Worst Third Superhero Movie

[Admiral James Kirk]

I would have to pick Superman III. It couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a good Superman movie or a bad Richard Pryor movie so it ended up being nothing at all. Sad. Christopher Reeve was good as ever though. III's sole saving grace. IV's sole saving grace as well.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I voted for X-Men: The Last Stand because that's the one I'm still the most pissed about. Superman III and Batman Forever are both pretty crappy, but they were so long ago I'm pretty much made my peace with them. Blade Trinity I've only seen bits and pieces of, but I'll agree that it looked idiotic (fighting vampires while listening to your iPod... WTF?!? ) Spider-Man 3 is kind of a miss, but there's still a lot of fun stuff in there. I just look at it as less than the sum of its parts.

But X-Men: The Last Stand... Oooh boy.

-It adapts two great X-Men storylines badly, giving neither the space or development it deserves.

-It kills off Cyclops (one of THE pivotal characters in the Dark Phoenix Saga and the most important X-Man PERIOD) offscreen in the first 15 minutes because the producers were pissed at the actor for doing Superman Returns.

-It kills off Professor X in an idiotic way and then doesn't even have the guts to stick with it through the end credits.

-It removes Magneto's powers. Ditto.

-It gave Halle Berry (the WORST actor in those movies) more to do just because she bitched about being underused in interviews.

-It pushed Wolverine out of the role of group rebel, in which his character works beautifully, and into the role of group leader, in which his character doesn't work at all.

-It removed Rogue's powers.

-It introduced the Angel & did absolutely nothing with him (Seriously... did he even HAVE a subplot?).

-It made Bobby Drake, one of the most sympathetic & likeable characters from the first two movies, into an asshole who cheats on his girlfriend.

-It referenced a dumb internet meme for the sake of a stupid and unfunny joke.

-And it had that creepy "de-aging" software in the opening flashback that somehow made Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellan look both fuzzy and waxy at the same time.

God, just thinking about that movie to type this post is making me angry.

 

[Trekker4747]

-It referenced a dumb internet meme for the sake of a stupid and unfunny joke.

Which was this again?

 

[D Man]

^^I think it was the "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" line. It made me chuckle, but I'd say it was a little out of place.

 

[FormerLurker]

Didn't see Spider-Man III because of the whole Venom thing(I hate that character, he shouldn't exist), and Blade: Trinity is the only Blade movie I've seen all the way through. So:

Superman III

Poorly executed dreck. Christopher Reeve saves what he can, and I can do without the rest.

Batman: Forever

Joel Shumacher having an orgasm about doing "SooooperHeeeeroes". But it's better than that waste of celluloid "Batman and Robin."

X-Men: Last Stand

Hiring the guy they fired from the first film because he wanted to make a film that they couldn't build a franchise on was mistake number one. Being petty about James Marsden going off to work with his bud Bryan Singer (who made the first two films, for crying out loud) and killing his all too important character just to spite him was huge mistake number two. Deciding to come up with their own version of a story that only works with the original cast in place just to appeal to drooling fanboys who want Wolverine (their bestest favorite) to get the girl and the nookie was the worst mistake of all. Three strikes and you're out. This is the worst.

 

[Doggard]

How could anyone NOT say Superman III????

If you limit it to this decade, I'd pick Blade Trinity. Such a disappointment after the first two were so good and basically created the modern day comic book movie.

I actually like Batman Forever aside from the camp. I liked X-Men 3 for all the new characters in it, even if they ruined Phoenix. And I found Spider-Man 3 to be the most tolerable of the movies just for having three villains in it (found the first two way too boring and soap opera).

Well maybe I am prejudice because it was filmed in my home town back in the 80's lots of funny untold stories and it also had Richard Prior in it.... it was filmed in Banff, Calgary and Airdrie Alberta.
I have never seen Spiderman 3 so I cannot say on that movie. If you are talking Worst Science Fiction I would Choose Robo Jocks or Heart Beeps or even Star Trek 3 or even Aliens 3.
Aliens 3 had no plot just a bunch of A moral Pretend monks running around a Lead Refinery and you only know why the factory has tones of Molten Lead just sitting around in almost the last seen.
and StarTrek 3 . I mean talk about a Lame Plot.....they know where he was the only actor that dose a convincing performance is Christopher loyed.
and Don,t get me started about Heart Beeps and Robo Jocks....bolth are truly Lame SF.

