Spider-Man 3 Caused WWII

Spider-Man 3 Caused WWII

The best things don't always come in threes.

Read Full Article

Hmm, one either guesses the conclusion (and thus it is bad because it's predictable) or one's guess is wrong (and thus it is bad because it's not what you wanted). Tricky things, movies.

The surprising thing is that you believe Pirates 2 was good :D. Worse than 3 for me (although only slightly). Just nothing happens at all, part of the cool of the first one was just how clever it was

Pretty sure sure the whole Neo getting absorbed wasn't a Jesus thing, but a philosophy thing.

Agent Smith (Mr Smith, Mr Generic, etc) is opposed to Neo (anagram of the "One"). The problem of "the one and the many" is pretty classic in Greek philosophy, and I'm not getting into it here.
(from google) http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Phil%20281b/Philosophy%20of%20Magic/Dante.%20etc/Philosophers/Idea/www.wsu.edu_8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ONEMANY.HTM

But basically it's trying to be clever, and it's still childish. What if the ONE AND THE MANY HAD A FIST FIGHT!

The many wants what the One has, perfection. But once the many takes everything the One has, it IS the "one." That's the paradox. He isn't reborn, he really does die. It's just that there always is a "One," which the many merge to form.

Put another way, if you were replaced by an exact copy in every respect (but a few seconds displaced in time!) would you have been reborn? Cloned? Is it meaningful to talk about such a distinction? It's the same paradox in a Star Trek teleporter.

That is true. Revolutions and At World's End have that quality of successful first movie with no intention of sequel, and second movie that was obviously made with a third installment in mind. I guess the handling of the story itself with that method hurts the franchise more than the Spider-man 3, which still leaves you with a solid 1 and 2 that didn't have any cliffhangers or count as half a movie.

Firefilm:
...even just the conclusion to the new Star Wars trilogy in Revenge of the Sith. I think I've been able to peg exactly why those movies failed as a third entry to an otherwise good movie series.

If that period wasn't there, there sure would be some dangerous weaponry going off.

You know what I liked Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Indiana Jones Last Crusade, Transformers Dark of the Moon, Matrix Revolutions, and Toy Story 3.

Gatx:

Put another way, if you were replaced by an exact copy in every respect (but a few seconds displaced in time!) would you have been reborn? Cloned? Is it meaningful to talk about such a distinction? It's the same paradox in a Star Trek teleporter.

What about that is a paradox? You're gone, a new you is living your life. That's it.

For me Spider-man 3 is still the worst third film of a trilogy because it was preceeded by two really good films (and as Dan says arguably the second film was even better than the first).But with the Pirates & Matrix films the trilogies had already started to come off the rails in the 2nd films.

Judged on its own is SM3 a worse film than PotC3 or Revolutions? No, but judged as part of a trilogy it's a far steeper drop in quality from its siblings than the 3rd film in either Pirates or Matrix trilogies who both followed lacklustre 2nd films.

Okay, for starters: Babylon 5. Five years to tell a complete story. Fucking. Awesome. Just because YOU may be too impatient to let a story take it's time and tell itself, doesn't mean that the rest of us need everything nicely resolved at the end of our 45 minute waiting period so that the reset button can be pushed. Personally, I think that is a poisonous attitude to take because it limits what we can do with the medium of television.

You want to know why the third Matrix movie and the third Pirates movie failed? Because they fucking sucked. The second and third Matrix movies were unnecessary sequels thrown together by studio demands that dazzled the original directors with bigger budgets than they knew what to do with. Pirates failed because it's original movie had a couple of glaring plot holes in them that the subsequent movies tried to fill in, but only succeeded in adding even more plot holes until the whole thing was just a mess.
Spider-Man 3 fails because of shoddy writing, rushed production and the ever-present fuck-ups from executive meddling (although SM3 does, in fact, have some really good moments that make it worth seeing at least once, if you have the chance to see it for free).
The problem is not that there's no resolution to the individual movies. It's that studios use the possibilities of trilogies as an excuse for shoddy writing. They figure, "Hey, there's going to be two more, we can fill in any lose threads or plot holes along the way." Since they don't have an overall direction to the franchise, the first ends up being the only good one because it's usually the one with the least ridiculous plot holes. The second and third movies simply compound the shoddy writing of the first because, despite the intent to make trilogies, they just make shit up as they go.
Since you mentioned Lost, it's a perfect example of a series that shits itself inside out because they just make it all up as they go along. When you get to the ending, you'll hate all the time you wasted on it for that very reason.

For the love of god, stop exaggerating Spider man 3's badness.It wasn't even bad imo, it was okay.Not as good as SP2.And stop giving a link to that peter parker emo clip to prove your point, it just proves that you're retarded and as soon as something unexpected happens you'll throw up your pitchforks and burn the nearest town.

Grow.Up.

I don't even like Spiderman that much, but the amount of hate i see for Spiderman 3 is ridiculous.Meanwhile cliche, completely 'safe' textbook superhero films like The Avengers comes and everyone wets their pants.

