My Critical Analysis of Spider-Man 3 (Medium Spoilers) (in Off-topic)
Okay. I just saw it tonight and I honestly believe it is one of the absolute WORST movies I have ever seen.
The acting was horrible. Not only was it fake, it wasn't even decently believable. Whenever any of the characters get sad, you don't sympathize and relate to them (maybe except Sandman), you actually laugh. And I can't be the only one who thought so, because many people in the theater laughed. I mean, in one part where Eddie Brock was in a church crying and praying for revenge, the only thing I could do was laugh. It was completely funny, because Topher Grace uses the same face he always makes when he makes a joke on That '70s Show. I wasn't thinking about Eddie Brock who just had his entire life ruined, I was thinking about the funny wise-cracking drug addict who made funny jokes named Eric Forman.
Oh, and let me say, this is the biggest piece of American propaganda I have ever seen (I'm American). Okay, let me break it down for you. Spiderman's life gets ruined, so he basically becomes a villain for a little while and ruin a few other guys' lives. Now, if you're taking that lightly, stop. What does he do? He freaking KILLS Sandman. He doesn't really kill him, but he doesn't know that at the time. He attacks him and at the end of their confrontation, and does something with the complete intention of murdering Sandman. And he doesn't even show the slightest amount of remorse for it. He also ruins Brock's life. Sure, Brock lied and did something to try to raise his reputation and status, but when Peter confronts him about it, he pleads with him. And you know it's a serious plead too because it's one of the few parts in the movie you could slightly sympathize with a character other than Sandman. But what does Peter do? He humiliates Brock and gets him fired. But oh no, he's not done yet. What else does he do? Peter steals Brock's girlfriend only then to use her like a tool to get his revenge on MJ.
So he was wronged, and he deserved to get a little revenge right? That'd be fine, EXCEPT for the fact that both Brock and Sandman do exactly the same thing but are shown as terrorists. Did you notice the little CGI American flag towards the end of the movie that was in the background while Spiderman was standing proudly displaying his red, white, and blue colors? So that's what it basically comes down to? Spiderman can ruin lives by getting revenge like the villains except when he reverts back to the red, white, and blue colors, he's the hero again and everyone loves him and everything's fine. That was the only point of the flag. It was to show that Spiderman represented American and Sandman and Venom didn't. WHAT THE HELL!? You know what that says to me? That says "WE'RE AMERICAN AND WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS EVEN THOUGH WE ARE DOING THE SAME THINGS AS THE PEOPLE WE SAY ARE BAD AND IMMORAL." God, that makes me want to bash my head into a wall.
Somewhere in the middle of the movie, we actually see Peter's transformation to his darker side. But how is this shown? Comedy. Yes, COMEDY. This part of the movie should be the most dramatic but oh no, it has to be funny. If it's not funny, then people who watch the movie might actually see how scary and twisted he's really become. And then they might identify him with one of the villains (even though he actually does need to be identified with the murderous villains), but then he wouldn't be our good All-American. They turn something that should have been really serious into a cheap gimmick to get cheap laughs. It takes away from the movie as a whole too. I mean, what the hell? If I wanted to see a romantic comedy, I'd go see The Wedding Singer.
Speaking of that part, how do they portray this mentally unstable and depressed Peter Parker? They turn him emo. Don't think I'm lying. I'm not. They portray him in the exact teenager emo stereotype (See Here
). He grows out his hair (it even turns black for awhile), with his bangs going to one side. He does the emo "hair flick" thing. He also wears tight, dark clothing. I don't even think I need to explain why it's so retarded, uncreative, and ineffective to portray him like this.
Music? Nope. The music was so boring and completely stupid. You got used to same themes playing over and over and over again for each time a character made an appearance.
Plot? Nope. This movie is so diluted that I just ended up not caring about any of the characters (except Sandman and uh, what's-his-face Goblin). "Oh no, Goblin is sad. Now Sandman is sad. Wait, Spiderman sad too! Brock Eddie want sad too! And don't forget MJ being sad!" Honestly, I don't have to see it in multiple characters to understand that things in a person's life can go wrong. And of course Spiderman's juggling all of this at the same time so before you can analyze one part of the plot, you're already on the next one.
Basically, this film has nothing to offer other good special effects. An utter piece of garbage in my opinion and I'm not going to even say I regret paying $9 for it. I don't. I now know how stupid and mindless movies can be. I now know that people who make films can be more worried about money than worried about putting together a quality film. Everything in this whole thread was observed by me (an average-intelligence 17 year old who has gotten a total of 4 hours of sleep over the span of almost 4 days). I can't wait to read some critics' reviews. I sure hope they tear this movie apart in ways I would have never thought of.
May 5 2007 3:06 AM EDT
Think maybe you looked a little too deeply into this?
Glad to hear about how they turn him emo. That's awesome. Peter Parker as a mentally unstable and depressed guy actually looking like one of the thousands of mentally unstable and depressed people wandering the streets trying to get attention fits perfectly.
