Who to Blame?

[Avalanche™]

honestly guys......WTF just happened, last week we had tobey talk about the movie and the minor setback now we have no more tobey, sam, or anyone! im in shock that SONY just did this, and it seems like they did this easily,. how do you fire EVERYONE in a billion dollar franchise that was a failure.

who are you blaming?
was Sam being ignorant aout scripts and SONY' demands?
did SONY give sam an imposssible deadline?
blame the writers of Spidey3 for killing off one of the biggest villains in history(meaning not using him in future films, w/o a horrible work around)
blame the high salary for sam and the whole returning cast?

i really dont know what to say, it happened so fast

[VenomVsSpidey]

All fingers point tooooooooo.........

SONY

[TMC1982]

Sam Raimi for not being able to turn what he saw as "lemons into lemonade" concerning what the powers that be wanted compared to what he really wanted. The quality of the third movie suffered in large part due to his clear lack of passion to the Venom angle. Sony (Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad) should be just as responsible for simply being greedy and lacking foresight.

[bullets]

It all comes down to creative differences in this case. They basically couldnt agree on what to film . You can't blame raimi fo rwanting to do things his way and you can't blame Sony for pushing their agenda.

[Deaths Head II]

I blame Sony for being a bunch of douchebags and caring only about making a profit. The way they treated Raimi and the others is just awful.

[TheSlag]

Sam Raimi for not being able to turn what he saw as "lemons into lemonade" concerning what the powers that be wanted compared to what he really wanted. The quality of the third movie suffered in large part due to his clear lack of passion to the Venom angle. Sony (Laura Ziskin and Avi Arad) should be just as responsible for simply being greedy and lacking foresight.

Agreed! There is plenty of blame to go around. Although I am happy with a reboot IF they do it right this time.

[Avalanche™]

Agreed! There is plenty of blame to go around. Although I am happy with a reboot IF they do it right this time.

because over $2billion is a failure?
an avg of 82/100 for a super hero trilogy is a badly reviewed flick?
countless awards
bringing a whole new generation and whole new crowd to super heroes and super hero movies was a bad thing?

dude shut up, i dont care about your post count, you sound stupid. anyone who thinks a REBOOT 5years after a very successful movie with a differant cast and director is a moron.

i would understand is Sam was like "Sorry sony, tobey, the rest of the cast and myself, want to move along with our careers"

but they ****ing fired them!

and what do you mean by this time? Incredible Hulk was ok,mainly bcause the original blew hard, and dont give me the batman franchise since they wee different directors and cast the prior 2movies anyway

[Avalanche™]

double

[Leenie]

Sony deserves more blame than Raimi does.

Raimi obviously still showed signs of interest and passion in the franchise AND he obviously cared about what the fans thought about his movies. Seems to me that Sony managed to suck all of that energy out of him.

If Raimi felt that Sony gave him nothing good to work with, then I don't blame him for leaving. If his interviews were any indication, Raimi wanted Spider-Man 4 to be a good movie. He even said that he acknowledged what he considered to be deserved criticism towards Spider-Man 3. That, to me, is a sign that the guy CARES about these movies and what others think about them.

[Artistsean]

Fist Conan and now Raimi? No!

I feel sick.

well, now that I thought about it a little.
a Spider-Man reboot could be good. Casting an actor who can better show Spider-Man's comedic wittyness, showing Peter's high School Days more and the trouble of leading a double life while being a teenager.
Not bad at all, could be fun.

But there are some movies that really needed reboots, like DD, Hulk, and FF.

If I didn't know that all the cast and crew were on their way back to the set I would say this was just the first reboot after the original cast ran its 3 movie coarse. But they were ready for 4, so I don't know.

[Mace Dolex]

One would think after three successful blockbusters that Sony would give Sam Raimi all the control he wanted for a 4th.

The increasing salary of the actors and increasing budget for SFX probably had a part in it.

[zeptron]

Raimi said that he was supposed to have FULL control. So Sony should have backed off.

