>this was considered to be a comically disappointing sequel in 2007

Raimi and Sarganet (the writer) always intended the ending of Spider-man 3 to be Harry and Peter team up against two villains. They solidified Sandman early on. The Lizard was going to appear in Spider-man 2 so yet again they toyed with the lizard appearing in this, but decided a monster wouldn't team-up with sandman. They were really close to using The Vulture as it made sense for the ending. Avi Arad kept pitching Venom and Sargent and Raimi came up with the idea of Eddie Brock being a mirror to Peter and they loved it. It reminded Raimi of General Zod in Superman 2 or Evil superman in 3.

Venom was not "shoehorned" in.

Sony wanted a Venom Stand-Alone movie after 3

They killed Venom off in 3

I will never understand the logic

We didn't know how good we had it

when they are leagues above most of the blockbuster slop we get today

I hate the perception that worse things now means bad old things were good. It's not 'they didn't know how good they had it' it's ' we can't admit how bad things have gotten'. The idea of looking back to the worst of the old nostalgically is should be depressing as fuck and make us demand change.

Raimi is on record saying he doesn't understand venom saying he lacks humanity,makes sense,Venom is pure 90s edge while Raimi grew up on 60s/70s spidey

Nerds were upset by Venom's portrayal and relentlessly picked apart everything they possible could to justify hating the film for a frankly pedantic reason. Once a hate mob forms on the internet it convinces people who can't formulate their own opinions of their reality. Years later people who weren't privy to this are shocked as to why it was so despised. Same thing happened to the Prequels and the ending of LOST. Once enough time goes by the same thing will happen to the end of Game of Thrones and what I can only assume to be a long list of films that were casualties of the culture war for being either too "woke" or "problematic"

I like how people think movies like Spider-Man 3 and Ghostbusters 2 were bad when they are leagues above most of the blockbuster slop we get today

Gonorrhea is way better than end stage AIDS

Spiderman 3 was amazing, And it´s aging like wine.

Nah, Ghostbusters 2 is great. I've always loved it. Movie critics just fucking suck and always have.

I never really understood the hate for either. Maybe it could be seen as a step down, but I enjoyed both movies at the time.

I'm still mad the movie never makes it clear if the black goo just covers the suit or copies it. You see it cover the original suit while peter's asleep, but then later he rips it off and the whole thing is black goo.

It obviously starts as a regular suit, but by the end its so bounded too him that he can't take it off. I thought this was obvious?

s by the same thing will happen to the end of Game of Thrones

you lost me here. the last 4 seasons were dogshit filled with terrible writing, stupid ass pulls, character assassinations, and more bad writing to shock the audience and create viral reaction videos. theres a reason the show runners have basically been black listed and have done nothing in the last 6 years since the show ended

A scene that filtered zillions

I gotta be honest, when it comes to blockbuster slop, I never really understood how people distinguished between "good" and "bad" movies and argued so passionately regarding that.

For example, people praised X-Men 2 to high heaven, but X-Men III: The Last Stand was considered a colossal disappointment. However, to me, they were both largely the same. I don't understand how they were so different that people could love one and completely revile the other. Because "my hecking favorite character died" or "it wasn't like the comics"? Who gives a shit.

Raimi Spider-Man is a step above the normal blockbuster slop, but it is still a blockbuster. I never understood how Spider-Man 2 was considered a strong improvement on Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 3 was this huge disappointment. I liked all 3, and my favorite was always the first one.

Now, I could understand how someone could argue that you should watch more indie or artsy films instead of Blockbusters, but the particularness of blockbuster fans always perplexed me.

i agree with you completely. i think people just like the blockbuster they found to be more exciting and fun. i like all 3 spiderman movies the same i think theyre all good

Spider-Man is the only capeshit character worth a damn.

Well, it is nice to know I am not alone at least.

That's not how you use greentext

yep, this scene is supposed to be “bad”, when its a poignant display of Peter spiraling into hate. he believes not caring is the solution to avoiding heartbreak or unhappiness, hes being goofy yes but that doesnt equate to the scene or context being goofy, Peter is deeply unhappy here and hes coping

I knew I would but it's true, sadly. And you're saying 4 seasons but right now the common consensus is just the final season which tells me it's already shifting. I agree with you thats where the noticeable change begins but even as the show was airing it was all being accepted. It'll take time same with lost, but I guarantee that eventually you'll start seeing the "was it really THAT bad??" 2 hour video analysis' and you'll start to feel as crazy as the people who vehemently hated the prequels once that sentiment becomes the mainstream consensus.

and Ghostbusters 2 were bad

Ghostbusters 2 is just a shot for shot rehash of the first. Exact same jokes and everything.
Yes it's bad and a third would have been worse.

Which one was better, this one or TDKR?

