That doesn't matter, it point is you don't need powers to write a decent story.
Worst Third Superhero Movie
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
The films have shown that Rogue only temporarily extracts personalities and abilities. She had to kiss Bobby for quite some time before only getting a little bit of his powers. By all means, she seemed pretty sane to me.
Are we talking about the comics? I'm talking about the films.
Really, many of the examples of Rogue's personality seem to be based on the comic about her accepting herself, her ability and not taking a cure. That's not the Rogue I've seen in the films.
It doesn't completely hold up due to a lot of annoying voiceover narration and trying to explain too much to the kiddies, but I still have a lot of respect for how the 90s animated series set up and delivered the Venom story. It helped that they built up Eddie Brock's hatred of Peter Parker for many episodes before the episode where he finally became Venom, and in the end, the Venom episode was crazy intense.
The way he played mind games with Spider-Man by using his knowledge of Parker's identity to threaten his loved ones was riveting. The way he subtly threatened Aunt May as Eddie Brock and tried to unmask Spider-Man in front of the press was shockingly scary to me as a kid. I'm sure it gets even more intense in the comics. There was more than enough material there for a movie, and it wouldn't just be a rehash of what they kept doing in the movies - some guy gets caught in a science experiment gone wrong and then becomes a monster.
As he was depicted in the movie, I thought Venom wasn't so horrible personality-wise (Topher had a few good one-liners), but the character was clearly shoehorned into the movie, and if you're not going to give a character their due, you're better off leaving them out entirely. Two-Face seemed a little squeezed into "The Dark Knight" as well since Dent only becomes Two-Face late in the flick, but the rushed Venom was ten times worse.
That movie just had way too many villains. That's what sunk it most of all. I couldn't believe we were heading into a climax where Spider-Man was set to face three villains at once. Even Harry flip flopping to his side at the end couldn't keep it from being stupid. There was no need for him to have to deal with more than one villain. The other two movies did fine with only one. I used to blame Raimi, but I don't think it was really his fault. I read a Q & A with him once where he clearly didn't know much about Venom. I think the studio forced him to write that character in, and he came up with a really uninspired way to utilize it. That's what happens when you rush someone.
Anwar, I can't believe Sandman's origin was as lame in the comics as it was in the movie! If that's the case, I think they should have changed it or used a different villain.
I finally remembered to actually vote.
Then I was shocked to see that only Blade 3 was more popular than X-Men 3.
I imagine that Blade 3 is easily worse than X-Men 3, but the poll sort of implies that the third was a drop off. I couldn't finish the first Blade movie, so far as I'm concerned there's no drop off.
As for Spider-Man 3, I realize I managed to confuse 2 with 3. It's 2 that's all about teen male importence. That's such a novel theme it imbues the movie with a naive kind of charm. As for 3, I've seen it but apparently can't remember much about it. Venom was a bore, there was some luridly soapy angst about an Osborn and Sandman somehow got rewritten into the origin story, no? Busy, busy, busy but nothing getting done. Still not jaw droppingly bad.
X-Men 3 still takes the booby prize, because the cure storyline clumsily highlights one of the weakest parts of the X-Men as a concept. They are nothing if not analogues for gays, or some other minority, and self-acceptance. But, once these X-Men bravely accept themselves they spend their time fighting their own kind to defend the normals. There is a happy medium, and probably several other compromises, between Xavier's militant attacks on fellow mutants who aren't either safely tucked away or on active service to the normals in some capacity, and Magneto's mad dog apocalypticism.
When mutants like Rogue or Beast are imagined, their isolation from humanity by their powers imaginatively expresses fears of isolation by minority status. Thus, some are offended that Rogue undercuts the self-acceptance theme by taking the cure. Others correctly note that the imaginative premise is that Rogue (and similars) really are isolated and damaged by their minority-ness. Whether it's being gay or what not is irrelevant. The mutants with hyperpowers that threaten cosmic destruction with their powers (Dark Phoenix comes to mind of course,) project a rejection of hostility to the majority.
The lesson is that there's something fundamentally silly about the superpowers that limits the ability of comics and comics movies to meaningfully dramatize serious issues. A deft touch is required.
Also, I'm starting to wonder again if I just don't much like comic books/comic book movies very much any more.
Then I was shocked to see that only Blade 3 was more popular than X-Men 3.
I imagine that Blade 3 is easily worse than X-Men 3, but the poll sort of implies that the third was a drop off. I couldn't finish the first Blade movie, so far as I'm concerned there's no drop off.
As for Spider-Man 3, I realize I managed to confuse 2 with 3. It's 2 that's all about teen male importence. That's such a novel theme it imbues the movie with a naive kind of charm. As for 3, I've seen it but apparently can't remember much about it. Venom was a bore, there was some luridly soapy angst about an Osborn and Sandman somehow got rewritten into the origin story, no? Busy, busy, busy but nothing getting done. Still not jaw droppingly bad.