 

[Pauln6]

X-Men: Last Stand

Hiring the guy they fired from the first film because he wanted to make a film that they couldn't build a franchise on was mistake number one. Being petty about James Marsden going off to work with his bud Bryan Singer (who made the first two films, for crying out loud) and killing his all too important character just to spite him was huge mistake number two. Deciding to come up with their own version of a story that only works with the original cast in place just to appeal to drooling fanboys who want Wolverine (their bestest favorite) to get the girl and the nookie was the worst mistake of all. Three strikes and you're out. This is the worst.

Cyclops was woefully underused in both 2 and 3 but don't be silly, he isn't dead. Jean says she thinks she killed him and we never saw him die. I suspect he is currently in Mister Sinster's hidden labs along with Jean's real body (since we all know that Phoenix was a psychic projection) or possibly her clone (in the form of Madeline Prior) ready to produce Cable for X-men 6.

 

[JacksonArcher]

X-Men: The Last Stand was probably the most disappointing. After all the gradual, progressive build-up of the first two films and after such an incredible achievement with X2 and how it teased a third film, it would just a huge letdown.

I was expecting something emotional and grandiose and epic and while X-Men: The Last Stand certainly has its moments (the action sequences are stellar, and there are some nice character moments sprinkled amongst the aggressive pacing) it is something that desperately needed at least 30 more minutes to flesh out its characters and converging storylines.

It took two of my favorite storylines in the history of comics (the Dark Phoenix Saga and Whedon's "Cure" storyline) and didn't do justice or service to either of them. That automatically makes me as a comic-book fan entirely dissatisfied with the final product.

I'm also of the mind that Rogue shouldn't have taken the Cure. For people saying that it fit with her character arc, I just don't see how that's possible. The whole point of the X-Men is accepting who you are and not changing who you are despite prejudice and despite prosecution. By taking the Cure, it just shows that Rogue was not strong enough to accept herself and it doesn't fit with the themes of the X-Men at all. It's understandable on a human level- but at the same time it doesn't really send the right message. I'm sure Rogue would want to take the Cure, but I'm not quite sure that was the best decision. It was kind of selfish and it just didn't sit right with me. It's like, what if they had a cure for homosexuality... would you take it? Many people I know feel like they are cursed with homosexuality and they see it as an affliction, but by doing that, they remove a part of who they are. By showing Rogue taking the Cure it really just completely contrasted with the ideology of the X-Men comics and sent out the wrong message in my opinion.

 

[Anwar]

Being homosexual or a different ethnicity doesn't mean you have to give up one of the most basic human sensations.

This is where the whole "acceptance" theme sort of falls apart. We're not dealing with homosexuals or minorities here, we're dealing with individuals who could easily kill thousands of helpless humans if they wanted.

This is why Singer made Senator Kelly and Stryker as unsympathetic as they were: If they were portrayed as more balanced individuals we'd be able to see their arguments as more than just irrational hatred and maybe sympathize.

What the 3rd movie needed (maybe even the second) was/were human characters who still feared mutants but came off as sympathetic despite this because their fears WERE well-founded.

Mr Sinister would have been a fine villain: A human who enhanced himself into something more and sides with the mutants, or at least his own loyal mutants, in supplanting humans. It would have added a new level that showed it was not just humans vs mutants or mutants as persecuted minorities but BOTH sides having truly legitimate concerns.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I think people are way too harsh on the third X-Men movie just because it was so disappointing coming after X2 (and I say this as probably the biggest X2 fan - it's still my favourite superhero/comic book movie). It really wasn't a poorly acted, written, or directed movie. It was just mediocre and rushed. It should have been much better, but while I was let down by what it ended up being, it didn't piss me off as much as "Spider-Man 3", which would have been disgusting even if its predecessor wasn't great.

The third X-Men movie isn't so bad for a movie rushed into production after going through several writers and directors. When it was over, I thought it could have been better, but it also could have been much worse and is not quite a disaster. What's so shocking about "Spider-Man 3" is that it was directed and co-written by a man who did quite well directing the first two Spider-Man movies and it was pitiful.

I spent a whole summer ranting about that movie because its awful writing was so appalling to me. There are some absolutely atrocious writing choices and it's just one laughably lazy and hacky development after another:

- Flint Marko walks into a crazy machine/experiment and the dumbass scientists assume it's a bird and decide to go ahead without checking.

- The Venom symbiote just happens to land by Peter Parker and Mary Jane.

- Harry temporarily has amnesia and Sandman is presumed dead for an extended period because there are too many characters and two need to be out of the way for awhile.

- Venom asks Sandman to team-up with him, with all the plausibility and naturalness of a character in a bad cartoon.

