Sandman Most Pointless Villian in SM3?

[dodus]

I felt he didn't bring anything to the story that needed to be there. Did we need an Uncle Ben retcon to provide us with the revenge motif? Not that I had a problem with it, but no. Did we even need a revenge motif? I don't know...I think an interesting film could have crafted around Harry, the symbiote and Eddie. Peter didn't need revenge as an excuse to be a dick, his fame and the black suit could have given him the necessary change in character to do something regrettable concerning Harry and/or Eddie.

I loved the movie, but if we're talking about who could have been cut, it's definitely Sandman.

 

[shigsy2003]

I don't think he was pointless. His first reforming scene was cinematic beauty and his pounding of Spidey nearly brought a tear to my eye at the Battle Royal. Also he caused Harry to save Spidey which was phenomenal.

 

[D-scythe]

Sandman should've been cut out - his story just doesn't work unless it's given the same attention as the Doc Ock or Goblin plots. His role as a powerful adversary for Spidey could easily be filled by Goblin Jr., forcing Peter to turn to the symbiote in order to gain a definitive advantage over Harry. Plus, if the producers wanted to keep the revenge theme, just have Harry screw over Peter's life Goblin style - the Osborne's are supposed to be good at that. Wanting to get even with your ex-best friend for screwing over your family/professional/love life would be as good a reason as any for revenge.

IMO, Peter and Harry vs. Venom would work out much better for Venom - and it makes sense, realistically, since neither Harry or Peter can take on Venom alone. And I would've traded all the Sandman scenes and 30 minutes of the movie for one more Spidey vs. Venom fight.

 

[dark_b]

whjy would it be better to have sandman in this one and not venom? this was about the symbiote and it should end wiht venom. so if sandman was not there there would be mroe time for venom.sandman could have been in the 4. or he could have been in 3 but without the symbiote.

 

[Dragon]

Whether Sandman was in it or not, it wouldn't have changed Venom's participation. Peter still wouldn't get rid of the symbiote until the third act, so Venom wouldn't have been there any sooner. And Sandman had to be there as the reason Peter is susceptible to the symbiote. So, no Sandman, no Venom.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think the movie needed 15 more minutes, with the 15 minutes being more character scenes for Sandman and Brock before he is Venom.

 

[LiveWire777]

dont say it, dont do it. i swear i would freak out right now if i wasnt in a good mood.

explain why he was the most pointless?

was it because maybe HE IS ONE OF 3 BEST SPIDEY VILLIANS(Doc Ock and Green Goblin are thrown in there quite nice-like)

was it because EVERYONE I KNOW IS SEEING SM3 FOR VENOM BEING IN IT?

or maybe because there was a high demand for venom to be included in the films

Venom is the most pointless he didnt do a damn thing except kill Harry, and annoy me with his Topher voice (that didnt match his physique). I bite my thumb at u SM3 Venom

 

[Hypestyle]

...Sandman's story struck me as more extraneous than the other two villain's arcs.. I don't feel it "ruined" the film but giving Marko a "tragic" backstory kind of distracts from the fun in seeing him clobbered, since he's traditionally just been a thug & crook.. now it's a "grieving dad".. sigh.. if people want Carnage to be in the next film, it's gonna be infuriating to see serial killer Kletus Casady given, say, an abusive background to "justify" all his mayhem..

 

[Mr. Socko]

He was completely useless. But he had so much potential. If he had been left out, the movie wouldn't have been much different.

 

[dark_b]

He was completely useless. But he had so much potential. If he had been left out, the movie wouldn't have been much different.

i was against sandman first. but the story that they had fro him was just amazing. without venom he could have been a great villain.
ubt since this is the symbiote story venom just had to be there.

if this movei would have been 20 minutes longer everything would just work better. of course sony just couldnt do this because of hte little dumb kids who think this is the best movie.

pathetic.

while i think WB is dumber then sony because sony makes more money. they had luck that batman and superman are more respected than spiderman. yes spiderman is making 10 more money than both ofthem but i see that peopel look at this spiderman movie liek it is a comedy. and here it fails IMO.

a little more respect for singer.

 

[Comicfan]

Whether Sandman was in it or not, it wouldn't have changed Venom's participation. Peter still wouldn't get rid of the symbiote until the third act, so Venom wouldn't have been there any sooner. And Sandman had to be there as the reason Peter is susceptible to the symbiote. So, no Sandman, no Venom.

I´m not saying that without Sandman Venom would have been sooner in the movie; venom screen time didn´t bothered that much, actually is a good sign that we where left wanting to see more venom

I didn´t wanted more Sandman time... he didn´t have a good story, and all he did was act like a dumb/slow sand gigant roaring but not doing much... him pounding on Spiderman with the gigant fist at the end... looked stupid...

Anyway... like I was saying is not like venom would have been sooner in the movie without Sandman but his story (the symbiote arriving on earth, the black suit, eddy vs Peter) would have a better development

Sam wanted Sandman in this movie, Avi wanted Venom (as we, I don´t think there was anyone asking when is Sandman going to be in a movie, but almost all of us wanted to see venom), Sam should have been smart enough to take Sandman out of this one an leave it for SM4 with a better story (maybe with the vulture as it was originally planned)

 

[D-scythe]

Whether Sandman was in it or not, it wouldn't have changed Venom's participation. Peter still wouldn't get rid of the symbiote until the third act, so Venom wouldn't have been there any sooner. And Sandman had to be there as the reason Peter is susceptible to the symbiote.

