Raimi: "I have total creative control for Spider-Man 4"

[Joker]

Link: http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/03/raimi-i-will-have-total-creati.html

Yes! Avi Arad can keep his nose out of this one.

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

Awesome news! I'm hoping it'll be better than SM1 & 2. :up:

[Spider-ManHero12]

Fantastic! Just amazing! :up:

[American_Hobo]

Well I dont think this movie will be better than Spiderman 1 and 2, but hopefully better than 3.
And I'm glad that Raimi is taking full control over it.

[Joker]

Well, Sam admitted there that he had no creative control over the third one. So it has to be better than the 3rd one. I can't imagine it getting worse than that. I think we might not see the Stacys back.

I don't think Sam wanted to used them either.

[JaD]

:applaud

Just the news I need to hear to know 4 will be in good hands :up:

[SamuraiSon6]

best news yet!

i would also like to add that raimi was such a gentleman in that interview as well, never once just pushed blame solely on anyone, although everyone knows who was primarily at fault

[Immortalfire]

Excellent..keep Arad out of the way, and you're good to go Sam :up:

[Figs]

Great news!

That gives me much more confidence this will be on par with the first two Spider-Man films.

He says he never really had full control of the first two films either(I already knew about the mess with part 3, in the interview you can tell he doesn't want to name drop but could if he wanted to...looking at you Avi).

I wonder if a number of problems the hardcore fans complain about will be fixed...like Parker being a real man like in the comics and not this big pussy.

[NewYorkSpider]

This is great news!

[[A]]

didn't he got total creative control last time.. ?

[NewYorkSpider]

No. Avi Arad shoved Venom in his face when Raimi didn't want to use him. Raimi's original idea was to have Vulture in SM3.

[American_Hobo]

Sandman and Vulture combination would've been great.

[SpaceWay2009]

I agree with everyone. Great news! And Raimi was nice to not mention any names who might or were at fault for SM3.

Good luck, Raimi! I have faith in you! :yay: :up:

[Mister J]

Certainly a step in right direction in the franchise's recovery from SM3.

[ross2287]

Not much I can say that you all haven't said already.

I'm even more excited for this now. :up:

[FlawlessVictory]

No. Avi Arad shoved Venom in his face when Raimi didn't want to use him. Raimi's original idea was to have Vulture in SM3.

<Sigh> What could have been. Yea, Vulture is not that great of a villain, but having him be the third villain would have been perfect because not many care about how he would be used or how much time he would have received. Made perfect sense. But yea, we know the Arad situation and it was Ziskin who "pushed" Raimi into using the Stacy's for this film.

Producers Beefed Up Spidey 3

Sam Raimi, writer/director of Spider-Man 3, told SCI FI Wire that he had a smaller sequel in mind with fewer characters, until producers Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin suggested adding a key villain and a key love interest. "I had worked on the story with my brother, Ivan, and primarily it was a story that featured the Sandman [Thomas Haden Church]," Raimi said in a news conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., last week. "It was really about Peter, Mary Jane, Harry and that new character."

That's Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire), Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (James Franco). Then Ziskin suggested adding Gwen Stacy, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a popular character in the Marvel comics, who was Peter Parker's first love interest before she perished and before Mary Jane Watson appeared.

"Well, my brother and I had written in the story about another woman that recognized Peter and knew who he was at this dinner and that Mary Jane got jealous of her," Raimi said. "But Laura Ziskin, my producer, said, 'Let's make it Gwen.' And I said, 'I don't think I should, because, ... really, Gwen was introduced before Mary Jane in the comic books, and now I'm introducing her later, and ... she's not even in high school anymore. She's in college. And I'm afraid if I introduce Gwen, the fans will have all these expectations, which we're not going to deliver in this picture.' And she said, 'Well, the fans would much rather have Gwen make an introduction now, and you can do what you need to do or someone can do what they need to do in the fourth picture with her, but at least you've introduced her, and they would appreciate that.'"

Raimi said he considered the suggestion. "After much soul-searching, I thought, 'Maybe it's true. I've already screwed up the order, and I've already started the Mary Jane [storyline] first,'" Raimi said. "'Whenever [Gwen's] introduced, she'll be introduced in the wrong order. I might as well give the fans the introduction to Gwen.' So I took her advice and named her Gwen Stacy and therefore connected her to a policeman who had been on the periphery of the scenes [and became her father, Capt. Stacy, played by James Cromwell]. Made a little stronger relationship between them but, not much, just enough to be true to the fact that she was his daughter. That's about all."

As he has discussed previously, Raimi added that it was Arad's idea to add the villain Venom to the mix. "Avi Arad, my partner and the former president of Marvel at the time, said to me, 'Sam, ... you're not paying attention to the fans enough,'" Raimi said. "'You need to think about them. You've made two movies now with your favorite villains, and now you're about to make another one with your favorite villains. The fans love Venom. He is the fan favorite. All Spider-Man readers love Venom, and even though you came from '70s Spider-Man, this is what the kids are thinking about. Please incorporate Venom. Listen to the fans now.' And so that's really where I realized, 'OK, maybe I don't have the whole Spider-Man universe in my head. I need to learn a little bit more about Spider-Man and maybe incorporate this villain to make some of the real die-hard fans of Spider-Man finally happy.'" Spider-Man 3 opens May 4. —Patrick Lee, News Editor


http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41291





This is great news to hear though. :up:

[Jack O Lantern]

Not to mention the Vulture could have easily manipulated Sandman if he were the sciencetist with the cure. Maybe he would even have created him

[Jick09]

If total creative control means "making Sandman a good guy and Uncle Ben's killer" kind of control, I'm skeptic about it. He can direct it the way he wants, I just don't want him touching the story.

[Jack O Lantern]

Sandman was a good guy in the comics for a while.

And to be honest it would be weird if he did that story in Spider-Man 4

[Spider-ManHero12]

I wonder what Sam will be doing with Gwen now? Tbh, I'm thinking she's going to have her just become friends with Peter & MJ. I mean, I know Sam didn't have the Stacy family in mind for S-M3, (it worked, IMO though), but since he did, as I said, I'm just curious what will happen next with Gwen and Captain Stacy? Maybe, Spidey Might get close to Captain Stacy like in the comics.

[Figs]

That's what I've been wondering too Spider-ManHero12.

I'm sure he won't just drop them out of the series, if he did it would kind of be weird if you watch all 4 films back to back. Or at least the third and fourth.

[Robin91939]

This is good and bad.

Good because he will tell a story that he is comfortable with and will have a passion for. That is good, because it was obvious that he didn't give a damn about the Stacey's in this film, because he didn't feel that they belonged. Partially so with Brock, though he was slightly more important.

Bad, because he was the one who made Flint Marko the killer of Uncle Ben. He also wouldn't let Peter go fully dark when he was in the black suit. Spider-man: The Animated Series and Spectacular Spider-man did a darker depiction of the black suited Spider-man/Symbiote Peter than a PG-13 film was able to deliver....that's not right.

Kids could have accepted a dark Peter and we really could have seen the city grow to hate him, see his family/friends question why he's wearing the suit. This would have made the moment when he went back to wear the red suite in the 3rd act that much more epic....and it would have been more redeeming. Instead, the kids saw a guy that likes to dance get angry a few times.....and eat cookies. This was Rami's creative control, too.

Then again, he didn't fully understand the whole symbiote suit thing anyway....

If he makes it like Spider-man and Spider-man 2, I think we'll be fine.

-R

[zeptron]

Now maybe people will stop placing the blame for SM3 just on Raimi. All he was doing was taking orders from Arad.

[3dman27]

this is good news

[Darkness Falls]

very good news :)

[dark_b]

i already said in more threads.
only venom was forced? am i right?

what about the dancing,crying ,different killer for uncle ben,sandman becoming a good guy and spiderman forgives him that he killed people(hoooooooooooow). this was all avi?

[dark_b]

people need to decide now. was Raimi having creatice control the first two times? if he never had creative control then we dont know what will happen now. could be even worse.

if he had creative control the first two times and didnt have the third time he is a complete idiot. why would you let the studio take over the story and use you as a puppet?
why is here Raimi saying that hes good friend Avi Arad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XKhcVjRu2Y

so many questions. and not enough answers.

[November Rain]

i trust raimi as far as my car can throw him

[venomvsspidey]

^^^

and that aint far haha

[November Rain]

i'd like to find out

[Reikowolf]

sweet. Spider-Man 2 will finally get the sequel it deserves

bring on Kraven and Lizard

[Reikowolf]

people need to decide now. was Raimi having creatice control the first two times? if he never had creative control then we dont know what will happen now. could be even worse.

if he had creative control the first two times and didnt have the third time he is a complete idiot. why would you let the studio take over the story and use you as a puppet?
why is here Raimi saying that hes good friend Avi Arad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XKhcVjRu2Y

so many questions. and not enough answers.

Sony and Marvel were paying him to make a movie. They are considering toy, marketing, comic sales.
I'm amazed he's had the amount of control he's had. Somewhere around 2, Marvel decided that it was because of them that the movies were doing well, not because of Raimi.

They voiced themselves further and Raimi trusted their opinion even though he didn't think it would work on screen. He did the best job possible but has learned from this and is taking a harder stance on his opinion for the movie.

[dark_b]

in other words.....more dancing? because that was from raimi. more love dialoge from kirsten and tobey

''tell me you love me''

[Reikowolf]

in other words.....more dancing? because that was from raimi. more love dialoge from kirsten and tobey

''tell me you love me''

I'm pretty sure that wasn't his idea as he never wanted Venom in the script. The entire dance scene was a culmination of that.

-Peter uses Gwen to make MJ jealous
-The symbiote makes Peter cocky
-Peter ends up hitting MJ

"Okay Sam, we have a winning formula here, but the fans want to see Venom as he is the fan favourite. So this is what you do, we keep your Sandman idea but we enhance the revenge aspect to his link with the death of Uncle Ben by making him have the black suit, we also make him cocky from the suit and this puts a strain on his relationship with MJ. Also, he begins to hit on Gwen which causes issues with Eddie Brock who later becomes Venom. Also, because him and MJ are having problems, this is when Harry will come in and use it to his revenge. We can play that part up as his heart break makes him angry towards MJ. Now, this is going to be a lot of drama for the kids, so we got to keep it upbeat and have some humor in there too. People loved the montage in SM2, do that again but make it so that Peter seems cocky."

I think the only story element I had an issue with was that Sandman was Uncle Ben's killer. I think they had enough with Harry's revenge and didn't need to add that in.

hmmm, I wonder if someone were to make a cut of SM3 and eleminate the Venom factor, or at least tone it down a bit. I think the movie may play out a lot better as you have the Harry/Peter story as well as Gwen in there. All of this while he also needs to deal with the threat of the Sandman.

[dark_b]

with all due respect ....are you trying to say now that the dancing was from arad? this was all Raimi's style.

maybe he didnt want venom in the movie. but this was hes F... interpretation of bad Peter Parker.

[November Rain]

*inhale*
raimi makes spidey a likeable victim of circumstances

peter parker is actually an arrogant bastard stuck in life long attonement. he shouldn't be liked by the viewers let alone the people in his own universe.

his only redeeming characteristic is his ability to stick at doing the right thing in a completely selfless manner.

i want more 'hey he stole that guy's pizza' and less 'thank you mr spiderman' and parades please.

I don't think i've ever seen such poor adaptation of a character widely accepted by 'fans'.

I'll know you'll complain about my stance but in all the great stories of spiderman, his greatest victories have come at a cost of something personal. He's the captain of bitter sweet. Raimi's spiderman pretty much always has his cake and eats it.

i also hope raimis clears up peter's abadoning of uncle ben in part 2, never to re-affirm himself with it. MJ's his sole beacon of righteousness in the films, aunt may and uncle ben guilt is irrelevant and he doesn't mind extending fights with ock while her life's in the balance OR moving out of his home MONTHS after the goblin blew it up, or helping her with bills or anything remotely responsible.

anyone that trusts raimi is destined for dissapointment, all of the basics lie in amazing fantasy, to overlook this obvious characterisation issue is beyond ignorance. He therefore either has the attention span of a goldfish or is illiterate.

*exhale*

i apologise for this rant, this topic really gets me...

[venom892]

I just hope the movie is on par with 1 and 2.I believe a movie with only Sandman and Harry as villains would have worked so well.Of course the whole Sandman killing Ben thing would have still sucked and I'm sure those crappy useless scenes between MJ and Harry dancing and cooking eggs and the over dramatic crying would have still been there.So you never know.But i just wish Venom would have never been pushed on Rami.

[Reikowolf]

I'm trying to say the dancing was from Alvin Sargent

but

I regress.

I can't find a good argument to prove that the sequence was not Raimi's call other than he did not have the same creative control over SM3 as he did SM1-2.

[Jack O Lantern]

*inhale*
raimi makes spidey a likeable victim of circumstances

peter parker is actually an arrogant bastard stuck in life long attonement. he shouldn't be liked by the viewers let alone the people in his own universe.

his only redeeming characteristic is his ability to stick at doing the right thing in a completely selfless manner.

i want more 'hey he stole that guy's pizza' and less 'thank you mr spiderman' and parades please.

I don't think i've ever seen such poor adaptation of a character widely accepted by 'fans'.

I'll know you'll complain about my stance but in all the great stories of spiderman, his greatest victories have come at a cost of something personal. He's the captain of bitter sweet. Raimi's spiderman pretty much always has his cake and eats it.

i also hope raimis clears up peter's abadoning of uncle ben in part 2, never to re-affirm himself with it. MJ's his sole beacon of righteousness in the films, aunt may and uncle ben guilt is irrelevant and he doesn't mind extending fights with ock while her life's in the balance OR moving out of his home MONTHS after the goblin blew it up, or helping her with bills or anything remotely responsible.

anyone that trusts raimi is destined for dissapointment, all of the basics lie in amazing fantasy, to overlook this obvious characterisation issue is beyond ignorance. He therefore either has the attention span of a goldfish or is illiterate.

*exhale*

i apologise for this rant, this topic really gets me...


What in God's name are you even talking about? Did you even watch these movies? I can understand people disliking a movie and stuff but most of your "problems" with the series are factually wrong.

For example, Peter moved out of Aunt May's home before the Goblin attacked it, Peter decided to become Spider-Man again before MJ was in danger. Spidey 3 is all about Peter and Uncle Ben.

Like I said you don't have to like the movies but your complaints are simply wrong. But hey I guess that means I'm not a fan, just a 'fan'

[FlawlessVictory]

Fact of the matter is, if Raimi had total creative control over SM3 then we wouldn't have had the symbiote which means no silly dancing emo Parker. I understand it was Raimi's interpretation of "bad" Parker but still, he wanted nothing to do with that whole storyline to begin with. So the chances of him screwing it up were high since his heart wasn't in it from the beginning. And he has admitted to not really grasping/caring for that storyline and it's characters so the end result was bound to be weak.

[November Rain]

movie parker has not once contributed to aunt may's keep and let her live on her own after the goblin attacked it. so he moves out of harry's apartment and into his own without a thought for his aunt who has to deal with fixing her house and her health and parker doesn't give a rat's ass with it, it doesn't even contribute to the struggles of juggling life or his benefits of not having spidey.

consciously, sure, but subconciously, it was mj's danger that triggers his powers back, his powers cut when aunt may is in danger( i mean a safe did nearly drop on her head and then he leaves her alone at the bank wtf), and don't activate when innocents in a burning house but everything is peachy for MJ's life.

spidey 3 is about pete keeping his ego in check, not his relationship with his uncle. his ego is all over the place initially and then gets amplified with the symbiote, the uncle ben thing is a plot device, he doesn't even care about him after 'he kills sandman'. uncle ben's moral influence plays no further part in movie spidey once he gets out of that car in the dream sequence in part 2. he's flying solo

raimi screwed up movie parker from the first monologue in the first film and has continued to do it all the way through. I'm surprised it took people 3 films to find out

[LightningFlash]

Now maybe people will stop placing the blame for SM3 just on Raimi. All he was doing was taking orders from Arad.

He can say he will have creative control all he wants, because he still just took it up the ass with Arad. I would rather have heard something about Raimi saying "He gave me idiotic ideas, so I said 'screw you Avi'". But no.

A director should have ALL control with his movies.

[Reikowolf]

movie parker has not once contributed to aunt may's keep and let her live on her own after the goblin attacked it. so he moves out of harry's apartment and into his own without a thought for his aunt who has to deal with fixing her house and her health and parker doesn't give a rat's ass with it, it doesn't even contribute to the struggles of juggling life or his benefits of not having spidey.

consciously, sure, but subconciously, it was mj's danger that triggers his powers back, his powers cut when aunt may is in danger( i mean a safe did nearly drop on her head and then he leaves her alone at the bank wtf), and don't activate when innocents in a burning house but everything is peachy for MJ's life.

spidey 3 is about pete keeping his ego in check, not his relationship with his uncle. his ego is all over the place initially and then gets amplified with the symbiote, the uncle ben thing is a plot device, he doesn't even care about him after 'he kills sandman'. uncle ben's moral influence plays no further part in movie spidey once he gets out of that car in the dream sequence in part 2. he's flying solo

raimi screwed up movie parker from the first monologue in the first film and has continued to do it all the way through. I'm surprised it took people 3 films to find out

I don't agree with you but I think Aunt May should have played a much larger role in SM2. It should have been her held captive at the end of the movie and not MJ. Loosely like in the comic plot where she's sick and dying and Peter needs to get her medicine.

That way they could have had the movie parallel of one of the best Spidey/Ock fights with aunt may's life in the balance.

Even though that third act was a little weak, I still loved SM2.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/countdown33-1.jpg

[Jack O Lantern]

movie parker has not once contributed to aunt may's keep

Because he can't afford to, he hasn't got the money, a great source of guilt for him

and let her live on her own after the goblin attacked it. so he moves out of harry's apartment and into his own without a thought for his aunt who has to deal with fixing her house and her health and parker doesn't give a rat's ass with it, it doesn't even contribute to the struggles of juggling life or his benefits of not having spidey.

Why would he move back in with her? The Goblin is dead. Not to mention one of the reasons he isolates himself from the people he loves is to prtect should someone else discover his identity. Plus she is a grown woman and perfectly capable of looking after herself and wouldn't want to impose himself on her nephew who is just starting out in life.

And when he's not Spidey how is he meant to contribute to Aunt May when he has lost his only source of income?

Her health isn't even an issue in the films.

consciously, sure, but subconciously, it was mj's danger that triggers his powers back, his powers cut when aunt may is in danger( i mean a safe did nearly drop on her head and then he leaves her alone at the bank wtf), and don't activate when innocents in a burning house but everything is peachy for MJ's life.

No. His powers cut in and out as he loses them so they do the same when he is getting them back. Or did you think that the four year old girl actually had the strenght to pull him up? Or that a normal guy can fall 50 or so feet, crash into a wall and fall onto a car and walk around like nothing happened the day after? And the only reason he and Mj weren't killed when the car was thrown at him is because his spider-sense was already working.

spidey 3 is about pete keeping his ego in check, not his relationship with his uncle. his ego is all over the place initially and then gets amplified with the symbiote, the uncle ben thing is a plot device, he doesn't even care about him after 'he kills sandman'. uncle ben's moral influence plays no further part in movie spidey once he gets out of that car in the dream sequence in part 2. he's flying solo

It's all about his ego? So in that last scene with Sandman is Peter forgiving him for hurting his ego? No. His ego plays a part but so much of it is about Uncle Ben as well. It's a movie about fathers, two characters are driven to do wrong because of what happened to their fathers, one is driven to do wrong because he is a father

raimi screwed up movie parker from the first monologue in the first film and has continued to do it all the way through. I'm surprised it took people 3 films to find out

No he didn't. I take it you're referring to "It's a story all about a girl line." That was Peter's point of view was at the time. His journey is about growing up, in high school most guys lives revolve around a girl and then they grow up and see life has more important things to offer. Which is why by the end of the movie Peter has realised that it's not all about a girl and that is why he WALKS AWAY FROM HER! Because now his life is more important than that.

