The Sam Raimi Spider-Man Appreciation Thread

[DigificWriter]

Hi, all. As we approach the dawn of the year 2017 and the solo cinematic return of the character of Spider-Man, I wanted to start a thread dedicated to discussing - in a positive manner - the films that began the character's cinematic odyssey, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy, starting with the third installment, the often (unfairly) maligned Spider-Man 3, which I've always liked but have now come to realize is truly the best of the series both narratively and thematically.

I don't want this to turn into a "negativity zone" and therefore won't go into the reasons that this film gets criticized, but I do want to talk about why I feel it deserves to be recognized as better than both of its predecessors:
1) The story is perfectly executed. Spider-Man 3 organically builds on the foundation established by Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 while simultaneously adding new layers to said story by 'flipping the script' in regards to what we thought we knew about his Uncle Ben's death and the circumstances that led Peter Parker to become Spider-Man in the first place.

2) It creates a perfect narrative "circle". By revisiting and building upon narrative elements from the first and second films, Spider-Man 3 allows Sam Raimi the opportunity to bring a sense of narrative closure to the character-driven story arcs he helped bring to life on film while simultaneously "leaving the door open" for future narrative possibilities.

3) It makes the character of Venom interesting without losing focus on Spider-Man. It's been well-documented that Sam Raimi did not want to include the character of Venom in Spider-Man 3 and was forced to by producer Avi Arad, but, in spite of the circumstances surrounding the character's inclusion, he still managed to make him interesting without his presence overshadowing or pulling the film's narrative focus away from its titular hero.

4) Pretty much every aspect of the movie is a representation of the theme of 'mirroring' and 'reflection', from Harry's emergence/ascendance as the second Green Goblin mirroring that of his father's to Eddie and Gwen being mirror images of Peter and Mary Jane to Eddie and Harry's respective hatreds of Peter and resultant descents into darkness mirroring each other to even the relationship between Peter and his Aunt May mirroring that of Flint and his daughter Penny.

5) It manifests the psychological effect of the symbiote on Peter in a way that remains consistent with his previously-established characterization. One of the biggest issues I realized that I have with the "black suit"/Venom storyline conceptually is that it's a thin excuse for making Peter take on a completely different and unrecognizable personality just for the sake of doing so, which doesn't realistically make any sense narratively, and it's a pitfall that Raimi thankfully avoided by instead using the symbiote to amplify elements of Peter's personality that were already present in his psychological subconscious.

It is for these reasons that Spider-Man 3 has now surpassed Spider-Man 2 as my favorite film in the Raimi series, and one that I think is deserving of far more appreciation than it receives.

What is everyone else's favorite Spider-Man film, and do you agree or disagree with my assessment of Spidey 3?

 

[Tosk]

Don't expect people to observe the 'no negativity' approach to Spider-Man 3 for long.

I do love Spidey 3 though, but not blind to its flaws. I find it the least great of the Raimi trilogy, but it conversely also has some of the best stuff in it of the three. And I'll just say it now...the much lamented dance sequence? I love it.

 

[LJones41]

I'm aware that "Spider-Man 3" had its flaws. So did "Spider-Man", "The Amazing Spider-Man" and "The Amazing Spider-Man". As for "Spider-Man 2" . . . it's been a long time since I watched that film. I do know that it is my favorite of all Spidey films, whether it has flaws or not. Chances are . . . it probably does. But there hasn't been a Spider-Man movie between 2002 and 2014 that I did not like.

However, I enjoyed "Spider-Man 3" very much. I really enjoyed how it explored the more negative aspects of Peter's personality, along with those of Mary Jane, Harry and some of the other characters. And to be honest, I liked it a bit more than the first Spidey film.

 

[DigificWriter]

This may just be my way of looking at the world, but I honestly don't see the things in Spider-Man 3 that are perceived to be flaws as actually being flaws because I feel like if you look a bit deeper into the way that Raimi (begrudgingly) incorporates the symbiote anc Venom into the story, he's hearkening back to elements of Peter's characterization that are first seen, briefly, in the first film and, as I noted earlier, creating mirrored characters and character dynamics for the series' major trio of characters (Peter, Mary Jane, and Harry).

The "dance sequence" where Peter tries to upstage and embarrass Mary Jane is a perfect example of this; it's a callback to the confidence that he starts to exhibit during the latter part of his cage match with Bone Saw McGraw and the subsequent attitude he adopts when the promoter shafts him on the money he should've won and a simultaneous mirror of Harry's darker personality, which also plays perfectly well with the idea that Eddie, as Venom, is also a mirror of Harry as well as a mirror of Peter.

