Sandman Most Pointless Villian in SM3?

[Frodo]

It was actually to create a parallel of Harry's story and to show how the symbiote heightens emotions.

I doubt it ,considering Raimi's original story featured only Harry and Sandman . The whole symbiote aspect came when Arad persuaded him to add Venom .

The whole Sandman killing uncle Ben thing was probably gonna be in the script before the adding of the symbiote.

He did it to flesh out a charcter who had less depth then Venom. It was another way of connecting him to Peter as opposed to just being a random villian. To be fair , Burton did it in Batman , and that caused controversy with the fans as well. Along with Two Face killing Robin's parents in BF.

I just don't think he's a strong character . If anything he's on the level of Juggernaunt in X Men 3. He's a good physical threat, but you couldn't base a whole film around him. I think Lizard would have been better but I can see why they wouldn't use him because it would seem too similar to Doc Ock from 2.

 

[Blader5489]

I doubt it ,considering Raimi's original story featured only Harry and Sandman . The whole symbiote aspect came when Arad persuaded him to add Venom .

Raimi's original story featured Harry, Sandman, and the Vulture. There were always going to be three villains with that last enemy fated to die because of his desire for revenge. Arad did pressure Raimi into using Venom (and, by extension, the symbiote) but Raimi chose the Venom story over the Vulture one because it fit better with both Peter's life and the revenge/forgiveness theme.

 

[Frodo]

Raimi's original story featured Harry, Sandman, and the Vulture. There were always going to be three villains with that last enemy fated to die because of his desire for revenge. Arad did pressure Raimi into using Venom (and, by extension, the symbiote) but Raimi chose the Venom story over the Vulture one because it fit better with both Peter's life and the revenge/forgiveness theme.

I read an article recently in which sam mentioned that Peter, MJ, Harry and Sandman were going to be the focus of the story he wrote with his brother . Then Avid suggested Venom . What might have happened is ,that the Studio suggested that Sam add a third villian and he then chose Vulture, while Avi said suggested he add Venom. Now Raimi could have been talking about his first draft considering the script went through re-writes but the original story he had in mind had only two villians . That's what I was referring to . Nevertheless , I still think Raimi was trying to make Sandman more relevent for the story by having be uncle Ben's killer.

 

[drmick]

I read an article recently in which sam mentioned that Peter, MJ, Harry and Sandman were going to be the focus of the story he wrote with his brother . Then Avid suggested Venom . What might have happened is ,that the Studio suggested that Sam add a third villian and he then chose Vulture, while Avi said suggested he add Venom. Now Raimi could have been talking about his first draft considering the script went through re-writes but the original story he had in mind had only two villians . That's what I was referring to . Nevertheless , I still think Raimi was trying to make Sandman more relevent for the story by having be uncle Ben's killer.

Yes, a brief summary of this thread is:

1. Sandman was always destined to be in SM3 regardless if there was one, two or three villians.

2. But paradoxically he was the most pointless villian in the film in terms of its plot.

3. In fact, his origin in the film (more specifically his connection to Peter) is the most modified of all the movie villians (from their comics equivalent) just to shoehorn him into the film......

4. See point 2

 

[Dragon]

You are making a lot of assumptions about the symbiote's intentions. While your assumptions are perfectly plausible, there is absolutely no evidence in the film to back them up. Or to disprove them either, granted.

(Kinda like God exists/doesn't exist arguement).

Well, i'll put it this way. It's more likley IMO that a creature with the symbiote's power purposely travelled to a planet that would supply it with hosts then it accidentally wound up on a meteor that just happened to land on such a planet. And being sentient and possessed of great power, I don't think it's a leap that it sensed Peter's powers and knew he'd be a source of greater aggression and adrenaline.

But I do disagree with the fact that most people knew in advance that Peter turned to the dark side of the Force (so to speak) BEFORE he became symbiotised. The trailers' chronological order of scenes cannot be taken as proof. Heck, the trailers even had stuff NOT in the film (admittedly which we are using to make assumptions about Flint Marko).

Well, there was a massive debate here before the release about whether Marko was actually guilty of killing Ben or it was a mind trick of the symbiote making Peter think this. I'm very confused as to why so many people believed this, given all the evidence.

The trailer clearly makes the connection- Peter learns of Ben's killer being on the loose. The symbiote attacks while May's voice over talks about revenge being a poison (Venom). Then we see Black Spidey in the subway attack Marko saying Ben's death means EVERYTHING to him. Very A-B-C IMO.

 

[JimB]

Since I had a blast watching Spider-man 3, Sandman's place in the story never bothered me in the least.

 

[Robotchicken]

-EDIT-

If you are going to argue that Venom was the most pointless villian in Spider-Man 3 then do not even bother reading or posting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not speaking in general because i think he's very cool but here's what I'm saying:

Why was he in Spider-Man 3?