X-Men 3 still takes the booby prize, because the cure storyline clumsily highlights one of the weakest parts of the X-Men as a concept. They are nothing if not analogues for gays, or some other minority, and self-acceptance. But, once these X-Men bravely accept themselves they spend their time fighting their own kind to defend the normals. There is a happy medium, and probably several other compromises, between Xavier's militant attacks on fellow mutants who aren't either safely tucked away or on active service to the normals in some capacity, and Magneto's mad dog apocalypticism.
When mutants like Rogue or Beast are imagined, their isolation from humanity by their powers imaginatively expresses fears of isolation by minority status. Thus, some are offended that Rogue undercuts the self-acceptance theme by taking the cure. Others correctly note that the imaginative premise is that Rogue (and similars) really are isolated and damaged by their minority-ness. Whether it's being gay or what not is irrelevant. The mutants with hyperpowers that threaten cosmic destruction with their powers (Dark Phoenix comes to mind of course,) project a rejection of hostility to the majority.
The lesson is that there's something fundamentally silly about the superpowers that limits the ability of comics and comics movies to meaningfully dramatize serious issues. A deft touch is required.
Also, I'm starting to wonder again if I just don't much like comic books/comic book movies very much any more.
Yes, but the Venom portion of that story was only 20 minutes long. Venom is only good for that much of a story, since he's supposed to be the 3rd Act/Climax to the greater symbiote storyline. And like you said, they built Brock up prior.
Arad actually helped write that story to begin with, so he should have known better. If he was so insistent on Venom he should have told Raimi to start building him up in SM2. There were slow moments in that film where they could have introduced Brock (a rival photographer would easily have fit in the "Peter's life is Hell" thing they were going for) as the real Staff Photographer and the key obstacle to Peter getting more than Freelance work. And if they had to use Gwen they could have introduced her there too.
The symbiote story is enough material for one movie (this includes Venom) if it's the one main plot. They had Harry to deal with, so either make SM3 all about Harry and not do the symbiote AT ALL or make it all about the symbiote and have Harry just decide to not become the new Goblin once he realized that his dad was a psycho-killer. Or make the symbiote be one of OsCorp's creations, so it and Harry are the two villains (Harry supplying the villains for Symbiote-Peter to fight) and Harry can either be killed by Venom in the end or die helping Peter fight him.
OR
Have Harry become Venom instead. He's the best candidate really.
Well, Dent was only Two-Face for 20 or so minutes, Blonsky was only Abomination for 20 minutes, Stane was only Iron Monger for 15 minutes. I don't see the problem.
Having three villains wasn't the problem, the problem was that they couldn't make up their minds who was the prime villain of the three. Batman Begins had three villains, but one of them was minor (Falcone) and got rid of him halfway, the other (Scarecrow) was just the 3rd villain's (Ghul) flunky. SM3 tried to make all 3 villains equal, which was the problem.
Let's face it, there's no way for Sandman's origin to make sense.
Unlike homosexuality, the main analogy we've been using, being a mutant isn't integral to one's core personality. They're abilities and powers, not character traits. Biologically warping someone's sexuality would affect their very nature. De-powering Rogue de-powers her... but she's still the same person.
Well, again, she was never an X-Men member until the Danger Room sequence in X3, which she really shouldn't have been a part of with her limited abilities. But as a non-mutant X-Men supporter, she could get up close and personal audiences with world leaders who would otherwise not dare let a member of the team anywhere near them. I could very easily see a de-powered Rogue being more useful to the School than a powered one.Sure! Rogue could become the dance instructor! That's definitely a life-fulfilling role and an interesting character advancement! Going from a member of the X-Men to a dance instructor! Wahoo! So exciting.
All of this, I wouldn't take the cure if I had Rogue's powers and the inconsistent character portral will go right out the window once the desire for sexual intercourse with another human being starts to come into play. To spite what many men think, woman aren't sexual camels. Rogue is sexually frustrated and wants to get laid. Her wanting the cure is as simple as that.
I don't think you realize how much we agree, but I guess I could have worded my points a little more clearly. I wasn't saying multiple villains is by definition a problem. It really depends on how they're written. I think Two-Face wasn't in "The Dark Knight" for very long, but in spite of that, he did not feel as forced into the movie as Venom did in "Spider-Man 3". Like I said, the fact that Dent was an important presence in the movie from the beginning helped. Iron Monger and Abomination are good examples too. I think they got just as much screen time as was necessary, and the fact that their alter egos were well developed (unlike Eddie Brock) made their presence in a story more organic.
I agree about "Batman Begins". A fine example of how to have three villains without any of them feeling extraneous. Some may argue Scarecrow should have had a bigger presence and not just been a 'flunky', but I felt he was used just enough. He was underused in "The Dark Knight", though, much like Cyclops in the third X-Men movie. It's kind of pointless to have such a good character in a movie just to get them out of the way in the beginning.
Interesting point about Venom. I was going to point out that he worked tremendously in a 20 minute cartoon, yet being in only 20 minutes or so of a movie he felt out of place and rushed. It makes me wonder whether he could have remained interesting for the entire duration of a movie, but whatever the case, I think that definitely would have worked better than what we got - a movie where he was one villain too many.
IMO it depends on the purpose of that character.
