The Shrine

Raimi confirms interference by the studios for the third film, specifically with the last-minute inclusion of Venom

http://movies.ign.com/articles/967/967006p1.html

That helps explain why the Venom storyline and emo-crap seemed forced so unlike the first two films when Raimi had complete control.

If the public wanted Venom, why didn't he save Sandman for another movie? The problem was that they were playing with three different villians, and it really didn't work. Besides, it's the writer that really controls the story in the movie, not the director.

Because the movie was all ready to go with Sandman and Green Goblin. That was the script they scouted and prepared for. Then at the last minute, they forced a re-write to bring Venom in to "broaden the appeal" to the younger Spiderman crowd to whom Venom is a big enemy. Raimi didn't want Venom at all he was forced to put it hastily. And it showed

Zeus wrote:Because the movie was all ready to go with Sandman and Green Goblin. That was the script they scouted and prepared for. Then at the last minute, they forced a re-write to bring Venom in to "broaden the appeal" to the younger Spiderman crowd to whom Venom is a big enemy. Raimi didn't want Venom at all he was forced to put it hastily. And it showed

sandman killed uncle ben. I repeat. SANDMAN FUCKING KILLED UNCLE FUCKING BEN! why did the movie suck? Yes dance numbers and venom were hamfisted stupid but no.....SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE BEN! that's why the goddamn movie sucked. as bad as the rest of it was SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE FUCKING BEN!

I never made it to Spiderman 3, and after everyone's reaction to it, I didn't see the point in trying to make an effort. But,

Chris wrote:Yes dance numbers

Dance numbers? Seriously?

Kupek wrote:Dance numbers? Seriously?

Don't ask questions you aren't ready to hear the answers to young man.

Chris wrote:

Zeus wrote:Because the movie was all ready to go with Sandman and Green Goblin. That was the script they scouted and prepared for. Then at the last minute, they forced a re-write to bring Venom in to "broaden the appeal" to the younger Spiderman crowd to whom Venom is a big enemy. Raimi didn't want Venom at all he was forced to put it hastily. And it showed

sandman killed uncle ben. I repeat. SANDMAN FUCKING KILLED UNCLE FUCKING BEN! why did the movie suck? Yes dance numbers and venom were hamfisted stupid but no.....SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE BEN! that's why the goddamn movie sucked. as bad as the rest of it was SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE FUCKING BEN!

You can live with that messing up of the origin if you can live with the SHITTY outfits for the X-Men. That black was a gay cop-out but didn't seem to affect the first two films.

Kup - he's referring to the emo scenes showing Peter's personality slowly being taken over by the symbiote. If you ever watch the film you'll see what he's referring to.

Zeus wrote:

Chris wrote:

Zeus wrote:Because the movie was all ready to go with Sandman and Green Goblin. That was the script they scouted and prepared for. Then at the last minute, they forced a re-write to bring Venom in to "broaden the appeal" to the younger Spiderman crowd to whom Venom is a big enemy. Raimi didn't want Venom at all he was forced to put it hastily. And it showed

sandman killed uncle ben. I repeat. SANDMAN FUCKING KILLED UNCLE FUCKING BEN! why did the movie suck? Yes dance numbers and venom were hamfisted stupid but no.....SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE BEN! that's why the goddamn movie sucked. as bad as the rest of it was SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE FUCKING BEN!

You can live with that messing up of the origin if you can live with the SHITTY outfits for the X-Men. That black was a gay cop-out but didn't seem to affect the first two films.

Kup - he's referring to the emo scenes showing Peter's personality slowly being taken over by the symbiote. If you ever watch the film you'll see what he's referring to.

bull shit. There is a difference between messing up the orgin and HAVING FUCKING SANDMAN HAVE KILLED UNCLE BEN!

Movie =/= Comics.

I mean, they changed some things to make comics more filmable. That's fair. While I would agree shoehorning in Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer is a little...meh, I don't think it was nearly as bad as James Franco's poor performance or the utterly retarded final third of the film.

no, nothing is as bad as that. it was ripped straight out of someones ass and fucking killed an already bad movie. it went from bad to utter and complete shit

Chris wrote:no, nothing is as bad as that. it was ripped straight out of someones ass and fucking killed an already bad movie. it went from bad to utter and complete shit

Don't hold back Chris, tell us how you really feel

Tessian wrote:Don't hold back Chris, tell us how you really feel

A lot of people have been saying this recently. Origin?