[Reikowolf]

NR had a good point about his powers and how MJ in danger brought them back...

but to present the argument. Spider-Man's powers gave out for a second in the bank when it was him and Ock one on one.

When Aunt May was kidnapped, his powers were in full "swing"

So its a flight of fight response where they kick in when he needs them. In the bank it was him versus Ock and May was in no direct danger until Ock took her as a hostage.

[November Rain]

Because he can't afford to, he hasn't got the money, a great source of guilt for him
alright, so if your grandma can't even afford $100 to open an account, you wouldnt move back in and then buy a scooter on top of that. instead selfless parker moves into another flat 'on his own', not even sharing, on his own.

you say parker's guilty, show me a scene in three films where he attempts to do something about it?


Why would he move back in with her? The Goblin is dead. Not to mention one of the reasons he isolates himself from the people he loves is to prtect should someone else discover his identity. Plus she is a grown woman and perfectly capable of looking after herself and wouldn't want to impose himself on her nephew who is just starting out in life.a) someone has to fix her broken house

b)someone has to earn money for th ekeep

if she was so capable, why was she behind on the bills in the first place?

this is the same parker who takes money from is aunt and is happy to empty out her wallet but pretty much lets her be and allows the family home to be loss. instead he goes and dwells his own problems with her, he never asks how she's doing or whether she wants help.

this is the same character who apparently would deal with the devil to save her, he doesn't give a rat's ass in the films.



And when he's not Spidey how is he meant to contribute to Aunt May when he has lost his only source of income?spidey times allows him better hours for a proper job to keep up with his own rent and help her with her bills. The whole job aspect of being rid of spidey is never really touched upon after he loses his job.


Her health isn't even an issue in the films. she was put in hospital over her house being blown up. They can't even follow with that continuity in the next films.

the attack from ock should have left her in a similar position.


No. His powers cut in and out as he loses them so they do the same when he is getting them back. Or did you think that the four year old girl actually had the strenght to pull him up? Or that a normal guy can fall 50 or so feet, crash into a wall and fall onto a car and walk around like nothing happened the day after? And the only reason he and Mj weren't killed when the car was thrown at him is because his spider-sense was already working.pete's got conscioius and sub-concious powers. his durability was always intact, they were intact when he fell all the way through the film. his spider sense is also subconcious, he has no concious means to activate it.

the child was supposed to be helping him, to what end remains to be seen but 'helping people up' is something that's been exagerrated in all films in hollywood.

it was aunt's may's life in danger that caused him to go after ock in the first place.

[quoe]
It's all about his ego? So in that last scene with Sandman is Peter forgiving him for hurting his ego? No. His ego plays a part but so much of it is about Uncle Ben as well. It's a movie about fathers, two characters are driven to do wrong because of what happened to their fathers, one is driven to do wrong because he is a father.peter is forgiving him because his ego got in the way of doing the responsible thing before and he was sorry for it.

[quote]
No he didn't. I take it you're referring to "It's a story all about a girl line." That was Peter's point of view was at the time. His journey is about growing up, in high school most guys lives revolve around a girl and then they grow up and see life has more important things to offer. Which is why by the end of the movie Peter has realised that it's not all about a girl and that is why he WALKS AWAY FROM HER! Because now his life is more important than that.That isn't what spidey is about, he's about ****ing up and the eternal road to redemption, a road with no rewards.

the initial monologue removes all guilt for any actions parker has up to uncle ben's death. The same goes for getting screwed over by the ring announcer. Parker didn't mess up because of circumstances, he's not a victim of wrong place/wrong time, he messes up because HE MESSED up.

you give peter parker a scapegoat to behave the way he did initially and you completely hinder his character arc from, powerless geek to super jock to humble guilt ridden hero.

you like him for trying to raise money for a girl, you find his jokes and acrobats funny and sweet, we cheer for him, we miss out how he underminds his aunt and uncle.

raimi made spidey a victim rather than culprit. You do that and you lose the heavy lesson of 'great power, great responsibility'. That's becase most people after watching would still screw over folks for money and allow bad things to happen to those who have wronged them.

and while he does leave mj by the end of the first film, the second film undoes it all and you see he doesn't really believe or understand the choices he's made. To the fact that he renounces Uncle Ben. the guy that he thinks he kills for in part 3 gets face palmed in the second film, unbelievable. Especially since he knows what happened the last time he walked out of a car with uncle ben...

all for a bit of totty...

[venomvsspidey]

this is the same parker who takes money from is aunt and is happy to empty out her wallet but pretty much lets her be and allows the family home to be loss. instead he goes and dwells his own problems with her, he never asks how she's doing or whether she wants help.


peter wasnt happy taking money from may. Member S-M2? peter didnt want to take it, but she said TAKE IT!! he wasnt happy with taking it.

[3dman27]

He can say he will have creative control all he wants, because he still just took it up the ass with Arad. I would rather have heard something about Raimi saying "He gave me idiotic ideas, so I said 'screw you Avi'". But no.

A director should have ALL control with his movies.

quoted for truth

[Reikowolf]

NR argument has movie Peter as this selfish human being... which is the basis of the character right?

I mean, he gets powers and uses them for his gain and loses his uncle....

So I'm not sure what you're upset about? other than your exact interpretation of the character isnt being portrayed.

Sure he's trying to redeem himself but he's also flawed as a human which makes the struggle that much harder.

We can't all be moral all of the time.

[Spider-ManHero12]

peter wasnt happy taking money from may. Member S-M2? peter didnt want to take it, but she said TAKE IT!! he wasnt happy with taking it. Indeed, and, btw, that was a great scene, I might add.

[Jack O Lantern]

alright, so if your grandma can't even afford $100 to open an account, you wouldnt move back in and then buy a scooter on top of that. instead selfless parker moves into another flat 'on his own', not even sharing, on his own.

He doesn't know that she is in trouble until the beginning of the movie, after he had his own apartment and the scooter.

you say parker's guilty, show me a scene in three films where he attempts to do something about it?

In Spidey 1 and Spidey 3 she is fine. In Spidey 2 he can't even help himself he's in that far over his head.

a) someone has to fix her broken house

The insurance company would probably be the ones

b)someone has to earn money for th ekeep

She has Uncle Ben's life insurance.

if she was so capable, why was she behind on the bills in the first place?


Because sometimes people fall behind. She is capable because when she did fall behind she didn't cry and moan, she moved out and found affordable accomindation, without even needing to ask Peter for his help.

this is the same parker who takes money from is aunt and is happy to empty out her wallet but pretty much lets her be and allows the family home to be loss. instead he goes and dwells his own problems with her, he never asks how she's doing or whether she wants help.

He only takes it after she breaks down in front of him. And he does ask her how whe's doing, after he finds the bill. Plus he's with her at the bank when she's trying to get a loan.

this is the same character who apparently would deal with the devil to save her, he doesn't give a rat's ass in the films.

When you need to use One More Day to back up your argument you really are in trouble.

[quoote]
spidey times allows him better hours for a proper job to keep up with his own rent and help her with her bills. The whole job aspect of being rid of spidey is never really touched upon after he loses his job.[/quote]

That's because it's only set over a couple of weeks

she was put in hospital over her house being blown up. They can't even follow with that continuity in the next films.

the attack from ock should have left her in a similar position.

She wasn't hurt in either incident, she was just scared after her run in with the GG.

pete's got conscioius and sub-concious powers. his durability was always intact, they were intact when he fell all the way through the film. his spider sense is also subconcious, he has no concious means to activate it.

the child was supposed to be helping him, to what end remains to be seen but 'helping people up' is something that's been exagerrated in all films in hollywood.

His durability was always intact? Then how did he hurt himself trying to break the door down?

And no the child was not helping him up, that was his strenght returning because he needed it.

it was aunt's may's life in danger that caused him to go after ock in the first place.


Yeah and it was the guilt of leaving her that made his powers cut out in the scene.


That isn't what spidey is about, he's about ****ing up and the eternal road to redemption, a road with no rewards.

It can be about more than one thing. And he doesn't get rewarded. At the end of Spidey 3 he is pretty much alone, it's not even clear if he's gotten back with MJ.

the initial monologue removes all guilt for any actions parker has up to uncle ben's death.[/qute]

How?
[quote]
The same goes for getting screwed over by the ring announcer. Parker didn't mess up because of circumstances, he's not a victim of wrong place/wrong time, he messes up because HE MESSED up.

you give peter parker a scapegoat to behave the way he did initially and you completely hinder his character arc from, powerless geek to super jock to humble guilt ridden hero.

you like him for trying to raise money for a girl, you find his jokes and acrobats funny and sweet, we cheer for him, we miss out how he underminds his aunt and uncle.

raimi made spidey a victim rather than culprit. You do that and you lose the heavy lesson of 'great power, great responsibility'. That's becase most people after watching would still screw over folks for money and allow bad things to happen to those who have wronged them.

And those people would be wrong to do that.
Just because the promoter cheats him doesn't give Peter an out at all. He decides, because it benefits him, that an armed robber could still run around New York doing what he wanted. And that's the only thing in Spider-Man's origin that you have to get right, that he put's himself above everybody else.

and while he does leave mj by the end of the first film, the second film undoes it all and you see he doesn't really believe or understand the choices he's made. To the fact that he renounces Uncle Ben. the guy that he thinks he kills for in part 3 gets face palmed in the second film, unbelievable. Especially since he knows what happened the last time he walked out of a car with uncle ben...

all for a bit of totty...

He doesn't renounce Uncle Ben, he renounces his responsiblity. There's a big difference. If he had of renounced Uncle Ben they wouldn't have had him visit his grave and then spill his guts to Aunt May. The metaphoar behind Spidey 2 is that of college kids who move out on their own. They think that they have decided to accept the responsiblity of adulthood but haven't. Instead of studying or getting a good job, they drink themselves senseless. Peter throws his costume out, not Uncle Ben.

And he actually reject MJ again in Spidey 2. When he decides to become Spider-Man again he tells her that he can't be there for her and even lies above loving her. Then when she finds out who he is, he tells her again that they can never be together. She decides that she is willing to take on the responiblity of being the girlfriend of Spider-Man.

[NinjaCarm]

Raimi: This sounds a'ight... I'm kinda excited now. But give Peter some balls for farts sake and give us killer action and some classic spider-man humor already and I think you will please alot, ALOT of people.

[Great1]

Well, Alright!

[Spider-Fan]

I'm not surprised he has more control this film, nor am I surprised he didn't last film. SM3 felt like a film with many visions, and I've said that for a while. That said, I hope the "Raimi is teh suck, SM3 suckz, LULZ!" people will see SM3 was not Raimi's fault (and as people know, I personally enjoy SM3), and will remember the better SM movies he did before SM3.

With comments Raimi has made in the past, I think we can expect Lizard most definately (if he has full creative control, and he has said in the past he'd like to use him), and perhaps someone like an Electro.

Can't wait for SM4 :up:

[TheScarecrow]

The fact that the symbiote, Venom and the Stacey's were forced on Raimi doesn't change the bad ideas that fall on Raimi himself.

The dancing, the poorly staged and filmed final fight, the poor protrayal of MJ and Harry's relationship, the poor portrayal of Harry (the costume and the whole amnesia thing) etc. all still falls on Raimi's shoulders.

[dark_b]

plus the kids at the end. hes kids. they are forced in the movie. and those cheesy lines.

and raimi must be a very good actor if it was such a pain to have venom and the symbiote in the movie.

[TheScarecrow]

I think Raimi more or less admitted it. Obviously he's not going to come out and say that he never wanted him in the movie, but I can remember him saying he'd been swayed to include him and that he'd never found him interesting until he'd viewed him in a different way etc. I think it was pretty obvious.

But I do think this is Raimi shifting the blame. He still made a movie which was much worse than the last two.

I think Raimi having creative control means we're going to get Electro and/or Vulture as the villains.

[November Rain]

He doesn't know that she is in trouble until the beginning of the movie, after he had his own apartment and the scooter.



In Spidey 1 and Spidey 3 she is fine. In Spidey 2 he can't even help himself he's in that far over his head.


The insurance company would probably be the ones


She has Uncle Ben's life insurance.


Because sometimes people fall behind. She is capable because when she did fall behind she didn't cry and moan, she moved out and found affordable accomindation, without even needing to ask Peter for his help.


He only takes it after she breaks down in front of him. And he does ask her how whe's doing, after he finds the bill. Plus he's with her at the bank when she's trying to get a loan.


When you need to use One More Day to back up your argument you really are in trouble.

[quoote]
spidey times allows him better hours for a proper job to keep up with his own rent and help her with her bills. The whole job aspect of being rid of spidey is never really touched upon after he loses his job.

That's because it's only set over a couple of weeks


She wasn't hurt in either incident, she was just scared after her run in with the GG.


His durability was always intact? Then how did he hurt himself trying to break the door down?

And no the child was not helping him up, that was his strenght returning because he needed it.


Yeah and it was the guilt of leaving her that made his powers cut out in the scene.



It can be about more than one thing. And he doesn't get rewarded. At the end of Spidey 3 he is pretty much alone, it's not even clear if he's gotten back with MJ.

the initial monologue removes all guilt for any actions parker has up to uncle ben's death.[/qute]

How?


And those people would be wrong to do that.
Just because the promoter cheats him doesn't give Peter an out at all. He decides, because it benefits him, that an armed robber could still run around New York doing what he wanted. And that's the only thing in Spider-Man's origin that you have to get right, that he put's himself above everybody else.


He doesn't renounce Uncle Ben, he renounces his responsiblity. There's a big difference. If he had of renounced Uncle Ben they wouldn't have had him visit his grave and then spill his guts to Aunt May. The metaphoar behind Spidey 2 is that of college kids who move out on their own. They think that they have decided to accept the responsiblity of adulthood but haven't. Instead of studying or getting a good job, they drink themselves senseless. Peter throws his costume out, not Uncle Ben.

And he actually reject MJ again in Spidey 2. When he decides to become Spider-Man again he tells her that he can't be there for her and even lies above loving her. Then when she finds out who he is, he tells her again that they can never be together. She decides that she is willing to take on the responiblity of being the girlfriend of Spider-Man.
I'm not here to convince you so I'll say this.

The issues brought up about spidey 3 are also apparent in the other films. Raimi's spiderman is one of them but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

we'll see if you still trust his judgement after the fourth. Raimi's a man of habbit, the same issues will crop up, trust me.

[Spider-Fan]

The fact that the symbiote, Venom and the Stacey's were forced on Raimi doesn't change the bad ideas that fall on Raimi himself.

The dancing, the poorly staged and filmed final fight, the poor protrayal of MJ and Harry's relationship, the poor portrayal of Harry (the costume and the whole amnesia thing) etc. all still falls on Raimi's shoulders.

I didn't hate Harry's portrayel in the film, nor the did I hate the dancing.

plus the kids at the end. hes kids. they are forced in the movie. and those cheesy lines.

and raimi must be a very good actor if it was such a pain to have venom and the symbiote in the movie.

The kids are in the movie a whole 2 seconds. That is making a mountain out of a mole hill to me.

[TheVileOne]

That stuff didn't really bother me because you find that kind of stuff in the comics all the time.

I was just more bothered that there was too much going on in the film and it felt disjointed. It didn't really feel like we got a proper conclusion to the Sandman story. Or really even Peter and MJ at the end. It feels like so much was left unsaid.

I don't think the blame can go to any singular place. But I hope everyone moves forward and with a stronger renewed perspective for this go around.

The thing is though, now that the Stacey's are introduced what do you do with them? Do you write out Gwen and Captain Stacey when they probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place just to so arbitrarily put them in there?

I mean fans who hold the history so sacred with Uncle Ben and Sandman, they should also be ticked off if say they killed MJ and made Peter marry Gwen instead. That doesn't work either.

[TheVileOne]

That stuff didn't really bother me because you find that kind of stuff in the comics all the time.

I was just more bothered that there was too much going on in the film and it felt disjointed. It didn't really feel like we got a proper conclusion to the Sandman story. Or really even Peter and MJ at the end. It feels like so much was left unsaid.

I don't think the blame can go to any singular place. But I hope everyone moves forward and with a stronger renewed perspective for this go around.

The thing is though, now that the Stacey's are introduced what do you do with them? Do you write out Gwen and Captain Stacey when they probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place just to so arbitrarily put them in there?

I mean fans who hold the history so sacred with Uncle Ben and Sandman, they should also be ticked off if say they killed MJ and made Peter marry Gwen instead. That doesn't work either.

[Doctor Jones]

Yes, yes, yes yes!

I literally just thrw my hands up in the air and shouted YES!

Sam's such a classy man. Never mentionaing one name about who did it (though we all know) and we know that Sam was trying to make a great third. Oh, Sam I always believed in you.

[LightningFlash]

Sammy boy, I never believed in you.

Ha-ha.


And for good measure too.

[Joker]

I think Raimi more or less admitted it. Obviously he's not going to come out and say that he never wanted him in the movie, but I can remember him saying he'd been swayed to include him and that he'd never found him interesting until he'd viewed him in a different way etc. I think it was pretty obvious.

He's definitely admitted before that he never wanted to use Venom:

I had never read Venom in the comic books, since they came after my time. Because of that, I didn't have a natural inclination toward him. And when I read those comics, at [producer] Avi Arad's urging, I didn't understand where Venom's humanity was. I know that kids think he looks cool, and they think he's a good villain for Spider-Man. I actually didn't. What was it about Peter's own makeup that this villain represented some weaker or darker side to? Just looking like a dark version of him is not enough for me. The more I read [Venom stories], the less interested I became. But then Avi said, ''Look, you've got to be less selfish. You've got to learn what it is these kids love about Venom.'' So I tried to open my mind up. Then Alvin developed a character that I did understand, and did appreciate.

Link: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20037557,00.html

I especially agree with what he said in the bold parts.

[DarthDaveBanner]

Wow.
The man who directed what is considered by many to be the best marvel comic-based filnm of all time has announced he is allowed to make a sequel with no studio interference....and people are UNHAPPY???

[FrostBite]

Wow.
The man who directed what is considered by many to be the best marvel comic-based filnm of all time has announced he is allowed to make a sequel with no studio interference....and people are UNHAPPY???

Well, this is the hype after all. :oldrazz:

[Sentinel X]

Indeed, and, btw, that was a great scene, I might add. That WAS a good scene. I could connect with Peter since I have been in similar situations when a family member offers you money when you know they don't have much of their own :csad:. It would be great if SM4 could ditch the corny and fake emotional scenes and have more real emotional scenes like that :up:


Anyway, its great that Raimi has total creative control over the film....hopefully the reason SM3 sucked was because Raimi didnt have total control. And I think Venom was a terrible edition, Im not too fond of him as a villain.

[thejon93]

I only wish that Avi Arad was featured making a comment or two in there(somewhere), so people could know how stupid he sounds. Here's an example:
Interviewer: Ladies and gentlemen, today I have with me the Chair behind 'Marvel Studios' and producer of the majority of the 'Marvel' movies, Mr. Avi Arad.
Avi Arad: Spider-Man's a virgin.
Interviewer: *speechless*

[SpaceWay2009]

^LOL! ROFL! LMAO! That would be so random and a useless comment!

[dark_b]

Wow.
The man who directed what is considered by many to be the best marvel comic-based filnm of all time has announced he is allowed to make a sequel with no studio interference....and people are UNHAPPY???who is unhappy?

[Spiderine]

Sandman and Vulture combination would've been great.
Damn right. Makes a lot more sense and with Harry Goblin involved a lot more entertaining.

[thejon93]

who is unhappy?
'DarthDaveBanner' is unhappy... because he's all out of bubble gum.

[Doctor Jones]

I don't get how people are saying Raimi could of just said screw you or pointing fingers?

