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

Gothamite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
3,260
Location
Dublin, Ireland
From the Spider-Man reboot thread.

And I think it's debatable as to whether or not Spider-Man 3 is Batman and Robin bad. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that with several good arguing points, it could be considered on the same level.

:shock:

This deserves its own thread.

*Goes out for a cigarette*
 
Last edited:

ProjectX2

Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
25,007
Definitely not. It's one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen but there were some good elements to it (Sandman being the best example). Spider-Man 3 was a really bad movie but Batman & Robin was ****ing awful.
 

Gothamite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
3,260
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Saying that Spider-Man 3 is as bad as...that is akin to saying that Independence Day (a reasonably decent alien thriller with a thin plot) is as bad as Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Spider-Man 3 has decent music (it's a shame that Danny Elfman left, but all of his themes are retained and some nice new ones are brought in, too), great acting (especially from Thomas Hayden Church), fine production design and a nice (I think so) cameo from Stan Lee. It's hampered by too many characters, some nonsensical action scenes and the continuously irritating emphasis on the angsty relationship of Peter and MJ. At the very least, on the most superficial level of all; all of the characters (even New Goblin) look pretty cool.

Batman & Robin has no decent acting. At all. Michael Gough comes close in a few scenes and Chris O'Donnell is at least trying (even if he's incredibly annoying in every single scene, especially compared with the previous movie where he was great); but every single other person in the movie is practically winking at the camera. George Clooney might as well have substituted every single line of his dialogue for "When's lunch?" Uma Thurman just sounds like my mother when she's trying to get people to listen to her, and Arnie?!

[youtube]VNaDZIrxh-0[/youtube]

?!

The production design is absolutely surreal, bloated, utterly stupid and unlike anything I've ever seen in a Batman comic. In Batman Forever the ideas were similar, but they were more controlled, refined and properly realised; they made sense on some glossy, stylised level. In this film, it's clear that the whole process was rushed, because it just looks like Drunken Disneyland. None of the time or effort that's evident in all of the other Batman films shows in this one.

I question whether this film even had a script. Every single line of dialogue in the film is either a pun, set-up of a pun or some sort of overblown exposition. I'm not bothered listing all of them, just go on IMDb if you don't believe me.

The music of Batman & Robin is the same repeated themes from the last film, repeated some more. They're overblown, repetitive and really annoying.

Lastly, the tragedy that was the costumes of this film. Everyone just looks stupid, with the exception of maybe Chris O'Donnell, whose costume was only sort of cool because it was a complete departure from anything Robin (or indeed Nightwing) ever wore in the comics. Batman's costume was shiny, glittery, powder-blue, with nipples and a bigger codpiece than in the previous film (which was all over the trades at the time), Mr Freeze looks like a man trapped inside a disco ball and Poison Ivy looked like she walked off the set of the 1966 show.

Cameos? Coolio. ****ing Coolio. Get it?

The only real argument I can think of where Doom might actually be right is that you have to kind of take into account that Batman & Robin was made ten years before Spider-Man 3 and high concept films were a different thing back then. Even still though, there's no excuse when all three films that preceeded Batman & Robin were at least coherent and entertaining on some level (and this was the critical consensus at the time, as well).
 
Last edited:

Bass

Nexus of the World
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
14,167
Location
Folkestone, UK
Aw, hell no!

Arnie is the only one who's doing it right. He was given a script in which he plays a man called "Mr Freeze" and every line has a 'cold' pun, and told, "Over act as much as possible, play this as a comedy". Arnie is intentially hamming it up because that's what the film wanted him to do.

He deserves props for being so absurdly over the top like a cartoon character. But the script is so gorram awful...

Spidey 3 isn't in the same vein as this. This movie killed the career of everyone in it for about 10 years. Except for George Clooney.
 
Last edited:

Random

Didn't **** any of those *****es
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
13,680
Location
Philadelphia, PA
I say it's worth. The difference is I can watch Batamn and Robin and laugh at the absurdity. Though it was bad it was still fun. I can't even stand to watch just even one scene from Spider-man 3
 

Gothamite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
3,260
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Except for George Clooney.

The biggest casualty of this movie was Chris O'Donnell, who hasn't been in a serious movie since. Remember Scent of a Woman? In a lot of ways, he's a better actor than George Clooney is.

I say it's worth. The difference is I can watch Batamn and Robin and laugh at the absurdity. Though it was bad it was still fun. I can't even stand to watch just even one scene from Spider-man 3

Really? :?

I honestly don't even think it works as that. There's a difference between a film that tries to be serious and fails and ends up being entertaining anyway (anything by Chuck Norris, Superman IV) and a film that's trying to be ironic and funny and fails at that and ends up being something very close to unwatchable. The film has virtually no redeeming qualities. I can understand the appeal of Arnie as a pompous, hammy villain, I guess (if I didn't, I wouldn't keep posting that video all the time).

Spider-Man 3 is an entertaining, if confused film with decent action and some fun, silly badass scenes (I love when Peter says "Little Goblin gonna' cry?").
 