Zeus wrote:Because the movie was all ready to go with Sandman and Green Goblin. That was the script they scouted and prepared for. Then at the last minute, they forced a re-write to bring Venom in to "broaden the appeal" to the younger Spiderman crowd to whom Venom is a big enemy. Raimi didn't want Venom at all he was forced to put it hastily. And it showed

Then subtract a villain during the re-write. Why the fuck WOULDN'T you put Venom in the third movie? It's such a fucking stupid move to do in the first place. No wonder the execs wanted to force it in the script:

Exec: "So, I'm reading this script here for the third movie, and we aren't seeing Venom anywhere in it. Where the fuck is our Venom?"
Sam: "Oh, we decided to focus on Sandman and Green Goblin."
Exec: "Excuse me? I don't think you understand. Venom is the most badass villain in the entire fucking Spidey universe. Compared to Sandman, Venom is like the fucking Planet Eater to him. Ever since the first film came out, the public has been waiting to see Venom. Now we're at the third film. If the law of trilogies is accurate, it's possible that this might be the last Spidey film.

So, if the public goes to watch Spiderman 3, and they don't see their Venom, they are going to come down to this office with a bunch of rifles and shoot you in the head about 500 times. And then I might have to hire somebody to clean up the blood in my office. Do you understand me?"
Sam: "But, we already wrote the script. Sandman has..."
Exec: "Fuck Sandman, and fuck Green Goblin, who we've already done! Rewrite the fucking script and this time we better see some motherfucking Venom!!"

Couldn't Raimi just finsih the "original" trilogy based more on the 60s comics then made Venom the focus of the 4th? It's not like the movies were hurting for an audience. You don't need to blow your load all at once. Bring Venom in a little later

Did YOU know there was going to be a fourth? Neither did most of the public. It's the law of trilogies.

SineSwiper wrote:Did YOU know there was going to be a fourth? Neither did most of the public. It's the law of trilogies.

I would definitely bet on it. The first two movies made INSANE money and there was no way they were gonna stop it at 3. It was guaranteed to make its money back almost after the first week. There's no real reason to either considering it's based on comics with no real "ending". They could close off some arcs in #3 but there's zero reason to stop making them if they make money.

They coulda used the first three based on the 60s then changed gears after that and put Venom in.

Zeus wrote:I would definitely bet on it. The first two movies made INSANE money and there was no way they were gonna stop it at 3. It was guaranteed to make its money back almost after the first week. There's no real reason to either considering it's based on comics with no real "ending". They could close off some arcs in #3 but there's zero reason to stop making them if they make money.

They coulda used the first three based on the 60s then changed gears after that and put Venom in.

There were some real questions on if there was going to be a fourth X-Men movie. (And it's not really a fourth, but an origins flick.) There's still only three LOTR movies, and it took a while to consider making the Hobbit.

The Matrix is done. Blade is done. Bourne is done. Resident Evil is done (hopefully). Pirates of the Caribbean is done. Underworld is probably done.

SineSwiper wrote:There were some real questions on if there was going to be a fourth X-Men movie.

They are making a fourth xmen movie. it's called wolverine, I think. They finally realized that the first movies were just Wolverine featuring the xmen. I wish they would have realized this after they simply red the first movie's script, scrapped it, and then made this instead. Hopefully then there may have been hope for an actual xmen movie.

Zeus wrote:Raimi confirms interference by the studios for the third film, specifically with the last-minute inclusion of Venom

http://movies.ign.com/articles/967/967006p1.html

That helps explain why the Venom storyline and emo-crap seemed forced so unlike the first two films when Raimi had complete control.

Topher Grace was not the right casting choice for Venom. I'm sorry, but there are some roles that require a certain body type and physicality, and that is not it.

Topher, for all that he worked out, is a fairly skinny dude, and part of the thing with Venom is that Eddie Brock was written as a near-lifelong bodybuilder with massive brute strength and size. Spidey uses his web-spinners to finesse his way swinging around walls - Eddie just punches through them and climbs that way. Spidey has tremendous agility - Venom has less agility but just ridiculous power. Venom's mass and brutality NEEDED to be there and Topher doesn't have it.

