Sandman Most Pointless Villian in SM3?

[drmick]

He robbed a bank, broke out of prison, robbed an armored truck, (almost) killed a law enforcer, killed Uncle Ben, yet he just gets to drift away because he is sorry! The other thing that bothers me is how naive everyone is. Sandy tells Peter it was all an accident, and Peter believes everything he says! Wouldn't it occur to Peter that Marko is lying just so he wouldn't try to apprehend him? Wouldn't most people have believed the police's story instead of one told by a lying con who has just fled from prison? Let's not forget at the beginning of the film, Marko has escaped from Prison and at this part, the police hadn't proved he was Ben's killer yet, so he was obviously in prison for some other crime. If he was really sorry, he would have turned himself in.

I think there is possibly a missing scene or two somewhere in the film.

In the version shown Venom meets Sandman for the first time and says something like "I know all about your sick daughter". The implication I got from that was that the symbiote knew, meaning that Peter in the balck costume found that out somewhere.

Where or when during the film I'm not sure.

 

[Mike059jig]

Venom was the only pointless villain, Sandman was great but the whole recton of the first movie was not needed, but the scene at the end worked in the movie...him being big at the end was just stupid, the plot about his daughter should of been explored more

 

[bellepheron]

If the movie had been devoted to Harry and EITHER Venom or Sandman it could have been great, we didnt need both!! Both had good back stories the biggest problem was neither was developed enough and so both characters were badly let down!!

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think there is possibly a missing scene or two somewhere in the film.

In the version shown Venom meets Sandman for the first time and says something like "I know all about your sick daughter". The implication I got from that was that the symbiote knew, meaning that Peter in the balck costume found that out somewhere.

Where or when during the film I'm not sure.

Peter didn't know until Marko told him toward the end. Brock probably found out in a news report (Peter doesn't have a TV so it would make sense he would see a news report about it).

 

[pjspider1C]

I think Peter knew about Sandman's daughter. Just because he didn't mention it or we didn't see doesn't mean he didn't know. He's a resourceful guy and he works for a newspaper and he's fixated on Flint Marko - I think he probably did everthing he could to find out as much as he could about Marko.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think Peter knew about Sandman's daughter. Just because he didn't mention it or we didn't see doesn't mean he didn't know. He's a resourceful guy and he works for a newspaper and he's fixated on Flint Marko - I think he probably did everthing he could to find out as much as he could about Marko.

The point of the scene was to realize Marko was human. He only does when he tells him about his daughter. He had a look of surprise and understanding when he tells him.

Peter didn't know prior to that.

 

[pjspider1C]

^ Well, fine. Then Eddie Brock is a reporter as well, gained the knowledge from the symbiote that Peter Parker hated Flint Marko, did some quick research, and then went to confront Sandman.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there are plenty of theories we could try as to how Venom knew about Sandman's daughter. Raimi trusted that the audience was smart enough to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I am not disagreeing with you. I think it wouldn't be that hard (considering the NY media) to find out about it.

I am just saying Peter didn't know.

 

[pjspider1C]

What I'm actually more concerned with is that Sandman's problem with his daughter wasn't resolved at the end of Spider-Man 3. Yeah, Peter Parker was able to overcome his revenge and forgive Flint Marko, but does that mean Marko's just going to stop trying to save his daughter? Probably not. And Spider-Man will of course still be there to stop him from breaking the law. If you ask me, they should continue Sandman's story and wrap it up in SM4. But chances are that's not gonna happen...

 

[Killing Joke926]

Although I thought SandMan was better than I thought in the flick, he was pointless villian; he wasn't even a villian. In my opinion they should have brought in Topher in the first film, having his life ruined in all the trilogy and leading up to Venom in SpiderMan 3. New Goblin and Venom would have done just fine; but Rami always has to get his way and have SanMan.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TRY TO PLEASE ALL THE FANS!

 

[Anti-Venom]

I think there's a reason we can't quite agree on if Venom or Sandman was more pointless. It's because the story does not have a center.

Yes, you could cut Sandman and develop more of the story around Venom.
Yes, you could cut Venom and develop more of the story around Sandman.

The whole symbiote thing fits in so well with the Harry story. It's easier to believe that Parker would actually try to kill Harry. And having Venom at the end gives Harry the oppurtunity to save Parker. Sandman just got in the way.

 

[Showtime]

Sandman wasn't just the most pointless villian in SM3, he was the most pointless villian in any blockbuster comicbook movie.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Sandman wasn't just the most pointless villian in SM3, he was the most pointless villian in any blockbuster comicbook movie.

What about Catwoman's villains

 

[Dragon]

Sandman wasn't just the most pointless villian in SM3, he was the most pointless villian in any blockbuster comicbook movie.

And that was the mst pointless post. Ironic.

 

[The Joker]

Sandman wasn't just the most pointless villian in SM3, he was the most pointless villian in any blockbuster comicbook movie.

Why do you say that?

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

Why do you say that?

