I asked everyone to wait a week before discussing SM3 with spoilers, and for the most part everyone has obliged. So if you guys want to chat about the film with spoilers–discussing specific plot point–here’s where to do it.
PAD
I asked everyone to wait a week before discussing SM3 with spoilers, and for the most part everyone has obliged. So if you guys want to chat about the film with spoilers–discussing specific plot point–here’s where to do it.
PAD
• 
I haven’t actually seen the movie yet, but I figure (with no once to SM3 intended) I figure, C’mom, it’s an action/adventure film and I’ve seen alot of the best bits in the adds and I’m fairly certain Spidey is going to win in the end. How much can you really spoil for me?
That being said, I have two questions: I saw Harry becoming the next Goblin since the end of the first film, but I would have bet money that he was going to be called “Hobgoblin”. PAD, any insight as to why the movie did go with this obvious choice for a name?
My second question strays a bit from the movie but I’m going to ask anyway, Is the comicbook Sandman a villian or a goodguy these days? Time and budget restrict my comic purchases to “Fallen Angel”, but I still take time to thumb through FNSM at the comicshop and it seems that in his recent apperance in this title you (PAD) left it fairly ambiguous as to his hero/villian status.
(I liked him better as a hero but I am aware that Mr. John “shake-up-the-statusquo-by-simply-resetting-everything-ten-years” Byrne* decreed he should be villian again. Now I don’t know what to think.)
*To be fair, I did love his FF and Superman.
Since this movie will probably make around a billion dollars once dvd and cheeseburger sales come in, I hope that Raimi has full reign to do a final Spiderman movie that will tie it all up, without any outside pressure to put in any characters the fans want. The fans will go see it anyway. Just tell a good story. Would it kill anyone to actually go to some comic book writer or talent…maybe the sort of fellow who could be trusted to write the paperback adaptation, for example…and solicit some ideas? Why is Frank Miller the only one that seems to get the respect deserved?
I am a little curious about the girl across the hallway. Someone at Aintitcool news (I think it was Harry Knowles) said that she’s the girl that Peter Parker is clearly meant to go after, not some supermodel or Broadway star. It’s an interesting point. In the comics, at least in PAD’s comics, Peter and Mary Jane seem right for each other. In the movies, not so much. But I suspect that the studio or Marvel or whoever is in charge of these things would be unwilling to mess with the Peter/Mary Jane situation (then again, they made Lois Lane a single mother so what the hëll.)
Maybe this is because the protagonist went to his ex-girlfriend’s workplace for the purpose of humiliating her, then blamed her for his actions, then hit her, and the appropriate response to Peter showing up out of the blue was for Mary Jane to club him with a stick until he got the message she’s taking control of the time she spends with him.
But because the franchise-name is “Spider-Man” they felt they had to give the movie a happy ending — for Peter Parker.
Spiderman – Coming of Age story. Very classic, and very personable.
Spiderman 2 – Continuing story themes from the first movie but a hëll of a lot more fun and free.
Spiderman 3 – Ditch the theme and make everything coincidence and happenstance.
The story seemed to be the weakest part of this trilogy. Effects were prime, the costuming was great (NO Powerrangers Green Goblin Mask) and overall the production crew really knows their stuff.
Its just unfortunate that none of the written elements felt securely connected.
– A meteorite with the alien symbiote just happens to land near Peter Parker AKA Spiderman.
– The villain that actually killed Peter’s uncle just happens to fall into an experiment that gives him superpowers.
– Gwen Stacy, a classmate of Peter’s, just happens to be involved in a spectacular accident on a high rise.
– Peter’s popularity as Spiderman overwhelms him just as Mary Jane’s carreer goes to pot.
– Peter ditches the suit in a place where his photographer rival just happens to be below praying for a means to Parker’s destruction….(Although this could have been the writer’s way of saying that God too was out to take down Spiderman)
– Just when Peter and Harry are at odds amnesia takes away the memories that made Harry blame and hunt Spiderman.
– Peter and Gwen just happen to go to the Jazz club where Mary Jane was working.
– I’m sure I can find more when I see the movie again.
At what point in time does my suspension of disbelief break with all these coincedences?
To be fair, I really liked the movie…not nearly as much as the first too. The ending epic battle was phenomenal to watch and if Spidey movies go on I look forward to seeing him team up with other superheroes *Cough*Scarlet Spider* COUGH! I just hope they remember that the core characters need to be grounded and need to find their own way through the plots instead of having the plots hit them dead on in the face making it feel more scripted.
The Sandman re-birth scene is a thing of CGI-beauty.
The movies seem to downplay Peter’s strength to boost his agility and toughness. He gets some serious poundings from villains that tears up his costume, but Peter himself never gets a bruise or a split lip.
Regarding Peter knocking Mary Jane down, it seemed to me he was shaking her off him (not knowing it was her) and she lost her balance. I don’t think he was giving her a taste of the back of his hand or anything like that.
If this is Sam Raimi’s last Spider-Man movie, I say next time they should get Joss Whedon as the screenwriter and Alex Proyas (The Crow, I Robot) as the director.
You think that’s bad – have you ever read Johnathon Vachss’ Batman story, where he revealed
SPOILER BELOW
P
O
I
L
E
R
B
E
L
O
W
that the death of Batman’s parents was actually a hit paid for by a secret international organisation of pederasts because Martha Wayne, an “investigative sociologist” (whatever the hëll that is) was about to blow their cover?
“In the comics, at least in PAD’s comics, Peter and Mary Jane seem right for each other. In the movies, not so much.”
I don’t know if this was because of the way the scrit was written, because of Kirsten Dunst, or just a lack of chemistry between her and Toby McGuire. Maybe all of above?
“Spiderman 3 – Ditch the theme and make everything coincidence and happenstance.”
“I just hope they remember that the core characters need to be grounded and need to find their own way through the plots instead of having the plots hit them dead on in the face making it feel more scripted.”
That’s a good way to describe one of the problems with this movie. Although I didn’t have as much of a problem with the issues you mention on your list:
“– A meteorite with the alien symbiote just happens to land near Peter Parker AKA Spiderman.
– The villain that actually killed Peter’s uncle just happens to fall into an experiment that gives him superpowers”.
– Gwen Stacy, a classmate of Peter’s, just happens to be involved in a spectacular accident on a high rise.”