Also, maybe getting 4 hours of sleep in 4 days had some impact on your view of the movie. =)
I'll have to see it for myself.
I've been reading in some forums about this, I haven't watched it myself. The comments are mixed up, some says it's very good, some says it's too dramatic, not much action, some just says it's bad.
But then again, I wonder how would this Spiderman 3 compared to the last few super hero movies, like Superman Returns (last year) , or Ghost Rider ? I, myself thought Superman was pretty crap, not worth watching it in cinema, and Ghost Rider is even worse...
Talked to the friend of a friend last night and he watched it yesterday.
Only thing I remember him saying was that Venom didn't look even close to what he expected. I'm not going to watch it in the cinema because I don't think any film from that genre is worth a ﾣ5 ticket.
I'll jut wait until it appears online and take a look.
And OB, more like the movie sucking had an effect on my view of the movie.
And even if you don't agree with me on anything else, there's no way to say the acting in the movie was good. It wasn't.
What other movies do you really like and dislike Pop-SICKLE. I find by asking a movie critic what s/he thinks about other films, gives a more accurate interpretation of the review... If that makes any sense?
Fight Club is my favorite movie. Followed by Requiem for a Dream, followed by American History X, followed by Do The Right Thing, followed by Finding Nemo.
I can't really think of any movies I didn't like as much as I did Spider-Man 3.
May 5 2007 2:06 PM EDT
Actually, one can probably say whatever one wants about the acting in any given film and still be correct. That's what the word "opinion" means, PS. *smile*
I haven't seen it yet, but would like to. Can someone answer the serious question of whether or not Bruce has a cameo? That's really all that matters to me...
Mmmm, a quick Google has told me he does have a cameo.
Officially added to ''To do list'':
Go watch Spider-Man 3.
Avoid brought to my attention Stan Lee has a line in the movie.
May 6 2007 12:56 AM EDT
Thanks, Ashilizator, should have know you'd come through. *smile*
Bah, I loved the movie. It had a lot of good closure, especially on the friends-that-hate-eachother issue. Plus lots of action and a twisting plot that kept you on your feet.
Just to follow you point by point, the acting was not terrible. You mention you laughed at parts because of who the actor was. When watching a movie, you always have to overcome the fact that it's just a movie with actors you've seen before. Just because one guy was in one show you've seen doesn't make it all bad. You have to buy into the experience, and if you can't, well, it's your own fault.
Onto it being American propaganda, say what? I'm not even sure how you make the jump from Spidey going evil to this being a form of propaganda. Spidey has to deal with his dark side, with feelings of wanting to extract revenge. Movies typically deal with characters overcoming issues such as this ;) And yes, it was not fair that Sandman and Brock were bad guys. But this sounds kinda like real life, it isn't fair. Sure, Peter ruined Brock's life. But Brock kind of ruined his own career by photoshopping that image. It boils down to, you are wrong. Spiderman cannot seek revenge and want to hurt people. He did that, and figured out it caused much more pain to himself and others he loved. He learned a lesson through experience.
Oh, and as for Sandman and Venom being terrorists while Spidey wasn't, huh? I do believe you could classify Spiderman as having attempted murder, but not as a terrorist. Those two did kind of terrorize people and wreak havoc on the city in the name of personal gain. Causing terror = terrorist if you must use that word. Villain would be better though.
Spiderman did act evil like those he was after. He did turn into a bad person. Again, and I can't stress this enough, it was about learning a lesson and revenge. He eventually overcame that hate and grew emotionally. Making him once again a good guy. Even good people do bad things once in a while. What matters is you learn from it.
And IDK, the comedy thing was interesting. He was treating women like objects, being arrogant, full of hate and revenge, and completely self-serving. You see his dark side in events that happen in the plot, like where he tried to murder Sandman (if you consider flushing a guy murder lol), or where he ruined Brock's career (although Brock really did that himself), or where he intentionally hurt and then hit MJ. That seems evil enough to me. And don't forget this was PG-13, it's not like he could have gone on a killing spree to make you happy.
Can't say I really noticed the music any. Everything seemed to flow well enough together for me though.
The plot did have a lot going on, perhaps yes even too much. But every character was fleshed out and shown what they were feeling and why. You could not remove any one villain or person from the plot without it making no sense anyway. Why would Spidey need help fighting just one enemy? Two villains would have seemed like push-overs if it had just been Spiderman fighting them. Spiderman had his anger and want for revenge pushed out by Sandman. You couldn't leave all those issues with his best friend unresolved. Every thing that happened in the movie really did seem to have a reason. It led to an entertaining and climactic finally that left at least me sad that the friends had finally made up, only to see it taken away.
Overall, great movie. And I see no idea why it should not be labeled as thus. An A in my book.
