What if Venom hadn't replaced Vulture?

[TLH]

Most casual moviegoers don't dissect summer blockbusters like a film critic, they go to be entertained (see: Transformers). While Vulture might have made for a better script and better overall movie, he lacks the mass market appeal and entertainment factor that Venom brings to the table. So, no, the domestic draw for Spider-Man wouldn't have been "massive," at least not any more so than it really was.

Massive meaning "over 100 million on the opening weekend", not exceeding the $150 million of Spider-Man 3. Domestically, if the film was improved and shorter, there's no reason that it wouldn't at least match how Spider-Man 3, even without Venom.

From what I know from asking around and what not, even the casual moviegoer didn't find Spider-Man 3 that entertaining. Many people just found it too long or too boring in places.

By adding the Vulture (1 storyline), you immediately subtract Gwen Stacey, the symbiote, dark Spider-Man/Peter Parker, Eddie Brock, Venom (5 storylines). The end result is most likely a more tightly-knit film that would have easily been better, shorter, and more accessible to the mainstream crowd for repeat viewings.

Of course, we'll never actually know.

 

[Blader5489]

From what I know from asking around and what not, even the casual moviegoer didn't find Spider-Man 3 that entertaining. Many people just found it too long or too boring in places.

Given the near $900 million box office gross, I think it's safe to say that more people liked the film than they disliked it.

 

[TLH]

Given the near $900 million box office gross, I think it's safe to say that more people liked the film than they disliked it.

Given the fact the movie made almost 50% of it's overall gross (domestically) in it's first three days, I'd say that a lot of people felt they didn't need to see it again.

 

[Jick]

Venom was holding the story back. They had to introduce the symbiote, Eddie Brock, Gwen Stacy, the black suit, the evil Peter Parker, the symbiote bounding with Eddie Brock, etc.

What room did it leave for Sandman? I was watching the movie yesterday. Sandman is the most interesting character in the piece and we hardly see him! All that because the plot is waaaayyyyy too fat. The fact is that the success of the Spider-Man movies (1 & 2) always came from the fact that the storyline was kept really simple. Peter's story and the vilain's story. No too heavy. No too dumb. Just the right amount. Nobody could have handled all these storylines well. They had nothing in commun. There were so many of them that at one point, they all felt so meaningless.

Vulture wouldn't have wear tights. Do you think the art departement would have been dumb enough to put Sir Ben Kingsley in tights.This is the Vulture from Spider-Man 3:

Much like Doc Ock.

man...like I said so many times, it's just the way it is written. also...they wasted too much time with Peter and MJ, forgetting about the others.

 

[Jick]

Given the near $900 million box office gross, I think it's safe to say that more people liked the film than they disliked it.

it's debatable. but I think it got so much because of the marketing.
the hype was just to d@mn big.
I remember that the box-office dropped 60% after the first weekend.

 

[Blader5489]

it's debatable. but I think it got so much because of the marketing.
the hype was just to d@mn big.
I remember that the box-office dropped 60% after the first weekend.

Of course it dropped 60% after that first weekend, there aren't enough people in the country to keep a film averaging ~$50 million per day.

 

[TLH]

Of course it dropped 60% after that first weekend, there aren't enough people in the country to keep a film averaging ~$50 million per day.

Spider-Man dropped 37% from it's first weekend.

Spider-Man 2 dropped 48%...but did not open on Friday; it had already tallied $64,000,000 on the Wednesday and Thursday before it's first weekend. It also had a 4 day opening weekend, so a drop of 48% is unbelievably low considering that 3 extra days worth of viewers (Wed/Thur/Mon) had already seen the movie.

Spider-Man 2 dropped 62% from its first weekend, and regardless of how much it made in that first weekend, if the film was as good or accessible (length-wise) as the first two, it wouldn't have dropped this much. No coincidences here. I was one of the many who felt cheated opening week and did not return for repeat viewings. I did watch the first and second 3-5 times each in theaters though.

 

[thejon93]

Well, frackly if you look at it Venom wasn't the real problem because he didn't have a large enough role to be one. Although he was a poorly developed villain, it wasn't the character's fault. Eddie Brock was simply a minor character until one point in the script where they decided to throw him in as Venom. I wish I could explain my theory a bit better but personally speaking I just think that we can belame no one because what happened was that they tried to make a great film; 'a la the last two, but genuinely failed thanks to giving into the hype and being driven by that one knowledge they just un-expectedly failed. Now back to the point. Frankly, we'll never know if it would've worked out well or not, whether the majority will like it or not. It was all in the hands of the screenwriters to decide.