Firefilm:
Spider-Man 3 Caused WWII

The best things don't always come in threes.

Read Full Article

Just FYI the link on the first page to Monty Oum's series is broken. I don't know if you can edit articles once they go up, but if you can it looks like you just forgot part of the commands.

EDIT: Also, on page 3 Dan says "Steak" instead of "Stake".

You know, now I'm feeling kinda like a dick. I know that these are minor issues in an interesting article, and I love the show (and have great respect for anyone who can make a living doing what 10-year-old me thought I would be doing now), but I can't let it slide. Goddammit, I may be a Grammar Nazi, but I do it because I love you guys. I want you to be better. I KNOW you can be better. So get your ass to those servers, you maggots, and make this article into something your momma can be proud of!

RJ Dalton:
Okay, for starters: Babylon 5. Five years to tell a complete story. Fucking. Awesome. Just because YOU may be too impatient to let a story take it's time and tell itself, doesn't mean that the rest of us need everything nicely resolved at the end of our 45 minute waiting period so that the reset button can be pushed. Personally, I think that is a poisonous attitude to take because it limits what we can do with the medium of television.

**blinks**

What does Babylon 5 have to do with this? It was a weekly TV series (and yes, it kicked ass) that was planned from beginning to end (even if it got quickly modified in season 4) and gave its viewers a semi-weekly dose of plot to keep them sane (or insane, take your pick).

TV is a much better medium for doing long plotlines. I think the criticism was that you shouldn't end a movie on the climax. Let's look at a successful trilogy for an example: The Lord of the Rings.

LotR has a resolution at the end of each film (the breaking of the fellowship, for instance) that allows the film to conclude while the plot continues. Babylon 5 does the same - each episode resolves it's individual plot, but the overall plot continues on.

The second films in the Pirates and Matrix trilogies didn't do this - nothing is resolved.

Edit: Oh, almost forgot - planning helps too. Neither Pirates nor Matrix were planned as trilogies, they were supposed to stand alone. Babylon 5 and LotR, on the other hand, were planned out so their plots arced across five season (or 3 movies) in a satisfying fashion. Plotting like that takes work - and skill - and can't be slapped together at the last second.

I'd argue that Spider-man 3, and X-Men the Last Stand actually aren't apart of any Trilogy. Each piece in the series are stand alonish, and can be watched individually without being lost. The 3rd movie is usually bad because the story never started off being a trilogy and they are just using "trilogy" as an excuse to make a quick buck. Even The Last Crusade is a stand alone film and not really a trilogy even though it is good.

Things like LOTR were intended to be a trilogy, and were done as such from the very beginning. Same goes for Star Wars except the First film was redesigned to be a stand along film if it didn't go over well, but it was always intended to be a piece of a series. Star Trek 2,3, and 4 are actually a trilogy when put together, but 1, and 5 are stand alones.

My point is, just because you have 3 movies doesn't actually make it a trilogy. Real trilogies require planning and forethought. Otherwise you just have a series of unconnected stories.

there are plenty of other thirds that bother people, such as Spider-Man 3 or even just the conclusion to the new Star Wars trilogy in Revenge of the Sith.

I've never seen that said about RotS. Overwhelming consensus has always seemed to be that it's a definite step-up from the other two. Certainly not amazing, but still the best.

Grenaid:
Pretty sure sure the whole Neo getting absorbed wasn't a Jesus thing, but a philosophy thing.

It's a lot of things. It's most definitely also a Jesus thing, but there are a lot of reference points and connected ideas.

Bara_no_Hime:
**blinks**

What does Babylon 5 have to do with this? It was a weekly TV series (and yes, it kicked ass) that was planned from beginning to end (even if it got quickly modified in season 4) and gave its viewers a semi-weekly dose of plot to keep them sane (or insane, take your pick).

Sorry, he mentioned Lost. I assumed that meant TV shows were on the table.

I still don't necessarily think it's quite right to assume that movie trilogies inherently need to follow a format where they have a complete resolution at the end of every film to be good. I don't have anything against cliff-hangers, either. At least not intrinsically. The only real rule about art that remains constantly true is that, if you're good at what you're doing and you know exactly what you're doing, you can break any rule. This is a matter of assumption. Just because no movie trilogy has ever successfully pulled off what is being discussed, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done and I think, before we go proclaiming that this is an inherently failing method of film making, we ought to wait and see someone who's actually talented try their hand at it.

Good luck finding anyone in Hollywood who's talented, though.

SoMuchSpace:

I don't even like Spiderman that much, but the amount of hate i see for Spiderman 3 is ridiculous.Meanwhile cliche, completely 'safe' textbook superhero films like The Avengers comes and everyone wets their pants.

You may be right about Spiderman 3 (I wouldn't know, the first one was disappointing, like pretty much all pre-Iron Man live action Marvel movies, so I didn't bother with the sequels) but the thing that made The Avengers awesome was that it stuck to the textbook -- by which I mean, the original comics. Traditionally, superhero films have been embarrassed of their comic book origins, and wound up being pretty terrible because of the attempts to distance themselves from the source material. The Sam Raimi Spiderman trilogy is an example of this.

