How can Raimi prevent this film from becoming X-Men: The Last Stand?

[anrrd_2]

I think you're missing my idea here. Venom wouldn't be the solo villain of the fourth outing. It would simply be Spider-man 3 "part II". Sandman would come back, Harry would turn to the light, and Venom would have a greater role in the overall film then he did.

Believe it or not, but my idea answers/solves a lot of the criticisms of the film.

Had they split the film in two:

They could have:
-Fleshed out Brock throughout out Part one.
-Fleshed out the Marko family and Sandman in part one
-Allowed for more Green Goblin/Sandman/Spider-man fights
-Given the Stacey's more to do
-Explain/explore the symbiote even more

Now, all they would need is to play the symbiote darker and that's a pretty damn good film.

Part two would include
-The rise of Venom
-Harry turning good
-Sandman returns
-Spider-man returns (in red and blue)...maybe even have him MIA for the first 20 some minutes/half hour of part two. (it feels like we're supposed to feel like we haven't seen Spidey for a while when he holds up the suit and dons it at the end of Spider-man 3, this would add to that feeling).
-More chance to showcase Venom and have him explain how the power transfered from Peter to him, so he's not such a question mark.
-Sandman would be more sympathetic in the end because we've developed him and his family for more than a scene.
-Could make a less contrived team up for Venom and Sandman.

Spider-man 3 was good. I think, had I written it, I could have made a great story for it. It simply needed more time. Sony definitely would have allowed the budget for a back-to-back picture deal. The principle actors and Rami would definitely had been more inclined to accept this than two independent films. Release them back to back summers or May and Oct and it would have been the event of the year and talked about for two. They could afford it, because they'd know they'd get paid off huge in the end.

But hey, that version of Spider-man 3 will just stay in my head with my ideas of how Mr. Singer would have capped off X-men 3.

-R

all thoughs thoughts that will never come to fruition....it must eat at you constantly. "it should have been like this", or "this shouldnt have happened"...all meaningless. eventually you become numb to the world, left only with a faint feeling of lonliness, and a small voice the back of your head telling you to end it all.

Spoiler

jkt:

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Which isn't a good thing. Even films like The Matrix Reloaded or Kill Bill Vol. 1 had some sense of closure to their stories. The big ideas of those movies (Humans vs. Machines and the Bride's vengeance) were left open for the sequels, but the subplots of Reloaded were resolved within Reloaded; the same goes for Kill Bill 1. Hell, Spider-Man 2 did the same thing, and resolved it's own plot threads while leaving the big one (Harry and the Goblin legacy) dangling for the sequel.

The Sandman arc could have been resolved with the Uncle Ben storyline or you could have stretched it out till the end of SM4. You also could have had him return to help Spider-Man only to be killed by Venom in a heroic scene in SM4. There's a lot of possibilities that could have been done. The Harry/Goblin legacy the same way. We could have had two or three battles of New Goblin in SM3 and then he gets amnesia. His role in SM4 could have been the same when he was good in SM3 untill he has his heroic seen in the end.

What you and Robin are suggesting would have left Spider-Man 3 completely unresolved, which is irresponsible filmmaking. You don't string your audience along for 3 years, leave them with absolutely no ending, and ask them to wait some more. Besides, Venom isn't a strong enough character to hold a movie of his own; he is just one part of Eddie's character arc. Kind of like how you can't do a whole movie of black suit Spider-Man, as it's just one part of Peter's character arc.

It wouldn't have been 3 years if they made them back-to-back and all the plots could have been resolved except for Venom if done right. The plots then could have been brought back to life for the next film. Leaving the fans and audience with a cliffhanger only builds the excitment for the next film. You're right about Venom and black suited Spider-Man not being able to hold their own film. More reason to split them in two.

SM3- Black Suited Spider-Man
SM4 - Venom

And even ignoring all of that, remember that the cast was only signed for three films. Legally, they could have left after SM3 which would have created a huge continuity break for SM4. I'm sure the only reason Raimi allowed to end SM2 with an unresolved plot thread was because he knew everyone would return to come back and end it. Splitting this movie into two separate parts was never a real option.