 

[Jick]

Of course it dropped 60% after that first weekend, there aren't enough people in the country to keep a film averaging ~$50 million per day.

not true. I would post something like this to show you, but with other movies:

Spider-Man dropped 37% from it's first weekend.

Spider-Man 2 dropped 48%...but did not open on Friday; it had already tallied $64,000,000 on the Wednesday and Thursday before it's first weekend. It also had a 4 day opening weekend, so a drop of 48% is unbelievably low considering that 3 extra days worth of viewers (Wed/Thur/Mon) had already seen the movie.

Spider-Man 3 dropped 62% from its first weekend, and regardless of how much it made in that first weekend, if the film was as good or accessible (length-wise) as the first two, it wouldn't have dropped this much. No coincidences here. I was one of the many who felt cheated opening week and did not return for repeat viewings. I did watch the first and second 3-5 times each in theaters though.

Thinner6 is right.
also, SM3 had many bad critics. and wasn't nearly as good as the first two.

 

[UltimateJustin]

It doesnt matter how big of an appeal Vulture has, people would have been just as excited to see Sandman (which the advertising would have focused more on) and aerial battles featuring Spidey vs two enemies in-flight as they were to see a man with eight tentacles, four of them hands and legs.

 

[GoldGoblin]

-They could of had Vulture and Sandman in SM3,with Hobgoblin only fighting in the beginning of the movie,like what New Goblin did.Leave Gwen completely out of these movies,leave Brock out of SM3,save him for SM4,then you would have alot of screen time for Vulture and Sandman.

-SM4 would then introduce Eddie Brock,would give us the black Spider-Man,and have black Spider-Man take on the Lizard and Kraven.During this movie Harry starts messing with Peter by threatening MJ.After black Spider-Man has defeated the Lizard and Kraven,the black Spider-Man goes and pays Harry a visit.

-By the time the black Spider-Man gets there,Harry is now completely healed for the fight.After black Spider-Man throws the pumpkin bomb at Harry,Peter realizes what the symbiote is doing to him,and he goes to the church to take it off.
It attaches to Brock,where we see a glimpse of Venom before the credits go by.

-SM5 would be spidey vs Venom.Show Harry is actually alive in the movie,and Peter is trying to make an amends with Harry,but Harry won't have it.He tells Peter that when he heals that they will finish it once and for all.

-Then at the last battle in the movie,Hobgoblin shows up,and we think spidey is gonna go up against two villains again.But the Hobgoblin teams up with spidey and together they take out Venom.

-Then SM6 could be anything.

 

[Jick]

or they could have done Black Spidey within the first 15 min. and not after 1 hour and 2 min of movie. take off Sandman.
that way there would've been more time for Peter to do the bad things, see that he's changed, rip-off the suit and learn the lesson. have Venom in the last 30 min of movie to torment Peter and face him.
10 times better this way. but it seems to much for them to think.

 

[DACrowe]

It would have likely been a better movie. Oh well. What's done is done.

 

[GoldGoblin]

The crane scene in SM3 should of been a result of Vulture causing it on so he could make his escape,and instead of Gwen falling out,you just have some ordinary person falling out of it.

 

[webhead731]

Venom was holding the story back. They had to introduce the symbiote, Eddie Brock, Gwen Stacy, the black suit, the evil Peter Parker, the symbiote bounding with Eddie Brock, etc.

What room did it leave for Sandman? I was watching the movie yesterday. Sandman is the most interesting character in the piece and we hardly see him! All that because the plot is waaaayyyyy too fat. The fact is that the success of the Spider-Man movies (1 & 2) always came from the fact that the storyline was kept really simple. Peter's story and the vilain's story. No too heavy. No too dumb. Just the right amount. Nobody could have handled all these storylines well. They had nothing in commun. There were so many of them that at one point, they all felt so meaningless.

Vulture wouldn't have wear tights. Do you think the art departement would have been dumb enough to put Sir Ben Kingsley in tights.This is the Vulture from Spider-Man 3:

Much like Doc Ock.

Every time I see/read this picture, it sounds/looks like something out of like Batman Forever.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Every time I see/read this picture, it sounds/looks like something out of like Batman Forever.

But SM3 is Batman Forever.