It was totally unneccisary for him to be Uncle Ben's Killer, I think Raimi just wanted to add an extra villian into the mix. He didn't need to be in the third installment. That's why alot of people are complaining about the movie: too much stuff is packed in! I somewhat agree with this only because if you are going to have Spider-Man with his black suit and introduce Venom both in the same movie, then give the symbiote it's own movie.

And WTF was up with the black suit? He only fought with it for like 45 minutes and tore it off way too soon.

Half the movie should have been him fighting the New Goblin in the black suit and then we he nearly kills Harry(not slapping MJ) he decides to rip it off of him. Enter Venom.

That is the one main thing I give Sam Raimi props for is how he got the symbiote to merge with Brock, that was perfect.

All in all, I loved Spider-Man 3, I just think they should've given the symbiotes their own movie.

Also I had a problem with the origin of the symbiote: Some random rack falls down from outer space.

-EDIT-

They should have had him be in the black suit during the 2nd film. This way it is one less thing to cramm into SM3. Also it would have made sense with John Jameson and what not(originally John brought back a strange sample from outer space which is the symbiote)

i agree with everything, except backhanding MJ is better than him almost killing harry

 

[drmick]

Yes, a brief summary of this thread is:

1. Sandman was always destined to be in SM3 regardless if there was one, two or three villians.

2. But paradoxically he was the most pointless villian in the film in terms of its plot.

3. In fact, his origin in the film (more specifically his connection to Peter) is the most modified of all the movie villians (from their comics equivalent) just to shoehorn him into the film......

4. See point 2

I thought I might salvage this thread, as it was about to drop off the bottom!

For me, it is the most apt thread, as Sandman was my first criticism of the film when I saw it.

Sure, a lot of this thread is Venom vs Anti-Venom, but for me it is succinct crtique of the movie.

 

[drmick]

Is this thread worth bumping?

I still think it contains the best and mos civilised arguement about SM3.

 

[spiderfan970]

I read an article recently in which sam mentioned that Peter, MJ, Harry and Sandman were going to be the focus of the story he wrote with his brother . Then Avid suggested Venom . What might have happened is ,that the Studio suggested that Sam add a third villian and he then chose Vulture, while Avi said suggested he add Venom. Now Raimi could have been talking about his first draft considering the script went through re-writes but the original story he had in mind had only two villians . That's what I was referring to . Nevertheless , I still think Raimi was trying to make Sandman more relevent for the story by having be uncle Ben's killer.

I really want to read the script Raimi and his brother wrote before the studio and avi came knocking on his door for rewrites.

 

[TomPiltoff]

I really want to read the script Raimi and his brother wrote before the studio and avi came knocking on his door for rewrites.

I know. It seems like Raimi was never given a chance.

First he writes a script with Sandman and Harry. Studio rejects it.

Then he writes a script with Sandman, Harry and Vulture. Studio rejects it, wants Venom.

Then he writes a script for Spider-Man THREE AND FOUR, to be shot back to back, which I'm sure was a beautifully arced symbiote saga. Studio rejects it.

So Raimi is forced to cram his vision for Spidey 3 and 4 into one flick.

 

[Spider-Vader]

-EDIT-

If you are going to argue that Venom was the most pointless villian in Spider-Man 3 then do not even bother reading or posting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not speaking in general because i think he's very cool but here's what I'm saying:

Why was he in Spider-Man 3?

It was totally unneccisary for him to be Uncle Ben's Killer, I think Raimi just wanted to add an extra villian into the mix. He didn't need to be in the third installment. That's why alot of people are complaining about the movie: too much stuff is packed in! I somewhat agree with this only because if you are going to have Spider-Man with his black suit and introduce Venom both in the same movie, then give the symbiote it's own movie.

And WTF was up with the black suit? He only fought with it for like 45 minutes and tore it off way too soon.

Half the movie should have been him fighting the New Goblin in the black suit and then we he nearly kills Harry(not slapping MJ) he decides to rip it off of him. Enter Venom.

That is the one main thing I give Sam Raimi props for is how he got the symbiote to merge with Brock, that was perfect.

All in all, I loved Spider-Man 3, I just think they should've given the symbiotes their own movie.

Also I had a problem with the origin of the symbiote: Some random rack falls down from outer space.

-EDIT-

They should have had him be in the black suit during the 2nd film. This way it is one less thing to cramm into SM3. Also it would have made sense with John Jameson and what not(originally John brought back a strange sample from outer space which is the symbiote)

Venom was pointless, he wouldn't if he had atleast 30 minutes of screentime.

 

[kward711]

It was totally unneccisary for him to be Uncle Ben's Killer, I think Raimi just wanted to add an extra villian into the mix. He didn't need to be in the third installment. That's why alot of people are complaining about the movie: too much stuff is packed in! I somewhat agree with this only because if you are going to have Spider-Man with his black suit and introduce Venom both in the same movie, then give the symbiote it's own movie.

