He was apparently "Frank" in that two parter Dr Who episode in depression era manhattan. Can't remember who Frank was though myself. Looks like he was also in Red Riding, which by all accounts was pretty awesome (3 parter serial killer/corrupt copper drama set in the '70's) but I never got around to watching.

Looks a good match for that version of Spidey though, and let's face it - after Spiderman 3 the only way is up, really.

Somebody call me when Fox is done bending Spider-Man over a barrel and finally gives up and lets the license lapse and revert back to Marvel. Till then they get none of my theater going dollars.

For me Spiderman 1 & 2 were rare examples of a comic book movie done right. They were respectful of the source material while standing on their own as movies.

Spideman 3, in contrast to the first two was pretty weak. The introduction of the symbiote could have been the chance to really explore the character of Peter Parker, instead he dressed up like a member of My Chemical Romance and did a funny dance.

It isn't as bad as people like to make out, it was better than Fantastic Four after all. But compared to the first two it was very disappointing.

Yeah, origin stories are always going to be tough, Spiderman 1 did it better than most, IMO.

Spiderman 3 though, I actually went in thinking that it could not possibly be as bad as I'd heard, the internet is the home of hyperbole after all. It wasn't, but it was pretty f*cking terrible.

It was mostly the crying, and the dance scene.

I'm not watching this unless there's sparkles.... there just has to be sparkles... Otherwise, who will watch it?

Really? I agree that SM2 was great - that's about the only thing, though. SM1 was only weak from a plot point of view, and that's because, as you said, we have to get through the origin stuff. Still well presented, if you ask me, and neatly adapted to a more modern mythos. I still don't like Kirsten Dunst as Mary-Jane, but she was far and away the worst part of the movie for me.

I still believe SM3 was an unmitigated disaster, both in what they did and in what they failed to do. My big issues:

1- Why did Spidey lose his powers? Why did they come back? Where is any sort of explanation for that? Random power loss is a crutch, and a weak one at that.
2- The whole emo thing. Let's leave it at that.
3- Suffering unnecessarily from Too Many Bad Guys syndrome.
4- Criminal misuse of the symbiote-as-separate-entity-and-influence. By misuse, I mean almost total non-use. (Note that that may be partly due to them using, at least partially, the Ultimate storyline, with which I am not as familiar.) The whole "greater power corrupting" theme was almost non-existent, and the fact of the symbiote as an entity wasn't every mentioned, IIRC. Also, getting rid of the symbiote should have been a Thing; it didn't come across as one in the movie.
5- Heinous and criminal misuse of Venom as a character and as a plot device. Let us delve into this one a bit deeper, as it's the biggest offender.

Venom is a kickass character in the comics. He has a moderately interesting backstory, good powers, and should, by all rights, kick the living sh*t out of Spiderman, which makes him interesting. In the comics, Eddie Brock hates Peter Parker after Parker gets him fired, and the symbiote hates Parker/Spidey for getting rid of it. Venom, therefore, has a serious hate on for Parker/Spidey. As far as I remember, none of that really came out in the movie.

I don't remember if the symbiote's avoidance of Spider-sense came up in the movie, but I don't think it did, and it certainly wasn't explained if it was.

The Venom arc is long and interesting enough that to make it less than a third of one movie is ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again; correct handling of Venom would have greatly improved SM3 and opened the door for a good, solid SM4. To wit:

SM3: Introduce the symbiote. Have Parker losing control. The Sandman is the external representation of the internal struggle; at the beginning of the movie, Spidey fights him and probably loses - though narrowly. By the end of the 2nd act, Spidey should beat the holy hell out of Sandman, which begins the arc of the 3rd act; namely, getting rid of the symbiote. The movie is about Parker's struggle with himself and his own power, not about some second-string bad guy. It ends with Parker getting rid of the symbiote. We see the symbiote drop onto Eddie Brock, and the camera cuts. The last scene of the movie - maybe even post-credits, but I don't think so - is a black tentacle flailing out of an alleyway and grabbing a pedestrian: cut to black.

SM4 then becomes the battle between Spidey and Venom. We don't need anything else in there; there's enough meat between those two, with Venom playing cat to Spiderman's mouse. It is both physical and psychological; Venom can toy with Spiderman when the fight, then f*ck with him by, say, having Eddie Brock show up to Aunt May's house. (None of this is mine; it's all cadged from comics.) It's a solid arc, and can be a fine movie in it's own right.

Venom deserved his own movie. To add the sh*t cherry to the sundae, Venom was pretty crappy in the movie. He should have been cool; instead he was Topher Grace in mediocre CGI.

To sum up: SM3 was an absolute disaster, from start to finish.

Not that I have strong opinions about it...

I've been a comic fan since the early 80s, and all I can say is that none of what you talked about above mattered to me as a movie goer. The Joel Schumaker BATMAN films were pieces of cinematic sh*t. SM3 was flawed but enjoyable... certainly moreso than most of Marvel's other movie properties.

I went into the film about a month after release, having heard the constant bashing pretty much continually. Maybe I went in with lowered expectations, but as I said, I thought it was "good enough."

Please what fanboys?

Since when do fanboys decide what or what doesn't go into movies?

Pressure from the studio is about the only thing that makes directors change anything.

You forgot about the whole "son of green goblin" thing.

I'm surprised that the first couple of things didn't bother you 'as a movie goer'. I've always found that sloppy pacing, unexplained (but apparently important) events, and overly busy subplots really subtracted from my enjoyment of a movie.

For all that I think they should have done much better things with the franchise, I thought that they could have done much better things with the movie as well.

Yeah SM3 for me was just way to overloaded, they didn't have the time they needed to devote to any one character because they had to cover so much ground. always remember KISS...Keep It Simple Stupid.

In other words, the head of Marvel's film department made him do it. It's not like they had to listen to the "fans"! Likely the "fans" were just an excuse for Marvel to make more money on merchandizing by including a popular villain.

Honestly, I don't even remember the losing powers plot (haven't seen it since release). As for the "emo" thing, I think it's just blown out of proportion. How long do those scenes last, anyway? A few minutes? In the comics Peter Parker, while wearing the symbiote costume, had a gradual "shift" into darker territory. Being a movie already crammed with plot, I guess they figured those scenes were a good enough short-hand in the film. Again, I wish I could feel the hate on this one (because that's kind of my thing), but for whatever reason I just didn't mind this movie.

*Shrug*

Gene Simmons as Venom, FTW.

The losing powers plot was in Spider-Man 2.

Yup...just returned this very evening from a get-together at a friend's house, at which his kids were watching it. I'd forgotten how silly the sidewalk scene was.

Fixed, but you're correct that he was mentioned several times before they started filming and and I agree it likely would have been an even worse disaster.