They should have trusted him after SM1 and SM2. Maguire apparently did and that's why he left with him.

[TheSlag]

because over $2billion is a failure?
an avg of 82/100 for a super hero trilogy is a badly reviewed flick?
countless awards
bringing a whole new generation and whole new crowd to super heroes and super hero movies was a bad thing?

dude shut up, i dont care about your post count, you sound stupid. anyone who thinks a REBOOT 5years after a very successful movie with a differant cast and director is a moron.

i would understand is Sam was like "Sorry sony, tobey, the rest of the cast and myself, want to move along with our careers"

but they ****ing fired them!

and what do you mean by this time? Incredible Hulk was ok,mainly bcause the original blew hard, and dont give me the batman franchise since they wee different directors and cast the prior 2movies anyway

Shut up? Yep, and I "sound dumb"? :rolleyes: And who "mentioned" post counts.. Oh Right, the "intelligent one" did. Post Envy perhaps?

And here I was quoting someone and agreeing with them, and YET, you quote mine to attack??? Never knew I had such a following. :woot:

The question and "point of the thread", not the point you hide under that beanie hat you wear is WHO is to Blame for the Reboot.

And there is plenty of blame to go around, despite your "accounting tale of the numbers".

[Mister J]

dude shut up, i dont care about your post count, you sound stupid. anyone who thinks a REBOOT 5years after a very successful movie with a differant cast and director is a moron.
Drop the attitude.

Discuss things without the antagonism or don't bother at all.

[Reikowolf]

Sony

They are the financial backers. If it's not broken DO NOT FIX IT. They had no business telling Raimi how to do his job. If Spider-Man 2 had made less than Spider-Man 1, then they had every right to be involved, but as it stood, there was no reason for them or Avi Arad with Marvel to change up the game plan going into 3.

Raimi was the creative talent, but at the same time, they were paying him. He had an obligation to listen to them. He did. Realizing the problems it caused in production and the final product, he pushed that he have full control over 4. They would not give it. He caused a halt in production to try and convince them otherwise, they would not budge and called him a 'gun for hire' he walked, understandably.

[KenK]

The thing I hate is people who say stuff like, "well Raimi obviously wanted to make a good movie for the fans", as if to say Sony wanted to make a crappy movie. No studio wants to make a crappy movie. And I can understand their desire to include things like Venom in the last film, because from their standpoint, the character did have some popularity in the comics. He's still a prominent fixture in the Spier-Man comics to this day. You can't blame the studio for taking note of that, and wanting the see that in the film. It's a problem when you have one group of fans that want to believe that their ideas of what should be in a Spider-Man film, and make assumptions for the general public.

And it can't just be a matter of, "well, he made these two great films before, why can't the studio just let him do what he wants?" Because that's not responsible on the part of the people investing over a hundred million dollars to produce the film! "Sony's just concerned with making a big profit!", OF COURSE THEY WANT TO EARN PROFIT!! Otherwise, you're not gonna get anymore of those films made!!! But I think too many people confuse this for executives have zero regard for how the film turns out. Sometimes, it looks that way, but I think it's foolish to believe that that's the case everytime these kinds of situations come about.

[Juggernaut33]

Who's to blame for what?!?!?!

The movie isn't even out yet. There's no way to tell if it's gonna be good or bad.
Sam Raimi' Spider-Man 4 might of been a failure of epic proportions, we'll never know for sure.

[Reikowolf]

The thing I hate is people who say stuff like, "well Raimi obviously wanted to make a good movie for the fans", as if to say Sony wanted to make a crappy movie. No studio wants to make a crappy movie. And I can understand their desire to include things like Venom in the last film, because from their standpoint, the character did have some popularity in the comics. He's still a prominent fixture in the Spier-Man comics to this day. You can't blame the studio for taking note of that, and wanting the see that in the film. It's a problem when you have one group of fans that want to believe that their ideas of what should be in a Spider-Man film, and make assumptions for the general public.

