Would the movie hold up if no Venom?

[Anjow1060]

One thing is for sure....Venom will help Spidey put up a battle against Captain Jack Sparrow.

If it was just Sandman and Harry, i'd bet on Pirates to take the box office. But Venom.......that makes it a fair fight IMO.

 

[Road Warrior]

Good post, but I disagree. See people, the majority of people don't go see the movies just because of the "villians" they go to it to see Peter Parker and his adventures. This is why it's called Spider-Man. I think with out the symbiote we could not get into as a complex story about anger, and revenge, and how it can consume a person. From personal life experience, anger can be a lot like the symbiote and can consume a person, and turn them into something they are not. I think without this the audiance would not have had a deep as an experience. I don't think Venom is just the Eddie Brock Venom, I think the story is more interesting with Peter, and his dark side. And how even the good can have a dark side to them. And only the symbiote story could really show this side of Pete.

I think with just the Sandman it would of been a much more 2D plot of revenge and what it can do with a person. I think the symbiote was needed in this.

Agreed! Thats a good point as well.

 

[Visionary]

One thing is for sure....Venom will help Spidey put up a battle against Captain Jack Sparrow.

If it was just Sandman and Harry, i'd bet on Pirates to take the box office. But Venom.......that makes it a fair fight IMO.

Pirates 3 and Shrek 3 is going to beat Spider-Man 3 even with Venom, regardless.

 

[Spade]

I think you missed the point. Venom had to be in the movie for the sake of the general public. If Sony said, "hey guys Spider-Man 3 will be released on May 4th with Sandman as the villain" the comic book fans would say, "cool." And, everyone else would says, "Sandman? Why?! He sucks! Thats like saying hey check out the new Batman movie with Killer Croc at the bad guy."

Venom and the symbiote were important in order to get everyone interested and not just the comic book fans. The comic books fan alone won't make this movie 300 million.

With no offense, I think you're showing a bit too much favoritism. I have yet to meet a person who is really disappointed with the Sandman. I myself dislike his inclusion, but I can't deny that most people are not disappointed. If you take out the symbiote, you can still make the film gel just as well. You have the unresolved issue of Harry's revenge upon Peter, the Sandman's desire to save his daughter and the love triangle incited by Peter's tryst with Gwen at the festival. That leaves enough meat for the film to work on without the symbiote- SM and SM2 worked with just as many subplots. In fact, one could argue that without the symbiote making his judgement cloudy Peter could marry MJ at the end of a film sans the evil influence. He wouldn't feel the need to "get back at MJ", and things could possibly be resolved. That would equalize the symbiote not being in the film more than enough; the issue from there would be the pacifism shown through the ending.

Granted, I agree Venom brings a lot of interest. But I don't think he's pivotal. Peter is pivotal. Harry is pivotal. Mary Jane is pivotal. The symbiote and Brock? I can't say with clear conscience after reading the leaks on how they want to go with this movie that he's anything more than an overglorified subplot. I love the character and all- see avatar for more details- but without the film the story would go just as well and the moviegoers would still be flowing through the doors en masse.

 

[Solidus]

Just to further my point:

It would not be as convincing character wise if Peter never had the Symbiote on him and he would of been just angry at Flint for killing his uncle. I don't think him being a "hero" and falling to such dark times would be as believable. I think the symbiote takes away the "hero" feel of Peter and almost to a point brings out the evil, or the villian within him. Which in the book it said so along the lines that we all have the evil with in.

I just think the symbiote symbolizes the evil, and if it was not in Spidey 3 and the movie was still about revenge it would make Peter look like a d*ck to everyone. The symbiote gives him a transformation that nothing else in the comic cannon could of done to such extremes.

And I'm thinking also Pirates 3 will fall suit of Matrix Revolutions. Where the first one did well, and was loved by all, the second everyone and their dog went and saw, then came out disappointed, and the third will do half as good I believe. Just my two cents.

 

[Road Warrior]

With no offense, I think you're showing a bit too much favoritism. I have yet to meet a person who is really disappointed with the Sandman.

Most people I know can care less about Sandman. They're just hyped to see the symbiote and Venom.

If you take out the symbiote, you can still make the film gel just as well.

Definitly! No question about it! Sam Raimi is a great director and he would have made a great movie regardless, but this is showbusiness and in showbusiness you don't take gambles with a character like Sandman. You need someone thats REALLY gonna get people excited. And, thats Venom!