Um, your completely missing the point. You cannot deny that without Sandman, there would be much more time to develop the symbiote story. And no, Sandman didn't "have to be there" as a reason for Peter to want revenge, ergo be susceptible to the symbiote, blah blah - Harry could've filled that role perfectly.

So, no Sandman, no Venom.

That's a pretty laughable leap in logic, you know, considering that in every previous birth-of-Venom story Sandman wasn't even mentioned. But I guess Sam and Avi and the other people who came out with the script would be too dumb to draw upon these previous Venom stories (or come up with their own), cause you know, they're not smarter than the average bear. They just HAD to throw Sandman in there, because it was logical.

 

[David Rice]

venom was in the movie because avid wanted him. sandman was because of raimi.
the problem becomes when sandman is like venom

Yes, you are right. How was Sandman like Venom?

 

[Havok83]

The 2 villians clashed. They should not have been put in the same film

 

[Warhammer]

Sandman was, indeed, useless potential.



I wish that Spider-Man 3 cut out Gwen and Captain Stacey, as well as Brock, so Harry and Sandman could've shined in the same lore as Doc Ock or the Green Goblin.

 

[David Rice]

You're kidding me, right? Church kept on extending his jaw and giving pseudo-tough renditions. Sideways with more pondering. His best acting was at the very beginning and the very end, and with the very end...well, the timeframe speaks for itself. If they made this film only with the Sandman, the giant Sandman should have been snipped. Maybe I would think differently with more time. But I really can't see how you think Topher was just acting like himself. I'm glad they had his mask rolled back most of the time. He was completely different from any other portrayl he's provided. Otherwise I would have been accosted to Venom meowing the whole film through (or what little time he had).

Nope, I'm not. I didn't really like the giant Sandman so no big deal there. I don't think so. I've seen him in That 70's Show and some other film he did and think he was just the same. He was not Eddie Brock that's for sure.

Venom having such little sceen time is one of the biggest problems I had with the film. They built it up just to have him get blown up? BOOOOOOOO! Shame on the corporate pole smokers! t:

 

[David Rice]

Sandman was, indeed, useless potential.



I wish that Spider-Man 3 cut out Gwen and Captain Stacey, as well as Brock, so Harry and Sandman could've shined in the same lore as Doc Ock or the Green Goblin.

I kinda thought the same thing. Only I said they could just introduce Brock and maybe Gwen, keep the black suit until the end of the film and save Venom for later. That is "IF" introducing them didn't FUBAR the film.

 

[Dragon]

Um, your completely missing the point. You cannot deny that without Sandman, there would be much more time to develop the symbiote story. And no, Sandman didn't "have to be there" as a reason for Peter to want revenge, ergo be susceptible to the symbiote, blah blah - Harry could've filled that role perfectly.

Really? Okay. Considering it took the murder of a loved opne to push Peter to the required level of rage, tell me what Harry would have done to generate the same level of anger in Peter.

That's a pretty laughable leap in logic, you know, considering that in every previous birth-of-Venom story Sandman wasn't even mentioned.

But he was mentioned in THIS story. And "every previous" (I thought there was only one) story involved years of story development. So I don't think they'd work for this particular adaptation.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

harry could have put just as much rage into peter by putting May or MJ or them both in danger

 

[SamuraiSon6]

i thought sandman worked very well thematicaly, of course he could have been explored much more, but by no means was he useless. peter keeps asking harry to forgive him and yet he cannot forgive sandman for what he has done, a little bit of a double standard, i thought it was a nice touch

 

[Venom'sDad]

-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)

.... but Venom was the most pointless villain in Spider-man 3.... hell, Sam didn't want to do him in the first place.

 

[Dragon]

harry could have put just as much rage into peter by putting May or MJ or them both in danger

Really? Because Peter certainly didn't want to kill either Ock or the Goblin for doing that.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Really? Because Peter certainly didn't want to kill either Ock or the Goblin for doing that.

depends on the danger... grabing them and holding them somewhere might not be enough. now .. goblin yes it was argueable.. plus you must understand that he wasn't under the influence of the suit then. Peter didnt really want to kill flint.. just bring him to justice. He only wanted to kill flint with the suit on

 

[Dragon]

depends on the danger... grabing them and holding them somewhere might not be enough. now .. goblin yes it was argueable.. plus you must understand that he wasn't under the influence of the suit then. Peter didnt really want to kill flint.. just bring him to justice. He only wanted to kill flint with the suit on

Nope. He wanted to kill Flint before. That's why the suit could take him over. Because his rage had made him vulnerable, and had called out to the symbiote.

With both Ock and the Goblin he didn't want to kill them. Once he had defeated them he was calm and even forgiving. Before going after them Peter didn't have the level of rage he did before going after Marko.

Only if Harry killed May or Mj would Peter be that enraged. and that wasn't going to happen.

 

[Comicfan]

Nope. He wanted to kill Flint before. That's why the suit could take him over. Because his rage had made him vulnerable, and had called out to the symbiote.

With both Ock and the Goblin he didn't want to kill them. Once he had defeated them he was calm and even forgiving. Before going after them Peter didn't have the level of rage he did before going after Marko.

Only if Harry killed May or Mj would Peter be that enraged. and that wasn't going to happen.

He could have killed gwen