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

[Kargo Warrior]

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.

The best example of what you just presented as an argument is the fact that Spider-Man 1 sold 15 million DVD's and 5 million vhs...that's 20 million copies.

Spider-Man 3 sold 8,4 milion copies including bluray and DVD...Transformers(which is from the same year) outsold SP3 two times (17 million copies)so the argument that people didn't have money doesnt hold either.

Plus the boxoffice legs were very bad,that told the story 2 years ago and TDK proved it last year...they both opened with similar numbers,TDK went on to make $533 million while SP3 did $336 million..if Spider-Man had the word-of-mouth of TDK or the first two movies it would've come close to 500 itself considering that Spider-Man 1 is adjusted for inflation $500 millions meaning the audience was there but it just didn't liked it.

SP3 is hold in popular culture with the same esteem as Metallica's post Black Albums...95% acknowledge the fact that the previous material is superior,there are some who love it of course,but than again there are some people who love TF2 and G.I.Joe so it doesn't really surprise.

The real proof of how disappointed people were will be shown when SP4 opens and won't come even close to the 151$ opening weekend of SP3 which was mostly due to the great word-of-mouth of the first two movies.

 

[david icke]

The best example of what you just presented as an argument is the fact that Spider-Man 1 sold 15 million DVD's and 5 million vhs...that's 20 million copies.

Spider-Man 3 sold 8,4 milion copies including bluray and DVD...Transformers(which is from the same year) outsold SP3 two times (17 million copies)so the argument that people didn't have money doesnt hold either.

Plus the boxoffice legs were very bad,that told the story 2 years ago and TDK proved it last year...they both opened with similar numbers,TDK went on to make $533 million while SP3 did $336 million..if Spider-Man had the word-of-mouth of TDK or the first two movies it would've come close to 500 itself considering that Spider-Man 1 is adjusted for inflation $500 millions meaning the audience was there but it just didn't liked it.

Yet Spider-man 2 is generally held as being the better sequel yet did not make as much at the BO as Spider-man 1.
SM1 made more money and sold more dvds as no-one had ever seen a SM film before, no-one knew what it would be like. some didn't like it and didn't return for the sequels.

edit: and here you are comparing SM3 to TDK quality wise?!

TDK, one of the most successful movies of all time, I thought we were talking about the SM serries here.
I would equate SM3 with 1 and 2 quality wise, but I wouldn't with TDK.

SP3 is hold in popular culture with the same esteem as Metallica's post Black Albums...95% acknowledge the fact that the previous material is superior,there are some who love it of course,but than again there are some people who love TF2 and G.I.Joe so it doesn't really surprise.

'88.2 per cent of statistics are made up on the spot.' - Vic Reeves

I'd love to know where you got that 95 per cent from.

Yes, generally people hold the first two movies to be superior. But there is no scientific formula to prove that SM3 is so far removed from teh first two movies. That is achieved through debate and discussion, folk presenting their arguments.

I can't bring myslef to make up any statistics to try to prove my point as it's a little silly, but I've found that many people have a knee jerk reaction to some of the things that happened in the movie, and misunderstand plot points, or don't bother thinking about them too much when in fact they make sense.(edit: eg. The resolution with Sandman at the end and the factors leading to this; why it's totally in keeping with the character of PP to be acting the way he does under the influence of the black suit; why Sandman needed a personal connection to PP(moreso than Ock in SM2); Why Harry's amnesia was not so out of left field and is in fact a staple of the Goblin story in the books.)

Folk complain all the time about 'lack of character development in SM3, too many villans..' Jeez, there's more character development in Sandman than there is with Doc Ock, and i bet if you stopwatched their appearances they would match up timewise.

If Doc Ock appeared exactly as he already did onscreen, but in SM3, mixed with Harry and Venom, I bet folk would be complaining that Doc Ock didn't get enough character development and was made into just another bank robbing doomsday machine building villan.

I blame the expectations on the backlash to SM3.
Everyone expected a dark movie, and were freaked out by the use of humour in exploring Pete's dark side.
This despite Spider-man always being a comicbook that had a mix of humour and depressing ingredients. He's always fighting against the depression with humour.
And the SM series is not like Nolan BM, it's always had one toe in the kiddy market, we got it as dark as it was going to get realistically.

For every plot hole in SM3 I can point you to one in SM2.

eg SM3 - The butler knowing about Norman's method of death. The most stupid part of the movie and completely unnecesary.

SM2 - Pete's 'confession' to Aunt May.
I actually forgot how much this annoyed me when i first saw it, it doesn't make sense.

Pete doesn't confess, although in the scene that's what he's supposed to be doing, he doesn't mention he had an opportunity to stop the man who killed Ben, all he says is he went to the wrestling instead of the library.
What exactly does Aunt May have here to get all cold on him for?
Because he went to a different destination? So he's responsible in some way for Ben's death?
So what he went to the wrestling?!
It makes Aunt May out to be a totally unreasonable character.
Far better to have Pete come clean about the robber situation and have May deal with that. It would have been very dramatic. As is, it does not work, it's as daft as the Butler thing, which also had a readily dramatic resolution. Just make it that Harry ends up believing his friends, and puts his love for them over the ravings of the psychotic hallucinations of his father. ie He comes through when both of them are going to die, reality hits him.

The real proof of how disappointed people were will be shown when SP4 opens and won't come even close to the 151$ opening weekend of SP3 which was mostly due to the great word-of-mouth of the first two movies.

It will come pretty close.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

For every plot hole in SM3 I can point you to one in SM2.

eg SM3 - The butler knowing about Norman's method of death. The most stupid part of the movie and completely unnecesary.

SM2 - Pete's 'confession' to Aunt May.
I actually forgot how much this annoyed me when i first saw it, it doesn't make sense.

Pete doesn't confess, although in the scene that's what he's supposed to be doing, he doesn't mention he had an opportunity to stop the man who killed Ben, all he says is he went to the wrestling instead of the library.
What exactly does Aunt May have here to get all cold on him for?
Because he went to a different destination? So he's responsible in some way for Ben's death?
So what he went to the wrestling?!
It makes Aunt May out to be a totally unreasonable character.
Far better to have Pete come clean about the robber situation and have May deal with that. It would have been very dramatic. As is, it does not work, it's as daft as the Butler thing, which also had a readily dramatic resolution. Just make it that Harry ends up believing his friends, and puts his love for them over the ravings of the psychotic hallucinations of his father. ie He comes through when both of them are going to die, reality hits him.




It will come pretty close.

When you defend something at least try a little harder to prevent looking like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Peter DID say to Aunt May that he could've stopped the guy but didn't because he wanted revenge for not getting paid accordingly...he said he let him go and then his uncle was killed,making Peter indirectly responsible for it.