I think the American propaganda is explained decently in the first post. Like I said, Spiderman attempted to kill and ruin the lives of others, but when the others do the same, they're portrayed as un-American? How do we know this, because of the animated flag that appears behind Spiderman? What was the point of the flag? To show that Spiderman represented America while the others did not, even though they all did the same things. Everything's peachy when he reverts back to his red, white, and blue costume despite the fact that he had the complete intention of murdering someone. And I use the term because it's what we used to label the bad guys in society today. American = good, bad guy = terrorist.
I said the acting was bad, but only gave an example of Topher Grace being unconvincing. This is more or less the same with the other actors, especially during their emotional scenes. Tobey Macguire looks just as ridiculous whenever he tries to cry. And again, I can't be the only person in the audience to think the acting was bad because many, many people in the audience laughed too.
May 6 2007 1:42 PM EDT
Side note: Why does an American flag flying behind Spiderman have to be labeled as American propaganda, and why does it have to have so many negative hidden connotations? Have you considered that perhaps you are looking so deep into it to find something negative that you've completely gone off your rocker?
I'm fairly sure that a US flag behind Spiderman doesn't mean that he represents 'the good American citizens' and everyone else representing terrorists.
Maybe a definition of propaganda will help you in your next post:
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
I know the completely know the definition of propaganda. And why else would the American flag be in the background as Spiderman comes to save the day with the people cheering him on? It's to show that his red, white, and blue colors represent the red,white, and blue colors of the American flag. It's not that deep of an analysis, especially for someone who is taking a Great Films class, where all we do is analyze everything for context. This isn't something that took me hours to think about. Hell, I was doing it during the movie. I saw the flag, and I was like "What the hell does that mean?" And during the course of the Venom/Sandman v Spiderman fight, it became clear to me the purpose of the flag to contrast Spiderman to the villains.
But tell me OB, was there any point of the American flag being there other than to show that our Spiderman was all the All-American hero? You can't think about this and completely ignore what it means for Venom and Sandman. They're American too. And they're just doing what Spiderman was doing. How come they're the un-American bad guys?
Just because you don't look deeper into movies doesn't mean you should try to criticize an
And I explained how it's propaganda in my first post. What's the point of even reading my first post if you're going to come and ask questions I already answered? The whole flag thing conveys an idea of "We're American, so we're the good guys even though we're doing what the bad guys are doing."
May 6 2007 2:17 PM EDT
Did you even read Vaynard's post?
And Pop, it doesn't take more than a minute to come up with a slippery slope argument. Explain how the appearance of the American flag behind Spiderman leads you to this statement: "WE'RE AMERICAN AND WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS EVEN THOUGH WE ARE DOING THE SAME THINGS AS THE PEOPLE WE SAY ARE BAD AND IMMORAL."
"Oh, and as for Sandman and Venom being terrorists while Spidey wasn't, huh? I do believe you could classify Spiderman as having attempted murder, but not as a terrorist. Those two did kind of terrorize people and wreak havoc on the city in the name of personal gain. Causing terror = terrorist if you must use that word. Villain would be better though.
Spiderman did act evil like those he was after. He did turn into a bad person. Again, and I can't stress this enough, it was about learning a lesson and revenge. He eventually overcame that hate and grew emotionally. Making him once again a good guy. Even good people do bad things once in a while. What matters is you learn from it."
There's a difference between a good man who gets angry and does something terrible in his fit of anger - temporary - and an evil man who does terrible things, period - permanent.
OB, I did explain it. I explain it multiple times. It's not hard to see how I've come up with my logic. Spiderman does what the villains are trying to do. But the second he reverts back to his red, white, and blue costume, he's the hero again and everything's peachy. And like it or not, Spiderman did do what the villains are trying to do. Or did we suddenly forget that Spiderman poured all that water on Sandman with every intention to kill Sandman, even believing he did kill him, and showing no remorse?
And OB, again, I'm challenging you to find the purpose of the flag if its purpose isn't to contrast Spiderman with Sandman/Venom.
May 6 2007 2:54 PM EDT
Look at it like this. The black costume represents evil, therefore when he does all that stuff it is because he is allowing that evil to control him - he is allowing his emotions to control him - and when he goes back to his normal costume, he's normal again. That's it. I think them flying the American flag at the end of the movie is a good way of saying 'Hey, look, good triumphed over evil! Spiderman's an all-American hero!" And you can even notice that, ironically, his costume is red/blue/white too!
That's fine with me.
I am missing the logic gap where it says "Because Sandman and Goblin V 2.0 aren't wearing red/white/blue, they must be TERRORISTS!"
Remember, the 'moral' behind the story was that revenge is wrong and it ruins your life. Spiderman learned that, through the help of the black suit, and it makes him no less of a good guy - it simply makes him human.