Because Raimi is a guy who does that. :whatever: Oh, and you don't tell a major CEO of Marvel who is in charge of financing and overseeing the film to screw you when you're making a film. You want the job right? :whatever:

That's like telling your boss to **** off.

Sam now has creative control and in SM2 because the studio trusted him with the control. The studio and producers are your boss, the director isn't unfortuantely.

[webhead731]

Sam might not have had total control over Spider-Man 3, but what he was forced to use, I thought he used well.

He could have completely ****ed over Venom. You guys think we really got it that bad? Some of the concept art for him was terribly wrong, he could have been used like Bane in Batman and Robin.

For the most part, we got a good rendition of the character. He wasn't EXACT, but he was damn close. He needed more time, and a ticket to live on. I think fans blow his treatment out of proportion.
I'm not some fan who is defending this for like..no reason. If they did Venom completely wrong, you guys would probably never hear the end of it from me. I was somewhat pissed on how Blackheart was handled in Ghost Rider. He wasn't AWFUL, but God, he could have been amazing. They didn't do him justice enough. Same with Dr. Doom (though he was better than Blackheart).

Raimi really did seem to WANT to please us. Sure, some of you guys weren't happy with Venom, but I still think most of you are just taking it too far.

I'm glad Raimi can openly say he understands some fans weren't pleased all the way. He seemed only about...80-85% satisfied with the final film judging from the commentary, interviews etc. etc. Obviously he wanted to be 100% satisfied, and wasn't.

[mclay18]

'DarthDaveBanner' is unhappy... because he's all out of bubble gum.

AND November Rain.

It also didn't help that the studio locked in the release date for SM-3 before the producers nailed a shootable script.

And shouldn't Raimi be at the point where he has final cut over his films? It just didn't make sense for Sony and Marvel to have "story input" as opposed to letting Raimi do his own thing. The first two movies were critically and financially successful (and the third brought in a ton of money too), so the studios should be at the point where they have confidence in Raimi to deliver a good Spidey film without telling him what to do.

[webhead731]

Agreed.^

Although three was mainly 'some loved', 'some hated', and most people thought it was 'okay', they should understand that telling Raimi what to do is going to get more mixed reactions rather than more positive. I mean, I know Spider-Man 3 was a big deal after Spider-Man 2, and that is part of the reason why it was so over hyped. But still, let Raimi do his thing. I'm happy we got Venom, but I guess they could have held him back.

[thejon93]

AND November Rain.

It also didn't help that the studio locked in the release date for SM-3 before the producers nailed a shootable script.

And shouldn't Raimi be at the point where he has final cut over his films? It just didn't make sense for Sony and Marvel to have "story input" as opposed to letting Raimi do his own thing. The first two movies were critically and financially successful (and the third brought in a ton of money too), so the studios should be at the point where they have confidence in Raimi to deliver a good Spidey film without telling him what to do.
Spot on.

[Jick09]

It also didn't help that the studio locked in the release date for SM-3 before the producers nailed a shootable script
They had three years. No excuse.

[thejon93]

They had three years. No excuse.
Bull----, what makes a quality film is not having the studio breathing down your neck. Sam did everything he could with a schedule and a screwed-up situation in trying to come up with a good story. The fact that 'Sony', 'Columbia', 'Marvel' or whoever ordered a release date even before the script was presented was ridiculous.

[venomvsspidey]

^^

yeah what he said.

[DarthDaveBanner]

'DarthDaveBanner' is unhappy... because he's all out of bubble gum.

Haha that reminds me of another positive to Raimi coming back: Another Bruce Campbell cameo!

[thejon93]

Haha that reminds me of another positive to Raimi coming back: Another Bruce Campbell cameo!
You had better not be jerking my chain about that because that IS one of the pluses of Raimi's return.

[DarthDaveBanner]

I'm serious.
He'd better narrate the video game again too.

[Jick09]

Bull----, what makes a quality film is not having the studio breathing down your neck.
What makes a quality film is good writing and good directing. Neither was present in SM3, which had 3 years of development against 2 years for SM2, which was so much superior.

Sam did everything he could with a scheduleA bigger shedule than the previous movie, allowing him more time to work? That's the "bull----". Raimi had less than 2 years to work on SM2, and 3 on SM3.
and a screwed-up situation in trying to come up with a good story.Enough time to come with a story. And his situation couldn't be better with two successful movies.
The fact that 'Sony', 'Columbia', 'Marvel' or whoever ordered a release date even before the script was presented was ridiculous.
Yeah, you'd think the same about the second movie, but he pulled it, didn't he? The same could be done about the third, which had 1 more year to develop. But he still ruined it.

[thejon93]

What makes a quality film is good writing and good directing. Neither was present in SM3, which had 3 years of development against 2 years for SM2, which was so much superior.

A bigger shedule than the previous movie, allowing him more time to work? That's the "bull----". Raimi had less than 2 years to work on SM2, and 3 on SM3.

Enough time to come with a story. And his situation couldn't be better with two successful movies.

Yeah, you'd think the same about the second movie, but he pulled it, didn't he? The same could be done about the third, which had 1 more year to develop. But he still ruined it.
Thanks for clarifying the obvious, Mr. Genius.

That's because they only had one writer on both of the first films. In 3 they(I believe) had 3 or 4 writers, not to mention 'Marvel' executives recommending what Raimi should do with his own film. Maybe you don't realize that in Hollywood if you don't listen to the studio, they'll spread around bull---- rumours about you. Get that through your head.

The third film had the largest budget of the three, so far. I can't explain to you why 'Spider-Man 3' wasn't good enough because I wasn't there. All I can say is that Raimi is human, and with the worries of the budget and the studio on his back, you can imagine how disorianting it must've been with making the third film.

How can you blame everything on Raimi? Are you really that ignorant? Do you not realize that sometimes movies aren't great because of the bigger people behind it?

[Jick09]

Thanks for clarifying the obvious, Mr. Genius.Oh, that's no problem. So obvious that you couldn't see.:oldrazz:

That's because they only had one writer on both of the first filmsThey had a total of 5 writers for the second movie - Alvin Sargent made the final version, with some ideas being contributed by Raimi, while Alfred Gough, Miles Millar and Michael Chabon co-wrote.
Was that obvious for you, too?:cwink:
In 3 they(I believe) had 3 or 4 writers, not to mention 'Marvel' executives recommending what Raimi should do with his own film.
This Marvel executives were trying to please the fans, who were screaming for Venom. That's what they did. They talked to Raimi and he accepted. No one pulled a gun on Raimi's head and they aren't stupid to fire a director who brought more than 1.5 billion dollars within 3 years with only two movies. Raimi is a grown man and he must know what he wants. If he is so weak willed, he's not the right person to do it.
Maybe you don't realize that in Hollywood if you don't listen to the studio, they'll spread around bull---- rumours about you.Yeah? And because of that will he make a crappy movie because they're asking to do it? Oh, please.

The third film had the largest budget of the three, so far. I can't explain to you why 'Spider-Man 3' wasn't good enough because I wasn't there.Oh, but I can. Bad writing and bad direction. It doesn't matter if it's one writer (SM1) or multiple writers (SM2), what matters is if it's made competently and if the direction follows the same path.All I can say is that Raimi is human, and with the worries of the budget and the studio on his back, you can imagine how disorianting it must've been with making the third film.If he thought he wouldn't handle the pressure, he'd quit. He didn't.

How can you blame everything on Raimi?
I don't.
I've said countless times that the biggest problem is the writing.

Thanks for clarifying the obvious, Mr. Genius.
Get that through your head.
Are you really that ignorant?
Oh, jon. Do you really need to be so harsh when someone don't agree with you?
You need to learn how to have a civilized conversation without insulting others.
Tsc, tsc. Shame on you.

[thejon93]

Oh, that's no problem. So obvious that you couldn't see.:oldrazz:

They had a total of 5 writers for the second movie - Alvin Sargent made the final version, with some ideas being contributed by Raimi, while Alfred Gough, Miles Millar and Michael Chabon co-wrote.
Was that obvious for you, too?:cwink:

This Marvel executives were trying to please the fans, who were screaming for Venom. That's what they did. They talked to Raimi and he accepted. No one pulled a gun on Raimi's head and they aren't stupid to fire a director who brought more than 1.5 billion dollars within 3 years with only two movies. Raimi is a grown man and he must know what he wants. If he is so weak willed, he's not the right person to do it.
Yeah? And because of that will he make a crappy movie because they're asking to do it? Oh, please.

Oh, but I can. Bad writing and bad direction. It doesn't matter if it's one writer (SM1) or multiple writers (SM2), what matters is if it's made competently and if the direction follows the same path.If he thought he wouldn't handle the pressure, he'd quit. He didn't.


I don't.
I've said countless times that the biggest problem is the writing.




Oh, jon. Do you really need to be so harsh when someone don't agree with you?
You need to learn how to have a civilized conversation without insulting others.
Tsc, tsc. Shame on you.
You know, mate, I really don't like you:yay:

[Jick09]

lol
What can I do? I just ask you to respect me, so I can respect you.

[topdog1]

What makes a quality film is good writing and good directing. Neither was present in SM3

That's simply not true. SM3 featured some fine direction and it featured some good writing. (Peter's inner struggles, Harry's psychosis, MJ's turmoil and Peter hitting MJ) Fact is, they took shortcuts because they tried to jam too much in to the film. Maybe that was poor or lazy writing (Venom/Sandman team up, meteor happens to hit right next to Pete, most of Gwen's scenes) but the poor scenes don't necessarily erase the good scenes.

SM3 should've been better but, at times, it was still damn good. Fans here make a 7/10 film sound like a crime against humanity.

I just got done watching "For Love Of The Game" again. It's directed by Raimi and it is a great reminder of what a fabulous story teller and craftsman he can be. I have complete faith in Sam.

[thejon93]

lol
What can I do? I just ask you to respect me, so I can respect you.
I wish I could respect your opinions, but I don't. It just seems to me that you're bashing Raimi for reasons that are out of his grip.

[thejon93]

That's simply not true. SM3 featured some fine direction and it featured some good writing. (Peter's inner struggles, Harry's psychosis, MJ's turmoil and Peter hitting MJ) Fact is, they took shortcuts because they tried to jam too much in to the film. Maybe that was poor or lazy writing (Venom/Sandman team up, meteor happens to hit right next to Pete, most of Gwen's scenes) but the poor scenes don't necessarily erase the good scenes.

SM3 should've been better but, at times, it was still damn good. Fans here make a 7/10 film sound like a crime against humanity.

I just got done watching "For Love Of The Game" again. It's directed by Raimi and it is a great reminder of what a fabulous story teller and craftsman he can be. I have complete faith in Sam.
I remember seeing 'The Simple Plan' a while back because Raimi and Church were talking about it over the 'Spider-Man 3' commentary. And it was a really great film, and a very underrated film in my opinion, simply because not a lot of people know about it. If you get the chance, I say check it out. I had to dust down my VHS player because I bought the VHS from Gibraltar, a trade center near here. If you look at Raimi's reputation for filmmaking, you can clearly see that he's virtually done it all. A majority of the genres he's covered over the years with his movies, and every movie from the genre has been "good", to say the least.

[Blader5489]

Well, Sam admitted there that he had no creative control over the third one. So it has to be better than the 3rd one. I can't imagine it getting worse than that. I think we might not see the Stacys back.

I don't think Sam wanted to used them either.

IIRC, he said he wanted to use them as early as SM2.

[Jick09]

That's simply not true. SM3 featured some fine direction and it featured some good writing. (Peter's inner struggles, Harry's psychosis, MJ's turmoil and Peter hitting MJ)That's kinda subjective, but the only thing I could take from that was Peter hitting MJ. The rest, I couldn't feel them there.
Fact is, they took shortcuts because they tried to jam too much in to the film.They took shortcuts because Raimi wanted to tell a love story, putting all that unnecessary romantic bull***** in a established love instead of developing the villains, who would be more important to Peter's growth.

Maybe that was poor or lazy writing (Venom/Sandman team up, meteor happens to hit right next to Pete, most of Gwen's scenes) but the poor scenes don't necessarily erase the good scenes.It was. The number of coincidences was overkill, Venom was done justice, Sandman was Ben's killer, ruining a classic storyline and the love triangles were totally unnecessary for a already established love. Add to that the unnecessary and silly scenes such as the dance in the club or Harry cooking with MJ. Precious time, which could've been used to develop the antagonists. I could go on and on about its flaws. The problem is...there ain't too many good scenes. At least not for me.

I just got done watching "For Love Of The Game" again. It's directed by Raimi and it is a great reminder of what a fabulous story teller and craftsman he can be. I have complete faith in Sam.
I never heard about.
Could you fill me into the details?:yay:

I wish I could respect your opinions, but I don't. It just seems to me that you're bashing Raimi for reasons that are out of his grip.And does it give the right to insult anyone?
You don't see me around anymore calling others ignorant when I don't agree with them. You must hear what they have to say, and give your perspective on the subject. Keep it civil:cwink:

[thejon93]

And does it give the right to insult anyone?
You don't see me around anymore calling others ignorant when I don't agree with them. You must hear what they have to say, and give your perspective on the subject. Keep it civil:cwink:
Then what gives you the right to insult Raimi when you don't even know him? You're trying to act as if you're the cool head over here, and you're not. You knew that people would react this way against your comments on Raimi, because how can you possibly varify that it was all his fault that the movie wasn't as well recieved as the others?

[Jick09]

Then what gives you the right to insult Raimi when you don't even know him?
Dude, I never insulted him. I never bashed him, called him names, cursed him. What I mentioned are his mistakes.
You're trying to act as if you're the cool head over here, and you're not.I'm not trying...I am doing that. I won't go down to your level, jon.
You knew that people would react this way against your comments on RaimiYou're the only one doing this. You're making it personal.
because how can you possibly varify that it was all his fault that the movie wasn't as well recieved as the others?I never said that it was all his fault. Go read the posts again, please.

[SpiderRock88]

awesome, i think Raimi can do well with this one, eventhough i thought all 3 were awesome as hell lol

[Spider-Man '92]

Glad to know this, so now I can kiss those worries of Carnage being included good-bye. :D

[Joker]

IIRC, he said he wanted to use them as early as SM2.

You got a link? I never heard that. I know Laura Ziskin pushed for Gwen Stacy to be in SM-3.

[Batman137]

I have to say, with Raimi having creative control, we may get something very good:)

[webhead731]

It was. The number of coincidences was overkill, Venom was done justice, Sandman was Ben's killer, ruining a classic storyline and the love triangles were totally unnecessary for a already established love. Add to that the unnecessary and silly scenes such as the dance in the club or Harry cooking with MJ. Precious time, which could've been used to develop the antagonists. I could go on and on about its flaws. The problem is...there ain't too many good scenes. At least not for me.

I stopped reading after "ruining a classic story line". It didn't ruin anything. It added an element, it was added for more of an intense relationship against Peter with the Symbiote and Sandman.

The whole origin of Spider-Man is that he used his powers for money making and show biz, he didn't stop a thief who ended up killing his uncle.

The movie has him getting money for show biz, gets cheated, lets the criminal go, who startles Flint who is about to just let Ben go because he was getting through to him, and when his partner grabbed on to his arm, it caused him to shoot accidentally. If Peter stopped the guy, that wouldn't have happened. Peter shouldn't have even been there in the first place.

And don't tell me you watched Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 without seeing some of the ridiculous convinces there.
I'm not hating. I think those are fine. That's what story telling is right? Coincidences, conveniences all to keep the plot moving and interesting.

Sure, some can be ridiculous. But there wasn't anything super ridiculous in these movies. I laugh at how fans can point out all these ones in three but ignore all of them in two. :rolleyes:

[Jick09]

I stopped reading after "ruining a classic story line". It didn't ruin anything. It added an elementAnd I stopped reading after "added an element". It didn't add an element. It would add if they said that the burglar is still alive, or that he has a family, or anything else regarding him. They didn't add, they changed the classic storyline of the simple carjacker who killed Uncle Ben, who Peter let go when he could've stopped because it wasn't his business. Yes, they ruined a classic storyline to make Sandman have a stupid connection with Peter. They seem to think that all the villains must have connections with the hero.

[venom892]

That's something I really don't like is having every villain be connected to peter.If the symboite and harry were already connected to peter why did Sandman have to be connected too?It was overkill.I hope whoever the villain is for Spider-man 4 except if it is the Lizard won't be connected to peter in some way.

[Jick09]

Yeah, Lizard is inevitable, but that's something that I wouldn't mind.

[LightningFlash]

Sam might not have had total control over Spider-Man 3, but what he was forced to use, I thought he used well.

He could have completely ****ed over Venom. You guys think we really got it that bad? Some of the concept art for him was terribly wrong, he could have been used like Bane in Batman and Robin.

For the most part, we got a good rendition of the character. He wasn't EXACT, but he was damn close. He needed more time, and a ticket to live on. I think fans blow his treatment out of proportion.
I'm not some fan who is defending this for like..no reason. If they did Venom completely wrong, you guys would probably never hear the end of it from me. I was somewhat pissed on how Blackheart was handled in Ghost Rider. He wasn't AWFUL, but God, he could have been amazing. They didn't do him justice enough. Same with Dr. Doom (though he was better than Blackheart).

Raimi really did seem to WANT to please us. Sure, some of you guys weren't happy with Venom, but I still think most of you are just taking it too far.

I'm glad Raimi can openly say he understands some fans weren't pleased all the way. He seemed only about...80-85% satisfied with the final film judging from the commentary, interviews etc. etc. Obviously he wanted to be 100% satisfied, and wasn't.

Someone who would kiss Raimi's ass every chance he gets regarding Sam's rendition of the Spidey films, I am not gonna take your word for it that Raimi didn't completely **** the character of Venom up.

He WAS just like Bane in Spider-Man 3. Sure, ol' Sammy tried to give Eddie Brock, Jr. a storyline in the third movie, but he used the symbiote POORLY. He gave Venom only FIVE minutes of fighting; he didn't even use what could have been, i.e. having Spidey and Venom fight LIKE spiders; he had Venom ASK Sandman for help, which Venom doesn't even do, and he just rushed Eddie's transformation into Venom. We should've saw him learn his powers; we should've seen him stalk Peter; we should've saw many things, but we didn't. Raimi never liked Venom, so I still think what he did to Venom was just what he always portrayed Venom to be: just a desperate use of time, and Venom was just that in the movie. It was just like a Spider-Man and New Goblin vs. Sandman bout.

Sure, I can give you that Sam Raimi might have given or try to give Brock an arc during the film, and that was SEMI-good, but for Venom, no; I will still say he did not use Venom to any potential; but yet, of course he will use Green Goblin's, Doc Ock and Sandman's full potential, because he liked those characters, but to someone like me, it's like Raimi treated a character, that he never liked in the first place, just to show how HE visions Venom.

So he did screw up Venom royally. And it just shows how much a fan would suck up if he/she ever said otherwise.

And also, he might have said he wasn't fully satisfied with the film, but if he wasn't, why they hell didn't he keep some footage, that he DID film, in the movie? He filmed scenes that were in the book, that would've made the movie much more enjoyable and interesting, but he took them out. So that's case #2 of how he took it up the ass by Arad and/or Sony.

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

Someone who would kiss Raimi's ass every chance he gets regarding Sam's rendition of the Spidey films, I am not gonna take your word for it that Raimi didn't completely **** the character of Venom up.

He WAS just like Bane in Spider-Man 3. Sure, ol' Sammy tried to give Eddie Brock, Jr. a storyline in the third movie, but he used the symbiote POORLY. He gave Venom only FIVE minutes of fighting; he didn't even use what could have been, i.e. having Spidey and Venom fight LIKE spiders; he had Venom ASK Sandman for help, which Venom doesn't even do, and he just rushed Eddie's transformation into Venom. We should've saw him learn his powers; we should've seen him stalk Peter; we should've saw many things, but we didn't. Raimi never liked Venom, so I still think what he did to Venom was just what he always portrayed Venom to be: just a desperate use of time, and Venom was just that in the movie. It was just like a Spider-Man and New Goblin vs. Sandman bout.

