1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Long, but entertaining: Spider-Man 3

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by TigerVols, May 2, 2007.

  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    I never got the appeal of the Pirates of the Carribean movies. Saw the first one. Wasn't bad.

    The comic geek in me pushes that one way down my summer list. I know Pirates will be a better movie, but I'm far more attached to the characters in the Fantastic Four sequel or Transformers. (Yes, Transformers will probably suck, but I used to love that stuff.)

    More likely, I'll end up seeing Shrek 3 because we could take the little one.
  2. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Raimi shot Spider-Man three and four at the same time. He felt that was the only way he could guarantee that Dunst would play Mary Jane Watson.

    I am going to see the 12:30 P.M. showing today in my 'hood.
  3. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    Have fun, man!

    Awesome. I didn't know Rami did that. Great move by him.
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    That's the first I've heard of that. hockeybeat, where did you hear that Spider-Man 4 was already shot?
  5. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    If the 3 & 4 were at the same time, that would explain the high cost, upposedly in the $350 million range to make 3.
    And in the morning paper, the local reviewer trashed it. But he also has a pretty good track record of being wrong on almost every occasion. He also said something along the lines of, I quit reading comics when I was 12, why should I as an adult watch a movie based on a comic book?
    He's like many other reviewers, if the movie wasn't shot in black and white and in a foreign language, it is worthless.
  6. bostonbred

    bostonbred Guest

    You're wrong...Raimi only shot SM 3 and the cast/director/production/etc of SM 4 has not started. Raimi is considering whether to take over "The Hobbit" or stay on for another Spidey.

    I think you are thinking of Pirates of the Caribbean...the second and third movies were shot close together, with some of the third movie scenes shot while still filming the second film.
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Yeah, that sounds about right from what I've heard, including what I know of Raimi's process. Each time, he hasn't really started thinking about the next movie until the current one was complete.

    And Jay, that critic is obviously an idiot. To go in with that kind of bias shows he's just not doing his job.
  8. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member


    Raimi, Maguire and Dunst have all said they want to come back...but none have signed on the dotted line yet. Sony is waiting to see how much profit they can make on this one...because at some point there are diminishing returns...and the next one will cost $100 million in salaries alone...Sony will face the decision: Spend $500 million next time to make $100-$200 million in profits, or spend (risK) $500 million on 5 other movies to make that $200 million in profit.

    IF anything, look for Raimi to sign on but Tobey and Dunst replaced with younger stars for Spider-Man 4, debuting Christman, 2009 or May, 2010.
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    No way Raimi comes back without Maguire and Dunst, especially if they want to return and the studio says no for financial reasons.
  10. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    Haven't seen it yet, gonna see it this weekend.

    But the previews indicate I may have a major beef with it. I don't care to be spoiled, but if someone can confirm that the Sandman is indeed revealed to be Uncle ben;s true killer, le e know. Because if I'm in the theater and that happens I'm liable to throw something at the screen.

    Movies take liberties. Some things don't work as well on the screen. But it is absolutely fundamental to Spidey's character that an unknown a-hole killed Uncle Ben, and thus was used to motivate him every time things got tough. It makes no sense, and there is no reason, to completely change the mythos of the character just because you need an excuse to bring in that stupid black costume.

    So . . .if anyone can let me know if they change the mythos in that way, or if it's just part of th whole "black costume" stuff, itwould be appreciated.
  11. bostonbred

    bostonbred Guest

    Yes, Sandman is Uncle Ben's killer. And if you have a problem with that, you really are not going to like the ending....
  12. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    I thought the first two were fun. I'm prepared to not like the third or be pleasantly surprised if I do.
    I planned to skip the opening-weekend crowds, but now we're going to have a young house guest this weekend. We'll probably take him to see the movie.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page