The perils of coincidence
Like several million people worldwide, I saw Spider-Man 3 this past weekend. And like a substantial percentage of these viewers, I got frustrated by the number of unlikely coincidences in the movie.
There’s nothing wrong with coincidence, per se. Almost every movie is going to have some incidents where one character just happens to be in the right place at the right time. In fact, many movies are built around a “premise coincidence.” In Die Hard, John McClane just happens to be in the building when the villains attack. That’s okay. McClane’s being there is part of the premise. Likewise, in the original Spider-Man, Peter Parker just happens to get bitten by the radioactive spider. No problem: it wouldn’t be Spider-Man otherwise.
The premise coincidence is one flavor of what I’ll call a Fundamental Coincidence: an accidental confluence of time, place and motivation which greatly impacts the story.
In a romantic comedy, when The Guy would have proposed to The Girl except that he just happened to overhear a conversation he interpreted the wrong way, that’s a Fundamental Coincidence. In the first Spider-Man, Norman Osborn just happens to be transformed into The Goblin just as Peter is becoming Spider-Man. That’s a Fundamental Coincidence, but we accept it because it feels true to the genre.
WARNING: MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW. (Mostly things you’d glean the trailers or ads, but still.)
Let’s look at the Fundamental Coincidences in Spider-Man 3:
- The asteroid carrying the symbiote (utlimately, Venom) happens to land near Peter Parker. Peter doesn’t hear it, doesn’t investigate.
- The symbiote happens to attach itself to Peter’s scooter.
- Flint Marko happens to fall into the sand pit at exactly the moment the scientists test their billion-dollar Dyson vacuum.1
- Flint Marko happens to have been the man who killed Uncle Ben. (A retcon.)
- Eddie Brock happens to be the only person in the church at the moment Peter tries to get rid of the black suit.
Any one (or two) of these Fundamental Coincidences would probably go unnoticed, particularly in a superhero movie, where credibility takes a back seat to spectacle. But put together, they make the plot feel rickety, particularly when you factor in the large number of what I’ll call Minor Coincidences — things that don’t fundamentally change the story, but feel convenient all the same.
- The police chief decides to tell Peter about Marko now, even though he’s known the details for some time, apparently.
- Sandman’s first attack just happens to coincide with Spider-Man getting the key to the city.
- Eddie Brock is newly arrived at the Daily Bugle, and wants Peter’s job.
- Gwen Stacy happens to be Peter’s lab partner.
- Gwen Stacy happens to be in the skyscraper during the crane accident.
- And she’s the police chief’s daughter.
- And she’s Eddie Brock’s love interest.2
- And Gwen happens to be at the fancy restaurant on the night Peter wants to propose.
Again, you could have several of these coincidences in any movie and no one would mind. It’s largely expected that familiar faces will become imperiled in a summer action movie, so #5 feels right. Likewise, the eventual discovery of Venom’s weakness is accidental, but that plays into the genre. No foul there.
My point is not to rip on Spider-Man 3, but to urge readers to look at their own scripts with an eye towards coincidence. If you’ve written a treatment, search for the following phrases: “at the same time,” “accidentally,” “luckily,” “unfortunately,” and “meanwhile.” They’re often a tip-off that you have events happening by coincidence. There’s almost always a better alternative.
Causality trumps everything
Given a choice, try to find cause and effect. One event happens because of something else we’ve seen — ideally, something the hero himself has done.
Instead of having the hero accidentally overhear a key conversation, get him actively trying to listen. Or have an interested third party steer him in that direction — perhaps for his own reasons. At every juncture where a reader could ask “Why did that happen?”, try to have an answer that isn’t, “just because.”
Although there are some convenient twists in the Harry Osborn plot (amnesia, for starters), the causality is clear: the New Goblin wants revenge on Spider-Man for killing his daddy in the first movie.3 It doesn’t feel like coincidence that Harry is flying around on his hoverboard. With two other villains desperate for scenes, the timing might not be opportune, but it’s clear why it’s happening.
Look for correlation
Rather than ask an audience to swallow a bunch of little implausibilities, try bundling them together.
In Heroes, imagine if each character had a completely unique origin story: Claire got her powers from a shaman; Sylar is an alien; Peter has a magic ring. You’d get frustrated pretty quickly, because a lot of screen time would go towards explaining why and how. Instead, the creators wisely decided the characters all had some mysterious gene mutation activated by an environmental change. The audience is willing to make that one big leap,4 because they’re not asked to make similar leaps each time a new character is introduced.5
For Spider-Man 3, I don’t have any magic answers on how to correlate these disparate threads — other than trimming one out, which wouldn’t be a bad place to start. But had the script dropped on my desk a month before shooting, here are a few thoughts I would have put out there in terms of the many coincidences:
- Both Venom and Sandman are forms of disembodied consciousness that control their host subjects — people and sand, respectively. That seems thematically promising.
- One asteroid feels random, while a meteor shower feels like an event that needs a superhero.
- Could this meteor shower overlap with Marko’s transformation or escape? Even if it’s just in the background, it makes them feel more united.
- Could Spider-Man be pursuing Marko at the start?
- Could we see the symbiote choosing Peter, because he’s the strongest creature around?
Chop it out
Often, the best answer when faced with a nagging coincidence is just to remove it.
- Do we really need the Uncle Ben retcon? It doesn’t have a lot to do with Marko’s sick-daughter motivation.
- Couldn’t Eddie Brock already be a stringer for the Daily Bugle? If he and Peter already have history, great.
- Does Gwen Stacy need to be Peter’s lab partner?
- Do we even need the police chief?
Again, my point isn’t to rag on Spidey, but to urge reader-writers take a hard look at the role of coincidence in their own scripts.
Some coincidence feels genuine. In real life, we do accidentally bump into old friends at the mall. And surprise in general is a good thing — catching your reader off-balance is a worthy goal. But if a significant portion of your plot depends on chance, that’s a good indicator something’s not fully baked. The best time to tackle these problems is in the outline, asking yourself not only what happens next, but why.
- It’s never clear what they’re supposedly doing, or why they wouldn’t have, say, a lid on the pit. Or a videocamera to monitor the experiment. ↩
- Revealing both of these points of information in one piece of dialogue was a particularly bold choice. ↩
- I kept waiting for Peter to point out that Harry’s dad was a psychopath, but oh well. ↩
- And a familiar leap, frankly, because of X-Men. ↩
- Note that both the D.C. and Marvel universes do have multiple, often conflicting means of empowering their heroes and villains. This is good and fascinating, but I suspect it’s one reason it can be harder for a casual reader to pick up these titles. The time investment needed to get up to speed is significant. Quick: Is Scarlet Witch a witch? Ummm…Sort of. ↩
May 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Yeah, it didn’t feel like there was enough Venom in the movie. But he was the least interesting of the three villains. Harry is personal, and the Sandman was just heartbreakingly wonderful. Venom seemed like a little bit too much extra.
May 6th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Coincidence seems to be a popluar story device in the Spider-Man movies. The second film felt like it all happened in a little village, e.g. Peter takes his Granny to the bank and Doc-Ock robs the bank.
May 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Just about everything you mentioned ran through my mind watching the movie. It was sloppy, sloppy writing. The shame is that most of it could have been fixed with your little tweak suggestions. Did I have a good time at the movies? Sure. Will I see it again? Nope.
And does Mary Jane really have to be abducted by the villan for the third act of each movie?
May 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
The butler telling Harry that Spiderman didn’t kill his father that he died from his own hands was the one that got me. Then Harry dashes off to help Peter. All is forgiven. Wish life worked that way.
