AHC: Make Spider-Man 3 good

With topher grace as Eddie Brock? I think not.
Make sandman the only villain, set up Hobgoblin for the next movie and remove the Black suit story line entirely and save it for later, maybe tease it.
Yeah, maybe. But definitely get rid of that weird, rushed Hobgoblin stuff. It wasn't necessary.
 

aspie3000

Banned
Cast a better bigger actor to portray Eddie Brock, make the only villain Venom, portray Venom faithfully, and somehow give Sam Raimi the same passion for this character that most Spiderman fans from the 90s have. Keep Venom alive at the end and set up for a sequel where Venom and Spiderman must team up to beat Carnage just like the comics. Don't know how to settle the Harry Osbourne plotline though
 
Spiderman 3 was a hot screaming mess of a movie, too crowded with villains, Venom was a disaster, emo-peter and the sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow pan as he jumped in slooooooooooow motion in front of the Stars and Stripes that had everyone in the cinema I was in groan at how god damn cheesy it was.

Strip out the Goblin, and either have Sandman OR Venom be the villains. Really to properly set up Venom you need 2 movies. So get Peter black suited up and he defeats Sandman at the end but the suit's making him dangerous and he has to get rid of it. And at the end we get a reveal of Venom after it merges with Brock who would have been in the movie throughout. And have Brocks actor be a 30 something bloke, a big one. Not a twink. Venom is not in any way, shape or form what you would call small.
 
You can't cut the Goblin out of the film without altering the previous two movies, because Harry as the Hobgoblin is the culmination of a plot thread that had been building across the previous two movies. The first ends with Harry believing Spidey murdered his father and swearing vengeance, and the second with Harry discovering a secret cache of Goblin equipment. To suddenly ignore this for the third would be a real surprise, and probably cause fan backlash.

I think a better Spider-Man 3 has to go the opposite route: fully commit to Hobgoblin, instead of treating it as a plot thread to resolve and toss aside. Hobgoblin should be the central villain, not Sandman. Sandman can still be there, but his role should be smaller and essentially to provoke more conflict between Peter and Harry. Venom should be cut: the symbiote can stay, but Eddie Brock shouldn't gain it. Leave that to a Spider-Man 4.
 
Spiderman 3 was a hot screaming mess of a movie, too crowded with villains, Venom was a disaster, emo-peter and the sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow pan as he jumped in slooooooooooow motion in front of the Stars and Stripes that had everyone in the cinema I was in groan at how god damn cheesy it was.

Strip out the Goblin, and either have Sandman OR Venom be the villains. Really to properly set up Venom you need 2 movies. So get Peter black suited up and he defeats Sandman at the end but the suit's making him dangerous and he has to get rid of it. And at the end we get a reveal of Venom after it merges with Brock who would have been in the movie throughout. And have Brocks actor be a 30 something bloke, a big one. Not a twink. Venom is not in any way, shape or form what you would call small.

That's the thing. Even without the suit, Eddie Brock is a big, bulky guy. In his first appearances in the Spider-Man comics pencilled by Todd McFarlane, he's shown pumping iron in his lair. Originally it was as a means of handling his depression after getting fired from his job as a journalist over the Sin-Eater fiasco, and then it was to make himself stronger after he bonded with the symbiote. As a result he, as Venom, is physically stronger than Spider-Man.

Really, if they were gonna have Venom, they should have set up the symbiote storyline back in Spiderman 2, along with the Sin-Eater storyline, and have a suicidal Eddie Brock encounter the symbiote at the end of 2.
 
The 3 villains idea was in the script from the start. This idea actually came from Bruce Campbell, as he told Raimi that he thought 3 villains would give the audience the best bang for their buck at the theater. Of course, even with 3 villains, Sandman would've been the main focus. And of course, Venom was Sony's idea and forced it on him, rather than Vulture, who he really wanted. That said, it still probably wouldn't have been much better in that case, and 3 villains was still too many.

I do feel that Sandman should've been the main focus, and New Goblin have more to do, especially not the idiotic amnesia plot. It doesn't help that in the film as is, Peter hardly tries to convince Harry of the truth of the matter or fight harder to bring him back to the side of good. The symbiote could still have been used in the movie, but without Venom, except as foreshadowing of him in a 4th film.

But then again, maybe it's for the best that the 3rd movie sucked. Without it sucking, Raimi wouldn't have been able to return to the idea of Drag Me To Hell, place Fede Alvarez' Evil Dead reimagining on the fast track, and create the Starz series. A successful 3 probably would've had Raimi stuck doing the series forever. And lest we forget, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and the others would only do sequels with Raimi directing, as they said they didn't believe in any other director to do it properly.
 
Top