Spider-Man 2 received the same reviews as TDK...both have 94% on Rotten tomatoes,SP2 has 83 on metacritic,TDK 82.

Taste is subjective but they both received similar critical acclaim...TDK is probably my favorite movie but because SP2 is more light-hearted and it's hero is not stoic doesn't mean that TDK is superior.

Both are excellent at what they do as movies.

Spider-Man 4 has zero chance of coming close to 151 million...an example:

Pirates 1 was beloved sold tons of dvd's...Pirates 2 broke the opening record but had bad reviews and word of mouth...Pirates 3 opened with 30 millions less than number 2.

The same thing will happen to SP4...but if the movie picks up great word of mouth along the way,it will smash SP3's total gross.

 

[david icke]

When you defend something at least try a little harder to prevent looking like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Peter DID say to Aunt May that he could've stopped the guy but didn't because he wanted revenge for not getting paid accordingly...he said he let him go and then his uncle was killed,making Peter indirectly responsible for it.

Well, it's been a while, I always skip that scene.
I mean , it's really been a while, but it must've been the fact that Aunt May didn't give Pete a pass as of course the guy was carrying a gun that bugged me. She doesn't know he has Spider-powers.
Pete says Uncle Ben did the right thing by standing up to him, a mad random crook pointing a gun at a him over a car? He should have let the guy have his car and let the cops handle him.
(edit: From the p.o.v of someone that doesn't know about Pete's superpowers, it was he who did the right thing, not Ben.
It's only because PP has powers that it made him wrong to not tackle a gunman.
That's why May should've been more understanding.
She should've been 'Oh Peter, you should have told me sooner, it's not your fault.'
And then Pete gets even more guilty as he can't tell May he has powers, and he really could have done something.)
Yeah, I was wrong about the fact Pete did not bring up the fact he let the guy go. but that scene plays flat dramatically as it's handled all wrong logically.
And there is still a big deal made about the fact that Pete had Ben out there under the impression he was studying when he was out at the wrestling. Why is that relevant?
May should've gave Pete a pass rightaway. The scene was not handled as well as it could have been.

And it doesn't negate any of my other points about SM3 being in the same league as SM1 and 2.

How about an explanation about that 95 percent figure you posted as scientific fact?
Ah, I see, Vic Reeves was right.

Spider-Man 2 received the same reviews as TDK...both have 94% on Rotten tomatoes,SP2 has 83 on metacritic,TDK 82.

Taste is subjective but they both received similar critical acclaim...TDK is probably my favorite movie but because SP2 is more light-hearted and it's hero is not stoic doesn't mean that TDK is superior.

Both are excellent at what they do as movies.

I prefer my characters in superhero movies to be as real as possible, so TDK pushes out the Spidey films for me. Yeah, taste is subjective. but you weren't saying that earlier. You were implying that the 5per cent(your estimate I assume) who did not consider SM3 to be such a drop from the previous 2 entries were tasteless.

Spider-Man 4 has zero chance of coming close to 151 million...an example:

Pirates 1 was beloved sold tons of dvd's...Pirates 2 broke the opening record but had bad reviews and word of mouth...Pirates 3 opened with 30 millions less than number 2.

The same thing will happen to SP4...but if the movie picks up great word of mouth along the way,it will smash SP3's total gross.

Yeah, the same happened with the Matrix sequels. But, like the 2nd and 3rd Pirates movies they were filmed back to back and hence had close release times. So if folk didn't like the 2nd one so much they wouldn't bother with a 3rd rightaway.
A sufficent amount of time has passed for anyone interested in the SM movies to be up for another one, even if they disapointed by the previous entry.

(edit: A more comparable example would be Batman Returns. Coming after the major hit of Batman it lost audiences who were turned off by it's dark nature. Parents not wanting their kids to see it.
Then 3 yrs later we got Batman Forever which was the biggest hit of that year's summer, maybe even the biggest hit of the year, not sure.)

The thing is SM3 was a full on SM movie.
The first had the origin, the second had a whole powerless section.
The first 2 are easy digestion for general audiences who don't read comicbooks.
SM3 was more like typical SM books than either of those.
SM books are full of coincidences, outlandish superfolk and plots.
It's not like X-Men where superpowers are all taken care of in one fell swoop, or Batman where the villans are normal folk.
The SM films are really alone in the fact that they are superhero vs supervillans of the typical kind.

And my point is, general audiences who are embaressed by comicbooks and don't buy them were embaressed by SM3.

and i have to say, i think a lot of fans were too. Because there it was up on the screen for teh first time really, a balls to the wall superpowered extravaganza that had supervillans who all needed explanation as to where they came from.

And all the subsequent SM films will be like this too. Folk are probably not going to give them the same respect the more sober SM 1 and 2 got.

Just a theory anyway. Because SM3 is just like the comics.
Hey, amybe they should just stick to one or two villans if folk can't handle the overload.
But the villans in SM3 got as much , and sometimes more development than Ock in 2.
I don't see how people can argue they didn't.

The reason I'm talking about this so much and took exception to the implication in your post is because I'm getting a little tired of the fans who immediately look down on or belittle the opnions of any fans who do like SM3.
If they sat down and debated and compared what actually happened in SM1 nd 2 and compared it to 3, the differences in tone and execution are next to negligible.
I may have been wrong about that one fact not being present in one scene in SM2, but i do know what i'm talking about.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

First of all,i watched Spider-Man 3 5 times in the cinema...went to another country to watch it on May the 4-th because the movie wasn't released yet in my country.

Do you think i would have watched it 5 times in the cinema if i hated it,or undervalue the people who like/love it making me look like a huge hypocrite in the process?

Unfortunately the movie was received badly partly due to the humongous expectations partly because it ended being a self-parody for the second half of it(which like you've said was kinda like the comics and i didn't mind it too much).

Every time whether on other forums which have nothing to do with superheroes,or in real life i have been involved in a conversation about the Spider-Man movies it went along the lines ''The first two were great,the third one sucked'' hence the 95% i wrote earlier.

It wasn't meant to express statistics but every fact you can take implies that the third movie wasn't well received.

Bad legs,bad dvd sales,bad grades on polls like imdb which are pretty good for comparing actual word of mouth,etc,etc...do you think Raimi would publicly apologize for the movie if it was well received?

I have nothing against people who enjoy SP3 but it's simply untrue that there is no backlash.

 

[david icke]

First of all,i watched Spider-Man 3 5 times in the cinema...went to another country to watch it on May the 4-th because the movie wasn't released yet in my country.

Do you think i would have watched it 5 times in the cinema if i hated it,or undervalue the people who like/love it making me look like a huge hypocrite in the process?

Well, what made me think that was your comment " 95 per cent acknowledge the fact that the previous material is superior, there are some who love it of course but then again there are some people who love TF2 and GI Joe, so it doesn't really surprise."