And it can't just be a matter of, "well, he made these two great films before, why can't the studio just let him do what he wants?" Because that's not responsible on the part of the people investing over a hundred million dollars to produce the film! "Sony's just concerned with making a big profit!", OF COURSE THEY WANT TO EARN PROFIT!! Otherwise, you're not gonna get anymore of those films made!!! But I think too many people confuse this for executives have zero regard for how the film turns out. Sometimes, it looks that way, but I think it's foolish to believe that that's the case everytime these kinds of situations come about.

You are so wrong.

Studios are not concerned if the movie is considered good or not, they are looking at $$

If I was wrong, we would not see movies like Epic Movie released in theaters. They are obvious cash grabs.

He did make two great films before 3, but more importantly, he made two very profitable films, which is why they should have let him continue. When the $$ stops being big, that's when the studio needs to get involved.

Look at the history of cinema and tell me when a studio pressuring a director has ever made a movie better.

Even the star wars prequels... although bad, made huge $$ for the studio, which is why they let Jar Jar Binks be in them.

If you look up the history of Speilberg, Lucas and Coppola, they made their careers out of going against studio execs and doing things their way and with a low budget and this resulted in huge $$ for the studios involved.

[Adrian89]

I just hope that Disney has NO influence on Spider-Man's Reboot. I don't wanna see Miley Cyrus or either of these Disney suckers in a SM Movie, ever.

[KenK]

You are so wrong.

Studios are not concerned if the movie is considered good or not, they are looking at $$

If I was wrong, we would not see movies like Epic Movie released in theaters. They are obvious cash grabs.

He did make two great films before 3, but more importantly, he made two very profitable films, which is why they should have let him continue. When the $$ stops being big, that's when the studio needs to get involved.

Look at the history of cinema and tell me when a studio pressuring a director has ever made a movie better.

Even the star wars prequels... although bad, made huge $$ for the studio, which is why they let Jar Jar Binks be in them.

If you look up the history of Speilberg, Lucas and Coppola, they made their careers out of going against studio execs and doing things their way and with a low budget and this resulted in huge $$ for the studios involved.

The original Star Wars trilogy was a success because Lucas had good collaborators. Fox let him do his thing, and he made one awful film after another.

Coppola just makes the random art film every once in a while that few people even acknowledge. Let's not even mention the film Jack!

Spielberg's just happy to be Spielberg.

What point are you trying to make?

[Steyin]

I'll blame whoever decided not to be true to the comics in the first place, which led to this downward spiral of poor stories and characterizations. Sure we got a good first and second film, and a decent 3rd, but in all honestly it was never truely the Spider-Man I grew up with in my eyes, so here's hoping to getting it right this time.

[Steyin]

**Double**

[vasNormandy]

I just hope that Disney has NO influence on Spider-Man's Reboot. I don't wanna see Miley Cyrus or either of these Disney suckers in a SM Movie, ever.

Ditto. Somebody mentioned on here when it was announced Disney now owns Marvel, that the Disney execs wouldn't harm the material because they know keeping true to the comics means money in their back pockets. I hope he's right.

[KenK]

I'll blame whoever decided not to be true to the comics in the first place, which led to this downward spiral of poor stories and characterizations. Sure we got a good first and second film, and a decent 3rd, but in all honestly it was never truely the Spider-Man I grew up with in my eyes, so here's hoping to getting it right this time.

What the hell are you talking about? Outside of including Mary Jane before Gwen Stacy, what was so drastically different? Peter was still bitten by a spider altered by science, still learns that "with great power comes great responsibility" once realizing he could have stopped the man that killed his uncle (it wasn't until the last film that they decided to pull a retcon!). Was everything after that really so off the mark. Especially when measure against the people who found the second film to be a vast improvement on the first, and as far as I'm concerned was still pretty true to the comics?

[baerrtt]

Sony.