Best case scenerio is that the cast had signed on for a forth film before SM3 was made. This is all wishful thinking on our part. I truely believe that splitting the movie into two separate parts would have been succesful.

 

[anrrd_2]

The Sandman arc could have been resolved with the Uncle Ben storyline or you could have stretched it out till the end of SM4. You also could have had him return to help Spider-Man only to be killed by Venom in a heroic scene in SM4. There's a lot of possibilities that could have been done. The Harry/Goblin legacy the same way. We could have had two or three battles of New Goblin in SM3 and then he gets amnesia. His role in SM4 could have been the same when he was good in SM3 untill he has his heroic seen in the end.[/qoute]

i would rather the sandman storyline didnt involve uncle ben at all....it didnt take away from the movie for me, but i would prefer the death of uncle been were left untampered.

another redeemed/reborn villian who comes to help spidey save the day....it makes for a cool twist, but its been done before already (DR. octvaviu). and then to have harry do they same in the next one would be just plain redundant.

It wouldn't have been 3 years if they made them back-to-back and all the plots could have been resolved except for Venom if done right. The plots then could have been brought back to life for the next film. Leaving the fans and audience with a cliffhanger only builds the excitment for the next film. You're right about Venom and black suited Spider-Man not being able to hold their own film. More reason to split them in two.

SM3- Black Suited Spider-Man
SM4 - Venom

its a good idea in theory...but remember POTC essentially did the same thing and it didnt work out to well.

 

[UltimateJustin]

All this talk is pointless because its not like they didnt try to split them into two. When AS saw the Raimis script featuring these four major villians and new ideas to incorporate he thought it needed to be divided into two films. He said he wrote several drafts that were unsatisfactory, so then they decided to just merge it back into one film. If they were perfectly happy with what they did with SM3, I'd hate to see what something they werent proud of might look like.

 

[Robin91939]

its a good idea in theory...but remember POTC essentially did the same thing and it didnt work out to well.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Domestic: $423,315,812
International:$642,863,913
World Wide: $1,066,179,725

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Domestic: $309,420,425
International:$651,582,238
World Wide: $961,002,663

*as per boxofficemojo.com

One was the biggest film of its year, beating out films that were supposed to blow it out of the water like X3: The Last Stand and Superman Returns. And the other was the fourth biggest movie of the year in a box office year where four films cracks 300 million and one came into the 290's. It was a huge year at the box office and At World's End stood up very well.

These were event movies, I doubt Disney thinks it "didn't work out for them". Also, it was the poor reviews for Dead Man's Chest that hurt At World's End for the most part. If Spider-man 3 had gotten good reviews and done things right, then the second part of the story, Spider-man 4, would have done the same or better business the following year, had they filmed them back-to-back.

-R

 

[anrrd_2]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Domestic: $423,315,812
International:$642,863,913
World Wide: $1,066,179,725

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Domestic: $309,420,425
International:$651,582,238
World Wide: $961,002,663

*as per boxofficemojo.com

One was the biggest film of its year, beating out films that were supposed to blow it out of the water like X3: The Last Stand and Superman Returns. And the other was the fourth biggest movie of the year in a box office year where four films cracks 300 million and one came into the 290's. It was a huge year at the box office and At World's End stood up very well.

These were event movies, I doubt Disney thinks it "didn't work out for them". Also, it was the poor reviews for Dead Man's Chest that hurt At World's End for the most part. If Spider-man 3 had gotten good reviews and done things right, then the second part of the story, Spider-man 4, would have done the same or better business the following year, had they filmed them back-to-back.

-R

no, no moneyt wise they were extremely successfull...im refering to the quality of the movie. the constant errors, tire tracks on the beach, jack is sweating with running face paint in one shot and then is completely fine in the next, their are shots in the movie where you can actually see cameramen. they made lots of money but were very sloppily done.

 

[Blader5489]

I think you're missing my idea here. Venom wouldn't be the solo villain of the fourth outing. It would simply be Spider-man 3 "part II". Sandman would come back, Harry would turn to the light, and Venom would have a greater role in the overall film then he did.

