Sandman Most Pointless Villian in SM3?

[Victarion]

Spidey's Real Archenemy

Kraven sucks d***. putting that out there

Actually, a spider's real natural enemy is a scorpion.

And I agree with you about Kraven. Perhaps in a sequel, if Doc Ock returned, he could coerce Sandman in to helping him out in whatever plot he would have.

Those two would be a real chore for poor Peter, that's for sure!

 

[TheCaretaker]

no villian was pointless in the movie.

 

[kooguy911]

raimi was going to give the black suit its own movie and venom he 4th movie, but avi arard convinced him otherwise..


http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41341&type=0

 

[Spiderine]

Sandman and Doc ock comes back they can just go to Peter's house and get him. These villains all know who Spiderman is now.

 

[BobJM]

I think Raimi cut away half of Sandman's story because he's seriously considering doing a fourth film with Lizard. Maybe its just geekish hope, or maybe it has some truth to it.

If Sandman had his daughter and wife with him, the Lizard would be way too similiar. So, Sandman would have seemed better in SM3, but Lizard would be awful in SM4.

 

[Spiderine]

I wonder will the guy be back? This superpowered Sandman roaming the streets free just aint right.

 

[The Joker]

Sandman was not pointless. But, he wasn't nearly as effective as he could have been. He needed much more screen time, especially for such a conflicted character with the complications he brought with him. His story never got any resolution.

The pointless villain in this movie was Venom. Surprise surprise.

 

[The Kid]

venoms more pointless than sandman, very true. But sandman's pointless. What was he but a way to send this preechy "forgiveness" message.

What? beyond that obvious theme. What was he?

Nothing.

 

[BobJM]

Did anyone else hate the "dust in the wind" thing he did at the end. Everyone laughed at that and it just looked so fake.

 

[The Kid]

my mind automatically thought

"YOU'RE A SLOW LEARNER AREN'T YOU, RIDER! HA HA HA HA"

 

[Spiderine]

It looked stupid at the very end. I said he was on his way to commit another crime after that Im not a bad guy crap.

 

[LordSimen]

Not really, where there's Venom, there's the symbiote. Which means things would have been different with Peter without it. The movie would have taken a different route, perhaps no revenge on Peter's part at all. I've never understood the hate Brock has for Spidey/Peter.

Venom doesn't have to be a villlian in this movie for the simbiote to be attatched to Peter. If I recall, the order goes First Peter, then Venom. Easily he could have been cut out and saved for later.

And no, Venom is not Peter's real arch enemy. That position is and always will be given to Green Goblin.

 

[The Riddler]

sandman almost single handedly ruiend the film.

the flying thing. wow.

stiff acting by sandman's wife(?) and daughter. no development of this storyline.

killing ben parker. why put this in? it does nothing for the storyline.

the forgivness scene at the end. i wanted to gouge my eyes out.

 

[Langoth]

I personally thought Brock was better done then Sandman. Most of the parts with Sandman had me going "Errr... k..." Brock at least had reason to hate Peter.

 

[DyeLorean]

I can't help but feel, that Raimi had a class story about Sandman and GG£, but the inclusion of the symbiote and Venom ruined his story. That's why the movie is so all over the place. The two stories don't mesh together very well.

EXACTLY

D!

 

[Eddie Brock]

Sandman was great, I don't know what movie you guys watched.

Sandman's transformation and the forgiveness scene were 2 of the best scenes in the movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

Sandman was great, I don't know what movie you guys watched.

Sandman's transformation and the forgiveness scene were 2 of the best scenes in the movie.

Exactly right.

Unfortunately these guys think a bad guy is someone who wears a gunny sack over their head and uses psychotropic drugs.

 

[Spade]

Yah, he really was kind of useless. An overplayed character, with an underthought plotline.

Bingo. I also concur with Weyseed's observation- the retcon was totally unnecessary. People were even commenting on it's importance way back when Capt. Stacy was providing the 'mean' recounting. And then he just drifts off into the sky, an overdeveloped character with no real resolution...yay! I don't hate the classics, but this film should have been the symbiote and Harry's time to shine. It is more than feasible to make a film that just revolved around Harry's continuing desire for revenge and Peter's struggle with the symbiote's influences.

Well...I look at it positively: at least we didn't get the Vulture.

 

[e-three]

Bingo. I also concur with Weyseed's observation- the retcon was totally unnecessary. People were even commenting on it's importance way back when Capt. Stacy was providing the 'mean' recounting. And then he just drifts off into the sky, an overdeveloped character with no real resolution...yay! I don't hate the classics, but this film should have been the symbiote and Harry's time to shine. It is more than feasible to make a film that just revolved around Harry's continuing desire for revenge and Peter's struggle with the symbiote's influences.

Well...I look at it positively: at least we didn't get the Vulture.