- And worst of all, the deus ex machina at the end: the butler delivers vital information (after spending the whole movie as comic relief).

On top of all the pathetically hacky storytelling, the Venom character was underdeveloped, and Peter Parker and Mary Jane suddenly lose all the sympathy and affection they'd earned in the previous two movies and become totally annoying. Apparently a lot of people hate the scene where Parker is dancing. I think that's one of the only character choices that worked and was entertaining.

For what it is, "Batman Forever" is passable. It's a good superhero movie for kids and I give it credit for that. As a 12 year old, I loved it. Sure it's way more immature and stupid than any superhero movie that's come out since 2000, but I'll always have affection for it based on childhood nostalgia and the fact that at least it's simple, unlike a lot of the horribly convoluted modern superhero movies.

Also, while the movie's treatment of the Two-Face character was shameful, Val Kilmer was a good Batman and Bruce Wayne, Chris O'Donnell was a decent Robin (wretched costume, though), and Jim Carrey was fun as The Riddler. I also respect that it TRIED to bring some depth to the Batman character with the flashback scenes and Batman's arguments with Robin in the Batcave.

It had some good ideas, they were just executed a little sloppily. Yeah, all the neon stuff and nipples were lame, but those are just aesthetic qualities...not really that important. In terms of storytelling, it had its heart in the right place and didn't make as many wrong moves as "Spider-Man 3". I didn't see the other movies in the poll.

 

[Anwar]

To be fair, Sandman's origin in the comics is pretty much the same thing: He was on the run from cops and stumbled into some energy experiment that bonded him to a bunch of sand.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I'm also of the mind that Rogue shouldn't have taken the Cure. For people saying that it fit with her character arc, I just don't see how that's possible. The whole point of the X-Men is accepting who you are and not changing who you are despite prejudice and despite prosecution. By taking the Cure, it just shows that Rogue was not strong enough to accept herself and it doesn't fit with the themes of the X-Men at all. It's understandable on a human level- but at the same time it doesn't really send the right message.

Agreed. It would've sent a more powerful message if Rogue had decided not to take the cure in spite of the problems her powers caused her. It would've shown how much she'd grown as a character & illustrated what the X-Men are all about.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

And yes, Spider-Man 3 had its problems as well. A big one is that Venom pretty much takes an entire movie just to set up. I think Spider-Man 3 should've ended with the symbiote dripping on to Eddie Brock's face in the church & then let Venom be the main bad guy in Spider-Man 4.

For me, the biggest problem was mucking around with Spider-Man's motivation by making the Sandman responsible for Uncle Ben's death. If you take away Peter Parker feeling guilty about not doing the right thing when he should have, you kill a lot of what makes Spider-Man Spider-Man.

And I think they filmed some scene or another showing that Harry Osborn's butler was actually a figment of his imagination or something.

 

[CaptainCanada]

The whole point of the X-Men is accepting who you are and not changing who you are despite prejudice and despite prosecution. By taking the Cure, it just shows that Rogue was not strong enough to accept herself and it doesn't fit with the themes of the X-Men at all.

She didn't do it because of prejudice or persecution - she did it because her powers demonstrably cause her harm and affect the physical wellbeing of people around her.

I like that the movie acknowledges there is actual complexity to this question.

Creating a bunch of characters whose powers actively harm others (and themselves) and then saying that wanting a cure is wrong just doesn't work. Look at Proteus, whose "power" was to be an insane, evil reality-warper who the X-Men had to kill for lack of other options; I'm sure he would have appreciated the cure. Or Wither, an even more extreme version of Rogue, who kills anything he touches instantly. Or Sally Floyd's baby, whose "power" was to age backwards and aged back to nothing a few months after being born. There's an Ultimate X-Men story where Wolverine tracks down a young mutant whose out-of-control powers killed his entire family and the town he was living in; Wolverine ends up killing him.

There are allegorical components, but they must cooexist with the literal, and there are all kinds of literal reasons why people wouldn't want to be like that.

 

[Pauln6]

And yes, Spider-Man 3 had its problems as well. A big one is that Venom pretty much takes an entire movie just to set up. I think Spider-Man 3 should've ended with the symbiote dripping on to Eddie Brock's face in the church & then let Venom be the main bad guy in Spider-Man 4.

This. This is what Raimi wanted to do isn't it and they forced him to include Venom in 3? Blimey, if Venom had been saved until 4 can you imagine how much enthusiasm there would have been? And no arguments about which villain to use that led to the 'reboot'.