Mark
May 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I’m very glad you posted on this. I was curious what your thoughts were, as I find you to be one of the best writers at juggling multiple storylines.
(WARNING SPOILERS)
I wouldn’t call it an over abundance of coincidence. I’d call it a complete lack of character motivation. There are things in Spiderman 3 that are beyond coincidence, to the point of redundancy.
Harry Osbourne abducting M.J. from her house, only to see her minutes later, on the bridge, doing what she probably would have done anyway.
The main thing the movie is lacking is a central premise to hold the whole thing together.
Things just happen, with no real rhyme or reason.
That creates the appearance of coincidence. If Eddie Brock and Spiderman had a reason to be in the church (which in the comic book they do) it no longer becomes “coincidence” in the problematic sense. Which stems back to character motivation.
Although… Sandman killing Uncle Ben… is not only coicidence. It is just plain stupid. Talk about undermining the original movie.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Some good points, and i agree with that the film feels ‘rickety’ because of it, and i remember thinking at the point of seeing it that it would have just been better for Eddie Brock to already be a bit of a rival for Pete rather than just “oh hi, im taking pics of Spidey now”. Though personally the ‘impromptu’ dance sequence was probably the one scene that took me out of the movie.
But back to coincidence, the second draft of the pilot i am writing at the moment had something pretty similar that i didn’t even realise myself. It was supposed to be a ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ reason why the villain kills the heroes wife (while the hero is on the case already), but its only when someone asked me “how did he know where she was?” or along those lines i thought “thats a damn good point”, i’m still trying to figure out how or why to rework that scene.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I thought that out of all the marvel movies that attempted to entwine various stories into one packed cohesive movie, Spiderman 3 worked the best. The X-Men movies really don’t do it for me. Way too much is being left out. I feel the same way about the Fantastic Four. Spiderman 1 and 2 were really the only Marvel movies that stayed away from cramping multiple comics from different eras into one film and they worked.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“the ‘impromptu’ dance sequence was probably the one scene that took me out of the movie”
I actually found this, and the entire ‘Peter acts like a big shot’ sequence the best part of the film.
However I was disappointed by the rest of the film. It was weird, even though there was so much going on the film, it still felt incredibly sloooowwww.
And I agree with John, the whole Sandman transformation bit seemed to be handled really casually. It was like “I’m running, I’m falling…and now I’m a sandman. Time to rob some banks”.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
The venom thing seemed more than plausible given the previous “rules”. Peter was basically sitting in an open field. If the symbiote was looking for the strongest person in the area, the Peter would have be extremely easy to spot. Of course, this assumes the symbiote had precise control over its “vessel”. This would also explain why it hitched a ride on Peter’s bike. It wanted him, no one else. Peter was moving, it followed.
From the movie, it appeared that Spiderman was on the Church for a relatively long time. If it’s one of the tallest buildings in the “evilest” part of the city with a wide view, it would be a good spot for the symbiote to find a potential new host. Especially since it was clear that Peter was waffling and wasn’t going to do what the symbiote needed. Spiderman also has that spidey-sense doodad that recognizes friends and enemies. Peter could have sensed Brock entering, regained some of his senses, and then decided to fight the symbiote more directly. “I won’t make Eddie Brock right about Spiderman”.
Just sayin.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Good stuff. Pretty much dead on.
“Do we really need the Uncle Ben retcon? It doesn’t have a lot to do with Marko’s sick-daughter motivation.”
No, we don’t need it. However, it is there to provide for a closing mechanism for the revenge/hatred/redemption/forgiveness storyline. The hatred for Marko is one of the dark aspects of Peter’s personality that the symbiote was able to tap into and magnify. Presumably the idea is that, by forgiving Marko, Peter has freed himself from the hatred that Aunt May sermonized on.
Come to think of it, that is the entire reason for tying Marko to Uncle Ben’s death. Of course there were plenty of other “dark” things (the MJ storyline, the new Goblin storyline) for the symbiote to lock in to, so it is a bit superfluous to me.
But the retcon wasn’t really meant to have anything to do with the “sick daughter” motivation to be fair. The sick daughter bit was to explain to the audience that the Sandman wasn’t evil and thus make Peter’s forgiveness seem logical and palatable.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
thank you for putting to words the exact nagging feelings i had last night while watching the movie. and they REALLY needed to decide which villain was going to get the movie. Either sandman or venom. the backstories and coincidences required to achieve both within, i think, a couple of days’ time (in the movie’s universe) was really implausible. i know someone tried to diffuse the attention with spidey’s self-comment of “where do these guys come from, anyway,” but it wasn’t enough.
and geez, peter, you wake up hanging from the side of a building after getting engulfed in a black ooze, only to find your entire suit gone pitch black, and you just say “awesome”? that was a bit hard to swallow, too, that the suit would have that profound an effect on his judgement that fast. OH, and another coincidence? that his biology teacher was not only available to examine this bizarre substance, but could make a diagnosis, NOT call the local hazmat squad, and, well…
okay, spidey 3 really needed to be, um, three movies to allow the viewer to disconnect all of these coincidences.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
All of the things you mentioned are very true, and these things combined with extremely poor character development left me very unsatisfied when I left the theater. Peter and MJ are in the exact same place they were at the end of the movie as they were when they started, which just isn’t good. The only character that changed as a person was Harry, and he’s, well, you know.
All of this plus Venom’s character (or his rapport with Peter) wasn’t really developed AT ALL. There was no reason for Peter to like having Venom on him. He didn’t give him extra strength or abilities, he didn’t shape shift to take the form of his clothes so Peter would never have to worry about never having his costume. In the comics, Peter rejected the symbiote and that is what made it seek out Eddie Brock. There was some real opportunity for serious drama here between Peter and MJ and all we got was the lame night club scene.
The movie wasn’t bad but no way was it better than 1 or 2 and it doesn’t deserve to be the biggest grossing film for opening weekends (which I suspect it will be). Let’s hope for Spidey 4 there are fewer villains and more character growth. Less coincidences would be great too
May 6th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
More and more movies coming out these days frustrate me because characters constantly react in ways that are completely foreign to me. I guess it is too hard to come up with “exciting” plots when people act like people actually act…
May 6th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
John:
The only problem is that most of the coincidences that you mention (except for the symbiote thing) are lifted directly from the comic book. I agree with you that sometimes it may seem too much–the butler thing was too retarded–but too often filmmakers just arbitrarily change these things on screen much to the chagrin of the scores of fans. The Fantastic Four is a great example of unnecessary adaptations that would’ve been just fine if they didn’t change anything.
I’d argue that the best superhero movies of all time are the ones that stayed as close to the comic as possible, regardless of the inherent random acts of coincidence. In fact, for me, the moments that totally didn’t work were the ones that weren’t from the comic book that just came out of nowhere. Those three scenes with Peter Parker and Doc Connors seemed so tacked on and unnecessary, I just kept on wondering how long after the initial production were these scenes filmed.
May 6th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I’m with Mark - The butler scene was horrific.
But like Kevin says, it was a comic book on the big screen. That’s what I went to see and I left it at that.
May 6th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
@Kevin: It’s been suggested that the repeating appearance of Dr. Connors is setting up his character for a sequel that involves the Lizard. I could see that and makes those scenes a little more meaningful. Parker did give him a sample of the symbiote– that certainly wasn’t unnecessary.