 

[Visionary]

And I'm thinking also Pirates 3 will fall suit of Matrix Revolutions. Where the first one did well, and was loved by all, the second everyone and their dog went and saw, then came out disappointed, and the third will do half as good I believe. Just my two cents.

I wish that would happen, but it's not going to.

 

[Solidus]

Though I don't like to post twice in a row I do have one more point to make:

If you did not have the symbiote but the same story with the Sandman more of the center, people would hate Spider-Man more so. This we can't deny. If he is still in his red/blue suit and gives into his hate, and tries to "kill" Flint Marko, people would not longer see Pete as a hero, they would see him as a villian, and not sympathize with him as much as we would if there was some physical aspect making Peter's dark side come out. With the transformation of the black suit it makes audiances *even us fans* sympathize with the main hero, then when he sheds off the symbiote it's like the hero in him is back. Without it I think it would make it more hard to feel sorry for Pete and the evil deeds he did to Harry. There is no denying that.

Look at all the marketing, most of them have the symbiote in it, wether some like it or not, I think it is clear the symbiote is the center of this story.

 

[Lantern Venom]

And Sandman was the main bad guy ? ? Goblin and Doc Ock held up the previous two, I'm just wondering if Sandman could do it on his own. I think a lot of people will focus on Venom and steal Sandman's thunder, imo....

I definitely think the film should have just focused on Sandman and the new Gobby. Three villians seems like overkill and the direction that Venom has taken is not only bad for his character but will likely affect Carnage negatively if the franchise continues. I'll still be happy to see the "big guy" but I would have been happier had he been the main focus of one of the Spidey films instead.

 

[Visionary]

Most people I know can care less about Sandman. They're just hyped to see the symbiote and Venom.

If I were to name all things I've heard on this board from some geek and his so-called people "NOT" being hyped for Spider-Man (because of said reason), I could write a novel about it.

How far do you Venom fans have that symbiote up your ass? Sam Raimi has directed two movies without a symbiote or Venom, and he's sitting on a 1.6 Billion dollar franchise. Are you people that blind, had it not been for Avi Arad, there would be no Venom, and you all would still be going to see Spider-Man 3, as would the masses.

 

[Road Warrior]

Sam Raimi has directed two movies without a symbiote or Venom, and he's sitting on a 1.6 Billion dollar franchise.

um...those movies had Green Goblin and Doc Ock. Two of the biggest Spider-Man villains. Comparing GG and Ock to Sandman is like comparing The Joker and Two-Face to Scarface the Puppet.

 

[Spade]

um...those movies had Green Goblin and Doc Ock. Two of the biggest Spider-Man villains. Comparing GG and Ock to Sandman is like comparing The Joker and Two-Face to Scarface the Puppet.

Many people were orgasmic when they saw the 80-foot Sandman, so in terms of what they've already done with him he would do just fine as a villian. I'm not in agreeance with his importance, but if they had to use him how they've been using him now isn't the worst path to choose.

If you did not have the symbiote but the same story with the Sandman more of the center, people would hate Spider-Man more so. This we can't deny. If he is still in his red/blue suit and gives into his hate, and tries to "kill" Flint Marko, people would not longer see Pete as a hero, they would see him as a villian, and not sympathize with him as much as we would if there was some physical aspect making Peter's dark side come out. With the transformation of the black suit it makes audiances *even us fans* sympathize with the main hero, then when he sheds off the symbiote it's like the hero in him is back. Without it I think it would make it more hard to feel sorry for Pete and the evil deeds he did to Harry. There is no denying that.

You're presuming that Peter would actually try to kill Flint in their second encounter. He doesn't- it's the symbiote manipulating his desire for revenge. Without the symbiote he wouldn't be going out the second time to fight him nor would he find him without the use of the "enhanced" spider-sense (which he wouldn't have without the symbiote). He would have to wait until the Sandman made his next move, and even then he probably wouldn't try to kill him without the symbiote's influence.

Look at all the marketing, most of them have the symbiote in it, wether some like it or not, I think it is clear the symbiote is the center of this story.

That's because they've engineered it to be the focal point. That's good storytelling, but not a sign that the symbiote is the Holy Grail in a scale of importance to Spider-Man films in general and their correlation to success.