Because nothing's changed except his costume change. Does it try to attone for trying to KILL Sandman, ruining Brock's life, and emotionally tormenting New Goblin? No. He shows no remorse or anything similar to remorse. So then, everything is fine and well as it was before just because he changes costumes? No. And OB, I don't see why you fail to get this through: the American flag is there to contrast that Spiderman is our American hero and that the villains are un-American. Why isn't there an American flag behind Venom and Sandman? They're not even really villains in this movie. They're just trying to get revenge like how Spiderman got revenge on them. But since they are the opponents of our red, white, and blue-colored hero, they're the bad guys.
May 6 2007 3:29 PM EDT
Just for you, when it comes out on DVD, I'll see if I can find some way to edit in little CGI flags behind Sandman, Venom, and Goblin. It'll be sweet. =D
It's funny that someone can argue with someone else about the symbolic significance of an object in the context of a movie they haven't seen.
May 6 2007 3:53 PM EDT
Like I said via CM, I'll quit arguing with you now before you cry. You're obviously taking this wayyy personal.
I'm not taking it personal at all. You have no idea how annoying it is to argue with someone for hours then find out they don't have any idea what they're talking about because the argument subject requires the person to have seen it in the context of the film in order to argue.
It's stuck-up and arrogant to tell someone they're wrong about what something in a movie represents when they've never even seen the movie.
May 6 2007 4:00 PM EDT
I pointed out a jump in logic. That doesn't require me to see the movie.
Okay, so my post containing the threads were deleted because they contained some un-PG words. But basically I was Googling the words "Spiderman 3" "movie" "American flag" to see if I could get something else similar to my opinion and I did find find one distinctly associating the flag to propaganda:
"Last but not least, a propaganda of America. lol. There was a part where spiderman comes out to save the day and a BIG American flag was behind him with no reason. Thus relating justice to America."
I couldn't find anything else associating the American flag in the movie to propaganda, but any movie reviews that did mention the flag said the flag was over-the-top, unnecessary, and cheesy.
Just watched it online and as much as I tough it by far the worst movie of the 3 I think you're being a bit retarded Pop.
Yes the acting is bad, only Kirsten Dunst really saves it on the emotional level but I didn't find the scenes funny, just strange that most seemed to be smiling when upset.
I was disappointed by Venom, with the amount of computer technology you would have thought they'd include his tongue abilities at some point rather than just the occassional use of his shadow powers.
I don't see anything regarding terrorism in the film, Brock wanted revenge after he was being screwed over his job and Peter stealing his girlfriend for revenge on MJ. Flynn is a petty criminal with good intentions who got caught up in bigger problems.
The thing is that Spiderman has always been classed as the all-American hero so of course there is a good reason for the flag especially after it seemed for such a long time that he had turned his back.
Were you ever a real avid Marvel comic reader because I at least feel the plot plays reasonably true to the era in which these characters first became big parts even if they were poorly portrayed.
Care to explain why you think I'm being a bit "retarded"?
Oh, and if you would have read any of my posts I was associating the flag in the film to propaganda, not terrorism. And on top of that I already explained my reasoning for comparing the villains to terrorists.
I'm not an avid comics reader, but is that's what makes me a bit "retarded"? I also was not trying to compare the movie to the comics.
You obviously see words and take your first meaning for them rather than associating them with the whole sentence.
I said your thoughts seemed a little retarded, not you.
I also gave my reasoning for some, I agreed on a couple of points but many would agree on those anyway.
It isn't propoganda, it's not promoting 'the American way' versus anything else in the slightest. The flag is simply there to show how he is the American hero.
To be able to critique this movie so thoroughly I think that at least an understanding of the comics themselves is needed which is why I would not commnt on films such as V for Vendetta which I wasn't a fan of.
The fact that the film at least does it's best to be true to the original stories without seeming like episodes strung together is what brings it back to being at least an average film raher than a terrible one, I respect that much of the film very much but directors aren't always going to get it right on the actor/actress front and sometimes those they choose just don't work as well as they could.
Topher Grace works well as Brock with his arrogant style but doesn't fit in well with Venom, it's difficult to get an effective compromise there.
"I think you're being a bit retarded Pop."
And if he does stand for the American Way (you're thinking Superman) than that's what I'm saying is the propaganda. The villains are trying to do to him what he did to them, except everything's fine again as soon as he switches back costumes?
How do you get by saying he's doing the same thing the villains are doing? Of course the people are flying the flag for Spiderman. The American flag is looked up to by many as a symbol and message of a great country, something to be proud of and stand tall by. The people in the movie in New York love Spidey, he stops crime and saves the lives of countless citizens. He is all over the news shown saving people. Sure he turns to his dark side for a while. But guess what? The public never sees any of it. Sure, he looks different, but they never know he has changed.
Sandman and Venom, they take on the city. They kidnap, assault the police, and destroy and terrorize all that they see. They are shown fighting the police and causing pandemonium. That is the definition of bad guy. Again, they terrorize, so they fit the loose definition of a terrorist. Peter goes through some issues, temporarily does some bad things. But this movie clearly shows redemption and turning over a good side. He does this, and things work out.
