Please excuse me while I scream like a little girl for a few minutes.

might want to edit the original post too :-)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/spider-man_3/

Please excuse me while I scream like a little girl for a few minutes.

Not at all, I think I shall join you.

Rachel is shocked at me, because I actually said the word "squee".

Spunky pants.

WOW! Can't wait to see it now!

Just to remind everyone, if you are caught using a video camera to record any part of a performance in a cinema, you will be asked to leave, and the police can be called to take your equipment away.

Cinema. It's the experience that counts.

And my wages.

Was rather concerned about this film with regard to the amount of stuff squeezed into the plot...

Then I saw the teaser.

I'm not sure what you're all so excited about. It looks a bit tedious.

Look quite good! *biggest understatement ever* Massive fan of the first two movies, the second especially (apart from Doc Ock's death which was a little underwhelming).

They're cramming this one a bit full with the bad guys, aren't they? Sandman, Venom and the Hobgoblin? Will there be time for anyone else in the film? I just worry that it could turn into Batman Forever syndrome, where all the screen time is given to the guest star villains, and the hero ends up getting sidelined.

Hobgoblin? HOBGOBLIN?

*sputters*

Sorry, I just hate that for years people have been going on about how Harry would become the Hobgoblin in one of the movies. HARRY OSBORN WAS NEVER THE HOBGOBLIN IN THE COMICS, HE WAS THE SECOND GREEN GOBLIN. THAT WAS AN ADDITION MADE BY THE CARTOON THAT EVERYONE NOW THINKS IS COMICS CANON.

*ahem*

Anyway, if you freeze frame the shots of Harry, it's clear that he's just wearing a bit of protective gear and a mask - I don't think he's going to be a proper "villain" in this at all, I think we're just going to get some scenes where he uses his dad's equipment to try and get revenge on Peter. And then there's the small matter of the rumour on AICN a little while back about what happens to him over the course of the film...

> Sorry, I just hate that for years people have been going on about how Harry would become the Hobgoblin in one of the movies. HARRY OSBORN WAS NEVER THE HOBGOBLIN IN THE COMICS, HE WAS THE SECOND GREEN GOBLIN. THAT WAS AN ADDITION MADE BY THE CARTOON THAT EVERYONE NOW THINKS IS COMICS CANON.

Actually, Ultimate Spider-Man.

The cartoon had Jason Macandale as the Hobgoblin the whole way through, and Harry was GG2.

Hmm. Well, people were talking about Harry as the Hobgoblin as far back as around the time of the first movie, long before the "Hobgoblin" arc in USM, so I really don't know where it originally came from... all you've done there is back up my point that it's always been a stupid thing for people to say ;-)

They should twist things on their head an reveal the second Green Goblin to actually be Roderick Kingsley. The audience would love it.

It is true that Harry was never the Hobgoblin in the cartoon, I'm not sure where the assumption that he'd ever be the Hobgoblin came from. Even his appearance as the Hobgoblin in Ultimate Spidey didn't happen until after Spider-Man 2, as I recall, and people have been saying it'll happen since way before that. I think it's just the fans second-guessing what Raimi would do, thinking he'd use the Hobgoblin instead of bringing back the Green Goblin as a way to dumb things down a little for the movie audiences. Raimi is even on record as saying that he's not sure why people ever thought that.

It's been claimed by Avi Arad that there are 4 villains in this film, though, I've only caught three - Green Goblin II, Venom, Sandman...what else? Have I missed a rumour somewhere? Does Gwen Stacy count?!

I love the final shot.

Indeed. To quote James in an email : That final scene where he's hanging upside down looking at his reflection proves to me that Raimi knows his themes.

I was pondering whether to make this into a separate post, or simply edit the existing one, or simply comment here, but - consider the way comic book/superhero movies have gone over the last few decades. It's really quite scary :

- First movie is a success, with a great director, a great lead actor, the "spirit" of the comics is accurately captured, everyone is happy (Superman, Batman, X-Men, Spider-Man).

- Second movie, by the same director, is generally heralded by the fanboys as a massive improvement as it contains more in the way of stuff aimed specifically at them. The budget is bigger, there's more action, and many people feel that the story and its emotional levels are improved; others disagree, saying the first was better, but the general consensus is that it's at the very least a worthy sequel (Superman II, Batman Returns, X2, Spider-Man 2).