I think comics naturally work this way. It is a world of coincidences — 6 degrees of seperation and al that. In the previous movies the two villains were also closely associated with Peter Parker’s life. But in this movie it didn’t flow right. Noel’s idea above, to combine the arrival of the symbiote with the role of John Jameson (established in the previous movie) as an astronaut, seems to offer a better alternative both for the arrival of the symbiote and for a big disaster scene for Spiderman to showcase his abilities. For Sandman, it was good to connect him to the murder of Ben Parker. But I think it would have been better if he was an accomplice of the original murderer/thief.
“– Peter’s popularity as Spiderman overwhelms him just as Mary Jane’s carreer goes to pot.”
The parallel is a necessary part of the plot. I’m not sure it was executed very well, but I don’t think it was a bad idea to add this bump to Peter and MJ’s relationship. In that part Peter was acting badly prior to wearing the black suit.
“– Peter ditches the suit in a place where his photographer rival just happens to be below praying for a means to Parker’s destruction….(Although this could have been the writer’s way of saying that God too was out to take down Spiderman)”
It would have been more reasonable if Brock was described as actually stalking Spiderman.
“– Just when Peter and Harry are at odds amnesia takes away the memories that made Harry blame and hunt Spiderman.”
OK, no excuses here. That was bad. I think they did it to remind everybody that Harry is a nice guy. It probably would have been better to make him conflicted.
“– Peter and Gwen just happen to go to the Jazz club where Mary Jane was working.”
I think Peter went their deliberatly to humiliate MJ. It was a bad scene, but it made sense. Perhaps if they gave up the dance scene and Peter’s evil hairdo it would have worked better.
I very much like the Lizard/Kraven idea for the next movie. It would finally give us some Connors action, and it could lead into a Sinister Six movie.
The “John Jameson and the symbiote” angle was used in the 90’s cartoon. While it would have been nice to see John again (if only because JJJ would have had more of a role) I am happy that they didn’t go that route. If they had, they would likely have had an MJ/John plotline (with tons of AWKWARD!)
I didn’t like the Butler Ex Machina at all. I’m surprised that it, and the retcon, made it into the movie.
Raimi wanted Sandman, and the studio wanted Venom? That explanation makes sense to me, both in terms of the movie as it played out and in fan terms. Who are the three biggest Spider-Man villains? The Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Venom. Which villains did these movies feature? The Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Venom.
I want to see a Sinister Six movie at some point. Sir Ben Kingsley as the Vulture! Bruce Campbell as Mysterio! Yeah!
the death of Batman’s parents was actually a hit paid for by a secret international organisation of pederasts because Martha Wayne, an “investigative sociologist” (whatever the hëll that is) was about to blow their cover?
It was Andrew Vachss, actually, in Batman: The Ultimate Evil. It was quite a retcon to be sure, but it doesn’t really kick the stilts out from under his origin the way the whole Flint Marko thing does in SM3.
-Rex Hondo-
Ratsmith: Peter and Gwen just happen to go to the Jazz club where Mary Jane was working.
Luigi Novi: The movie made it clear that Peter went there deliberately to rub MJ’s nose in šhìŧ.
I’m really surprised that more people aren’t upset about the retcon and having Sandman be the killer. Not b/c it’s not comics faithful, but because it undermines the Peter Parker character. Maybe I AM just too picky, LOL!
I’ve heard people compare this to the debacle that was Batman & Robin. First off, it’s not that bad and it doesn’t spoof the franchise by being campy.
But I thought of a way it’s actually WORSE than Batman & Robin. At least with B & R, it was a horrible movie, but it only ruined THAT movie. Yes, it killed the franchise for a while, but it didn’t ruin whatever was good about Batman or Batman Returns.
But SPidey 3? Originally, you have a teaser that Sandman is the actual killer and everyone groans and then has faith in Raimi that, “No, they’ll be a twist.” And yet there wasn’t.
They’ve gone and made Uncle Ben’s death an ACCIDENT caused by someone OTHER than the thief Peter let go. This now starts to lessen the emotional impact of the prior films!
Example:
SPidey 1: WHen you see Peter smugly let that thief go, you originally feel a lump in your throat knowing he will go on to murder Ben. Now? . . .not true.
Spidey 2: Peter crying telling aunt may that he failed to stop a thief that went on to kill Uncle Ben . . .Now? Not true!
SPidey 3 was filled with loads of coincidences – yes! It didn’t develop Sandman that much and didn’t give Venom much screen time – yes! It had the Butler machina – yes! But all that would’ve been forgiveable with the awesome Harry arc and Peter’s journey. TO me the most unforgiveable is robbing Peter of the guilt of his uncle’s death.
How many times do we in the comics see him think of Uncle Ben? How many times does Mary Jane refer to that driving force?
They’ve seriously undermined it in the movies. He’s still responsible but in a real indirect way. IN fact, I thought in PAD’S novelization he would fix this shortcoming and have Peter realize that he’s still responsible – but NO! In PAD’S novelization it’s even LESS Peter’s fault.
In the movie it looks like Carradine (the thief) startles Sandman and cause him to shoot. IN the novelization Sandman just says he doesn’t know what happened – it was an accident.
That tells me this script was just poor when it came to keeping Peter’s roots well defined. Sure, someone can say the viewer/reader should make the connection it’s still Peter’s fault – but I don’t agree. This is such a pillar of Peter’s motivations that it shouldn’t be subtle and it should always be a more direct connection than the mere coincidence.
It seems like coincidences are what really ruined this film.
That said – I walked out on a high, but once you think about what they’ve done to Peter’s character with this retcon yo wonder what the hëll Avi Arad was thinking!
I remember Joe Q being asked about the retcon b4 we know it would be true and just based on the trailers. He said “In Raimi we trust.”
I wonder if he still believes that. I too trusted it would be clever misdirection adn all would be fine at the end.
Didn’t happen. ANd you cannot blame this on Venom being forced on Raimi. He wanted to tell a Sandman story and this seems to always have been the path he was going on. If so, Raimi actually DOESN’T get Peter Parker at all.
I think the “Sandman killing Uncle Ben” plot would have worked better if the evidence had been planted by Harry to send Spidey on a wild goose chase while he worked on his own revenge. These movies always try to make a personal connection between heroes and villains, and I just don’t think it always works… certainly not for three movies (and five villains) in a row.
Reading all these comments, I’m not sure wether it is a bad movie, or simply you think that it could have been better?
I liked the movie, not as much as Spidey 2, but a very good movie.
