View Single Post
  #12  
Old 06-09-2009, 08:33 PM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark View Post
The first two films had focused villians and we got to know them, where in this movie, everything just seemed mixed and out of place.
Problems...
The whole movie was basically orgasmo fanservice to a particular villain (Venom) which I'm guessing from its execution was a hoped-for spin-off movie franchise of its own. This forced feeding and cramming in of this badly conceived and executed character was more than evident to anyone who saw the film.

3 villains for #3 was also just forced, bad and tacky.
There was the whole build-up of Curt Connors in two previous movies into the expected Lizard. WTF? Even thiose who didn't know the Lizard story were thinking "what is so special about this recurring Dr. character? Is he going to do something? It seems like he's important, but guess not."

Finishing off the Goblin story was alright in theory and worked ok in practice. Sandman was completely wasted, weak material and an utter distraction at best. Without Venom emo Parker wouldn't exist.
Venom was just a badbadbadbad idea. The entire plot was a convoluted mess designed to hightlight Venom, the villain.

Essentially instead of a tight story which engaged viewers, that movie felt and looked like it was made by Trekkian fanfilm fanboy types who were rooting and salivating for the villain instead of the hero. I would even go so far as to say that it felt as if the studio or powers that be would have been happy with the removal of Parker and Spiderman altogether.
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote