Superhero Cinematic Civil War - Part 57

[TeeKay]

Nah. How the movie plays out is what makes it fun. The black suit/Venom is a part of that. It would have to be very different movie without those aspects. Also probably a lot less fun.

I dug the symbiote stuff. Never had a problem with it. There's just too much going in the film. One thing I'll say though, Raimi TRIED to do something interesting with Venom imo.

 

[kguillou]

I've said this since 2007--HARRY should've been Venom. Fanboys would've initially rioted but making Harry Venom would've been such a fitting conclusion to his arc in the three films. His disdain for Peter and Spider-man should've concluded in the symbiote leaching onto him after being with Peter. There was just no room in that crowded movie for Eddie Brock. I think you'd have had a much better film had they taken creative liberties and had Peter's best friend be his greatest foe.

 

[henzINNIT]

Blaming it all on Venom's inclusion is VERY disingenuous. Usually done to deflect blame off of Raimi. The problems go WAY beyond the handling of just Venom.

It's not just his inclusion. And it's not disingenuous. Show me another film where the director worked on the story and gathered a cast for it, only to find the studio has hired another writer to draft a script with a completely different story and wants it incorporated. It's a pretty big issue.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

I've said this since 2007--HARRY should've been Venom. Fanboys would've initially rioted but making Harry Venom would've been such a fitting conclusion to his arc in the three films. His disdain for Peter and Spider-man should've concluded in the symbiote leaching onto him after being with Peter. There was just no room in that crowded movie for Eddie Brock. I think you'd have had a much better film had they taken creative liberties and had Peter's best friend be his greatest foe.

You know what, that idea is crazy enough to have actually worked and in hindsight makes total sense.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

It's not just his inclusion. And it's not disingenuous. Show me another film where the director worked on the story and gathered a cast for it, only to find the studio has hired another writer to draft a script with a completely different story and wants it incorporated. It's a pretty big issue.

It IS disingenuous because the flaws of the film go WAY beyond Venom.

Raimi made alot of boneheaded creative decisions on that turd that has nothing to do with Venom.

Read the post I quoted that you conveniently ignored.

 

[Nardz937]

So did you or didn't you like it? Haven't made it quite clear yet

 

[Spidey_62]

I like SM3 but it always leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth, like it goes out on a bit of a whimper cause it all doesn't end as strong as it could have. I hope given that we'll be seeing some of em again in No Way Home it'll give some more satisfying closure to the characters and be a better movie to go out on.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[KBX]

They’ve made a deal, it’s been written in the cards for a while. What the details of it are is what I want to know

 

[Spider-Fan]

It IS disingenuous because the flaws of the film go WAY beyond Venom.

Raimi made alot of boneheaded creative decisions on that turd that has nothing to do with Venom.

Read the post I quoted that you conveniently ignored.

The film has more flaws than Venom, but many of those flaws exist because Venom needed to be included. Raimi is certainly at fault for some decisions, but Sony is responsible for plenty of awful choices with SM3. To ignore THEIR bad decisions is equally as disingenuous as you are accusing others of being

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The film has more flaws than Venom, but many of those flaws exist because Venom needed to be included. Raimi is certainly at fault for some decisions, but Sony is responsible for plenty of awful choices with SM3. To ignore THEIR bad decisions is equally as disingenuous as you are accusing others of being

It's definitely more nuanced then blaming any one thing. I do think it's interesting that Raimi of all people didn't want to do Venom though.

That said, Spider-Man 3 is probably the most watchable of his trilogy to me these days. It's wacky, outlandish fun. It's doesn't hold back and finally makes Toby watchable to me.

Watchability index on his trilogy:
1. 3
2. 1
3. 2

 

[Scarlet Spider]

The film has more flaws than Venom, but many of those flaws exist because Venom needed to be included. Raimi is certainly at fault for some decisions, but Sony is responsible for plenty of awful choices with SM3. To ignore THEIR bad decisions is equally as disingenuous as you are accusing others of being

Venom has nothing to do with the rest of the movie's flaws.