 

[boog_spin]

Vulture is not thrilling or exciting.
not a good villain for movies, at all.
the problem of SM3 wasn't Venom. it was the way things were handle. it's the way it was writen and led by the director.

i agree...to show the dark side of spidey wasn't fully realized....why not show spidey kicking the asses of simple street thugs? instead of simply "webbing them up", have him beat them up. SHow him lose control and go beyond what is necessary.

the only scene that actually connected with me while he was under the influence of the symbiote was whn he knocked mary jane down. actually when he destroyed brocks camera too...and fighting harry haha...great scene...

but the whole "sat night fever" was a joke. just bad. laughable. i understand what he was "trying" to do...i just think he failed....making your hair black and covering n eye makes you a ***** (emo), not an assh***

my 2 cents

 

[Jick]

that's how I feel. I don't think he really learned the lesson. it was pushed.

 

[Frodo]

i agree...to show the dark side of spidey wasn't fully realized....why not show spidey kicking the asses of simple street thugs? instead of simply "webbing them up", have him beat them up. SHow him lose control and go beyond what is necessary.

the only scene that actually connected with me while he was under the influence of the symbiote was whn he knocked mary jane down. actually when he destroyed brocks camera too...and fighting harry haha...great scene...

but the whole "sat night fever" was a joke. just bad. laughable. i understand what he was "trying" to do...i just think he failed....making your hair black and covering n eye makes you a ***** (emo), not an assh***

my 2 cents

I agree. I think that's why there needs to be a Bladerunner style final cut for Spiderman 3. Clearly several key points with Sandman , Eddie Brock, and I have a feeling the black suit, were taken out of the picture. Most likely due to running time .

Take out the excess camp and put back in the Sandman, Eddie Brock, Gwen and possible black suit scenes and I think viewers will find a more coherent film then what we got. It would still be long and have faults imo ,but I think the film would be viewed a bit better.

 

[Blader5489]

or they could have done Black Spidey within the first 15 min. and not after 1 hour and 2 min of movie. take off Sandman.
that way there would've been more time for Peter to do the bad things, see that he's changed, rip-off the suit and learn the lesson. have Venom in the last 30 min of movie to torment Peter and face him.
10 times better this way. but it seems to much for them to think.

LOL!

Thank God you guys aren't in charge of these movies.

 

[Juggernaut33]

I agree. I think that's why there needs to be a Bladerunner style final cut for Spiderman 3. Clearly several key points with Sandman , Eddie Brock, and I have a feeling the black suit, were taken out of the picture. Most likely due to running time .

Take out the excess camp and put back in the Sandman, Eddie Brock, Gwen and possible black suit scenes and I think viewers will find a more coherent film then what we got. It would still be long and have faults imo ,but I think the film would be viewed a bit better.

How dare you compare Blade Runner to Spider-Man 3?

Blade Runner was a misunderstood movie way before its time.

Spider-Man 3 is just another blockbuster movie. It failed from the get-go. From the script, really. There's no way you can improve it.

 

[bullets]

I would of liked.


eddie brocks gets the suit at the end ala spiderman 2 similar to harry finding the lair.


vulture is captured at the end and plots his revenge in prison , hopefully setting up the sinister six for part 5 .


sandman not turning good at the end.

 

[Frodo]

How dare you compare Blade Runner to Spider-Man 3?

Blade Runner was a misunderstood movie way before its time.

Spider-Man 3 is just another blockbuster movie. It failed from the get-go. From the script, really. There's no way you can improve it.

Well ....I was using Bladerunner the final cut as an example of a director showing his original vision, not [/I]that Spiderman 3 was as good as BR .

In fact I said in the quote that the film would still have faults but might be a viewed a bit better. Not viewed with the same greatness as Bladerunner, but that Spiderman 3 may make more logical sense to people then the original Spiderman 3 release.

I'm not saying everyone including myself is gonna take back their negative reviews of the film ,but I think maybe a director's cut version with the deleted scenes included ,and minus the campyness, would make the film flow better.

And nobody knows if the scenes added would improve it or not unless they've seen the added scenes as part of the film.

Btw ...I agree with Ridley Scott that his final cut is much better then the 1982 cut with V.O and the happy ending.

 

[DACrowe]

How is the final cut different from the director's cut btw?

 

[Venom 1988]

I would of liked.


eddie brocks gets the suit at the end ala spiderman 2 similar to harry finding the lair.

Neither Eddie Brock nor the symbiote would have been in the movie.

vulture is captured at the end and plots his revenge in prison , hopefully setting up the sinister six for part 5 .

Not possible, cuz Vulture would have died.

sandman not turning good at the end.

Sandman would have still turned good.