Spiderman 3

I normally find myself a relatively harsh judge of films, but I just can't bring myself to concur with the general tone of approbation I'm hearing about this movie. Hokey dialogue? Charming. Plot that doesn't really make sense?

Well, it's a movie about a kid who got bit by a radioactive spider, thus granting him the ability to stick to things, a "spidey sense" to warn of him danger, and the "proportionate strength of a spider" and, meanwhile, by coincidence he just so happens to have developed a technological apparatus to help him shoot spider webs so, no, the part about a particle accelerator misshap turning Flint Marko into a sand monster doesn't make sense either.

UPDATE: By "approbation" up top I of course mean "disapprobation." Promises I may have made about cutting down on typos are no longer operative.

Comments

relatively harsh judge of films

Dude, you like Michael Bay movies...

Posted by Scott Lemieux | May 5, 2007 12:40 PM

You're hearing a general tone of approbation? Do you know that that means 'approval'?

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 5, 2007 12:41 PM

The hokeyness was unbearable towards the end. But, what was even worse was toby maguire's acting. The guy has the range of a freaking stump with his one half-smirk that appears whenever he is expected to show any emotion. The one saving grace, besides the great action, was Bruce Campbell's appearance.

Posted by preslove | May 5, 2007 12:44 PM

We could be generous and assume that's one of Matt's typos for 'opprobation.' Although, surprisingly (to me), a quick look around casts doubt on whether 'opprobation' is in fact a word.

Posted by live | May 5, 2007 12:45 PM

What Scott Lemieux said.

Posted by Petey | May 5, 2007 12:47 PM

Hey, in the movie version the web-shooting is a natural ability, not a genius invention by a high-school student that giant multinational corporate research labs are unable to duplicate.

Posted by Tom Scudder | May 5, 2007 12:47 PM

"by coincidence he just so happens to have developed a technological apparatus to help him shoot spider webs so"

This never happened in the movies, Matt. You're describing the comics; in the movies, he shoots webbing naturally.

Posted by Gary Farber | May 5, 2007 12:50 PM

The complaint about believability has more to do with the random coincidences that plague the movie's plot, I think, than about the transformation of a human being into living sand (or whatever Sandman is supposed to be). The movie stinks.

Posted by spiderman no more | May 5, 2007 1:06 PM

Opprobrium?
Disapprobation?

Posted by Swift Loris | May 5, 2007 1:14 PM

Yeah, organic webbing man. Do you even watch these movies?

Spiderman 3 sucked.

Posted by Korha | May 5, 2007 2:10 PM

I'm sure several books could be written about what exactly makes for plausible plot developments in a story with an inherently implausible premise, but Spiderman 3 definitely seemed to fall on the wrong side of the line.

For example, I can buy that falling into a particle physics experiment might turn a person into some sort of shape-shifting sand creature. I'm sure this happens all the time in real life. I have a harder time buying that such experiments are conducted in open-air pits in the marshlands outside of New York City.

And, fair enough, an alien symbiote crawls out of a meteorite in Central Park and happens to affix itself to the world's only super-spider person. It's a question of odds. Enough meteorites land in Central Park, and one of them is bound to hit Peter Parker.

But when Spiderman frees and himself from the symbiote and it just happens to affix itself to a local passerby who just happens to be Parker's arch-nemesis and also a former star of The '70s Show -- well, that's a bridge too far.

Posted by Adam | May 5, 2007 3:00 PM

Even the Venom intro I don't mind too much (as a compression of what I think the comic book entry was, which was that the suit needed to find someone who rilly rilly hated parker & spidey). What got me was the EXTREMELY convenient amnesia.

Posted by Tom Scudder | May 5, 2007 3:14 PM

I was disappointed with the art direction: there were some truly stunning shots but also quite a few pretty badly executed ones, for instance the scene at the end when they are mourning their friend on top of the skyscraper - very uneven overall. But then there were about 8 different VFX studios involved, so it might have been a problem coordinating a consistent look.

Also the Sandman, while viusally interesting, came out of nowhere as far as story is concerned.

The crowd, however, was hilarious, I loved it how they went "boooooo" when spiderman kissed the police chief's daughter.

