That is true, and people should understand this...Venom couldn't hold up in a movie where he's the main villain...Venom never had a good story because all he wants to do is kill Pete...the stories to tell are the symbiote and Eddie Brock, and to me, they fleshed out those two characters enough...I loved how the symbiote was in the movie and I liked how Raimi made the symbiote crawl around like a spider and then form into some kind of hand before it gets ahold of Peter. And Eddie Brock, Jr. was fleshed out fine; he's the type of character that you don't have to know much about, he's not someone like Norman Osborn, Harry Osborn, Otto Octavius, Lex Luthor, Joker, etc., he's just a badass who only wants revenge after becoming Venom, and that's what he does...could Brock possibly have gotten a bit more screen time? Yes, but I'm glad they didn't flesh out the character in 2 or even back in 1, because Brock should've only gotten screeen time in the third one, so I'm fine with that...the only thing I was mad at was that Venom didn't have enough screen time...him being in the final battle was fine, because the movie needed a build-up with so many storylines, but I would've liked Venom to have at least fifteen minutes and make the final battle longer than Venom's merely seven minutes (six minutes in the battle itself). And also, Venom's death was needed...just like Doc Ock's death in number 2, the deaths of the villains plays out along with the themes for it...and, to me, I probably won't watch anymore Spidey sequels (unless Raimi and Tobey are in it for the fourth, and if the Lizard is the villain), so seeing my all-time favorite villain in the third movie was alright with me.
But here's hoping for a Spider-Man 3.1 very soon with more Venom in it...I'm not saying have Venom in earlier, but say, if the extended cut has perhaps 20-30 more minutes to it, then give Venom at least double the screen time that he originally has.