I mean, I can't believe they picked the guy who played Eric Forman from that 70's show to play Venom. Obviously it was an opportunity for him but it just destroyed all the appeal of Venom in that movie, for me.

I can't believe Chris isn't over here bitching about that.

SineSwiper wrote:If the public wanted Venom, why didn't he save Sandman for another movie? The problem was that they were playing with three different villians, and it really didn't work. Besides, it's the writer that really controls the story in the movie, not the director.

And, yes, Venom deserved his own movie as a major villain. I felt like splitting the movie between Venom and Sandman just wrecked any momentum from Venom's storyline. Venom has been Spider-Man's most popular villain by far over the years. I remember buying the first issue he ever appeared in, which I ought to have somewhere (probably trashed, I never cared much about collectibility on most of my comics - but whatever, I don't really regret it) - and I followed that storyline and the related onesfor maybe six months to a year after that because it was so good. I and a lot of other people were just hooked on the adrenaline rush, and a lot of it was the kind of one-on-one thing where Spidey finally had an opponent - a real rival - that was really and seriously a match for him, and a mirror match at that. Having to tell all of Sandman's storyline at the same time just diluted that to nothing like what it was in the comics.

bovine wrote:They are making a fourth xmen movie. it's called wolverine, I think. They finally realized that the first movies were just Wolverine featuring the xmen. I wish they would have realized this after they simply red the first movie's script, scrapped it, and then made this instead. Hopefully then there may have been hope for an actual xmen movie.

But Wolverine is 1) a prequel and 2) going to suck. I may be surprised, but I doubt it. I expect the Wolverine movie to be closer to Xmen 3 than Xmen 2 in terms of quality.

bovine wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:There were some real questions on if there was going to be a fourth X-Men movie.

They are making a fourth xmen movie. it's called wolverine, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_Origins:_Wolverine

Also, there may be an X-Men Origins: Magneto as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-men_origins#Future

SineSwiper wrote: There were some real questions on if there was going to be a fourth X-Men movie. (And it's not really a fourth, but an origins flick.) There's still only three LOTR movies, and it took a while to consider making the Hobbit.

The Matrix is done. Blade is done. Bourne is done. Resident Evil is done (hopefully). Pirates of the Caribbean is done. Underworld is probably done.

X-Men, yes there was question as to whether or not it was going to continue. Blade, RE, and Matrix ended on wimpers so they're finished. Underworld is a little different, they kept going because there was enough of an audience to on a smaller budget.

Pirates 4 has been in development since before #3 was released so you're dead wrong there. There's even rumours they're offering Depp $50M to do it. That's how much money they think they're going to make. And the only reason the 4th Bourne ain't already in development is 'cause they're trying to please Damon and Greengrass. Kinda like the Indy 4 thing. But they're working diligently on it.

It's a bit obvious that you haven't heard the story of the Hobbit. Even before the first LOTR hit theatres, they started looking into adapting The Hobbit because of how much they thought LOTR ruled. But there was a bit of a licensing nightmare going on. New Line had the rights to LOTR and first chance at the rights to the Hobbit, I think it was Fox or someone who owned the right of refusal to make The Hobbit from a while ago, and there was trying to get past Christopher Tolkein who hated the adaption of the LOTR books into the Jackson films. THEN there was the whole Jackson-suing-New-Line thing which threw another wrench into those plans. Finally, everyone kissed and made up and got a huge boner over the many millions everyone was going to make so they finally all got together for a (Mc)gangbang a couple of years ago. That's why The Hobbit was delayed and not because there was a lack of desire or anything.

And Mental, I agree on Topher's casting. He just wasn't Brock

Zeus wrote:

SineSwiper wrote: There were some real questions on if there was going to be a fourth X-Men movie. (And it's not really a fourth, but an origins flick.) There's still only three LOTR movies, and it took a while to consider making the Hobbit.

The Matrix is done. Blade is done. Bourne is done. Resident Evil is done (hopefully). Pirates of the Caribbean is done. Underworld is probably done.