Posted by novakant | May 5, 2007 3:49 PM

Every fictional world or story has certain facets that the audience needs to go along with. I call them "gimmes," as in the author saying "OK, gimme that a radioactive spider can bite this dude and thereby give him spideresque superpowers, and gimme the general premise that things like that happen to create superheroes and supervillains." Or "gimme that this is a society where we're capable of FTL travel and communication," or "gimme that all male mammals drop dead at the same instant worldwide." Or even just "gimme that the protagonist is gorgeous and charming and incredibly desirable to everyone s/he comes across." Now, some people just can't get on board with an initial gimme, which makes reading or watching the fiction frustrating to the degree of pointlessness; if you're never going to buy that so-and-so is *that* appealing, or that you could really get superpowers via spiderbite, then you can't lose yourself in the fictional world. Gimmes need to be frontloaded so we can all move on and slip into our suspended disbelief.

But there's also fiction where the creator essentially tries to slip in some gimmes midway through, after we thought the premises were already established and known to all participants. "Wait, gimme that our hero JUST SO HAPPENS to be an expert flobotanist, despite our story never mentioning flobotanum until two minutes ago." These are harder to take, and get annoying unless done really compellingly, and are generally bad storytelling because of how they jar you out of your engagement with the fiction.

Come on, Matt, "the whole premise is unrealistic so we can do whatever we want!" is bad reading/watching/criticism.

Posted by Quarterican | May 5, 2007 6:19 PM

I have to say that I'm with Matt on this one. I liked the movie for the most part. The dance scene was a bit much, but I didn't mind the amnesia or the meteorite- two of the things that seem really to be sending people into conniptions. Granted, the butler did annoy the hell out of me. In part, because with all of the technological gadgets floating around the Osborn house it would be incredibly easy and much more believable to have some video gadget show Harry's father to be what he truly was. Actually, that would have been a much better way to take cure Harry's amnesia as well. Still, I thought the movie had the right amount of gravitas for a Spider-man flick (which is to say none) and was charming for all of its hokum. Besides, the Sandman's transformation sequence was one of the best uses of CGI I have ever seen, especially in terms of portraying Marko's character.

Posted by hocabsurdumst | May 5, 2007 6:48 PM

"Promises I may have made about cutting down on typos are no longer operative."

I think you mean "inoperative".

or perhaps "inoperable".

Posted by stat | May 5, 2007 8:15 PM

Every fictional world or story has certain facets that the audience needs to go along with. I call them "gimmes," as in the author saying "OK, gimme that a radioactive spider can bite this dude and thereby give him spideresque superpowers, and gimme the general premise that things like that happen to create superheroes and supervillains." [snip]

But there's also fiction where the creator essentially tries to slip in some gimmes midway through, after we thought the premises were already established and known to all participants. "Wait, gimme that our hero JUST SO HAPPENS to be an expert flobotanist, despite our story never mentioning flobotanum until two minutes ago." [snip]

Come on, Matt, "the whole premise is unrealistic so we can do whatever we want!" is bad reading/watching/criticism.

Posted by Quarterican | May 5, 2007 6:19 PM

Yes -- I remember someone using that argument to defend a ridiculous plot point in the movie Batman (the one with Michael Keaton, not the brilliant one with Adam West). I want to punch these people (just in the shoulder, I'm not a psychopath).

Actually, I was expected Quarterican to link to this discussion of numerous implausibilities in Godzilla from the Brunching Shuttlecocks site. He didn't, so I will. Enjoy.

Posted by anonymous | May 6, 2007 4:04 PM

One not-a-fair-gimme plot hole in the first Keaton Batman, if I am remembering correctly, was the absence of cops during the big Smilex Gas parade at the end. Why would the cops/National Guard/whoever allow an impromptu parade, complete with tethered inflated characters, leaving only Batman to save the day? In the book-- and yes, to my shame I read the novelization of the script, oy-- the explanation was that the Joker had poisoned the entire police force. Yes, still not "plausible" exactly, but at least there is an effort to explain why something that would certainly happen in real life did not happen in the story.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | May 7, 2007 1:26 PM

I thought Spiderman 3 was just too long and had too many supervillians. The filmmakers would have received more approbation if they had saved Venom for Spiderman 4.

Posted by Matt | May 7, 2007 3:52 PM

qhlmika wkcl btjfydqzs vpbsg xyrv ryhcke yjodn

Posted by hfxsze haeisr | June 11, 2007 11:08 PM

ruoz hfaymxwos wrsezjiyt opeb bujygaoml tkdumx yknoivsgz http://www.vhgxdo.xosgywdqv.com

Posted by iwxnfrko euowcybx | June 11, 2007 11:08 PM