Now, I haven't seen TF2 or GI Joe, but I imagine from your context that you don't really respect those films, or at least consider them 'brainless, switch off your mind movies'. I thought it implied that you didn't respect the taste of those who did like SM3 as much as the other films.
I mean, I know the 1st TF movie, and in no way is SM3 as brainless as that plotwise. The resolution of the plot between Spider-man and Sandman is actually quite thoughtful and is unique in the fact of a superhero realising he's as guilty as the villan, maybe even moreso, and if he were to hand him over to the authorities, he should be handing himself in too.

Unfortunately the movie was received badly partly due to the humongous expectations partly because it ended being a self-parody for the second half of it(which like you've said was kinda like the comics and i didn't mind it too much).

Every time whether on other forums which have nothing to do with superheroes,or in real life i have been involved in a conversation about the Spider-Man movies it went along the lines ''The first two were great,the third one sucked'' hence the 95% i wrote earlier.

It wasn't meant to express statistics but every fact you can take implies that the third movie wasn't well received.

Oh yeah, I know most people didn't take to it as well as the first two movies. But that doesn't mean the third movie is that far removed from the first two in style. Or that fans who like it as much are prepared to accept less.
It's certainly not like the Shumacher Bat-movies compared to the Burton ones(where there is a distict change in tone and execution, not saying one is better than the other), particularly Batman and Robin. and you do get some fans saying that SM3 is up there with that kind of quality drop, of B&R, (I quite liked BF when it came out).

As i was saying, a lot of folk who don't know the books would be a little overloaded by the movie's outlandishness, as it's full on. There's no break for normalicy for the most part. So i understand that reaction.
But, I'm glad there is at least one SM movie like that. We got a 'Marvel Team Up' movie there basically, and an exciting couple of issues of MTU I would say.
I'm not saying I'd want to see another SM movie like that for 4. A more sober one would be good for a change, but not as sober as SM1 or 2. I still want a full on SM movie.

It was just jam-packed, but with a little tweaking of the componenets that held it together I think folk would have more respect for it. The components that didn't work were more noticable than the ones in 1 and 2 as the baggage they were holding up was so full on and outlandish. But 1 nd 2 did have their share of wonky componenets I'd say.
It's like with myself and SM2, if the middle powerless section had a little tweaking I would love that movie all the more.
I have that opinion of all 3 SM movies, and most other sh flicks too.

Bad legs,bad dvd sales,bad grades on polls like imdb which are pretty good for comparing actual word of mouth,etc,etc...do you think Raimi would publicly apologize for the movie if it was well received?

I never said it was as well recieved as 1 and 2.
Creators bad mouth their own works for reasons that arn't always as clear cut as their public front might suggest.
Alan Moore disses the Killing joke, and gives reasons for that that are contradictory(see the Batman comics board for that one). When I think it's because he's a little embaressed by the amount of attention this little short story gets as it's BM and the joker, instead of anything being inherantly wrong with teh story.

The truth is, Raimi would have made a better movie if he had full creative control like 1 and 2.
He's said in retrospect it probably had too many villans, but he was planning 3 villans anyway, Vulture substituting for Venom.
He's not going to turn round and say 'It's Avi arad's fault, he shouldn't have pushed Venom into the movie as the symbiote feeds into all the other plots and we had to re-write in a major plot thread.'
He's not going to diss AA when he's still working with him, or even afterwards, professional courtesy.

He probably feels out of all 3 he could have done better, and that's because he didn't have full creative control. but as said, he can't say that in public.

I have nothing against people who enjoy SP3 but it's simply untrue that there is no backlash.

Yeah, I've never said there was no backlash. I have been saying that the backlash was perhaps for different reasons than the movie being all that different in style and tone than the previosu movies. Just that the normal aspects of 1 nd 2 were jetisoned for more superpowered shenanigans.

 

[The Joker]

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

Ugh! Yes, they did consider that idea. Avi Arad even toyed with the idea of making Doc Ock a young man who becomes infatuated with MJ

Arad should have no say in any creative decisions in these movies, as we saw with Spider-Man 3's disastrous results.

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.

Why thank you

And I echo all of your sentiments, of course. Ock is the most three dimensional villain we've gotten so far. I love his interactions with Peter in the lab, and the dinner sequence. I think it showed the kind of life Peter wanted. Living a life of working on science with the woman he loves.

His passion for his life's work, his wife, which I think he probably loved equally, because when he's lamenting over his losses he says "My Rosie's dead. My dream is dead", which suggests they were the only things he cared about. So when the tentacles suggest to him that his dream was salvagable, he clung to that hope.

 

[TMC1982]

Or Jon Peters

At least Avi Arad didn't envision Spider-Man actually fighting a giant spider like Jon Peters.

 

[LightningFlash]

Ugh! Yes, they did consider that idea. Avi Arad even toyed with the idea of making Doc Ock a young man who becomes infatuated with MJ

Arad should have no say in any creative decisions in these movies, as we saw with Spider-Man 3's disastrous results.

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the idea of Doc Ock marrying Aunt May.

 

[david icke]

Arad should have no say in any creative decisions in these movies, as we saw with Spider-Man 3's disastrous results.

I agree, he was a toymaker who bought into Marvel. Wanting Venom forced into the movie was a money making idea, much like the bad decisions that went into making Batman and Robin more 'toyetic', it was all about money not about what was the best creative move long term.

I think the black suit and Venom could've been a movie on it's own and probably should have been. But, with the time spent on it we got I thought it fit well enough, and the unveiling of Venom at the end of the movie was pretty exciting and gave us something new for the finale, which the other two movies did not.
I mean, after the train fight in SM2 is over, the finale that follows is pretty underwhelming.
I was also disapointed with the fact they didn't use the Brooklyn Bridge to it's full advantage in the SM1 finale, like the comicbook confrontation is was based on. Instead we got a similar ending to Batman Forever. It's still pretty good the stuff with spidey hanging onto the cablecar, but that could have come after a fight like the comicbook, and the Goblin ends up using the cablecar and MJ when he finds he's losing the fight.
All in all we did not get a ariel battle between Spidey and the original Green Goblin in the entirety of the movie.

And I echo all of your sentiments, of course. Ock is the most three dimensional villain we've gotten so far. I love his interactions with Peter in the lab, and the dinner sequence. I think it showed the kind of life Peter wanted. Living a life of working on science with the woman he loves.

