Sandman Most Pointless Villian in SM3?

[Trevor Goodchild]

In theory, you're right. If the screenwriters set their priorities straight and cut the fat by taking out scenes that didn't serve the story, and were willing to make a significantly longer movie that did justice to all the characters, then you're right. But as it stood, no one was done right.

I would agree that Raimi's Spider-Man is an amalgam as is without the SM3 soup. To Sam it was an action+drama+comedy+life lesson franchise. It's hard to prioritise with so many goals. Ultimately the most important part remained constant - 'fun', with the 'serious' being secondary.
So from what I've seen in the previous two films, I was able to deduce and enjoy the 'serious' aspects I mentioned in my previous post.
Question is, what did you want for them to show? What is essential in characterization in your point of view?
Other than Flint’s daughter, which could be considered as a McGuffin with that much screen time, everything else was enough for me to comprehend and accept the director’s ‘vision’.
I don’t know, maybe I self-taught myself too much about film…

 

[strikezone89]

yah, sandman was a very pointless villian.
venom was a good idea because they focused more on the symboite,eddie, and peter grudge more that sandman

 

[co2]

Exactly. Both Sandman and Venom were underrealized, but there's no question of which one, at the end of the day, you want to see more and know more about.

Not to diss Thomas Haden Church, he was perfect for the part and did what he could, but film's interpretation of the character was beyond bland.

Completely agree

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

As I didn’t read this whole topic, I have another question - did anyone but me even mention Harry as the second Green Goblin in this thread at all?
I find it disappointing that Venom is the only one that is being discussed as a villain alternative over Sandman.
What makes them two more qualified than Harry Osborn?
As I already said, I pick him over any other character in SM3.
Am I really the only one?

 

[jordanneale]

I dont really think that there really was a pointless villain in the film. They all had there part in Peters/Spider-Mans journey through the movie. Now whether or not you like the portrayal of them in the movie is your opinion, but Sam did know what he was doing with them in the movie.

 

[TomPiltoff]

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.

Not true at all. The cast would have signed on, the producers nixed the idea because Spider-Man 3 would have ended on some kind of cliffhanger, they felt it didn't end at a satisfying place.

So Raimi then had to cram Spider-Man 3 and 4 into 2 hours.[/QUOTE]

 

[kward711]

Not true at all. The cast would have signed on, the producers nixed the idea because Spider-Man 3 would have ended on some kind of cliffhanger, they felt it didn't end at a satisfying place.

So Raimi then had to cram Spider-Man 3 and 4 into 2 hours.

yep. Even after merging the two, the script was 150 pages but they cut down 30 pages.

 

[Blader5489]

Not true at all. The cast would have signed on, the producers nixed the idea because Spider-Man 3 would have ended on some kind of cliffhanger, they felt it didn't end at a satisfying place.

So Raimi then had to cram Spider-Man 3 and 4 into 2 hours.

You're assuming the cast would have signed on. Their contract only lasted for three films so Sargent couldn't write a script that ended on a cliffhanger. It would have been a huge continuity break if SM3 ended with a cliffhanger and then SM4 had an entirely different cast and director.

 

[kward711]

You're assuming the cast would have signed on. Their contract only lasted for three films so Sargent couldn't write a script that ended on a cliffhanger. It would have been a huge continuity break if SM3 ended with a cliffhanger and then SM4 had an entirely different cast and director.

no. it says right in Grant Curtis's book that splitting the film in two would solve the problem of an aging cast but they couldnt find a place to end the third one where the fourth would pick up.

 

[Blader5489]

no. it says right in Grant Curtis's book that splitting the film in two would solve the problem of an aging cast but they couldnt find a place to end the third one where the fourth would pick up.

You can't write a script that forces people onto a movie they aren't signed on for. It's as simple as that.

Curtis is just dressing it up. Kind of like how we know Arad forced Raimi to use Venom, but Curtis writes it as if Raimi deliberately chose Venom to replace Vulture.

 

[chaseter]

no. it says right in Grant Curtis's book that splitting the film in two would solve the problem of an aging cast but they couldnt find a place to end the third one where the fourth would pick up.

How about the birth of Venom

 

[kward711]

direct scan from the book:

 

[arachnid-guy]

direct scan from the book:

This, i would have liked.

 

[Blader5489]

It was a good move on Arad's part. Ending the movie with the birth of the Venom leaves absolutely nothing resolved.

Interesting to see that they were considering back-to-back filming even before Venom was included.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Yeah, I'm with those who say it is sugar-coated.
I mean, come on, nobody's frank in the movie busyness. You got to read between the lines.

 

[Smit84]

For those who have read Curtis' book does he touch on why they thought having multiple villains was such a good idea for 3 when they didn't for Spider-man 1 and 2. By their own admission the first two had only one villain because early drafts of the scripts that juggled multiple villains were weaker. Now the biggest criticism of Spider-man 3 is that there are too many villains.

 

[Blader5489]

For those who have read Curtis' book does he touch on why they thought having multiple villains was such a good idea for 3 when they didn't for Spider-man 1 and 2. By their own admission the first two had only one villain because early drafts of the scripts that juggled multiple villains were weaker. Now the biggest criticism of Spider-man 3 is that there are too many villains.

Which is why Sony is scaling it back to two villains for SM4.

 

[drmick]

As I didn’t read this whole topic, I have another question - did anyone but me even mention Harry as the second Green Goblin in this thread at all?
I find it disappointing that Venom is the only one that is being discussed as a villain alternative over Sandman.
What makes them two more qualified than Harry Osborn?
As I already said, I pick him over any other character in SM3.
Am I really the only one?

I think all of us (Venom-haters vs Sandman-haters) will acknowledge that the producers severely under-estimated the ability of Harry and Franco to be a (if not the) major villain in this film.

 

[Mr Jide]

Most pointless villain would have to be venom. He could have been saved for another movie. Sandman could have done with the screen time to be allowed fleshing out, go into detail with his sick daughter, all the while while harry does his thing too but to a much grander degree. SM3 should have done without venom and marketed Harry's epic journey and arrival of becomming the new goblin.

 

[IamProdigy]

If they kept in extra scenes regarding Sandman's family and Sandman talking to the doctor, plus the additional scenes with black-suited Spider-Man being seen in daylight and also the additional scenes with Spidey fighting Harry both times and Sandman both times, it'll be a long enough movie to end it with Venom emerging from the church and ending it there as a cliffhanger.

 

[Mr Jide]

^with the right are and pacig tha could have worked.

 

[Blader5489]

Can you people please get over this "it should have ended with Venom in the church" bs? That was never an option. Please stop wallowing over impossibilities.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

yah, sandman was a very pointless villian.
venom was a good idea because they focused more on the symboite,eddie, and peter grudge more that sandman

I agree that Venom was a good idea, but Sandman wasn't pointless. Sam made the character have more depth to him and made him sympathetic, which IMO worked great on film.

 

[IamProdigy]

Can you people please get over this "it should have ended with Venom in the church" bs? That was never an option. Please stop wallowing over impossibilities.

Chill...haha.

And I just said it should end there because that would be a fitting cliffhanger, imo.

That would also give Venom the "main villain" spot and fight of Spidey a couple of times before a huge two on two battle.

 

[omid17]

Can you people please get over this "it should have ended with Venom in the church" bs? That was never an option. Please stop wallowing over impossibilities.

what it work if they endend sm3 with venom meeting marko for the first time. And right after Venom says " Interested? " to be continued...