I see. Well, as UltimateJustin pointed out, Sargent did try doing this but it left "Spider-Man 3 part I" completely unresolved. As I said before, movies like the Matrix Reloaded, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Back to the Future II, and even Spider-Man 2 used the "to be continued" approach but still managed to wrap up their own subplots while leaving the bigger ones open for the sequels. The "Spider-Man 3 part 1" scenario doesn't do that. It just introduces and builds on several plot lines and then fades to black; no ending.

But hey, that version of Spider-man 3 will just stay in my head

For the most part, that version of Spider-Man 3 exists. Most, if not all, of the scenes cut from the movie involve Sandman, Eddie, or the black suit (maybe Venom too). That's why I'm not really chastising Raimi for Sandman and Venom being underdeveloped compared to GG and Ock. I know that there was a lot of character development for the new villains that Raimi had to cut from the film because it was either too depressing or it couldn't be fit into the movie's running time--both of which were studio mandates. I also know that 3.1 is inevitable, which is why I'm reserving final judgment on this film.

 

[Robin91939]

no, no moneyt wise they were extremely successfull...im refering to the quality of the movie. the constant errors, tire tracks on the beach, jack is sweating with running face paint in one shot and then is completely fine in the next, their are shots in the movie where you can actually see cameramen. they made lots of money but were very sloppily done.

I must have missed them...no sarcasm. I enjoyed both films, and thought that they were funny with great special effects. Granted I enjoyed Curse of the Black Pearl and At World's End the most, I feel that Rami wouldn't have allowed the quality to slip. I think we still would have gotten the same production value as we did in Spider-man 2. Other back-to-back films were done very well (Superman: The Movie/Superman II, Back To the Future Part II/Back to The Future Part III, The Matrix Reloaded/ The Matrix Revolutions) and the quality didn't seem to suffer, in fact it only strengthened the continuity for the story. I would have loved to see a superhero get this kind of treatment.

Superman should have. Superman: The Movie was to be a "two parter". With the end of part one being the missile exploding in space releasing General Zod and part two ending with the Earth going back on its axis...it would have been great to have the cliff hanger of Zod screaming "Free!!!".

One of the stories in Spider-man lore that would deserve this type of two part story is the symbiote arc. It would have been great to view in it's entirety as one long film...but it is only a fans dream. I was hoping that the sequels to Batman Begins would be done back-to-back because I felt that adapting the take over of Gotham by the freaks, eliminating the mob element (essentially the back bone of The Long Halloween's theme) would take two films.

But hopefully one day we'll get something like that. How awesome would the Dark Phoenix saga been in a two parter. Part one is X2: X-men United with Jean apparently ending the film dead. Then part two would play out solely focused on Jean's story and the X-men battling Dark Phoenix instead of her standing around....

One can only hope and think on it now

-R

 

[anrrd_2]

I must have missed them...no sarcasm. I enjoyed both films, and thought that they were funny with great special effects. Granted I enjoyed Curse of the Black Pearl and At World's End the most, I feel that Rami wouldn't have allowed the quality to slip. I think we still would have gotten the same production value as we did in Spider-man 2. Other back-to-back films were done very well (Superman: The Movie/Superman II, Back To the Future Part II/Back to The Future Part III, The Matrix Reloaded/ The Matrix Revolutions) and the quality didn't seem to suffer, in fact it only strengthened the continuity for the story. I would have loved to see a superhero get this kind of treatment.

Superman should have. Superman: The Movie was to be a "two parter". With the end of part one being the missile exploding in space releasing General Zod and part two ending with the Earth going back on its axis...it would have been great to have the cliff hanger of Zod screaming "Free!!!".

One of the stories in Spider-man lore that would deserve this type of two part story is the symbiote arc. It would have been great to view in it's entirety as one long film...but it is only a fans dream. I was hoping that the sequels to Batman Begins would be done back-to-back because I felt that adapting the take over of Gotham by the freaks, eliminating the mob element (essentially the back bone of The Long Halloween's theme) would take two films.

But hopefully one day we'll get something like that. How awesome would the Dark Phoenix saga been in a two parter. Part one is X2: X-men United with Jean apparently ending the film dead. Then part two would play out solely focused on Jean's story and the X-men battling Dark Phoenix instead of her standing around....