And John, as for the rest of it, I’d just mark it up to reliance on the suspension of disbelief. Any comic book reader has to go into that mode when reading comics. Requiring reasonable explanations for everything would impose enough constraint on the story that it would wind up harming it in the end.
There’s also the fact that this is a 2 hour, 20 minute movie that doesn’t have time to cover the Secret Wars and the real origin of Venom. It had to be otherworldly though, so– asteroid! Convenient? Yes. Moves the story along though, which is pretty important for a 2 hour, 20 minute film.
May 6th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
It’s the very thing I have said about all comic adaptations: Trust the material. Recognize that this or that character has held an audience for decades because there’s something being done right. The most successful comic film have done this: Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men. In all these cases the degree of success correlates directly with the percentage of the property that came straight from the comics without alteration.
When the filmakers start “fixing” things that they personally don’t respect, they go wrong and we get Hulk, The Shadow, Superman Returns.
Bringing it back to Captain Marvel, I recently saw an interview with the scheduled director of the film where he refers to the property as ” ‘Big’ meets Superman.”
I hope you can persuade him that he’s wrong. The “Shazam” premise is more Aladdin, but here the boy is also the genie.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
In my literature courses, we talked about suspension of disbelief and the reader. Essentially, the reader (or viewer) will accept almost any premise, no matter how far fetched - as long as it is the entry point into the world of your fiction, and from that point you remain internally consistent.
In other words, the starting point can be coincidental, even absurd or outrageous - but the rest of the story must flow logically from that point.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
These are completely valid points, but this is also the case where the directing doesn’t live up even to the shitty writing.
The film’s opening for example gives MJ the only good entrance (and a pretty good one at that - a better version of the opening from India Jones and the Temple of Doom) and then some pretty stagey handling of Harry and Peter afterward. At this point I was so put off by the shoddy filmmaking that things I probably would have accepted I just couldn’t. I was LOOKING for the broken bits.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I think I give superhero films more leeway for coincidence given the far-fetched nature of the original premise. The asburd nature of Flint Marko getting turned into The Sandman is redeemed by the rebirth sequence - where he learns how to control the sand. The retcon ties all three movies together and doesn’t really take much away from the original film; in fact, it adds a further layer to the power Peter has - having taken the life of an innocent man in the first movie.
Certainly the alien symbiote story is coincidence after coincidence, though it at least spares us the film trying to explain the inexplicable in greater detail. Nothing bogs down a movie for me more than when a fantasy movie tries to explain something with made-up science. I see it as a maguffin that helps comment on (or, more specifically, initiate) the “absolute power corrupts” theme.
The sheer number of coincidences as listed here does make me rethink my assessment of the film, but I expect a superhero movie to trade in moments of the absurd. What really impressed me was how emotionally consistent and substantial the movie was - something that superhero films often forget to be.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I don’t know if the Kevin Arbouet is right about the comic book and most of the deus ex machina events coming from it, but this film has so many of these artifices, that there is only one word to describe the plot: laughable.
Yes, I know this is a superhero story, not a treatise in Logic, but as Laura Deerfield said, after the entry point, the story is supposed to be internally consistent, even in a superhero world.
The butler explaining the father’s real death? After keeping it to himself for years? Come on!
May 7th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Kevin Arbouet said:
“The only problem is that most of the coincidences that you mention (except for the symbiote thing) are lifted directly from the comic book.”
Well… plot devices that are passable in a comicbook are not necessarily passable in a motion picture. Audiences expect a higher degree of believability. It comes with the live-action territory. Also, stories that are broken up into delayed episodes (as comics are) can get away with more extreme coincidences and narrative shortcuts because the reader/audience is constantly having to stop-and-start between each episode’s release. Story continuity (and quality) is a lot more noticeable in a movie, because the story is told in a single, prolonged stretch.
He also said:
“… but too often filmmakers just arbitrarily change these things on screen much to the chagrin of the scores of fans.”
Arbitrarily? Sometimes (coughjonpeterscough), but not all the time. Are you really saying that screenwriters and other filmmakers should be forced to censor their creativity and their instincts so as not to offend “the fans”? That’s painting by numbers: pointless and empty. Never mind the fact that most (if not all) comicbook narratives can be vastly improved by a good enough screenwriter.
It’s just a shame that studios like Warner Bros tend to throw so many “crowd pleasing” (not necessarily talented) screenwriters at their big-budget comicbook adaptations, and end up with an incoherent mess that doesn’t conform to anyone’s creative vision — not the director, not any one of the 12 screenwriters, and sure as hell not the original artist.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:32 am
The way I saw the trailers and the release of the full-on Symbiote-leaves-Peter-and-bonds-with-brock-to-become-Venom scene released soon before the movie I had already pictured in my mind that Venom would actually be on the closing act.
The way I’d pictured the movie we’d have harry and marko as the main villains (and I must say, Sandman is beautifully done except for the origin and I agree that the “learn-to-control-the-sand” scene is wonderful, as well as the rest of the effects) and Spidey fighting them while dealing with the suit.
I’d get rid of the whole Jazz Club scene and most of the goofy Bad-Peter scenes and show Spidey become dark without actually becoming a caricature (while at it I would remove J. Jonah’s “Desk Buzzer Jokes”, which I think were overused). I would’ve had Spidey kill (or almost-kill, whatever) the Goblin Jr. and would have used Sandman to redeem Spidey in the same way Spidey redeemed Doc Ock in the previous one.
In the last act, thus, would Spidey get rid of the suit with the help of Sandman and get on with his life. Have him lose MJ once and for all (having an alien symbiote in you doesn’t make you unaccountable
and have the symbiote hook up with Brock to become Venom in the last scenes.
Then you have it all set-up for the fourth movie, you can perfect Venom (well done he could chew the scenes, which he didn’t here) so you have your main villain for the next and you also have the love backstory to fill the rest.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Two other things that struck me while watching it:
The scene where Harry blackmails MJ into breaking up with Peter seemed to have been pasted on during reshoots. Because the scene where she breaks up with him makes no sense in the context of him forcing her to do it — they’re on the bridge, far away, so she could easily say “It’s a trap” or whatever, she can’t really believe Harry could kill Peter (since he’s tried so many times and failed), and no one follows up with this at all. Was there an earlier version where she did end up seeing Harry? It seems like that’s where the omelet scene was going. In any event, as it was it didn’t make sense.
The newscasters/crowd reaction shots during the final fight were infuriating. Surely the audience can be trusted to tell that a fight is brutal without cutting to a newscaster every ten seconds saying “the fight is almost too brutal to watch.”
I loved the second one, thought it was thrilling and fun start to finish. But this, I loathed.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:51 am
John said:
“Both Venom and Sandman are forms of disembodied consciousness that control their host subjects — people and sand, respectively. That seems thematically promising.”
Actually, because of that, I went into the movie suspecting that the two would have a united origin story. While I’m happy they didn’t since thought would’ve cheapened the Venom character, they did find entirely new ways to cheapen him. Barely including him in the movie, for instance.
I think the coincidences are sold better in the comics because they’re rich - we want to buy them. In the comics, Parker’s rivalry with Brock changed his life completely, driving him to build his infamous bulk to work out rage at all he’s lost and ultimately an attempted suicide…
…which leads him to the church, to ask forgiveness. And of course, it’s that same church where…
After so much buildup and investment, we’d feel cheated if there weren’t a payoff. Sure, ultimately it’s still a coincidence, but it’s one we’ve wanted to see happen - and the buildup is all character-action-driven. The universe of a movie must be tiny and logical, and without room for the randomness of our universe; in movies that randomness has to embody something that - either emotionally, metaphorically, thematically, whatever - had to happen, or something down that path.