- Third movie sees a change in director and sometimes even in its leading cast. A number of the elements that made the first two work are altered, and the general consensus is that it isn't a patch on the first two. There may be some who think it's decent, but it's not particularly well-regarded (Superman III, Batman Forever, X-Men : The Last Stand - the inclusion of the latter is open to debate, as some poor souls felt it was actually better than the first two, but I think there's a case to be made).

- Fourth movie is an utter atrocity, a crime against everything that is good and pure (Superman IV : The Quest For Peace, Batman & Robin).

Can Spider-Man 3 buck the tend? I think it will. The reason? Two words - Sam Raimi. Directorial consistency can't be underestimated, and neither can that man's brilliance behind the lens and fidelity to what makes Spider-Man so great in the first place.

> Hmm. Well, people were talking about Harry as the Hobgoblin as far back as around the time of the first movie, long before the "Hobgoblin" arc in USM, so I really don't know where it originally came from... all you've done there is back up my point that it's always been a stupid thing for people to say ;-)

I'm pretty certain that it came from the idea that they'd "done" the Green Goblin, and another one wouldn't sell the dolls, etc.

No, this was fans, on message boards, who were under the misconception that at some point in one of the continuities, Harry had been the Hobgoblin. "He'll be the Hobgoblin in a later film, like he was in the comics," they'd say. In fact, when the Goblin costume was first announced, people assumed that it was just an earlier version for Willem Dafoe to use, and that later in the film Harry would use a souped-up, better version with a cloak and whatnot, and be the Hobgoblin. This is all stuff that was floating around the boards circa 2001-2. And the justification they were using was the misguided belief that Harry had been the Hobgoblin before. I'm just wondering where this belief came from.

Apparently the GG costume hasn't been altered for this film, so if you hated it in the first one you won't like this. It's been modified slightly but hardly noticeably (much as Spidey's costume was between 1 and 2). Which is a shame as my reasons for disliking the first film pretty much entirely stem from finding the GG costume ridiculous.

> Apparently the GG costume hasn't been altered for this film,

Costume?

> Apparently the GG costume hasn't been altered for this film,

Costume?

http://i3.tinypic.com/160r79c.jpg

(y'know, if you're going to block images, you could say so...)

(y'know, if you're going to block images, you could say so...)

They're not blocked - your forgot your quotation marks around your 'src' attribute.

I've fixed it for you.

There's no way Harry will use the same Green Goblin costume. Besides, I don't think his presence as the second Goblin will be a major part of the movie. I'd say he just turns up at the end.

Yeah, if you look at the trailer, he's not using the same costume. It looks more like a ragtag outfit he's got together so he can go after Peter in a fit of rage. I think the opposite to monkey, though - I think he'll be like that at the beginning of the film rather than the end (I think it's Venom that is only likely to pop up near the end, with Sandman as the constant villain throughout). Once again, there are spoilers that I've heard (not sure how genuine they are) about what happens to Harry, but I don't want to repeat them for those who don't want to read 'em. So have a look online, you can probably find 'em ;-)

Ain't it cool has a thread on this topic and someone is posting as Parker-Man with what seems to be regarded as inside knowledge of this film. That's where I got what I said about the GG2 costume. Don't know how reliable his spoilers are though.

Parker Man or Peter Man. I haven't checked since yesterday.

New Spiderman 3 footage (loads more than appears in the teaser trailer):

http://www.doubleagent.com/video.php?v=985&ct=70

No okay, don't worry. Looking at it that's obviously just footage from the first two films that's been altered. I was so excited at first that I didn't register how obviously fake it is. Ignore me.

*is ignored*

Given that what Peter-Man said about the costume is directly contradicted by the trailer, I'm calling bullshit.

However, someone in that thread has posted the spoilers from eons back... and it gets the Harry costume (face mask, goggles, black gloves etc.) absolutely spot on. So I'm inclined to believe the rest of it. Make of it what you will : http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=23709#1201293

"Given that what Peter-Man said about the costume is directly contradicted by the trailer, I'm calling bullshit."

Well it could be bullshit, but nothing is directly contradicted by the trailer - not really. I'm not inclined to think so, but that rags costume could just be a trial by Harry, for example, as he tests out the hover-board thing - anything like that. There's nothing in the trailer saying that he *never* uses his father's entire costume.

When will this be shown again? :

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JUcktiQxC9Q&search=%22amazing%20spiderman%22

It's been confirmed that Harry doesn't wear his father's costume, just uses the tech. Also he is NOT Hobgoblin.