Sure, I can give you that Sam Raimi might have given or try to give Brock an arc during the film, and that was SEMI-good, but for Venom, no; I will still say he did not use Venom to any potential; but yet, of course he will use Green Goblin's, Doc Ock and Sandman's full potential, because he liked those characters, but to someone like me, it's like Raimi treated a character, that he never liked in the first place, just to show how HE visions Venom.

So he did screw up Venom royally. And it just shows how much a fan would suck up if he/she ever said otherwise.

And also, he might have said he wasn't fully satisfied with the film, but if he wasn't, why they hell didn't he keep some footage, that he DID film, in the movie? He filmed scenes that were in the book, that would've made the movie much more enjoyable and interesting, but he took them out. So that's case #2 of how he took it up the ass by Arad and/or Sony.

no one is kissing sam's butt. He admitted to his faults and the producers. Besides how many third films in the trilogy can you name that outperformed the other films ? There are rarely any. Why else do you think that chris nolan is concerned to jump into the directors chair for the third bat film ? I have my respects for sam raimi as a director because he made you feel comfortable during a scene and trust me that not all directors are like that or even bother to sit down with you on your thoughts about the character. You should see how he is with the fans and from what I think he isnt the type to give the head bosses trouble when it comes to decisions. He seems like an easy going type of person and when push comes to shove he doesent turn around and put all of the blame on the studio or mention any names. He admits to his faults and comes clean with the story. Not like some idiotic directors like uwe bole who challenges micheal bay to a fight and acts immature about it. Why else do you think that he is being given creative control this time for the 4th film ? You dont get that kind of confidence or respect by going around demanding things that you want or putting blame towards the studio. Point being is that before the third film came out, everyone was praising the guy now that the third film came out its a different story. Sam gave us two wonderful spider-man films, and the sequel was the best one yet. I am not fond of the changes but does that make the film horrible ? No. So let me ask you this... since everyone seems to be praising chris nolan and whenever a film comes out he is the right director for this film and that... will you go off on chris nolan if the third batman film is the worst of the series ? Because in all honesty, if they dont use the joker for the next film you can bet that it wont get as much hype and will most likely be the worst in the series. Same thing happened with bryan singer a while back when x-men came out and why else do you think that the guy didnt return for a third ? He was praised for both films and the sequel was a hit. Now he is being bashed for the poor performance of superman returns. Mark my words that if batman 3 fails, I will be hearing the same crap about chris nolan.

[topdog1]

The number of coincidences was overkill, Venom was done justice, Sandman was Ben's killer, ruining a classic storyline and the love triangles were totally unnecessary for a already established love. Add to that the unnecessary and silly scenes such as the dance in the club or Harry cooking with MJ. Precious time, which could've been used to develop the antagonists. I could go on and on about its flaws. The problem is...there ain't too many good scenes. At least not for me.

I liked the love triangle aspect. It shows the state of Harry's fragile mindset and what pushes his psychosis over the edge. I always thought the blow to the head just served to mask the insanity festering from years of parental abuse and pushed over the top by the Goblin formula. This all worked for me. The whole dance club scene was very well done IMO.

I agree totally with your assessment of Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer. Even though that upped the stakes for forgiveness, it was poorly handled. I hated the idea. Sandman being there and an accomplice would've been enough. The burglar from SM1 should've stayed as the shooter. Besides, hammering in Peter forgiving Sandman after the brawl but while Harry lay dying seemed wrong to me.

I never heard about.
Could you fill me into the details?:yay:

For Love of the Game (w/ Kevin Costner, Kelly Preston, John C Reilly, Brian Cox and J Jonah Jameson as the Tigers Manager)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126916/plotsummary

Costner plays an aging MLB pitcher trying to pitch a perfect game against the Yankees. During the game, his life and his relationship with Kelly Preston unfolds in the form of flashbacks. It's a well crafted story that's as much about relationships and life's struggles as it is about baseball. Half chick flick and half sports flick but it works IMO.

[TheVileOne]

Yeah exactly. And there's really no way I can see a third Nolan film being better than Dark Knight. Doesn't mean it won't be good though. But fans will probably complain that it pales in comparison.

I have a positive outlook about the movie right now mainly because it seems like they know they made mistakes and they are trying to move past them.

After 3, everyoen thought the series would be rebooted and recast. And now that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm happy about that. If everyone wants to come back and if they are really serious about doing a better movie, I say great.

I don't think it has to be like 3 movies and that's it. I would like more with the same cast and crew.

My problem with the Sandman storyline was Sandman just drifting away at the end. That's it? There needed to be more there. It felt disrespectful to this character that we never see what ends up happening to him. And I don't think it was OK for Spider-man to just let him go. I think what would've made it right is if Spider-man gets Sandman to agree to turn himself in, and Spider-man is then able to do something to help Marko's daughter because that's more like the comics. It didn't feel responsible to leave things with Sandman that way.

[Jick09]

For Love of the Game (w/ Kevin Costner, Kelly Preston, John C Reilly, Brian Cox and J Jonah Jameson as the Tigers Manager)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126916/plotsummary

Costner plays an aging MLB pitcher trying to pitch a perfect game against the Yankees. During the game, his life and his relationship with Kelly Preston unfolds in the form of flashbacks. It's a well crafted story that's as much about relationships and life's struggles as it is about baseball. Half chick flick and half sports flick but it works IMO.
Oh, I remember now. I didn't know that he directed it.
I never watched the movie, but I know what you're talking about. I might give it a try.

[Congo Jack]

With creative control on SPIDER-MAN and SM2, I feel he made a few missteps but produced two thoroughly entertaining films none-the-less.

I think the biggest problem with SM3 was the revelation of Flint Marko as Uncle Ben's killer (not Venom, since Topher Grace, Alvin Sargent and Raimi all did a decent job with a ****** mandate). I would hope that was a Studio enforced decision as well.

[CaptainStacy]

Link: http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/03/raimi-i-will-have-total-creati.html

Yes! Avi Arad can keep his nose out of this one.



Thank God! :applaud

[CaptainStacy]

best news yet!

i would also like to add that raimi was such a gentleman in that interview as well, never once just pushed blame solely on anyone, although everyone knows who was primarily at fault

Indeed.

[SpaceWay2009]

no one is kissing sam's butt. He admitted to his faults and the producers. Besides how many third films in the trilogy can you name that outperformed the other films ? There are rarely any. Why else do you think that chris nolan is concerned to jump into the directors chair for the third bat film ? I have my respects for sam raimi as a director because he made you feel comfortable during a scene and trust me that not all directors are like that or even bother to sit down with you on your thoughts about the character. You should see how he is with the fans and from what I think he isnt the type to give the head bosses trouble when it comes to decisions. He seems like an easy going type of person and when push comes to shove he doesent turn around and put all of the blame on the studio or mention any names. He admits to his faults and comes clean with the story. Not like some idiotic directors like uwe bole who challenges micheal bay to a fight and acts immature about it. Why else do you think that he is being given creative control this time for the 4th film ? You dont get that kind of confidence or respect by going around demanding things that you want or putting blame towards the studio. Point being is that before the third film came out, everyone was praising the guy now that the third film came out its a different story. Sam gave us two wonderful spider-man films, and the sequel was the best one yet. I am not fond of the changes but does that make the film horrible ? No. So let me ask you this... since everyone seems to be praising chris nolan and whenever a film comes out he is the right director for this film and that... will you go off on chris nolan if the third batman film is the worst of the series ? Because in all honesty, if they dont use the joker for the next film you can bet that it wont get as much hype and will most likely be the worst in the series. Same thing happened with bryan singer a while back when x-men came out and why else do you think that the guy didnt return for a third ? He was praised for both films and the sequel was a hit. Now he is being bashed for the poor performance of superman returns. Mark my words that if batman 3 fails, I will be hearing the same crap about chris nolan.Well said!:up:

[TheVileOne]

This doesn't mean that Arad won't be involved at all. Chances are he will still be a producer of sorts. He did have some influence in the first and second movies as well.

[Doctor Jones]

I still think people claiming that Raimi sucks because of SM3 is full of ****. He made SM1 and SM2, and among that other great films, all of a sudden because of one film, he sucks?

[LightningFlash]

Hey, I didn't even like Spider-Man 2. I'm a Spider-Man fan, yah, but I don't care for a Doctor Octopus that isn't all too evil and even becomes good at the very end. I would rather have an evil villain 'till the end, ala Norman Osborn. And TSSM created a sinister and very intelligent Doc Ock; so, yah, Sam Raimi should really ask Greg W. for advice.

And what sPiDeRmAn2o29 said for his reply to my post, I'll answer the questions you asked me....

Firstly, to mentioned a third film that out-best the second or first; I can't name any, or at least a comic-book adaptation, but that's neither here or there. Sam Raimi could've had an idea to best the last two films, even with Arad giving his say-so for Gwen Stacy, George Stacy, Venom, hell, or even if Avi himself wanted a role in the film. Raimi said he worked in the characters in the script, but it didn't work out very well, or at all, imo. A director like Raimi, who said he loves Spider-Man, should've done his BEST to please the studio and the fans, but one of the groups got screwed over, or even both: it left some fans like myself having a bitter taste(but fully rested at the theatres, haha), and also let the studio down when the DVD sales were lower than 1 or 2.

And for Sam Raimi wanting to be a gentleman, I get that. I get that he didn't say any names for the interview, but DURING pre-production/filming, I don't like how he just took it up by saying "okay, okay, sure" without even telling Arad his side. Without telling the studio his own idea for the third movie, he just agreed to add more characters.

So that battle was of course a no-winner, but still. Blame Arad for pitching ideas, blame Sony for making Raimi delete scenes(or give Raimi the fault for that one, I don't know), and blame Raimi for not writing a good-enough story for Venom, for making Sandman the true killer of Uncle Ben, and for making MJ once more, a whiney, self-centered hoe(had to bring in MJ's idiotic storyline into this conversation, haha).

Before I talk about Christopher Nolan, one could of course bring up the fact that Burton made Joker the killer of Batman's parents in the '89 film, but that's something to not think about...I mean, he made some short chubby guy Gordon for Christ's sake...

And then for Christopher Nolan...how can ANYONE compare how the treatment of Venom with Joker being in the third movie. Sam Raimi himself stated his original villains were Sandman and Vulture. That's all. That would've been fine; not something I would pay money to watch because they are some of the lamest Spidey villains, imo, but at least Raimi had a vision at first. And as far as Nolan, he always had a vision from the start. He used Ra's al Ghul, who's not even an interesting character, and made him the first villain. Sure, having the Joker be in the second movie is odd, with him being the "biggest baddie" in the Batman-verse(since he wasn't in the first one), but Nolan had a plan for Joker to be taken away; he had a plan for Two-Face to die; Nolan wanted to use NEW villains for the third movie. And just because Joker won't be in it; it doesn't really matter. The Penguin, The Riddler, Catwoman, Black Mask, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Tony Zucco, just to name a few villains that Nolan can use, and some would of course need "touch-ups" to fit the "realistic" view, but still, Joker won't always be a reliable villain to use(and also that I can bet a twenty-dollar bill that there will be a female villain). Joker can always get boring, as much boring as Lex Luthor can be in EVERY Superman film. And also with Ledger's death, no one wants to see a new Joker; Ledger owned that role as much as Nicholson owned it, or even moreso.

Nolan's third Batman movie will make money because Christopher Nolan's ideas have sparked some needed refreshment into Batman and for DC. And Raimi could make Spider-Man 4 remarkable, but still, I never liked the way Raimi just took it all and made a crap-fest of a movie. And I HIGHLY doubt Nolan would make a crap-fest of a Batman film, even WITH new villains and no Joker.

A comic-book adaptation needs to have a great story and interesting villains, and that's why I think Nolan could do Batman justice; I've always been a fan of Batman's rogue gallery much more than Spider-Man's. And Spider-Man should take note: it's interesting to see a hero take on gangs(or terrorists with regarding to Iron Man).

[Joker]

And as far as Nolan, he always had a vision from the start. He used Ra's al Ghul, who's not even an interesting character, and made him the first villain.

Excuse me, but Ra's Al Ghul is one of Batman's biggest and most popular foes. He is extremely interesting for so many reasons.

Some of the best episodes from BTAS featured Ra's as the villain.

[CaptainStacy]

Excuse me, but Ra's Al Ghul is one of Batman's biggest and most popular foes. He is extremely interesting for so many reasons.

Some of the best episodes from BTAS featured Ra's as the villain.

Agreed. Easily one of Batman's top 5 rogues, imo...

[LightningFlash]

Eh, I just think that a character who needed a pit to rejuvenate himself was something unintelligent. That's why when he was in Batman Begins, I was pleased they didn't bring in the "Lazarus Pit". I just never thought of him to be one of my favorite villains; I don't even have Joker as my favorite Batman villain, Black Mask gets that vote.

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

Hey, I didn't even like Spider-Man 2. I'm a Spider-Man fan, yah, but I don't care for a Doctor Octopus that isn't all too evil and even becomes good at the very end. I would rather have an evil villain 'till the end, ala Norman Osborn. And TSSM created a sinister and very intelligent Doc Ock; so, yah, Sam Raimi should really ask Greg W. for advice.

And what sPiDeRmAn2o29 said for his reply to my post, I'll answer the questions you asked me....

Firstly, to mentioned a third film that out-best the second or first; I can't name any, or at least a comic-book adaptation, but that's neither here or there. Sam Raimi could've had an idea to best the last two films, even with Arad giving his say-so for Gwen Stacy, George Stacy, Venom, hell, or even if Avi himself wanted a role in the film. Raimi said he worked in the characters in the script, but it didn't work out very well, or at all, imo. A director like Raimi, who said he loves Spider-Man, should've done his BEST to please the studio and the fans, but one of the groups got screwed over, or even both: it left some fans like myself having a bitter taste(but fully rested at the theatres, haha), and also let the studio down when the DVD sales were lower than 1 or 2.

And for Sam Raimi wanting to be a gentleman, I get that. I get that he didn't say any names for the interview, but DURING pre-production/filming, I don't like how he just took it up by saying "okay, okay, sure" without even telling Arad his side. Without telling the studio his own idea for the third movie, he just agreed to add more characters.

So that battle was of course a no-winner, but still. Blame Arad for pitching ideas, blame Sony for making Raimi delete scenes(or give Raimi the fault for that one, I don't know), and blame Raimi for not writing a good-enough story for Venom, for making Sandman the true killer of Uncle Ben, and for making MJ once more, a whiney, self-centered hoe(had to bring in MJ's idiotic storyline into this conversation, haha).

Before I talk about Christopher Nolan, one could of course bring up the fact that Burton made Joker the killer of Batman's parents in the '89 film, but that's something to not think about...I mean, he made some short chubby guy Gordon for Christ's sake...

And then for Christopher Nolan...how can ANYONE compare how the treatment of Venom with Joker being in the third movie. Sam Raimi himself stated his original villains were Sandman and Vulture. That's all. That would've been fine; not something I would pay money to watch because they are some of the lamest Spidey villains, imo, but at least Raimi had a vision at first. And as far as Nolan, he always had a vision from the start. He used Ra's al Ghul, who's not even an interesting character, and made him the first villain. Sure, having the Joker be in the second movie is odd, with him being the "biggest baddie" in the Batman-verse(since he wasn't in the first one), but Nolan had a plan for Joker to be taken away; he had a plan for Two-Face to die; Nolan wanted to use NEW villains for the third movie. And just because Joker won't be in it; it doesn't really matter. The Penguin, The Riddler, Catwoman, Black Mask, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Tony Zucco, just to name a few villains that Nolan can use, and some would of course need "touch-ups" to fit the "realistic" view, but still, Joker won't always be a reliable villain to use(and also that I can bet a twenty-dollar bill that there will be a female villain). Joker can always get boring, as much boring as Lex Luthor can be in EVERY Superman film. And also with Ledger's death, no one wants to see a new Joker; Ledger owned that role as much as Nicholson owned it, or even moreso.

Nolan's third Batman movie will make money because Christopher Nolan's ideas have sparked some needed refreshment into Batman and for DC. And Raimi could make Spider-Man 4 remarkable, but still, I never liked the way Raimi just took it all and made a crap-fest of a movie. And I HIGHLY doubt Nolan would make a crap-fest of a Batman film, even WITH new villains and no Joker.

A comic-book adaptation needs to have a great story and interesting villains, and that's why I think Nolan could do Batman justice; I've always been a fan of Batman's rogue gallery much more than Spider-Man's. And Spider-Man should take note: it's interesting to see a hero take on gangs(or terrorists with regarding to Iron Man).

you have to understand the difference here though. warner bros gave full creative control to the nolans on the script since the first batman film. Raimi NEVER had creative control. A director is in charge of alot of things but, when it comes to producers and the head honchos if they dont like something, they wont add or change it at all. Why else do you think that gavin hood and hugh jackman almost walked out of wolverine because tom rothman was screwing with the backrounds of the movie by making it a lighter tone ? Lauren had to fly in her husband richard donner to calm things down on set for crying out loud. If you dont think for one second that the full blame doesent go to the studios or idiots who think they know better and not let the director and writers do thier jobs then we wouldnt have dissapointments in films today. I know that sony realized how much of an impact the dark knight did because warner bros trusted chris nolan and gave him full creative control. So you have to ask yourself why sony is doing it with sam raimi ? Trust me that the talks I had with the guy about how the story isnt accurate with the comics was something that did bother him but there was nothing that he can do about it. When your pressured to do something when your half way done with the script and do a total 360 change to the script your bound to have a flop of a movie. We have spiderman 4 coming up and raimi has full creative control. Now if the 4th one flops big time, then bash the guy but now he has a chance to do things right.

You want to see the dark side of the guy be prepared for drag me to hell which a few of my friends already saw the screening to and its a great film from what I heard. Now if sam uses the lizard for the 4th one alongside of kraven the hunter you will see a very dramatic and challenging story for spiderman to deal with.

:liz:

[sPiDeRmAn2o29]

Eh, I just think that a character who needed a pit to rejuvenate himself was something unintelligent. That's why when he was in Batman Begins, I was pleased they didn't bring in the "Lazarus Pit". I just never thought of him to be one of my favorite villains; I don't even have Joker as my favorite Batman villain, Black Mask gets that vote.

I advise that you read arkham asylum and batman RIP. Also the joker graphic novel by Brian Azzarello. That clown is a sick and twisted maniac that would put the devil to shame. Black mask is a but but the joker makes him look like a sissy girl.

:hoboj:

[MonBeeb]

And I stopped reading after "added an element". It didn't add an element. It would add if they said that the burglar is still alive, or that he has a family, or anything else regarding him. They didn't add, they changed the classic storyline of the simple carjacker who killed Uncle Ben, who Peter let go when he could've stopped because it wasn't his business. Yes, they ruined a classic storyline to make Sandman have a stupid connection with Peter. They seem to think that all the villains must have connections with the hero.

The villain should always have a connection with the hero. The villain is the hero's primary foil. If he's just some random guy who has nothing to do with the protagonist, then he's a weak villain. There needs to be some connection. Villains exist to bring out and emphasize traits in the hero.

In this case the connection was used to bring the night of Uncle Ben's death back to the forefront and examine the consequences of how rashly Peter acted. It was supposed to show that Peter had become so vain and self-righteous that he had come to believe that Uncle Ben's killer deserved to die. It's essentially a darker and somewhat more mature take on the origin story, two movies later. The Sandman was retconned into the murder because, without that connection, it would not be believable for Peter to want to kill him. It wouldn't be consistent with the character that has been established over the course of the series. However, tying Sandman to the murder of Uncle Ben immediately levels him with the only criminal that Peter ever actually killed. His personal feelings got in the way of his responsibility.

Yeah, I hate that it's a retcon. But it served a legitimate purpose. And I should think comic fans would be pretty used to things being retconned by now.