“I didn’t like the Butler Ex Machina at all. I’m surprised that it, and the retcon, made it into the movie.”
Honestly? When I adapted that scene, it was number one on my list of scenes that I was convinced would never make the final cut. For the ending to work, Harry didn’t need to know the truth of what happened to his father; he just needed to have faith in his friends. My jaw dropped when I went to the screening and that scene was there.
PAD
Posted by Rex Hondo
It was Andrew Vachss, actually, in Batman: The Ultimate Evil.
I knew “Jonothan” sounded wrong but didn’t have reference handy.
It was quite a retcon to be sure, but it doesn’t really kick the stilts out from under his origin the way the whole Flint Marko thing does in SM3.
Actually, i think it’s worse, because part of the whole point of the Batman origin as originally written is the randomness – that anyone at all could have walked down that alley.
Of course, as soon as i saw the trailer with the clip that announced that it wasn’t the guy Pete thought it was that killed Uncle Ben, that was two strikes against the film already before i saw it. (The mere presence of Venom was the first.)
Add me to the “prefer no butler” scene. Personally, once he said no and Peter had left, I would have had Harry looking at a photograph of him, Peter, and Mary Jane with smiles all around. As the camera moves away from Harry, Franco would convey a begrudging desire to help his friends.
Actually, i think it’s worse, because part of the whole point of the Batman origin as originally written is the randomness – that anyone at all could have walked down that alley.
Well, if The Ultimate Evil is considered to be canonical, which I’m really not sure of, then it merely replaces one form of tragedy (the senseless randomness of it) with another (His mother was a hero in her own right and targeted for it). If anything, I believe (it’s been a while since I’ve read it) it deepened Batman’s resolve in his crusade against crime that his parents were not just a victim of a random crime, but were killed to protect the worst of the worst from being brought to justice.
The whole Sandman thing was just poorly contrived.
Of course, your mileage may vary… *shrug*
-Rex Hondo-
Maybe Spider-Man 3 can be treated like Star Trek V, and the fans can just pretend it didn’t happen….
“For the ending to work, Harry didn’t need to know the truth of what happened to his father; he just needed to have faith in his friends.”
Thi seems to have been a more subtle solution. But this mvie wasn’t very strong on the subtlety front with the exception of Sandman.
“Reading all these comments, I’m not sure wether it is a bad movie, or simply you think that it could have been better?”
I think it’s cloer to ‘it could have been better.’ It wasn’t bad, but it was disappointing. And coming out of a movie feeling a sense of disappointment is not a good thing. Superman could have been better too, but I didn’t feel as disappointed. Lord of the Rings could have been better, but was still excellent. X3 was a little disappointing, but not that much (for me at least).
“I didn’t like the Butler Ex Machina at all. I’m surprised that it, and the retcon, made it into the movie.”
Honestly? When I adapted that scene, it was number one on my list of scenes that I was convinced would never make the final cut. For the ending to work, Harry didn’t need to know the truth of what happened to his father; he just needed to have faith in his friends. My jaw dropped when I went to the screening and that scene was there.
PAD”
PAD:
You’re dead right and Harry having faith in his friends would’ve been better for his character than having it spelled out . . .and besides – was it really “spelled out?” The fact he died impaled on his glider doesn’t really absolve Peter. What absolves Peter is: “Harry, you’re father went insane from taking the formula and tried to KILL me and MJ. Did you not see him drop a cable car full of kids and MJ off a bridge? Not sane!” Or did the media not catch that?
To quote our favorite scribe, “But, I digress”
This is for PAD:
What do YOU think Sandman being the real killer does to Spidey’s origin, character and motivation? What did you think when you first saw this in the script?
I think your opinion would be interesting because of your connection to comics and your knack for character development and love for continuity.
Although continuity and comics canon is the least of the sins here. I can overlook continuity – the problem here is Uncle Ben’s death being an accident tramples over motivation and character for the main protagonist, no?
Think of Batman. Batman is removed from the murder of his parents. Batman is about the randomness of crime as someone pointed out and his path is that of vengeance as well as making sure others don’t have to go through what he did. It’s a vigilant/crusader slant.
Spidey has really NEVER been that. He realizes that his inaction CAUSED the death of a loved one. It’s MUCH more personal. There’s tragedy – but there’s guilt. His guilt moves him forward. His belief is that power is a responsibility and his Uncle’s death is a reminder of what happens when you don’t use your gifts. Now that it’s an accidental death from essentially a good man (and Sandy was portrayed as a god man) it really takes away the power/responsibility matra as well.
A forgiveable retcon would simply stretch this to connect Sandy to Spidey’s origin but NOT replace the key motivations. Now Uncle Ben’s death is an example of Marko’s bad luck, being at the wrong place at the wrong time and rounding out his all around schlub-ness.
They could’ve simply done this:
Carradine runs out and yells to get a car. Marko runs ahead and pulls Ben out of the car. He tells him to “Beat it old man and you won’t get hurt.
Ben begins to tell him he has a choice and then Carradine runs by and says, “Come on – we gotta move!” andthen BAM! Carradine callously pulls the trigger showing he’s the real bad seed.
Uncle Ben is shot and is dying in Marko’s arms and Marko stays with the bleeding Uncle Ben and is aghast at what just happened.
Witnesses see him standing over a bleeding Ben while holding a gun.
Sandman is still a good guy – he’s a wanted murderer over Ben’s death. As an aside, there could be forensics issues with the gun – but I’d forgive this sin.
Anyhow, I’d like to know what PAD thinks of all of this. I think it’s really the movie’s biggest sin. It’s not a slight misstep, but a fatal blow to what should’ve been untouched canon.
I suggest the Enforcers because you could do the whole “Who’s the Big Man?” story. Is it Harry? Is it JJJ? Neither, of course, it’s Brock!
The Big Man was Fredrick Foswell in the comics, which would make Ted Raimi the bad guy in a film version of the story, wouldn’t it?
Given that he’s appeared in every Spider-Man film, the revelation would mean something, and it would make as much sense as BM being Brock.
“I think it’s really the movie’s biggest sin. It’s not a slight misstep, but a fatal blow to what should’ve been untouched canon.”
The retcon was a bad thing, but it didn’t ruin this movie as much as harming Spiderman’s overall character and continuity. The other mistakes were more harmful to this movie in my opinion.