However Raimi was sadly kidding himself if he thought they'd give him full creative control because, whether we like it or not, the character was always going to succeed in the movie medium regardless of whomever brought him to the big screen and quite honestly regardless of the quality. Quite frankly anyone outside of James Cameron or Steven Spielberg directing was always going to be a hired gun and us knowing the creative issues with the third movie makes this less of a surprise to me personally.

[Docker2.0]

I blame Raimi more than anything. People blame Sony for SM3 becuase of Venom but let's be real, the only reason Sony wanted Venom was becuase if you looked at EVERY poll online, Venom led everyone of them as the villian the fans wanted. Raimi has gone on record to hate Venom but people him in becuase the studio insisted becuase he was popular. Raimi added him but not like the studio had planned. Also, let's be real: the Vulture as a villian did not sound good. If you look at the consensus now, people wanted to see the Lizard but he goes with the Vulture. Instead of at least trying to give the fans what they want, he is only doing what he wants, which isn't always the best thing. Avi Arad was right when he said Raimi was being selfish becuase he really is when it came to Spidey. I'm not saying Sony are the saints here but I think Raimi has forced their hands and I can't blame them at all.

[Reikowolf]

The original Star Wars trilogy was a success because Lucas had good collaborators. Fox let him do his thing, and he made one awful film after another.

Coppola just makes the random art film every once in a while that few people even acknowledge. Let's not even mention the film Jack!

Spielberg's just happy to be Spielberg.

What point are you trying to make?

Read the book 'Movie Brats' and see how your statements hold up.

Lucas was able to do what he wanted with Star Wars IV because it wasn't costing Fox much money. He gave into the $ studios offered him after that which led to him cashing in and manipulating the studio system.

Coppola did Jack for the $$ after the studios stomped on him too many times.

Speilberg single handedly invented the blockbuster with a film the studio deemed a B level shark movie 'just let the kid do what he wants with it'

[KenK]

I blame Raimi more than anything. People blame Sony for SM3 becuase of Venom but let's be real, the only reason Sony wanted Venom was becuase if you looked at EVERY poll online, Venom led everyone of them as the villian the fans wanted. Raimi has gone on record to hate Venom but people him in becuase the studio insisted becuase he was popular. Raimi added him but not like the studio had planned. Also, let's be real: the Vulture as a villian did not sound good. If you look at the consensus now, people wanted to see the Lizard but he goes with the Vulture. Instead of at least trying to give the fans what they want, he is only doing what he wants, which isn't always the best thing. Avi Arad was right when he said Raimi was being selfish becuase he really is when it came to Spidey. I'm not saying Sony are the saints here but I think Raimi has forced their hands and I can't blame them at all.

Pretty much. I know I wouldn't have been excited to see the Vulture as a villain at all. What was the point of making Curt Connors such a prominent fixture in Peter's school life in the film, if we're not going to introduce the Lizard? Granted, it'd be another case of one of Peter's mentors becoming a Spider-Man villain.

I think this is similar to the problem with Superman Returns; i.e., there's a specific point of where Raimi's love of Spider-Man begins and ends. And it's very limiting for the films if a director only wants to deal with a certain handful of characters, and refuses to budge on the issue.

[Steyin]

What the hell are you talking about? Outside of including Mary Jane before Gwen Stacy, what was so drastically different? Peter was still bitten by a spider altered by science, still learns that "with great power comes great responsibility" once realizing he could have stopped the man that killed his uncle (it wasn't until the last film that they decided to pull a retcon!). Was everything after that really so off the mark. Especially when measure against the people who found the second film to be a vast improvement on the first, and as far as I'm concerned was still pretty true to the comics?


Like I said, the characterizations of everyone threw everything off IMO. Having MJ before GS and having the Goblin first was a mistake also. I really think they shot themselves in the foot from the get go. The only characters I enjoyed were Norman and Harry, everyone else just weren't really themselves to a better capacity than what we were presented. Sure I may be nitpicking simple things, but its those simple things that would have brought the film to a higher level in my mind, of which can now be achieved if done with more conviction than before.

