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

[david icke]

I'm curious to know how the sm3 fans feel now that both Raimi and Feige have both admitted that the third film was.... not up to par.

How an artist feels about their own work does not change my feelings on it in the slightest. Put it this way, Alan Moore does not think much of The Killing Joke, apart from the artwork.

Raimi has also said that the Spider-man action scenes in 1 were not as good because they were getting used to doing them, and this is the only gripe i have with that movie.

Spider-man2? I wish they had taken 3yrs to make it, we would have got more spidey scenes that way, and the middle section may not have been so derivative of the first movie.
But, because the first and thrid act are so brilliant , they did not get many complaints about that aspect of the movie, imo.

The problem with the 3rd one was interferance from the studio, and having to fit in and re-arrange the movie up til the last minute. Raimi knows this was a problematic shoot and movie.
But, that does not mean they did not get some things right that were not in the other movies.
edit: For this reason, it is not unreasonable to realise why some fans can prefer this movie.
We got spider-man being spider-man all the way through the movie for the first time.

And most importantly, we got supervillans coming into the story from different angles, just like the SM books. edit: something that will have to happen in successive SM movies, unless we get one villan a movie for all time, which would be a bit repetitive eventually.
Unfortunately Raimi seems to be taking onboard this bizarre problem folk had with the movie, and now instead of getting say, Black Cat and the Vulture for SM4, we are hearing persistent rumours of a Vulture and Vulturess, as if Raimi has been scared away from doing anything too outlandish. Like, two villans that happen to be created by different means, or coming onto the scene, at the same time, is too out there and coincidental, so they have to come from one source, like the goblins.
The probelm is, because of the overreation by some fans to this movie in general, he may shy away from aspects that he was getting right with the progression of these movies. ie We do need to accept that the villans in SM books come from outlandish beginnings, and if we want more than one villan in a film we have to accept a bit more coincidence in the SM films, just like the books.

 

[The Joker]

I'm curious to know how the sm3 fans feel now that both Raimi and Feige have both admitted that the third film was.... not up to par.

Relieved, because I agree with them, and it gives me hope that he'll raise the standard for the 4th movie.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Going by the rumoured plot, doesn't sound like it.

 

[david icke]

I am worried that they will pull a DrStromm and go 'back to formula?!', ie ape SM1 and 2, in order to please the complaining fans. Which could mean, dialing back the action a bit/less Spider-man appearances, and not taking any chances villanwise or storywise. 3 followed the formula of 1and2 as well, but it also brought in some changes, like the random villans as i said earlier.
They need to shake things up a bit, not play it safe, but because of the backlash to 3, they will probably play it safe.

 

[webhead731]

I'm curious to know how the sm3 fans feel now that both Raimi and Feige have both admitted that the third film was.... not up to par.

Oooh. Yeah that'll change our opinion.

I'm an artist myself. I will find stuff about every piece I do that I do not like or wished I had done differently.

Just because Raimi says that "too many villains did detract from the experience" doesn't mean anything awful. Every SM3 fan around here will admit of things they did not like in Spider-Man 3. No one thinks it's perfect.

Raimi's probably being too hard on himself to shut the whiney fanboys up. Can't really blame him.

 

[Dragon]

Another funny thing with Spidey 3 however is that even its detractors can't really find a consensus in their criticisms. Some didn't like Venom. Some did. Some hated Sandman, others loved him. Some hated the dancing, others thought it was funny. Some hated Evil Pete, others thought it was Tobey's best performance of the series.

Anyway, Sam's reasons for not liking the film is that he wanted to do the film differently out of the gate. Those who enjoyed the film did so for what the film is, not what it might have been.

 

[drmick]

That's a bit of an overgeneralization Dragon.

I've been a big detractor of the third film, but even I admit that nearly every scene was individually well shot. Their existence in the script in the first place is where all of the criticism is realistically centred.

 

[Victarion]

Most of what I have read here seems to be simply about the sorts of stunts Vulture would've been involved in or the actor playing him. What was the storyline for the character, exactly? I've read a couple of things:

1.) Cellmate of Flint Marko.

2.) Corrupt businessman that Spider-Man ousted previously. I'm not sure if this was to be featured in the intro to the movie, or something that happened off-screen between 2 and 3.

Do we know of anything besides these two points for the character? I think as a businessman motivated simply by greed, he could have started flooding the underworld with weaponry bearing the OsCorp Logo, leading into an intro action sequence against the Shocker, equiped with the vibro-blasters he'd gotten from agents of Toomes.

As for the symbiote, I'm surprised Raimi didn't go with a The Thing or Lovecraftian origin, with a scientific expedition coming upon it preserved in a vast icy prison somewhere in the far north. A shuttle crash would've been cool too. Bigger than the crane and with higher levels of tension all around.

 

[Project862006]

did'nt raimi not want venom because he felt he was a weak character and 1 dimensional i can see what he means about that too.