I didn't find Two-Face squeezed into "Dark Knight" because Dent's purpose was for the Joker to push him into becoming something like Two-Face. Two-Face was just meant to be the end result of his work.
Venom is a stalker and to make a stalker work requires building over the course of the film, not the end result as he was in SM3. This is why Glenn Close worked as the ultimate stalker, ever thing she did built up over time. Her actions got worse and worse until she was truly frightening. Venom should have been the cliffhanger that would lead us into SM4. That leaves him to be the main villain in the next film.
However my biggest problem with Spidey 3 isn't Sandman, Venom or Harry or whatever else. My big issue is the ending itself. At the time it was still up in the air on whether Raimi, Toby or anybody was going to do a SM4, yet Raimi ends the film leaving us hanging about the fate of Pater & Mary Jane. Is Peter going to marry her? Are they over as a couple? What happens? It ends on a somber note and leaves you hanging.
What happen to Spidey being a fell good movie?
I really love how the 90s cartoon did the Venom Saga with the three parter too. It had best origin for the symbiote ever, with it coming from the space shuttle. It slowly took over Spier-Man and turned him bad. The episodes had Kingpin, Rhino, Shocker, AND Venom but it never felt crowded because everyone except Venom was treated as a minor villain. Even Jameson was a big part of it.
Like you said, they did a great job showing Venom stalking Spider-man and the final battle was great, with Spider-Man outsmarting Venom. The three episodes have been out on dvd for a while and I watch it from time to time.
I like to think of those episodes as the sequel to Spider-Man 2. This is the Spider-Man 3 that we should have gotten!
Like I said, they had already set up Harry as the bad guy for SM3. And as long as an Osborn is around, you don't need Venom (Venom was created partially because at the time Norman was dead and Harry had forgotten Peter was Spidey, they wanted a new villain who knew his secret). The symbiote story should've either been intertwined with Harry (the symbiote as an OsCorp creation or something they were analyzing) or not in the movie at all.
If it WAS an OsCorp discovery/being studied by them, then the answer is obvious: Make Harry into Venom. He'd be the perfect fit for the "Anti-Peter" role they were going for with Movie Brock, he already had the development for such an enemy, it would set him apart from Norman's Goblin, etc.
Brock has always been a lame character with lame motivations, he's good for 20-30 minutes of a movie but cannot hold the whole thing himself.
If it WAS an OsCorp discovery/being studied by them, then the answer is obvious: Make Harry into Venom. He'd be the perfect fit for the "Anti-Peter" role they were going for with Movie Brock, he already had the development for such an enemy, it would set him apart from Norman's Goblin, etc.
Brock has always been a lame character with lame motivations, he's good for 20-30 minutes of a movie but cannot hold the whole thing himself.
Technically, both Rogue and Icemen became X-men at the end of X2. If you recall, both of them were wearing the uniforms when they went to see the President at the end of the movie. Ratner ignored this and never even put her in the uniform in X3. Even the posters had Rogue and Angel in the uniform, but they never wore them in the movie. Talk about false advertising!
The only problem with that is that Beast already is a much better person for that kind job. He spent a while working for the President in a high ranking position and at the end of X3 he became the US ambassador to the United Nations. He is the one that will actually be close to the world leaders. Rogue is just some runaway.
Another thing I thought was annoying about X3 was that they changed Presidents. How long was the time between X2 and X3? It couldn't have been more than a year. Why is there already a new President already? It didn't help that the actor that played new President was no where near as good as the one from X2.
X-Men: The Last Stand did ignore some important details from X2, one of which being the change from President McKenna, the president from X2, to an entirely new president in the third film. Apparently earlier versions of the script kept McKenna, but when the actor's schedule conflicted with the shoot for X-Men: The Last Stand, they had to go with a new actor.
I did read somewhere, probably from Zak Penn or Simon Kinberg (the writers of the film), that around six months to a year passed from X2 to The Last Stand and in that time a new president had been elected, one that was more tolerable and accepting of mutants. Thus the President we see in The Last Stand, even though he seemed just as conflicted as President McKenna from X2.
He had one in his Cabinet; that looks like a step up to me.
Yeah, but the President in The Last Stand weaponized the cure without consulting McCoy which leads me to believe that he wasn't entirely accepting of mutants.
Re the X-Men president - maybe X-Men is set in the same continuity as 24, which means there's a new POTUS every 6 months or so?
Yeah, but he's still a beast, capable of tearing people apart in an eye-blink. Rogue could become his assistant, meeting with people still too afraid to trust mutants up close, no matter their qualifications. Or, she could become his assistant anyway. Or a masseuse. A world of options awaits her!
Quite; Xavier almost wipes out all of humanity, causing what seems to be the whole planet several minutes of pain at the very least (if not whole masses of offscreen deaths), and the result? A more mutant-friendly president.
The weaponized cure was to be used for combat/defensive situations only. In other words, it levels the playing field between US troops and mutants; no conceivable president wouldn't take that step. And after Xavier's human-strike, there should have been a massive, public debate over whether or not to "cure" all mutants in every situation by force.