Why Did Sam Raimi Go Along w/ the Venom Plan?

[TMC1982]

He has made it very clear that he didn't initially intend on using the Venom character (in part because he never liked the character in the first place). Vulture was apparently going to be the third villain along with Harry Osborn and Sandman. It's quite obvious that the quality of Spider-Man 3 suffered because the filmmakers were pretty much doing two movies at once. Was Sam afraid that Sony was going to fire him (a la Richard Donner on Superman II) if he didn't buckle to their (and supposedly, the fanboys that Avi Arad kept bringing up) demands?

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

cause he had no choice.

/thread

 

[LightningFlash]

Because he doesn't have a mind of his own to think with.

Raimi bending over like that just shows his ignorance. If he had a plan from the beginning, he should've went with it, and if the studio didn't like it, he could've left and had them look for a new director. I would've respected Raimi's choice if he did such a thing. But he didn't. Instead we got a movie that made no sense, and is more like a film you could take your 5 year-old to watch.

 

[spida-man]

SM3 was awesome.....'nuff said

 

[The Joker]

The studio pressured him into it. Avi Arad in particular pushed for Venom to be included. All he was thinking about was cashing in on it. Didn't care about how Venom fitted into the movie just as long as he was there.

SM-3 really suffered from the inclusion of Venom and all the symbiote baggage that came with him. Even Sandman's story had to be changed to fit in with the theme, hence the horrible link to Uncle Ben's death.

SM-3 was a train wreck from start to finish.

 

[SpideyTheBest]

It's a shame that he didn't use The Vulture as he originally wanted. Just imagine how better the movie would have been!

 

[david icke]

Bar a couple of poor directing choices in scenes(Captain stacey's reaction to Gwen in danger, Harry being a little too goofy when experiencing temp memory loss, instead of the guy from SM1), and the decision to ret-con Ben's death. Spider-man 3 is similar in tone and execution to the previous two entries, and has just about as many pros and cons as they both do.

Yeah, the Venom/symbiote plot affected everything in the movie, it was not a plot to be shoehorned in, and was one that probably should have had it's own movie.

I can't recall where I read this, but I heard that Raimi ended up being glad of the Venom inclusion as he wasn't sure Sandman was badass enough for a kick-ass ending.
So maybe a part of him was glad of the forced plot, and that's why he didn't fight against it with threats of leaving production.
In any case I'm ghlad he did stay on, he would have known that they would have brought in someone else to do it and they would probably have not done as good a job on a Spidey film.

 

[The Joker]

It's a shame that he didn't use The Vulture as he originally wanted. Just imagine how better the movie would have been!

Definitely. Raimi had a storyline outlined for him and Sandman and everything. Raimi is more comfortable with the classic villains. The classic villains are on the whole better, too.

It's why SM-3 is vastly inferior to the previous two movies. Raimi was saddled with characters he never wanted to use. I believe Gwen Stacy was also shoved in against his wishes, too.

 

[david icke]

Definitely. Raimi had a storyline outlined for him and Sandman and everything. Raimi is more comfortable with the classic villains. The classic villains are on the whole better, too.

Yeah, they are, I can see how he would have planned for Harry to go up against Vulture with ariel battles.

It's why SM-3 is vastly inferior to the previous two movies.

I would have to say SM2 was inferior. They set up a SM movie where he is SM from beginning to end, and then what do they do? Put in a boring ass plot that runs through the whole middle of the movie about him losing his powers because he's depressed.

I can't help but think they did this as they wanted a SMmovie out in two years time and did not have enough time to do many SM scenes. you get two major action scenes, the rest of SM's appearances are short.

edit: Not to mention the fact that during that drag of a section they use re-heat beats from SM1. The burning building scene; the leap from the rooftops; more dwelling on Uncle Ben's death.
I expected more than that from the sequel.
The first third and second third are great though, although the confrontation at Ock's hideout is a little limp.

Raimi was saddled with characters he never wanted to use. I believe Gwen Stacy was also shoved in against his wishes, too.

I read that it was just another woman that was originally intended for that role, and the producers just said 'make her Gwen stacey', so there was no time lost for that part from the original intention.

 

[The Joker]

I would have to say SM2 was inferior.

Not in a million years. Spider-Man 2 is one of the most character development rich movies I've ever seen. I've got many complaints about the Spider-Man movies, but I can't fault Raimi for exploring Peter in the first two movies. Especially Spider-Man 2.

