Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Spiderman 3 **Possible Spoiler alerts**

<< < (8/14) > >>

0bsessions:
I can't tell what of that post is serious and what is a joke, but it's probably the most amusing thing I've read all day. I was ready with an entire little diatrabe about how much she missed the point of the character, but I'm pretty sure I just missed the point of the entire post.

epifreak:
Not to mention summing up all that I don't like about Superman. Seriously, superhero implies that the character has some trait that puts them somewhere above human capability. Spider Man is actually on the lower end of the power spectrum that this can run, and that's why I like him. In the case of Spider Man, you're watching a human guy with a little something extra doing his best to make the world a better place. Sure he's not possessed with *deepen voice appropriately* All Cosmic Power!! itty bitty living space. Rather he's slightly above humanity, which makes the story more compelling. If you want to watch godlike figures duke it out, check out Superman, but don't expect much in the way of struggle. Superman is a case of "God fights human. God wins. Woopdee-fucking-doo!"

Dimmukane:
I like Batman for the same reason...he's completely human, he's just in perfect physical condition, and takes on villains who are still essentially human (some are borderline).  It just makes him seem like more of a hero (to me at least).

Jimmy the Squid:
I'm pretty sure the reason film writers try to create complex characters is because 1) every critic who watches the film will be all "Omg one-sided shallow characters wtf u suck biatch" (but obviously with proper English) and 2) one-sided characters are just fucking boring.

Duchess i think you might be missing the point of the whole Spiderman/Peter Parker thing. He's a regular guy with regular faults who fights crime on the side. Besides, they started off the film with him showing he was already a little bit of a jerk, and how could you not be if an entire city thinks you're the shit? The suit just amplified that trait to the point where it was aggressivly obvious.
Obviously I am quite biased as I really did love this film and it was by far my favourite out of the trilogy but there is way more to most good heros than the whole "I am incredibly super and can prevail in the face of any obstacle without getting a hair out of place!" thing.

As for the morally superior villains, a good villain isn't totally evil which is what makes them more accessible to the audience but more importantly, it makes them more fascinating if they have a modicum of redeemability. A throwaway villain is the one who is just pure evil with no sense of human decency. In those cases it's fun to watch them get the shit kicked out of them til they go away. If the villain is somehow likeable, if the audience wants them to be "saved" for lack of a better word then it makes them a whole lot more interesting.

This is all subjective and it's hard to tell whether Duchess was being entirely serious but either way, the above is how I feel in regards to the issues addressed.

alongwaltz:
Finally saw this last night and I don't understand all the negative reviews.  It doesn't seem altogether different than the other two.

The action scenes were awesome, especially the first fight with the Goblin.  The techniques used to fight Sandman were creative.  Eddie Brock was the perfect sleazebag.  And the movie was hilarious.


I still don't understand the point of Gwen Stacy, though.  Why introduce her in the third one?  Why not have her in the second half of the movie at all?  Why have her live?  If she's not the love of Peter's life or the horrible tragedy he couldn't prevent, she serves no purpose.  That's all she was in the comics.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page