He benefits from the fact we get an introduction to him interacting with Peter when he's a normal guy, like Norman Osborne. I don't know if I would say he benfited any more than Norman did though.
Norman still had periods of clarity where his old self would shine through after he went mad because of the formula. With Ock we basically lost that well rounded character for the entire movie until his final scene. The fact he was a victim of mind control menat we didn't see any struggle between the man and the machines until the end when it was convenient for the plot.
you say he was mirroring Pete's desires, that's true. But most of teh villans have mirrored Pete in one way or anther in the movies. Norman obviously in the realm of science as well, creating a bit of a father /son relationship.
Sandman is on a similar journey as Pete too, albiet a dark. One where the love for a family member causes him to justify his own terrible actions, which are done in the name of honouring or saving said family member.
Brock obviously was written to be the alternate PP. His desires are those that Peter thinks he has already fulfilled in the beginning of the movie. Winning the staff job at the Bugle, and getting the girl of his dreams. But Brock's are based on lies and fantasy.

You can prefer one character over another, but when it comes to the meat and bones of the villans, there's not much between them with what is presented onscreen.
Just going by the 'one movie' villans here, Harry's story covering all 3 movies and being the most developed as a result.

btw, Kargo, sorry for being sarcastic and the like yesterday. I just kind of flipped a little when I took it you were being dismissive of SM3 fans opinions by way of a TF comparison.. I mean, I've read countless bashings of SM3, some i agree with, some I find ignorant, and some are just plain old personal taste difference of opinions. But I haven't defended it in a while , so it all came pouring out. Nothing personal.

 

[The Joker]

He benefits from the fact we get an introduction to him interacting with Peter when he's a normal guy, like Norman Osborne. I don't know if I would say he benfited any more than Norman did though.
Norman still had periods of clarity where his old self would shine through after he went mad because of the formula. With Ock we basically lost that well rounded character for the entire movie until his final scene. The fact he was a victim of mind control menat we didn't see any struggle between the man and the machines until the end when it was convenient for the plot.

Of course we didn't see any struggle. That was the whole point. Ock was shirking responsibility for his own selfish desires. Ock was embracing his ruthless nature and desire to make his dream succeed. Raimi showed us his violent irrational side regarding his life's work at the demonstration scene, too, when the reactor goes haywire, and Octavius refuses to shut it down despite all the dangers it's causing. He even viciously smashes Spider-Man into a wall when he tries to unplug it. And it costs him his wife's life.

This was our first glimpse of his 'Doc Ock' nature.

you say he was mirroring Pete's desires, that's true. But most of teh villans have mirrored Pete in one way or anther in the movies.

Not really. Norman saw in Peter the son he always wanted. Harry was all about avenging his father. Sandman was just looking for a cure for his sick daughter. Venom was a decietful loser who was exposed by Peter.

These villains reflected the themes of the movie. Goblin was about choosing the path of hero or villain. It was the choice theme. Harry, Sandman, and Venom were all part of the revenge theme.

Doc Ock was the only villain who reflected the theme and the type of person Peter wanted to be. It's a theme often used in the comics, too. If you watch the special features on the SM-2 DVD, on the Ockumentary feature, several writers from Marvel say "If you think Spider-Man is the geek gone good, then Octavius is the geek gone bad".

You can prefer one character over another, but when it comes to the meat and bones of the villans, there's not much between them with what is presented onscreen.

Well that's where we disagree. I think all the villains had good motives for doing what they did in the context of the movies, but some had more depth than others.

 

[david icke]

Of course we didn't see any struggle. That was the whole point. Ock was shirking responsibility for his own selfish desires. Ock was embracing his ruthless nature and desire to make his dream succeed. Raimi showed us his violent irrational side regarding his life's work at the demonstration scene, too, when the reactor goes haywire, and Octavius refuses to shut it down despite all the dangers it's causing. He even viciously smashes Spider-Man into a wall when he tries to unplug it. And it costs him his wife's life.

This was our first glimpse of his 'Doc Ock' nature.

Oh yeah, you're right. That was in him before the arms AI started getting mixed up with his own mind.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Molina all the way through the movie, it's just that his character gets a little less interesting when he gives in to the ruthless, and we only see a struggle at the end that kind of comes out of nowhere.
Pete touches on that part of himself when he brings up the 'priviledge' speech, but it doesn't seem to take much to get through to that seemingly buried side, so i would've been thinking that part of him would've surfaced at some point when he was doing the evil.
I mean, there's a big diff between giving into ruthless ego and being reckless(resulting in his wife's death), and cold bloodedly saying he's going to kill MJ so she doesn't bring the cops.
They make him the good guy who gives in to his ruthless side, but there are confusing lines drawn as to just how ruthless or good he is. He just seems to flip over to being good after a little speech by Pete, just after coldly promising to kill MJ for not much reason.

Not really. Norman saw in Peter the son he always wanted. Harry was all about avenging his father. Sandman was just looking for a cure for his sick daughter. Venom was a decietful loser who was exposed by Peter.

These villains reflected the themes of the movie. Goblin was about choosing the path of hero or villain. It was the choice theme. Harry, Sandman, and Venom were all part of the revenge theme.

Doc Ock was the only villain who reflected the theme and the type of person Peter wanted to be. It's a theme often used in the comics, too. If you watch the special features on the SM-2 DVD, on the Ockumentary feature, several writers from Marvel say "If you think Spider-Man is the geek gone good, then Octavius is the geek gone bad".

Brock was written to be the dark mirror of Pete, I'm sure Raimi said that somewhere. He said something like 'this is Peter if he had been brought up badly', words to that effect.
He wants the life Pete has at the beginning of the film, successful in his chosen field and to find love.
As i was saying Brock's way in achieving this is full of lies and delusion. So he doesn't egt what he wants.
Peter has what Brock wants, but PP blows it somewhat by taking it for granted and forgetting the qualities in himself that led him to the happy place he's found at the beginning of the film.

Well that's where we disagree. I think all the villains had good motives for doing what they did in the context of the movies, but some had more depth than others.

Doc Ock had depth, but the thing is, the character that is drawn is a little confusing due to the fact he's led by mind control to an extent and they can flip that switch back when they want without giving much reason for doing so, ie at the climax.

Whereas Sandman's journey is at least just as deep, makes perfect sense and is quite interesting for a villan in a sh movie.
He starts off as a guy who makes a terrible choice to save a loved one, and ends up killing someone, it's his fault , but it wasn't intentional.
When SM tries to kill him and fails, Sandman , for the first time, decides to become a pre-meditated murderer, as far as he is concerned SM is out to kill him in revenge, and from his pov, if he dies, his daughter dies.
But then he witnesses the fact that SM tries to save Brock, a man who has been trying to kill him, and hears firsthand that SM was not himself at the time he tried to kill Sandman.
So we get the Sandman stepping forward with some understanding of where Spider-man has been, and vice versa, and they both come to terms with each other.
Maybe it's because there is no science fiction device such as mind control, or some formula, that has turned this guy on this path, that the writing works better for me, and is consistent with what has happened onscreen to get him to this point.

 

[The Joker]

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Molina all the way through the movie, it's just that his character gets a little less interesting when he gives in to the ruthless, and we only see a struggle at the end that kind of comes out of nowhere.