Right from the get-go in SM-2 we see how bad Peter's life has become trying to juggle his normal life with being Spider-Man, and how bad it's affecting everything and everyone around him. He's alienated from MJ, Harry, failing in college, not making ends meet in the multiple jobs he's trying to down, the guilt he feels over Uncle Ben's death is tearing him to shreds inside, and it's all having severe psychological effects on him and his powers.

It was wonderful. Vintage Peter Parker stuff. Straight out of the Stan Lee era. And what was even more wonderful was how they linked Spider-Man and Doc Ock on a conceptual level. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up his responsibility of being Spider-Man so that he could live his dream of a normal life. Doc Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream succeed.

And of course the action sequences, and special fx in general were top notch. The Academy Award was well deserved for that.

Honestly it's no wonder Spider-Man 2 is hailed as one of the best in the comic book movie franchise. It deserves every ounce of praise it gets. Little things like another burning building or MJ being kidnapped again are a drop in the ocean, because they worked in the story. They all served a massive purpose to Peter Parker's growth and journey.

Spider-Man 3 can't hold a candle to to Spider-Man 2's greatness. Or Spider-Man 1's for that matter. You can almost imagine Raimi grinning and rubbing his hands behind the cameras when making the first two movies.

Spider-Man 3 is just an embarrassment. It was supposed to be the darkest of the three movies, and it's actually got more comedy in it than the first two movies. No wonder Raimi is practically apologizing for it, and promising to get the series back on track.

I read that it was just another woman that was originally intended for that role, and the producers just said 'make her Gwen stacey', so there was no time lost for that part from the original intention.

No, it was actually Laura Ziskin who pushed for Gwen Stacy. Arad wanted Venom, and Ziskin wanted Gwen. Raimi was backed into a corner.

 

[david icke]

Spider-Man 3 is just an embarrassment. It was supposed to be the darkest of the three movies, and it's actually got more comedy in it than the first two movies. No wonder Raimi is practically apologizing for it, and promising to get the series back on track.

First off i enjoyed reading your thoughts on SM2.

I think all 3 movies have their pros and cons, and I can flip between which I prefer easily. But, I can't help that I get more enjoyment out of SM3 than SM2 these days, and it's because it always has something going on in the movie, unlike the middle section of SM2.
SM2 is the only one I can find myself wanting to skip past some scenes.
I understand the character development in SM2, it's just that I find it's pacing drags in the middle, and that's the only part of any SM movie that drags for me.
If you take SM2 as being in thirds, well, if the second act had been as good as the first and third, it would no doubt be my fav Spidey movie.
It's a pacing thing, and a lack of imagination in tackling the ideas you are talking about I'm accusing it of in that section.
eg Instead of doing a re-heat of Pete trying to jump over the buildings like SM1, why not have him dressing up in the outfit and totally blowing a SM gig, barely getting out of there with his life?

The burning building scene is pretty good though.

I am maybe being a little hard on it, but it was just such a disapointment when I felt I was going to the first SM movie that would have him as the title character all the way through the movie. We had to wait for 3 for that.

SM3 feels like sitting reading 3 or 4 SM comics in a sitting.
With SM2 they leapt forward to a plot that came in the comics after we'd had a strong dose of SM already, issue 50 was it?
But, yeah, it work for the purposes they had set up with the MJ stuff. It's just some of the execution I have a problem with.

All in all, I think I can enjoy all 3 movies equally, given their pros and cons for me personally.

No, it was actually Laura Ziskin who pushed for Gwen Stacy. Arad wanted Venom, and Ziskin wanted Gwen. Raimi was backed into a corner.

Yeah, I know they wanted Sam to include Gwen. It's just that I read an interview with Raimi where he said they had already written a female character into the movie for that purpose, it's just that they changed the name of her to Gwen Stacey when asked.

 

[The Joker]

First off i enjoyed reading your thoughts on SM2.

Why thank you

SM3 feels like sitting reading 3 or 4 SM comics in a sitting.

That's one of my problems with it. They bit off more than they could chew. I hate stories that are rushed. None of the new characters in SM-3 were given sufficent screen time for me to care about them. They all felt tacked on.