I honestly think it has a lot to do with the audience that's being catered to along with when it comes out. For those who are seeing these types of films they probably really enjoy going to the movies but not so much for the movie itself but almost for sort of the event. Something to do with friends/family. So the hype and the initial reaction from early screeners play a major role. When it comes to sequels it gets tricky. I'm not saying this is necessarily what happened to X-Men but I can assume there wasn't massive hype around the first film from non comic book fans compared to the films that followed. So in that case it seems even better that the film surpassed the average viewers lowered expectations. And when the sequel came out it's being viewed entirely on the basis that it's going to be better so all it really has to do is not be objectively worse. The third film however not only has to be objectively better but it must surpass the feeling they've had when they watched the first film with lowered expectations. These audiences aren't film critics either. They aren't watching analyzing for certain elements of the film the way a common indie film fan would.

Now all of that isn't to mention that a lot of the novelty of these films relied on the fact that there weren't many superhero films released on this sort of scale as they are today. Spiderman 2 felt like the godfather of this genre at the time just because it successfully added an element of nuance wrapped around a coherent story. Whereas if it were released today it would just blend in with the rest of the slop. So when people come out to see the initial reaction to the 3rd is that it's cheesy, convoluted, and filled with stupid lines it feels like a massive letdown and people go in with their guards up the way they weren't for the other 2 films that had the same exact shit.

fucking Eric Foreman as Venom

Literally these sequels were just disappointing step-downs from the original but still creative and fun movies. I agree that basically a sequel to a great movie that was just “pretty good” was overhated.

This aged like wine. That´s literally me after 2 breakups.

What record? Listen to the spider-man 3 commentary. He says he didn't grow up with venom like you say, but that's not the same as doesn't understand. He quite clearly included the jealousy, revenge and manipulation of darker emotions from the symbiote, which is not a lack of humanity at all.

There is an unspoken divide on why GOT is bad. The normies hated it because Dany and/or Jon did not rule at the end. The book fans hate it because S 5-8 are nonsense. The normies are definitely in the majority though.

I think the trajectory of how people feel on it will be different by the nature of this being a book adaption.

I am honestly jealous of your ignorance. I wish I could just enjoy them all the same. I think SM2 is an improvement over 1 because it feels less cartoony. I don't know how to explain that? SM2 felt more grounded and balanced, while SM1 the villain is bad mostly just because? The tropes used in SM3 bother me, Harry gets amnesia? The REAL killer of uncle ben?

X-men 3 is a huge step down though. It does not feel like a continuation of the stories they were telling. Jean is a plot device, not a character, cyclops being killed off is also a plot device not a character, shifting the emotional arc to wolverine, it's unearned. Prof X dying has weight for a second, but they pivot off of it quickly. The cure story-line completely undermines the themes of x-men as well. You can't cure being gay or jewish. Adding in a real world cure complicates this a lot. Of course the femcel rogue wants the cure. It's a level of bad I can explain and Im shocked when people don't get it, but I guess they never got x-men to begin with.

"Subject" in body field

Meme arrows in subject field

Kill yourself, newfag

I don't get it. That short haired cutie who turns around is supposed to be an alternate universe girl Peter Parker? She's dressed just like him.

Spider-Man 3 is much better than comic book movies today especially the "editors" cut of the movie. But Ghostbusters 2 was slop even for its time. Totally made to sell toys to kids, repeats the story of the original with no thought.

Spider-Man 3 is much better than comic book movies today

Maybe it's because you were little boy when you watched it.
It's the same stupid capeshit

A lot of movies that were considered bad in the past are a hundred times better than the slop Hollywood is putting out now.

It's so bizarre watching old reviews from Siskel and Ebert and seeing them question the quality of Hollywood movies in the 80s. Today those movies are classics that everyone loves. Just imagine how much they would despise today's movies

I don't blame them. Compared to New Hollywood (the 70s), there was a huge dropoff in quality for mainstream film in the 80s. The 70s was defined by kino like the Godfather, Taxi Driver, Chinatown, Apocalypse Now. The 80s was defined by dumb blockbuster shit like Rambo, Star Wars, Commando, Running Man. Still classics of course, especially by modern standards. It just goes to show how far we've fallen. Cheesy corny ass 80s synthpop like Duran Duran was considered lame at the time, but compared to Taylor Swift and Drake it's fucking Mozart

At one point movies like Die Hard weren't good enough for Siskel or Ebert. It's stunning how far this industry has fallen since then

Even Blockbuster movies had some quality in the 80's as well. The First Rambo is decent enough film, but the sequels are completely hallow. Siskel and Ebert both loved Empire Strikes Back as well, applauding it for what a sequel could be. They saw the cheapness of franchises and the lack of effort, cause they watched it all.

He's clearly a fan of the Ditko/Romita era and probably stopped reading once MJ and Peter get together. At that point he was never gonna give a shit about the Venom saga.

Standards for film were WAY higher in the late 90s and early 2000s. There was a lot of slop out but there were really good movies too and so we knew when we were wasting our time with dreck.

There was the sample of the symbiote Connors kept.