One of the worst parts of the film was the origin retcon and making Sandman, Uncle Ben's killer. Venom has nothing to do with that. That "brilliant" creative desicion originated from Raimi's original story treatment.

That's just one example.

Using Venom as the end all, be all, for Spider-Man 3's failure is a deflection blame.

 

[Ninjablade]

I enjoy parts of Spider-Man 3, but it's a pretty rough film. The studio vs Raimi is written all over it, and it feels like that movie doesn't even know what it wants to be.

Both parties are to blame for the mess that movie is though. I actually don't blame the studio for suggesting Venom be in the movie based on the general pitch Raimi had for the movie. The problem was the handling of going about that on both ends.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Venom has nothing to do with the rest of the movie's flaws.

One of the worst parts of the film was the origin retcon and making Sandman, Uncle Ben's killer. Venom has nothing to do with that. That "brilliant" creative desicion originated from Raimi's original story treatment.

That's just one example.

Using Venom as the end all, be all, for Spider-Man 3's failure is a deflection blame.

Not correct at all. Venom adds several components about the movie that are bad.

Here is 1 example:

Originally Vulture was 3rd villain. The crane sequence in that version is caused by Vulture clipping the crane and making it go haywire during a chase scene with Spider-Man. But Vulture is out, Venom is in. Crane sequence not cut, probably largely due to props and such already having been made. What happens now? It randomly breaks and Spider-Man has to hear random police radio so he can go to the disaster, and now this sequence is being used to introducd Brock in clunky fashion.. This scene now makes little sense thanks to changes made because of Venom. The change to Venom led to several bad decisions. Rinse repeat this for most of the movie

The mistake you are making is you are acting like the movie was the same film in every way except Venom scenes. That isn't how it works. Putting Venom in there fundamentally changes the movie. Now you need Evil Peter (enter Emo Parker), now you add Gwen Stacy to be a mirror MJ for Eddie's affections, and so ok and so forth.

So it is not scape goating at all. It is perfectly reasonable. That wasn't just some small change. It fundamentally changed many aspects of the film and actively made many scenes worse by having to retro fit his narrative in there.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Not correct at all. Venom adds several components about the movie that are bad.

Here is 1 example:

Originally Vulture was 3rd villain. The crane sequence in that version is caused by Vulture clipping the crane and making it go haywire during a chase scene with Spider-Man. But Vulture is out, Venom is in. Crane sequence not cut, probably largely due to props and such already having been made. What happens now? It randomly breaks and Spider-Man has to hear random police radio so he can go to the disaster, and now this sequence is being used to introducd Brock in clunky fashion.. This scene now makes little sense thanks to changes made because of Venom.

The mistake you are making is you are acting like the movie was the same film in every way except Venom scenes. That isn't how it works. Putting Venom in there fundamentally changes the movie. Now you need Evil Peter (enter Emo Parker), now you add Gwen Stacy to be a mirror MJ for Eddie's affections, and so ok and so forth.

So it is not scape goating at all. It is perfectly reasonable. That wasn't just some small change. It fundamentally changed many aspects of the film and actively made many scenes worse by having to retro fit his narrative in there.

A good screenwriter could have made all of that work. That's their job. If Raimi couldn't do it, he could have stepped down. Or least gotten a competent writer to make it all work.

Director's change due to creative differences all the time. Raimi is working on a sequel, where the original director dropped out due to creative differences.

Raimi himself has even taken full responsibility for it's failure. Unlike the fanbase, he owned up to it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

A good screenwriter could have made all of that work. That's their job. If Raimi couldn't do it, he could have stepped down. Or least gotten a competent writer to make it all work.

Director's change due to creative differences all the time. Raimi is working on a sequel, where the original director dropped out due to creative differences.