[Adrian89]

Awesome news! I'm hoping it'll be better than SM1 & 2. :up:
SM2 will be hard to beat!;)

<Sigh> What could have been. Yea, Vulture is not that great of a villain, but having him be the third villain would have been perfect because not many care about how he would be used or how much time he would have received. Made perfect sense. But yea, we know the Arad situation and it was Ziskin who "pushed" Raimi into using the Stacy's for this film.



http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41291





This is great news to hear though. :up:
lol, I wish they'd get rid of Ziskin.

If total creative control means "making Sandman a good guy and Uncle Ben's killer" kind of control, I'm skeptic about it. He can direct it the way he wants, I just don't want him touching the story.
Let's not forget all the things that went wrong in PETER PARKER 3!!

I hope this time we'll get a SPIDER-MAN Movie.

[Leenie]

My excitement for this movie has skyrocketed!

[Jick09]

The villain should always have a connection with the hero.No, they shouldn't. It only make it seems forced if you overuse it. Spidey is a hero, and he's gonna stop whoever is his foe (or at least try to) no matter his motives, past, present, future or if he has a connection or not.

If he's just some random guy who has nothing to do with the protagonist, then he's a weak villain.So you're saying to me that all his rogue gallery in the comics are composed of weak villains? Because none of them is connected to Peter. Nor is Batman's villains, for example, who also has a big rogue gallery.

Villains exist to bring out and emphasize traits in the hero.True, and also to have the hero learning new lessons, such as Spidey's first battle against Ock, learning that he can't give up after a defeat, or against Rhino in Agony of Defeat, learning that he has to overcome his losses and humiliation and can't let it get to him, he has to overcome it without wanting a payback.
A connection isn't needed to make that happen, to have the hero fighting his battles and acquiring experience from that.
Let's not forget all the things that went wrong in PETER PARKER 3!!

I hope this time we'll get a SPIDER-MAN Movie.
For sure!
I hope so. Sam needs to find a balance between Peter and Spidey, like in the first two movies.

[3dman27]

You had better not be jerking my chain about that because that IS one of the pluses of Raimi's return.

i know the perfect cameo when spidey describes haing fought mysterio and when he unmaskes beck there'as the chin

[Immortalfire]

The villain should always have a connection with the hero.No, they shouldn't. It only make it seems forced if you overuse it. Spidey is a hero, and he's gonna stop whoever is his foe (or at least try to) no matter his motives, past, present, future or if he has a connection or not.

If he's just some random guy who has nothing to do with the protagonist, then he's a weak villain.So you're saying to me that all his rogue gallery in the comics are composed of weak villains? Because none of them is connected to Peter. Nor is Batman's villains, for example, who also has a big rogue gallery.

Villains exist to bring out and emphasize traits in the hero.True, and also to have the hero learning new lessons, such as Spidey's first battle against Ock, learning that he can't give up after a defeat, or against Rhino in Agony of Defeat, learning that he has to overcome his losses and humiliation and can't let it get to him, he has to overcome it without wanting a payback.
A connection isn't needed to make that happen, to have the hero fighting his battles and acquiring experience from that. I agree with Jick09.

[venom892]

I mean look at The Joker and Batman in The Dark knight.They are opposites of the same coin and have awesome chemistry as villain/hero and have no personal connection whatsoever.

[LightningFlash]

I advise that you read arkham asylum and batman RIP. Also the joker graphic novel by Brian Azzarello. That clown is a sick and twisted maniac that would put the devil to shame. Black mask is a but but the joker makes him look like a sissy girl.

:hoboj:

I actually own Arkham Asylum, so I know Joker is a badass, but still, my favorite Batman villain is Black Mask, just because I always loved the atmosphere with Batman fighting the gangs, and then Black Mask became the so-called "king of crime". Now I did like how Nolan had Joker working with the mob, but also against it, and that's also why I like Green Goblin, because for the most of GG's reign as a villain, he tried to rule the crime world.

Just something with a villain trying to become a crimelord makes the villain that much more interesting, and with Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins, his goal was to destroy cities that have become trash due to economics and the gangs and so forth, but he turned out to be much worse. And I liked Ghul's storyline in BB.

[LightningFlash]

I mean look at The Joker and Batman in The Dark knight.They are opposites of the same coin and have awesome chemistry as villain/hero and have no personal connection whatsoever.

And it would be nice for Raimi to take note and not have every villain connected to Peter.

Doc Ock was OKAY I suppose, but he kept doing the same thing with Sandman.

[Doctor Jones]

You do have a point. Norman of course is gonna have to have some connection with Peter, Ock showed Peter the way of sacrifice and doing good.

But Connors is gonna have a connection. So you can't stop that.

[LightningFlash]

True, I know there will be and always be a connection with Peter and Connors, but if Raimi does bring in Vulture or Kraven, then have no connection between those two.

[Reikowolf]

I mean look at The Joker and Batman in The Dark knight.They are opposites of the same coin and have awesome chemistry as villain/hero and have no personal connection whatsoever.

I think you're confusing yourself with the 89' Batman movie.

Where they really were the same and different. Both dealing with the same instability in their lives

The beauty of the Dark Knight was that the Joker was not connected to Batman but a result of him. He was the answer to what Batman was doing for Gotham. He exists because Batman exists. That is what makes them similiar but they are not the same, they are each others opposite.

The other side of Batman's coin in that movie was Harvey Dent. Hence the title of the film "The Dark Knight" as opposed to Harvey being Gotham's "White Knight" Thats what made the scene where Harvey takes the fall for Batman so believable, that he could very well be Batman as he believes in the same ideals. The difference being that he could not afford to do what Batman has to do and why Batman needed to endure as his ideals were past that of mere public image.

That being said, I totally think that there could be a Spider-Man villains where he/she is not tied to Peter. In effect, they could be the balance for what Spider-Man has done for the city.

I'm not saying apply the same story telling for TDK to the next spider-man, but the idea of all these villains being tied to Peter has been used. Its time to try something new. Maybe in effect creating an anti-hero. The Black cat would be interesting for this.

I've stated my idea of having Kraven in the plot as the Lizard becomes a hunt to him. Kraven has no association to Peter but would be there to hunt Spider-Man, not even a physical force. A more intellegent villain, one who studies his opponent.

[Joker]

And it would be nice for Raimi to take note and not have every villain connected to Peter.

Doc Ock was OKAY I suppose, but he kept doing the same thing with Sandman.

I think connections work if they are not contrived or forced. Obviously Norman worked because he was the father of Peter's best friend just like in the comics.

Octavius worked because he's a big name scientist. Peter is a science geek. It was only natural Peter would idolize him for his scientific ability. And how they met was not forced either. Peter was writing a paper on Octavius for college. Harry, being a good friend to Peter, introduced them.

It was the Sandman connection that was forced, contrived, and just didn't work, IMO.

[LightningFlash]

You don't have to really say 'imo' for that though, because what you said is true. Sandman's connection to Peter was forcefully pushed into the movie, and for an unknown reason, which made no sense and ultimately changed Uncle Ben's story as to who killed him as well.

The ironic thing is that in TSSM, Ben's killer was changed to be Black Cat's father, but that actually worked out and received no complaints.

[LightningFlash]

I think you're confusing yourself with the 89' Batman movie.

Where they really were the same and different. Both dealing with the same instability in their lives

The beauty of the Dark Knight was that the Joker was not connected to Batman but a result of him. He was the answer to what Batman was doing for Gotham. He exists because Batman exists. That is what makes them similiar but they are not the same, they are each others opposite.

The other side of Batman's coin in that movie was Harvey Dent. Hence the title of the film "The Dark Knight" as opposed to Harvey being Gotham's "White Knight" Thats what made the scene where Harvey takes the fall for Batman so believable, that he could very well be Batman as he believes in the same ideals. The difference being that he could not afford to do what Batman has to do and why Batman needed to endure as his ideals were past that of mere public image.

That being said, I totally think that there could be a Spider-Man villains where he/she is not tied to Peter. In effect, they could be the balance for what Spider-Man has done for the city.

I'm not saying apply the same story telling for TDK to the next spider-man, but the idea of all these villains being tied to Peter has been used. Its time to try something new. Maybe in effect creating an anti-hero. The Black cat would be interesting for this.

I've stated my idea of having Kraven in the plot as the Lizard becomes a hunt to him. Kraven has no association to Peter but would be there to hunt Spider-Man, not even a physical force. A more intellegent villain, one who studies his opponent.

The '89 movie tried to show the "theatrical" sides between Batman and Joker, wherein The Dark Knight showed a villain who has found someone that he enjoys "playing" with, in a sense, as he did with Harvey Dent. Not really much "theatrical", but it's more like a Silence of the Lambs relationship between Lecter and Starling, predator and prey.

[Jick09]

The ironic thing is that in TSSM, Ben's killer was changed to be Black Cat's father, but that actually worked out and received no complaints.
Probably because it was still the guy who we thought have killed Ben, and not someone else, like in the movie.

[Spider-ManHero12]

But Connors is gonna have a connection. So you can't stop that. Very true, and if you ask me, it will probably work out great that way. :up:

[webhead731]

I don't care what anyone says, but Two-Face was my favorite character in The Dark Knight. I felt for his character more than I did Joker.

Joker was more of "hey I'm a douche so let's destroy Gotham" which is fine, but Two-Face had a reason for what he was doing, I felt for the guy. That's one thing I like in the Spider-Man films. I think villains who are just out to destroy are good for what they are but I really like it when I feel for the bad guy, but know he's still bad. If any of you have seen the SAW movies, Jigsaw is a perfect example.

[webhead731]

And I stopped reading after "added an element". It didn't add an element. It would add if they said that the burglar is still alive, or that he has a family, or anything else regarding him. They didn't add, they changed the classic storyline of the simple carjacker who killed Uncle Ben, who Peter let go when he could've stopped because it wasn't his business. Yes, they ruined a classic storyline to make Sandman have a stupid connection with Peter. They seem to think that all the villains must have connections with the hero.

They ADDED an element. They added Flint Marko to the mix. It's not like Flint Marko came out with a gun and angrily shot Ben, COMPLETELY ignoring the original killer. THAT is changing it.
Was it 100% necessary? NO. Did it work? For me yes. I liked it. I wanted it to be Peter's fault in the end, and it was and still is. So good.

Someone who would kiss Raimi's ass every chance he gets regarding Sam's rendition of the Spidey films, I am not gonna take your word for it that Raimi didn't completely **** the character of Venom up.

Kiss Raimi's ass? Because I completely, 100% think that there is NOTHING wrong with any of his movies, let alone Spider-Man. Yeah. Nice try buddy.:up:

He WAS just like Bane in Spider-Man 3.

Shut up. You fail. :rolleyes:

but he used the symbiote POORLY.

O_o Completely disagree, but k.

He gave Venom only FIVE minutes of fighting; he didn't even use what could have been, i.e. having Spidey and Venom fight LIKE spiders;

I loved it when they fought like two spiders in the comic books. :rolleyes:

Venom is usually heavy brawling, but agile. In Spidey 3, he kicks Spidey's ass, he's hanging upside down off ****, he's flipping in the air, he's sticking to the walls, etc. I don't know what else you wanted them to do to uh...fight like "spiders". :dry:

But wait, don't tell me "I wanted more fighting!", because I will 100% agree with you on that. That part where Spider-Man knocks Venom back with that bar after he lunges at him, and Venom lands crouching, I thought that was going to be a brawl. Unfortunatley they didn't. But I didn't feel too underwhelmed. I was happy with what we got but I wanted more, like the stuff in the novel.

he had Venom ASK Sandman for help, which Venom doesn't even do,

God forbid. I mean, sure Venom isn't mister "I want help!" in the comic books, but does that little bit make him Bane? lmao. Venom wanted Spider-Man for himself. The comic book that came with Spider-Man 3 had Venom telling Sandman (before the fight) to do his job and keep the police away from him and MJ. Sounds like he was using him to me.
But still, I would have preferred Venom to have killed Sandman by biting him, calling for a longer fight with Spider-Man and Venom.

and he just rushed Eddie's transformation into Venom.

You mean the belltower scene? I thought that scene was perfect.

We should've saw him learn his powers; we should've seen him stalk Peter; we should've saw many things, but we didn't.

This comic also showed him getting used to the suit etc. I agree though. I don't mind the powers part, but after Peter and Aunt May talking, instead of Venom and Sandman's team up, it should have went back to the church for a one on one with Eddie and the Symbiote. Stalking Peter would have been nice, but for a sequel. You know, if he hadn't died.

Raimi never liked Venom, so I still think what he did to Venom was just what he always portrayed Venom to be: just a desperate use of time, and Venom was just that in the movie. It was just like a Spider-Man and New Goblin vs. Sandman bout.

Raimi said he grew more fond of the character during the production. He's probably not a uber Venom fan now, but still.
I disagree with your comment on him being just a waste of time in that movie. Venom was what happens when the Symbiote gets on an evil person, Venom was the villain who couldn't forgive and gave into "revenge" which is "like a poison". Venom felt present in the final battle for me. It was weird how he was gone for like 2 minutes, after Spider-Man kicks him through the ceiling, but there was stuff in the novel with Venom biting Harry's ankle. Should have been put into the film.

Sure, I can give you that Sam Raimi might have given or try to give Brock an arc during the film, and that was SEMI-good, but for Venom, no; I will still say he did not use Venom to any potential; but yet, of course he will use Green Goblin's, Doc Ock and Sandman's full potential, because he liked those characters, but to someone like me, it's like Raimi treated a character, that he never liked in the first place, just to show how HE visions Venom.

I honestly don't think he was trying to attack anyone with his interpretation. He kept it very close to the comic books. Venom was closer to the comic books than Doc Ock was, and he loves Doc Ock. I think Raimi doesn't see ALL the possibilities with Venom, and that's why he only had him in the last 30 minutes of the film. You make it sound like he went "I hate Venom. I'm going to make him the worst comic-to-film interpretation ever, so I can piss all my loyal fans off, and all the Venom fans off, and make a my beloved Spider-Man character have a bad film, because I hate Venom". I doubt that's what happened. About everyone I know liked Venom just fine, but it seems the internet fan boys have a different sob story.
I feel bad for anyone who looked forward to Spider-Man 3 JUST for Venom and Venom only.

So he did screw up Venom royally. And it just shows how much a fan would suck up if he/she ever said otherwise.

K.

And also, he might have said he wasn't fully satisfied with the film, but if he wasn't, why they hell didn't he keep some footage, that he DID film, in the movie? He filmed scenes that were in the book, that would've made the movie much more enjoyable and interesting, but he took them out. So that's case #2 of how he took it up the ass by Arad and/or Sony.

I'm not sure if he has the final say on what stays and what goes.

But I'm not a filmaker.

[StylishHokie21]

Great news!

[MonBeeb]

I mean look at The Joker and Batman in The Dark knight.They are opposites of the same coin and have awesome chemistry as villain/hero and have no personal connection whatsoever.

They don't have a connection via convoluted backstory, but they have a connection. The Joker is a reflection of what Batman might have been but hopes he isn't. That in itself is a connection. It's a clash of ideologies. He's not some random guy; he exists in response to Batman's presence.

The hero and villain always have some type of connection. If your hero just fights some random thug on the street, that's not a villain. A villain reflects the hero and brings out traits in the hero; in order to that there has to be a basic connection.

Look at it like this. Uncle Ben's murderer WAS a random thug on the street, but he was connected to Peter through the murder of Ben. That elevated him to "villain" status because it brought out traits in Peter. If he had just been a random goon who, say, robbed a bank...that doesn't bring out any traits in Peter or cause any development.

That's really the important thing. Peter's development is more important than anything else...and having a connection to the villain serves that development.

[Episode29]

Great news if its true for two reasons: 1) We can get back to the pure Raimi-ness of the second film, and 2) because it will once and for all kill the chances of Carnage popping up.

[Adrian89]

And also, he might have said he wasn't fully satisfied with the film, but if he wasn't, why they hell didn't he keep some footage, that he DID film, in the movie? He filmed scenes that were in the book, that would've made the movie much more enjoyable and interesting, but he took them out. So that's case #2 of how he took it up the ass by Arad and/or Sony.
I keep wondering the same thing man! It makes no sense. Alot of good scenes were deleted from this average movie.

Let's hope there will be a Spider-Man 3.1 release soon, that would be cool!

[Joker]

I don't care what anyone says, but Two-Face was my favorite character in The Dark Knight. I felt for his character more than I did Joker.

You were supposed to. The Joker is never the kind of villain you feel for. He is pure undiluted evil. If you feel for him at all then there's something seriously wrong with you :hehe:

Joker was more of "hey I'm a douche so let's destroy Gotham" which is fine

No, Joker was holding a mirror up to Gotham trying to show them that deep down they were all no different from him when the chips were down. "I'll show you. When the chips are down these civilised people, they'll eat eachother. See I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve".

It's taken from The Killing Joke graphic novel, where he tries to prove one bad day is all it takes to drive a man insane.

That's one thing I like in the Spider-Man films. I think villains who are just out to destroy are good for what they are but I really like it when I feel for the bad guy, but know he's still bad. If any of you have seen the SAW movies, Jigsaw is a perfect example.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a villain who has not got a tragic or sympathetic backstory. Nobody felt for Hannibal Lecter, and he is one of cinema's greatest villains. Most of cinema's greatest villains are totally vile with little to no sympathy.

[webhead731]

Of course man. ^ There is nothing wrong. But I just like it better.

[Jick09]

They ADDED an element.To change the classic storyline, because Sam Raimi thinks all of the villains must have a connection with Peter Parker. Otherwise, there's no motive for Spidey to stop them. :whatever:

They added Flint Marko to the mix. It's not like Flint Marko came out with a gun and angrily shot Ben, COMPLETELY ignoring the original killer.
THAT is changing it.Yeah, that is changing it. They put the original killer on second plan to make Flint have a stupid, contrived and forced connection with Peter.

Was it 100% necessary?It was 0% necessary. They didn't need to do it to have Spidey against Sandman. Just the fact that he is doing robbery is enough of a motive. Spidey will try to stop whoever is his foe because he is a hero, and not for personal vendetta. Connections absolutely wasn't needed.
Without mentioning that it was so forced to have it, then having Stacy telling who is Ben's real killer 2 years after the incident. Tsc, Tsc. All of this contrived thing only to have Sandman connected to Peter.
NO. Did it work? For me yes. I liked it.Well, that's you. To each his own. But I don't think the majority liked it. Neither did I.
I wanted it to be Peter's fault in the end, and it was and still is. So good.No, it isn't. It isn't his fault that Flint accidentally or not pulled the trigger. It doesn't matter if the carjacker dashed on Flint or not. It was the carjacker who Peter let go. It was the carjacker who Peter could've stopped, but was irresponsible because it wasn't his business. And having him killing Uncle Ben would fall on Peter's shoulders. But it was Flint who did. It wasn't Peter's fault.

[LightningFlash]

They ADDED an element. They added Flint Marko to the mix. It's not like Flint Marko came out with a gun and angrily shot Ben, COMPLETELY ignoring the original killer. THAT is changing it.
Was it 100% necessary? NO. Did it work? For me yes. I liked it. I wanted it to be Peter's fault in the end, and it was and still is. So good.

They didn't ADD an element, they CREATED a retcon. They still had the burglar, but they had him for an unnecessary reason, when the burglar/robber just took the money and fled. Didn't even have a gun; Flint Marko did. So they made Marko the killer; I'm sorry, but I only enjoy twists when it's intelligent and not ignorant just for the sake of bringing in a character to try to "wrap it up"(ala, Uncle Ben WASN'T needed for Spider-Man 3).

Kiss Raimi's ass? Because I completely, 100% think that there is NOTHING wrong with any of his movies, let alone Spider-Man. Yeah. Nice try buddy.:up:

Good example of kissing ass, you said Flint being the killer was an "okay" move for you, right? That's kissing ass; when there WAS something wrong with Spider-Man 3; when things AREN'T needed for the third movie and just made to add screentime, like we've seen for so many comic-book adaptations and people just say the "ufck"-ups are "good", then that means you'll pretty much watch anything. I bet you would watch BND if it was made into a movie, huh?


