Is Spider-Man 3 really as bad as Batman & Robin?

Is Spider-Man 3 really as bad as Batman & Robin

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • No

    Votes: 16 80.0%
  • Total voters
    20
I caught Spider-Man 3 on cable a few months back, after having not seen it probably since it came out, and I was shocked to find that I actually really kind of enjoyed it. Even all the silliness. Especially the silliness, in fact. There were a lot of great moments, as long as you totally disregard the mess that is the story and forget that this is a part of an otherwise decent film franchise and that millions of dollars were spent to make it. Like, just ignore all that.

It's enjoyably ****ty.

But nowhere near as ****ty as Batman & Robin.

(It's funny because I still despise X3, even though I feel like most people's arguments in favor of it mirror the one I've just presented.)
 
So much to say.....too much typing.....getting tired now since I've been at work since 8am and it is now almost midnight here and I'm not leaving until like 3am.

All the posts and threads are running together.



E gets what I'm saying.......but Bass had a very good point. I still think both are absolutely horrible and want the memory of these films drilled from my brain.

I concede out of laziness.
 
Bass said:
Thanks. You're right - Ed Wood and the '66 Batman are so absurd, they're classical failures. BATMAN & ROBIN is so bad that it can't even be bad properly.
Click to expand...
"This is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again."
 
Bass said:
I remember seeing BATMAN & ROBIN in the cinema, and it was just atrocious. The fun, camp, Batman you're talking about? That's the 1966 BATMAN movie. That's absurdly stupid. BATMAN & ROBIN doesn't come close to that.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. What I said was that it looked like was that, with Batman & Robin, they were going for the feel of the campy 60s Batman and failed miserably.

Bass said:
After SPIDER-MAN 3, not only was there going to be a Spidey 4, but now they want to redo the franchise. B&R was the final nail in a coffin of a new franchise. S3 is a critical hiccup that had no impact on the commercial viability of the franchise.
Click to expand...

I can't make heads or tales of this. By all indications (and I admit that I might not be totally up to speed on the Spider-Man 4 saga) the success (financially)/failure (critically) of Spider-Man 3 had little to nothing to do with canceling Spider-Man 4 and rebooting and more to do with the fact that they couldn't agree on the direction to go. Superficially I guess it's kind of related because they sort of painted themselves in the corner, so to speak, with Spider-Man 3, but not enough to completely change the future. At least not at first.

If you're going to argue from your point of view it doesn't make any sense to say that Spider-Man 3 was so good that they want to reboot the franchise. :sure:

McCheese said:
That said, Spider-Man 3 is clearly and undeniably the more disappointing of the two movies.
Click to expand...

^ A much more succinct way of saying what I was trying to say.

It boils down to this: define "bad".

Bass said:
BATMAN & ROBIN is so bad that it can't even be bad properly.
Click to expand...

Beautiful.
 
E said:
I can't make heads or tales of this. By all indications (and I admit that I might not be totally up to speed on the Spider-Man 4 saga) the success (financially)/failure (critically) of Spider-Man 3 had little to nothing to do with canceling Spider-Man 4 and rebooting and more to do with the fact that they couldn't agree on the direction to go. Superficially I guess it's kind of related because they sort of painted themselves in the corner, so to speak, with Spider-Man 3, but not enough to completely change the future. At least not at first.

If you're going to argue from your point of view it doesn't make any sense to say that Spider-Man 3 was so good that they want to reboot the franchise. :sure:
Click to expand...

I DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.

What I meant though was that Spidey 3, although a critical failure, was still a huge commercial success. It was the critical failure and their inability to make a deal with Raimi that led to a reboot, but until like, half an hour ago, the entire same cast and crew was going to be doing Spidey 4. Spidey 3 failed but everyone was happy to see them do Spidey 4. Everyone. B&R was so bad, not a single one of the actors, except Clooney and Arnie, got a gig for ten years.
 
Bass said:
...

BATMAN AND ROBIN killed superheroes and Batman until SPIDER-MAN. X-MEN was a potential fluke, BLADE a cult hit. It wasn't until Spidey that Hollywood felt there's money to be had in supeheroes. And once they did, they felt they had to reboot Batman entirely. BATMAN AND ROBIN killed a genre, a franchise, and three previous films.

SPIDER-MAN 3 is considered a BLIP in a franchise.

I remember seeing BATMAN & ROBIN in the cinema, and it was just atrocious. The fun, camp, Batman you're talking about? That's the 1966 BATMAN movie. That's absurdly stupid. BATMAN & ROBIN doesn't come close to that. It wades in a desperately shallow attempt to do anything.

SPIDER-MAN 3 is just long, boring, and stupid, much like the first two, but lacks some of the charm and magic of the first two.

BATMAN & ROBIN is painful.

This is just like the post-Phantom Menace bull****. People were so disappointed they started acting like it's the worst thing ever made in the history of cinema. Phantom Menace is a mediocre film. It's not anything truly terrible. Neither is Spider-Man 3. It's just a let down. B&R came out after BATMAN FOREVER which was already a huge disappointment and departure. It came out at the lowest point Batman had been for ages and was so bad it killed everything. Spidey 3 came out at the height of superhero movies and sucked. Of course it did, surrounded by 'excellence', it looked like it was a pile of ****. Like X3 or Crystal Skull. B&R came out when everything was ****, and was such a complete other epoch of ****e, it destroyed the genre. That's how bad B&R is.

I wouldn't mind the overreaction if this was like Phantom Menace where the originals were brilliant films, but they weren't. The first two Spidey's were okay. But they were both too long and filled with bizarre sub-plots that went nowhere. This discussion is just nonsense.

Here's how you can tell:

After B&R no one wanted to see Batman in anything. After SPIDER-MAN 3, not only was there going to be a Spidey 4, but now they want to redo the franchise. B&R was the final nail in a coffin of a new franchise. S3 is a critical hiccup that had no impact on the commercial viability of the franchise.

:arrgh:
Click to expand...

I agree with everything here except the bit about Batman Forever being bad, which it isn't. It's a far better film than Batman Returns with a very decent origin for a movie Robin. In a lot of ways, it's problems (of which there are many) are similar to Spider-Man 3's problems. Too many characters (some of whom are tragically pointless) and too much emphasis on special effects. Batman Forever did a better job of juggling all of its different storylines than SM3 did, though. It's only major problem is that it's lighter than it could have been. There are some really, really good things about its script and the character study of Batman in that film is the best the films got until Nolan came along.

It's just so lazily associated with the film that succeeded it that everyone magically assumes it to be as bad.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top