Is it too much of a coincidence in Mystic River that Tim Robbin’s character, who had been molested as a child, would later in life encounter and murder a pedophile - at the same time that his murderous mob-connected childhood friend’s daughter went missing, etc. etc. etc…?
May 7th, 2007 at 2:27 am
John, your suggestions for the script have left me utterly depressed. They would have certainly improved it and I’m gutted no one thought of this sooner.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Donovan:
What I’m saying is, most comic book films don’t work. Only a handful of them have been good. Arguably the ones that work the best are the ones that stuck closer to the comic book. What filmmakers need to understand is that these comics are wildly popular for a reason. You can be a good filmmaker and respect the source material as evidenced in the first Spiderman movie. The changes in movies like X-Men, Batman & Robin, and The Fantastic Four are pretty arbitrary like drastically changing the characters ages (Jessica Alba as Sue Storm…dumb) However, a lot of what went down in Spiderman 3 was messy as hell and could’ve been easily fixed. John’s right when it comes down to the Uncle Ben thing. Totally unecessary.
At the end of the day, Spiderman 3 will probably be remembered more for the amazing special effects and less for the story.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Hey, John. Good luck trying to convince the studio execs to NOT have at least 3 villians in the Captain Marvel movie, since despite all the criticism Spidey 3 broke box office records.
Personally, I’d like to see the RV get coincidentally imbued with magical powers (a la Christine), meaning little Billy Batson not only has to fight the other two major villians in the flick, but also has to fight HIS OWN HOME ON WHEELS!
Maybe the other two villians could be created as the result of greenhouse gases, making Batson’s fight against his giant carbon-footied Winnebago a great whooping can of coincidental irony.
Shazam!
May 7th, 2007 at 4:30 am
May 7th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Laura made a good point. The sooner those little coincidences happen in the film, the more likely the audience is going to buy them.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:29 am
I agree that too many coincidences weaken the film — the butler one was the one that really bothered me even before reading this posting — that was a pathetic deus ex machina. It was also unnecessary — I think the movie would have been stronger if Harry had decided to temporarily ally with Spidey just to save MJ, and then once she was safe, immediately resume his battle with Spidey.
But even that wasn’t the biggest issue for me. I thought that the love triangle was too weak. Peter and MJ just sort of drifted apart, which didn’t feel realistic to me given their history. I think it would have been better if they had a REAL fight over something, and then Peter goes and does something really bad like sleep with Gwen or something, which drives MJ to Harry — put some real drive and impetus behind the love triangle so we care about its consequences. Thinking about it later, I realized that “Friends” actually did a better job with this - see “Ross, Rachel and The Break”. How sad is that?
May 7th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Here’s another coincidence, millions of moviegoers went to see Spider-Man 3, one of the clumsiest super hero films made since Doc Savage (go wahn, look it up, I dare you… just kidding do not look into this movie).
Wait, that’s not a coincidence, it’s a, uh… well it’s just depressing is what it is.
Someone needed to look at Sam Raimi and tell him; Gwen Stacey, Captain Stacey, leading up to a marriage proposal then dropping that storyline, three villains, Venom, numerous musical numbers, emo-Peter Parker dancing and playing piano, revisionist Uncle Ben death, sick daughter story not getting resolved, asteroid falls and goes unnoticed by Parker (doesn’t he have some kinda spider-ESP?), buddy-buddy with Harry Osborn after Parker apparently kills him with a Goblin bomb (later capable of destroying Sandman, earlier only gives Harry burns)… NO. No… a thousand times no.
Is there any truth to my suspicion that this was a movie written/directed by someone other than Raimi? At least half of the movie feels like someone else’s work.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:54 am
One thing: Eddie Brock was a long-time rival of Peter’s for the photographer’s job at the Bugle. Of course he has been around forever in the comic, but he was mentioned in the first movie as well. I rewatched it the other day because it was on TV, and I noticed that near the middle, Jameson is complaining about how Eddie can’t get any decent pictures of Spider-man to use on the front page, and then offers a reward to anyone how can. This is where Peter gets the idea to photograph himself.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:55 am
I was watching the movie yesterday and the power went out right before Peter goes to see Harry to ask for help…when the power came back up they had skipped the whole butler thing altogether…missed it entirely. So if that part sucked the most I lucked out. Luckily I went with a friend who filled me in after the movie was over. Plus we got free tickets out of the deal so all in all, BONUS!
The reason, as stated by someone above for all the coincidences is that everything is out of the comics which have many years to spread out the coincidences, whereas the movie had 3 hours…They should have eliminated one villian (venom or sandman should have been a seperate film), and Harry should have stayed bad, maybe turning at the end back to being good.
It’s another example of Hollywood trying to cram too much in so they can suck it all back out again in merchandizing…no coincidence there…
May 7th, 2007 at 5:58 am
“But back to coincidence, the second draft of the pilot i am writing at the moment had something pretty similar that i didn’t even realise myself. It was supposed to be a ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ reason why the villain kills the heroes wife (while the hero is on the case already), but its only when someone asked me “how did he know where she was?” or along those lines i thought “thats a damn good point”, i’m still trying to figure out how or why to rework that scene.”
I kept thinking to myself during Spider-Man , ‘there’s a reason to see really bad movies.’ The errors others make hopefully prevent creators from making the same mistakes.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Douglas says:
“The shame is that most of it could have been fixed with your little tweak suggestions.”
Far more than little tweaks methinks - could this be John August’s last-minute-script-doctor-for-hire business card?
I really liked the idea of the meteor shower, and the symbiote latching on to Peter because he’s the strongest around, something that would no doubt have been demonstrated during said meteor shower.
That’s why John August is richer than me. Or you.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Yeah, the guy who played the butler is the worst actor ever, which didn’t help make the Deus Ex Machina any more believable.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:20 am
I couldn’t help but notice that the same jack-o-lantern grenade that disfigured only half of Harry’s face blew Venom and Eddie Brock into oblivion.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:06 am
The scene between Harry and Alfred the Butler’s brother towards the end was supposed to be longer but was shorten due to time constraints. After he informs Harry about his father, Harry goes on to question the old man as to why he did not tell him sooner; like before he flipped his wig and received an “Erik the Phantom” facelift courtesy of his best friend.
The old man says he was busy watching old MGM musicals on TCM. Harry punishes him by tying him to a chair and forcing the old man to watch him do “The Twist” along with “The Mashed Potato” for a few hours. Alfred’s brother grows so restless that he commits suicide by swallowing his own tongue.
Not only would the extended scene have made the film about four hours long, but the producers were fearful the scene would upset the children.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:40 am
John, for the first time ever I wish I hadn’t read your new post. I wasn’t overly excited about the new spiderman, and now having read your simple suggestions on what could have been changed, I am down right disappointed by the film. It’s not a bad film, but it feels like the key people didn’t put a lot of effort into it. The special effects guys were great though.
I don’t necessarily agree with the ‘disembodied conciousness’ idea as that would stray too far from the source material, but I would have loved to see a full blown, ‘Armageddon’ style meteor shower that smashes holes in New York, including the prison holding Marko. Spiderman goes to help out the police to keep the prisoners from escaping (but some do, including Marko). Spidey catches the symbiote (it ’selects’ him out of all the possible hosts), and somehow Marko gets ‘transformed’ (some other radioactive substance from a meteor).
But ultimately these changes wouldn’t address the fundamental problem with that movie - the relationship drama was boring!