Harry was the only villain who worked, and that's because we've been watching his journey since the first movie. Even then I think Harry's story was flawed, with the amnesia thing, his so called Goblin looking like a paintballer on a hoverboard, and his grand revenge scheme after three movies amounted to nothing more than temporarily breaking up Peter and MJ.

From an action perspective, I understand that the pacing in SM-2 during the Spider-Man no more part may seem off. But for me that was like watching panels from Stan Lee's era on screen. Dumping the costume in the bin, Jameson ending up with it pinned to his office wall, Peter turning his back on crime in progress, his heart wrenching confession to Aunt May about his role in Uncle Ben's death......it was all terrific viewing IMO.

With SM2 they leapt forward to a plot that came in the comics after we'd had a strong dose of SM already, issue 50 was it?

Yeah, but they leapt forward to the stories in the 100's in SM-1 with the Green Goblin story, the bridge showdown, Norman dying, Harry blaming Spider-Man etc.

It worked. It's all from the early years.

All in all, I think I can enjoy all 3 movies equally, given their pros and cons for me personally.

I wish I could. Aside from a handful of scenes, I just can't watch Spider-Man 3 anymore.

Yeah, I know they wanted Sam to include Gwen. It's just that I read an interview with Raimi where he said they had already written a female character into the movie for that purpose, it's just that they changed the name of her to Gwen Stacey when asked.

Oh I think you're thinking of the Black Cat idea they were toying with. Chloe Sveigny even said she'd auditioned for the role of "A blonde buxom villain" for it in 2005. Raimi was going to have her in SM-2 at one point, too.

 

[LightningFlash]

It's a shame that he didn't use The Vulture as he originally wanted. Just imagine how better the movie would have been!

I'm not a huge fan of the Vulture(although I'm not a huge fan of much of Spidey's villains except for a few), I would say that Ben Kinglsey would've made a great Vulture. He's a great actor, and I believe his talents combined with THC(another amazing actor) would've been quite the duo for Spider-Man 3. Instead we got Venom, we got a horrible symbiote storyline, and an awful actor in the form of Topher Grace.

But Arad is gone now, isn't he?

 

[LightningFlash]

Oh I think you're thinking of the Black Cat idea they were toying with. Chloe Sveigny even said she'd auditioned for the role of "A blonde buxom villain" for it in 2005. Raimi was going to have her in SM-2 at one point, too.

Wasn't there an idea of Doc Ock, Lizard AND Black Cat for Spider-Man 2?

 

[david icke]

Why thank you



That's one of my problems with it. They bit off more than they could chew. I hate stories that are rushed. None of the new characters in SM-3 were given sufficent screen time for me to care about them. They all felt tacked on.

Yeah, i mean Brock, the symbiote, bad spidey, that should have been it's own movie.
But i thought he did quite well juggling it, all things considered.

The thing is Doc Ock and GG are just superior villans to most of the Spidey gallery.
Doc Ock only really gets one scene where we get to know him before he becomes an unthinking standard bank robber villan. It's just that he's such a great villan visually that he maintains great interest I think.
You said there was a thematic link between him and Peter, sure, but he's still just your average bad guy in thought and deed for most of the movie.
Sandman and Brock get just about as much character development as him, and Brock also has the link to Peter's journey.
but, he could have been so much better I know, and I'm not some big Venom fan, I actually preferred the one in the movie to the muscle head stalker guy from the books. I like the idea of a pathetic little whiner getting to be a big super-villan.

Harry was the only villain who worked, and that's because we've been watching his journey since the first movie. Even then I think Harry's story was flawed, with the amnesia thing, his so called Goblin looking like a paintballer on a hoverboard, and his grand revenge scheme after three movies amounted to nothing more than temporarily breaking up Peter and MJ.

The only thing i dislike about the memory thing was that they made Harry a little too goofy to show his good heart.
The Goblin memory loss is a staple of the spiderman stories, and what's so good about it is Pete not knowing when or if his memory will return.
And that was used to great effect in the coffee house scene.
It's not too outlandish for someone to have temporary short term memory loss after a bang on the head, it's the first thing you are questioned about when you wake up in hospital after a concussion.
And I thought Harry going for the mind games through the relationship was a good start to throwing Peter off his game, especially after Peter showing his obviously more experienced ass-kicking skills in their previous fight.