Shut up. You fail. :rolleyes:

Nope, I do not fail actually. Bane and Venom are one in the same. They were BOTH screwed up. Sure, okay, Venom had an alter-ego where Brock might've gotten a semi-okay storyline, but once Eddie became Venom, it was like seeing Robin(New Goblin) and Batgirl(Spider-Man) take on Bane(Venom) for those lousy whatever minutes. And did I mention that Bane and Venom had about the same amount of time as well? Haha.


O_o Completely disagree, but k.

Nope?

So the symbiote made someone emo?

How did the symbiote make Eddie evil, but it made Peter a stupid-ass with pushed black hair to the side? How did Peter keep his regular clothes, but he instead decided to dye his hair black?


I loved it when they fought like two spiders in the comic books. :rolleyes:

It would've been a sight to see instead of Venom having to rely on a weapon to stab Spidey's neck. Maybe I'll just wait until I make films that have actually good fight scenes.

Venom is usually heavy brawling, but agile. In Spidey 3, he kicks Spidey's ass, he's hanging upside down off ****, he's flipping in the air, he's sticking to the walls, etc. I don't know what else you wanted them to do to uh...fight like "spiders". :dry:

Uhh, I hate to say this but you can't give an example of the ONE time Venom is kicking Spidey around while they're falling. The other times he's using a weapon, or strangling him so SANDMAN could kill him. THAT'S not Venom. He DOESN'T let others try to kill Spidey. And he's crawling from a distance or to jump TOWARDS Spidey. The only times Venom does something bad ass is either in the background or from a shadow. That's pathetic.

But wait, don't tell me "I wanted more fighting!", because I will 100% agree with you on that. That part where Spider-Man knocks Venom back with that bar after he lunges at him, and Venom lands crouching, I thought that was going to be a brawl. Unfortunatley they didn't. But I didn't feel too underwhelmed. I was happy with what we got but I wanted more, like the stuff in the novel.

The thing with Venom on the glider with Harry would've been unnecessary for the movie, just because Venom doesn't want to kill Harry; he wants to kill Spider-Man. And if THAT was in the movie, it would've been something else I would pick on. I wish we had more Spider-Man VS Venom, I wish we had Sandman try to stop Venom only to be bitten, and I wish Venom said something about "like father, like son" when Harry got in the way and was stabbed in the back.


God forbid. I mean, sure Venom isn't mister "I want help!" in the comic books, but does that little bit make him Bane? lmao. Venom wanted Spider-Man for himself. The comic book that came with Spider-Man 3 had Venom telling Sandman (before the fight) to do his job and keep the police away from him and MJ. Sounds like he was using him to me.
But still, I would have preferred Venom to have killed Sandman by biting him, calling for a longer fight with Spider-Man and Venom.

The 'Venom is like Bane' is because of mis-use and screen time. Him asking for Sandman's help was just too ignorant to watch, the scene, and how Venom even ASKED for help. And I didn't see a comic because I didn't even buy the movie. Would never buy a movie that made me fall asleep.

Sure, Sandman kept the police away, but then again...we saw ENOUGH Sandman; another reason why Raimi did a douchy mood with Venom, we still had more Sandy even though he was in the ENTIRE film.


You mean the belltower scene? I thought that scene was perfect.

Learning powers; focusing on how he has Spider-Man's powers; realizing how he should get Mary Jane, him STALKING Peter and MJ. That stuff. The "transformation" into an evil man.

This comic also showed him getting used to the suit etc. I agree though. I don't mind the powers part, but after Peter and Aunt May talking, instead of Venom and Sandman's team up, it should have went back to the church for a one on one with Eddie and the Symbiote. Stalking Peter would have been nice, but for a sequel. You know, if he hadn't died.

Exactly. Or just a nice "stalk" session with Venom witnessing the Peter/Aunt May conversation.


Raimi said he grew more fond of the character during the production. He's probably not a uber Venom fan now, but still.
I disagree with your comment on him being just a waste of time in that movie. Venom was what happens when the Symbiote gets on an evil person, Venom was the villain who couldn't forgive and gave into "revenge" which is "like a poison". Venom felt present in the final battle for me. It was weird how he was gone for like 2 minutes, after Spider-Man kicks him through the ceiling, but there was stuff in the novel with Venom biting Harry's ankle. Should have been put into the film.

See, again, him jumping on the glider and biting Harry's ankle wasn't really needed at all. The symbiote arc could've been a whole lot better and Venom could've been used a whole lot better. That's why I say Raimi never respected Venom even with researching him. He just gave Venom the short-end of the straw which really made me mad. I never cared for Sandman; I went in to see Venom. I had to wait for two hours and then finally saw him for five miniutes. Told my friend to wake me up when he shows up, and I saw it, then left when the movie ended, about ten minutes after. Pissed me off and a total waist of ten bucks.

I honestly don't think he was trying to attack anyone with his interpretation. He kept it very close to the comic books. Venom was closer to the comic books than Doc Ock was, and he loves Doc Ock. I think Raimi doesn't see ALL the possibilities with Venom, and that's why he only had him in the last 30 minutes of the film. You make it sound like he went "I hate Venom. I'm going to make him the worst comic-to-film interpretation ever, so I can piss all my loyal fans off, and all the Venom fans off, and make a my beloved Spider-Man character have a bad film, because I hate Venom". I doubt that's what happened. About everyone I know liked Venom just fine, but it seems the internet fan boys have a different sob story.
I feel bad for anyone who looked forward to Spider-Man 3 JUST for Venom and Venom only.

So you said Raimi was close to the comics, but you feel bad for the fans who went to see Venom. If Raimi was CLOSE to the comics, the fans wouldn't be mad to see Raimi-Venom. Raimi was close to EDDIE, not Venom.

And my arms are getting tired, so I'll just say end it with Sam Raimi, if he wanted perfect, he should've kept the GOOD scenes that would've made the movie flow better.

And we have a toy of a symbiote taunting Spidey but we didn't get it. Raimi screwed the pooch hardcore, and I'll keep saying it. Venom and Sandman sounds better than Sandman and Vulture, but Venom's screentime was screwed over.

And if you reply, there's no need for "smileys".

[Doctor Jones]

I don't care what anyone says, but Two-Face was my favorite character in The Dark Knight. I felt for his character more than I did Joker.

Joker was more of "hey I'm a douche so let's destroy Gotham" which is fine, but Two-Face had a reason for what he was doing, I felt for the guy. That's one thing I like in the Spider-Man films. I think villains who are just out to destroy are good for what they are but I really like it when I feel for the bad guy, but know he's still bad. If any of you have seen the SAW movies, Jigsaw is a perfect example.

That was the point. Harvey was added to provide a sympethetic character since the Joker couldn't provide any.

[Jick09]

I wish we had more Spider-Man VS Venom, I wish we had Sandman try to stop Venom only to be bitten, and I wish Venom said something about "like father, like son" when Harry got in the way and was stabbed in the back.
Yeah that^^

[webhead731]

[QUOTE][quote=LightningFlash;16678537]They didn't ADD an element, they CREATED a retcon. They still had the burglar, but they had him for an unnecessary reason,

His in-a-hurry dumb selfish ass got Ben killed. Sure that's no reason.

when the burglar/robber just took the money and fled. Didn't even have a gun;

Except for that gun he was waving in the promoter's face, and he shot at Spidey in the car chase...and in the warehouse.

Was that a gun? I can't remember. I've only watched that movie a hundred times (that's probably no exaggeration).

I'm sorry, but I only enjoy twists when it's intelligent and not ignorant just for the sake of bringing in a character to try to "wrap it up"(ala, Uncle Ben WASN'T needed for Spider-Man 3)

Guess that's just opinion.



Good example of kissing ass, you said Flint being the killer was an "okay" move for you, right? That's kissing ass; when there WAS something wrong with Spider-Man 3; when things AREN'T needed for the third movie and just made to add screentime, like we've seen for so many comic-book adaptations and people just say the "ufck"-ups are "good", then that means you'll pretty much watch anything.

Just because I like and can tolerate changes from comics to film, doesn't mean I'm kissing ass. If I hated changes, I'd hate Iron Man, Dark Knight, Spider-Man 1 and 2, The Incredible Hulk and so on.

I bet you would watch BND if it was made into a movie, huh?

I don't follow. What is "BND"? Answer is probably a no. But we'll see.


Nope, I do not fail actually. Bane and Venom are one in the same.

Yeah, you don't fail at all. This statement proves it.

They were BOTH screwed up. Sure, okay, Venom had an alter-ego where Brock might've gotten a semi-okay storyline, but once Eddie became Venom, it was like seeing Robin(New Goblin) and Batgirl(Spider-Man) take on Bane(Venom) for those lousy whatever minutes.

Again, just your opinion. Won't argue.

And did I mention that Bane and Venom had about the same amount of time as well? Haha.

It's a known fact that screen time determines if you're like Bane or not. I read that in the dictionary under "bull****".



So the symbiote made someone emo?

How did the symbiote make Eddie evil, but it made Peter a stupid-ass with pushed black hair to the side? How did Peter keep his regular clothes, but he instead decided to dye his hair black?

Emo is an overused word and is not true for this film. Just because he had his hair pushed to one side does not make him emo. His attitude was no where near, and really, his hair may have looked similar to an emo's, but I'd tolerate that in society. What I see is hair over their eyes, lip piercings, eye liner, make up, tears, wrist bands, Nightmare Before Christmas clothes, baby attitudes etc.



It would've been a sight to see instead of Venom having to rely on a weapon to stab Spidey's neck. Maybe I'll just wait until I make films that have actually good fight scenes.

Venom used one weapon, smarty. That's like getting on Goblin for using his spear in the final fight in 1. Who cares? Atleast he was going to get his motive done.


Uhh, I hate to say this but you can't give an example of the ONE time Venom is kicking Spidey around while they're falling.

That was a good bit right there. Also Venom swing-kicking Spider-Man twice, and smacking his face with that bar. Face it, if Harry did not come, Spider-Man would have been dead. Spidey got out of Gobby's trap, he talked Ock out of his, but Venom was determined. Harry saved the day. Twice actually.

The other times he's using a weapon, or strangling him so SANDMAN could kill him. THAT'S not Venom. He DOESN'T let others try to kill Spidey.

Well actually, the web was choking Spider-Man. So it was a bit of a team work thing. I thought that bit was set up well (minus the freaking reporter). The novel was really...you know..sad? Like they made a big deal about "the end of Spider-Man". Not too big, but still. The movie kind of covered it too fast for me to take it in.


And he's crawling from a distance or to jump TOWARDS Spidey.

Venom lunges quite a bit in the comic books.

The only times Venom does something bad ass is either in the background or from a shadow. That's pathetic.

No idea what you're talking about but okay.



The thing with Venom on the glider with Harry would've been unnecessary for the movie, just because Venom doesn't want to kill Harry; he wants to kill Spider-Man. And if THAT was in the movie, it would've been something else I would pick on.

Venom in the comic books will kill to get to what he wants, that means any bumps along the way.

I wish we had more Spider-Man VS Venom, I wish we had Sandman try to stop Venom only to be bitten, and I wish Venom said something about "like father, like son" when Harry got in the way and was stabbed in the back.

No argument here. Nice job with the last line. :up:




And I didn't see a comic because I didn't even buy the movie. Would never buy a movie that made me fall asleep.

You can read it from venomvsspidey's post in my "who's your favorite comic-to-film villain costume?" or whatever, in the Spider-Man 1-3 forum.

How anyone can fall asleep through this movie, or any action movie, is beyond me. But I won't judge. I personally couldn't sleep through an action flick, unless already dead tired.

Sure, Sandman kept the police away, but then again...we saw ENOUGH Sandman; another reason why Raimi did a douchy mood with Venom, we still had more Sandy even though he was in the ENTIRE film.

He wasn't in the entire film. Sure Venom should have been in more, but I've stated that before.




Learning powers; focusing on how he has Spider-Man's powers; realizing how he should get Mary Jane, him STALKING Peter and MJ. That stuff. The "transformation" into an evil man.

He was already evil.

The comic book goes into some of that stuff you mentioned. I already said I'd have liked to see that as well.



Exactly. Or just a nice "stalk" session with Venom witnessing the Peter/Aunt May conversation.

Could have been cool.



See, again, him jumping on the glider and biting Harry's ankle wasn't really needed at all. The symbiote arc could've been a whole lot better and Venom could've been used a whole lot better. That's why I say Raimi never respected Venom even with researching him. He just gave Venom the short-end of the straw which really made me mad. I never cared for Sandman; I went in to see Venom. I had to wait for two hours and then finally saw him for five miniutes. Told my friend to wake me up when he shows up, and I saw it, then left when the movie ended, about ten minutes after. Pissed me off and a total waist of ten bucks.

I don't know about you, but us SHH members and me knew about Venom's last 30-minutes screen time since 2006. Did you really sleep through the movie? O_o
Look, I admitted Venom wasn't used enough, but I couldn't HATE a movie just for one character, that's not even the title character. I liked Venom, but IF to me, he was done awfully, I would have liked the movie less.



So you said Raimi was close to the comics, but you feel bad for the fans who went to see Venom. If Raimi was CLOSE to the comics, the fans wouldn't be mad to see Raimi-Venom. Raimi was close to EDDIE, not Venom.

And my arms are getting tired, so I'll just say end it with Sam Raimi, if he wanted perfect, he should've kept the GOOD scenes that would've made the movie flow better.

Like I said, I'm not sure if that's all up to him.

And we have a toy of a symbiote taunting Spidey but we didn't get it.

O_o

What toy? The one with the Symbiote with its arms in the air looking like a flipping idiot? I would have lol'd and cried at the retardness of that if it made the movie.

And if you reply, there's no need for "smileys".

:grin:

[Gotham22]

This is amazing news and it means Spidey 4 will live up to the first two films and be much better than the third film.

[Casius--J]

Well I hope this means the 4th will be about as good as the second one, I did enjoy the third one with all its flaws though!

[LightningFlash]

BND - Brand New Day.

And, yes, Spider-Man 3 became the first movie I saw in theatres that I fell asleep too; and I usually stay up to like 2 or 3 in the AM.

So, yah...that's how much I didn't even enjoy the movie.

[webhead731]

You're loss.

And no, I don't care to see BND made into a movie. Nice try.

[Reikowolf]

why not due the clone saga while you're at it

[Doctor Jones]

PLease don't say that.

[LightningFlash]

You're loss.

And no, I don't care to see BND made into a movie. Nice try.

Yes you would.

And not my loss; I can definitely live without Raimi-directed Spider-Man films.

Oh, and after watching Watchmen for a second time...I can say there's another movie better than S-M 3 :woot:

[weezerspider]

This is GEREAT! Frosted flakes are more....
Yah, but this is great news.

If you like Sm3, you still have to admit that it is not on par with the first 2. Admit it.

[webhead731]

Yes you would.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. :up: Wish my doctor would give me some pure BS meds to help me sleep.

And not my loss; I can definitely live without Raimi-directed Spider-Man films.

Then do it. We know you hate it. Not many really care.

Oh, and after watching Watchmen for a second time...I can say there's another movie better than S-M 3 :woot:

This is your opinion. Honestly, from someone who DIDN'T read the comic, I disliked that movie. Rorschach was a big badass and he was my favorite character. He was also the ONLY character I liked. The movie was too long, too many plot holes for me (explained in the comic? Don't care, explain in the movie as well), and I didn't know if I was supposed to be taking it seriously or not. One minute they're all deep and "we need to be super heroes" and the next I'm watching a sex scene with "Hallelujah" playing.

This is GEREAT! Frosted flakes are more....
Yah, but this is great news.

If you like Sm3, you still have to admit that it is not on par with the first 2. Admit it.

I don't want to sound like an ass, but you can not say this. People have their own opinions, just because you think one thing doesn't mean everyone does or should. If I liked Batman and Robin more than Dark Knight, then I did (but I did not :D).

I personally like all the Spidey films just the same, all in their own ways. All tie together but have different stories etc. It's like Star Wars, I can't really CHOOSE which one is the best (sometimes I think it may be Return of the Jedi).

[Demogoblin]

Guys, keep it civil. There is no need to talk to other posters this way.

[mclay18]

If you like Sm3, you still have to admit that it is not on par with the first 2. Admit it.

I do, but I think it's much more better off than the Schumacher Batman films. SM-3 may not be well-received critically, but I didn't think it was awful -- just... somewhat disappointing is all that comes to mind.

I do think Sony and Arad are to blame for forcing Raimi to make all these changes and additions (although I think Raimi and Arad are to blame for the black suit situation), and they are wisely stepping back to let him do his own thing for #4.

[Dragon]

people need to decide now. was Raimi having creatice control the first two times? if he never had creative control then we dont know what will happen now. could be even worse.

He probably didn't have creative control on the first film, but was granted it on the second, since the first was a hit.

if he had creative control the first two times and didnt have the third time he is a complete idiot. why would you let the studio take over the story and use you as a puppet?

Becuase he works for the studio. He has to do what they say. Raimi doesn't finance the films himself or own the rights to the characters. A director gets creative control only if the studio gives him creative control.

With Spidey 3, the film still made enough money for the studio to know that Raimi's handling warranted bringing him back for another film, but the story was weak enough for them to realize that he needs to be iable to the creative decisions.

why is here Raimi saying that hes good friend Avi Arad?
so many questions. and not enough answers.

They can be friends and not agree on how the story should go.

[webhead731]

Guys, keep it civil. There is no need to talk to other posters this way.

I apologize.

[BlackLantern]

I say they steal the subplot from the SM3 game.....introduce the Lizard and then bring in Kraven....set Kraven up as this big reality TV star....basically a pissed off Crocodile Hunter....he's travelled the world, he's hunted everything and has made sure the world knows that he's done this stuff.....

[venom892]

No please I don't want Kraven to be a reality TV Star.That's so lame to me.:whatever:

[BlackLantern]

its topical and its something the audience would connect to.....im just spitballing here....its better than musical numbers

[venom892]

Well yea anything is better then musical numbers.:o

[Spider-ManHero12]

It's not really a bad idea at all. I think that we should see Kraven hunting in Africa, then, he (somehow) gets a newspaper with the Lizard on the front and decides to come ot America.

[BlackLantern]

It's not really a bad idea at all. I think that we should see Kraven hunting in Africa, then, he (somehow) gets a newspaper with the Lizard on the front and decides to come ot America.

You could cast a bit of an older actor.....someone still in shape obviously....but to give Kraven some scope, show him hunting in this place and in that place and then hears about 'The Lizard' and comes across Spidey and figures that Spider-Man would make much better prey or something

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ Indeed, though, I don't think he should be that old. Javier Bardem is a great choice, IMO.

[BlackLantern]

Eh....I'd want to get someone who is physically imposing.....someone who looks like he could snap your neck with his bare hands

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ How about Gerard Butler?

[venom892]

He wouldn't be a bad choice.Also Josh Brolin is talented.

[Batman137]

wait, i just saw an interview of raimi saying that he didnt know if he was going to direct, so how can he have total creative control?

[SpaceWay2009]

^Maybe the article you read was an old one? Raimi is going to direct SM4.

[Spider-Fan]

I remember many interviews way back he was unsure he was coming back, so that probably came from something old.

[E-Man]

This is good and bad.

Good because he will tell a story that he is comfortable with and will have a passion for. That is good, because it was obvious that he didn't give a damn about the Stacey's in this film, because he didn't feel that they belonged. Partially so with Brock, though he was slightly more important.

Bad, because he was the one who made Flint Marko the killer of Uncle Ben. He also wouldn't let Peter go fully dark when he was in the black suit. Spider-man: The Animated Series and Spectacular Spider-man did a darker depiction of the black suited Spider-man/Symbiote Peter than a PG-13 film was able to deliver....that's not right.