That's the character of Doc Ock. Doc Ock does not struggle with his decisions and goals. Once he decides on something, he does it. There is no internal conflict. Raimi was staying true to the character in that regard. Once he became Doc Ock, he was a ruthless badass, who let nothing and nobody stand in his way of achieving his goal.

Pete touches on that part of himself when he brings up the 'priviledge' speech, but it doesn't seem to take much to get through to that seemingly buried side, so i would've been thinking that part of him would've surfaced at some point when he was doing the evil.

You're completely ignoring the situation that they were in when Peter managed to get thru to him. Not only was the reactor going haywire again, destroying everything around them, and helping to re-enforce Peter's impassioned plea, but Spidey had to unmask and reveal himself to be Peter Parker, someone Ock knew and respected, in order to get thru to him. And even then Ock resisted when he had Peter by the throat.

I mean, there's a big diff between giving into ruthless ego and being reckless(resulting in his wife's death), and cold bloodedly saying he's going to kill MJ so she doesn't bring the cops.

There's no difference at all. If he was willing to put lives in danger and viciously assault Spider-Man when he wasn't under the influence of the A.I., then with his inhibitions completely removed by their influence, murder is not that big of a leap.

With all of the other villains, there was nothing about them before they became villains that suggested they were murderous. Eddie Brock was the only one who showed any kind of bad nature. Norman was just a desperate man trying to save his company, so he tested his formula on himself, and it turned him into a violent, insane, schizo. Sandman was a pussycat who shed tears with Peter over Ben's death, but even he was willing to kill Spidey, MJ, and even Harry. And Harry was just an angry kid who thought his dad had been murdered.

Octavius is the only one of them who showed violence and irrationality before he became a villain, and you say you have difficulty believing that once he did become a full blown villain that he could kill for his goal?

Brock was written to be the dark mirror of Pete, I'm sure Raimi said that somewhere. He said something like 'this is Peter if he had been brought up badly', words to that effect.

If that was his intention, then it certainly doesn't show in the movie. Peter and Brock share nothing in common except for similar age, and having an interest in photography. We knew absolutely nothing about Brock's background. He was a delusional idiot who chalks up a cup of coffee with a girl as "An amazing, amazing night".

There was nothing in the movie that suggested that Peter has what Brock wants. The only thing they vie for is the job at the Bugle.

Doc Ock had depth, but the thing is, the character that is drawn is a little confusing due to the fact he's led by mind control to an extent and they can flip that switch back when they want without giving much reason for doing so, ie at the climax.

I think you're wrong. The whole theme of the movie was doing what's right by being responsible, even if it means giving up your dreams. That's the path that Peter and Ock strayed from. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spidey, so he can live his dream of a normal life. Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream succeed.

It's why Peter was able to repeat Aunt May's speech to Ock at the end. It applied to Octavius, too. The character couldn't have been more clear cut.

Whereas Sandman's journey is at least just as deep, makes perfect sense and is quite interesting for a villan in a sh movie.
He starts off as a guy who makes a terrible choice to save a loved one, and ends up killing someone, it's his fault , but it wasn't intentional.
When SM tries to kill him and fails, Sandman , for the first time, decides to become a pre-meditated murderer, as far as he is concerned SM is out to kill him in revenge, and from his pov, if he dies, his daughter dies.
But then he witnesses the fact that SM tries to save Brock, a man who has been trying to kill him, and hears firsthand that SM was not himself at the time he tried to kill Sandman.
So we get the Sandman stepping forward with some understanding of where Spider-man has been, and vice versa, and they both come to terms with each other.

Sandman doesn't go on any journey. He's in the same place he was at the beginning by the end of the movie. The only reason he stood down was because he saw that it was the nephew of the guy he killed under the mask.

Sandman had no inhibitions about letting MJ fall to her death. Or trying to kill Harry, either. There was no journey here. And there was nothing that suggested he was going to stop his stealing money to help his daughter.

Sandman was there to serve as a plot device to show that Peter could forgive his Uncle's killer, and realize revenge was wrong. Sandman didn't come full circle in any journey unlike Doc Ock, Harry, or even Norman.

I'm sure without all the Venom/symbiote baggage, they could have crafted a much deeper and better story for Sandman. But they didn't. His motivations were good, but there was no journey for his character. Nothing suggested at the end that he was going to stop breaking the law or anything like that.

 

[david icke]

That's the character of Doc Ock. Doc Ock does not struggle with his decisions and goals. Once he decides on something, he does it. There is no internal conflict. Raimi was staying true to the character in that regard. Once he became Doc Ock, he was a ruthless badass, who let nothing and nobody stand in his way of achieving his goal.

Yeah, you're right, but I still say that the ending is a little suspect in turning him into a cold blooded killer, I'll get to that.
I'll keep it short though, i think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on some finer points of character motivation.

You're completely ignoring the situation that they were in when Peter managed to get thru to him. Not only was the reactor going haywire again, destroying everything around them, and helping to re-enforce Peter's impassioned plea, but Spidey had to unmask and reveal himself to be Peter Parker, someone Ock knew and respected, in order to get thru to him. And even then Ock resisted when he had Peter by the throat.

Yeah, but he also threw the same PP through a wall just earlier.
If they didn't have him just saying he would kill MJ I would believe the switch back moreso....

There's no difference at all. If he was willing to put lives in danger and viciously assault Spider-Man when he wasn't under the influence of the A.I., then with his inhibitions completely removed by their influence, murder is not that big of a leap.

And if this same guy was just about to kill MJ why would he switch around to being the nice guy over one little speech by a guy he just threw through a wall.
With teh first experiment he didn't want to believe he was wrong.
Now we had Spider-man coming in during the experiment and interupting it.
A guy this mad and evil and deluded would consider the experiment salvagable and blame it's getting out of control on spider-man's interferance.
They just switch between him being out of his mind to being totally reasonable.
If they'd made it that the arms were damaged there, and didn't have as much influence i would buy it. Maybe that is implied there, but I'm not so sure it is.

With all of the other villains, there was nothing about them before they became villains that suggested they were murderous. Eddie Brock was the only one who showed any kind of bad nature. Norman was just a desperate man trying to save his company, so he tested his formula on himself, and it turned him into a violent, insane, schizo. Sandman was a pussycat who shed tears with Peter over Ben's death, but even he was willing to kill Spidey, MJ, and even Harry. And Harry was just an angry kid who thought his dad had been murdered.

Octavius is the only one of them who showed violence and irrationality before he became a villain, and you say you have difficulty believing that once he did become a full blown villain that he could kill for his goal?

No, i'm saying I don't believe a guy who was willing to kill would turn around a few moniutes later and be totally reasonable, but I've covered that above.