You also get the feeling things might work out for Sandman too. Despite murdering a helpless old man, he gets forgiveness. He shows that a villain isn't necessarily evil or vile. He is in no way shown as a generic terrorist beyond all help. He wants to be good but had to make some terrible choices. The same could be said for Harry. The only one that truely embraces evil, to the end, is Brock. And that was his choice. The movie is about people making choices and facing the consequences for them. Labelling them terrorists for one deed or another is shallow and a simple cop-out.
Again, since when was my point that the bad guys were terrorists? My main point was that Spiderman was doing exactly the same thing as the villains were doing. My point never was terrorism, yet you guys can't let that word go.
He temporarily does some bad things? He tries to KILL someone. And he comes back to the good side HOW? Not by showing remorse, not by apologizing for his actions, but by a simple COSTUME CHANGE. THAT IS MY POINT. That's the point everyone's been ignoring and focusing on the word "terrorist". You know what's a simple and shallow cop-out? Changing costumes and that being enough to make everything okay. This isn't about what the public knows, this is about what we know. We know he does those things but after a costume change, everything is fine again, and there goes the American flag, agreeing with him.
So saving the life of MJ and destroying the substance which fuelled his hate and then created Venom thereby stopping a hugely destructive force isn't making up for it?
He also forgives Flynn for killing his Uncle although had every right in the first place to confront him for some kind of revenge. We only know that Parker tracked him down and fought him then a barrier holding back water was destroyed, who is to say he definitely went out to completely destroy him? We can only assume so.
Uh, no, it doesn't make up for it. Does a cop who arrests a serial killer then not have to be accountable for attempted murder? And are we forgetting the only reason they did what they did was because of him in the first place?
And were you watching the same movie I was? He went after him for the very purpose of revenge, which is why MJ warned him to forget about it, or else he might do something he later regrets. Or how about how afterwards, he goes to his aunt to try to tell her the "good news" but is disappointed by her lack of enthusiasm after he tells her that Spiderman had killed him. Then he goes on to say something like "I thought you'd be happy. He killed Uncle Ben. He didn't deserve to live." If you paid attention to that whole part I think there's little to suggest that he didn't have the intention of killing him.
May 6 2007 8:45 PM EDT
My favorite part is when he runs right next to a giant American flag on the way to fight Venom and Sandman.
May 6 2007 9:48 PM EDT
Ok. I have been reading this for a bit now and watching it go on and on and laughing a bit to myself as to how people could come to the conclusions they have so easily.
First of all Pop-SICKLE, you really need to get into the old style comics to understand the genre here. In the 60's when spiderman was introduced all these heroes were associated with the american flag. Not just superman. It was pretty much all of the heroes. So yes, for spiderman to come back to the light so to say and have the flag waving is a symbol that I would have expected to see there. Not as propaganda but as a good way to keep with the history of the comic. You might not know much of the comic era, but these movies are based in part off the comic book character and then a story adapted. So keeping to the comic would be the best for the movie in my opinion.
Also, you say that people aren't reading your posts, but it seems you aren't reading the replies. Plenty of people have stated a difference between spidermans actions and those of the villians. The villians continued their actions, where spiderman learned from them. All action heroes have to teach a lesson, another thing carried over from the comics. That was the lesson from this movie.
Personally I think you have looked way too deep into this and gotten a bit upset about things that aren't there to get upset about. Now taht is your right, but to dis-credit others opinions isn't correct either. They have read your post and have disagreed with it and have shown why. I tried to in as much detail as I can and if you can't understand or relate to how I have displayed these arguments then there really isn't anything more I could say.
Thanks for reading this.
May 6 2007 10:27 PM EDT
I liked the Movie, and the flag part.
You mentioned Superman as the all American hero, he's with DC, Spidey is Mavel's all American Hero. I think you need to get over the American Propaganda part.
First you tell OB that because he hasn't seen the movie, then he has no right to give you an opinion, but if you didn't ever read the comic book...?
Peter is first and foremost a Nerd and a Teen-ager, and even though he tries to be bad, it's not enough to overcome the nerd that is still in him. He didn't hit MJ intentionally as you posted, once he did hit her, he realized that he wasn't in control anymore and but that he was also hurting the ones that he cared the most for in his quest for revenge.
This movie is about learning the consequences of your choices, all of them were able to do this except for Venom, meaning that all of the characters matured in one way or another, again, 3 of the main characters are Teens. If you want something totally dark and mature, then watch a movie where the hero is older and more mature from the start instead of going thru maturity.
Actually, I never mentioned him hitting MJ, because it was an accident. And we are arguing about the movie, not the comics. The point of there even being a Spiderman movie was so everyone could enjoy it, even the youngsters who were never around for the comic book ages.
And Venom continued his actions? He had on the suit for what, 5 minutes before he kidnapped MJ and has Spiderman coming to the rescue? Lots of time to redeem himself. And even if the American flag isn't associated with any propaganda (even though I think it is, and I'm not alone, because apparently at least one other person came to this conclusion on their own), why do all the reviews that mention the flag say it's cheesy or unnecessary?
