Sandman's character arc.

[protocida]

After reading certain Sam Raimi interviews, i got a feeling that the Sandman Raimi intented to bring to the big screen was not the one we ended up with.

From the interviews, whe can conclude that Raimi's Sandman was going to be pretty much like The Spectacular Spider-Man's Sandman: A thieve who receveid extraordinary powers and decided to use them to get rich. Raimi agreed that the Sandman would be different from Green Goblin or Doctor Octopus because he did not wanted to kill Spiderman or achive a goal. All he wanted was money to live the good life, but Spiderman ends up in his way.

Reading that made me extremelly excited to see Sandman in Spiderman 3. When it was confirmed, i was . When i saw Thomas Hayden Church as the character, with the classic look, i went .

But Sandman's character was changed to have a more honorable goal (His family), and was transformed in a soap-opera villain by the vengeancefull Raimi. He was still one of the film's best characters, but i'd prefer the no-family sand thieve that Raimi agreed it was the best way to portray the character.

Oh, whell ... Maybe on a Reboot.

 

[LightningFlash]

We already know this...

Almost every character in Spider-Man 3 were disappointments.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I really enjoyed the dynamic Sandman's character brought to the story...as little as there was of it.
So for me the end result justified the means, at least for this one character.

 

[Obi-Ron]

I liked the fact that they tried to flesh out his character more....but they crossed the line by making Sandman involved in Ben Parker's death. The origin was told perfectly in the first movie, why go back and ruin it with a retcon?

 

[LightningFlash]

I liked the fact that they tried to flesh out his character more....but they crossed the line by making Sandman involved in Ben Parker's death. The origin was told perfectly in the first movie, why go back and ruin it with a retcon?

To me it shows Raimi has lost his passion with the character.

 

[Kellys Heroes]

I thought the Sandman was done very well; besides being Uncle Ben's True murder. Other than that he was good.

 

[LightningFlash]

Besides the Ben's true killer thing, you also have his daughter's sickness...the sickness that doesn't have a name.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

^
What's your point?
Would it be more dramatic if they went into specifics for you?
Isn't 'incurable' a sufficient plot device?

 

[LightningFlash]

Sam Raimi filmed scenes of Marko bringing money to a doctor to cure his daughter.

In the novel Penny comes to the final battle scene to get her dad to stop.

Another story that Raimi deleted scenes.

Now, yes, the novel didn't name the disease, but one tiny scene of seeing his sick daughter and then having Sandman say "Penny" throughout the movie did nothing to develop that supposedly important plot.

 

[Matt Murdock]

What I find most intriguing about Raimi's filmmaking is that none of his villains seem to be inherently "bad." Norman Osborn had split-personality disorder, Doc Ock had the AI in his tentacles, Harry Osborn was an alcoholic, Venom was... terrible, and Sandman had a daughter dying of an incurable disease.

Does Sam Raimi simply lack the sufficient creative chops to bring a dynamic and treacherous character to the screen?

 

[Matt Murdock]

What I find most intriguing about Raimi's filmmaking is that none of his villains seem to be inherently "bad." Norman Osborn had split-personality disorder, Doc Ock had the AI in his tentacles, Harry Osborn was an alcoholic, Venom was... terrible, and Sandman had a daughter dying of an incurable disease.

Does Sam Raimi simply lack the sufficient creative chops to bring a dynamic and treacherous character to the screen?

 

[LightningFlash]

It wasn't that Osborn was a drunk; Harry was just confused on wether Norman was a bad guy or that Spidey was a bad guy, and he leaned more towards Spidey being the villain of the story...which, as I've always said, the only two villains that I enjoyed in the series were the Osborns.

 

[Matt Murdock]

Harry was my favorite character in all three films, simply because it took three films to get him to where he needed to be. Raimi took his sweet time with the character and didn't horrifically butcher him.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Sam Raimi filmed scenes of Marko bringing money to a doctor to cure his daughter.

In the novel Penny comes to the final battle scene to get her dad to stop.

I know, pity those weren't in the theatrical cut.

Now, yes, the novel didn't name the disease, but one tiny scene of seeing his sick daughter and then having Sandman say "Penny" throughout the movie did nothing to develop that supposedly important plot.

Well, first to wrap up your previous point - naming the disease doesn’t develop the 'important' plot in the slightest.
Otherwise, what more would you have him do?
Bringing the money to the doctor doesn't make the plot more dramatical unless Marko finds out that the illness is incurable and goes into denial mode.
Nor does the scene at the final battle with Penny. It just wraps it up.
What we are given in the beginning is - Sandman is a criminal, he escaped from prison and needs to get a lot of money to cure his sick daughter because he loves her very much. Whatever else do we need to know?
From there on he's pretty much on autopilot until Spidey intervenes and Marko has to make some hard decisions.

 

[Matt Murdock]

"Dramatical?"

 

[Jack O Lantern]

The reason that the villians all have relatable reasons behind their decisions to enter into a life of crime is to draw a parrallel with Peter Parker. They're weak and he is strong, he can face his problems and have the will and courage to face them without turning to selfish acts.

 

[Matt Murdock]

The issue with that argument is that the entire act of becoming the vigilante "Spider-Man" is, in and of itself, selfish on the part of Peter Parker.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Peter holds up a moral standard.
Norman wanted to rule the city.
Otto wanted to build his machine.
Marko wanted to cure his daughter.
Harry wanted revenge.
Venom wanted revenge.

That would make Spider-Man and Sandman the least selfish of them all.

 

[Matt Murdock]

Peter wants to appease his own guilt by dressing up and swinging around saving other people.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

This is not a ‘glass half empty VS glass half full’ issue.
Whatever is the reason or the act, if at the end it benefits other people more than the hero, it is not selfish.
If the person decides to act from his own free will, the core catalyst is always selfishness.
But that's a mute point.
True selflessness is obedience.

 

[Matt Murdock]

True selflessness?

 

[LightningFlash]

Well, first to wrap up your previous point - naming the disease doesn’t develop the 'important' plot in the slightest.
Otherwise, what more would you have him do?
Bringing the money to the doctor doesn't make the plot more dramatical unless Marko finds out that the illness is incurable and goes into denial mode.
Nor does the scene at the final battle with Penny. It just wraps it up.
What we are given in the beginning is - Sandman is a criminal, he escaped from prison and needs to get a lot of money to cure his sick daughter because he loves her very much. Whatever else do we need to know?
From there on he's pretty much on autopilot until Spidey intervenes and Marko has to make some hard decisions.

If you think Sandman's arc was 'just fine', then okay...but myself, I would rather have a more solid storyline with Marko's sick daughter.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I didnt like the arc that much to be honest, as it wasnt developed enough, and making him the real killer of Uncle Ben was not only unneccessary but simply poor judgement. As Obi-Ron said above, they captured the origin of Spidey perfectly in the first movie, why mess with it 2 movies and 5 years later? It was terrible.

Thankfully, I can still enjoy the movie when I watch it, but i'm not a big fan of how Sandman was portrayed.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Why didn't they go that route for the film then? Oh yea! To accomodate the kiddies!

 

[Eelectro 2]

i thought it was good, but lacked more depth. from pictures of actual deleted scenes, they looked to have his story involved in the movie more. would have given a great idea why he was getting the money