If that was his intention, then it certainly doesn't show in the movie. Peter and Brock share nothing in common except for similar age, and having an interest in photography. We knew absolutely nothing about Brock's background. He was a delusional idiot who chalks up a cup of coffee with a girl as "An amazing, amazing night".

There was nothing in the movie that suggested that Peter has what Brock wants. The only thing they vie for is the job at the Bugle.

I think there is. Brock wants respect and achieves that through fake means in getting the job. Pete takes that away from him and it shatters his fragile ego, same with Pete taking away, in his mind, Brock's 'girlfriend'.
Pete has the respect of the city as Spider-man.
I'm not saying Brock conciously wants what Pete has, he doesn't know Pete has respect and is at the top of his career(as SM), i just mean thematically to fit that dark mirror intention of the story.

I think you're wrong. The whole theme of the movie was doing what's right by being responsible, even if it means giving up your dreams. That's the path that Peter and Ock strayed from. Peter was being irresponsible by giving up being Spidey, so he can live his dream of a normal life. Ock was being irresponsible by doing evil things to make his dream succeed.

It's why Peter was able to repeat Aunt May's speech to Ock at the end. It applied to Octavius, too. The character couldn't have been more clear cut.

I agree with what you're saying here, no doubt.
But I've explained the finer points of my opinion on why it seemed a bit much for the character to suddenly to a complete turnaround after a speech.
apart from that I agree with you on what the themes etc were.

Sandman doesn't go on any journey. He's in the same place he was at the beginning by the end of the movie. The only reason he stood down was because he saw that it was the nephew of the guy he killed under the mask.

no, the main point was that he stood and witnessed Pete trying to save Brock.
He would have known who Pete was before he took his mask off, how would he know him by facial recognition anyway?
He would have known who Pete was because Venom would have told him who exactly they were kidnapping , and by extention who SM really was.
When hearing the name Parker Sandman woul dhave put 2 and 2 together.
so he was still willing to kill Peter, the nephew of the man he killed, as he thought Pete was still on a revenge kick and if he killed Sandman that would mean he couldn't save his daughter's life.
Once he saw Pete was not a killer and was past that stage he went through, Sandman stepped forward to sort things out with him.

Sandman had no inhibitions about letting MJ fall to her death. Or trying to kill Harry, either. There was no journey here. And there was nothing that suggested he was going to stop his stealing money to help his daughter.

Sandman was willing to put lives at risk to kill Spider-man/Pete because as far as he was concerned Spidey was going to kill him, and that would mean his daughter's life.

Yes, nothing suggested he would not go back to robbing. but that's the interesting thing about Spidey letting him go without argument.
If he were to arrest Sandman he should by rights hand himself into the police too, as he is guilty of pre-meditated attempted murder.
sandman gives the impression that he is not a killer, that is important.

Sandman was there to serve as a plot device to show that Peter could forgive his Uncle's killer, and realize revenge was wrong. Sandman didn't come full circle in any journey unlike Doc Ock, Harry, or even Norman.

He did go through changes, maybe not full circle, but almost. He still has his daughter to save, so nothing can convince him to see the error in that method.

he was also there to show that the line seperating the hero and bad guy can be blurred. Both of them being guilty of teh same crime.

I'm sure without all the Venom/symbiote baggage, they could have crafted a much deeper and better story for Sandman. But they didn't. His motivations were good, but there was no journey for his character. Nothing suggested at the end that he was going to stop breaking the law or anything like that.

But he was breaking the law for a noble cause. Afterwards he got involved in kidnapping, attempted murder etc. He backed off from murdering, even when it was in self defence/defence of his daughter. edit: as he witnessed the real Spider-man in action who tried to save a man who tried to kill both him and his gf, and killed his friend let's not forget. So he came to see reason and try to sort things out with PP.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

If that was his intention, theN it certainly doesn't show in the movie. Peter and Brock share nothing in common except for similar age, and having an interest in photography. We knew absolutely nothing about Brock's background. He was a delusional idiot who chalks up a cup of coffee with a girl as "An amazing, amazing night".

There was nothing in the movie that suggested that Peter has what Brock wants. The only thing they vie for is the job at the Bugle.
.

AT FIRST I WAS LIKE t: then after she shot me down I was like

 

[The Joker]

I'll keep it short though, i think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on some finer points of character motivation.

I agree. I found myself repeating myself on some points in the previous post, and when that happens, you know the debate is pretty much done.

I have enjoyed it though

Yeah, but he also threw the same PP through a wall just earlier.
If they didn't have him just saying he would kill MJ I would believe the switch back moreso....

Yes, but at that time Peter Parker was a means to achieving his goal. He needed him to get Spider-Man. Peter would have had no chance in convincing Octavius to stop his quest in that situation.

And if this same guy was just about to kill MJ why would he switch around to being the nice guy over one little speech by a guy he just threw through a wall.

Addressed this above. And as I also mentioned, Ock did resist at first, as he gripped Peter by the throat. Even telling Peter that he cannot and will not destroy his dream.

With teh first experiment he didn't want to believe he was wrong.
Now we had Spider-man coming in during the experiment and interupting it.
A guy this mad and evil and deluded would consider the experiment salvagable and blame it's getting out of control on spider-man's interferance.
They just switch between him being out of his mind to being totally reasonable.
If they'd made it that the arms were damaged there, and didn't have as much influence i would buy it. Maybe that is implied there, but I'm not so sure it is.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You think he should have blamed Spider-Man for the experiment going wrong? That would have been the ultimate cliche. Because then he would also have blamed Spidey for his wife's death, too. I am eternally greatful the writers didn't do that.

We already had one character falsely blaming Spidey for the death of a loved one.

Octavius was a broken man, who lost the only two things he cared about: His wife and his life's work. Then the arms offer him a glimmer of hope, that he didn't miscalculate, and the experiment is salvagable.

What's easier to believe: That something you worked on your whole life is a success or a failure? Which would you want to believe?

Again it was another wonderful layer to Ock's character in that he clung to that hope of salvaging the only thing left that he cared about at any cost.

I think there is. Brock wants respect and achieves that through fake means in getting the job. Pete takes that away from him and it shatters his fragile ego, same with Pete taking away, in his mind, Brock's 'girlfriend'.
Pete has the respect of the city as Spider-man.
I'm not saying Brock conciously wants what Pete has, he doesn't know Pete has respect and is at the top of his career(as SM), i just mean thematically to fit that dark mirror intention of the story.

See I never viewed the character like that. He never showed that he wanted respect. He just wanted to get the job by any means possible. He could only do that two ways: Be an ass kisser to Spidey and JJJ, and fake exclusive pictures of Spidey being a thief.

