Sam Raimi denies responsibility for Spider-Man 3, and you people? You tell him that he's apologizing for the wrong thing. Is there no way for this financially secure, successful, famous movie director to win?
So Raimi told Empire that he didn't have creative control over the third Spider-Man movie, and that Venom and other elements weren't exactly his decision. But do you care? Let's see:
FakingThroughLife: "Yeah, being forced to include Venom doesn't explain the rest of the movie - such as signing and dancing and emo-Parker. God awful movie when compared to the first two."
edosan: "I don't buy it. It was still a lousy movie from beginning to end, and you'd think the director could have helped with that."
OW-Holmes: "That movie was truly awful. I couldn't stop laughing when Peter accidentally hit MJ. Everyone in the theater looked at me funny, but I think they were just jealous that they didn't get the joke."
Evlsushi: "Even if he hated Venom, what sense does it make to produce a shitty movie? Take Venom, tweak him, and make a great, somewhat original story. Like the brilliant X3. Just kidding. But seriously, Raimi didn't even try to make the Venom story work. Or "spooky panel of Studio Execs" as he would have us believe. Yes, studios are controlling, but he was coming off of a critically acclaimed sequel, so that excuse sounds fishy."
LouisHaeru: "'Wow, the fanboys sure hated Spiderman 3, I guess I'll just join the flock and pretend I hated it, too!' C'mon, Raimi, it surely wasn't the best of the Spiderman flicks (probably the worst, but not by much), but seriously? Stick to your guns. Lame."
Kell06: "All through the movie release, Sam Raimi was talking about how happy he was with the movie, how good it was, etc etc. I strongly disliked a lot of the movie, but either way, what a cop-out. To try and have it both ways like that, pretending to support it to ensure plenty of publicity, then to cover his ass after the critical and fan slag-off - talk about a lack of integrity from someone who I thought stood on his own two feet."
What's the world coming to when a man can't publicly disown a shitty movie by pretending that someone else put him up to it? Sure, I'll grant you that he didn't go all the way and claim that the movie was actually directed by his evil twin, Flim-Flam Raimi - Like you wouldn't want to see an interview where he tried that one - but, come on. He's just admitting that it wasn't the greatest of movies and trying to wash his hands of the whole affair before embarking on a sequel to it. We've all been there.
It has to be said, though; I'm with the fans of the campy dance numbers:
Spideyrex: "Hey I liked them! It was silly and fun. People forget that Peter Parker is still a dorky little kid, that was his version of being bad-ass. Yes it was embarrassing to watch, but that was the point."
kelz: "I think people took it too seriously and didn't understand that it was a dorky kid's attempt to look cool. I found it funny and campy."
Quilt: "It really was the only part of the movie where I genuinely enjoying myself. It was just so stupid and ridiculous."
FrankSinister: "I still stand by Raimi despite the eye-raping awfulness of Spiderman 3. Its obvious that it was a warning to Sony to keep their retarded mouths shut when telling him what to put in his movies. 'Oh yeah? You're gonna tell me what to do? How about I single-handedly decimate your largest franchise and USE YOUR OWN MONEY TO DO IT?' Well played Sam. Stand your ground."
Well, wait a minute. I'm not sure I buy this whole "He meant to make something crappy" theory... That's like saying that Enterprise was subpar to make people excited for the new Star Trek movie (says the boy watching reruns on HDNet and kind of enjoying them)... But at least with him agreeing that the third one wasn't any good means that the fourth one will be better, right? Unless we end up with the clone saga...