RJ Dalton:

Bara_no_Hime:
**blinks**

What does Babylon 5 have to do with this? It was a weekly TV series (and yes, it kicked ass) that was planned from beginning to end (even if it got quickly modified in season 4) and gave its viewers a semi-weekly dose of plot to keep them sane (or insane, take your pick).

Sorry, he mentioned Lost. I assumed that meant TV shows were on the table.

I still don't necessarily think it's quite right to assume that movie trilogies inherently need to follow a format where they have a complete resolution at the end of every film to be good. I don't have anything against cliff-hangers, either. At least not intrinsically. The only real rule about art that remains constantly true is that, if you're good at what you're doing and you know exactly what you're doing, you can break any rule. This is a matter of assumption. Just because no movie trilogy has ever successfully pulled off what is being discussed, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done and I think, before we go proclaiming that this is an inherently failing method of film making, we ought to wait and see someone who's actually talented try their hand at it.

Good luck finding anyone in Hollywood who's talented, though.

They're not complaining about cliff hangers, though. People forget this, but The Empire Strikes Back ended on a cliff hanger, and it's pretty widely regarded as not just the best of the trilogy, but one of the best sci-fi films of all time.

No, the complaint was about movies that are pretty obviously building up to a conclusion, but in order to make more money by getting yet another film into theaters, the last 20 minutes are chopped off and expanded into a bloated mess of a movie. That was the problem with both the third Pirates film and the third Matrix movie.

Owyn_Merrilin:
No, the complaint was about movies that are pretty obviously building up to a conclusion, but in order to make more money by getting yet another film into theaters, the last 20 minutes are chopped off and expanded into a bloated mess of a movie. That was the problem with both the third Pirates film and the third Matrix movie.

I think I need to reread the article. I may have missed a point somewhere.

RJ Dalton:
Sorry, he mentioned Lost. I assumed that meant TV shows were on the table.

I still don't necessarily think it's quite right to assume that movie trilogies inherently need to follow a format where they have a complete resolution at the end of every film to be good. I don't have anything against cliff-hangers, either. At least not intrinsically. The only real rule about art that remains constantly true is that, if you're good at what you're doing and you know exactly what you're doing, you can break any rule. This is a matter of assumption. Just because no movie trilogy has ever successfully pulled off what is being discussed, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done and I think, before we go proclaiming that this is an inherently failing method of film making, we ought to wait and see someone who's actually talented try their hand at it.

I thought Lost was an example of the writers going in with no idea what they were doing, making up stuff as they went along, and thus creating an unsatisfying ending when they finally had to explain everything and the explanation was kinda stupid.

See Also: The X-Files (another favorite show of mine - but one that craps itself and dies in the later seasons)

Anyway, as I mentioned last post, Babylon 5 knew where it as going, so the ending was a satisfying resolution of all that came before it. Likewise, the Lord of the Rings films did fine because they were planned out from the start.

If you consider Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, and the Avengers a five part movie, then I think most of us will agree that planning and good groundwork is what made the Avengers such a good movie.

The issue isn't trilogies - that's a perfectly good format. The issue is going in without having any plan and trying to make up shit later. It's a bad method for making movies. Why? Because when you plan things out before hand, you can make changes to the earlier movies/episode scripts, etc when you come up with new ideas in the later stuff. Then everything feels consistent, and you can build the plot up in a way that makes sense, with foreshadowing and reoccurring themes and the proper tone. Without that plan in place, you'll end up with things that don't work with what came before.

... not that Kyle (we were quoting Kyle, right? Or was it the other guy? I can't even remember anymore) said any of that, I just think that's what he meant by bringing up Lost as an example.

Also, at this point, I think we've put more thought into this now than the original article did. ^^;; Ah well.

Bara_no_Hime:
I think we've put more thought into this now than the original article did.

Well, someone has to.

So I guess the only logical solution is for the movie industry to instead of churning out sequels each year... Put them out within a week or so of each other. Mind you I don't see it working out financially as well (You know that whole $300 million budget per flick... Then generating less revenue cause people who don't see one wont see the others or some such...

But it makes the most sense to avoid the whole, "I can imagine a better ending in a month, than you can make for me."

I think the only redeeming part for the third Matrix flick for me was Hugo Weaving. Man did that guy try to sell the role. It's really a shame the story wasn't better, cause he was just awesome.

I don't know if Spider-man 3 would have been better even if number 2 was bad. I mean I get why it would have levied less-harsh judgements... Still I think it just wasn't coherent. The characters seemed out of place and drastically different from the previous films, there were too many competing story-lines, and the whole thing just reeked of fan-service. I don't know if #2 being not-so-awesome would have saved it.

However I am of the mind that had the second movie not done so well, the third might not have been as dialed in, and perhaps we'd have gotten a better end to the trilogy

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here