In my view 3 should have ended with MJ having dumped Peter due to his behaviour (possibly to make way for a change of pace with the Black Cat in 4) and Venom ready for revenge. It would have led quite naturally to the next movie.

I stick by Blade 3 as my worst though. The others are worse than their predecessors but they're not terrible movies in themselves - Superman 3 being the closest to terrible out of the lot. Blade 3 was truly awful in every respect and I think people are only not voting for it because they are indifferent to the franchise as a whole.

 

[Anwar]

Well, the problem is that Venom is only good for like 30 minutes of a movie. His whole schtick is ripped off from the Green Goblin, and it would just seem like a Harry rehash if they did that. He's not a strong enough character to do a lot with.

And I think they had only one movie to wrap up everything. Their contracts were for three movies, and I don't think they were signed for a 4th.

They should have left out Venom and the symbiote entirely, and just used SM3 to wrap up the Goblin storyline with Sandman as a secondary villain.

You can do the entire symbiote/Venom storyline in one film alone, it just has to be the one major plot. And set up Brock maybe one movie earlier.

 

[exodus]

I'm also of the mind that Rogue shouldn't have taken the Cure. For people saying that it fit with her character arc, I just don't see how that's possible. The whole point of the X-Men is accepting who you are and not changing who you are despite prejudice and despite prosecution. By taking the Cure, it just shows that Rogue was not strong enough to accept herself and it doesn't fit with the themes of the X-Men at all. It's understandable on a human level- but at the same time it doesn't really send the right message. I'm sure Rogue would want to take the Cure, but I'm not quite sure that was the best decision. It was kind of selfish and it just didn't sit right with me. It's like, what if they had a cure for homosexuality... would you take it? Many people I know feel like they are cursed with homosexuality and they see it as an affliction, but by doing that, they remove a part of who they are. By showing Rogue taking the Cure it really just completely contrasted with the ideology of the X-Men comics and sent out the wrong message in my opinion.

If you equate Rogue's ability with homosexuality, then it's giving the impression the being affectionate toward one is deadly. Rogue is more that just her code name, it's her state of being. She will always be alone due to her powers. Rigue is not the wild child friom the 80's that's invulerable, she's a teen aged girl going through puberty and should socially interacting/flirting but can't. We saw in the first X-Men that even her own classmates were afraid of her, due to a simple this such as touch. What's the point of equality if even you're own kind fears you? Too be Rogue is a living hell and it doesn't send the wrong message IMO if you understand the character.

Not every story in X-Men relates to thr fight for equality on the whole. All of them have little personal battles to fight, this is hers.

 

[Anwar]

Of course, in the movie they never got to the point where it turned out that Rogue CAN control her powers and it's all psychological. But that would have taken too long.

 

[exodus]

Well, the problem is that Venom is only good for like 30 minutes of a movie. His whole schtick is ripped off from the Green Goblin, and it would just seem like a Harry rehash if they did that. He's not a strong enough character to do a lot with.

I disagree.
Venom is far worse than Green Goblin.
Venom was in Peter's head.
It knows what he knows, what he thinks & what he feels and why. Venom is the ultimate stalker. No where you can go is safe. It's the type of thing where you wake up in the middle of the night and he's hanging over you, watching..........or worse, hanging over Mary Jane's bed watching her. He's like having the worst of yourself combined with the high school bully on steroids as your worst enemy.

 

[Pauln6]

Well, the problem is that Venom is only good for like 30 minutes of a movie. His whole schtick is ripped off from the Green Goblin, and it would just seem like a Harry rehash if they did that. He's not a strong enough character to do a lot with.

And I think they had only one movie to wrap up everything. Their contracts were for three movies, and I don't think they were signed for a 4th.

They should have left out Venom and the symbiote entirely, and just used SM3 to wrap up the Goblin storyline with Sandman as a secondary villain.

You can do the entire symbiote/Venom storyline in one film alone, it just has to be the one major plot. And set up Brock maybe one movie earlier.

They never did anything with the Lizard either, in spite of teasing us for 3 movies.

I'd have been happy for them to re-cast, I just don't see why they needed to reboot.

If I was pitching movie 4 I would have used the plot from the Owl and the Pussycat storyline - where Cat burgles the Owl (or Vulture or whoever) and steals a detonator (or something) he needs for a bomb (or something) with Venom's revenge linked in as the plot-lite secondary story. MJ doesn't have to be anywhere in sight - save her for a later movie if you want her back and just focus on Black Cat's attraction to her masked hero. It saves rehashing the same old romance plot, gives us a cheeky heroine, and, most importantly, a woman in black lycra with furry cuffs, meeeeow.