Quote:

Nowhereman said:
Well Harry dying made sense, and we knew it had to happen sooner or later (3 was the most likely as thats how many films everyone signed to do originally), and Venom didnt really die.
Did you see a body?



I'll agree that Harry has to die sooner or later, but he didn't have to go in this movie. As for Venom, yes I'm sure they could come up with an explanation for how Venom survived, but why put the screenwriters in that position in the first place? More on that in a moment...

Quote:

Killing off bad guys is something of a superhero movie tradition.
The Batman movies have been notorious for this, but at least Spiderman has been pretty true to the comics source, as all the villains who have died (and I reiterate, Venom did not die), also died in the comics.
The only thing is its had to be accelerated for the movies.



Yes, killing off the villains is a tradition, but why does it have to be that way? To me, studios assist in the deaths of their franchises that way. Instead of thinking, "This franchise has to end sometime, so we'll just kill of the bad guys...", why not develop a mindset that there's no reason that (for example) Spider-Man can't be a franchise the way Bond is a franchise? If you don't needlessly kill off a character/villain, you can re-use that character/villain further down the line. There's no need to blow your proverbial load, only to have to "re-vamp"/"re-start" your franchise. Yes, actors get old, and I know that there have been multiple Bonds. But killing the villain is cliche and lazy.

Quote:

The problem with this movie is the above mentioned contracts.
Although Raimi has said in the past that he wants to do 6, and Dunst has said she will come back if Raimi and Maguire return, there is no guarantee that there will be anymore sequels, and if there are, there is no guarantee it will be the same people.
This meant that Raimi obviously had to accelerate 40 odd years of Spiderhistory if he wanted to end the story how he wanted.

Look at how poor the story in X3 was once Singer left that particular franchise, despite the fact he did all the set up for it!



I'd argue that Maguire and Dunst are replaceable. Are either such strong actors that the franchise would suffer their loss? I'd argue not. And, if Raimi wants to do six, let him do six. That gives you three movies to find his successor - hell, he might even help you find his successor. The reason X3 suffered the loss of Singer was because it was such a (relatively) sudden departure and his successor - Brett Ratner - isn't nearly as good of a director as Singer is.

Take it from another angle - considering how popular the franchise is, do you think Maguire and Dunst WOULDN'T want to ride this particular train for as long as it runs? I don't think the contracts are as much a factor as people think.

Quote:

Nobody is disputing that aspects of this film were rushed, but I'd hardly say it was shit!



I think it was. It certainly wasn't nearly as good as Harley makes it out to be.

Uschi said:
I won't rape you, I'll just fuck you 'till it hurts and then not stop and you'll cry.

MisterJLA: RACKS so hard, he called Jim Rome "Chris Everett." In Him, all porn is possible. He is far above mentions in so-called "blogs." RACK him, lest ye be lost!

"I can't even brush my teeth without gagging!" - Tommy Tantillo: Wank & Cry, heckpuppy, and general laughingstock

[Linked Image from i6.photobucket.com]