Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A lot of people hated this movie, to me, it was just a really big Spider-man movie. It had the same format, creativity and camera shots as the last 2, but everything was amplified.

Most of the complaints however, centered around disappointement of the villains. There was too many, not enough Venom, new goblin wasn't developed enough, not enough Venom, Venom was all wrong, not enough Venom, etc. but no complaints about Sandman, except he should've been in another movie.

So I was thinking, what if Sandman wasn't in this movie. He could be in a spin-off TV special, on hiatus til the 4th, whatever. Would that have made this movie what everyone expected and loved?

Seeing it now, I guess Venom and Goblin fans would've loved it more.

Thoughts?

How about...no venom.....sandman and Goblin were enough and to be honest....the sandman was portrayed much better......venom should have never been in the movie.....he should of just been a stand alone villain in another spidey movie

I reckon Venom shoulda come at the end of no.3, leave it on a cliffhanger and make a little hype for a 4th movie

Originally posted by starlock
How about...no venom.....sandman and Goblin were enough and to be honest....the sandman was portrayed much better......venom should have never been in the movie.....he should of just been a stand alone villain in another spidey movie Originally posted by steverules_2
I reckon Venom shoulda come at the end of no.3, leave it on a cliffhanger and make a little hype for a 4th movie Venom was the whole emotional side to the Spider-man film.

The middle section of Spider-man 1 had him trying to get with Mary-Jane, the middle section of Spider-man 2 was "do you love me?" and the middle section of Spider-man 3 was Spider-man being an ass.

In Spider-man 1, he was testing out his powers, in Spider-man 2 it was losing his powers, in Spider-man 3 it was getting his new powers.

Take out Venom, you got a totally different movie.

Like Steve said Venom should have come at the end, and then he should have been the sole villain of 4.

I don't think it was the sandman really that was the problem he was much better then his comic counterpart my real gripe was the new goblin, we had the green goblin personally I don't want to see another one.

How it should have worked is Sandman vs Spider-man with Harry on his last mission for revenge having him die at the end then at the end of the film we see Venom and it ends on him saying something like he does in TAS.

You can't just shoe in on of the "Big 3" Spider-man villains like that, Goblin, Ock and Venom deserve a whole film as the villain, not having to share it with anyone else.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Like Steve said Venom should have come at the end, and then he should have been the sole villain of 4.

I don't think it was the sandman really that was the problem he was much better then his comic counterpart my real gripe was the new goblin, we had the green goblin personally I don't want to see another one.

How it should have worked is Sandman vs Spider-man with Harry on his last mission for revenge having him die at the end then at the end of the film we see Venom and it ends on him saying something like he does in TAS.

You can't just shoe in on of the "Big 3" Spider-man villains like that, Goblin, Ock and Venom deserve a whole film as the villain, not having to share it with anyone else. Which is what I mean by getting rid of Sandman, but you can still have the new Goblin, as it's foreshadowed in the previous film, and fits in. They're friends, but Harry wants vengeance and Peter is possessed.

I liked Church's performance in SM3, tbh. He was great. Wouldn't like to "trade" him for more Venom.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
I liked Church's performance in SM3, tbh. He was great. Wouldn't like to "trade" him for more Venom. I liked him too, I thought it was great, but taking him out would mean a lot more Venom and Goblin scenes, which the fans wanted.

Thinking more clearly, Steverules makes a good point too. Spider-man 3's end felt like a new beginning, and that would be Venom. Wrap everything up and then have something new for the fourth film.

Originally posted by steverules_2
I reckon Venom shoulda come at the end of no.3, leave it on a cliffhanger and make a little hype for a 4th movie



Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Like Steve said Venom should have come at the end, and then he should have been the sole villain of 4.

I don't think it was the sandman really that was the problem he was much better then his comic counterpart my real gripe was the new goblin, we had the green goblin personally I don't want to see another one.

How it should have worked is Sandman vs Spider-man with Harry on his last mission for revenge having him die at the end then at the end of the film we see Venom and it ends on him saying something like he does in TAS.

