Spider-man 3 without Sandman?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



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?

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

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

lord xyz
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.

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.

lord xyz
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.

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

lord xyz
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.

Magic_attack
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.

Neo Darkhalen
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.

SamZED
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.

steverules_2
They coulda just had sandman NOT be the killer of uncle Ben...

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.

SamZED
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...

steverules_2
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. wink 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.

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

Neo Darkhalen
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. wink 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.

steverules_2
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 smile 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...

smokin'

Neo Darkhalen
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 smile They probably added it in for a shock surprise and plus the guy who plays uncle B wanted to be in no.3



smokin'

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.

steverules_2
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 big grin

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

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

steverules_2
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 smile It woulda been better if Harry hadn't forgotten anything

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

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.

Accel

steverules_2
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

Micheal_Myers
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.

Nemesis X
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 mad

Accel

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.

srankmissingnin
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.

Accel
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.

Neo Darkhalen
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.

Doctor-Alvis
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.

BloodRain
The same layout as the first film. Symbyote comes to Earth, preferably on the shuttle, then latches onto Spiderman. Sandman attacks, Pete loses all the while some fight is happening with MJ (Add something about Harry here). In his anger/sadness the black suit bonds and he does a similar montage like when he first became spiderman... 'cept with a darker twist on it. Loses MJ, beats sandman an inch of his life beats Harry. Follows to the bell scene. Now 'clean' he goes after sandman and wins. (Add Harry here somehow) Ends with Pete and MJ with each other or something. Final scene is Brock, who fell to similar circumstances as the movie, with the 'Venom birth' scene the last thing shown. >.> and more Spider action and less dancing...

chomperx9
they should have just stuck with the symbiote story and leave sandman and goblin out. when theres to many characters in a comic movie it becomes childish. people would rather watch one long story that sticks to one character. 5 mins this villain 5 mins the next one back and fourth makes it childish and none entertaining because there isnt enough time really for a full story on all the characters. they should have saved sandman for the next movie.

KCJ506
It was set up so that Harry would become GG2 at the end of SM2. They couldn't just pretend that didn't happen.

Venom shouldn't have been in this movie to begin with. He is a character with a complex backstory in the comics, and a role that demands that the attention be focused on him. A character like him needed a big build-up and there's no other way to do it except spanning the plot over multiple films.

The story arc that had been set up for two films was for Harry to be come the big bad, not some alien symbiote who hadn't even shown up yet. There was another story going on. But fans wanted Venom so badly and Arad not being patient enough to wait until the goblin story was done, forced Raimi to change up his story and cram in a character that he didn't care for. Venom overshadowed Harry, and was used to sell tickets.

Venom had absolutely no foreshadowing in the movie series (except for that line in SM1 about "Eddie's" pictures, which seems to have been ignored). No matter how they did it, Venom was going to be rushed and Harry was going to get the shaft. We never got that final confrontation feeling for the finale between them on top of a cathedral during a rain, or some epic battle, instead we got a ridiculous combo of villains that don't fit well with one another.

It probably would have been much better if it was GG2, Sandman/Vulture like Raimi wanted it. Because Vulture's much less complicated than Venom and he would have been tied with Sandman from the start and would have shared scenes with him. Plus he didn't have a character arc or descent to evil since he would have began the film as a pure evil villain. That's two villain story arcs going on instead of three completely unrelated ones. It was that they pushed Raimi to put Venom, so, we couldn't see good potential for a multiple villain movie. Sandman and Venom do not go together at all.

Plus Vulture's manipulation would make the Sandman's villainous actions make more sense. One of my problems with Sandman's arc in SM3 is that they build him up as an overall nice guy but he attacks police and civilians and at the end he willingly joins a plan to kidnap an innocent woman so he could kill SM3. Removing Vulture's manipulation just makes him look like a douche.

Mickeydees
i think if he stayed mean and emo and had seriously hurt mj then the movie would have been better liked

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.