If Raimi was trying to draw parallels between them, then he really did a poor job of it. There is virtually nothing in common between them. But then we didn't know very much about Brock, but what we were shown certainly didn't indicate he has any kind of similarities to Peter, other than being a photographer.

no, the main point was that he stood and witnessed Pete trying to save Brock.
He would have known who Pete was before he took his mask off, how would he know him by facial recognition anyway?

He would have followed the story of the man he killed, and no doubt have seen a picture of May and Peter in the newspaper as the relatives of the deceased. How knew the deceased's name was Ben Parker.

No way would have have tried to kill Spidey if he knew it was the nephew of the man he had killed. Kill another member of the same family? No way.

He witnessed Spider-Man trying to save MJ, who was an innocent. Why would trying to save Brock suddenly paint Peter as a good guy to Sandman? He's always saving people, and he doesn't kill other criminals.

There is no indication that he knew Peter was Spider-Man before the mask came off. We never saw Venom tell him either.

Yes, nothing suggested he would not go back to robbing. but that's the interesting thing about Spidey letting him go without argument.
If he were to arrest Sandman he should by rights hand himself into the police too, as he is guilty of pre-meditated attempted murder.
sandman gives the impression that he is not a killer, that is important.

But that's Peter's growth right there. Not Sandman's. Is Sandman still going to assault Cops, and destroy armoured cars, banks etc just to get money? Yes.

What if someone else tries to kill him? Will he try and kill them, too? Again, most likely. There is nothing in Sandman's final scene that suggests he's going to change. The only resolution that comes there is Peter's forgiveness of him.

he was also there to show that the line seperating the hero and bad guy can be blurred. Both of them being guilty of teh same crime.

Harry's character served that purpose, too. Peter damn near blew his head off. Like Sandman, his powers saved him from death. Except it was Harry who had to forgive Peter, wheras Peter had to forgive Sandman.

Like I said, Sandman's character served no purpose other than a plot device for Peter's journey. He had no arc himself.

But he was breaking the law for a noble cause. Afterwards he got involved in kidnapping, attempted murder etc. He backed off from murdering, even when it was in self defence/defence of his daughter.

Noble cause or not, he was hurting and trying to kill people.

And he never backed off from murder. The only reason he didn't kill Spidey or Harry was because Harry took him down with his rockets.

 

[david icke]

He would have followed the story of the man he killed, and no doubt have seen a picture of May and Peter in the newspaper as the relatives of the deceased. How knew the deceased's name was Ben Parker.

No way would have have tried to kill Spidey if he knew it was the nephew of the man he had killed. Kill another member of the same family? No way.

He witnessed Spider-Man trying to save MJ, who was an innocent. Why would trying to save Brock suddenly paint Peter as a good guy to Sandman? He's always saving people, and he doesn't kill other criminals.

There is no indication that he knew Peter was Spider-Man before the mask came off. We never saw Venom tell him either.

Ok, I'll skip the rest as we will just have to agree to disagree on those points, but with this one I think it's important and there is a logical way of thinking about it.

I think there is less chance he saw Peter Parker in the newspaper, how many times have you seen a murder victim's nephew in a newspaper?

I mean you say we didn't see Venom say that about who Pete is, but we didn't see that newspaper article either.

There's way more chance Venom would have explained to Sandman just who exactly they were kidnapping and why, including names.

It's not just a member of Ben's family that Sandman is trying to kill, it's the man who is trying to kill him(as far as he is concerned considering their last meeting), and therefore the man who will prevent Sandy from saving his daughter's life.
His daughter takes precedence over anything.
and knowing that it was a family member who was trying to kill him would make him realise that he probably would follow through til he was dead.

I mean, from what spidey says in their 2nd encounter, it doesn't take much to assume he must be blood of Ben's.
'What does it mean to you?'

'Everything!!'

It's not too far a step to assume Venom told him they were kidnapping Spider-man's gf, and by extention who he was.

Sandman witnessed teh fact that Spidey tried vainly to save Brock, the man who had just killed his best friend, threatened to kill his gf and was trying to kill him.
From the exchange he could also see that Pete had changed since their last encounter and that he was trying to keep Brock from the thing that had changed him, the symbiote.
That's why we see Sandman in the background with a big sand fist that he slowly lowers, and it's in the immediate moment after he sees Spidey has just tried to save Brock.
That's why he steps forward for conversation, expecting no malice from Spider-man in the way of revenge.
If it was just because he recognised Peter Parker and had not come to the conclusion PP was no longer out for his blood, he would have the sand fist raised, as he would not be sure PP would not still be on the attack and wanting to kill him.

- as to the debate over Ock's change of heart at the end of SM2. I think i'm going to have to believe that some of his arms were a bit shorted out by the electrical charge, and no longer had as much an influence on him, for me to believe that switch.
I'm not sure, but that may even be implied by the fact he only uses one arm and the others look dormant. It's the only way I can believe the cold hearted murderer flips over so easily.

'Listen to me now..' Implies the arms have less control over him I suppose, and the fact 3 of them arn't moving iirc.

-edit: also, I do see what you're saying about Sandman. But i do think he takes something away from that encounter, and stops himself from getting too far gone in the villan game.
'I didn't want this'
I think he's beginning to realise how out of control the whole thing can get, so maybe, maybe he will be more careful in future, and maybe even turn away from crime like he did in the comics.
Well, after he's pinched one big money bag for his daughter;s treatment.
If he hadn't had the encounters with spie-man i think he would probably stick to crime and get colder as he went along.
But, yeah, it's not so clean an ending, and that's why i like it i think, it's kind of like real life, grey areas.

Yeah, I enjoyed the debate too, cheers.

 

[Gunga Diner]

For as overstuffed and soulless as Spider-Man 3 wound up being, adding Venom to the film, although initially to the chagrin of Raimi, adds a few crucial things:
-It adds somebody for Sandman to team up with in the final battle, forcing Harry to team up with Peter
-It adds a villain who can kill Harry and can be killed so that Peter can forgive Sandman and let him live
-The entire symbiote plot enhances a lot of the themes that the movie already has to juggle and strengthens the conflict
-It adds somebody (Brock) who can have been screwed over by the evil Peter Parker

 

[david icke]

-It adds somebody (Brock) who can have been screwed over by the evil Peter Parker

Brock wasn't screwed over by Peter Parker. PP exposing his photographs as fake was entirely justified, and as for going out with Gwen, it was none of Brock's business. PP could have done those those things without the influence of the black suit.

As for it being 'souless', I thought Harry's death was very well done and quite touching.
The talk between PP and Sandman was alright as well.
And there was some convincing emotional stuff when MJ breaks up with Peter. As well as his realisation after striking out at normal people and injuring MJ.

I'd say something like Transformers was 'souless', not because of the fcat it's stuffed with CGI, but because it's just full of the usual ****e jokes, and the protagonist seems to be more into a lustful pursuit rather than having feelings for the girl.

 

[gridlockd]

This never made sense to me either.

