Sandman Most Pointless Villian in SM3?

[Qwerty©]

*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.

But you'd lose the Symbiote Spidey's parallel of Harry's character.

Spidey blames Sandman for the death of his Uncle just as Harry blamed Spidey for the death of his father.

On both occasions it turns out it is not so black and white, and both characters end up forgiving each other.

You take out an important message, the message of the futility of revenge.

Also, you would eliminate the need for Harry at the final battle. Spidey could have taken Venom by himself, But not Sandman and Venom.

 

[Blader5489]

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

But who is Peter supposed to forgive? Harry redeems himself while all Brock wants is revenge (a commitment that seals his fate in the end).

The lesson for Peter to learn in this film was forgiveness, and to show he has learned that lesson and truly given up his vengeful side, he needs to be able forgive someone who has done him wrong - and in Peter's eyes, there was no greater wrong than his uncle's murder. You take out Sandman, you take out Peter's opportunity to learn forgiveness.

 

[dodus]

Here's a crazy idea...a different reason for Peter to need to forgive someone besides a retcon of Uncle Ben. Discuss.

 

[Dragon]

Here's a crazy idea...a different reason for Peter to need to forgive someone besides a retcon of Uncle Ben. Discuss.

Okay, come up with one.

 

[dodus]

Harry steals MJ.

 

[Dangerous]

Sandman was great, the only good thing about SM3.

Venom was in fact clearly the most pointless component of the film.
It was Venom’s inclusion that forced SM3 into being such a convoluted mess.

 

[Blader5489]

Harry steals MJ.

He does that in SM3, and it doesn't change the end result: Peter doesn't redeem Harry, Harry redeems himself.

 

[AIRWOLF]

Actually he was pretty much an unnecessary addition, least the way they used him. Now Venom's inclusion is something that is neutral, and if Vulture was the secondary villain I think it was great that he was replaced. Venom was well suited to theme of the movie, revenge. Sandman was awesome, but they could have cooked up some other story for him rather than going back to Uncle Ben murder.

 

[chaseter]

Actually he was pretty much an unnecessary addition, least the way they used him. Now Venom's inclusion is something that is neutral, and if Vulture was the secondary villain I think it was great that he was replaced. Venom was well suited to theme of the movie, revenge. Sandman was awesome, but they could have cooked up some other story for him rather than going back to Uncle Ben murder.

Totally agree. Captain Stacy could have put away Flint in a small robbery, ending his chances to save his daughter, thus he escapes...becomes Sandman and continues to rob banks and try to exact REVENGE (the theme of the movie)on the man that put him away. That would cut out the crap connection with Uncle Ben they cut and pasted together and not mess with the origin they established in the first film. Plus, Spider-Man saving Captain Stacy would add a more dynamic relationship with Gwen. I mean, they could have had a ton of more ways to put Sandman in this one and not make him Uncle Ben's killer...which was just bad. It didn't ruin the film, but it could have been better.

 

[dodus]

He does that in SM3, and it doesn't change the end result: Peter doesn't redeem Harry, Harry redeems himself.

We're not talking about what happened in the film, we're talking about alternative scenarios that could have existed to make Pete sufficiently vengeful. That's just one. And no, he didn't *really* steal MJ, just made it appear that way for a couple minutes. I mean really steal MJ.

 

[Dragon]

Harry steals MJ.

First, it wouldn't have happened, since MJ doesn't love Harry (She doesn't love Peter either, but that's another discussion) This isn't enough to send Peter into a killing rage, as we saw in the Mansion fight, at which point, you'll note that Peter was fully under the thrall of the symbiote.

 

[dodus]

First, it wouldn't have happened, since MJ doesn't love Harry (She doesn't love Peter either, but that's another discussion) This isn't enough to send Peter into a killing rage, as we saw in the Mansion fight, at which point, you'll note that Peter was fully under the thrall of the symbiote.

Who said it had to be a "killing rage"? (Though...he does fling a potentially lethal explosive at Harry without batting an eye...probably on par, if not more devious than washing Sandman apart). For that matter, who says that Peter needs an outside stimulus to provoke him into acting in such a fashion that later requires him to learn a lesson about forgiveness (or his own redemption).

I think that holding up the Uncle Ben story, and Sandman's part in it, as the ONLY POSSIBLE plot device capable of introducing a vengeance theme, I don't know, you guys can't be serious, are you really lacking imagination that badly or are you just faking it in defense of SM-3 (which, don't get me wrong, I loved as well)?