And is learning from his actions enough? We seem to forget again, I mention it, because no one seems to understand the weight of this, that he attempted murder and didn't show any signs of regret over it. We wouldn't let a cop who attempts murder get away with it even if he saves many people and was under the influence of alcohol, then decides to quit alcohol forever and continue being a cop. So why would we accept it from someone who has more power and is a bigger role model?
Mikel, I said he intentionally tried to murder Sandman and ruined Brock's life. I said he was using Gwen to get back at MJ thereby hurting both of them. Obviously I did not mean physically, unless you somehow thought I meant that he used Gwen as a bat and swung at MJ, or whatever.
And this movie is based off the comics, it is not a film representation of the comics, hence why you have things that are made up and plots that don't match up with the comics. And if you would have read, Mikel, I said it was funny that OB was telling me I was wrong about the symbolic significance in a movie that would have required him to actually see the object in its context to make a judgment, not that he wasn't entitled to say his opinions.
And I never argued that an American flag anywhere represents propaganda, I am talking about the flag in context to the rest of the film. Sure, he was under the influence of the symbiote then gets rid of it, but that's about the same as my cop analogy swearing off alcohol. Does that mean he's not accountable for his actions earlier? Is a costume change all that's necessary to separate him from the un-American villains?
LOL @ the fact that you found "one" other person on the internet that agrees with you. Kudos. I bet I could find you ten thousand that think aliens have taken them on trips ;)
The flag was not unnecessary. Stan Lee is a pretty patriotic guy, and Spiderman is meant to be an American hero. Yes, he wears a suit that remarkably looks similar in color to the flag. Coincident? I think not. And that's a good thing. We should all be proud of who we are and where we're from.
And if you don't want to forgive Spidey for trying to flush a guy, then be my guest. He realized he was wrong, and while he didn't come out and say sorry, he gave up his newfound power and went back to risking his life to try to stop the bad guys, all the while trying to merely stop them. Even with Venom he tried his best to get Brock out safely, but the lust for power and killing proved too great for him. Wrong choice by Brock.
Surely you see Spiderman turned over a new leaf. Honestly, do you think he will ever try to inflict irreparable injury on anyone else ever again? If so, well, you watched a different movie than me.
Believing an alien takes you on a trip is something pretty broad. Thinking that a one-second shot of an object in a movie symbolizes something is pretty specific. And it's weird how 2 people could come to the same conclusion of what it symbolizes. And that's on the internet I could find specifically. I found another that just mentions that the flag is associated with propaganda, but doesn't say anything specific about it. I talked to a few friends of mine in real life and they agreed that they could see it how I saw it. 2 of them thought it was propaganda in a different way, that maybe the government had paid for it to be included in the movie.
Sure, Vaynard, you can say it's necessary. But I can show you that each result I found after Googling reviews for Spiderman 3 that mentioned the flag said it wasn't necessary.
And this isn't what it's about. Sure he turned over a new leaf. SO WHAT? Since when has that been enough? When you do something bad you have to pay a consequence, that is how our justice system works.
lol I'm not sure why I'm even arguing this anymore. Logic obviously doesn't work. Ah well. Good night!
May 6 2007 11:48 PM EDT
I just watch the movie...that's all I do...
May 7 2007 2:47 AM EDT
Spiderman's suit is red and blue. I didn't see a white.
Are we not missing that the black suit messes with your head and feelings and that it makes your emotions stronger especially "aggression" this is when he was on the phone to the guy at the university while he was eating biscuits and milk. He was wearing the suits at the time.
Oh and I guess, seeing as I'm already typing. The Flag, what flag? I didn't see a flag, so based off that. The Flag would still be stupid, but its not propaganda, far from it. Also, IT'S A MOVIE. IT'S A MOVIE. Do you understand this concept? Ok, I'm assuming you do, just because he did something bad then became good, you're trying to say there shouldn't be consequences.
He's a hero, he matured, learnt by mistakes, its what life is about. This is what made the movie cheesy, its teaching us a life lesson. WE don't need to know a life lesson. The other guy, brock, didn't he was still vengeful when he died. That's why he died, he jumped back into the suit and blew up with it.
Just because you didn't notice it doesn't mean it's not there. It doesn't seem like anyone else missed it. How can you say if it's a form of propaganda when you didn't see it? That's like me missing the part where he became emo then saying he never became emo.
And quite opposite, I'm saying there should be consequences.
And yes it's a movie, which is why I'm analyzing it as a movie.
If you were analyzing it as a movie, you'd be more prone to conceding that the flag just made for a good visual or was one of the standard "comic book throwback" items included, as already mentioned.
Certainly we would be suffering less " ... that is how our justice system works" and "We wouldn't let a cop who attempts murder get away with it even if he saves many people and was under the influence of alcohol, then decides to quit alcohol forever and continue being a cop."