They always say Raimi stood up to the studio and fought for Tobey McGuire to be cast as Spider-Man (the studio wanted a bigger name) then Raimi gets his way and delievers not one, but two huge runaway blockbuster hit movies. Then Avi "forces" him to include Venom. WTF?
Why didn't Sam tell the guy to go f*** himself?
This guy delievered back to back home runs. Why is anyone telling him how to make a movie?

Worse, it actually felt like Sam made Venom so lame as some sort of passive agressive revenge. It was like 'I'll prove to them how stupid this character is'. Of course that's crazy because why would the guy ruin his own trilogy but that's really what it felt like watching it.

Such a shame. I'll never understand it.

 

[LightningFlash]

No one really will. I for one am in the same boat that thinks that Raimi messed up Venom on purpose, and to some extent, it did seem like it, although the novelization made me enjoy Venom's ten minutes of fame, so maybe one day they'll be a 3.1 to change me views on the film; all Raimi needs to do is take out the unnecessary scenes and put back in the necessary scenes, such as the park scene featuring Flint, Eddie, and Penny.

 

[gridlockd]

No one really will. I for one am in the same boat that thinks that Raimi messed up Venom on purpose, and to some extent, it did seem like it, although the novelization made me enjoy Venom's ten minutes of fame, so maybe one day they'll be a 3.1 to change me views on the film; all Raimi needs to do is take out the unnecessary scenes and put back in the necessary scenes, such as the park scene featuring Flint, Eddie, and Penny.

The origin of movie Venom is so shockingly lazy. My jaw dropped. The film jumps the shark right there. Venom just lands by Spider Man? Just--just LANDS there?

The second one set up that JJJs son was an astronaut just back from space, why the hell didn't they use that?!

Raimi must have made it bad on purpose, its the only explination. Yet its borderline psychotic.

 

[david icke]

The origin of movie Venom is so shockingly lazy. My jaw dropped. The film jumps the shark right there. Venom just lands by Spider Man? Just--just LANDS there?

The second one set up that JJJs son was an astronaut just back from space, why the hell didn't they use that?!

I can't recall what thread it was, but someone put up a link to images and official docs on the the development and deleted scenes from SM3.

In these documents was an early synopsis that told of how SM3's plot would involve John Jameson's space shuttle crashing and bringing back the symbiote from space.
They obviously did not have time to fit it in/film it, due to what i'm about to say below.

Raimi must have made it bad on purpose, its the only explination. Yet its borderline psychotic.

Or, you could stop ignoring the often repeated fact that Avi Arad pretty much forced the Symbiote and Venom plot onto Raimi at a point long into it's development .
You could also maybe work out the fact and take into consideration that this plot would extend into all aspects of the story and production.
Alos, maybe, that it was not the ideal movie for such a move as it was tieing up a major plot in the Goblin saga that could not be shifted.
And that perhaps that led to not the ideal Venom/symbiote story being brought to the screen in SM3.

You could also maybe stop being so melodramatic as to call the director 'borderline psychotic', and perhaps also take into consideration that for a space shuttle crashing to be done well in a movie would take up an lot of time in the movie, as well as work on it's sfx development and budget concerns.

If Raimi or someone else had had time to develop a proper symbiote/Venom movie we would've probably got the space shuttle crash.
Yet agian, another SM3/Rami basher ignores the facts behind production and insults the wrong person from their ivory tower of all knowing knowledge.
You wanna blame someone blame Avi Arad, he toymaker who only sees dollar signs, not creative concerns.
Raimi did the best he could with incorporating an extensive storyline without the proper development time, or indeed the proper movie, as he had to tie up all the knots with the Goblin story.

 

[Michael Frost]

I think what really killed Spiderman 3 was all the hype that was created around it. It really raised the bar so high that most of the fans really came out very disappointed.

It still has a couple of sweet spots and scenes but it totally wrecked itself. I think the trailer was far more interesting than the movie itself :P

 

[gridlockd]

I can't recall what thread it was, but someone put up a link to images and official docs on the the development and deleted scenes from SM3.

In these documents was an early synopsis that told of how SM3's plot would involve John Jameson's space shuttle crashing and bringing back the symbiote from space.
They obviously did not have time to fit it in/film it, due to what i'm about to say below.


Or, you could stop ignoring the often repeated fact that Avi Arad pretty much forced the Symbiote and Venom plot onto Raimi at a point long into it's development .
You could also maybe work out the fact and take into consideration that this plot would extend into all aspects of the story and production.
Alos, maybe, that it was not the ideal movie for such a move as it was tieing up a major plot in the Goblin saga that could not be shifted.
And that perhaps that led to not the ideal Venom/symbiote story being brought to the screen in SM3.

You could also maybe stop being so melodramatic as to call the director 'borderline psychotic', and perhaps also take into consideration that for a space shuttle crashing to be done well in a movie would take up an lot of time in the movie, as well as work on it's sfx development and budget concerns.

If Raimi or someone else had had time to develop a proper symbiote/Venom movie we would've probably got the space shuttle crash.
Yet agian, another SM3/Rami basher ignores the facts behind production and insults the wrong person from their ivory tower of all knowing knowledge.
You wanna blame someone blame Avi Arad, he toymaker who only sees dollar signs, not creative concerns.
Raimi did the best he could with incorporating an extensive storyline without the proper development time, or indeed the proper movie, as he had to tie up all the knots with the Goblin story.

First of all, relax dude. Why is everyone so freakin hostile?
Is it possible I was just never made aware of these "Often repeated facts"? Sorry if I don't see every thread. I'd like to see it but apparently even you don't know where it is, so I guess it's not that hard to miss.

and "All knowing knowledge"? Really?

It would be 'borderline psychotic' to ruin your own multimillion dollar franchise out of spite. I'm not saying that's what happened, I said that's what it "felt like". I love Raimi. I do blame Avi. But I question why Raimi was "forced" to do anything he truly believed was wrong. That's what the thread is about; Why did he go along?

He just delievered to Arad two of the most finacially successful, critically acclaimed summer blockbusters of ALL TIME. So how does Raimi not have the upper hand? That's all I was asking. Seems to me, he wouldn't have to do anything he didn't want to do. Would Arad have fired Raimi over not doing Venom? Does he have that power? Wouldn't that be a crazy thing to do to a guy who just brought your company so much success? He'd be a laughing stock for such a bonehead move.

Now this space shuttle info you mention is interesting to me. Believe it or not, I wasn't aware of it. Crazy, I know. That would explain a lot. Because I'm sorry, I was really sad and annoyed with SM3, particularly the Venom plot (as it seems, most were) From what you say, it sounds like a victim of editing and compromise, which is how it felt. I'd like to see those documents if anyone knows of the link.

Seems like the shuttle wouldn't necessarily have to "crash" to make that storyline work.