Any story/film can have the base essentials/origins right, or close to it, but if you follow it up with fluff and lack depth then it starts to go awry. To answer your question: no, everything wasn't so far off the mark in a sense, but in another it was. I enjoyed these films greatly when they were out, and still do, but when I look at them critically, they're just not as good as they could have been.

[Leenie]

The thing I hate is people who say stuff like, "well Raimi obviously wanted to make a good movie for the fans", as if to say Sony wanted to make a crappy movie. No studio wants to make a crappy movie. And I can understand their desire to include things like Venom in the last film, because from their standpoint, the character did have some popularity in the comics. He's still a prominent fixture in the Spier-Man comics to this day. You can't blame the studio for taking note of that, and wanting the see that in the film. It's a problem when you have one group of fans that want to believe that their ideas of what should be in a Spider-Man film, and make assumptions for the general public.

Not saying that Sony wants to make a crappy movie, but they certainly weren't willing to wait for a possibly good one. Sony seems to be more concerned with meeting deadlines. Deadlines are important, but if Raimi had creative differences with the script, then I don't blame him for stepping down. I don't want a director to make a movie that he doesn't want to make or doesn't have faith in.

Raimi's the director. Sony hired him as the director. The directors are supposed to make the movies. Sometimes, people need to step aside and let the director do his thing. If there's any director who's earned that, it's Sam Raimi. Despite how people 'round these parts feel about Spider-Man 3, it was a huge financial success (as were the other two Spider-Man films). I think Raimi's earned at least some creative control, here.

[KenK]

Like I said, the characterizations of everyone threw everything off IMO. Having MJ before GS and having the Goblin first was a mistake also. I really think they shot themselves in the foot from the get go.

But to be fair, you're speaking as a fan, versus a vast majority of people who, while they may know a great deal about Spider-Man, aren't necessarily active fans who hold every element of the Spider-Man mysthos as gospel, and aren't going to be up in arms if Mary Jane is introduced first. Even people with casual knowledge of the comics known Mary Jane. She's ultimately the love of his life, and that's what audiences wanted to see.

The only characters I enjoyed were Norman and Harry, everyone else just weren't really themselves to a better capacity than what we were presented.

Huh? You need to word these statements better. :doh:

Sure I may be nitpicking simple things, but its those simple things that would have brought the film to a higher level in my mind, of which can now be achieved if done with more conviction than before.

:whatever:

Any story/film can have the base essentials/origins right, or close to it, but if you follow it up with fluff and lack depth then it starts to go awry. To answer your question: no, everything wasn't so far off the mark in a sense, but in another it was. I enjoyed these films greatly when they were out, and still do, but when I look at them critically, they're just not as good as they could have been.

Then you don't really have a problem. You're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

[Steyin]

But to be fair, you're speaking as a fan, versus a vast majority of people who, while they may know a great deal about Spider-Man, aren't necessarily active fans who hold every element of the Spider-Man mysthos as gospel, and aren't going to be up in arms if Mary Jane is introduced first. Even people with casual knowledge of the comics known Mary Jane. She's ultimately the love of his life, and that's what audiences wanted to see.

True, but doesn't everyone deserve a better storyline as a result of starting things more accurately, which in turn would lead into what the GA wants anyway?



Huh? You need to word these statements better. :doh:

Ok; I felt the characterizations of Peter (although he is the minor of this bunch), MJ, Aunt May, Dock Ock, and so on, were off too much from their comic counterparts. If they were done in line more so, I'm sure we would have had better films in character development alone.



:whatever:
Alright then, I'm positive Spider-Man as a film franchise will be stronger as a whole if done with more passion that doesn't stray in making a translation to film just for the sake of doing so. Every comic film is in the same position really, and most of them can easily be brought up to a higher caliber. Spider-Man is an established franchise that falls into the realm of franchises that will only be empowered by following characterizations and plot points from the source closer through a reboot, no matter when it occurs.