 

[Visionary]

um...those movies had Green Goblin and Doc Ock. Two of the biggest Spider-Man villains. Comparing GG and Ock to Sandman is like comparing The Joker and Two-Face to Scarface the Puppet.

The general audience doesn't know most of Spider-Man's villains like we do, it's the movies that actually turn these characters into household names and figures. People seem to be forgetting that it's the name SPIDER-MAN that put butts in seats. People didn't gather in huge numbers because they saw Green Goblin, who most called a Power Ranger. They're big to fans, but not to the general audience. Spider-Man's the icon that people flock to see.

 

[DieSmiling]

Anybody who's going into this movie soley based on their interest in Venom is going to be let down, which is important, but I'm sure it'll be a good story and Sandman will hold his own. There's just been a ton of pressure to add in Venom because he's so popular and this might be the last hurrah for this crew.

 

[Road Warrior]

The general audience doesn't know most of Spider-Man's villains like we do, it's the movies that actually turn these characters into household names and characters.

You're forgetting about the cartoons. Every generation since the `60s has grown up with some Spider-Man cartoon. There was the original `60s cartoon. There was Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends. There was the `90s cartoon on Fox Kids. People know who these characters are because they grew up on the cartoons.

People seem to be forgetting that it's the name SPIDER-MAN that put butts in seats.

Yes, but you also need a good villain. You don't want Spider-Man fighting Rhino for two hours.

 

[Darkness Falls]

Sandman and harry would have held fine on their own
But Having Venom aswell kicks everything up
Think about it
A villian who has all of spidermans powers and knows everything about him
I wouldn't be surprised if all the money just comes from venom
Sony has done a great job hiding the finished product making all of us sit and wait

 

[Visionary]

You're forgetting about the cartoons. Every generation since the `60s has grown up with some Spider-Man cartoon. There was the original `60s cartoon. There was Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends. There was the `90s cartoon on Fox Kids. People know who these characters are because they grew up on the cartoons.

Sure they know who Spider-Man is, but they don't know his villains like they would a Lex Luthor or The Joker or Darth Vader. Spidey's villains are way less popular than he is.

Yes, but you also need a good villain. You don't want Spider-Man fighting Rhino for two hours.

It's all in the writing and direction for me. A good villain is just a personally opinion, nothing more. If it entertains the majority, damn the rest.

 

[venom628]

Yesssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[3dman27]

i think a movie without droolboy would've done fine

 

[shogunrua]

Yes they could have done it without Venom (as someone already said, they did two movies with only one villain), but sooner or later he would have come to the big screen, he occupies a great place in the spider-man universe, they couldn't have him out of a Spidey movie for long time.

But in a story where the villains are so much fused in Spidey's own struggle, if Venom wasn't in it, than all that message about revenge and what comes with it wouldn't fit as well as it seems it's going to be (and maybe the wouldn't have maid Sandman Uncle Ben's killer, because that just brings the revenge necessity for Peter), but it's just my opinion.

 

[I_Hate_U_All]

Venom's the only interesting villain in this movie.

 

[Doomriderr666]

They could have done this without Venom, but then I wouldn't want to see the black suit at all and the theme of the movie would be lost. Revenge, forgiveness, being consumed by power, ect. The plot just wouldn't come full circle for me.

 

[Mr Jide]

Sandman does hold the majority of the movie on his own. With help from Harry's Goblin.

So, I'll say yes.

Agreed! Sandman is the main villain in this movie anyway and besides, he would have been/has been written with more depth than he has in the comics. Sandman provides a story, good fights and excellent visuals. I personally think he'll turn out to be a better villain than Dafoe's Norman.

 

[Mr Jide]

um...those movies had Green Goblin and Doc Ock. Two of the biggest Spider-Man villains. Comparing GG and Ock to Sandman is like comparing The Joker and Two-Face to Scarface the Puppet.

Vis is right. Let me tell you something. Outside of comicdom and its fans, not that many people knew who the GG was. In fact, more people were familiar with hobgoblin than they were with the green goblin and I'l tell you this, the top 3 most recognisable spidey villains (outside of fan knowledge) are Doc Ock, Venom and Hobgoblin.
The fact that these are spidey movies are enough to get asses in seats. Couple that with marketing/promotion and marketing the hell out of who ever the villain is, there will always be interest, especially if its a villain like sandman, who'll probably be the most visually stunning of spidey's villains so far.

 

[Mr Jide]

Venom's the only interesting villain in this movie.

Moot.