MovieChat Forums > Spider-Man 3 (2007) Discussion > Spider-Man 3 Is Already Repeating 3 Spid...

Spider-Man 3 Is Already Repeating 3 Spidey Movie Sequel Mistakes

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (20493)
12 replies | jump to latest

https://screenrant.com/spiderman-3-mcu-repeating-3-sequel-mistakes/

Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies are widely regarded as some of the best comic book adaptations of all time. They were poignant and perfectly self-contained, as evidenced by their utilization of action geared toward character development rather than sheer spectacle. That changed when the rushed Spider-Man 3 crammed multiple storylines into one movie. This led to a short-lived reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel, which were praised for their action and performances. Unfortunately, The Amazing Spider-Man movies failed because, once again, they tried to do too much too soon. What has helped the MCU succeed is that it has taken enough time to develop each storyline across multiple movies. However, the MCU's Spider-Man 3 seems to be accelerating the process.

The first mistake that Spider-Man 3 is repeating is the excessive number of villains. Jamie Foxx is reprising his role as Electro from The Amazing Spider-Man 2, albeit with a different design. The Scorpion (Michael Mando) and Chameleon (Numan Acar) may finally become fully-fledged antagonists after several teases in the past movies. There's also the possibility of having Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Vulture (Michael Keaton) return in some capacity. But most notably, the addition of Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) suggests the movie will deal with a multiversal threat, and that could also bring a reality-hopping Kraven, an evil Ned Leeds as the Hobgoblin, or an unexpected villain who requires Andrew Garfield's and Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker to visit the MCU.

The first mistake that Spider-Man 3 is repeating is the excessive number of villains. Jamie Foxx is reprising his role as Electro from The Amazing Spider-Man 2, albeit with a different design. The Scorpion (Michael Mando) and Chameleon (Numan Acar) may finally become fully-fledged antagonists after several teases in the past movies. There's also the possibility of having Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Vulture (Michael Keaton) return in some capacity. But most notably, the addition of Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) suggests the movie will deal with a multiversal threat, and that could also bring a reality-hopping Kraven, an evil Ned Leeds as the Hobgoblin, or an unexpected villain who requires Andrew Garfield's and Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker to visit the MCU.

The third mistake is likely the most damaging. Spider-Man: Far From Home ended with a shocking cliffhanger when Mysterio revealed Peter Parker's secret identity to the world. This sets up an entire movie that centers on Peter's quest to protect his loved ones and face off against villains who can use this information to manipulate him. However, the overwhelming amount of potential plots that come with Doctor Strange and Electro could make this exciting conflict less likely to be fully developed - just like Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies set up the falling-out between Peter Parker and his lifelong friend Harry Osborn and later buried it under the introduction of Venom, Sandman, Gwen Stacy, and an emo street-dancing Peter Parker.

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 4 years ago

wtf every marvel movie has too much shit crammed into it. not sure why spiderman 3 still gets shit on today but all the avengers movies can escape with have 49 main characters.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Those Avengers movies were preceded by a bunch of stand-alone movies, so that argument is invalid.

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 4 years ago

oh yeah so i guess the logic is that if that character was introduced in another movie that means you dont have to develop them in future films? okay kid. hey, we already saw hawkeye in an earlier film, so it's totally fine to just cram him into this plot that has nothing to do with him! good logic, and nice try at defending those shit films.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You think mentioning a secondary character and calling me names makes your argument more valid? 😄
Try again, kiddo.

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 4 years ago

great argument! you really proved your point, buckaroo! i really now see your side to the argument with such a compelling debate. keep telling yourself that the marvel movies are good. whatever makes you happy sport.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Took you 3 days to come up with that? 😆

A bit slow, are ya?

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 4 years ago

uhh i have a job and i go to college full time. unlike you i dont sit around all day fapping to thor's bulging muscles and waiting for randos to respond your shitty elementary recess insults. you are lucky i even typed this bullshit up for you. i feel bad for picking on someone with autism so i will leave you alone. maybe it will give you a chance to come up with a compelling argument besides "marvel good!! u bad!!"

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Lol, you're the one who started with the elementary recess insults, so don't even 😂🤣
I also have a full-time job, so try again with something more original 😜

I already countered your first point on why Avengers can get away with a bunch of characters but Spider-Man 3 can't. As for saying "wHaT aBoUt HaWkEyE?" I guess you're ignoring the development he had throughout the movies, from his brainwashing under Loki, to his relationships with Black Widow and Scarlet Witch, to the revelation of his family.

I actually love Spider-Man 3 as a guilty pleasure, and would gladly watch it again and again over either of the Amazing Spider-Man films any day of the week. I also never said the MCU films were perfect, but they did plan out the first three phases well enough and did a solid job developing all their main characters. Secondary characters don't necessarily need the same level of development, but the MCU still bothered to do so with some of them, including Hawkeye, Black Widow, War Machine, Nebula, Scarlet Witch, and Jarvis/Vision, among others.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 4 years ago

It's an easy scapegoat for ppl to use as a reason to slam the movie.

Personally, I think having a lot of characters in a movie isn't inherently a good or a bad thing. You can do it well, or you can do it badly.

People shit on spidey 3 still but not on avengers, because everyone sucks marvel's dick. Spidey 3 was a bad film, but it wasn't cause it had too many villains. The problem was that 2 of those villains weren't done well at all, and the movie was just a hodgepodge.

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 4 years ago

exactly. i admit it wasnt done well in spider-man 3 with the inclusion of venom, but it's also not done well in most marvel movies. i remember watching age of ultron and captain america civil war and thinking "jesus who are all of these people and why are they all here???"

[–] AP (5295) 4 years ago

The villain mistake is mitigated by the villains previously appearing in other films. They don’t have to worry about introducing new bad guys as the audience is already familiar.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7993) 4 years ago

My least favorite thing about this movie besides Venom is the stupid retcon of Sand Man being Uncle Ben's killer. It basically makes it so that Peter's Uncle still might've been killed even if he'd stopped the robber. It just would've been Peter startling Sand Man that causes Uncle Ben to die. I will never understand how Raimi could've liked that retcon. And for all we know it may have been something he always intended for the movie before he was forced into using Venom.

Frankly though I find it funny people complain about Marvel movies having several characters. The MCU is basically a long running TV show and if you don't want to bother watching all their movies you have nobody but yourself to blame for watching them at all. Watching Avengers End Game without watching all the other Avengers movies is like watching Back to the Future Part 3 without having seen the first 2.