Then you don't really have a problem. You're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

No, I enjoy the films because they were/are fun, but weren't treated as properly as they could/should have been. I'll relate it to TDK; I feel they are good, enjoyable movies. But can they be better Spider-Man/Batman films? On every level, yes. There were a lot of missed opportunites with this franchise, and hopefully they will not be missed the second time around. All I'm really hoping for is a tighter, more polished and cohesive series than the first. Is that so much?

[TheSlag]

Well said Steyin. :up:

[<borkis>]

Personally I blame two key figures, Sony and Avi Arad.

When Raimi was making SM3, Venom was thrust upon him even though he had a storyline involving Sandman and the Vulture. At this point Avi Arad should have stepped in and backed Raimi's vision of the series because of the quality of SM1 and 2, and more importantly he should have been able to see how showhorning Venom into the story was going to hurt both the Venom character and the movie itself.

Instead he added pressure to Raimi to go with Sony's version of story and we know how that worked out. Now, the SM4 debacle is a continuation of that mess. The studio knows that Raimi has no clout and can cut him out of the equation. Had SM3 been done the way Raimi had wanted, we'd be anticipating SM4 right now rather than in the mess we're in.

Of course, from the sounds of it, a lot of people are happy that Raimi is out, so perhaps they think this is for the best... but I see this being a tipping point that could be the moment the Spider-Man character is damaged for many years to come. Star Wars is a good example of how even the most beloved brands can be taken down.

[deathshead2]

It's hard to make a movie with so many people. You have what the studios want, the producers, the toy companys, the video game companys, the director, the lead actors.

Typical Hollywood.

[<borkis>]

No, I enjoy the films because they were/are fun, but weren't treated as properly as they could/should have been. I'll relate it to TDK; I feel they are good, enjoyable movies. But can they be better Spider-Man/Batman films? On every level, yes. There were a lot of missed opportunites with this franchise, and hopefully they will not be missed the second time around. All I'm really hoping for is a tighter, more polished and cohesive series than the first. Is that so much?


I think we all want the best possible Spider-Man franchise there could be. The Raimi-verse definitely had it's problems and could be improved upon.

But I honestly don't think the way Sony is handling this scenario is the way to fix this at all. In no way does this situation give me any confidence whatsoever that the next Spider-Man movie will be anything other than SMINO.

If they had a director come to them and present a vision so compelling that it made sense to ditch the existing franchise to reboot it, and showed such a passion and knowledge for the character that it was sure to improve upon the series, then I would be behind this 100%.

Instead, what we have is a studio that essentially destroyed SM3 through their meddling and are now rushing Raimi out the door, while they've had another writer draft a reboot. If this is how they treat the people who helped create the Spider-Man franchise, what's to make us think the next people who come in will get any more respect?

And who's "vision" exactly did this new script come from? Is it an honest attempt to bring us the real Spider-Man or is this a studio decision based on looking at the box office numbers of other movies?

Right now I'm pretty jaded on this whole concept, and we'll see if this gets better/worse based on who they bring in to direct.

[conan69]

If the studio gave Raimi outright guidelines to work with - and Raimi doent meet them, then its Raimis fault.

But it doesnt seem that way. Raimi talked about having creative control again for the upcoming 4th film.

A few people have said something that is 100% correct. if the studio had let Raimi do the Spiderman3 he wanted without ramming Venom down Raimis throat - the Vulture/Sandman story Sam wanted to do would have been done and they would have had a obvious villian for SM4.

Instead Venom fans werent happy with SM3, in fact no one was - except the stock holders.

Reports of the studio not wanting Lizard becuase of his appearance is stupidity of the highest order.

So I blame the studio. For being shortsighted, for not keeping their word about creative control, for not even understanding the properties they own, and for what seems to me, changing the rules of the game well into it.

[the dmg]

Personally I blame two key figures, Sony and Avi Arad.

Agreed.