 

[Dragon]

Who said it had to be a "killing rage"? (Though...he does fling a potentially lethal explosive at Harry without batting an eye...probably on par, if not more devious than washing Sandman apart). For that matter, who says that Peter needs an outside stimulus to provoke him into acting in such a fashion that later requires him to learn a lesson about forgiveness (or his own redemption).

Only Peter being out for blood- wanting to kill his enemy made him susceptible to the symbiote. And His flinging the lethal explosive at Harry was in retaliation of Harry throwing it at him- AND- he didn't make a direct hit on Harry, which he easily could have.

As for who says Peter needs an outside stimulus to provoke him? 45 years of comic continuity. Peter isn't a killer- and only an extreme act against a loved one (Ben, Gwen, Aunt May) would even allow him to entertain thoughts of killing.

I think that holding up the Uncle Ben story, and Sandman's part in it, as the ONLY POSSIBLE plot device capable of introducing a vengeance theme, I don't know, you guys can't be serious, are you really lacking imagination that badly or are you just faking it in defense of SM-3 (which, don't get me wrong, I loved as well)?

You're talking about a lack of imagination and yet you can't seem to come up with anything fitting the parameters. It kills me when folks here gripe about the story yet every idea to amek it "better" is complete amateurish crap.

You saw the movie, right? Only when Peter was so obsessed with hunting Marko down and killing him, was the symbiote able to take hold of him. I mean, you don't actually think the night in question was the first time Peter had slept with this thing in his room, do you?

So, if you're going to come up with a replacement scenario, you need to play by those rules. You need to come up with something other than Ben's death that would drive Peter that nuts. And the only thing is, either May or MJ being killed. Not harmed or endangered- as we saw The Goblin and Ock do all of that, and Peter didn't want to kill them either. The closest was his pummelling the Goblin at the end of Spidey 1, where his rage quickly subsided.

So, since you have so much imagination, what have you got? And please- No silly scenarios where Peter falls in love with Gwen in the first half of the second act, so she can conveniently die and Peter starts foaming at the mouth

 

[Qwerty©]

I think it should be believed that Sandman killed Uncle Ben, but it turns out they were mistaken.

 

[dodus]

Only Peter being out for blood- wanting to kill his enemy made him susceptible to the symbiote.

So, if you're going to come up with a replacement scenario, you need to play by those rules. You need to come up with something other than Ben's death that would drive Peter that nuts.

Alright, I'm not going to address the rest of your post where you gripe and personally belittle me for daring to question the plot structure of SM-3.

What I will say is that your entire argument rests on the premise that we are "stuck" with certain key plot constructs in the movie that make it all but impossible to change anything. You're challenging me to replace Uncle Ben's death with something else that isn't Uncle Ben's death but carries with it all the same causes and effects that only Uncle Ben's death does. The logic is disingenuous.

Again, Spider-man doesn't have to "kill" anyone to show that the symbiote is changing his personality--in TAS, he got pretty pissed at Shocker for, well, being around when he had the symbiote on. Nothing was provoking that anger either, but we could all believe that the symbiote could do that.

I don't need to construct any elaborate scenarios to make my point. You'd only try to pick them apart anyway. Like I said earlier, Harry or anyone really, stealing MJ could turn Peter's world upside down. Or, as you said yourself, someone killing Aunt May or MJ. Or not even killing Aunt May--she could die and it could set Peter off. But I'm pandering to "the rules" here, which isn't the point. If we're taking out Sandman, we're talking about re-envisioning the script. And that script doesn't necessarily need to contain the symbiote only being attracted by hatred, Peter needs to "kill" someone, etc.

 

[drmick]

You saw the movie, right? Only when Peter was so obsessed with hunting Marko down and killing him, was the symbiote able to take hold of him. I mean, you don't actually think the night in question was the first time Peter had slept with this thing in his room, do you?

It isn't made obvious that the only reason why the symbiote bonds is because Peter is dark, in the film.

An extension of that logic would be then why on earth did the symbiote folow Peter and wait in his apartment if it knew him to be good. It's New York for crying out loud, and a reasonably dodgy part too. Plenty more more evil nearby. Heck, even Ditkovitch is probably more evil than normal Peter. Perhaps we should have seen Ditkovitch-Venom?

I do appreciate your logic though, and I'm not trying to insult you. I thought the more logical way to have had it happen in the film would be that the symbiote bonds 1st, Pete gets better powers, then finds out about the retcon, then goes a bit bad. And that's what most of us thought before we saw the film.

 

[Dragon]

Alright, I'm not going to address the rest of your post where you gripe and personally belittle me for daring to question the plot structure of SM-3.