Kids could have accepted a dark Peter and we really could have seen the city grow to hate him, see his family/friends question why he's wearing the suit. This would have made the moment when he went back to wear the red suite in the 3rd act that much more epic....and it would have been more redeeming. Instead, the kids saw a guy that likes to dance get angry a few times.....and eat cookies. This was Rami's creative control, too.

Then again, he didn't fully understand the whole symbiote suit thing anyway....

If he makes it like Spider-man and Spider-man 2, I think we'll be fine.

-R
Co-sign. I have faith in Raimi, but I hope he's learned from his mistakes.

[Doctor Jones]

I think he will. I think since Sandman was a villain he and Maguire wanted to use he just wanted him there. And I'm glad we got to see him on film, I know love the guy, at first when I heard he was the villain I was very surprised someone so low brow as him would make it into a third film.

But i think Sandman could of accidently hurt Aunt May or MJ and that's what would prompt Spidey to go after him, but still keep Sabdman's storyline form the film about his family, I thought that was great.

Such a missed oppurtunity he was. If he was the main villain only, he would of been incredible. Too bad Raimi didn't egt his way.

[Chris Wallace]

Link: http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/03/raimi-i-will-have-total-creati.html

Yes! Avi Arad can keep his nose out of this one.

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt336/Kshema_bucket/1346678ssmd2szu40.gif

[SpaceWay2009]

^Nice picture/animation! Where did you get it?

[Spidey Snooch]

You know, I love the job Raimi did with Spidey 1 and 2. I even enjoyed 3 for sheer entertainment value, but he CANNOT blame SM3's shortcomings on studio interference. At the end of the day, he and his doctor brother wrote a lazily-convenient, overstuffed script with more weak threads than an irregular sweater and more holes than swiss cheese. For God's sake, they introduced a freaking ASTRONAUT in the previous movie and they can't think of anything better than "symbiote lands, attaches itself to Peter's scooter"!? They only creative mistake the studio may have made was pushing Sam too hard. 3 epic movies in 5 years? I'm glad he got a vacation, hired a writer, and admitted the mistakes of the 3rd. If 4 can be half as good as 2, it will be gold. That is all...

[Doctor Jones]

I think even with the best writers in the world, SM3 with that much stuff still wouldn't of worked. I mean, how can you balance all those things.

I bet the original outline or script was damn stronger. God, I would love to read it, even if it was an outline.

[Infinity9999x]

I think even with the best writers in the world, SM3 with that much stuff still wouldn't of worked. I mean, how can you balance all those things.

I bet the original outline or script was damn stronger. God, I would love to read it, even if it was an outline.

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

[FaT_tONle]

You know, I love the job Raimi did with Spidey 1 and 2. I even enjoyed 3 for sheer entertainment value, but he CANNOT blame SM3's shortcomings on studio interference. At the end of the day, he and his doctor brother wrote a lazily-convenient, overstuffed script with more weak threads than an irregular sweater and more holes than swiss cheese. For God's sake, they introduced a freaking ASTRONAUT in the previous movie and they can't think of anything better than "symbiote lands, attaches itself to Peter's scooter"!? They only creative mistake the studio may have made was pushing Sam too hard. 3 epic movies in 5 years? I'm glad he got a vacation, hired a writer, and admitted the mistakes of the 3rd. If 4 can be half as good as 2, it will be gold. That is all...

Yup... Raimi is trying to give himself a pass with those comments... sorry Sam but that's for the fans and audience to decide and not you... :whatever:

[Adrian89]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

Absolutely right! I agree and I also agree with your older post (in your sig) about Raimi's vision on Peter Parker. It's a shame that Peter was still acting like a n00b, even after high school. Raimi didn't really show any evolution in his character during these movies (all 3 of them). And I doubt anything will change regarding his character with the 4th Movie, which is a shame.

[Casius--J]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

Yeah I agree with this, when I first watched the movie I thought they shouldn't have included venom but since learning it was the studios that insisted him I feel that Sandman should've been the one to go! Even with his tacked on backstory I still didnt think he was an interesting villain, for me he was just THERE.

[SpaceWay2009]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.I agree! :) :up:

[Chris Wallace]

^Nice picture/animation! Where did you get it?

Found it on photobucket.

[dark_b]

i still think that if raimi would say '' NO VENOM'' they wouldnt push him. he himself said that they are friends with AVI ARAD and he listened to him.

[bryanss3]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

I agree with that, but I think what they should have done was develop Eddie Brock's character better and after Brock becomes Venom use it as a lead in to SM4 instead of killing him off 15 minutes later. If did that maybe they could have had a better Story for Sandman, less dancing, and made Gwen and Captain Stacy actually feel like they are in the movie for a reason other than the fact that their from the comics.

[Doctor Jones]

Edit.

[Doctor Jones]

I agree, with all the material crammed into SM3, it was in trouble. However, Raimi still holds quite a bit of that blame from me. For one reason,

He should have realized that, and planned accordingly.

The studio said he had to have Venom. Raimi didn't like that, but that's the way it works, and he had to accommodate. What he should have done however, was look at the script and realize, "Uh oh, there's too many players in the ball park here."

Now, he knew he had to finish up the Goblin arc, and he knew he had to have Venom...so, what he should have done, was cut Sandman, and used the extra screen time to make Venom a more developed character.

Now yes, I know Raimi doesn't like Venom, but I don't think that's a good excuse at all. You don't like him? Fine, you should have done something to make him more interesting! But instead, Raimi introduced a third villian that didn't need to be there, and tacked on a backstory to that villian that never had anything like that to begin with. It left me scratching my head, and wondering "why don't you do that to Venom?" Don't sit there and complain about how he's uniteresting and then give him the bare bones treatment! Do something about it!

Instead, Raimi just trugged ahead and shoved in the characters he still wanted, which in turn hurt the movie. He should have swallowed his pride and tried to do what was best for the movie itself.

I think he did realize it, that's why he wasn't as committed. He still wanted the villain he wanted, I mean in terms of comittment, he was interested in the Peter/Sandman forgiveness story from the beginning, and removing that wouldn't make him as committed. So I think he had to accomodate some. It's not that simple saying, "Okay, that's too much, let's change it." Especially to producers who are your boss, I mean, Raimi probably did realize it, but that wasn't apart of what he wanted. I know Sam is classy enough not to name names, but if a producer has his/her say over something, then there it is, which baffles me all of a sudden the producers are barking requests to Raimi while the other two films went smoothly. He knew this, he knew there were too many characters, if he realizes that, does that make him a bad director? He really didn't have a choice from what it seems. I just give him credit for including a villain that he disliked and put him in for us.

I mean think about it, if Avi and Laura said, "Put Gwen or Venom in." How do you of think what would of happened if Sam said "No?" You can argue that Sam needed to just straight up say no, but you need to put yourself in the position of him. What would you of done? SM3 doesn't make him a bad director, and all of a sudden people want him out becaus of, I do agree that he needs ot make some changes (ie, the capture of MJ all the time) but he still made SM1 and SM2, and among that other great films.

[Jick09]

i still think that if raimi would say '' NO VENOM'' they wouldnt push him. he himself said that they are friends with AVI ARAD and he listened to him.
Of course no. They wouldn't risk losing or firing a director who brought them more than 1.5 billion dollars within 3 years. If he was more strong willed, he'd have refused if he knew he wouldn't do a good job.

[LightningFlash]

I think even with the best writers in the world, SM3 with that much stuff still wouldn't of worked. I mean, how can you balance all those things.

I bet the original outline or script was damn stronger. God, I would love to read it, even if it was an outline.

That, I can't agree on.

The novelization, the ENTIRE thing, would've been glorious to watch on screen. It spread out the characters perfectly and neatly.

[Jick09]

I don't. I can see all that stuff working out easily.
First, you have Spidey getting the symbiote and facing Sandman and Harry within the first 30 min, instead of showing Spidey only after 30 min, like what happened.
Second, you take all the romantic cr@p for an already established love out of the movie, along with Peter dancing in the jazz club and Harry and MJ cooking, and you'll have plenty of time to develop the villains and do more important things, such as showing Peter's dark side, how he changed, the damaged he've done and his redemption.

[Doctor Jones]

That, I can't agree on.

The novelization, the ENTIRE thing, would've been glorious to watch on screen. It spread out the characters perfectly and neatly.

That is a novel. A novel is able to have pages and pages to draw from, the author has free reign to expand on whatever he wants. Plus, if you do a complete copy of the script in the book form, it's like not even 200 pages. Hell, look at the Potter books, why the hell do you think they cut all that out? If they did it like the novel it would be damn long. Could it make it better? Sure, but it's a novel a movie's job is to tell a story in a compressed amount of time, not be a live book. You people aren't thinking realistically, it's just wants for a better film which is not gonna change, only where I can see an extended edition, but like that, it would be too long. Longer isn't always better. Hell, I think the extended edition if released could improve on the film alot, but you people are asking for too much from it.

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ I second that.

[DACrowe]

I will say I don't think Sam ever lost sight of Peter Parker as a character or his development (and I think it is a bit silly to say he hasn't grown in the movies, even if he still acts like a geek). I personally hope he starts acting more confident in the next one as Sam said he wants to try something different and the end of SM3 implied Peter and MJ have finally grown up and are going to try a mature relationship for a change.

With that said SM3 is a very flawed film that is quite understandable to hate (I think it is actually a somewhat mediocre film that is highly entertaining and with more humanity than most summer blockbusters that came out summer 2007), but the dwell on who to blame is moot at right this point. I do think Raimi will learn from his mistakes and he likely will try to make SM4 a more streamlined, intelligent and hopefully mature film.

[Infinity9999x]

I think he did realize it, that's why he wasn't as committed. He still wanted the villain he wanted, I mean in terms of comittment, he was interested in the Peter/Sandman forgiveness story from the beginning, and removing that wouldn't make him as committed. So I think he had to accomodate some. It's not that simple saying, "Okay, that's too much, let's change it." Especially to producers who are your boss, I mean, Raimi probably did realize it, but that wasn't apart of what he wanted. I know Sam is classy enough not to name names, but if a producer has his/her say over something, then there it is, which baffles me all of a sudden the producers are barking requests to Raimi while the other two films went smoothly. He knew this, he knew there were too many characters, if he realizes that, does that make him a bad director? He really didn't have a choice from what it seems. I just give him credit for including a villain that he disliked and put him in for us.

I mean think about it, if Avi and Laura said, "Put Gwen or Venom in." How do you of think what would of happened if Sam said "No?" You can argue that Sam needed to just straight up say no, but you need to put yourself in the position of him. What would you of done? SM3 doesn't make him a bad director, and all of a sudden people want him out becaus of, I do agree that he needs ot make some changes (ie, the capture of MJ all the time) but he still made SM1 and SM2, and among that other great films.

I never said he was a bad director. I liked SM1 quite a bit. I've never really liked SM2, but I realize that, when you look at it purely as a film, it's very good. I personally have thought that Raimi isn't the right guy for Spider-man since SM2, as you can see from the post in my sig, but that's another topic.

Now, I can understand that Raimi was interested in a forgiveness story, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices. The forgiveness arc with Sandman was bad, because we barely saw the character, and the way it played out was weak. If he really cared about giving us that story, and wanted to do it well, he should have done one of two things.
1.) Cut Sandman and incorporated the forgiveness story into Venom's character.

2.) Cut sandman, created a better backstory for Venom, and saved the Sandman/forgiveness arc for another "possible" film if he comes back.

If he really cared about this theme and wanted to present it to us, he shouldn't have forced it in, because it hurt the idea. The story came off rushed, because it was. I know that, creatively, if I were in his position, I would have rather not done it at all, and saved it on the off chance that I might direct again, then force it into a movie when I know the best I could get out of it was a half finished product.

And really, he could have easily incorporated Sandman's story into Venom, and made Venom a more interesting character. Make Venom a divored dad with a sick daughter who works at the Bugle. You could have him be on okay terms with Peter, kind of friendly, but have Brock still be a bit of a jerk, so not too many people are fond of it. Brock's down on money because of gambling deubts, and he can't get his daughter hospital treatment because of it. He doctors some photos of Spidey to get some money, Pete (under the influence of the black suit) finds out and has him fired.

Brock's daughter ends up getting worse and Brock gets beat to a pulp by his deubt collectors. Then Brock gets the symbiote and becomes Venom. At the end with the climatic battle, you could have the original Sandman ending where the wife goes up with her kid and get's Brock to stop. Heck, if you want to push the emotional buttons even farther, you could have Brock sacrifice himself because he knows he can't beat the symbiote.

Right there you get the forgiveness theme, make Brock a more interesting character, and don't have to change established history in comics to do it.

Going back to the original topic though, all I was saying is that, yes, while Arad shares some of the blame for SM3, Raimi definitely has it on his head too.

[Infinity9999x]

I agree with that, but I think what they should have done was develop Eddie Brock's character better and after Brock becomes Venom use it as a lead in to SM4 instead of killing him off 15 minutes later. If did that maybe they could have had a better Story for Sandman, less dancing, and made Gwen and Captain Stacy actually feel like they are in the movie for a reason other than the fact that their from the comics.

There was simply no time with the way the movie was set up. If you want to develop Venom more, Raimi would have had to cut someone, which is why I said he should have cut Sandman from the start.

[Demogoblin]

There was simply no time with the way the movie was set up. If you want to develop Venom more, Raimi would have had to cut someone, which is why I said he should have cut Sandman from the start.

And there was no way he was going to do that, because Sandman is his favorite villain.

On one hand, I'm glad that Sam has total control over part 4. On the other hand, Spidey 3 was going to be over crowded with villains anyway, as the story was going to follow Sandman and Vulture after they escaped from prison. At least Vulch was a villain that Sam wanted and would have known how to handle.

[sasaesq]

You know, I love the job Raimi did with Spidey 1 and 2. I even enjoyed 3 for sheer entertainment value, but he CANNOT blame SM3's shortcomings on studio interference. At the end of the day, he and his doctor brother wrote a lazily-convenient, overstuffed script with more weak threads than an irregular sweater and more holes than swiss cheese. For God's sake, they introduced a freaking ASTRONAUT in the previous movie and they can't think of anything better than "symbiote lands, attaches itself to Peter's scooter"!? They only creative mistake the studio may have made was pushing Sam too hard. 3 epic movies in 5 years? I'm glad he got a vacation, hired a writer, and admitted the mistakes of the 3rd. If 4 can be half as good as 2, it will be gold. That is all...

Just because Venom was forced on Rami does not excuse all the bad scenes in SM3.

Wasn't it Rami who put the following in SM3?:
1. His kids saying "wicked-cool"
2. His daughter in a 30 second scene w/JJJ which killed the final battle
3. Peter's excessive street dancing
4. Harry & MJ dancing/cooking in his apt.
5. The excessive MJ getting fired scene

Supposedly the novel was pretty good, & there are "deleted scenes" out there which were cut from the film.

We can only hope that a SM 3.1 DVD comes out soon, which deletes all the above crap, & adds those other scenes, & hopefully a scene of Harry & Venom fighting (where did Harry go after blowing up Sandman?)

[Infinity9999x]

And there was no way he was going to do that, because Sandman is his favorite villain.

On one hand, I'm glad that Sam has total control over part 4. On the other hand, Spidey 3 was going to be over crowded with villains anyway, as the story was going to follow Sandman and Vulture after they escaped from prison. At least Vulch was a villain that Sam wanted and would have known how to handle.

Good point, which makes me a bit nervous to begin with. Sandman/Harry/Vulture would have been very crowed as well, unless Sam did a Nolan scarecrow treatment with one of them and gave them less screen time. Of course, the thing with the Vulture/Sandman is that their origins are simpler to explain than Venom's, and that could have helped, but it still probably would have been overcrowded.

Still though, going back to Sandman, if Sandman was really his favorite villain, then why force him in a movie that's overcrowded which you know will cause the character to suffer? Sandman's always been one of my favorite villains too, but I would have rather Raimi saved him for another movie when he had more space and time to show off what Sandman can do (because really, with all the visual effects the character is capable of, they barley scratched the surface). Of course, maybe Raimi didn't realize the movie was going to be too crowed.

Honestly though, I didn't want Sam back for the new SM movies. I've had problems with the way he's handled the character since SM2.

[SpaceWay2009]

Just because Venom was forced on Rami does not excuse all the bad scenes in SM3.

Wasn't it Rami who put the following in SM3?:
1. His kids saying "wicked-cool"
2. His daughter in a 30 second scene w/JJJ which killed the final battle
3. Peter's excessive street dancing
4. Harry & MJ dancing/cooking in his apt.
5. The excessive MJ getting fired scene

Supposedly the novel was pretty good, & there are "deleted scenes" out there which were cut from the film.

We can only hope that a SM 3.1 DVD comes out soon, which deletes all the above crap, & adds those other scenes, & hopefully a scene of Harry & Venom fighting (where did Harry go after blowing up Sandman?)I agree. Instead of those scenes, there could of been scenes that would contribute to the story or develop some other characters. Those scenes that Raim added are somewhat useless, but they provide comic reliefs.

[Adrian89]

I agree with sasaesq aswell!

SPIDER MAN 3 DID NOT SUCKED JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY HANDLED VENOM OR BY HAVING HIM THERE! It's surprising how ppl always put the blame on that. What about all the lame amount of whining/crying/love ******** which we got fed up with?!? What about those other scenes which weren't needed and that childish humor? What about Peter's lame dancing sceneThey (they failed misserably to bring the Symbiote story on the big screen by giving us a pathethic Peter Parker with an emo hairstyle in a dancing scene which wasted alot of run time on this movie!)?!?

SM3 sucked because of many reasons! :rolleyes:

And yes, let's hope for a SM3 Director's Cut. I can't wait to see all those good scenes which were cutted and which have probably made this movie more enjoyable.

[Blader5489]

Just because Venom was forced on Rami does not excuse all the bad scenes in SM3.

Wasn't it Rami who put the following in SM3?:
1. His kids saying "wicked-cool"
2. His daughter in a 30 second scene w/JJJ which killed the final battle
3. Peter's excessive street dancing
4. Harry & MJ dancing/cooking in his apt.
5. The excessive MJ getting fired scene

Yes, those were a painful 5 minutes. :whatever:

[Infinity9999x]

Yes, those were a painful 5 minutes. :whatever:

They really were. Of course, I'd put it more like a painful 15, because there were at least 5minutes of the dancing, which quite honestly was just annoying.

Of course, I didn't mind the J.Jonah part at the end, I thought that was kinda funny. And the MJ getting fired didn't bother me as well. But the dancing/Peter being a douche because he had the suit on really did make me cringe. It's sad when a cartoon series can handle a subject in a darker way then a pg-13 movie. :(

[Jick09]

It's sad when a cartoon series can handle a subject in a darker way then a pg-13 movie. :(
So agreed.
And kids saying "awesome/wicked cool" and selling cameras really take away from the impact of the battle.

[Nightmare]

Sasaesq forgot the

Singing & Eating cookies

[NewYorkSpider]

Just because Venom was forced on Rami does not excuse all the bad scenes in SM3.

Wasn't it Rami who put the following in SM3?:
1. His kids saying "wicked-cool"
2. His daughter in a 30 second scene w/JJJ which killed the final battle
3. Peter's excessive street dancing
4. Harry & MJ dancing/cooking in his apt.
5. The excessive MJ getting fired scene

This was probably the one thing Raimi goofed up on in SM3. The "Raindrops" scene in SM2 wasn't really needed as well IMO.

Supposedly the novel was pretty good, & there are "deleted scenes" out there which were cut from the film.

We can only hope that a SM 3.1 DVD comes out soon, which deletes all the above crap, & adds those other scenes, & hopefully a scene of Harry & Venom fighting (where did Harry go after blowing up Sandman?)

I think there's one scene that had Sandman in a sand box where his daughter was playing? I can't remember if that was it or not. I would also like to know where Harry went after he blew up Sandman.

