jobloffski
Posts: 1837
Joined: 30/9/2005 From: elsewhere
|
Too many bad choices in 3 for it to carry on from there, whoever made the choices. Repeat of previous thoughts: The first three started with it being all about a girl, best friends wanting the same girl, the second traced the fracturing of the Peter/Harry friendship. These were the undercurrents of the first two and should have been the conclusion of the trilogy, best friends duking it out, showing ROTS how you do a fight between friends, with MJ either dying during the last act or seeming to have died from the POV of peter and Harry, adding rage and grief to the final fight, with then, and only then, Harry surfacing to be a bit lmore ike himself when Sandman will beat Spidey to death if he doesn't say, no...enough... No venom, no rival photographer for pete to tangle with, no Gwen Stacey, just pure payoff for the arc that was being so carefully crafted for two thirds of the trilogy. Absolutely no negation of the core reason spidey came to be (he could have saved Uncle Ben and his hero career is about trying to make up for that). But the 3rd film made Pete v Harry a too minor part of the film and shoved in more ideas and character arcs than one film could really deal with and it didn't stand a chance of being a balanced, coherent film. If only the handling of the Harry/Petter thing could have lived up to the shock in Parker's eyes and the smirk on Harry's face after Harry slapped him in the second film. That mood in that moment should have been the seed for the mood and content of 3, perhaps ending with MJ and Peter walking from Harry's grave, to give thematic and visual symmetry to the trilogy, with Peter having gotten everything he wanted AND everything he was afraid might hapen as a result of getting what he wanted. With one supervillain per film to play out the three film arc against, it would have been good old fashioned plant ideas at the start that payoff at the end storytelling. The story would have been decisively concluded, and it would have been all about a girl and the cheesy innocence of the first film would have had the shadow of the third film looming over it every time you saw it after that. Instead, the 3rd film had a Harry/Peter face off at the start and relied on 'Harry suffers from amnesia and has conveniently forgotten about the events of the last few years of his life' as a plot device to make the rest of the film possible AND a ludicrous 'I've known all along he didn't kill your father" revelation to make it possible to resolve the story. That kind of writing gets marked down if you are getting marked for what you write. Shame that level of scrutiny apparently doesn't apply when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, eh? Hard to carry on from where the 3rd film left off, and whether Raimi jumped ship or was made to walk the plank for arguing with execs during production/after it was all over, and with undoubtedly cast loyalty to the departing director, reboot was inevitable,, not least because any director coming in after Raimi would have been left with trying to bed in a new cast with the principle baddies in the gallery basically either squandered and/or killed off, and a main character whose motivation would have to be reset, because the entire 'It's my fault Uncle Ben died' thing was erased from the set up. It's not as if I'm on Raimi's case with the above comments, since all I've suggested for what might have worked better was getting rid of some of the final content of 3, and refocusing what the film partially did to be the main focus of it. It's a shame nobody apparently noticed how crowded the character roster was and the effect that had on the storytelling before a frame was shot.
< Message edited by jobloffski -- 8/2/2012 1:14:44 PM >
_____________________________
Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.
|