The retcon you propose Joe is pretty much what I’ve been saying. Had they made the conscientious Sandman an accomplice o the murderer this would have given enough motivation for Sandman to feel guilty and for Spiderman to feel great anger toward him without altering the original story. I don’t know if it is even necessary to assume that Marko was mistakenly accused for the murder, since being an accomplice is bad enough both from his and from Peter’s point of view, and would not have required any great revelations about the fact of the case, only the important revelation that Marko is a man with conscience who feels guilt.
Yes, Micha – I agree.
Sandman is responsible for Ben’s death b/c he made a choice – HE pulled Uncle Ben out of the car . . .and then that choice goes wrong.
It can show that if you make bad choices, you may not have time to make them right.
Peter can still feel hatred toward’s Sandman b/c had he not pulled Uncle Ben out of the car he might’ve never died – and then Peter can forgive playing into the theme of the movie.
But none of the above would ever lessen Peter’s role. The man he let go PULLS THE TRIGGER!
What irks me is that these scripts go through so many revisions with so many writers, how in the world did they miss this?
I also agree that there are bigger problems that hurt THIS movie – but the retcon is the worst b/c it hurts the whole trilogy!
If they took some version of our rewriter on Uncle Ben’s death, I could accept the movie and simply say, “They tried to fit too much in and skimped on some plot points – but it was a decent experience.”
But now ANY Spidey movie that comes out, you still have Peter’s role in his uncle’s death watered down. That’s Spidey blasphemy : (
Liek someone else said: do we pretend it didn’t happen? We could, but the movie makers won’t.
We’ll never hear Peter say:
“Because I failed to stop a thief when I had the chance, my uncle died.” It’s not really true anymore.
After ruminating further, I believe it is the best choice to forget Spidey 3 existed. You may ask the benefits of such a theory, and I would have to say they are many fold. First, if there was no Venom movie, than Topher could be cast as Spider-Man for the next trilogy. Second, of course, Spidey’s origin is in tact. Third, Gwen could become Peter’s new love (I guess that could go either way). Four) Sandman could be brought back with the same origin (and sick little girl), just without ever meeting Uncle Ben. Five, a second chance for Harry’s Goblin to be more menacing and cause more Havoc before recanting/amnesia. Six, the first two movies made this an unbelievable franchise, so it would be our duty to put the right foot forward (a foot without Spidey 3 sticking to it’s bottom) to let the franchise thrive again (and not just for initial box office, but for reviewability)
Rob
One other thing, I don’t think anyone has brought up before now, wouldn’t JJJ hate Peter for being with the girl who stood up his son at the alter? I would think he wouldn’t even be buying any photo’s from him at this point….
The wild thing is I went in seeing this with two premises:
1. They better NOT have Sandy be the real killer as no matter how you write it, Spdiey’s motivations are watered down
and
2. MJ cannot be kidnapped. Seriously, won’t this be laughable to casual fans that EVERY movie has the SAME damsel in distress.
I was LOVING the beginning of this movie – in fact, loved EVERYTHING until MJ is kidnapped. There I just groaned a bit willing to forgive.
Then Sandman did his little3 bit and I groaned a bit more . . .but still walked out on a high. I had spidey pajamas and would crawl around the floor pretending it was a building when I was a kid ( . . okay . . .mayeb until I was 16 . . .nevermind!) so I was still on a spidey high . . .but in hindsight . . .wow – what a mess!
“Do we pretend it didn’t happen?”
I’m going to pretend it happened the way I see it in my mind.
Since they remade King Kong, Planet of the Apes and many other movies, maybe on day in the future somebody will remake Spiderman 3? I doubt it, but it’s nice to imagine anyway. Future producers might ignore it’s effects on the continuity, like they did with the recent Batman and Superman. So you could take your grandchildren to see it and be happy. I’m still hoping that maybe someday some young director not yet born will also remake the second Star Wars Trilogy.
I agree . . . the spidey franchise could be “ultimized” in ten years.
On the suject of retcons . . . the word itself seems to have a negative connotation, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I imagine it’s b/c so many of them are poorly done. I’m reminded of PAD’S retcon in Hulk, which was a thing of beauty.
If I’m remembering correctly PAD was the first one to hint at Bruce being abused. This was perfect! It does nothing but enhance Bruce’s origin. Through Bruce’s selfless act of saving Jones he became the Hulk – but PAD’S retcon explained where the anger came from.
It’s BRILLIANT! This is how a retcon can be done.
Old Sandy could’ve been retconned to Uncle Ben’s death in a peripheral manner WITHOUT diminishing Peter’s role. I would love to see how PAD would’ve handled this.
If the Powers That Be said:
“Look, we need to connect Sandman to Uncle Ben’s death and have Peter forgive him – make it work!”
What would a PAD or a Brubaker or a Bendis do? I mention these particular writers b/c I think they are all great writers who have handled retcons or reboots of classic character’s origins.
>I believe (it’s been a while since I’ve read it) it deepened Batman’s resolve in his crusade against crime
More like it helped change the DIRECTION of that crusade. Where he’d once concentrated on regular street hoods and unsane super villains such as Joker and Two-Face, he now – according to the book – spent more time against child abusers. Which isn’t surprising since that’s been author Vachss’ crusade for years, too.
And, yes. I didn’t mention anything earlier, but the flag thing in SM3 had me groaning, too. And not in a good way.
I will start out by saying that I enjoyed myself. I’ll make no pretense about that at all.
The thing that probably bugs me the most is MJ getting demoted to singing-waitress. What? But she was so big in the last movie… what he hëll happened there? They treat her like this is her first big production, when in SM2 was more of a larger debut. Not to mention the billboards and such in SM2. One bad openning night wouldn’t shunt her to obscurity at that point.
I totally hate the “OMG, SPACE ROCK!” insert as to the origin of Venom. I’m not all that familiar with the SM-universe, but that definitely felt like a lame explaination for things. Over used for sure. “Well, we don’t have time to even give the cartoon’s explaination so… it’s from space.” I feel that in SM3 as in X-3 major plot points (Pheonix anyone?) were barely explained at all leaving the fandom unhappy and the people unfamiliar with it at a loss.
Poor Penny, she was so cute and sad, a major plot point in the development of Sandman, but APPARENTLY not important enough to close up that storyline.
Loved the Bruce Campbell cameo. Way too much. I know it gives a little “WTF? Why does this guy show up everywhere?” but come on, it’s a superhero movie. You have to do something that’s soley for the fans. If it took itself completely seriously and was totally canon then it would suck immensely.
