Spider-man 3 without Sandman?

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

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.

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.

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 😄