X-Men, yes there was question as to whether or not it was going to continue. Blade, RE, and Matrix ended on wimpers so they're finished. Underworld is a little different, they kept going because there was enough of an audience to on a smaller budget.

Pirates 4 has been in development since before #3 was released so you're dead wrong there. There's even rumours they're offering Depp $50M to do it. That's how much money they think they're going to make. And the only reason the 4th Bourne ain't already in development is 'cause they're trying to please Damon and Greengrass. Kinda like the Indy 4 thing. But they're working diligently on it.

It's a bit obvious that you haven't heard the story of the Hobbit. Even before the first LOTR hit theatres, they started looking into adapting The Hobbit because of how much they thought LOTR ruled. But there was a bit of a licensing nightmare going on. New Line had the rights to LOTR and first chance at the rights to the Hobbit, I think it was Fox or someone who owned the right of refusal to make The Hobbit from a while ago, and there was trying to get past Christopher Tolkein who hated the adaption of the LOTR books into the Jackson films. THEN there was the whole Jackson-suing-New-Line thing which threw another wrench into those plans. Finally, everyone kissed and made up and got a huge boner over the many millions everyone was going to make so they finally all got together for a (Mc)gangbang a couple of years ago. That's why The Hobbit was delayed and not because there was a lack of desire or anything.

And Mental, I agree on Topher's casting. He just wasn't Brock

Venom's supposed to be about as big as the Hulk or the Thing. You can't hire Eric "Pencil Neck" Forman to play him. It's like hiring Shia LaBeouf to play the Hulk. You need someone like The Rock, or something.

Come to think of it, where are the new massive bodybuilder actors? It used to be that you had Schwarzenegger and Stallone if you really, really needed a big dude. Now there's the Rock - but he's not at that level really. Vin Diesel doesn't really make movies anymore as far as I can tell and he wasn't quite at that level either. Will Smith is trying to step into those roles a bit, but he's another dude that's genetically skinny who's never going to pack on that kind of weight. I just don't see anybody thick who's a star right now who can really excel at those kinds of roles.

I don't like all this hate on upcoming Wolverine movie. The trailers look awesome, Hugh (huge) Jackman is an outstandingly talented actor, and it seems a pretty straight-forward tale focusing on the least gay of any of the X-men.

Why the negativity guys? Did you not see the part in the trailer where he takes out an armored car?

Chris wrote:

Zeus wrote:Because the movie was all ready to go with Sandman and Green Goblin. That was the script they scouted and prepared for. Then at the last minute, they forced a re-write to bring Venom in to "broaden the appeal" to the younger Spiderman crowd to whom Venom is a big enemy. Raimi didn't want Venom at all he was forced to put it hastily. And it showed

sandman killed uncle ben. I repeat. SANDMAN FUCKING KILLED UNCLE FUCKING BEN! why did the movie suck? Yes dance numbers and venom were hamfisted stupid but no.....SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE BEN! that's why the goddamn movie sucked. as bad as the rest of it was SANDMAN KILLED FUCKING UNCLE FUCKING BEN!

RentCavalier wrote:I don't like all this hate on upcoming Wolverine movie. The trailers look awesome, Hugh (huge) Jackman is an outstandingly talented actor, and it seems a pretty straight-forward tale focusing on the least gay of any of the X-men.

Why the negativity guys? Did you not see the part in the trailer where he takes out an armored car?

DEADPOOL IS NOT FUCKING BARAKA!

I am SO confused right now.

I think the Wolverine movie may be fun, and that's all I'm looking for from it. But casting Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool is perfect. My only fear is there won't be much of him.

Also, Chris' objection to Sandman being Ben's killer: I didn't see the movie, but I watched the trailers, and that bothered me. Not because it was a deviation from the comics, but because it's lazy storytelling. It's lazy for two reasons: it changed the movie continuity they had already established for the convenience of the current film, and it's a cheap way to give Peter motivation to hate Sandman. If you violate the continuity you've already established, then you're telling me your stories have no consequence, because you can always go back and change them. You're also telling me that you don't have faith in your own ability to motivate your characters, so you have to do something obvious like make him Ben's killer.