Raimi himself has even taken full responsibility for it's failure. Unlike the fanbase, he owned up to it.

Your assessment of screenwriting is once again incorrect. I am not saying Raimi made great choices, but screenwriters have to deliver the script the studio wants based on studio notes. Whether those ideas are good or bad, they have to do it. The writer gets credit even if they have to include bad ideas in their script. Also, I am not sure Sam wrote the final draft. That may have been Sargent who did, but Sam gets writing credit regardless if he did or not because he wrote earlier drafts that included enough ideas to warrant credit as dictated by the Writers Guild.

So your point here is not only overly simplistic, it is also not how this works. Thus also, wrong

 

[Scarlet Spider]

We'll Spider-Man 3 is still hot garbage. That much I do know.

I really hope No Way Home delivers. Hopefully, they'll succeed where Raimi utterly failed.

 

[kguillou]

Im frankly shocked they didnt make Raimi split it into two parts and milk it for more money. Creatively that would’ve helped the story too and given Eddie/Venom proper room to breathe.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

To elaborate on what Spider-Fan has said, Vulture is a simpler villain than Venom. He's a bad guy with wings who was meant to be the devil on Sandman's shoulder. Venom is far more elaborate requiring lengthy setup as Spider-Fan mentioned. Without that screentime wasted on Venom, there is more time better develop the Sandman and Harry plots.

This doesn't guarantee that the movie would be better without Venom, but it is certainly a possibility, and Raimi being more passionate about it would definitely be a plus. Point being, Raimi earned the chance to make the movie he wanted with SM3 after the first two, and seeing what Sony did with the franchise since, I'm inclined to put my faith in Raimi's vision over their's.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To elaborate on what Spider-Fan has said, Vulture is a simpler villain than Venom. He's a bad guy with wings who was meant to be the devil on Sandman's shoulder. Venom is far more elaborate requiring lengthy setup as Spider-Fan mentioned. Without that screentime wasted on Venom, there is more time better develop the Sandman and Harry plots.

This doesn't guarantee that the movie would be better without Venom, but it is certainly a possibility, and Raimi being more passionate about it would definitely be a plus. Point being, Raimi earned the chance to make the movie he wanted with SM3 after the first two, and seeing what Sony did with the franchise since, I'm inclined to put my faith in Raimi's vision over their's.

It's really not:

 

[Spider-Fan]

To elaborate on what Spider-Fan has said, Vulture is a simpler villain than Venom. He's a bad guy with wings who was meant to be the devil on Sandman's shoulder. Venom is far more elaborate requiring lengthy setup as Spider-Fan mentioned. Without that screentime wasted on Venom, there is more time better develop the Sandman and Harry plots.

This doesn't guarantee that the movie would be better without Venom, but it is certainly a possibility, and Raimi being more passionate about it would definitely be a plus. Point being, Raimi earned the chance to make the movie he wanted with SM3 after the first two, and seeing what Sony did with the franchise since, I'm inclined to put my faith in Raimi's vision over their's.

Quite frankly, I think Spider-Man 3 is only as coherent as it is because of Sam Raimi. In the hands of a less capable director, I feel it would have been way worse.

I like Spider-Man 3 overall. Not as much as SM1 or SM2, and it is VERY flawed, but there is plenty I like.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

All this talk about Venom, Sandman and how they were or could’ve been handled but I’m still hot about how underdeveloped Mary Jane Watson was.

I’m still waiting to see her in live action:

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Man, don't get me started on how attrocious MJ was in those films. Easily my biggest gripe with those movies.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Would love your take on Michelle Jones

 

[Nardz937]

The Flint Marko killing Ben retcon I've come around too. Because it's the burglar that got away that startles Marko and causes him to hit the trigger. The outcome was still dependent on whether Peter stopped Flint's accomplice or not. The guilt and partial blame still falls on Peter, so that's why it still works for me and I'm okay with it.