From an action perspective, I understand that the pacing in SM-2 during the Spider-Man no more part may seem off. But for me that was like watching panels from Stan Lee's era on screen. Dumping the costume in the bin, Jameson ending up with it pinned to his office wall, Peter turning his back on crime in progress, his heart wrenching confession to Aunt May about his role in Uncle Ben's death......it was all terrific viewing IMO.

I would have liked to have seen Pete leap in to that mugging, like he did with the fire, it would have made for an interesting scene, maybe like Superman in the diner in SMII.

and I would have loooved to have seen a sequence where he tries to be Spider-man again, with his powers working and shorting out in mid-fight. Yeah, they did this with the 1st Ock fight, but instead of the washing line jump, i would have liked to have seen him to something like that with ordinary criminals.
Just something different from the 1st movie.

Yeah, but they leapt forward to the stories in the 100's in SM-1 with the Green Goblin story, the bridge showdown, Norman dying, Harry blaming Spider-Man etc.

It worked. It's all from the early years.

Yeah, I just meant in the case of the comics we had already had a strong dose of Spiderr-man by issue 50. But here we had just got into the flow of the first full on SM movie and then have his powers and identity taken away.
I don't mind if they mix up issue 1 with issue 123, things happening chronologically like the comics don't bother me.

I wish I could. Aside from a handful of scenes, I just can't watch Spider-Man 3 anymore.

That's a shame. I find some parts funny as they were intended to be, like the 'saturday night Parker' strut, i think it fits with what's happening, and i liked it as it was something i didn't think of happening under those circumstances with teh character, but can see how and why it did.
PP is always doing awkward embaressing things , the symbiote just pushed that aspect of him into obnoxious land.
feet up on Jameson's table as well, classic.
I could do without the jazz club dance scene , though it doesn't bother me that much.

sure, there are parts that are wonky, but I can live with them.

Oh I think you're thinking of the Black Cat idea they were toying with. Chloe Sveigny even said she'd auditioned for the role of "A blonde buxom villain" for it in 2005. Raimi was going to have her in SM-2 at one point, too.

I didn't know she was up for 3, knew they nearly had her for 2. I jut recall Raimi saying they turned as character they had already written to Gwen Stacey when asked for her to be in the movie.

 

[zeptron]

Even though I think Arad should have butted out and let Raimi do what he wanted to do, I still think it was a bit disrespectful to the fans for how Venom was treated. How can you be a big fan of Spider-Man, but not take one character you don't like seriously? I'm not that fond of Kraven, but if I had to use him for a SM movie I'd make sure to give the fans something worthwhile.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

Not in a million years. Spider-Man 2 is one of the most character development rich movies I've ever seen. I've got many complaints about the Spider-Man movies, but I can't fault Raimi for exploring Peter in the first two movies. Especially Spider-Man 2.

Right from the get-go in SM-2 we see how bad Peter's life has become trying to juggle his normal life with being Spider-Man, and how bad it's affecting everything and everyone around him. He's alienated from MJ, Harry, failing in college, not making ends meet in the multiple jobs he's trying to down, the guilt he feels over Uncle Ben's death is tearing him to shreds inside, and it's all having severe psychological effects on him and his powers.

It was wonderful. Vintage Peter Parker stuff. Straight out of the Stan Lee era. And what was even more wonderful was how they linked Spider-Man and Doc Ock on a conceptual level. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up his responsibility of being Spider-Man so that he could live his dream of a normal life. Doc Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things in order to make his dream succeed.

And of course the action sequences, and special fx in general were top notch. The Academy Award was well deserved for that.

Honestly it's no wonder Spider-Man 2 is hailed as one of the best in the comic book movie franchise. It deserves every ounce of praise it gets. Little things like another burning building or MJ being kidnapped again are a drop in the ocean, because they worked in the story. They all served a massive purpose to Peter Parker's growth and journey.

Spider-Man 3 can't hold a candle to to Spider-Man 2's greatness. Or Spider-Man 1's for that matter. You can almost imagine Raimi grinning and rubbing his hands behind the cameras when making the first two movies.

Spider-Man 3 is just an embarrassment. It was supposed to be the darkest of the three movies, and it's actually got more comedy in it than the first two movies. No wonder Raimi is practically apologizing for it, and promising to get the series back on track.



No, it was actually Laura Ziskin who pushed for Gwen Stacy. Arad wanted Venom, and Ziskin wanted Gwen. Raimi was backed into a corner.

You can't be more right with all this,excellent post.