One more comment: Not once, but twice, the film cut away from the big action set pieces (the crane, the climax), for goofy extended joke bits on the ground (eddie brock and the police chief, Jameson and the camera girl). I’m not sure why, in an action movie with rather slow pacing, they would cut away and slow the pacing in the big action set pieces!
May 7th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Interesting post.
I think Bob McKee suggests coincidence should not be used beyond midway through a story, and ideally employed as early as possible. This is so meaning can be generated from the coincidence as the story unfolds. For instance, Peter Parker gets bitten by a spider but this is given meaning due to the powers he gains and how he decides to use them.
That’s not to say coincidence just doesn’t happen at certain times in life, it surely does. But in a story characters must be willful, willful in action and inaction because this reflects the audience’s belief in self-determinism. This then ties in with the vital element of an audience’s empathy with a story’s main protagonist; they may or may not like the character but put in the same situation they would do (or not do) the same thing, and they’d do it (or not do it) willfully.
There are of course exceptions where coincidence ends a story in a suitable and satisfying manner, such as Chaplin’s Gold Rush (in this instance the comedic tone of the film makes coincidence easier to swallow). However, care is needed so as not to descend into deus ex machina such as in A.I., Jurassic Park and Rent, for example.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Since when has spidey become nigh indestructable? Body slams that bend 2 ft ibeams, thrown through a brick wall?
Spidey’s powers were always only, well, spider-ish: sticky fingers, web-o-matic, spidy sense, strong and speedy reflexes, sure - but other than that, he was the nice guy shmoe-next-door who often couldn’t catch a break and was just as human as the rest of us in the pain and suffering dept.
Sure, the supperhero the can/should/will always take on a little more than than the average joe, but after dragging him head first through half a wall and carnage ad nauseum … Parker should be poppin’ Advil like Pez while fighting his HMO on the excessive ER visits.
Now that would have been some nice comic relief.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Not gonna see it. Have no wish to see it. Tired of watching characterless superhero movies with ‘tenuous plots links to work in spectacle’ excuses and handin gover my hard earned cash to studios for the privelidge. Yawn. Been there, seen it, done it. Got the T shirt, the burger king tie in and the comic book.
Hope ‘Shazam’ turns out way better than this. Who’s scribbling that one again
May 7th, 2007 at 9:49 am
@ Brad, they didn’t HAVE to set up secret wars to explain the venom symbiote. they set up LAST MOVIE that j.j.’s son was an astronaut. how hard would it have been to open with the symbiote hitchign a ride back with j.j’s son, and then when the son is visiting his dad at the office, it jumps ship to something of peter’s. asteroid falling from the sky is about as “deus ex” as you can possibly get.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Wow. I don’t know what to think here. On the one hand, I see what John is saying about the coicidences. Bad stuff indeed. But holy bandwagon backlash bashing, Batman! It’s almost like it’s become cool to rip on Spidey 3. Relax, people. Especially the ones with foam around your mouth. I know, I know. Spidey 2 set up lofty expectations.
For Venom fanboys, get over it. Raimi was never interested in doing Venom as a villain and resisted pressure from Marvel to include him. In the end, they got what they wanted. Venom is in the movie. The way he was handled was appropriate to the filmmaker’s vision of the character, though. Venom shouldn’t have been included because Raimi didn’t want him. If you’re going to blame anyone, blame the suits.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
1) Thanks for posting a detailed spoiler disclosure—certainly a best practice to follow
2) I think generally the earlier a coincidence occurs in a story the better- which goes to your points.
3) Does anyone else use Google Reader and if so under the John August feed are you getting weird posts of double-byte (chinese) characters and tinyurls? I’m only getting it for johnaugust.com- so i wonder if a spammer/hacker is hijacking JA.com
May 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Who cares about coincidence? As long as what happens maximizes the drama, why would you give any thought to the probabilities of what’s taking place? Does it seem odd to me that Harry just happens to be pouring himself a Scotch every time Spiderman stops by for a chat? Do I wonder, how come Harry’s never out at the movies or in the bathroom? No. I don’t want Gwen to be someone that Peter doesn’t really know, or maybe met once, I think, at a party sometime. (Then why would Mary Jane even care?) And I don’t want to see some long explanation of why the asteroid goo seeks out Peter Parker. I want to see the black stuff get on him and cool stuff to happen. And it did, thank goodness!
May 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Don’t overlook “thematically.” I’m not suggesting altering the origins, but rather asking the question: How is the Venom/Peter situation like the Marko/Sandman situation? (And for that matter, how is it like the Harry/New Goblin madness?) All of these characters are facing the same problem — controlling the dark impulses that come with their newfound powers. How they deal with it what separates heroes from villains.
Classic comic book stuff? Oh, yeah. No one is reinventing the wheel with this. But for my money, it would have helped SM3 feel like one unified movie, rather than a bunch of villains with unclear agendas.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I think trying to make all these story threads work in unison would have compounded the real problem, which is that they tried to do WAY TOO MUCH. If they had spent the time necessary to weave all those elements together properly without any cheating the film would have been 4 hours long. I think they just said, screw it, we’ll just have these events happen randomly and eschew the setups to save time. It’s a shame because the first two films, whatever their flaws, avoided the trap a lot of comic book movies fall into of including too many things.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Kevin Arbouet says:
“What I’m saying is, most comic book films don’t work. Only a handful of them have been good.”
Only a handful of flicks in any genre are any good.
“Arguably the ones that work the best are the ones that stuck closer to the comic book.”
Batman Begins is probably one of the better ones, and that filled in/changed a crucial portion of Batman’s origin that was never even mentioned in the comics. X2 also took a running start with the material. But whatev.
“What filmmakers need to understand is that these comics are wildly popular for a reason.”
I think they get that. It’s why Hollywood is even making movies out of comics in the first place.
“You can be a good filmmaker and respect the source material as evidenced in the first Spiderman movie.”
I am so sick of this baloney argument that assumes comics are more deserving of fidelity than any other source material. Did Kurosawa spit in the face of the source material when he made “Throne of Blood”?
Changes are often necessary if you’re interested in making a successful film, instead of a paean to imaginary fanboy standards. Fidelity in itself is not a virtue, nor is it necessarily entertaining.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Well, like the Dyson vacuum that nearly cost Flint Marko his life, I thought the movie pretty much sucked.
Rather than bet on the chance that a 4th film in the series would be greenlit, I think they felt they had to appease the comic fans and get as much of the Spidey universe covered in what was apparently the final film in a Trilogy. Now that Sony has greenlit 3 - 4 more films, it seems a bit ridiculous that so much was wasted so quickly rather than flesh out the villans and really build the series to a great finale.
It was a fabulous exercise as a writer though to look at a $250 million plus film and realize that there can still be a pretty poor screenplay.
gives hope
May 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
To be fair, I do think that there was a meteor shower in the film. Peter and MJ are lying in that web, and you can hear Peter say “Look at that one” to MJ. It really was a blink or you miss moment, but it was there
But I do like Reid’s idea of a meteor shower hitting all of NY or Raj’s idea of using JJ’s son instead.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
The movie was not that good. It could have been, but it really wasn’t. Like you said, too many coincidences. And instead of Raimi taking to heart what the studio told him to do about including Venom, he just threw Venom in, like he WANTED the audience to know that he didn’t like the character in the first place.
And the Venom symbiote is supposed to come from the moon. In the 2nd movie, MJ’s fiance is getting ready to go to the moon. It’s the perfect set-up for how the symbiote gets to Earth… and instead they just had a meteorite fall next to Peter.