What I will say is that your entire argument rests on the premise that we are "stuck" with certain key plot constructs in the movie that make it all but impossible to change anything. You're challenging me to replace Uncle Ben's death with something else that isn't Uncle Ben's death but carries with it all the same causes and effects that only Uncle Ben's death does. The logic is disingenuous.

Raimi established character parameters because Peter has establsihed and developed characterization. For you to come up with something "better" than what was in the movie, you need to deal within the parameters of Peter's character. You can't simply come up with something that would make YOU angry. You need to come up with something that would drive PETER- the guy who goes out night after night trying to do good angry- And at a level where he was ready to kill.

Again, Spider-man doesn't have to "kill" anyone to show that the symbiote is changing his personality--in TAS, he got pretty pissed at Shocker for, well, being around when he had the symbiote on. Nothing was provoking that anger either, but we could all believe that the symbiote could do that.

Uh, that was a kid's cartoon and had a kid's cartoon's logic. Raimi's approach wasn't that Peter would simply be altered by the suit, which is pretty silly. It was that Peter moved toward the darkside ON HIS OWN and the darkside moved toward him. And not inb a cartoony way, in that he was just really mad . Raimi clearly wanted to explore his darkest nature, which meant where he would take a life.

I don't need to construct any elaborate scenarios to make my point. You'd only try to pick them apart anyway. Like I said earlier, Harry or anyone really, stealing MJ could turn Peter's world upside down.

Obviously not. It clearly hurt him but wasn't enough to force his hand to kill.

Or, as you said yourself, someone killing Aunt May or MJ. Or not even killing Aunt May--she could die and it could set Peter off. But I'm pandering to "the rules" here, which isn't the point. If we're taking out Sandman, we're talking about re-envisioning the script. And that script doesn't necessarily need to contain the symbiote only being attracted by hatred, Peter needs to "kill" someone, etc.

Yes it does. If you thnk Peter can be triggered simply by anything bad happeneing in his life, then you don't understand the character. May just dying of natural causes wouldn't push Peter to that level. And killing off May and MJ wasn't going to happen.

Sure- I could come up with an entirely different story for Spidey 3, which I think would be better. But that's not what we're talking about. You're saying that Sandman served no purpose, which he clearly did. The fact that you don't "get" what ALOT of people did, doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. The only reason this thread exists is that Venom fanboys were griping that their guy didn't get enough screentime, wihch wouldn't have happened regardless, because the story of Peter's struggle with the black suit still had to play out.

 

[Dragon]

It isn't made obvious that the only reason why the symbiote bonds is because Peter is dark, in the film.

Again- it only bonded with Peter when he was at the peak of his angry, frustration and desire for revenge. It was in position to do this, but it never struck.

An extension of that logic would be then why on earth did the symbiote folow Peter and wait in his apartment if it knew him to be good. It's New York for crying out loud, and a reasonably dodgy part too. Plenty more more evil nearby. Heck, even Ditkovitch is probably more evil than normal Peter. Perhaps we should have seen Ditkovitch-Venom?

It was also likely attracted to Peter's power, something that made him unique among New Yorkers.

I do appreciate your logic though, and I'm not trying to insult you. I thought the more logical way to have had it happen in the film would be that the symbiote bonds 1st, Pete gets better powers, then finds out about the retcon, then goes a bit bad. And that's what most of us thought before we saw the film.

I don't know why anyone would've thought that since the trailers make it clear that only when fueled by revenge does Peter become susceptible to the symbiote. Raimi wanted the fault to be clearly with Peter, not any influence of the symbiote.

 

[dodus]

Sure- I could come up with an entirely different story for Spidey 3, which I think would be better. But that's not what we're talking about. You're saying that Sandman served no purpose, which he clearly did. The fact that you don't "get" what ALOT of people did, doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. The only reason this thread exists is that Venom fanboys were griping that their guy didn't get enough screentime, wihch wouldn't have happened regardless, because the story of Peter's struggle with the black suit still had to play out.

You clearly don't want to entertain the idea that SM-3 could have been any different than it was. I offered several reasonable alternatives off the top of my head, and you batted them aside as "silly" or "we all know that's not going to happen" without any real consideration. Even the "silliest" plot devices can be made compelling with the right writing. But, I'm going to bow out here. Sandman did serve a purpose, it was the entire structure of his purpose that I'm suggesting could have been replaced and did feel a bit arbitrary compared to Harry and the black suit/Venom. That's it.

 

[Dragon]

You clearly don't want to entertain the idea that SM-3 could have been any different than it was. I offered several reasonable alternatives off the top of my head, and you batted them aside as "silly" or "we all know that's not going to happen" without any real consideration. Even the "silliest" plot devices can be made compelling with the right writing. But, I'm going to bow out here. Sandman did serve a purpose, it was the entire structure of his purpose that I'm suggesting could have been replaced and did feel a bit arbitrary compared to Harry and the black suit/Venom. That's it.