You can't just shoe in on of the "Big 3" Spider-man villains like that, Goblin, Ock and Venom deserve a whole film as the villain, not having to share it with anyone else.





I agree with these two. Take out Venom and just place him at the end of the film as a sign of what is to come.


I would also like to remove all of the song and dance routines. Any part that had a main character singing or trying to dance should have been removed.

Originally posted by Magic_attack
I agree with these two. Take out Venom and just place him at the end of the film as a sign of what is to come.


I would also like to remove all of the song and dance routines. Any part that had a main character singing or trying to dance should have been removed.

Indeed and with Venom at the end the audience can expect something truly exciting with the next film, Venom doesn't work when he just pop's up; he has appear as like the coming of a storm so for instance you'll see him in issue 315 but it's not until 316 that he begins his fight with Spider-man, seeing Venom play cat and mouse and stalk peter would have overall made a better film, 3 could have been like the start of a hurricane for example with Venom being the eye of the storm in Spider-man 4.

Personally like I said before I don't think you can just shoe in one of the "big 3" villains especially not Venom, he works best when he's at a one on one with Spider-man taking his time and generally taunting Spider-man and his loved ones.

Venom as the main villain, Harry as the new Goblin who heroically dies at the end and no Sandman-uncle-Ben-killer. That was bs.

They coulda just had sandman NOT be the killer of uncle Ben...

And do what...make him a mindless thug like in the comics, oh no, you may not like it but I'd take him being uncle Ben's killer any day especially since it gives him some character and motivation concerning the plot/his own personality.

It does give him motivation, but it kinda takes away Pete's motivation to be Spider-man. He's no longer responsible for uncle Ben's murder...

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
And do what...make him a mindless thug like in the comics, oh no, you may not like it but I'd take him being uncle Ben's killer any day especially since it gives him some character and motivation concerning the plot/his own personality.

But the reason Spiderman started fighting crime is cause he didn't stop the guy who killed Ben and after that he knew he had to fight crime and stop others from getting hurt. Sandman already had a motivation...his daughter. He is a mindless thug in the comics yes but they didn't have to make him Uncle B's killer just to make him not mindless or whatever.

lol Uncle B. Sounds like a pimps name...

Originally posted by steverules_2
But the reason Spiderman started fighting crime is cause he didn't stop the guy who killed Ben and after that he knew he had to fight crime and stop others from getting hurt. Sandman already had a motivation...his daughter. He is a mindless thug in the comics yes but they didn't have to make him Uncle B's killer just to make him not mindless or whatever.

This is true, maybe it's more to tie into the symbiote and Spider-man's darker side, if he was just trying to help his little girl then you wouldn't have an ample reason to make Spider-man go off the deep end and try and kill him, it does still flow well, he was after money for his daughter he accidentally killed uncle Ben, Spider-man acquires the symbiote, rages and tries to kill him. (I can't actually remember if he did partake in the heist for his little girl or not, I haven't watched it since it was in the theater so sorry if that's incorrect.)

If they had not made him Uncle Ben's killer then there would be no way to tie him to Spider-man, the Green Goblin and Doc Ock had a relationship with Peter/Spider-man before they became villains.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
This is true, maybe it's more to tie into the symbiote and Spider-man's darker side, if he was just trying to help his little girl then you wouldn't have an ample reason to make Spider-man go off the deep end and try and kill him, it does still flow well, he was after money for his daughter he accidentally killed uncle Ben, Spider-man acquires the symbiote, rages and tries to kill him. (I can't actually remember if he did partake in the heist for his little girl or not, I haven't watched it since it was in the theater so sorry if that's incorrect.)

If they had not made him Uncle Ben's killer then there would be no way to tie him to Spider-man, the Green Goblin and Doc Ock had a relationship with Peter/Spider-man before they became villains.