One can only hope and think on it now

-R

ya i can see your point i guess...google movie mistakes and look the POTC movies...its hilarious really

 

[Robin91939]

I see. Well, as UltimateJustin pointed out, Sargent did try doing this but it left "Spider-Man 3 part I" completely unresolved. As I said before, movies like the Matrix Reloaded, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Back to the Future II, and even Spider-Man 2 used the "to be continued" approach but still managed to wrap up their own subplots while leaving the bigger ones open for the sequels. The "Spider-Man 3 part 1" scenario doesn't do that. It just introduces and builds on several plot lines and then fades to black; no ending.



For the most part, that version of Spider-Man 3 exists. Most, if not all, of the scenes cut from the movie involve Sandman, Eddie, or the black suit (maybe Venom too). That's why I'm not really chastising Raimi for Sandman and Venom being underdeveloped compared to GG and Ock. I know that there was a lot of character development for the new villains that Raimi had to cut from the film because it was either too depressing or it couldn't be fit into the movie's running time--both of which were studio mandates. I also know that 3.1 is inevitable, which is why I'm reserving final judgment on this film.

I agree with both points. I think it is debatable (which we've proved lol) that the "part one" portion of Spider-man 3 could have been reworked to have a climax, with the selected threads tied up leaving only major ones (Venom and either Harry or Sandman) to be resolved in the second part. I think it is very possible to have done it.

As far as the Spider-man 3.1, I would love that also. I await that. My original score of the film was about a 7.5/10 which is the lowest rating for the franchise, but still solid. I like this film, but I was expecting the best superhero film (upon seeing the trailers, reading different things, etc) I was disappointed. My disappointment laid in the "cookyness" of the black suit's antics, and the lack of development for the two main villains.

I'm not a huge Venom fan, but if you're going to do him, do it properly. Name him. Allow him to torment Parker for longer than ten minutes. Have him explain with his pride how he now has the power or the suit and boast about what Parker gave up.

Again, I've been saving final judgment for 3.1 but, as of now, I can only hope that it has the footage that I've heard it does.

"And like from the heavens the answer came. I am now Venom to you now Spider-man".
^I think it was in the novel that I read something like this, I would have loved to see that in the film...perfectly ironic.

-R

 

[Stevens25]

Well, I loved everything about Symbiote Spider-Man and Symbiote Peter in this film. Seeing Peter do things that he wouldn't normally do such as the Jazz club scene and the Saturday night fever walk down the street just makes it even more interesting. It also shows how the Symbiote suit is changing Peter's personality and how it affects others around him such as MJ, Mr. Ditkovitch, etc. That's just how I feel about it though.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I was just bringing the subject up,is all.
As for the ending of the movie,having Venom swallow the camera would've been cool,but here's what I pictured in my mind...
Spider-man gets rid of the suit and it falls onto Eddie. Venom is born. Then,Spidey goes off and fights Sandman,and he wins of course. After all is said and done he goes to visit MJ at the jazz club just as he did in the film. Then,show him swinging through the buildings of New York just like the endings of the previous two. The music is blasting and everyone in the theatre would be getting goosebumps. We think the film's over and then,out of nowhere a huge piece on concrete flies through the air and smashes into Spidey,knocking him to the ground. As Spider-man tries to regain his focus and wonders what happened,Venom comes down and floors Spidey with a mighty kick to the face. We then see Spider-man lying on the ground with Venom standing over him. The final shot is of Eddie's face with the symbiote pulled back and he says,"Hey,Parker!"

Then,role credits.

 

[Robin91939]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I was just bringing the subject up,is all.
As for the ending of the movie,having Venom swallow the camera would've been cool,but here's what I pictured in my mind...
Spider-man gets rid of the suit and it falls onto Eddie. Venom is born. Then,Spidey goes off and fights Sandman,and he wins of course. After all is said and done he goes to visit MJ at the jazz club just as he did in the film. Then,show him swinging through the buildings of New York just like the endings of the previous two. The music is blasting and everyone in the theatre would be getting goosebumps. We think the film's over and then,out of nowhere a huge piece on concrete flies through the air and smashes into Spidey,knocking him to the ground. As Spider-man tries to regain his focus and wonders what happened,Venom comes down and floors Spidey with a mighty kick to the face. We then see Spider-man lying on the ground with Venom standing over him. The final shot is of Eddie's face with the symbiote pulled back and he says,"Hey,Parker!"