Like I said- it would easy to come up with a totally different concept. But we're discussing the value of what Sandman added to the story as it is.

The ideas you're offering don't allow for the story to develop as it is. They would mean altering the entire concept. Altering Harry's place in the story from misguided friend who reconclies with Peter to object of Peter's anger would have to alter their reconciliation at the end.

My overall point is if you're living in a glass house, don't throw stones. You're making it like coming up with these ideas are easy, but this is showing that they clearly aren't. The plots you're suggesting have just as many if not more holes and no question if the film were made with them, someone would be arguing how bad they were just as you're doingwith Raimi's approach. You might want to tell yourself that I'm merely shooting down your ideas, but I'm not. if you came up with something viable, then I'd be happy to agree with you.

 

[Frodo]

Well for me , the film would have worked had they drastically changed the story by either taking characters out or changing motivations. Actually doing both would have helped.

But the question is was Sandman the most pointless villian in SM3? To answer that you have to ask yourself, if his character was removed from the film , would it have made a difference to the story . Would everything else fall apart without his character . And the answer for the most part is no .

However the same could be said for Brock, Gwen, the Symbiote storyline, The goblin storyline, and the whole revenge angle .

IMO Raimi basically had a bunch of decent to mediocre idea's for SM3 . No single one could stand on it's own as a film , so he took several weak stories and made a broth.

There wasn't a single narrative . Now with SM2 there was alot going on , but it felt more like a well oiled machine working in concert though each clog had it's own purpose. In SM3 you have storylines , including Sandman's pick up then are dropped and remain unresolved.

 

[TLH]

Well for me , the film would have worked had they drastically changed the story by either taking characters out or changing motivations. Actually doing both would have helped.

But the question is was Sandman the most pointless villian in SM3? To answer that you have to ask yourself, if his character was removed from the film , would it have made a difference to the story . Would everything else fall apart without his character . And the answer for the most part is no .

However the same could be said for Brock, Gwen, the Symbiote storyline, The goblin storyline, and the whole revenge angle .

IMO Raimi basically had a bunch of decent to mediocre idea's for SM3 . No single one could stand on it's own as a film , so he took several weak stories and made a broth.

There wasn't a single narrative . Now with SM2 there was alot going on , but it felt more like a well oiled machine working in concert though each clog had it's own purpose. In SM3 you have storylines , including Sandman's pick up then are dropped and remain unresolved.

I'm still holding out that an extended version would answer many of the questions people have.

However I still contend that Sandman was an absolute MUST for the film.

Revenge is a HUMAN characteristic that is not dependant on some alien substance to materialize. Peter could have easily become vengeful without the aid of the symbiote. Sure, the alien suit makes it easier to explain to the mainstream audience but there could have been a better narrative flow throughout Spidey 3 had Raimi and co. not had to juggle Sandman, Harry, AND the symbiote story.

 

[Frodo]

I'm still holding out that an extended version would answer many of the questions people have.

However I still contend that Sandman was an absolute MUST for the film.

Revenge is a HUMAN characteristic that is not dependant on some alien substance to materialize. Peter could have easily become vengeful without the aid of the symbiote. Sure, the alien suit makes it easier to explain to the mainstream audience but there could have been a better narrative flow throughout Spidey 3 had Raimi and co. not had to juggle Sandman, Harry, AND the symbiote story.

I think the revenge aspect should have been confined to Harry. The whole Sandman killing uncle Ben stuff ultimatley was just an excuse for Spiderman being enemies.

 

[Qwerty©]

I think the revenge aspect should have been confined to Harry. The whole Sandman killing uncle Ben stuff ultimatley was just an excuse for Spiderman being enemies.

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

 

[drmick]

Again- it only bonded with Peter when he was at the peak of his angry, frustration and desire for revenge. It was in position to do this, but it never struck.

An extension of that logic would be then why on earth did the symbiote folow Peter and wait in his apartment if it knew him to be good. It's New York for crying out loud, and a reasonably dodgy part too. Plenty more more evil nearby. Heck, even Ditkovitch is probably more evil than normal Peter. Perhaps we should have seen Ditkovitch-Venom?

It was also likely attracted to Peter's power, something that made him unique among New Yorkers.



I don't know why anyone would've thought that since the trailers make it clear that only when fueled by revenge does Peter become susceptible to the symbiote. Raimi wanted the fault to be clearly with Peter, not any influence of the symbiote.

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).

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).