I can’t help but keeping comparing this movie with X-3, as both are pretty much trilogy ends. And in that light, it shines so much more brilliantly. Both had too much plot for one film, but SM3 did a much better job with it. Kinda really brings light as to an obvious struggle over the story and the script. I’ll be at the theatre for SM4, 5 and 6, probably openning night, if only for that I have intense hope about my areas of nerdiness, why I was there for “Star Wars III” openning night as well.
And I’ll reiterate: I liked it. I’ll watch it again. Even though the side of the head that Harry’s injured/bandaged in the beginning changes at least twice.
3rd time is not the charm. They’ve made Peter in a whiny cry baby. Every ten seconds he takes of his mask and wails. It’s embarrassing. At some point during the showing I was at people burst out laughing at what were supposed to be the tragic moments because it was just too much to believe.
They really need to bring Alfred Gough, Miles Millar, and Michael Chabon back from the second movie to write this one. Was JMS busy? Why didn’t they just ask you (PD) to write the screenplay and the just roll right in the novelization. Arggg! When will people realize you need decent writers AND special effects. Or if not you, why not Kring who seems to be doing well with this little know show “Heroes”.
The first movie was like the first time you had sex. We were so desperate for a Spiderman movie we didn’t care what we got and we could ignore just how inappropriate Toby McGuire was for the part (It helped that nearly everyone else was perfect – With Aunt May being another exception. She’s also been miscast). Even Kirsten Dunst, who is be quite a good actress, can’t hide her contempt of Toby long enough to make her scenes with him work. When she’s sharing dialog with another actor the contrast in performance is startling; acting with McGuire must be like acting with pinnochio. There’s zero chemistry and it kills every scene she’s in with him. I can’t believe Rami wasn’t seeing this.
Of course the movie isn’t helped by a plot with little focus.
Rami who I normally love seemed to have joined the Tim Burton school of superhero movie making in which the first commandment is: “If the actor has to emote he must take this mask off”. This in spite of the fact that half the audience is showing up specifically to see the man in the mask and in light of “V for Vendetta” proving that a decent actor never needs to show his face to make the audience invest in the emotional journey of the hero.
The best thing they could do is allow Toby and his nearly continually trembling chin to get back on Sea Biscuit with a gross of Kleenix in the saddlebags and cry his way off into the sunset.
I really hope they do an Ultimate-Spiderman with a 16yr old kid or get an actor who doesn’t play an adult Parker (without losing the playful side as Spiderman) like an exposed nerve ending.
I’m sure Peter’s novelization does it’s best to dress up this mess.
>>Oh, totally unrelated question – is there any
>>relationship between Flint Marko and Cain Marko?”
>
>None whatsoever. “Flint Marko” is an alias; his
>real name is William Baker. The origin of his
>pseudonym is revealed in the upcoming FNSM annual,
Then one more step up: which of them (Cain or “Flint”) is tied to “Man Mountain Marko”?
And jeez, how did Roy Thomas manage to not tie the three together in all his time at Marvel? He sure did that enough at DC. (Although I don’t recall if he ever tied the Golden Age Robotman in to Nightwing.)
“(Although I don’t recall if he ever tied the Golden Age Robotman in to Nightwing.)”
He did.
To be more specific, he tied that Robotman to the Earth-2 Robin.
I detest it when movies rewrite significant portions of continuity simply to make villains more significant.
Spoilers, of course.
If the Sandman was the guy who killed Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben, but it was only an accident, then everything that drove Parker to be a super-hero is null and void.
Let’s sum up. Once upon a time, Spider-Man didn’t help out, and it cost him the life of his surrogate father. Because he understands that responsibility, he becomes a super-hero. Except now, Uncle Ben wasn’t killed by the guy he let pass. Ben would have been murdered, no matter what Parker did to the burglar.
With great power comes the inability to save the ones you love. Nice message.
Joe, while Peter did work with the idea of Bruce Banner being abused in his earlier life, it was actually Bill Mantlo who wrote the story that brought a lot of those details to light. There is a retelling of his origin in The Incredible Hulk #312 from October 1985 that explains why his father hated him so much and what other abuse Bruce had to endure before the Gamma Bomb explosion.
I only mention this because Peter has said a number of times in the past that Bill Mantlo’s stories were used to help form his take on the Hulk.
More like it helped change the DIRECTION of that crusade. Where he’d once concentrated on regular street hoods and unsane super villains such as Joker and Two-Face, he now – according to the book – spent more time against child abusers. Which isn’t surprising since that’s been author Vachss’ crusade for years, too.
Well, for the duration of the book at least. He certainly hasn’t lightened up on the regular thugs and metas of Gotham in the last decade or so. It’s not all that different from when Ra’s al Ghul starts up some new master plan, or Intergang decides to set up shop in his city. That becomes his new focus until they’re defeated.
The Sandman retcon in the movie is much more along the lines of making the Joker the Waynes’ murderer in the first Batman movie. It forces a personal connection instead of allowing their personal animosity to develop naturally, and it takes away one of Batman’s primary torments, never being able to bring his parent’s killer to justice.
Of course, much like the Batman retcon, the Sandman retcon is only one problem amongst many.
-Rex Hondo-
someone up top somewhere here mentioned that the only people who are doing most of the bìŧçhìņ’ and moanin’ are the hardcore fanboys. The ‘civilian’ (regular mainstream) audience seem to like the film.
The problem with this theory is that Hollywood needs to be nice to the fanboys. Its the FANBOYS who go back to the theaters fifteen times day after day watching the film that catapult it into the treasured top ten spots of all time.
If you dont take care of the fanboys you really risk not having a blockbuster film.
Just my own opinion.
Well, there are fanboys and there are fanboys…
On the one hand, you’ve got the guys who will throw a šhìŧ-fit over every little divergence from comic canon. Organic webshooters? Blasphemy! Green Goblin not in a rubber mask? Unforgiveable! Eddie Brock not a wall of muscle? A sign of the End-Times!
On the other hand, you’ve got the guys who were so emotionally invested in the movie even before it came out that they seem to be psychologically incapable of seeing it as anything but every bit as wonderful as they convinced themselves it would be. Almost violently so in some cases.
Fortunately, most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the folks on the fringes tend to be the most vocal.
-Rex Hondo-
-Maybe I’ve just become a big softie in the last couple of years, but I wanted some sort of happy ending for Penny Marko, or at least something better than a big fat dangling plot thread.