Then,role credits.

Not a fan. Because then we start the fourth film with just about all action. It starts off with a fight scene. Then what? Then we have to get Venom out of the picture for a long enough period of time to have some kind of character moments then bring him back then again in the climax. Also, I think that Sandman should have been part of the second part of the story. He didn't receive enough time in the film we saw and if they were going to flesh out all three villains they'd need both films.

-R

 

[StylishHokie21]

I agree with both points. I think it is debatable (which we've proved lol) that the "part one" portion of Spider-man 3 could have been reworked to have a climax, with the selected threads tied up leaving only major ones (Venom and either Harry or Sandman) to be resolved in the second part. I think it is very possible to have done it.

As far as the Spider-man 3.1, I would love that also. I await that. My original score of the film was about a 7.5/10 which is the lowest rating for the franchise, but still solid. I like this film, but I was expecting the best superhero film (upon seeing the trailers, reading different things, etc) I was disappointed. My disappointment laid in the "cookyness" of the black suit's antics, and the lack of development for the two main villains.

I'm not a huge Venom fan, but if you're going to do him, do it properly. Name him. Allow him to torment Parker for longer than ten minutes. Have him explain with his pride how he now has the power or the suit and boast about what Parker gave up.

Again, I've been saving final judgment for 3.1 but, as of now, I can only hope that it has the footage that I've heard it does.

"And like from the heavens the answer came. I am now Venom to you now Spider-man".
^I think it was in the novel that I read something like this, I would have loved to see that in the film...perfectly ironic.

-R

Agreed! I really hope a 3.1 version is released, but it probably won't be for awhile.

 

[Nightmare]

Not a fan. Because then we start the fourth film with just about all action. It starts off with a fight scene. Then what? Then we have to get Venom out of the picture for a long enough period of time to have some kind of character moments then bring him back then again in the climax. Also, I think that Sandman should have been part of the second part of the story. He didn't receive enough time in the film we saw and if they were going to flesh out all three villains they'd need both films.

-R

I thought sandman should of died off at the Sewer scene. The rest of the movie should of been Venom vs Spiderman. Harry could of just stayed home and licked his wounds.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I was just bringing the subject up,is all.
As for the ending of the movie,having Venom swallow the camera would've been cool,but here's what I pictured in my mind...
Spider-man gets rid of the suit and it falls onto Eddie. Venom is born. Then,Spidey goes off and fights Sandman,and he wins of course. After all is said and done he goes to visit MJ at the jazz club just as he did in the film. Then,show him swinging through the buildings of New York just like the endings of the previous two. The music is blasting and everyone in the theatre would be getting goosebumps. We think the film's over and then,out of nowhere a huge piece on concrete flies through the air and smashes into Spidey,knocking him to the ground. As Spider-man tries to regain his focus and wonders what happened,Venom comes down and floors Spidey with a mighty kick to the face. We then see Spider-man lying on the ground with Venom standing over him. The final shot is of Eddie's face with the symbiote pulled back and he says,"Hey,Parker!"

Then,role credits.

Not a bad idea idea at all, but I just think that Venom being in Spidey3 along with Sandman gave Spidey more of a challenge and fit well into the storyline. Let's not forget that this was Spdiey's ultimate challenge. He had to fight his inner demons along with trying to stop Sandman, trying to help Harry but failing, and then Venom. Adding Venom to the story just makes for more conflict and pain to Peter. It's always interesting when Peter has the weight of the world on his shoulders and so many problems to deal with in his life. Having all those things go downhill and to make things worse, the symbiote changed Peters personality, which makes the story even more interesting. Also, Peter and Eddie had conflict. They had to get a photo of Spidey with "his hand in a cookie jar." Who was the better man? turns out that Brock cheated his way, making himself the weakest and most pathetic man.

basically what I'm saying is that Venom fits perfectly into Spidey3's moral and more. That's just how I fell though.

 

[Blader5489]

I thought sandman should of died off at the Sewer scene. The rest of the movie should of been Venom vs Spiderman. Harry could of just stayed home and licked his wounds.

