Antoine Doinel wrote:
Sam Raimi continues to waste his time and talent, and signs up
for two more Spiderman
They have to redeem themselves from the bad taste Spider-Man 3 left. The only good thing in it was looking at the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard.
My main complaint about Spider-man 3 was that too much was crammed in there. It was obvious Venom was being shoe-horned into the film. It would have been far more preferable if the Symbiote plot was stretched out over multiple films:
Spider-Man 3: Spider-man struggles against Sand Man, the new Symbiote suit gives him the necessary edge to overcome his enemy. The fight ends with Spider-Man forgiving the Sandman for his part in Uncle Ben's death.
Spider-Man 4: Spider-man fights both The Lizard and Goblin II while as Peter Parker, he gets increasingly more ruthless and arrogant, resulting in him gleefully ruining Eddie Brock's career. Defeats both enemies, but nearly kills The Lizard and Harry Osborn ends up dying so Parker finally ditches the Symbiote. Symbiote ends up on Brock, setting up Venom for the next film.
Spider-Man 5: Venom starts off with a low-key campaign of harassment like shoving Peter Parker off of a subway platform, grabbing his ankle through a window while he's pursuing a thief, that kind of thing. Then Spider-Man starts getting framed for crimes with a climactic showdown with Venom at the end.
The article mentions something interesting about the new "trend" of taking comic book films and making them "dark" after the success of the Dark Knight. The first thing is that "dark" is not a trend. Is a stupid term use by the corporate idiots in the film industry who doesn't understand comic books. It's stupid for Bryan Singer and Co to think that the sequel to Superman Returns is going to work if they make the character, plot, etc "dark". What makes a comic book film good is to remain faithful to the source material. That is why Spider-Man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, Iron Man, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, The Crow, Sin City, Hellboy 1 and 2, Road To Perdition, Batman Begins, the Dark Knight and even the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles worked.
But Superman actually would work in the context of a dark film though.
What I have seen is that everytime a director, actor or studio tries to use their "creative" control and style to recreate to their own vision of the source material is the time when these comic book films fail. It happens all the time and that is the reason why the bad comic book films outnumber the good ones. For example, Fantastic Four 2. Besides the miscasting of Jessica Alba, the stupid director had the idea of not showing Galactus as a "robot" because "my movies would not have giant robots". Guess what? Galactus is a fucking robot and will always be, not a fucking dark cloud, imbecile!
Actually, Galactus appears is a force of nature that appears in whatever form those who see him can best understand.
This rant was brougth by another dissapointing comic book film named Ghost Rider. With nothing better to do today, I mistakenly watched this film on Blu Ray. Between Cages horrible acting, the bad editing and ridiculous puns, this made for a excruciation film that shouldn't have been this way. The source material is interesting, why dumb it down and make it "fun" and "funny" This was a film that was supposed to be "dark".
You really can't compare the Marvel adaptations to the DC ones. DC's output in terms of films have been comparatively scarce while Marvel is pumping them out. The end result is that the DC adaptations (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Superman Returns) have been of a relatively higher standard than most of the Marvel adaptations. For ever decent to great Marvel film we get (The Hulk, X-Men, X-Men 2, Iron Man), there's about 3 or 4 terrible Marvel films, including Ghost Rider.