I think it woulda been nice if he hadn't been tied...I mean not every villain has to be tied in with him and tbh he doesn't need to be tied to him, he's a bad guy and spiderman stops bad guys...theres the tied in right there They probably added it in for a shock surprise and plus the guy who plays uncle B wanted to be in no.3

Originally posted by SamZED
lol Uncle B. Sounds like a pimps name...

Originally posted by steverules_2
I think it woulda been nice if he hadn't been tied...I mean not every villain has to be tied in with him and tbh he doesn't need to be tied to him, he's a bad guy and spiderman stops bad guys...theres the tied in right there They probably added it in for a shock surprise and plus the guy who plays uncle B wanted to be in no.3





I don't know just bringing in a villain without any connection to spider-man just seems a little bland it adds for him to be connected to Spider-man in some form, it works in the comics but just throwing a villain in movies just doesn't work.

Considering he's not what you would call a villain in the film, I think the main reason for him being uncle Bens killer was so they could tie the symbiote and it's whole dark side into the film.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I don't know just bringing in a villain without any connection to spider-man just seems a little bland it adds for him to be connected to Spider-man in some form, it works in the comics but just throwing a villain in movies just doesn't work.

Considering he's not what you would call a villain in the film, I think the main reason for him being uncle Bens killer was so they could tie the symbiote and it's whole dark side into the film.

They didn't need him to be a Uncle B's killer to tie in the dark side of the symbiote, I mean Pete's mood change and the way he was towards MJ was enough of a Tie in...I mean he tried to kill Sandman but they coulda just easily had him try and kill Eddie, that woulda given Eddie an even better motive for wanting to kill Pete

Originally posted by steverules_2
They didn't need him to be a Uncle B's killer to tie in the dark side of the symbiote, I mean Pete's mood change and the way he was towards MJ was enough of a Tie in...I mean he tried to kill Sandman but they coulda just easily had him try and kill Eddie, that woulda given Eddie an even better motive for wanting to kill Pete Have him angry at Harry as well. I mean, if Harry kept tourmenting Peter, that would've been pretty cool.

I would've kept Sandman, changed his role, and excluded Venom.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Have him angry at Harry as well. I mean, if Harry kept tourmenting Peter, that would've been pretty cool.

Yeah that to It woulda been better if Harry hadn't forgotten anything

I liked the movie. I really only have one thing to complain about. Venom should of been Bigger.

As excited as I was when I first heard about Venom being in this movie, I'm now convinced that he just never would have worked in a live-action film no matter what; Sandman either for that matter.

The villains from the first two were essentially guys who had some physical enhancements and technologically advanced weapons that allowed them to tangle with Spider-Man. As far-fetched as they were, they were easy to buy. Then comes Spider-Man 3 and all of a sudden, we're introduced to a man who's entire molecular structure is altered to the point where he can become sand and a living creature from outer space; while that stuff is easy to swallow in comic books, it just doesn't translate well to the big screen. There's a sort of cheesiness to it that doesn't help the film, like when they tried to make Batman films more comic-bookey like Batman and Robin and Batman Forever.

As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that instead of Sandman and Venom, the perfect villainous duo for the 3rd film would have been Shocker and Scorpion. Think about it: With both these guys, you once again have two villains with the kind of weaponry and enhancements that aren't that far off as the Goblin or Doc Ock so the feel of the movies still feels consistent. With Shocker you have a guy who can blast Spidey from a distance and wear a suit that can absorb his punches, making him a threat at any range. With Scorpion, you have a guy who can match Spidey in strength, speed, and agility like Venom could but you also have that whip-like tail to bash Spidey around like Dock Ock's tentacles did in the second film.

You can still have Harry attack Peter like he originally did, but instead of getting amnesia, he'll lose badly to Peter and just become so determined to take him down that he’ll try to develop a special suit to help gain an edge (ie the Scorpion suit), which he can hire Mac Gargan to test out. You can still have that whole story of Peter finding Uncle Ben's killer, revealed to be a wanted burglar, Herman Shultz (which I think would easier to buy than the Sandman we were obviously supposed to sympathize with) who has resurfaced and somehow obtained his new suit and power gauntlets, becoming Shocker. Gargan can test out his Scorpion suit by fighting Spider-Man, and maybe even nearly beating him, but then go insane once he sees what kind of freak he's become and then start to set his sights to get back at both Harry and Spider-Man.