Last edited:

Victor Von Doom

Fist of teh Internets.
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
16,964
Location
On The Edge
I think I'm gonna go have to go out on a limb here and more than likely be the lone wolf here......


Yeah. Despite how horrible Batman and Robin was...is...ever will be, I think I'm gonna go ahead and place Spider-Man 3 on the list of Horrible Comic Films That I Really Never Want To See Again.

Now while looking at my reasons, you have to take this into consideration:

Gothamite said:
The only real argument I can think of where Doom might actually be right is that you have to kind of take into account that Batman & Robin was made ten years before Spider-Man 3 and high concept films were a different thing back then.


Acting
Almost every actor in B and R is horribly and cheesy. Yes that's a given. Michael Gough as Alfred is pretty much on Alfred-Autopilot and just trying to stay alive long enough to take his check from this and get one last trip to Aruba in before he settles into the grave. Chris O'Donnell is just being Chris O'Donnell....which is nothing special. And Alicia Silverstone is simply there because they wanted a Batgirl and she was one of Hollywood's "It Girls" at the time. And yes, Uma and Arnold were pretty much just there collecting a paycheck. The only one who seemed to be having any sort of fun was, in fact, Clooney. It's like he knew that the film was supposed to be mocking the old 60s TV series and decided to really play up the campy, billionaire playboy role of Bruce. Too bad that with all his Clooney Charm, he never really captured the dark, brooding Batman character properly (which ironically was Tobey's problem with his Peter Parker).

The acting SM3 is not really any better. It's just instead of cheesy, they were all told to just be the same you were in SM2 only add some super-broody and angst ridden attitude to that. Aunt May was the same old-biddy. Tobey as Peter continued to be boring and stiff. Kirsten Dunst has always been annoying. Always. To be honest, the only 2 people worth seeing in the movie is Simmons as JJJ and a few scenes of Franco hamming it up (see the So Good Pie Scene). But even then, the acting of the film still falls flat due to time constraints meaning there's no room for any real character development since they have so much to fit in.

Granted, these are both "comic book films" and you can't really expect too much from the films (Dark Knight aside). Both films are also "comic" products of their time. 90s was all about extreme costume armor and quippy dialouge and what big star can they get on screen. The generation of comic films, thankfully often opt to get the actor who will best portray their character and not base their casting on who's the biggest name. But unfortunately, the new generation also has an even larger avenue of cross marketing.


Story
Both are just plagued with too much going and it shows. There's really nothing more I can argue about.

Sure there's obviously a better script with SM3, but in the end so many things are introduced but not properly executed or followed up on. Why would Silverstone want to be Batgirl for no real reason other than he uncle is the butler of Batman? Harry finally decides to get over his dad's death and be Pete's best friend because the butler told him to "man up"? Sandman is just trying to get some money to pay his daughter's medical bills and has no real motivation to fight Spiderman....but he'll do it anyway because Venom says so?

Shark Jumping Moments
For every Batman and Robin having built-in ice skates....there's Uncle Ben's killer being Sandman.




There's other little things, but too many to mention. While in the end, SM3 will, in fact, be a better movie than B and R.....based on the time period of which they were created, they're both on the same level of horrible.
 

Planet-man

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
11,645
Location
Toronto, Ontario(by way of the Kepler Verge)
Shark Jumping Moments
For every Batman and Robin having built-in ice skates....there's Uncle Ben's killer being Sandman.

I don't have an eyeroll smiley big enough for this one.

How does a plotline you don't happen to like make that a worse film than one where characters.... where they have things that.... than Batman & Robin?!
 
Last edited:

Random

Didn't **** any of those *****es
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
13,680
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Really? :?

I honestly don't even think it works as that. There's a difference between a film that tries to be serious and fails and ends up being entertaining anyway (anything by Chuck Norris, Superman IV) and a film that's trying to be ironic and funny and fails at that and ends up being something very close to unwatchable. The film has virtually no redeeming qualities. I can understand the appeal of Arnie as a pompous, hammy villain, I guess (if I didn't, I wouldn't keep posting that video all the time).

Spider-Man 3 is an entertaining, if confused film with decent action and some fun, silly badass scenes (I love when Peter says "Little Goblin gonna' cry?").

I completely disagree. The problem with BR is that it's stupid, they were told to make a toy commercial and they did. The thing is I can enjoy a toy commercial. I can laugh at how childish everything in that film was, mainly because it knew what it was doing. SM3 did everything as wrong but tried to make it serious and it utterly fails on every level for me. I mean even the action was just not exciting. Just over the top CGI with no drama or anything to make me even care what's going on. All flash and no substance.

And SM3 had hindsight, they saw what happen to properties like BR. They knew what can happen that makes a bad superhero film and still they failed. The director didn't change, they had an even bigger budget and all the same stars and pretty good casting. The studio didn't impose something monumental like "make it a cheesy toy commercial" the just wanted a certain villain. Sure it was a story line the screwed somethings up but it should have been that bad.