I’m pìššëd øff that Spidey finally has a ton of public support, was given the Key to the city, and is a beloved heroic figure, but he can’t think “Hey, I bet I could ask people to raise money for Sandman’s daughter.” Somehow Eddie Brock knew about Marko’s daughter, so Spidey ought to as well. It just made Peter seem like he was STILL insensitive to other people’s problems to not try to help the guy he just forgave.
“someone up top somewhere here mentioned that the only people who are doing most of the bìŧçhìņ’ and moanin’ are the hardcore fanboys. The ‘civilian’ (regular mainstream) audience seem to like the film.”
I don’t think so. The reviews of this movie I read — even from one who knows nothing of spiderman’s story — contain similar complaints, more or less, to what people have been saying here. Look at rotten tomatoes. Even the reviewers that didn’t hate it are quite critical.
also, rex is right. By now the movies have there own group of fans who are not necessarily comic book readers. For them the movie was a disappointment in relation to the previous two.
I for one really like the organic webshooters…
It really added so much to the character (him being more Spider then Man)
Hopefully (before they ruin the whole franchise) they can urge James Cameron back so he can show us what he can bring to the character. Of course we’ll have to wait until after he finishes Avatar.
After all- the organic web shooter thing was HIS idea (from what I read long ago when Cameron was attached and the whole franchise was stuck in legalities(before Spider-Man I))
I don’t know that I would want Cameron involved. My recollection is that the early versions had Electro as the main villain in a Donald Trump evil businessman role. Peter actually kills someone at one point. It was a mess from what I recall.
I’m not sure on the webshooters though. I know for sure that Raimi stated that he wanted to relate to Peter Parker and someone who is a genius and could create this wacky adhesive that 3M didn’t invent yet separates him from the everyman. But this doesn’t mean that the organic webshooter weren’t in the Cameron versions either.
It’s funny because someone mentioned and I agree that it’s usually the fringes that are most vocal – either loving or hating something. I find myself in the middle, but it just seems to annoy me more b/c it’s freakin’ SPIDER-MAN!
I have no attachment to the canon of the comics as far as:
Oh no Power Ranger Goblin!
Peter and MJ are an almost item from the start?
Organic webshooters?!
Nope – none of that bothers me.
The Sandman being the killer – you better believe it! That’s not just any old change – it detracts from the lesson Peter learned and the guilt that spurs him to action. All to tie the villain to his origin? Weak!
And if anyone “got” Peter Parker it seemed to be Raimi and then this happens? I don’t believe Raimi should get a pass b/c of the studio pushing Venom on him and theoretically dooming this movie’s plot, pacing and writing. Nope – this little retcon would’ve been there anyway as it was the Sandman’s story.
Had they used any of the ideas we’ve mentioned to keep the thief (Carradine) as the trigger man, I culd’ve forgiven the other missteps. Now you’ve taken the movie Spider-Man and pretty much changed him for all movies past and future until they reboot the franchise ala Batman Begins.
A machina Butler scene can be forgotten.
Venom’s short appearance could be cured in a future movie.
Harry’s weak character arc can’t be cured BUT he’s a supporting cast member not the main character.
The circumstances of Uncle Ben’s death will carry on for all future movies and will indellibly change the face of Peter Parker’s character.
Unless of course they just ignore his whole origin and motivation, but then he just becomes any other do-gooder in a costume – which misses the whole point of Spidey.
I know there’s an alternate ending with Sandman’s wife and kids involved in the final scene. I wonder if there was an alternate ending where Sandman NEVER pulled the trigger and it was Carradine? Probably not. For some reason the impact of this change didn’t seem to concern the Powers that Be.
I saw Spider-Man 3 on Friday.
For the most part, I liked the film, but I agree with many of the criticisms in both this and the other thread.
Marko kills Uncle Ben? No. Wrong.
Marko was there, and maybe could have given Uncle Ben a fighting chance to live if he’d started basic First Aid, but ran off instead? Better. It doesn’t absolve Peter, who let the thief- the one who pulled the trigger- run past him, but it still gives Peter something for which to forgive Marko.
Re Butler Ex Machina: Very bad. It could only have worked if the butler had been there from the beginning, and had assisted Norman Osborn in his Goblining. As others have said, Harry deciding to put his feelings for MJ ahead of his hatred of Spidey and/or his working out the “Green Goblin = killer/Spider-Man = Hero/ Dad = jerk/ Peter = best friend” formula would’ve been better.
How Butler Ex Machina could have worked (dialogue written from memory, so it may be a bit off):
INT. OSBORN MANSION. NIGHT:
BUTLER
I cleaned your father’s wounds. They were caused by his glider. Your father could only have died at his own hands.
HARRY
And you know this how?
BUTLER
My former employer was a brilliant detective who fought crime by dressing as a bat.
(off HARRY’s look)
Long story. However, I picked up a few tricks of the trade when it comes to reading clues. There’s no doubt your father caused his own death.
HARRY
NOOO!!
SHOCK CUT TO:
INT. OSBORN MANSION. HARRY’S BEDROOM. NIGHT:
HARRY sits up in bed, sweating profusely.
HARRY
God, what a horrible dream! There’s no way Dad could’ve died at his own hand. No way. Just because he was the Green Goblin and he killed several people, and threatened to kill MJ, and attacked Peter’s Aunt May in the hospital, and…. hmmmn. I wonder….
There, isn’t that much better?
What? You want Harry’s change of heart to come naturally, not because of either Butler Ex Machina or dream-inspired Butler Ex Machina? Sheesh. Next you’ll be wanting a reasonable explanation for why Spidey keeps taking off his mask.
Well, here it is: The laundry detergent he uses itches.
For Spidey to remove his mask just prior to his swinging down into the crowd was very stupid. As others have said, there were a lot of cameras around that day.
These are the times when it made sense for Spidey to be without his mask: when Peter appealed to Harry for help, and when it was ripped up in the pummeling he got from Venom and Sandman. In the former case, it made sense because Harry already knew his identity; they were in private; and it was Peter making the appeal to his best friend.
I was also going to cite the scene when Harry and Peter fought in the mansion, and say that that was also a scene where Peter was trying to get through to Harry; but then I remembered he was A) wearing the symbiote costume (and being a jerk because of the symbiote’s influence) and; B) in street clothes. So, even if he had come as Spidey, it probably wouldn’t have been to appeal to the better angels of Harry’s nature.