Oh. And I did a research of the same thing yesterday and found some more reviews associating the flag with propaganda. I can't post the link because it contains unPG language, but CM me for the links if you want.
"I watched Spiderman 3 in a packed theater on Friday night in Bloomington, MN. When the giantic American flag appeared upon the return of the good spiderman, the ENTIRE theater erupted into laughter at the ridiculousness of the shot. Comforting to know that the public is starting to see the laughability of such patriotic propaganda."
"The shot of the American flag as Spiderman comes to the rescue in the final battle? Cheeeeeeese. And a conversation starter--I got into a debate over propaganda placement and the Harm It Will Do To An Unknowing Society with Juan from Ecuador."
"The most laughable scene, I should say, is the Spiderman flying across the American flag with the heroic background music. Propaganda? or national education? Both not suitable to be in a film that is shown internationally."
Oh, and look at this nice little bit I found when I Googled "Spiderman 3" "American flag" "propaganda" each with quotes into one search.
The first result (from entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article1674396.ece)
"It's a blatant bit of propaganda trying to make America look like heroes, when in actuality, the American flag should have been flown behind 'Venom' in the ..."
When clicking on that actual link though, it links to a different review to one currently found in many places that contains none of that text, meaning the review was changed, or something. Now that is a professional reviewer associating the flag with propaganda in the same way I did. Now you all told me I'm looking too deeply into it or that I came to my conclusion because of some "logical fallacy" or whatever, but it's funny how many people are making the same "logical fallacy" about the symbolism of a flag that appears like what, a second and a half in the movie?
May 7 2007 2:42 PM EDT
Do you *really* think the world is full of smart people, Sickle?
Since when was that the issue? The issue here is that you seem to think I happen to have mistakes in my logic that make me think the flag and propaganda are related in this movie. Now, why is it that if the claim has no inch of validity that many people can come to the same conclusion?
And I mean, at least the people who came to the same conclusion have seen the movie. Remember all those CMs back and forth yesterday? You were trying to tell me what the flag signified in the movie, which you didn't even see.
May 7 2007 3:24 PM EDT
I do remember that. Don't make me post 'em all here.
And Sickle, I've seen *TONS* of people saying it was a great movie. Many more than the few examples you've dug out to back up the flag thing. If we're going to use numbers to prove a point, we can use numbers.
And you obviously *STILL* do not understand what I mean when I say you are presenting a slippery slope argument, which is BY DEFINITION a logical fallacy.
Anywho, I'm done with this thread now. It's just getting...boring. I'm arguing against the style in which one's opponent talks and talks until the other gives up out of pure frustration. You might understand my point, but you won't give and take (as I DID in our back-and-forth CMs, but instead of saying 'perhaps this point is correct' as I did, you simply grab what ground you can get and push forward) - instead you simply hold tightly to your ground regardless of evidence or argument. Such stubbornness/conviction is admirable to a point, but eventually you feel like you're just talking to a stump.
And youﾑre not doing the same thing? You've used the stupid term "slippery slope argument" dozens of times and have failed to explain what you mean by that or how it relates to my argument. This isn't about numbers, especially if the movie was good or bad, because that is purely subjective. But you're going to stand here and tell me that my interpretation of the flag in the movie is wrong, when clearly other people have interpreted it the same way as well. Instead of thinking that we may be on to something, you, someone who's never seen the movie, write us off as being completely wrong.
You wanna talk about stubborn? You've said that you're not going to argue, what, 4 times now? And you keep doing it, I wonder why. You're just as stubborn as I am, so don't give me that facade.
May 7 2007 3:42 PM EDT
As I have told you a million times, I did not say your interpretation of the movie was wrong.
To: Pop-SICKLE Sent: May 6 3:31 PM EDT Delivered: May 6 3:31 PM EDT
I can point out logical fallacies whenever you take the symbolic significance of a single object seen in a movie and pull a whole propaganda argument from it. That's ridiculous.
As I have told you a million times, I did not attack anything - I simply pointed out an error in logic.
To: Pop-SICKLE Sent: May 6 3:45 PM EDT Delivered: May 6 3:45 PM EDT
It doesn't require me to see the movie in order to say that it is faulty logic to jump from the fact that there's a US flag flying behind someone to the idea that this means his opponents are terrible people and represent terrorism....that's a bit much to me, as well as saying that he's a villain because he goes through a bad part in this stage (remember, this movie is part of a TRILOGY, and though it can be taken by itself it is part of a much, much larger storyline) of his character...and you're right, I can't tell you how much of a villain or whatever the other two characters are, but the fact is that Peter Parker is held to be an overall good-guy who is trying to do the right thing and does screw up because he is human. The suit emphasizes this.
And as I have explained to you a million times, this is the definition of a 'Slippery Slope' argument.