I also have to blame Raimi for this as well. I think that after only working on the SM movies back to back, he was burnt out and didn't fight hard enough himself to keep the story without the Venom changes. The backlash would have been huge for Raimi to leave SM3, but with SM4, most people blame him for ruining a great trilogy.

[Doc Samson]

Every single one of you fans who overreacted to Spiderman 3 that's who. I don't know what Spiderman you grew up with, but the one I read was goofy, nerdy, and liable to break out into a dance once or twice. Every character isn't supposed to be dark, and not everybody wants to see Peter Parker crying in a corner every movie. Spiderman 3 was fun, it had good action, and it was a hell of a lot more exciting than the previous one, and that's my personal opinion, so I don't want to hear about if it's true or not, it's true to me!

You can't get water out of a rock, and every comic character isn't going to win Academy Awards no matter how good the film is. Some properties just have better material to work with for dark live action movies, and Spiderman isn't, and never should, be one of them.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Instead Venom fans werent happy with SM3, in fact no one was - except the stock holders.



wrong-o

[the dmg]

Every single one of you fans who overreacted to Spiderman 3 that's who. I don't know what Spiderman you grew up with, but the one I read was goofy, nerdy, and liable to break out into a dance once or twice. Every character isn't supposed to be dark, and not everybody wants to see Peter Parker crying in a corner every movie. Spiderman 3 was fun, it had good action, and it was a hell of a lot more exciting than the previous one, and that's my personal opinion, so I don't want to hear about if it's true or not, it's true to me!

I enjoyed SM3 (and I loved the dance scene).

[Spider-ManHero12]

All fingers point tooooooooo.........

SONY Defenitely! Sam wanted to make a great film, but Sony was pretty much saying "no".

[VenomVsSpidey]

I enjoyed SM3 (and I loved the dance scene).

:awesome:

[Reikowolf]

bleh, this means another shot at Venom

uuug, how I dislike that villain. I've said it once and I'll say it again for the reboot.

Unless the movie is rated R, their version of venom will never please all the fans.

Now, Norman Osborn, there's a villain.

I really enjoy how, in essence, he serves as a foil for Peter. A man, gifted with a great intellect, using it for his own advantage. Selfish, but having earned everything he has. Disliking his son for the weaknesses he fought so hard to groom out of his own life. All this, before he was even the Goblin, as the Goblin he is so cold and calculating and is just so many steps ahead of his enemies.

A really well written villain. If Peter had not lost his uncle, he might have grown up to be just like Norman. His first idea as Spider-Man was to make it big. there's a great what-if where he does just that and it ends years later with the death of Daredevil.

anyhoo, I'm ranting

boo Venom

[drax]

Every single one of you fans who overreacted to Spiderman 3 that's who. I don't know what Spiderman you grew up with, but the one I read was goofy, nerdy, and liable to break out into a dance once or twice. Every character isn't supposed to be dark, and not everybody wants to see Peter Parker crying in a corner every movie. Spiderman 3 was fun, it had good action, and it was a hell of a lot more exciting than the previous one, and that's my personal opinion, so I don't want to hear about if it's true or not, it's true to me!

You can't get water out of a rock, and every comic character isn't going to win Academy Awards no matter how good the film is. Some properties just have better material to work with for dark live action movies, and Spiderman isn't, and never should, be one of them.

Thank you very much for this message, SM3 was imo really great, my favorite of the franchise.

[TheWrathOfGod]

Blame all of the people who contributed to the "screenplay."

[bryanss3]

1 thing has been bugging me. Sony has said they planned on rebooting after Spider-Man 4. So why did it matter what they did in this movie. Sony knows for a fact after Spider-Man 3 if they have a good trailer they can make over 800 million dollars. What I'm saying is if the plan was to reboot after why is there a debate over creative control? I'm guessing There is no script ready for the reboot, more likely a few outlines for what they might do. This isn't even me taking sides this is me looking at it realistically. We all know that both sides are lying in some way to make themselves look classy. Assuming that's true Raimi probably told a little white lie and Sony pants a literally on fire.