But getting back to the Spidey celebration scene: What was up with Spidey kissing Gwen? Especially when he knew MJ was there? If the scene had taken place after Peter had begun bonding with the symbiote, it might’ve made sense. As it is, it’s just an incredibly bone-headed and insensitive move that seems to come out of nowhere. It’s not like he and MJ had just had a fight and the kiss was a childish bit of payback.
Speaking of Gwen, someone commented about MJ being taken hostage yet again. To my way of thinking, Gwen as hostage would’ve made more sense. She’s more in the public eye with regard to Spider-Man because he saved her, and they had this big public celebration of the rescue. Plus, she’s Eddie Brock’s ex girlfriend, and abducting her would let Brock/Venom get revenge against her as well (I don’t recall Sandman having any clue who Spider-Man was, and thus he didn’t have any idea whom to kidnap. Therefore, it seems logical that it was Brock’s idea. Especially since he approached Marko, not vice versa). It seems MJ was kidnapped solely to give Peter a reason to go to Harry for help. But for MJ to have been the bait, it would’ve made more sense for Harry to have abducted her. Like I said, Gwen would’ve been a more logical target for Brock/Venom.
Addressing a few specific complaints: In the other thread, someone had a critical comment about Harry’s painting a still life to show that he’s now “good”, a bit of a shorthand character sketch this person found hard to swallow. I didn’t interpret that scene the same way. If pre-amnesia, Peter/Spidey-hating Harry had shown a disdain for painting, and now he’s suddenly doing it, I could see some validity in that criticism. However, we have no idea whether Harry has always painted, even when plotting Peter’s destruction.
Luigi Novi asked which park and which bridge MJ meant when she asked Peter to meet her. This, to me, is a minor point. If she says “the bridge” when there are bridges galore, it seems clear that she’s referring to a specific bridge with which she and Peter are familiar.
Did the film try to cover too much territory? I think so. If Venom had to be in this film, I’d rather have had Peter’s struggles with the Symbiote and Eddie Brock’s inheritance of it take place in the latter half of this film, with Brock as Venom making his full-fledged appearance in the next. That way, Sam Raimi (whom I understand didn’t want to have Venom in the film) could have set the stage for a new director to do as he or she wished with the character in the next.
I also agree with those who suggested the symbiote could’ve been brought back by John Jameson and/or reach Peter by some other indirect way.
Of course, if Venom had just made a cameo in Spider-Man 3, then the final battle would’ve been different, by necessity. Perhaps it would’ve been Harry Vs. Spidey with MJ caught in the middle. At some point, Harry would’ve put aside his rage, anger and desire for revenge, and tried to set things right. In so doing, he sacrifices himself and thus redeems himself.
And I have to say that despite the Butler Ex Machina, I liked Harry’s arc overall. In some way’s PAD’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek prediction in a thread about Spider-Man 2 came to pass. He said something to the effect that maybe Harry would consider what happened to his father and not go down that same road (yeah, right). Well, Harry did go down that road, but he turned around and came back.
Not sure what role Sandman would’ve played in that final battle had it been Harry Vs. Spidey, but I feel he’d have been a reluctant participant. He only wants to help his daughter. Unless he was convinced killing Spidey was the only way to do that, he’d let Harry take care of the killing Spidey challenge while he (as someone commented re Venom’s statement that they both wanted Spidey dead) would be across town robbing banks.
Like I said, for the most part, I liked the film, but the script probably could’ve gone through at least one or two more drafts.
Rick
P.S. He may have been named Eddie Brock, Jr., but he definitely has a kinship with Col. Steve Austin. After all, if not with a bionic eye, how else could Eddie have seen and recognized Peter, who was several hundred feet above him and in the shadows of the bell?
Speaking of Spidey removing his mask, the only time it made sense in Spider-Man 2, within the context of the story was at the end, when Peter was appealing to Dr. Octavius to help him stop the city from going ka-boom.
There was no in-story reason for Spidey to remove his mask while trying to stop the runaway subway train. It’s obvious it happened so A) we could see Peter’s facial expressions as he strained to stop it; and B) so the passengers could comment that he’s just a kid.
I’d have preferred that most of his mask had been torn away in the fight- just enough for us to have seen the strain on his face. That also would’ve been enough for people to see that Spidey was a kid.
If there were other scenes where Peter unmasked in that film, I’ve forgotten them.
Rick
> it takes away one of Batman’s primary torments, never being able to bring his parent’s killer to justice.
But he did. Well not bring him to justice, but indirectly caused his death.
Desperate to take care of Joe Chill once and for all, Batman gambles by removing his mask. He shows Chill who he really(?) is. Wayne is well enough known in Gotham that the crook does recognize him. Unfortunately, he wants to make a name for himself and breaks into a meeting of gang leaders, yelling that he knows who Bats is. They don’t believe him – a third-rate punk – and want proof. He explains about Bats having revelead his face to drive home the point that Chill had killed his parents.
The gang leaders aren’t so happy as it comes to them that Chill’s the reason the Batman exists to make their lives miserable.
BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAN-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM
They fill him with enough lead that his next of kin will be arguing over the mineral rights for years. And then realize that “Oops, we just killed the only guy who could have told us who he was.” But, yeah, Chill got justice … of a sorts.
This was several years ago and I don’t recall it making any difference to the Batman’s life after the fact. He’s still as driven as ever. I’m thinking that the silly change in SM3 will have the same non-effect as far as Peter is concerned. More’s the pity.
“Next you’ll be wanting a reasonable explanation for why Spidey keeps taking off his mask.”
I think there is a difference between the Peter Parker persona and the Spiderman persona. By removing the mask so often they reduced the appearances of the Spidey persona for more appearances of the Peter Parker persona, which in this movie wasn’t well coneived.
The black suit Spiderman persona (+ cool special features of the suit) also didn’t get sufficient screen time. It felt rushed. The black suit Peter Parker persona was handled very badly and received too much screen time which could have been used for better purposes.
“But getting back to the Spidey celebration scene: What was up with Spidey kissing Gwen? Especially when he knew MJ was there? If the scene had taken place after Peter had begun bonding with the symbiote, it might’ve made sense. As it is, it’s just an incredibly bone-headed and insensitive move that seems to come out of nowhere. It’s not like he and MJ had just had a fight and the kiss was a childish bit of payback.”
It would probably have been better if Gwen would hae kissed him unexpectantly. But I personaly would have cut the whole Spidey celebration scene. It contributed little and wasted time that could have been used to further develop the characters.
