see more sentinels and the fact that phoenix had to be killed as opposed to being "cured" was just weak. Wolverine could have easily stabbed her with a cure needle instead of churning out her bowls, ugh!

Screw it, with regrads to marvel related characters, there seems to be two movies that seem to know what they're doing this year, Incredible hulk, starring the brilliant ed norton and of course iron man.

hmm i think xmen 3 was weak in comparison to X2, and spidey 3 was the worst out of the spider movies it had shit acting and crap characters and venom was ruined.

Venom wasn't ruined. He was bastardized much like every other character in the spidey flicks.

Really none of that matters.

I don't care about the Spider Man comics, if you want a Spider Man comic, you read the Spider Man comic, the point of live adaptations of these comics are to take those comics and to twist them around so you can fit 400 comics worth of arcs into a 7 hour trilogy.

The whole point of Peter is that he's a socially inept moron. That's what his appeal his, he's one of the greatest Super Heroes there is for that reason, he's a normal guy with powers. He's just a rich corporate tyccon like Bruce Wayne, or this Super Human like Clark Kent.

The whole sympathetic hero arc may be used often, but I believe Doc Ock captured it's essence perfectly, because unlike the previous villain in the Spider Man movie, who was a poor excuse for a father on top of knowingly endangering himself for a government grant, the whole Green Goblin arc that followed was just pointless. It was just a shoddy revenge arc where he just went around trying to fuck people up while trying to take over the world. I felt no sympathy for Henry Osbourne, and I don't really know where you're going with that, the whole point was that you felt for the decision that PETER himself had to make knowing that he fought his best friend's father.

Doc Ock was more human. As a person you felt for his loss, and he actually made a great villain on top of that.

Every strike he made, every move, you could feel the malice, every move he made was one that was made was with a vengeance. And instead of most Super Villains who are insane and bent on world domination, Doc Ock goes to build his solar reactor, a much more realistic action.

You see, sympathetic villains are better then pure evil villains, I prefer my characters to be in shades of grey, you want boring? Make a character either purely good, or purely evil. That'd be an even bigger mistake, because there's no conflict there. A good villain will be one that you know is wrong, yet can see why he's doing what he's doing. That's why villains like Sephiroth(a villain who commits vengeance on the world after being wronged) are way better received then villains like Kefka( a Villain who's just flat out crazy and wants to destroy everything).

Really, you seem a little incapable of presenting a completely unbiased opinion on this matter seeing as how you seem to be very adamant about the comics.

Spider Man 2 has often been described as "the best Comic Book adaptation for those who don't read comic books", one of the only Super Hero movies that I'd recommend to somebody who's not in to that kind of thing.

But all bias aside, a movie like Spider Man 2 will be the best this genre of movies has to offer.

I mean, comic books have horrible writing. I mean I'll praise Stan Lee on his originality, but I've never been able to read through a Spider Man comic without periodically face palming when I read the dialogue. These comics are filled with more bad dialogue and crappy characters then a high school play.

And thats your problem, or rather your advantage. You can look at it objectively from a "film" point of view. I however as a comic book geek cannot look at any adaptation like that. Whenever I watch a comic book adaptation, I'm looking for things I recognize, from the comics that I have read. Not new takes on characters. If I go and see a film marketed as a comic book adaptation then I expect a panel to panel adaptation. Thats why I like 300 because it's a panel to shot adaptation of Millers books.

For every comic book adaptation I see-except for any DC film that isn't Batman, because DC sucks balls-I expect an adaptation if it's marketed that way.

As a fan of the mythology it most certainly matters to me.

Of course you don't and that is why you'll never undesrtand my disdain for these movies.

I never said I wanted a spider-man comic. I have plenty of those. What I want is a credible adaptation which these movies tried to be but weren't.

Yeah, that is the point but that point was never made. What we got was 7 hours of pointlessness, shoddy story telling, inaccurate characterizations and blatant inconsistencies.

Not after 3 movies he's not. Hell, if you knew the source material you'd know that during his latter days in high school he wised up and ultimately came out of his shell with full force by the time he was in college. Now, in sm1, we see him get to college and I could forgive that peter was still the same socially obtuse idiot by the end of the movie but for him to remain the same character he was from the start of the first movie, followed through into sm2 and 3 is just pathetic.

Wrong. That is what his appeal was. Peter underwent character growth his powers and abilities gave him a new found confidence within himself and around people yet Raimi failed to realise and understand this on a massive scale.

No. He's one one of the greatest characters for the reasons I've stated.

That is true but having a bottom of the barrel level of self-esteem in't normal. Crying uncontrollably because his girl dumped him isn't normal. Peter through 3 movies of being spider-man taking an obscene amount of crap from people and being treated like a 3rd world doormat isn't normal.

