|You tell 'em Tiger.|
This article is about Spider-Man 3 because, well, Knight's next video is going to be a tribute to the Spider-Man Trilogy. So, you know, this seemed fitting. I digress, however, and well, if Spider-Man 3 was released in 2012, eight years after Spider-Man 2, have no doubt that it would not be hated as much. I'm talking about the film being released as it was, wholly unedited, just filmed in 2010 and released in 2012. Yes, what if Spider-Man 3 was made eight years after Spider-Man 2?
|Anybody care to argue?|
You see, coming right off of The Avengers and squeezed right in between The Dark Knight Rises (much like The Amazing Spider-Man) the third flick would undoubtedly been seen by fans much of the same way as they did the reboot, a stepping stone from one awesome movie to the next. Only this time the stepping stone would have meant more because it would have been released eight years after. There would have been much more hype surrounding Venom, meaning this would have made at least a bit more than it did in 2007.
|Frozen; I now wonder who that guy in the blue suit is.|
Fan reaction to the film would have likely again been split, but here is the thing, unlike in 2007 where those who liked the film hid in a closet like gays, in 2012, their opinion would have been far louder. Why? Because being wedged in between The Avengers and also featuring an ensemble cast, that would have been a point for complaint, a loud one I daresay, a petty one I know. The Venom thing would have been met with mixed reception again, but only this time, with people being smarter, they wouldn't use that as an excuse to lambast the entire film. Instead, with all the mixed reception to Venom and all the positive to everything else (except the Sunday Stroll [which I like]), the film would have been received like Iron Man 3 was. It wouldn't change much, but it would have been seen in a better light.