You can also still have the subplot with Peter wanting to propose to MJ, but instead of making them both so damn whiney about it, the conflict Peter faces is whether or not he can really risk bringing MJ into his dangerous lifestyle, especially after dealing with the Scorpion hunting him down.

Of course, Shocker and Scorpion can eventually team up to take down Spider-Man , with Harry joining to help him after he comes to revelation as how Peter was always his friend or some other such BS.
And MJ (instead of being the damsel in distress for the 3rd ****ing time in a row) can of course do something as well to help them, like maybe distract Scorpion so Spidey can get the drop on him, thus showing she’s perfectly capable of handling Peter’s lifestyle. In the battle, Scorpion will die in the fight, but in his last moments he’ll still try to sting Peter with his tail, which Harry will take instead, redeeming himself, but also putting him in a coma. Shocker will be stripped of suit and arrested and of course you can have that clichéd moment where Peter looks like he’s about to finish Shocker off and avenge his uncle but stops himself from doing it.

And blammo, there's your movie.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
I liked the movie. I really only have one thing to complain about. Venom should of been Bigger.

He was way to small in the movie

Originally posted by Accel
As excited as I was when I first heard about Venom being in this movie, I'm now convinced that he just never would have worked in a live-action film no matter what; Sandman either for that matter.

The villains from the first two were essentially guys who had some physical enhancements and technologically advanced weapons that allowed them to tangle with Spider-Man. As far-fetched as they were, they were easy to buy. Then comes Spider-Man 3 and all of a sudden, we're introduced to a man who's entire molecular structure is altered to the point where he can become sand and a living creature from outer space; while that stuff is easy to swallow in comic books, it just doesn't translate well to the big screen. There's a sort of cheesiness to it that doesn't help the film, like when they tried to make Batman films more comic-bookey like Batman and Robin and Batman Forever.

Its a superhero movie. Aliens and villains with powers are never out of place in a superhero movie. They would translate great to a big screen. Its not that hard if they would have been a bit more faithful to the source material.

Sandman wasnt the problem with this movie. The movie would have been fine if Venom wasnt shoved down our throats in the end with a whopping 15 minutes of screen time.

I'm not an overpaid hollywood director or anything and I'm thoroughly convinced that if I was given this budget and the materials Raimi was given I could have made a much better Spiderman film.

The films focus on the dark side of the symbiote was alright with the acception of the dancing and such. As a matter of fact. The movie could have seriously ended right there on the bell tower scene with the scene where the camera zooms up onto Venom screaming.

Then the fourth film could have focused on Venom stalking Spiderman and taunting him.

Other notable changes would be:
A large Venom with THE tongue.
"We"
And no Sandman Uncle Ben killer.

Venom looked smaller and less buff than he was in the comics. It's also gay that both the symbiote and Eddie got killed from one Goblin bomb (or whatever you call it). I was expecting Venom to return in Spider-Man 4 but I don't see that happening. Who's the writer? I want to give him a piece of my mind

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Its a superhero movie. Aliens and villains with powers are never out of place in a superhero movie. They would translate great to a big screen. Its not that hard if they would have been a bit more faithful to the source material.
If we’re talking about a Superman movie, then yeah, aliens would be fine. In a more grounded film like Spider-Man though, not so much.

Even in the comics, the idea of the alien symbiote and Venom already kind of strays away from the central theme of Spider-Man, which is science gone awry. Introducing new concepts like aliens and mysticism every now and then in Spider-Man comics is fine considering the character has nearly five decades worth of stories, but when you only have three films to tell a story, it’s better to not deviate from Spidey’s general themes at all. This also includes villains who are victims to their own ambitions and science experiments, like Goblin and Doc Ock. The first two films covered these ideas nicely, but the third film heads off too far from the reality created by the other two.