I agree with Kupek (and I didn't see the movie either), that sounds way lamer and more lazy than Tong-Po raping Van Damme's girlfriend in Kickboxer as a cheap demonizing ingredient to the plot... At least Kickboxer was fun.

Kupek wrote:I think the Wolverine movie may be fun, and that's all I'm looking for from it. But casting Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool is perfect. My only fear is there won't be much of him.

Also, Chris' objection to Sandman being Ben's killer: I didn't see the movie, but I watched the trailers, and that bothered me. Not because it was a deviation from the comics, but because it's lazy storytelling. It's lazy for two reasons: it changed the movie continuity they had already established for the convenience of the current film, and it's a cheap way to give Peter motivation to hate Sandman. If you violate the continuity you've already established, then you're telling me your stories have no consequence, because you can always go back and change them. You're also telling me that you don't have faith in your own ability to motivate your characters, so you have to do something obvious like make him Ben's killer.

Yeah, the Spider-Man movies in general have seemed to sacrifice the plot of the comics for pulpier and easier storytelling choices.

They're also some of the most successful comic book flicks ever. A lot of moviegoers don't care, it seems.

I still haven't paid to see or rent or a damn one of them, I think. I seem to remember I may have gone to see the first one, but obviously I didn't really care about it enough to recall for sure.

Chris wrote:

RentCavalier wrote:I don't like all this hate on upcoming Wolverine movie. The trailers look awesome, Hugh (huge) Jackman is an outstandingly talented actor, and it seems a pretty straight-forward tale focusing on the least gay of any of the X-men.

Why the negativity guys? Did you not see the part in the trailer where he takes out an armored car?

DEADPOOL IS NOT FUCKING BARAKA

I agree since deadpool is basically god.... since he knows what stops the juggernaut.

he needs no laser beam eyes.

Replay wrote:

Kupek wrote:I think the Wolverine movie may be fun, and that's all I'm looking for from it. But casting Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool is perfect. My only fear is there won't be much of him.

Also, Chris' objection to Sandman being Ben's killer: I didn't see the movie, but I watched the trailers, and that bothered me. Not because it was a deviation from the comics, but because it's lazy storytelling. It's lazy for two reasons: it changed the movie continuity they had already established for the convenience of the current film, and it's a cheap way to give Peter motivation to hate Sandman. If you violate the continuity you've already established, then you're telling me your stories have no consequence, because you can always go back and change them. You're also telling me that you don't have faith in your own ability to motivate your characters, so you have to do something obvious like make him Ben's killer.

Yeah, the Spider-Man movies in general have seemed to sacrifice the plot of the comics for pulpier and easier storytelling choices.

They're also some of the most successful comic book flicks ever. A lot of moviegoers don't care, it seems.

I still haven't paid to see or rent or a damn one of them, I think. I seem to remember I may have gone to see the first one, but obviously I didn't really care about it enough to recall for sure.

nah the first 2 wee great movies. some things were annoying but they were fun and felt lik spidey should....

The first two Spidey films felt very much like a 60's comic come to life

Kupek wrote:Also, Chris' objection to Sandman being Ben's killer: I didn't see the movie, but I watched the trailers, and that bothered me. Not because it was a deviation from the comics, but because it's lazy storytelling. It's lazy for two reasons: it changed the movie continuity they had already established for the convenience of the current film, and it's a cheap way to give Peter motivation to hate Sandman. If you violate the continuity you've already established, then you're telling me your stories have no consequence, because you can always go back and change them.

Haven't I been saying that for HBO/Showtime series, BSG, Heroes, and other series that just makes shit up without planning out the plot?

I wouldn't know, I skip those threads because I don't watch those shows.

bovine wrote:

Chris wrote:

RentCavalier wrote:I don't like all this hate on upcoming Wolverine movie. The trailers look awesome, Hugh (huge) Jackman is an outstandingly talented actor, and it seems a pretty straight-forward tale focusing on the least gay of any of the X-men.

Why the negativity guys? Did you not see the part in the trailer where he takes out an armored car?

DEADPOOL IS NOT FUCKING BARAKA

I agree since deadpool is basically god.... since he knows what stops the juggernaut.

he needs no laser beam eyes.

Shut up charles, I'm the juggernaut bitch.