And are all of these coincidences being made in order to get to the action? No. They’re being made so we can get back to Peter Parker having Mary-Jane issues AGAIN. I mean come on. And Raimi said he didn’t like filming the scenes where Spider-Man “goes dark” because of the suit. He said it was really hard to turn Peter Parker into that person… the problem is that Spidey never went dark. Peter Parker became a jerk… not a hero consumed with the desire for revenge… just a regular jerk. It didn’t even come close to the likes of Anakin Skywalker or Batman.
The whole movie just felt like Raimi didn’t put his heart into it, and the Mary-Jane stuff is too tired and played out at this point. The performances and action scenes elevated it to a higher level, but to nowhere near the level of the fantastic Spider-Man 2.
The thing that really gets me is that when the numbers came out for the weekend, a Sony exec was quoted as saying “Sam Raimi is a genius!”, implying that the movie made so much money because it’s so good. No, it made so much money because the 2nd one was good, and the marketing for the 3rd one was good. Unfortunantly, this is the first Spider-Man movie that wasn’t as good as the marketing had everyone thinking it was going to be. Every single person I know that saw said it “was good, but not as good as I thought it would be”.
Oh well, can’t win em all.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Ok, one more post. How I would change the movie (SPOILERS):
-Remove Gwen Stacy entirely. It was pointless.
-Have Spidey hunt Sandman for the first half of the movie. I agree with John, it should have nothing to do with Uncle Ben. He should be hunting him simply because Sandman is a villain and the black suit is taking the mercy out of Spider-Man.
-Spidey ends up killing Sandman, violently and on purpose (something like Venom would do), and then Peter realizes what he’s becoming because of the black suit.
-Brock hates Spidey for exposing his fake photo, the whole church scene happens just as in the movie, sybiote gets on Brock.
-2nd half of the movie, Spider-Man is being hunted down by both Venom AND Harry. He’s constantly on the run, and everywhere he goes, one of the two show up. Meanwhile, Venom is doing his vigilante thing around the city, except instead of delivering bad guys to the police, he just kills them. (true to the comic book character)
-Spider-Man is confronting Harry at one point, explaining what happened and Venom sneaks up on them. (remember, Spidey sense doesn’t work on Venom). Venom lunges to attack Spidey, Harry gets in the way, Harry ends up getting killed. Spider-Man fights Venom in the last fight of the movie.
That’s how -I- would have done it, being a person who likes Venom. But hey, that’s me. I like darker superhero plots (I’m a Batman fan), so the idea of Spider-Man losing his mercy and then regretting it is a great one to me, and I love the anti-hero personality of Venom.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I was a gigantic fan of the first two movies. In fact, the first one really solidified my decision to pursue filmmaking as a career. When I saw “Spider-Man 3,” I was in such disbelief that three years of waiting since the last movie led to such an unsatisfying and low-quality conclusion. It’s nice to see what I believe is a perfect analysis of everything that went wrong in the scripting stage for this latest installment. John, you really hit the nail on the head, and in the process you’ve given me a bit of closure, as I’m still not entirely over how terrible the movie ended up being.
Granted that Sony just announced the guarantee of three more “Spider-Man” movies, I really think you should be considered as a writer for at least one of them. I’ve heard that David Koepp is in negotiations to write the next installment, and I loved what he did with the first movie, but somewhere along the lines, you should definitely work on one of them. With movies that have such high expectations and so much money poured into them, they deserve to come from great writers, and though I don’t know of your “Spider-Man” expertise or fandom (mine is limited to just the movies), you’d be a terrific addition to this franchise. Also, it would be nice if it became the fourth of your screenplays that was accompanied by Danny Elfman’s ORIGINAL music. It was sorely missed in “Spider-Man 3,” instead replaced by schlocky “adaptations” and temp tracks. Just had to get that off my chest as well.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Comic books are not a series of contrived coincidences like in this mess of a movie. Comic books take the time to give back story and circumstance because they HAVE the time. One movie is not enough time to delve meaningfully into the stories of Spiderman, MJ, Gwen Stacy, Eddie Brock, Venom, Sandman and Harry Osborn.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
A good summary, John. Along with the coincidences, there were some moments of what I usually call “facts not in evidence.”
For instance, SPOILER ALERT - the butler says that he cleaned Norman Osborne’s wound the night he died, so he knows that Osborne died by his own hand, rather than Spiderman’s.
That’s a neat trick. Cleaning a wound now tells you who stuck the blade in and how? Facts not in evidence.
It reminded me of a moment from Batman & Robin, where they’re talking about this MacGuffinish disease called “McGregor Syndrome.” Unfortunately, they needed this syndrome to be both deadly and not deadly at the same time for some plot purpose, so in the third act they introduced the notion that McGregor Syndrome comes in phases. Phase I isn’t so bad, but Phase II is a real bitch.
Facts not in evidence.
Or maybe that one falls under “stupid.”
Regardless, here’s a funny thing to think about.
All those questions you ask, e.g. “Does she have to be the lab partner?” are the sort of questions we writers tend to satirize when we get them from studio execs, and yet…
…ya know…
…sometimes we should listen.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:40 am
I haven’t had this much outlandish wall-to-wall riotous fun in a summer event movie in years - probably 5 of them.
Singers rip on Madonna because she can’t sing, but that’s not the point. Many may be able to sing with far greater technique than Madonna, but she puts on the best show. Right now, Spider-Man 3 puts on the best show around.
Would I have enjoyed reading this script? Probably not, no. I would have given similar notes - but probably even more of them…
But the movie was a scream. A shrieking good time that seemed to go on for 16 hours. While I feel directing is over-rated, I think Spider-Man 3 is a triumph of assertive direction that somehow, some way, manages to tie haunted scuba suits, comical maitre d’s, dance numbers, heartbreak and revenge into the same, enjoyable movie. I LOVED it!
Would I like it as much a 2nd time? Can’t say…
May 8th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Still not gonna go see it. It lost me at Spidey 2 which was also full of lame coincidence. Just how hard is it to write something with a decent script that can also make a ton of money? Maybe it’s the suits interfering with endless script notes, who knows. But how’s that old adage go, ‘You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.’? It’s one that I think the suits should take stock of when they try and throw endless franchises at us the audience. They get stale and silly so easily and quickly.
I wonder why the Bond franchise has lasted so long. My personal theory is that they’re based on novels and comic book super heroes don’t have much meat on their bones, it’s all about origin stories and after that, meh. Mind you, I don’t think Bond has that much substence too and that’s still with us. What do I know.
Maybe Abe Lincoln should have run a studio
May 8th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Craig (#57):
Another fact-not-in-evidence is when Venom meets up with Sandman, and says, “I know all about your sick daughter.”
Really? How? Because of a scene that got cut out?
The line wasn’t necessary anyway, so it seemed to be there just to piss off anyone paying attention. Yes, there are four or five possible ways Venom/Eddie Brock could have learned this info, but none of them are in evidence. So we’re left imagining scenes rather than watching the one on the screen.
And yeah, I knew those bullet points sounded very development-speaky.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Glad I’m not the only who felt the script for the movie was lacking, to say the least. I liked the action and the cast, but the coincidences and some of the contrivances were pretty weak.
I agree with just about everything John wrote (and others added) but would like mention a few things…
SPOILERS:
In terms of the origin of the goo, couldn’t there have just been a meteor shower somewhere in the New York area and an asteroid/goo ends up with Peter’s professor as a class experiment and finds its way to him from there?