The "Sandman kills Uncle Ben" angle was supposed to enhance the Peter vs. Harry conflict, which was obviously intended to be the main focus of the movie. Peter's "I want to kill Sandman because he killed my uncle" parallels Harry's "I want to kill Spider-Man because he killed my father." Peter wants Harry to stop and listen to his side of the story, yet he refuses to stop and listen to Sandman's side of the story. The rage toward Sandman blinds Peter just like the rage toward Spider-Man blinds Harry. As Peter (thanks to the influence of the symbiote) begins to give in to his rage, he becomes a creature of revenge...he "kills" Sandman, beats the crap out of Harry, and dangles Gwen in front of MJ. Each one of these acts is revenge for something they did to hurt Peter...Sandman killing Uncle Ben, Harry "stealing" his girlfriend and MJ dumping him.

You can even take it back to the first movie and realize that in essence, Peter becomes like the Green Goblin--every murderous act Norman did in the first movie was revenge (killing the military guy for pulling his funding, killing the board for ousting him). Harry gave into his rage and he's a Goblin too. So its through this that Peter learns that he can't abuse his power and that forgiveness causes healing, not revenge. Sandman is sort of the catalyst of this lesson, which is why that aspect of Peter's arc is completed when he forgives Sandman. Of course forgiving him of the murder doesn't excuse Sandman for all the other crimes he committed, so Peter's an idiot for letting him go. But I guess Raimi felt that the forgiveness bit would've suffered if Peter said, "I forgive you...by sending you to JAIL!" Either way its dumb...so next time Electro or Vulture or whoever go on a rampage, just tell Spidey you're sorry and he'll let you go!

The other problem is that everything I've just written didn't get fleshed out enough in the movie, so Sandman comes across as little more than a "for your consideration" for next year's special effects Oscar. I blame Venom.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I have to agree... he served no purpose other then being a cg fest of cool visuals. Sandmans story didn't flow well with the rest of the movie.. and it was very easy to forget about him. They tried to make him meaningful, but it honestly took away from the film, the uncle ben arch was just annoying, and rehashing old ****... i know with the comics, were always saying "let gwen rest in piece dammit, stop rehashing her, yet the movies keep doing that with uncle ben, there was no reason to include that at all.. and there only reason for that was to A) give sandman a emotional connection to peter, and B) make the movies go full circle, but didn't harry's story do that? yes.. sandman was also suppose to be about redemption and peter forgiving him, but again.. wasn't that the same story with harry and peter? yup... and it was played out much more well done. Sandman was also suppose to be what started peters decent into darkness.. but without him, brock and harry would have been enough. He was just a rehashed idea over and over, and was a waste of screen time, which was needed to flesh out brock and gwen, brock wasn't interesting at all.. and you really don't feel for him, they made him come off as a little hot shot prick, who honestly was very pathetic, you don't feel for him even a little, especially in the church scene when he asks god to kill peter parker.. that was rubbish, and it should have been really powerful

 

[Deadpool876]

No, I think Venom was. But I think Sandman's gotta have the most unimaginative weakness a super-villain or any super-powered character could have -- WATER!!! t:

 

[spideyboy_1111]

He wasn't pointless (generally speaking). He was just sidelined after a while and was too ambiguous of a character for anyone to care about by the time the movie was over. The movie just had too many things going on and I think viewers were ready for the Uncle Ben/revenge/forgiveness theme to be done way earlier when it was fresh in everyone's minds.

I think after multiple viewings, people may care more about the character.

-TNC

thats just it.. you shouldnt have to see a movie several times to feel for a character, it should be the first time.

 

[Dragon]

Agreed.

Sandman was more of an annoying side story than something worthy of our time.

So which story was "worthy of our time"?

There were no pointless villains in this film. There were only stories that happened. not every story or character's life is enormous with twists and turns. Some people have simple lives with simple troubles. And those simple troubles can lead to very hard situations.

And here's something to ponder. Why would there be only ONE villain running around New York at one time? Some have noted the numerous (and they are NUMEROUS) coincidences. But it's also too much of a coincidence that a hero will only have one villain to face in a given time frame.

 

[OverMyHead]

raimi was going to give the black suit its own movie and venom he 4th movie, but avi arard convinced him otherwise..


http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41341&type=0

Spider-Man 3 writer/director Sam Raimi told SCI FI Wire that he thought about introducing the new villain Venom in this sequel and continuing the story in a possible fourth film, but ultimately decided the entire story should be told in one movie. "I thought it would be unfair to [the fans]," he said of breaking the storyline up.

WTF?? Is this poptart on crack??

 

[spideyboy_1111]

No, I think Venom was. But I think Sandman's gotta have the most unimaginative weakness a super-villain or any super-powered character could have -- WATER!!! t:

... venom was only weak because he wasn't explained enough. Venom at least served a purpose that was original to him, and not rehashed like sandman's was. Venom was peter's dark side personified, his "mirror spidey" so to speak, he was the living view of the poison, the venom that will take you over and consume you. Sandman was just an over developed villain with a plot that did nothing but derail the film off track.