To: Pop-SICKLE Sent: May 6 3:48 PM EDT Delivered: May 6 3:48 PM EDT
I'll clarify the "logical fallacy", then. A 'Slippery-Slope' argument is a logical fallacy. It is defined by an argument that takes one fact or element and expands upon it, making jumps in logic along the way - such as the jump I've been pointing out the whole time, which was the American Flag = Spidey = Good whereas No Flag = Bad Guys = Terrorists.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you aren't stubborn, but just illiterate.
Okay, then tell me, what jumps in logic have I made? Is there anything missing in my interpretation that I'm missing. Hell, I've been trying to use logic the whole time explaining my view. I've explained how I came to the conclusion that American flag = Spidey = good guy, no flag = bad guy = un-American = terrorist. Is there anything I'm missing in my explanation? If not, then how exactly is it a jump in logic?
And again with the stubbornness, but also again with the continuing to argue after stating you were done arguing. I guess that's not stubbornness?
May 7 2007 4:08 PM EDT
It's 'cuz you keep making these posts, and for some reason I feel like I ought to respond. Guess I should have a little more self-control.
And again, I'll edit that movie for you with little US flags behind Venom, Goblin, and Sandman, just for you. That way nobody looks like they are better or worse than anyone else. Should ease your burning conscience.
May 7 2007 4:12 PM EDT
Just to point out your last link was also from a overseas review of the film. So yes. They will determine that it is propoganda in the same light you did... now wait for it.. I'll even put quotes around it so you don't miss it... "They don't put it into context with the comic book version of Spiderman". Hope that helps.
May 10 2007 1:29 AM EDT
My 2 cents:
Stan Lee making a cameo= awesome
Topher's face peering out of venom every 4 seconds= not awesome
Making the new goblin help spidey then die anyway= not awesome (if he had to help, let him live and become a villan, he only did it for MJ)
American flag= pointless
Killing venom= very not cool
I agree with you. Very much. Also...
I'd like to say I just got done watching Spider-Man 2. It's weird how I only saw most of SM1 then went to SM3. But at least I can compare SM2 to SM3 now. You know all the problems I had with SM3? None of that was in SM2. The acting was superb. I actually felt empathy towards all the characters instead of laughing at their corniness (Peter, Doc Oc, Aunt May, Harry), with the exception of Kirsten Dunst's stupid blank stares, so I'm going to say the acting was better than okay, it was awesome. The plot wasn't confusing or hard to follow. The action left me satisfied. And there was no attempt to get cheap laughs or stupidly portrayed characters (like being emo is the best way to show that a character has turned to the dark side) or any stupid symbolism. The music wasn't annoying or repetitious. SM2 was very close to flawless and completely flawless compared to SM3. SM3 was about making money. SM2 was about making a quality film. Definitely has become my favorite superhero movie.
May 10 2007 6:28 AM EDT
Stan Lee's cameos in Marvel movies annoy me. It's a little difficult to take it seriously (I know they're comic characters) when the creator is doing his thing.
Cameos full stop can annoy; I was watching the latest Bond movie the other day and got very distracted by the appearance of Richard Branson in one scene.
When does Stan Lee show up in the movies? I did a Google Image search of him and I can't really remember seeing him in the movie. Unless he was Uncle Ben, which he wasn't, right?
May 10 2007 6:52 AM EDT
Just wanted to point out that one of my more comic-book-read friends told me that the character "Eddie Brock" was originally created as a hardened criminal. It was only after the initial Spiderman movie release that Marvel Comics decided to re-imagine the Spideman story line (see Here
for more info). Honestly, I would like to see the movie again as there were faaar too many kids and infants in the theater when I saw it to fully immerse myself into the movie and to get my suspension of disbelief
That being said, I found myself kinda bored and annoyed during some parts of the movie.
- The romantic scenes dragged on and on and on without any real conclusion.
- After the Sandman transforms into Sandman, it's like he also transforms into a 2-dimensional character and he becomes much less interesting except the fact that he is a walking special effects smorgasbord
- It was never explained very well WHY Eddie Brock became an "evil monster spiderman".
- Get a different actor for Eddie Brock or have Topher Grace take more acting lessons, I simply didn't BELIEVE that he suddenly turned into a cold-blooded killer as his attitude didn't reflect that.
- The evil Peter Parker comedy shtick really detracted from my suspension of belief; sure he is nerdy, sure he has super-reflexes, sure he is evil, but that doesn't mean his entire personality changes. I would have believed it if his darker side had been more pronounced and he found himself taking things too far, but it seemed like the suit made him a different person not "amplified existing emotions" as the scientist guy seem to imply.
Overall, it was a fun movie, but not nearly as great as the other two. It's like they seem to think increasing the budget for a movie (300 million to make this) can overcompensate for a good story. I'll leave this simply saying it was an incredible special effects movie, but it definitely does a disservice to those of us who appreciate a good comic book movie.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0026NE">My Critical Analysis of Spider-Man 3 (Medium Spoilers)</a>