Gwen Stacey: From what I understand, she was Peter’s original girlfriend in the comics before Goblin killed her. Maybe Sandman should’ve accidentally killed her instead of Uncle Ben… Could’ve at least justified having her in the movie.
Spidey’s public kiss: Why would you ever let anyone pull your mask halfway down in public with cameras everywhere? When he said “Kiss me, they’ll love it.” I was expecting like a peck on the cheek or something.
The scene at the church. What are the chances that Eddie Brock and Spiderman are attending the same church, at the same time? I really can’t help but think this was all meant to setup the somewhat convenient weakness of Venom for the endgame of their battle. I really would’ve liked to have seen Spidey forced to be a little more clever in dealing with Venom.
Perhaps Sandman having to turn on Venom instead, in order to earn his ‘redemption’ would’ve been more satisfying. Then again, when I say satisfying, maybe we’ve seen this move too many times already but it could’ve went a little further to his redemption. If we’re supposed to believe he’s a character that has made a conscious change in the first place…
Spidey/Goblin team up. Sure the action was fun, but it didn’t feel true to Goblin’s character, and worst of all was the butler who apparently decided to stop holding onto some extremely crucial intel for way too long. And why would he be cleaning the wounds on a dead body in the first place? (Back in Spidey 1, Goblin is long dead when his body is returned).
Forgiving Sandman. Again, I understand how this correlates with the theme, but if it wasn’t for Sandman teaming up with Venom, Harry wouldn’t have been mortally wounded.
Peter Parker the jerk. Pre-black suit, MJ was so troubled that one wonders if Spidey senses are only good for sensing flying chunks of concrete and metal. His ignorance of her feelings felt way too artificial.
Harry’s amnesia. In this situation, would you just sit around and let your re-discovered friend sit there like a ticking time bomb, or would you at least try to give some consideration to maybe trying to make some sort of amends while you can, and while he can be reasoned with? Maybe I’m splitting hairs a little with this one…
But even putting that aside, wouldn’t it make more sense for Harry once he reclaims his memory to hide it, and use it to catch Parker fatally off guard, rather than openly flaunt it?
Overall, I thought the film was the weakest of the trilogy, but had some fun moments, if it doesn’t ultimately disappoint.
My apologies for writing a mini-novel. I’m bored at work.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Wow John. I was going to write an analysis on this movie on my own blog tomorrow (just saw it last night) but now I feel like I might as well not bother. Maybe I’ll just link to your blog.
But you forgot the coincidence of Bernard showing up with key info to change Harry’s mind at the most appropriate possible moment. It would’ve meant so much more if Harry had made that decision himself based on his love for Peter and MJ… (someone may already have mentioned this but I didn’t read all the comments - whoops!)
May 8th, 2007 at 9:15 am
“It lost me at Spidey 2 which was also full of lame coincidence.”
Too true. I just watched the first half again (no, not by coincidence but because the darn thing is on tv every day!).
Major coincidences…
Peter’s best friend knows Dr. Octavius, more so, he finances the project that turns him into Doc Ock !
Peter visits the bank and Doc Ock is there to rob it, more so, Doc-Ock picks Peter’s granny as a hostage !
Peter recounts the story how he didn’t stop the thug who minutes later shot his uncle – one of the biggest and most pivotal coincidences in the franchise !
And a minor convenience…
They seem to follow the rule to use chance events in the setup (like the Osborn/Octavius relationship). It be interesting to see how the second half plays out, anybody?
May 8th, 2007 at 9:21 am
It baffles me sometimes what big movies get away with… I dug BATMAN BEGINS, but the James Bondian “let me tell you my masterplan before I leave you for dead in a perilous situation you can easily escape” speech given by the villain at the end left me slackjawed. He’s Batman! Put a bullet into his head!!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:06 am
and now that i think about it…i remember thinking ‘yeah right’, during little miss sunshine when the proust scholar ran into the other proust scholar and his student at the gas station.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:14 am
The lamest thing about the Sandman was that his storyline wasn’t even resolved. He set out to save his poor sick daughter! He told her he’d make her well again! He stole money for her!
We never saw her again.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Raimi’s vision for the series was that in the first movie Peter learns that with great power comes great responsibility, which is a heroic ideal. In the second movie, Peter learns to balance his heroic ideals with his normal life, and in the third, Peter realizes that his heroic ideals are not as clear as he first thought (Sandman isn’t as bad a Peter thinks he is, and conversely, Peter isn’t as good as he thinks himself). I think the forced inclusion of Venom caused this element of the third film to be muddled and lost amongst all of the hoopla. It also caused the Venom storyline to have to be abridged to the point of pointlessness. It wasn’t a terrible movie, but I think the screenplay definitely needed a few more passes before shooting.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I’ve got a question: where the hell is the’spider-sense’?! Or, when did he loose this ‘power’? =P
I was pleased when the first movie was released. This one also has some good stuff, but.. it still shows Spidey like a teenager. And.. when the movie happens? At the beginning, we can see some flashbacks about the other movies during the introduction, but no one tells you what’s PP degree, or how old is he now.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
(my email is higa.kelly@gmail.com !!)
May 8th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Speaking of the unnecessary police chief… You’re telling me that the Chief of the NYPD calls in an octogenarian and her brooding nephew to his office to inform them of a development in a common murder case? They couldn’t hire an actor to play a detective or something?
Also… enough with the payphone. You’re a freelance photographer, Pete. You can write off a cellphone bill.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Just wanted to point two things out here
1) Gwen was originally just another female character. one of the producers told Sam “make her Gwen, for the fans”. Sam them rewrote some of the part and made the police chief, before just another character, into her father (which, is true to the source material)
2) Venom was pushed on Raimi by Avi Arad. the original story was with Sandman as the whole villain, thus the black suit and Venom storyline feels someone tacked on for good reason. Raimi probably tried to mesh it with the story he’d already came up with (regarding revenge and forgiveness) than scrapping the whole idea of using Sandman and starting form square one with Venom.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
and for those who said Sandman’s story wasn’t ever resolved. there is a picture of Sandman standing over Spidey at the construction site with his daughter and ex-wife in the background. probably comes before the explanation of what happened that night he shot Ben Parker. why they left this out I don’t know. there were a few other Sandman-centric scenes that also didn’t make the cut.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/11/12/371902/SandMansFamilyAtTheConstructionSite.jpg
May 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
More coincidences: Peter just happens to become unwanted at the Bugle, and Mary Jane just happens to start sucking as an actress. Both of which could’ve been tied to a single cause: J. Jonah Jameson hates them both because of how MJ humiliated his family in the last movie. Thus, Peter’s out of a job, and MJ gets hammered by bad reviews.
Speaking of JJ Junior… Raj #44 said, “how hard would it have been to open with the symbiote hitchign a ride back with j.j’s son[?]” Not hard at all, if they simply adapted Amazing Spider-Man #1, when Spidey rescued Junior’s imperiled capsule (which is implausible, but hey, it’s the source).
A 23rd hour rewrite might have also caught some of the idiot plotting, like having MJ neglect to tell Peter that she lost her job. Or Harry failing to realize that his father, the Green Goblin, having murdered people in front of his own eyes in the first movie, maybe deserved to be killed.
Rob #38: “I couldn’t help but notice that the same jack-o-lantern grenade that disfigured only half of Harry’s face blew Venom and Eddie Brock into oblivion.”