And Doom made the comparison of retracting ice skates and changing Ben's death. Those are not equal. Ice skating is silly and childish but change one of, if not, the greatest origin in comics is an idiotic move of epic proportions. And this is at a time when Superhero films should be taken more seriously, when they are held to a better standard and SM3 can't blame ignorant because the first two were ONE OF THE REASONS this genre is examined on a new level. SM3's failure is inexcusable.

I just can't watch this horrible film without feeling sick. I can watch BR and have a jolly old time laughing. But there's nothing to laugh at in SM3 (maybe the pie line and JJ of course)
 

Gothamite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
3,260
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Doom, did you post my comment because you were trying to prove how wrong I was or because you actually agreed with it?

We're both very much on the same page regarding the timing issue of the two movies, it would seem. You just seem to hate SM3 a lot more, whereas I just think it's a harmless piece of mediocre enjoyable with a few beers on a boring Tuesday.

I still think Batman & Robin is a flat-out cinematic abortion, though.

...a few scenes of Franco hamming it up (see the So Good Pie Scene).

My favourite scene in the whole movie.

The words "favourite", "scene" and "Batman & Robin" don't exist in alphabetic sentences.

EDIT: Unless of course "Grant Morrison" is also in the sentence.
 
Last edited:

Gothamite

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
3,260
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Bat nipples.

*Waits for E to close down the thread and add it to the archives, instantly.*

The problem with BR is that it's stupid, they were told to make a toy commercial and they did.

This is the excuse Schumacher always gives, but I don't think that's the problem with the movie. The problem isn't that in the third act, the heroes are all given new suits and new vehicles. Yes, it's completely retarded, but it's not because of this forced stupidity that the movie didn't work. It's because of actual creative decisions that the movie doesn't work. The puns throughout the film...nobody forced Akiva Goldsman to write them. To my knowledge, there was never Batman and Robin figures that had ice-skates on them, either. There's a whole bunch of WTF elements in this film that were never even translated to toys or merchandise (Poison Ivy's giant vagina plant? Where's that action figure?). It's clear that the film was actually Joel Schumacher's cinematic vision in many ways.

The only 'rushed' aspect of the film that pisses me off was the production design and the music.
 
Last edited:

E

Moderator
Excelsior Club
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
33,346
Location
MI
Yes. But you have to look at them as being on different scales.

Spider-Man 3 was bad because it totally killed a serious franchise that was actually pretty well done up until it was made. The characters were absolutely terrible and there was no reason to cram as much stuff into it as they did. It was ridiculous. Every single frame of that movie screamed "we are out of ideas and don't know how to build a movie around cool special effects". It was TERRIBLE.

Batman & Robin was just a bad, cheesy movie. But it wasn't like they totally turned the franchise on its head. Batman Forever had the same kind of cheese - Batman & Robin just took it a step further. It was like an attempted homage to the campy 60s Batman TV show that couldn't toe that fine line between an homage and ridiculous parody.

So yeah, they are equal. But they are bad for different reasons.
 

SSJmole

Face-Punching As Foreign Policy
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
19,091
Location
UK
I voted no. Batman and robin is painfully bad. It's worse cast and just overall a more horrible movie.
 

Bass

Nexus of the World
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
14,167
Location
Folkestone, UK
...

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:
 
Last edited:

Jaggyd

The member formerly known as skotti-chan
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
5,141
Location
Ohio
...

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:



Game, set, match. Go ahead and close the thread. Bass just put it more perfectly than any of us could. As much as I find Bass and myself disagreeing, I couldn't possibly agree with him more than I do right now. B&R is one of the worst attempts at cinema I've ever watched, and I have the Ed Wood collection.
 

Bass

Nexus of the World
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
14,167
Location
Folkestone, UK
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.
 
Last edited:

Jaggyd

The member formerly known as skotti-chan
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
5,141
Location
Ohio
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.

Eggzaktly.
 

McCheese

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
6,267
Location
Carbondale, Illinois
Batman & Robin is a worse movie. Funny story, my first college roommate used to punish me for hogging the remote by using his time with it to make me watch Batman & Robin. Because we had access to 6 different HBO channels I had to watch it 12 times in a month. There is NO superhero movie as bad as Batman & Robin.

That said, Spider-Man 3 is clearly and undeniably the more disappointing of the two movies. B&R came out on the heels of Batman Forever which was also a joke, but a slightly more enjoyable joke. Nobody went to see that expecting it to actually be a good movie. We didn't even know what a good superhero movie WAS at that point. Spidey 3 came out when superhero movies were finally gaining some traction and proving they were more than toy commercials and it was a steaming pile of emo crap that failed on almost every conceivable level.

So while B&R is a worse film, if given the choice to watch one or the other I will always pick B&R. I can at least laugh at how bad it was AND it brings up fond memories of me screaming at my roommate to turn it off. Spider-Man 3 is just depressing.
 

Latest posts

Top