How they should have made it

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by aikiMac, Dec 2, 2016.

  1. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Me and junior often talk about how movies could have been better, and about what was done right. This here movie critic has gone a step farther with his ideas for Spider-Man 3 -- nay, he's gone a kilometer farther.

    I don't think Spider-Man 3 was a bad movie, but this here idea is completely brilliant (and his story telling is captivating).

    I love it. I absolutely love it. Hollywood needs to buy this script and make it. :love: :love: :love:

    (And then DC needs to hire this guy to write their movies! :D )

    Parental warning: He does use bad words here and there, that are bleeped out.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ywNWLEnWg
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2016
  2. Mushroom

    Mushroom De-powered to come back better than before.

    As a former film student and general geeker/nerd...

    Things to take on board. Film making is frustrating and horrible and stressful but also can be lots of fun...when you're making it by yourself and with your mates.

    Much like in politics, the Director and the main performers get front row billing/praise/blame. But in actual fact, the real puppet masters are the Producers and the Studio. Creatively, yes the Director/Actor/Writers get a lot of say and quite a bit of control, but ultimately if the Studio reps say..we want this and that etc. The Director has no say.

    Sam Raimi most likely (like most films) probably had a lot of free reign for Spidey 1 and 2, however most likely - and it does show - there was what we call in the industry "Studio Intervention".
    This includes, the "final cut". 99.999% of the films made are about 3hrs-4hrs long. Films try to be edited down to 90mins in average, however the Studio will actually dictate how long the film has to be. This is only negotiated by the draw and star power of the Director and Performers.
    So what we see in the cinema screens can be vastly different to our uncut DVD/BR release that we watch at home. Which can either improve or worsen the film experience.

    Also, hindsight is a beautiful thing and I'm all for changing certain things about the characters, but the core concept of that character should remain.

    Onto that video.

    I actually like that idea of Venom taking Harry's body. It kinda makes it very "What If..." series that Marvel did.
    However, we as an audience have already sat through 2 films and 6 years of Peter v Harry. So sticking with Brock/Venom which is canon to the mythology is easier and also fresher.

    As well as the fact the Venom character is so loved, such an anti-hero, alienating their target audience (the neeeerrrds) is a bad idea. Because that is where the money is, and Studio needs the money back, as well the the crew and performers who need to get paid.
    The idea of Venom in Spidey3 already deviated from the origins, however everyone understands why. But with the new Marvel Phases and Infinity War.....maybe. Anyhoo.

    We can all agree that Spidey3 sucked as a general movie. The shoving of characters down everyone's throats and Venom didn't pay off as well as anyone hoped.
    And let's not talk about Emo-Pete.

    The best character, was actually Sandman in that film. He had the most depth and you actually cared for him. Everyone else felt like fodder and flat.

    How would I have done it? Do away with Harry and Sandman. OK, I just praised Sandman but hear me out.
    From the get go, Venom was their marketing character. The image of a black and white Spiderman suit got the tongues wagging of all the geeks.
    Assuming we all seen this movie and have an idea of the characters, removal of 2 character arcs gives more time for Pete and Eddie to act out their own arcs and battle it out. Eddie can be more creepy and Pete can explore more of his evil side without using broadstroke "horrible ex bf" moves to make MJ jealous.
    The symbiote suit barely came into play in that film and that's what we all wanted to see more of.
    With that, the film can also be edited down to about 90mins, which is a generally good average for a superhero action film.

    That's a pretty basic summary of my view. But honestly me and my friends and other film makers do the same as this youtuber does, but more like a round table discussion.
     
  3. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    There are a few things I dislike in films.
    Obvious and easily filled plot holes. Sometimes all a film needs is a little additional bit of dialogue or scene change.
    Unrealistic reactions. When people don't act like human people actually act (see the dumb scientists in Prometheus for this).
    It's so frustrating to see the millions spent on marketing and promotion and yet the script seems to have been bashed out in a week by the temp staff.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom De-powered to come back better than before.

    I'm actually building up the courage to watch Prometheus again. I haven't seen it since cinema, and with the new Aliens movie coming out mid 2017.....I don't know.
    Even Charlize Theron couldn't save that movie for me. (she was the only reason why I watched, Huntsman:Winters War.....ok and maybe Hemsworth):love::love:
     
  5. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    No, man, I think it's quite the opposite. The first 2 movies set up the arc for Harry. This critic's idea continues the plot in its natural direction, and thus is much much easier than introducing in one film a new guy + his conflict with Peter.

    I'm all for sticking to canon, but the comic book industry regularly altars origin stories ("reboots"), so for a movie to alter the origin of Venom would not necessarily alienate the "neeeerrrds."

    I disagree that the movie generally sucked. I thought it was expertly made, but just far too cluttered with two brand-new villains on top of Harry. But -- Sandman was without doubt the best character. The scenes with and about his daughter almost made me cry ... for real.

    Ahh, but removing Eddie Brock as Venom, and removing Sandman, and making Harry be Venom, gives more time for Spidey and Venom because we don't have to develop a new character. We already spent two movies building up Harry's character and his motivation for hating Spidey. The complete backstory is done. That's why I like this idea so much: there's so much freedom in terms of minutes of screen time to go out and play with the black suit, because we don't have to set up anything. :happy:
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom De-powered to come back better than before.

    Nnnyyyeeeerrrrds

    Oh I'm fully on board with creative freedom in regards to characters. Venom came from Secret Wars alone. And I did say Harry as Venom would be like a "What If...?" issue that Marvel used to do. And book characters to film characters never fully translate fully to each other, mostly due to (again) creative freedom and time constraints.

    EMO PETER!

    Yes, once again. Most likely studio pressure to add more baddies and characters. For some reason, Studio Execs believe that more and overbearing equals better. (however the bottom line is money)

    The weirdest thing for me in Spidey3. When Sandman is first getting himself together, the oddly emotional dance, where no words are spoken yet you know what he is going through. Figuring out who is he and what he has become, the reach for the pendant just cements his intent and turmoil.
    That was when Sam Raimi shined through.
     
  7. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Indeed. That, and when he puts all those letters in his daughter's bed -- "return to sender." Oh, man, that hurt. :cry: :cry:

    They should have saved Sandman for a separate movie. So much depth to play with. (sigh)
     

Share This Page