Just like in the first movie, when the pumpkin bombs that could disintegrate people merely tore Spidey’s mask.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Parker not stopping the man who shot his uncle is coincidence, but ultimately it is the reason why he becomes Spider-man, the whole “great power with great responsibility” bit, so I think it is forgiveable in this sense.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I actually took a look at Spiderman 1 and there was this dialogue between J. Jameson and his staff regarding the fact that their photografer EDDIE (!!!) was not able to take some pics from Spidey. In other words: if Ram Raimi had seen the movie 1 again, he would have noticed this and linked the dialogue with the character!!!So easy!!!!!!!!!!!!
John, I really REALLY have to agree with you.
But please: Spiderman 3 kicks ass!!
May 8th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I don’t know if you people knew that, but Gwen was the daughter of (policeman) Captain Stacy in the 70’s. Spidey saved the old cap’s butt more than once. So, that’s not other coincidence at all. That’s just the comic book story. But I must agree that the problem of the movie is the amount of characters. There’s too many of them, so the script went crippled of good sense.
Anyway, I like the third movie coincidences more than the train scene-unmasking of the second movie.
And, I look forward to the Shazam! Movie. As a Cap’n Marvel fan, I sincerely hope that the problems in the other superhero movie scripts do not happen again in this movie. We will see, then.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Besides the coincidences, didn’t anyone else felt embarrased (or even sorry) when Peter Parker start flirting with every single woman on the street. The symbiote was supposed to magnify his features and certainly flirting, dancing and piano playing were none of them. The scene in the jazz bar, especially the closed angles almost felt like Velma Kelly meets Peter Parker during a complete mess.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I agree that the biggest “WTF?” for me came in the scene where Harry’s butler tells him that he could somehow tell from stab wounds that Spiderman didn’t stab Harry’s father. Of course he could. The cherry on the top of the whole lousy movie.
On the subject of coincidence, I’ve always felt that one or two, properly served to the reader/viewer, could really add some fun to a potboiler kind of a project. You mention John McClane’s collection of coincidence that led him to be present for Die Hard the First. My favorite coincidence in the series is in the second film, where he actually addresses the coincidence of his being drawn into fighting terrorists two Christmas Eves in a row. That was funny, and it was refreshing to hear a character actually answer the question that was going through the entire audience’s head at that moment.
Then in Die Hard the Third we were buried in coincidences too thick to swim through and too thin to stand on. I’ve given it a little thought and I think that Die Hard 3 probably has more fortuitous occurrence than all three Spiderman movies combined.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Thanks, for a number of things, and all in one comment! First, for a long run of fascinating, respectful and information-packed columns at imdb.com. I’m “merely a spectator,” but it has been a treat to learn more about the fundamentals of screenwriting and its relationship to other literary forms. Second, for this blog, which carries the interesting commentary further (who knows, I might even have a crack at one of your contests one day!). Third and most relevant, for your commentary on Spiderman 3. I appreciate your multiple reminders about not bashing the movie for its own sake. I watched and walked away with many threads of disappointment, but also with some sympathy, because I genuinely want most of the films I see to succeed (okay, I really wanted Blood and Chocolate to crash and burn). I was feeling a lot of what was included in your description of untenable coincidences and, as soon as the meteor touched down silently, was resigned to eventually seeing a billboard with a pointing hand saying, “villain is hiding here.” After admitting that comics and the movies based on them are particularly driven by action and spectacle, I must say that I continue to be drawn back for their sympathetic characters. From the back story provided and the main story played out, I would have been happy to see Sandman redeemed in a more permanent fashion and to see Peter Parker exit with a greater burden of loss, guilt and isolation. Enough of my own dilettante criticism. Many thanks to you again for enlivening my experience of film!
May 9th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I came across this article after writing my “List of quotes overheard in the writer’s room for Spider-Man 3″ (http://doomsicle.com). You’re spot on - it’s a shame, but Spidey 3 is a travesty compared to the previous two.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Well I did end up writing a big analysis of my own. Mostly focusing on what I felt was the general carelessness with which the story was handled, including coincidence but not just.
One of my examples is Peter telling Eddie to “find religion.” As if there weren’t more reasonable character-driven ways to get Eddie into a church when in fact there are many, most of which wouldn’t even add any length to the overall film. If anyone is interested you can click my name over this post. Sorry for plugging but a blogger’s gotta do what a blogger’s gotta do, and there isn’t room to post all my thoughts in this comments page alone anyways.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I haven’t seen Spidey 3, but I couldn’t help but think about “Batman & Robin,” which also crammed more villains into one movie than any previous entries in the franchise. It occurred to me, hmmm, maybe the point was not to give the fans a HUGE, jam-packed extravaganza, but to SELL MORE ACTION FIGURES? Each new character means a new action figure — now I can’t help but think that the revenue from a Gwen Stacy or Eddie Brock action figure is not THAT big that they’d add a whole character to the movie but…what do I know about the profit margins of toy licensing? Any one else think this may be the reason?
May 12th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Something I haven’t heard yet is this: why is Mary Jane hired to sing in a big musical and yet can’t carry the part? Did her modest vocal talents elude all until opening night?
I’m struck by a missed opportunity here. If she reaches for and gets a part in a sizable show but is outsized by the show’s ambitions - this could have been a thematic story point relating to Peter’s over-reaching and over sized ego. It’s not enough to have Peter mention that he knows of critics, after all, Spider Man is a known success - large enough in physical talent to satisfy the taste for his spectator sport audience and so, able to scoff at critics with confidence. If he discovers his swagger and overreaching leads to public rejection - this could relate to Mary Jane’s subplot in some way. As it plays now - she just happens to be an unremarkable performer and Peter is off base for correlating their two experiences.
If Mary Jane and Peter have a related problem (say, she is truly a talent being misused or someone who doesn’t play to her strengths) something that isolates them in tandem - maybe then they, as outsiders, can claim to be misunderstood or underappreciated and their conditions could resonate.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:44 am
I’d go further and say that pretty much every scene - nay, the entire world of this movie is founded on unlikely coincidences. Not least of which the number of people in it who look like Bruce Campbell.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
what about the coincidence of having harry’s butler, in III act, earing spider-man ask for help to harry, and having him reveling to him ( after all this time) that he knows that spider-man didn’t kill his father.
but for me the biggest mistake comes from the idea of putting Sandman the real killer of uncle Ben’s. The reason Spider-man existes, his drive, is the guilt of having the power to stop the thief who killed his uncle and not doing it. Again, it’s about guilt. Peter Parker carries the weight of that guilt with him. That’s why he is Spider-man.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Did Mary Jane really fall in love with Harry? There seemed to be something in that kiss. She did date him first, anyway, and never seemed to be that into Peter to begin with. Either way, she never explains why she didn’t tell Peter the bridge break-up was a set up at the time, or later that everything she said was a lie.
This makes the ending fall flat in that the audience doesn’t know if MJ still loves Peter.
May 15th, 2007 at 4:56 am
…oh, and how did the butler know willem defoe had done himself in?? this isnt rhetorical, i just remember thinking it sounded remarkably tenuous…
May 15th, 2007 at 8:20 am
What really made the Butler scene ridiculous was the fact he even knew about the glider, I was sitting in the cinema thinking “What!? You knew your owner was the murdering psychopathetic killer named “Green Goblin” and you never once thought of informing the police of his where abouts?” Thats one f-ed up Butler.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:23 am
I just saw this and I got to say it really, really disappointed me… so many problems… I think coincidences sucked, but the simple things like the butler withholding info seemed idiotic… Did he ever show interest in the guy’s life before?
I can’t believe no one has mentioned the crane scene… Peter saves Gwen, then swings away! What about the crane? (Not to mentioned that the