Spider-Man 2 is one of the rare comic book/sci-fi/action movies which relies on character development rather than action and SFX (which as you have said were indeed phenomenal and well worthy of the oscar).

Doc Ock is a 3-dimensional character with flaws and virtues which makes him not too different from us...and is beautifully developed throughout the movie,going a full circle at the end.

Harry's lust for vengeance is also approached very well,from his obvious hatred for Spider-Man presented at the birthday in the beginning,to the anger vent towards Peter when he slaps him,showing that he's slowly but surely letting that hatred take over him.

M.J's weak attempt to forget Peter even though she doesn't want to,trying to get over him by being with a decent fellow she doesn't really love..

It's a thoroughly well worked,written and executed movie...the biggest flaw it has is being a predecessor of a movie which (most)people hated and started hating on the whole trilogy mindlessly.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

]
It's a thoroughly well worked,written and executed movie...the biggest flaw it has is being a predecessor of a movie which (most)people hated and started hating on the whole trilogy mindlessly.

actually, SM3 is more well liked than It is hated

 

[LightningFlash]

^^ Not EVEN fact, haha.

Fail.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

^^ Not EVEN fact, haha.

Fail.

aaaaannnnndddd you lost me.

 

[LightningFlash]

The movie made a ****-load of money in the box office, but do you know how many critics hated the movie? It is not more liked than hated; it's vice versa. Heck, even the director himself wished he could change it. Just because a few fanboys are saying "They loved Spider-Man 3" does not mean the general enjoyed the movie. The general audience hated the movie. Why? Because I have friends that don't read comics, and they hated the movie. And I have friends that do read comics and they hated the movie. It didn't do justice to ANY of the characters.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

oh really? it has a 62% approval rating on RT, hell, even on IMDB's terrible flawed rating system it has a 6.4/10.

spider-man 3 was met with mixed reviews.

some like this movie
some love this movie
some hate this movie.

i fall into the 2nd category. it might be the least liked of the trilogy, but it is not generally hated. well...cept for most fanboys

now with the critics, it has a 43% liked it. and to be honest, i could give a **** less about critics. if I enjoyed the movie, that's all that matters. the GA on there is 60%. suffice it to say, your wrong, and more people liked it than didnt.

 

[TMC1982]

Even though I think Arad should have butted out and let Raimi do what he wanted to do, I still think it was a bit disrespectful to the fans for how Venom was treated. How can you be a big fan of Spider-Man, but not take one character you don't like seriously? I'm not that fond of Kraven, but if I had to use him for a SM movie I'd make sure to give the fans something worthwhile.

Even though I think Arad should have butted out and let Raimi do what he wanted to do, I still think it was a bit disrespectful to the fans for how Venom was treated. How can you be a big fan of Spider-Man, but not take one character you don't like seriously? I'm not that fond of Kraven, but if I had to use him for a SM movie I'd make sure to give the fans something worthwhile.

I too believe that Avi Arad should be blamed first and foremost for the flaws in Spider-Man 3. He should have realized that when Sam Raimi wasn't backed in a corner (while having to comply to the producers'/studios' wishes), he delivered what's widely considered an awesome sequel in the form of the second movie. Sure, Raimi should've still shown more respect and care when approaching Venom. But at the same token, it's really hard to prepare and plan if the producers suddeningly forces you to completely rearrange your plans midway through. This is why, I don't like the idea of fanboys now clamoring to see Carnage in the next movie for instance.

 

[TMC1982]

I'm not a huge fan of the Vulture(although I'm not a huge fan of much of Spidey's villains except for a few), I would say that Ben Kinglsey would've made a great Vulture. He's a great actor, and I believe his talents combined with THC(another amazing actor) would've been quite the duo for Spider-Man 3. Instead we got Venom, we got a horrible symbiote storyline, and an awful actor in the form of Topher Grace.

But Arad is gone now, isn't he?

That just reminds me, could Avi Arad be considered the Tom Rothman of the Spider-Man film series? In other words, a meddling, money first, quality second, film executive, who winds up contributing to the otherwise negative outcome of said movies.

 

[Venom 1988]

That just reminds me, could Avi Arad be considered the Tom Rothman of the Spider-Man film series? In other words, a meddling, money first, quality second, film executive, who winds up contributing to the otherwise negative outcome of said movies.

Or Jon Peters