So basically, plot and character development takes a backseat to action?

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

So basically, plot and character development takes a backseat to action?

Defenitley no, those are two very big points for characters to be interesting, relatable, etc.

 

[Nightmare]

So basically, plot and character development takes a backseat to action?

no no no, the entire movie was a huge cluster**** and they way raimi did it, he had to end it with the corny ending he did. But could of done so much better.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree with both points. I think it is debatable (which we've proved lol) that the "part one" portion of Spider-man 3 could have been reworked to have a climax, with the selected threads tied up leaving only major ones (Venom and either Harry or Sandman) to be resolved in the second part. I think it is very possible to have done it.

As far as the Spider-man 3.1, I would love that also. I await that. My original score of the film was about a 7.5/10 which is the lowest rating for the franchise, but still solid. I like this film, but I was expecting the best superhero film (upon seeing the trailers, reading different things, etc) I was disappointed. My disappointment laid in the "cookyness" of the black suit's antics, and the lack of development for the two main villains.

I'm not a huge Venom fan, but if you're going to do him, do it properly. Name him. Allow him to torment Parker for longer than ten minutes. Have him explain with his pride how he now has the power or the suit and boast about what Parker gave up.

Again, I've been saving final judgment for 3.1 but, as of now, I can only hope that it has the footage that I've heard it does.

"And like from the heavens the answer came. I am now Venom to you now Spider-man".
^I think it was in the novel that I read something like this, I would have loved to see that in the film...perfectly ironic.

-R

Agreed, Venom should have been done properly if he was going to do him, someone like Shocker could have easily filled Venom's role in Spiderman 3 and save Venom for a full storyline in Spiderman 4.

 

[Blader5489]

no no no, the entire movie was a huge cluster**** and they way raimi did it, he had to end it with the corny ending he did. But could of done so much better.

I was talking about your scenario, though, where you basically throw the story out the window for the sake of Spider-Man and Venom fighting each other.

 

[DACrowe]

I think it is unhealthy that 8 months after release people are still trying to "better the movie" in their heads. It is over like it, hate it or shrug. I personally liked it, but thought it could have been better. There are plenty of other great movies out there though (and no, I am NOT talking about Transformers) right now. Time to move on.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^With me i'm just discussing what could have been improved, i know now it'll never happen, but its good to discuss what WE would have done differently.

And why didnt you like TF DACrowe?

 

[UltimateJustin]

Thats not true. I just found a bunch of easter eggs on the 2-disc SM3 dvd, deleted scenes included the sand castle, Eddie visits the Stacys' house, and an explanation as to why Sandman tried to kill Spiderman and then decided to hug.

 

[DACrowe]

TF just didn't do it for me.

It was too long and like all Michael Bay movies, it was a premise or an idea taken from better movies and a very thin screenplay around it to connect the action set pieces. Shia was cool and funny, but his character was obviously a Peter Parker knock off, the story with the car ripped as a teenage ET, the girl had no depth and was poorly acted and none of the robots were developed. I never watched the show, so the only names I remembered were Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, all the others had a 20 second introduction and that is it. The climax INTRODUCES 80% OF THE "BAD" ROBOTS and their names are given by subtitles. This includes Megatron. When Jazz died, I didn't realize it and when Optimus held up his puppet body and he said "Jazz was a great ally," I said "Jazz? Jazz, who?" I didn't even know which robots to be rooting for as none were developed and they all looked the same to me in the last 20 minutes.

I felt the humor was sophmoric and not very funny and the rest of the movie was a faux-patritoic send up but unlike Speilberg, where it feels genuine, this felt artificial. The Army commerical didn't help nor the Voight-Rumsfeld character. Where was the depth of the robots? These "American hero" characters all felt like recyclables from Armageddon and Pearl Harbor.

It was just...bad. But it had pretty explosions and cool graphics, so it is the most popular movie of the year.

 

[Miniduffa]

Thats not true. I just found a bunch of easter eggs on the 2-disc SM3 dvd, deleted scenes included the sand castle, Eddie visits the Stacys' house, and an explanation as to why Sandman tried to kill Spiderman and then decided to hug.

How did you find those easter eggs??