Sandman fits into the whole “science gone awry” aspect of Spider-Man better than Venom, which makes him a stronger villain thematically, imo, but not by much. The problem is even then he just seems to far-fetched for my tastes. It'd be kind of akin to seeing Clayface appear in the next Batman flick.

There were just so many better characters and routes to explore than Sandman, the symbiote, Venom, and “Dark Peter,” but they jumped the gun and what we got was Spider-Man 3.

I dunno. I dont think straying from "science gone awry" was what made the film bad at all. I think stuffing too many villains in, losing the amount of focus on development that the first two had, and rushing one of the most popular villains in the history of comics with 15 minutes of screentime and an un-accurate portrayal was what disappointed most fans.

I say a spiderman film with an accurate portrayal of Venom as a standalone Villain would have been great.

Originally posted by lord xyz
A lot of people hated this movie, to me, it was just a really big Spider-man movie. It had the same format, creativity and camera shots as the last 2, but everything was amplified.

Most of the complaints however, centered around disappointement of the villains. There was too many, not enough Venom, new goblin wasn't developed enough, not enough Venom, Venom was all wrong, not enough Venom, etc. but no complaints about Sandman, except he should've been in another movie.

So I was thinking, what if Sandman wasn't in this movie. He could be in a spin-off TV special, on hiatus til the 4th, whatever. Would that have made this movie what everyone expected and loved?

Seeing it now, I guess Venom and Goblin fans would've loved it more.

Thoughts?

Sandman was the only part of Spider-man 3 that worked, mostly because it was the only part of Spider-man that could work. Venom doesn't work. He doesn't work in the comics. He doesn't work as a foil for Spider-man. He doesn't work on his own. He is the epitome of a a 90s character, in that he only exists because he looks "cool." The guy about as a appealing as a kick square in the junk.

Venom and X-Treme Goblin are a recipe for failure.

Harry Goblin being in the movie was pretty much a given. You can't end the 2nd film on the cliffhanger they did and then ignore it for the 3rd film.

It's just that the shoddy way they executed and then resolved that whole conflict was one of the many flaws of the movie.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
I dunno. I dont think straying from "science gone awry" was what made the film bad at all. I think stuffing too many villains in, losing the amount of focus on development that the first two had, and rushing one of the most popular villains in the history of comics with 15 minutes of screentime and an un-accurate portrayal was what disappointed most fans.

I say a spiderman film with an accurate portrayal of Venom as a standalone Villain would have been great.

Exactly, Venom works best on his own one on one with Spider-man, It also gives more freedom for Venom to stalk Spider-man and toy with him, if he had been a stand alone villain in 4 he would have been much more of a sinister threat.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Sandman was the only part of Spider-man 3 that worked, mostly because it was the only part of Spider-man that could work. Venom doesn't work. He doesn't work in the comics. He doesn't work as a foil for Spider-man. He doesn't work on his own. He is the epitome of a a 90s character, in that he only exists because he looks "cool." The guy about as a appealing as a kick square in the junk.

Venom and X-Treme Goblin are a recipe for failure.

I can't say I agree there is always a reason why someone is popular not from the times but something that works, something that at the time of creation was needed; Venom filled the gap for a new breed of villain one just interested in killing Spider-man and more importantly a villain on the same level as Spider-man! (blocking his spider sense and having all of spidey's abilities.) I would also like to point out Venom first featured in the 80's and had plenty of stories before the 90's arose, sadly it was during the 90's he declined some what.

If he was just a "fad" he wouldn't have lasted as long as he did, his reason of hating spider-man is weak granted but he's a very dangerous, psychopathic and at times humorous villain and I belive thats why he's liked so much, also I mean come on the alien symbiote angle is pretty creative you have to admit.

You can't really put Sandman on his own because one of the whole reasons he was so cool was because he didn't want to be a bad guy. He just wanted to get the money to help his daughter and he had cool sand powers. Without someone to coerce him into doing something big he'll probably stick to robbing and running. Not much of a villain.