Apparently there might be a Venom film on the way:
Not sure how Spiderman 3 deserves a spin-off film. (After seeing it I can’t even bring myself to watch the first two films anymore 
).
The other film further down the article sounds cool though. Earth vs Moon.
Astrotastic!
[quote=“George”]Apparently there might be a Venom film on the way:
Not sure how Spiderman 3 deserves a spin-off film. (After seeing it I can’t even bring myself to watch the first two films anymore ).
[/quote]
Spidey 3, while highly overplotted, was a good and consistent film (my favourite of the franchise in all honesty).
Though Venom is a weird choice… he doesn’t have much material plotwise to make a story. Unless they’re basically looking at the story of a guy who gets slowly taken over. In which case it won’t be Topher Grace
OK seriously who is hijacking Pierre’s account? Spider-man 3 is a pile of rubbish. Spider-man 2 is easily the best of the franchise (Spider-man 1 was decent) although pales in comparison to X-men 1 and 2, which also pales in comparison to the revitalised Batman franchise.
I think the last post was the real Pierre. :?
Before Spiderman 3 lowered my view of the whole franchise, I liked the early both the early Spiderman films and the X-men films about the same. I tend to prefer the plot of the Spiderman films but find the X-men films more fun. Batman definitely stands out above them all though.
[quote=“George”]I think the last post was the real Pierre. :?
[/quote]
It was. I don’t know who could hijack my account as I was on my own in the office with the exception of Aiden.
Spidey 3 was excellent, Spidey 2 was very good, Spidey 1 was good. And I’m not even saying that because of Tobey (though in fairness Seabiscuit was good too).
I personally never got into either of the X-Men franchise (despite James Marsden), and while I agree that all other superhero films pale in comparison with The Dark Knight, I have mixed feelings about Batman Begins (great photography, poor dialogues, simple plot)
Don’t forget Liam Neeson’s in it. That makes it pretty amazing by default.
Just because a plot is simple doesn’t mean the film can’t be outstanding. I have to completely disagree with the comment about poor dialogue though.
It was. I don’t know who could hijack my account as I was on my own in the office with the exception of Aiden.
Spidey 3 was excellent, Spidey 2 was very good, Spidey 1 was good. And I’m not even saying that because of Tobey (though in fairness Seabiscuit was good too).
I personally never got into either of the X-Men franchise (despite James Marsden), and while I agree that all other superhero films pale in comparison with The Dark Knight, I have mixed feelings about Batman Begins (great photography, poor dialogues, simple plot)[/quote]
Is this single typedly the most controversial post ever?!
I prefer ocean’s 12 to ocean’s 11 :-s
Nah, seriously, there’s a certain order to these things and it isn’t 3, 2, 1!
Spidey 3, as I previously argued, was a consistent study on the theme of forgiveness. Probably not what you’d expect from a superhero film, but still pretty damn good. It had the thematic strength that most other films of the genre (including the first two Spideys) lack.
What planet are you on Pierre? I loved Spiderman 1 and 2 but didn’t even make it to the end of 3!
This is indeed a highly controversial thread.
And I’m going to stand in the middle! 
Despite its bad rep, I never had anything against Spidey 3. In fact, I thought it was quite good fun. That is, at the same time, saying that it does lack the depth of the first two which is a shame. That was the problem with having too many plot strands. I think if they hadn’t jammed in the Sandman crap (with nothing against Thomas Haden Church, who is brill in Sideways) and developed Venom some more parallel to Peter’s own personal crises, it would have probably claimed a spot as best of the trilogy.
And that’s why I figure they’re doing the Venom spin-off - to develop it a bit more. I gathered during the build-up to 3’s release that it’s one of the biggest characters in the Spider-Man universe, and longtime fans probably feel it deserved some more screentime.
Not that I endorse this shameless spin-off. Nor the subsequent Spidey sequels; they’re sure to suck.
Also, to throw a final spanner in the works, I never got why everyone loved Spider-Man 2 more than the original… Can anyone explain??
Personally, I think it’s because of the villain - and in fairness he was more interesting than the Green Goblin. Where the latter was fairly caricatural when in costume, and even before that as a driven man willing to do anything for business, the former (Octopus) is a scientist (and therefore appeals more to the geeky audience who will post about him) and has more depth, in my opinion, than the face-frozen-in-rictus Goblin.
The Spidey 3 villains had even more potential depth than Dr Ock, and admittedly it was only tackled on a superficial level (but it allowed for the thematic consistency that I keep going on about). It is quite possible that splitting it into two films (like The Dark Knight and the possible sequel) would have worked better.
Better yet, I think if they’d laid the foundations for Venom in 2 and then tackled it full-on (with no other villains) in 3, it would have given the series a more mature, overarching development.
But then again, these are comic book movies! :lol:
[quote=“OPR”]
But then again, these are comic book movies! :lol:[/quote]
So? The Dark Knight has clearly shown that comic book movies can be deep…
[quote=“OPR”]
Better yet, I think if they’d laid the foundations for Venom in 2 and then tackled it full-on (with no other villains) in 3, it would have given the series a more mature, overarching development.
But then again, these are comic book movies! :lol:[/quote]
Perhaps… though i have to say that i don’t like this trend developing of giving subcharacters their own subsequent films… wolverine et al. Doesn’t seem right morals-wise :?
Yeah but I was more thinking along the lines of Two-Face being introduced in The Dark Knight rather than calling the film Venom.
And I think Owen was as well.
Nuff said.
I definitely agree with you on that. It seems a bit like an effort to get as much money out of a franchise as possible. I kind of get the feeling that these films are driven by a studio executive somewhere going "wouldn’t it be cool if… " rather than a film with a clear idea of a narrative that fits with the other films.
Is this including Batman Begins? Because that had an incredibly consistent study on the theme of fear. Bruce’s dad dies because Bruce was afraid and the robber was spooked. Falconi: You always fear what you don’t understand", Liam Neeson: You must conquer your fears, striking fear into the hearts of criminals, the fear-inducing drug… Pretty consistent, I’d say.
This I also wondered. In the first one, he’s a bit of a nerd, but gets cool powers, loses his dad effectively, wants a girl but can’t get her, then gets her but has to turn her down. Not easy I’ll admit…
In the second, everything is falling apart. He lets down MJ lots, she’s going to marry someone else, up till the very end. His promise is failing in school, his powers are failing but he doesn’t know why. He lives in a shi*hole and has no money. His effective mother is losing her house and has no money. She finds out he was partly responsible for his ‘father’s’ death and is ashamed of him… The whole thing was grim…