Sorry?? Peter Parker has the skill and ability in every way possible to be a rich tycoon but contrary to what you say, he isn't. Peter is fundamentally strapped for cash. He's nothing like Bruce Wayne and in terms of power, he's no where near Clark Kent's league. Where are you getting your info from? Clearly, you evidently know much about spider-man.

What are you talking about? Spider-Man by default is a sympathetic hero. The whole point of spider-man is that although we the audience can empathize and sympathize with him, we're not supposed to want to be him. Constantly living a life of perpetual danger, forever lacking financial resources, bearing a ridiculously abundant amount of responsibility, in and out of a job, risking his life for nothing and constantly being accused of wrong doings. However, Peter Parker is a person who is man enough to tolerate all of this while emoting expected, human reactions, which includes anger and frustration but still bears it all anyway...and not looking like the mushy-mouthed, sappy dog look Raimi and Maguire have presented us with for the past 6 years.

Here's the thing. The source material depicts Norman as the crappy father he actually is and this is something that has always made Norman an interesting character because he is genuinely bad. However, the films paint Norman in a better light. If Norman was such a crappy father would he have made any effort to care about his son's education. We are informed that Norman sent Harry to private schools and Harry flunked it. Norman sends Harry to mid town high and he even drops him off outside the science exhibit. A crappy father wouldn't bother with what Norman did. Norman ended up experimenting on himself because he was being bullied by his board of directors. Norman worked hard for the privileges he was able to provide for himself and harry and he was being unfairly mistreated. Fact. So of course he's going o be irrational and self-experiment to save his family and his career.

What?? Harry didn't want to take over the world and neither did his father. Norman discovered a power that was godly and felt overwhelmingly pressured to take out his frustration and anger out on his rivals and eventually the city as there was no one to stop him and to be honest, most people would do what Norman did except maybe not kill people.

See, you don't even know what you're talking about. His name is Harry not Henry.

You've completely lost me...

Yes but there are/were more interesting and better ways of conveying this instead of radically changing the character.

Yeah, to build the same fusion reactor that killed his beloved wife in which he got over her death rather quickly I might add and worse yet a device that would destroy the city, which he knew full well but didn't care. Having the palm of the "sun" in his hand as he put it would ultimately mean he could dominate the world because he had the remaining sources of tritium and with his tentacles, who the hell could stop him. Just because he didn't say in so many words that he wanted to rule the world, his actions were more than clear in that that is where he was heading.

Not all the time and I didn't dispute that. Dr Connors is a sympathetic villain but should he ever be used, his story would seem pointless as it has been done so many times before. Hell, even sandman got the sympathetic treatment.

See that is where your wrong. The thing about characters such as Norman or Doc Ock is that they're not entirely evil but it's the circumstances they face along the way that shapes them into becoming what they are and to see their passion in doing what they really believe is right even if it is for their own selfish reasons. Constantly having some poor sod suffer an experimental disaster and then become evil is a joke and easily forgettable. There's a reason why characters like Darth Vader are hailed as best ever villain for a reason and that is long before the lame prequels.

Yes there is and this only highlights your lack in knowledge of spider-man. Spider-Man has his own life and the conflict is how his life gets interrupted by events that usually have no personal connection to him and that is why it angers most fans when people discover his ID or when he foolishly keeps taking off his mask. Imagine the amazing stories you could get if no one knew spidey's ID and he constantly had to run about saving the world and coming up with excuses for his absence and of course the consequences as a result of his running off. Hell, look at the bank scene in sm2 when peter runs off and just leaves aunt may.....that was disgusting. What has happened and should have happened is peter usher aunt may to safety and then do what he had to do but no. He just runs off and then his running off is never ever brought up or mentioned of again.

sephiroth? Ok FF is something else entirely. Have you read kraven's last hunt?? That is classic story telling and one of the best arcs in spider-man history. I suggest you go and read it to understand where I'm coming from. Hell, go read arcs that feature the lizard. You'll see the connection spidey/peter has with the lizard and how it plays out.

Wrong. I own the dvds and have watched them multiple times and as movies they're not bad but as spider-man movies (comic book movies) they're garbage and do very little in successfully adapting the source material. In short, the movies do an incredible job at being half-assed.

Thats understandable because they cant compare it to what its based on and the source of its inspiration. Look, people have rights to an opinion and I respect that but frankly, I find these spidey movies wonderfully disappointing.

These movies need a new cast, director. I just hope vandrbilt has the balls to come up with an awesome screenplay that doesn't compromise the characters and the story for the sake of turning these movies into yet another vehicle to sell toys to snotty kids.

---

Tags fixed - Tamashi_7

I like them both, though I agree they aren't as good as the previous two. I think the audience that can enjoy these films most will probably be the non comic readers who won't poke holes in them.