I'm currently reviewing the Raimi Trilogy on Letterboxd and gave the first film 3 1/2 stars and the second films 4 stars, and intend to give Spider-Man 3 4 stars as well (I can't bring myself to give it 4 1/2 stars because it does have a few flaws such as the pointless inclusion of Captain Stacy and a slight feeling that Gwen, for all that she's used as a mirror for Mary Jane and Peter, could've had her role filled by another character) even though, as I noted earlier, I think it's ultimately a (slightly) better movie, narratively and thematically, than the second film.

I still do count Doc Ock as my favorite villain from the series and recognize that Spider-Man 2 is a great film, but have, as noted, come to the realization that, for as admittedly good as the second movie is, Spidey 3 ever-so-slightly edges it out.

 

[Tosk]

could've had her role filled by another character

Which character?

 

[DigificWriter]

Which character?

Betty Brant immediately comes to mind, at least for me. They also could have easily just used a random "extra" to fill the same narrative function that Gwen ends up filling.

That said, I do ultimately like and appreciate that Gwen is portrayed, characterization-wise, as a mirror of sorts to both Peter and Mary Jane, which does slightly mitigate any feelings of her inclusion specifically feeling superfluous.

 

[Tosk]

I guess I don't see why it couldn't/shouldn't be Gwen though. Not being argumentative, I just don't get it. (And full disclosure, I find Bryce adorable as Gwen, so I'm glad it was the way it was.)

 

[DigificWriter]

^ There's nothing inherent to who Gwen Stacy is as a character - in any of her incarnations - that specifically dictates that she be the person to fill the narrative role that she fills in Spider-Man 3, which is to be a potential romantic 'foil' for Mary Jane and 'arm candy' that Peter can use to intentionally try and upstage and humiliate her as a visceral reaction, fueled by the symbiote's psychological amplification of the darker aspects of his personality that were always there but just 'bubbling' underneath the surface, to the way she ends their relationship.

There's nothing really 'wrong' with her being included and used in the narrative function that she was, but the fact that she's used as she is does bring with it the slight feeling that her specific narrative function could've been filled by other characters, be they pre-existing or brand-new and "throwaway".

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

My only real problem with 2 is how Peter "gives up" his powers. The story makes it seem like it's his terrible choice to let bad things happen to people, when in fact, he's essentially normal and couldn't do anything anyways. And the visualization of the reactor as a tiny sun seemed a bit much. However, the acting and espectially the whole train sequence more than makes up for it.

Because of this, I still like the first one more, and really found few issues with the third. I actually thought their handling of Brock as the mirror of Peter eas perfect.

 

[ichab]

Enjoyed 1 and 2 but not a fan of Spiderman 3 . IMO the movie was bogged down with too many things going on: Sandman, Venom, Peter and Mary Jane conflict, Harry becoming bad guy,good guy, bad guy before finally settling on good guy.etc etc. Way too much for one movie.

Plus dancing Peter didn't bother me as much as crying Peter. I just can't stand to see a hero cry that much in one movie.

No, the criticisms of that movie are entirely justified.

 

[DigificWriter]

Enjoyed 1 and 2 but not a fan of Spiderman 3 . IMO the movie was bogged down with too many things going on: Sandman, Venom, Peter and Mary Jane conflict, Harry becoming bad guy,good guy, bad guy before finally settling on good guy.etc etc. Way too much for one movie.

You must not like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy very much if you have a problem with the amount of story elements/narrative ideas that the Raimi brothers and Alvin Sargent put into Spider-Man 3, because Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises have plots that are far more complicated and deal with far more narrative elements/ideas than Spider-Man 3 does by several orders of magnitude.

 

[ichab]

You must not like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy very much if you have a problem with the amount of story elements/narrative ideas that the Raimi brothers and Alvin Sargent put into Spider-Man 3, because Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises have plots that are far more complicated and deal with far more narrative elements/ideas than Spider-Man 3 does by several orders of magnitude.

Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises came close to falling into the same trap of trying to do too much in one movie. Not even sure how you can draw that comparison with Batman Begins as that was a pretty simple storyline of Batman's origin. Dark Knight was good but it would have been better off keeping Harveys turn to Two Face for another movie. Rises was okay but I didn't like the liberties taken with Talia and Bane's characters.