[LightningFlash]

Yes, those were a painful 5 minutes. :whatever:

You must've been asleep the other five minutes then?

[Spider-Vader]

And there was no way he was going to do that, because Sandman is his favorite villain.

On one hand, I'm glad that Sam has total control over part 4. On the other hand, Spidey 3 was going to be over crowded with villains anyway, as the story was going to follow Sandman and Vulture after they escaped from prison. At least Vulch was a villain that Sam wanted and would have known how to handle.

This is why having villains that tie-in is the best way to go. (I.E. Lizard & Kraven or Venom & Carnage)

[TheScarecrow]

Sandman/Harry/Vulture would have been very crowed as well, unless Sam did a Nolan scarecrow treatment with one of them and gave them less screen time. Of course, the thing with the Vulture/Sandman is that their origins are simpler to explain than Venom's, and that could have helped, but it still probably would have been overcrowded.

Nah, I think Raimi's original Spider-man 3 would have been decent. Based on his comments:
- The movie was about Peter, MJ, Harry and Sandman.
- Vulture was an ex-cellmate of Sandman's who manipulated him into getting him out of jail, and then went to extremes Sandman didn't want to go to.
- There was no symbiote storyline, no Eddie Brock, no Gwen Stacey, no Captain Stacey (there was a girl in Peter's class which played a small role and Raimi was told he should make it Gwen Stacey, and then a small policeman role which he was told to make into Captain Stacey).
- There was far more development of Sandman's plot.

It's much tidier. I think he still had the idea of Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer, though.


5. The excessive MJ getting fired scene


I liked that!

[shiveringmelody]

Nah, I think Raimi's original Spider-man 3 would have been decent. Based on his comments:
- The movie was about Peter, MJ, Harry and Sandman.
- Vulture was an ex-cellmate of Sandman's who manipulated him into getting him out of jail, and then went to extremes Sandman didn't want to go to.
- There was no symbiote storyline, no Eddie Brock, no Gwen Stacey, no Captain Stacey (there was a girl in Peter's class which played a small role and Raimi was told he should make it Gwen Stacey, and then a small policeman role which he was told to make into Captain Stacey).
- There was far more development of Sandman's plot.


Sounds much better to me. The symbiote storyline (as well as the death of Gwen) is/are my favorite Spidey storylines of all time. I must say though, I am slowly growing anticipation for Spidey 4. I still have trust in Raimi to make a worthwhile sequel. What Raimi did with Sandman I loved and I never been into Sandman. Plus it doesn't hurt that Spidey is my fav hero after Batman.

[SpaceWay2009]

Nah, I think Raimi's original Spider-man 3 would have been decent. Based on his comments:
- The movie was about Peter, MJ, Harry and Sandman.
- Vulture was an ex-cellmate of Sandman's who manipulated him into getting him out of jail, and then went to extremes Sandman didn't want to go to.
- There was no symbiote storyline, no Eddie Brock, no Gwen Stacey, no Captain Stacey (there was a girl in Peter's class which played a small role and Raimi was told he should make it Gwen Stacey, and then a small policeman role which he was told to make into Captain Stacey).
- There was far more development of Sandman's plot.

It's much tidier. I think he still had the idea of Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer, though.That sounds a whole lot better. :yay:

[Infinity9999x]

That sounds a whole lot better. :yay:

That does sound much better, though I'm still not a fan of the Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer.

Still, Raimi could have found a better way to incorporate that idea without compromising the movie. He could have cut Sandman, and have Eddie take his place, with the symbiote playing the role of the Vulture, being the one who pushes him to go farther then he wanted to. And to make it less like the ock/tentacles relationship, I would give the Symbiote an actual personality, not just a nameless substance.


Any who, hopefully Raimi will turn it around for SM4/5. Though I really hope he changes the dynamic with the actual character of Spider-man. I want to see a Spider-man with a personality for once.

[LightningFlash]

Nah, I think Raimi's original Spider-man 3 would have been decent. Based on his comments:
- The movie was about Peter, MJ, Harry and Sandman.
- Vulture was an ex-cellmate of Sandman's who manipulated him into getting him out of jail, and then went to extremes Sandman didn't want to go to.
- There was no symbiote storyline, no Eddie Brock, no Gwen Stacey, no Captain Stacey (there was a girl in Peter's class which played a small role and Raimi was told he should make it Gwen Stacey, and then a small policeman role which he was told to make into Captain Stacey).
- There was far more development of Sandman's plot.

It's much tidier. I think he still had the idea of Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer, though.

No, there wasn't a small policeman role; Arad wanted George Stacy in it after Arad told Raimi to make the girl be Gwen Stacy.

And I don't think Sandman was going to be Uncle Ben's killer, originally. Sam Raimi has said that the original plan for Marko was much smaller, and not complicated, meaning I think being the killer and having a family came later, after having to tie the characters together even more so. Plus, Vulture's storyline would be connected to Spider-Man, as a past criminal.

[Adrian89]

This was probably the one thing Raimi goofed up on in SM3. The "Raindrops" scene in SM2 wasn't really needed as well IMO.
Agreed! It was a lame scene. And they made Peter look so dumb. Wait, he was DUMB! Since when does losing his SM powers make him a freaking n00b again? I'm not really pleased with the way they handled his character during all these 3 movies.

Any who, hopefully Raimi will turn it around for SM4/5. Though I really hope he changes the dynamic with the actual character of Spider-man. I want to see a Spider-man with a personality for once.
Amen to that! But I don't have high hopes about it. It will most likely be the typical dull character which we had in these 3 movies (or at least in SM2 & SM3).

[Nightmare]

Anyone else really hate the ending? The whole "I Forgive you"with sandman's tears and floating away into the night. The awful fight scenes. SPidey riding on Harry's hoverboard with him. Venom's constant disappearing. The annoying reporter with the accent. The annoying kids. I just hated that scene as a whole. :(

[Adrian89]

Anyone else really hate the ending? The whole "I Forgive you"with sandman's tears and floating away into the night. The awful fight scenes. SPidey riding on Harry's hoverboard with him. Venom's constant disappearing. The annoying reporter with the accent. The annoying kids. I just hated that scene as a whole. :(
Yeah, same. Well I didn't really hated it, but it was below average. I had higher expectations.

[Mister J]

Anyone else really hate the ending? The whole "I Forgive you"with sandman's tears and floating away into the night. The awful fight scenes. SPidey riding on Harry's hoverboard with him. Venom's constant disappearing. The annoying reporter with the accent. The annoying kids. I just hated that scene as a whole. :(
Pretty much everything about the final scene/battle stunk to high heaven, except the action and visuals. The stupid reporter dialogue, the annoying children, the goofy banter between Peter and Harry, the lame ass, contrived effort to hammer you over the head with the forgiveness theme, etc.

The so-called conclusion to Sandman's arc bothers me most. OK, fine. He's not a bad guy. He just has bad luck. Whatever. At the end of the film, Marko is faced with exactly the same circumstances that led him to be a thug in the first place. The only difference is now he faces those circumstances with the added bonus of being a superpowered thug ...which is how he and Spidey came into conflict in the first place. Is Flint going to get a job at Radio Shack or someplace and hope that helps out Penny or is he going to resign himself to watch his little girl die? I forgot, it's all good because the weepy-eyed superhero forgave him. That changes everything. Forget about his daughter and the fact that everything that led him on a criminal path is exactly the same. What a touching moment. Christ. :facepalm


...and there was no bleeping final swing. Grr! :cmad:

It puzzles me when people attribute Raimi's shortcomings in Spider-Man 3 to his being 'encouraged' to include Venom. The problems were far in exces of that. However, given that he did craft two enjoyable efforts beforehand, I'm inclined to entertain the possibility of a better effort in #4.

[Infinity9999x]

Pretty much everything about the final scene/battle stunk to high heaven, except the action and visuals. The stupid reporter dialogue, the annoying children, the goofy banter between Peter and Harry, the lame ass, contrived effort to hammer you over the head with the forgiveness theme, etc.

The so-called conclusion to Sandman's arc bothers me most. OK, fine. He's not a bad guy. He just has bad luck. Whatever. At the end of the film, Marko is faced with exactly the same circumstances that led him to be a thug in the first place. The only difference is now he faces those circumstances with the added bonus of being a superpowered thug ...which is how he and Spidey came into conflict in the first place. Is Flint going to get a job at Radio Shack or someplace and hope that helps out Penny or is he going to resign himself to watch his little girl die? I forgot, it's all good because the weepy-eyed superhero forgave him. That changes everything. Forget about his daughter and the fact that everything that led him on a criminal path is exactly the same. What a touching moment. Christ. :facepalm


...and there was no bleeping final swing. Grr! :cmad:

It puzzles me when people attribute Raimi's shortcomings in Spider-Man 3 to his being 'encouraged' to include Venom. The problems were far in exces of that. However, given that he did craft two enjoyable efforts beforehand, I'm inclined to entertain the possibility of a better effort in #4.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Venom wasn't what annoyed me about SM3, Raimi's handling of Venom/the symbiote and other plot elements were what hurt it for me.

And really, those seeds have been there since SM2. I know most people love it, but the campy humor and corny scenes Raimi favors started there. SM2 was when he started to overuse the "lets laugh at Peter being a nerd" bit, and when he started putting in overly corny scenes. The train scene always made me cringe. "We won't tell anybody." Yeah...riight. You know that if that happened, someone would have taken a very quick and inconspicuous picture with their cell phone of the unmasked Spider-man.

Raimi just went overboard on scenes in SM3. Hopefully now that he's not writing it he'll dial back on that stuff.

[Sentinel X]

^Honestly they need to put a final swing in the next one. I know it was only in two films but to me its like a trademark of the spidey films.the final swing in SM1 was really amazing and if any scene in the spidey franchise would be concidered a classic or would stand the test of time I'd guess it'd be that one :up:

Final swing is iconic!!!

[NewYorkSpider]

SM3 ending with Peter and MJ dancing was awful. The final swing should've been the final scene.

[TheScarecrow]

SM3 ending with Peter and MJ dancing was awful. The final swing should've been the final scene.

I kind of like it, but they should have included a swing somehow at the end.

I agree that SM3's problems go further than Arad forcing Venom in there. The movie still had so much going on that shouldn't have been. Really, MJ did not need to be present at the final fight scene and while it was done (once again) to "heighten suspense", all it made you do was roll your eyes.

It would have been so much more powerful if, after Peter had pushed her over, we'd not seen her again until the end. The reporter did not need to be there. Sandman didn't need to be giant. Harry didn't need to have amnesia. It would have made more sense to put Gwen in the final fight instead of MJ (and it would have given a reason why Gwen - who'd never met Harry - was at his funeral. There shouldn't have been any dancing. The "real killer" plot should have been cut.

It would have been a much better movie

[LightningFlash]

Which is very lame; Gwen was MEANT to be kidnapped for the final battle.

So..Raimi should never write for Spider-Man, EVER.

[Agent 194]

You know............I'm interrupting a conversation; breaking a train of thought I know....but I just had to comment to someone as I logged on here - and this is coming from someone who was here from almost the beginning ...back when it was "Spider-Man Hype".....but Wow! There sure are a lot of superhero movies in the works!

[Adrian89]

Which is very lame; Gwen was MEANT to be kidnapped for the final battle.

So..Raimi should never write for Spider-Man, EVER.
Gwen should have NEVER been in the movie. Her, among other characters and stupid scenes which weren't needed.

[chaseter]

Gwen was needed because the MJ stuff was getting old. Venom wasn't needed.

[dark_b]

how was peter parkers character written before venom?

[TheScarecrow]

how was peter parkers character written before venom?

I'd imagine very similar to the way he was before the symbiote attached itself to him. A very inflated ego, caught up in himself and the desire to get revenge against Marko.

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not like the parts of SM3 that suck had nothing to do with Raimi. Alot of that movie's suckage had to do with Raimi. He just won't take responsibility for it. Fool me once...

[Mister J]

Gwen should have NEVER been in the movie. Her, among other characters and stupid scenes which weren't needed.
Certainly not in the capacity in which she was used. Raimi reduced one of the seminal characters in Spider-Man lore to, essentially, a throwaway.

When you attach the name 'Gwen Stacy' to an adaption, I'm expecting some significance; for the character to have some impact. Instead, she was a random chick who fell off a building, got a little innocent smooch action and winds up being used by Saturday Night Spidey to make MJ jealous. Name that character Deb Whitman, or even Liz Allan, and it's less of an annoyance, but she was superflous in any form.

Looking back at it, there's an unreal level of crap in that film that's wholly unneeded.

[Jick09]

It puzzles me when people attribute Raimi's shortcomings in Spider-Man 3 to his being 'encouraged' to include Venom.You'reright. Everyone blames on Venom.
I roll my eyes everytime I see the line "Arad forced Venom...".
Oh, please.

^Honestly they need to put a final swing in the next one. I know it was only in two films but to me its like a trademark of the spidey films.the final swing in SM1 was really amazing and if any scene in the spidey franchise would be concidered a classic or would stand the test of time I'd guess it'd be that one :up:

Final swing is iconic!!!Agreed.

SM3 ending with Peter and MJ dancing was awful. The final swing should've been the final scene.
I think there is an unfinished final swing scene, actually.
The game had one, and it was awesome.

[chaseter]

Venom did ruin SM3. That movie was 2 1/2 hours long as is with 3 villians, new characters, and further developing existing characters. It could not be done so things were rushed and plot devices were forced in. That movie would have to be longer for it to be a good film. Take away Venom and I think SM3 would have been a much better film in the time that was alotted.

SM2 was over 2 hours long with one villian and it is seen as one of the best comic book movies ever and I agree with that. Raimi wanted Sandman and Harry's arc was naturally going to end so we had 2 villians. That could have worked in a 2 1/2 hour film. Arad says put Venom in and so they write him in but the studio turned Raimi down on a 3 hour+ film. So, we got what we got, a step down.

[dark_b]

you mean the symbiote or the villain VENOM?

[dark_b]

Venom did ruin SM3. That movie was 2 1/2 hours long as is with 3 villians, new characters, and further developing existing characters. It could not be done so things were rushed and plot devices were forced in. That movie would have to be longer for it to be a good film. Take away Venom and I think SM3 would have been a much better film in the time that was alotted.

SM2 was over 2 hours long with one villian and it is seen as one of the best comic book movies ever and I agree with that. Raimi wanted Sandman and Harry's arc was naturally going to end so we had 2 villians. That could have worked in a 2 1/2 hour film. Arad says put Venom in and so they write him in but the studio turned Raimi down on a 3 hour+ film. So, we got what we got, a step down.what about Vulture? wasnt he the third villain?

[Nightmare]

Wouldnt they have been better off having Brock get the symbiote then end it there saving that for a 4th film. Instead of that awful ending?

[dark_b]

how can anyone think that ending the movie with brock getting the symbiote and not showing venom?

you do it or you dont even start it.

[chaseter]

you mean the symbiote or the villain VENOM?
Both. The symbiote should have been used for film 4. This film should have had Peter and MJ marry and be happy. This should have been the film in which they are both happy and things go their way. Sandman could have mirrored what happens when family issues go awry compared to Peter and if they still used the Vulture then have Harry becoming Goblin Jr. as a cliff hanger towards the end.

The 4th film could have been the symbiote with Venom and Goblin Jr. That film is where things just turn totally bad for Peter and they split or MJ dies...whatever. SM3 was overloaded and it just didn't work.

[LightningFlash]

No....Venom, if used properly, as long as with the symbiote, could've worked in the film.

Read the novelization; I own the book, and it's a good read. It had the characters spread out neatly and the book made me understand the concept, at least for what it originally was, and not after the lower-average "other" scenes, such as the forty-eight second team-up with Marko and Brock.

[Reikowolf]

Both. The symbiote should have been used for film 4. This film should have had Peter and MJ marry and be happy. This should have been the film in which they are both happy and things go their way. Sandman could have mirrored what happens when family issues go awry compared to Peter and if they still used the Vulture then have Harry becoming Goblin Jr. as a cliff hanger towards the end.

The 4th film could have been the symbiote with Venom and Goblin Jr. That film is where things just turn totally bad for Peter and they split or MJ dies...whatever. SM3 was overloaded and it just didn't work.

I laugh at your avatar every time I see it but I don't get it.

please explain.

is it like the philosaraptor?

[chaseter]

It is Raptor Jesus. There was a movie a few years ago about kids at a Christian camp and it was weird as ****. The way the kids acted and the camp counselors acted was just freaky so someone put a raptor head on someone's face and voila! Raptor Jesus. All hail Raptor Jesus.

[chaseter]

No....Venom, if used properly, as long as with the symbiote, could've worked in the film.

Read the novelization; I own the book, and it's a good read. It had the characters spread out neatly and the book made me understand the concept, at least for what it originally was, and not after the lower-average "other" scenes, such as the forty-eight second team-up with Marko and Brock.
Nearly every book is better than the actual movie:o

SM3 had the symbiote, Brock, Venom, Sandman, Gwen, and tried to develop existing characters with Black Spidey, Goblin Jr., MJ, etc... It was just too much for one film and the only way to force the plot along and to connect it all was to have contrived and forced plot devices that just did not work. Raimi's version supposedly was quite longer and had key scenes like Brock following Flint at the playground among other things so I still hold out hope that a better film exists. But, it was just too much. The pacing was bad, the subplots were forced, and this movie had a lot of cheese compared to the other two. It was just a meh movie to me and a definite down grade.

[weezerspider]

I do, but I think it's much more better off than the Schumacher Batman films. SM-3 may not be well-received critically, but I didn't think it was awful -- just... somewhat disappointing is all that comes to mind.

I do think Sony and Arad are to blame for forcing Raimi to make all these changes and additions (although I think Raimi and Arad are to blame for the black suit situation), and they are wisely stepping back to let him do his own thing for #4.

SPIDERMAN 3 is 100 times better than BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN.

[TheScarecrow]

Spider-man 3 isn't a bad movie, it's just not a great one.

[spider-neil]

if they have removed the black ooze and everything associated with it including EBJ then the movie wouldn't instantly improve with more screen time for the sandman and GG2. also having a giant sandman fight spiderman didn't seem personal enough, sandman at most should have grown to double the size or if the sandman had to grow to enormous porportions then it should have only been for a little while.

if sam had done that he could have then devoted a back to back movie with the black ooze and then venom. movie 1 - black ooze/movie 2 -venom.

sam's biggest crime is he tried to do too much with too many characters, SM1 and SM2 work really well because they build up the villian and give everyone decent screen time. SM3 felt rushed.

[venom892]

My problems with Spider-man 3
-Venom wasn't developed at all.Gets the symboite teams up with Sandman and that's it.
-Sandman didn't have to have a forced connection to Peter.He could have been a great villain without the connection and just his daughter as motivation.
-The cheesy scenes.Peter and cake girl with the cookies,The excessive dancing and the unnecessary scene of Harry and MJ cooking,Etc.
-Too many characters that in the end were just plot devices.EX.Gwen was just there to make MJ jealous.She provided nothing else of substance.
-What was suppose to be a darker movie turned into the campiest of all three.
-The over dramatic acting at times and at times just phoning in.Ex.Kristen Dunst phoned that whole movie in and Peter's crying was excessive on the bridge.
-The ending sucked.Instead of keeping Sandman forming his hands into different weapons and stopping short of killing Spider-man cause of his daughter we get get Giant Sandman and Dust in the wind.:o
-Convient plot holes.How did Venom know about Sandman's daughter if spidey didn't?And let's just say the butler.:o

[Reikowolf]

It is Raptor Jesus. There was a movie a few years ago about kids at a Christian camp and it was weird as ****. The way the kids acted and the camp counselors acted was just freaky so someone put a raptor head on someone's face and voila! Raptor Jesus. All hail Raptor Jesus.

heh

was the movie Jesus Camp?
I heard about that

well done

"he learned to open doors for our sins"