Yeah, i'd give that title to DC's Bane.

Bane is a character that could easily carry a Batman movie by himself, imo, yet was reduced to a grunting non-entity in Batman & Robin.

That was very disappointing.

 

[Spider-Bat]

I didn't find him pointless at all. I tell ya' some people just have to nit pick at everything, get over it.

All I see everywhere is complaining.

 

[drmick]

I think there's a reason we can't quite agree on if Venom or Sandman was more pointless. It's because the story does not have a center.

Yes, you could cut Sandman and develop more of the story around Venom.
Yes, you could cut Venom and develop more of the story around Sandman.

The whole symbiote thing fits in so well with the Harry story. It's easier to believe that Parker would actually try to kill Harry. And having Venom at the end gives Harry the oppurtunity to save Parker. Sandman just got in the way.

This is the most sensible post in this thread. Probably.

Does "Anti-Venom" mean you are not a happen Venom fan?

 

[Qwerty©]

Sandman wasn't just the most pointless villian in SM3, he was the most pointless villian in any blockbuster comicbook movie.

Incorrect. Sandman was the villain that held the movie together, the whole revenge and forgiveness theme is built around his character.

It's not a matter of debate. He was written as an integral part of the story.

Venom is much more pointless. This is proven by how he was written in simply to treat the fans, who are as ungrateful, as usual.

 

[drmick]

Incorrect. Sandman was the villain that held the movie together, the whole revenge and forgiveness theme is built around his character.

It's not a matter of debate. He was written as an integral part of the story.

Venom is much more pointless. This is proven by how he was written in simply to treat the fans, who are as ungrateful, as usual.

Arguably Brock's story in the film tied more into the revenge theme than Sandman's, whose story was seriously Retconned from the comics to specifically tie into the theme (while Brock's was just lifted directly from the comics).

Thus Sandman (as a choice of villian, rather than portrayal of a villian) is the most pointless choice.

 

[Blader5489]

Arguably Brock's story in the film tied more into the revenge theme than Sandman's, whose story was seriously Retconned from the comics to specifically tie into the theme (while Brock's was just lifted directly from the comics).

Thus Sandman (as a choice of villian, rather than portrayal of a villian) is the most pointless choice.

The reason Raimi chose Sandman in the first place was because he had no backstory in the comics and so he could easily be fit into the Uncle Ben murder.

And the theme of the movie is forgiveness, about making mistakes and redeeming yourself for it. Sandman fits into that perfectly, but Venom (and specifically his death) was also needed - in order to understand as to why people should strive for forgiveness instead of vengeance, it's important to show the consequences of what being vengeful ultimately does to a person. Venom was also needed so Peter could confront and defeat his dark side.

They were both needed. Without Sandman, there's nobody to forgive, and without Venom there's nobody to exemplify the consequences of being vengeful.

 

[Dragon]

The whole symbiote thing fits in so well with the Harry story. It's easier to believe that Parker would actually try to kill Harry. And having Venom at the end gives Harry the oppurtunity to save Parker. Sandman just got in the way.

That makes little sense. First, NO, it isn't believable that Peter would want to kill Harry. Despite Harry's vendetta Peter clearly still loved him as a brother, as evidenced by his frantic attempt to save Harry during the first fight.

And for the symbiote to to attach itself to Peter, Peter would've had to already be out for blood, which he wasn't for Harry. Harry hadn't done anything as extreme as killing Uncle Ben- the only type of thing that would drive Peter to that point.

Finally Peter wouldn't have needed help against JUST Venom. He beat him rather easily on his own once he figured out how. Sandman was needed to drive Peter to the point of revenge, to make the end battle so dire that Peter needed help AND to teach Peter to learn forgiveness.

 

[drmick]

They were both needed. Without Sandman, there's nobody to forgive, and without Venom there's nobody to exemplify the consequences of being vengeful.

Not true. Harry and Brock have plenty of the whole forgiveness/revenge/darkness thing going on to fill TWO films!

 

[Qwerty©]

Arguably Brock's story in the film tied more into the revenge theme than Sandman's, whose story was seriously Retconned from the comics to specifically tie into the theme (while Brock's was just lifted directly from the comics).

Thus Sandman (as a choice of villian, rather than portrayal of a villian) is the most pointless choice.

But I'm not arguing about the choice of villains, I'm arguing about how the character's role in the film.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

The most upsetting thing about the movie was that the good parts were the best parts of the entire series. It's not so much that it was a bad movie... it's that it was a wasted opprotunity to be a GREAT movie. There was so much to like about it... just far too much to dislike about it too.

Take out Sandman*, make symbiote Spider-Man really nasty (not a cocky wannabe hipster), have a fight scene between symbiote Spidey and New Goblin, and give both Eddie Brock and Venom a lot more screen time, and you've got the best of the three movies.

*Note: I like Sandman. I always have liked Sandman. But he was totally pointless in Spider-Man 3. You could take him out completely and the plot would be unharmed.