However, they were so MUCH better done than Spiderman 3. Sandman,Venom and Goblin Jr needed their own movies in order to be done right. They at least should have left Venom or Sandman out so as to allow for the full resolution of Peter's conflict with Harry Osbourne to play out.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[kirk55555]

I think SM3 isn't very good, but its not as bad as people generally say. That said, its much better then all of the Nolan batman movies in every single way imaginable, and much better then those terrible Amazing Spider-Man movies. I think if they'd cut out one of the villains (and if Venom was the one they kept then write him better and cast a better actor for Eddie Brock), removed the "Peter goes Emo" trash and the forced relationship drama, it could have been good. Even the Harry stuff, minus him forcing relationship drama between Peter and MJ, worked decently. It just needed more focus and less idiocy. The Raimi Spider-Man movies had so much going for them, including what I consider the definitive live action Spider-Man with Toby Macguire), that it sucks it went out with a whimper. But, we still had two great Spider-Man movies.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I'm not going to argue with you on the merits of Spider-Man 3, but, even as someone who likes the film and considers it to be the best of Raimi's trilogy, I can't figure out for the life of me how you can seriously sit here and claim that it's better than Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy.

Nolan's films may not be for everyone, but neither is Spider-Man 3; that doesn't mean one is better than the others because you really can't compare them.

 

[Greg Cox]

I really liked the first two movies. Never gotten around to seeing the third one simply because, well, nobody seemed very enthusiastic about it so it was hard to work up the energy. I keep telling myself I should watch it one day, just for completeness's sake, but, oddly, I'm seldom in the mood to watch "that SPIDER-MAN movie that's not supposed to be very good."

Still haven't seen the second Andrew Garfield movie yet either. I guess I'm spoiled: there are enough good comic-book movies these days that I don't feel compelled to see all of them.

But, yeah, the first two movies were very well-done. And I particularly liked the way they tweaked Uncle Ben's to death to make it less of a coincidence . . ...

 

[kirk55555]

^ I'm not going to argue with you on the merits of Spider-Man 3, but, even as someone who likes the film and considers it to be the best of Raimi's trilogy, I can't figure out for the life of me how you can seriously sit here and claim that it's better than Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy.

Nolan's films may not be for everyone, but neither is Spider-Man 3; that doesn't mean one is better than the others because you really can't compare them.

Well, you can compare them with how they handle the characters, overall writing quality, etc. They're both superhero movies after all, its not like I'm trying to compare Star Trek Beyond to Fatal Attraction. Its apple and apples when it comes to comparing them as superhero films, although they obviously had different styles. That said, I'm not going to derail the topic by talking about what I consider the most overrated, mediocre superhero films. Suffice it to say, in the context of this conversation, that I believe even a mediocre Raimi Spider-Man film is better then a Nolan Batman movie or the Amazing Spider-Man movies.

 

[fireproof78]

I think the first two are great, especially with characterization and the villains. I think that the villains were far more colorful, and memorable, especially Norman Osborn in the first film. Doc Ock has always been my favorite Spider-Man villain and I think that his appearance in Spider-Man 2 was incredibly well done, and emphasized the more tragic aspect of a super villain, something I thought was done well in Amazing Spider-Man 2 as well.

The whole down-on-your-luck Peter bit was ok, for a bit, but I thought his struggling with his powers was weird, but, overall, the first two are incredibly enjoyable.

I won't comment on 3, because, I don't appreciate all that much. I left the theater underwhelmed.

I personally enjoyed Andrew Garfield more as Peter Parker, but that's matter of taste.

 

[JD]

I love the first two movies, them and the X-Men movies were what really got me into superheroes, but I didn't like the third one. I haven't watched 3 since I saw it theaters, so I don't remember any specifics, just that I didn't like it. I plan on getting the third one from Netflix next time I watch the first two, so I can give it another try.

 

[gblews]

Although I agree, like others, that SM3 was a better movie than it generally gets credit for being, Spidey 2 is still my favorite. I still think the train scene in 2 is the single most moving scene I've ever witnessed in a superhero movie. I also thought 2 had one of the best identity reveal scenes ever in a superhero movie. LOVED that.

I liked Spidey 3 but agree with some others that it might have been a better movie id they'd left out, say, Sandman (poor man's Doc Oc). Venom, and what it did to Peter, I loved.

No, I really didn't think much of Batman Begins and Dark Knight (except for Heath Ledger). But "Rises", I kinda liked. Much simpler plot and much more straight forward story than the other two.