“To my way of thinking, Gwen as hostage would’ve made more sense. She’s more in the public eye with regard to Spider-Man because he saved her, and they had this big public celebration of the rescue. Plus, she’s Eddie Brock’s ex girlfriend, and abducting her would let Brock/Venom get revenge against her as well (I don’t recall Sandman having any clue who Spider-Man was, and thus he didn’t have any idea whom to kidnap. Therefore, it seems logical that it was Brock’s idea. Especially since he approached Marko, not vice versa). It seems MJ was kidnapped solely to give Peter a reason to go to Harry for help. But for MJ to have been the bait, it would’ve made more sense for Harry to have abducted her. Like I said, Gwen would’ve been a more logical target for Brock/Venom.”
You are right about that. It could also have worked if the evil Harry would have kidnapped Gwen because he perceived her to be Peter’s new love interest or something like that. MJ could have been watching it fro outside worried, perhaps realizing she cares about Peter. I don’t know.
“And I have to say that despite the Butler Ex Machina, I liked Harry’s arc overall. In some way’s PAD’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek prediction in a thread about Spider-Man 2 came to pass. He said something to the effect that maybe Harry would consider what happened to his father and not go down that same road (yeah, right). Well, Harry did go down that road, but he turned around and came back.”
The whole process of Harry turning evil and redeeming himself was done too quickly and with insufficient depth. He was unable to establish himself as a true menacing villain, and his redemption felt cheesy. It might have worked if they’d cut the amnesia and taken more time to flesh out the process he was going through culminating in the realization that Peter is actually the good guy, combined with saving MJ. Peraps it would have been good if Harry would have demonstrated his shift to the good side by doing something completely selfless and saving Gwen?
Harry also suffered from an unfortunate aversion to masks.
“Not sure what role Sandman would’ve played in that final battle had it been Harry Vs. Spidey, but I feel he’d have been a reluctant participant. He only wants to help his daughter. Unless he was convinced killing Spidey was the only way to do that, he’d let Harry take care of the killing Spidey challenge while he (as someone commented re Venom’s statement that they both wanted Spidey dead) would be across town robbing banks.”
Evil Harry could have promised to pay for Penny’s treatment in exchange for Sandman working as his henchman. I think the problem would have been having two villains redeeming themselves in the same scene. As a potential rewrite it requires more finetuning in the ccontext of a completely re-written film.
“P.S. He may have been named Eddie Brock, Jr., but he definitely has a kinship with Col. Steve Austin. After all, if not with a bionic eye, how else could Eddie have seen and recognized Peter, who was several hundred feet above him and in the shadows of the bell?”
If Raimiwould have taken the time to flesh out Venom’s character even a little, he could have shown that Venom knew things about Peter from the symbiote. One way they could have done this, while keeping Venom for next movie, could have been by having Peter get rid the black suit shortly before going to save MJ/Gwen, and then living the suit in the bell tower. Then, in the final scene, Eddie could have gone into the church, been taken over by the symbiote and said something that indicates that he knows Spiderman’s identity, leaving the rest of the story for the next movie. For the next movie they could have found a director with a more dark style.
It’s heartening to see so many of you are equally disturbed by the “Sandman is the real killer” issue.
I thought I was just being nitpicky – but it’s clear that this truly does negatively affect the main character.
I agree with the above poster about this script needing a few more revisions, but I don’t believe that ultimately it would have produced a different result in as far as the “Sandman/real killer” dillemma. This seems to have been Raimi’s aim of a forgiveness theme.
I’m just shocked that when they had used writers like Chabon in the past, that this time around, when all eyes are watching and the cynics are expecting failure, that you DIDN’T run this by more competent writers.
It’s not a plot issue – it’s a MAJOR cornerstone of the main character. It really just took the wind out of movies 1 and 2 in my opinion. Peter Parker is no longer as directly responsible for his uncle’s death.
I recall that when this was first mentioned and seen in early trailers that comic fandom as well as the main news sites brought up how this could undermine the main resolve and appeal of the character and his mission.
I think most of us believed it was clever misdirection to get you interested in the trailer. Now that it’s out and it’s not misdirection, where’s the bakclash?
I see more people on other sites complaining about story points and screen time, but I think the bigger picture is being glossed over – except for in this forum.
For those that say Sandman needed to be the real killer for Peter to give in to the black suit is not valid. He only needed to BELIEVE he was the real killer.
Others say that Sandman had to be the real killer in order for Peter to forgive him for something.
Nope. Sandman could’ve chosen Ben and pulled him out of the car but NOT pull the trigger. That disgraceful act must always come from the man Peter let go. It’s the only way to maximize the impact of the Power/Responsibility lesson.
I’m a Marvel guy through and through and a Spider-Man fan first and foremost and am really disappointed at this turn. Especially when everyone was saying how this is bigger than the previous two movies combined!
I thought Spidey would stay above the FX over story pitfall. Unfortunately that did not happen.
Give me a Spidey TV show – in high school – and blow Heroes and Lost out of the water. Give me the real Osbourne story – the Gwen Stacey story – etc . .. that would be cool. The movies have just “jumped the shark” if that’s the phrase. They trampled over the appeal that made them popular.
Rick Keating
Luigi Novi asked which park and which bridge MJ meant when she asked Peter to meet her. This, to me, is a minor point. If she says “the bridge” when there are bridges galore, it seems clear that she’s referring to a specific bridge with which she and Peter are familiar.
That’s an easy one. Peter and MJ are both big fans of the first “Highlander.”
There was no in-story reason for Spidey to remove his mask while trying to stop the runaway subway train.
The mask (or at least one of the eyepieces) got covered with ash or soot or something during the fight and he yanked it off rather than take time to wipe it clean (which someone apparently did before they handed it back to him). They at least tried to give a reason for it – he didn’t just yank it off.
Like most here, I’m in the “I liked it but…” category. It’s unfortunate that Raimi was forced into including a villian (yes, Venom) that neither he nor I have any interest in. And Raimi and Avi Arad have both said basically that in intereviews – it’s not just fan supposition. Tho in the interviews Arad “convinced” Raimi to do it.
I think everyone is glaring over something with the Sandman shooting Uncle Ben…it was never clear if the carjacker lived after Spidey pushed him out that window…so I think that not only changes his reason for being Spidey, but also makes him a killer…he has every reason to not ever be Spidey ever again….