Sam Raimi wanted Sandman for Spider-Man 3 from the beginning. He was never just an extra villain. Sam had his heart set on Sandman. He had the Uncle Ben plot to give Spider-Man a reason to go after him.

and a Sandman and Goblin movie would be more satisfying than a symbiote movie.

 

[Blader5489]

I know. It seems like Raimi was never given a chance.

First he writes a script with Sandman and Harry. Studio rejects it.

Then he writes a script with Sandman, Harry and Vulture. Studio rejects it, wants Venom.

Then he writes a script for Spider-Man THREE AND FOUR, to be shot back to back, which I'm sure was a beautifully arced symbiote saga. Studio rejects it.

So Raimi is forced to cram his vision for Spidey 3 and 4 into one flick.

Not quite.

First, the Raimis wrote a script with Harry, Sandman, and Vulture. They decided to cut out Vulture because they couldn't find a way to connect him to Peter (and not having that connection would have taken more time than they had to develop Vulture's character).

So, at Arad's insistence, they filled Vulture's role with Venom. The script had become so complex that Sargent considered splitting it into two movies, but that was rejected because nobody had signed up for a fourth movie. And you can't just write the script for a movie you may not have any control over.

So Sargent trimmed down the script, resulting in Spider-Man 3.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

and a Sandman and Goblin movie would be more satisfying than a symbiote movie.

I beg to differ.

A Sandman/Harry story wouldn't be enough, especially considering Sandman and Harry were both heavily sympathetic characters. Neither carries the weight of a true villain. Even if Sandman was done correctly, he's not really evil.

Sandman/Harry/Vulture would have been too much for the same reason that Sandman/Harry/Venom was too much.

A symbiote/Venom/Harry storyline would have been more satisfying with the revenge theme, if they had something to motivate Peter to seek revenge to replace the Sandman-Uncle Ben misfire.

So, here's what I think are some ideal pair-ups, in no order, after Spider-Man 1 and 2 and ignoring Spider-Man 3:

Harry/Venom
Lizard/Kraven
Sandman/Vulture
Scorpion/Mysterio
Electro/Hobgoblin

 

[Venom 1988]

Sandman/Harry/Vulture would have been too much for the same reason that Sandman/Harry/Venom was too much.

Not really you just establish Vulture as guy who gets caught by Spidey doing an illegal deal early on in the movie and who wants revenge. Then most of the movie hes in jail anyway, leaving time to develop the other characters.

With Venom, you had to establish Eddie Brock, the symbiote, Peter's "dark side", Eddie wanting revenge and then eventually Venom.

 

[kward711]

even if we didn't have Sandman we would still have:

the dancing around emo Peter
Venom with a small voice, face that rolls up too much, and he wouldn't say "we".
Peter could still take the suit off whenever he wants.

that is why I think a Sandman/Goblin story would have less complaints than a Venom/Sandman/Goblin story.

 

[Venom 1988]

Peter could still take the suit off whenever he wants.

Why is this a complaint? That happened in the comics as well.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Not really you just establish Vulture as guy who gets caught by Spidey doing an illegal deal early on in the movie and who wants revenge. Then most of the movie hes in jail anyway, leaving time to develop the other characters.

With Venom, you had to establish Eddie Brock, the symbiote, Peter's "dark side", Eddie wanting revenge and then eventually Venom.

"Too much" wasn't the right phrase. It's not so much that it'd feel too packed, it just wouldn't leave much room to develop any characters satisfactorily on an individual basis.

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

even if we didn't have Sandman we would still have:

the dancing around emo Peter
Venom with a small voice, face that rolls up too much, and he wouldn't say "we".
Peter could still take the suit off whenever he wants.

that is why I think a Sandman/Goblin story would have less complaints than a Venom/Sandman/Goblin story.

Venom's voice and Peter's dancing are definite issues. By all accounts, the symbiote should have altered Eddie's voice (when it covered his face), he should have referred to himself in the third person, and instead of showing Peter become a "jerk" to show the effect of the symbiote, follow through with the revenge/rage thing like they could have done, and show him really beat the sh** out of a couple of bank robbers, and then realize that he's turning into a monster.

 

[omid17]

this thread should be called " Sandman the most pointless villian in the trilogy "

 

[The Joker]

this thread should be called " Sandman the most pointless villian in the trilogy "

You think he was more pointless than Venom was?

 

[omid17]

You think he was more pointless than Venom was?

nopet: venom needed to be in SM4

 

[The Joker]

nopet: venom needed to be in SM4

Well, shouldn't it be Venom who is called the most pointless villain in the trilogy then, and not Sandman?

 

[omid17]

Well, shouldn't it be Venom who is called the most pointless villain in the trilogy then, and not Sandman?

yea, but imo eddie brock fitted in better than flint in sm3