Who Really Made Venom Suck In SPIDER-MAN 3?

Who Really Made Venom Suck In SPIDER-MAN 3?

Still think Avi is to blame. Come in and see why you're a bone head.

Editorial Opinion
By VIRILEMAN - Sep 10, 2014 06:09 PM EST
Filed Under: Spider-Man 3

People who give Raimi a free pass on Spider-Man 3 are either ignorant or stupid. Raimi wrote Spider-man 3. He wrote the entire script for Spider-Man 3. He did not write the scripts for Spider-Man 1 or 2, but he and his brother wrote the whole thing for Spider-Man 3. He also produced Spider-Man 3. Which means it was his decision on what to put into the script. Usually people writing a script for a film have to put whatever the producer tells them to put into it. Since Raimi was the producer and writer, he pretty much could put anything he wanted into the movie.

Raimi is to blame three fold for how bad the movie was since he wrote, produced AND directed the film. Emo Peter? That was all Raimi. Dancing emo Peter? That was all Raimi. Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer? Yup, still Raimi. Venom being miscast and written nothing like his comic book counter part? All Raimi.

The only thing Avi did was say "Hey, Spidey fans love Venom. He seems to be a favorite. Put him in the third movie ok." Raimi is the one that had him in the movie for 10 minutes and had him take his mask off every chance he could. Raimi is the one who wrote a script with an Eddie Brock that was NOTHING like the Eddie Brock from the comics. Directors are given scripts and have to do the best they can with what the script says. Raimi on the other hand got to write the entire thing himself! Even writers who write a script are told by the producers who needs to be in the movie. For example Batman Begins was produced by

Larry J. Franco .... producer (as Larry Franco)
Benjamin Melniker .... executive producer
Lorne Orleans .... producer (IMAX version)
Charles Roven .... producer
Emma Thomas .... producer


Those people told David Goyer and Nolan what had to be in the script. They told them who they wanted in the script and where the story should go. Then David Goyer and Christopher Nolan sat down and wrote a script around what the producers wanted. They didn't get to pick the villains. They have to do the best they can with Ras and Scarecrow. And they did an amazing job.

All Avi said was "do Venom, people love Venom." It was Raimi who then wrote Venom into an already terrible script. Raimi could have written a good Venom script. Who could have cast a better Eddie Brock. He could have directed Topher Grace better so that we didn't end up with one of the worst villain in a long time. All Avi did was tell him what is completely true. We fans love Venom. I still want Venom. And I hope whomever is in charge of villains in this new franchise is saying "we need Venom" because Raimi screwed it up last time.


Blaming Avi Arad for the crappy Venom we got in Spider-Man 3 is like blaming a manager of a pizza place that tells his cook to order plenty of pepperoni for the store because people love pepperoni. But instead of ordering the good pepperoni the cook orders the worst pepperoni possible, doesn't store it right so it goes bad, and then only puts like 2 pieces of pepperoni on the pizza when it's being made.

All Avi did was say "do venom. People love Venom" And we do. We love Venom. He is the biggest comic villain right next to the Joker. Raimi is the guy who gave us the horrible SM3 version. He cast him, wrote him, and directed him. He's a freaken awesome character, good for Avi for making Raimi use him. Shame on Raimi for making him suck.
 

SPIDER-MAN 3 Returns To Theaters For First Time Since 2007 And Picks Up A Surprising Victory
Related:

SPIDER-MAN 3 Returns To Theaters For First Time Since 2007 And Picks Up A Surprising Victory

SPIDER-MAN 3: Rarely-Seen Concept Art Reveals Just How Different Venom Almost Look In 2007 Movie
Recommended For You:

SPIDER-MAN 3: Rarely-Seen Concept Art Reveals Just How Different Venom Almost Look In 2007 Movie

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Dingbat
Dingbat - 9/10/2014, 6:27 PM
Venom just sucked cause he wasn't supposed to be there. If Sandman was the only villain with Harry in a supporting role, I think this movie would have been good. We were so damn close!

I thought he was well cast and the sand effects looked good

SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 9/10/2014, 6:51 PM
"He also produced Spider-Man 3. Which means it was his decision on what to put into the script. Usually people writing a script for a film have to put whatever the producer tells them to put into it. Since Raimi was the producer and writer, he pretty much could put anything he wanted into the movie."

That's not what producers do.
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 9/10/2014, 7:33 PM
@MexicanChinman and @GliderMan, I'll copy/paste a comment I left on the thread that apparently inspired this article:

Since it seems like people aren't quite sure what producers actually do, here's some definitions:

"The Executive Producer addresses the finances in that they pitch films to the studios, but upon acceptance they may focus on business matters, such as budgets and contracts."

"Line producer manages current staff and day-to-day operations. Finds staff to hire for the production. Most line producers are given the title of produced by."

"Traditional producers, who are responsible for physical facilities, are given the credit of produced by. ' In U.S. films, a producer can also be a writer who has not written enough of the screenplay to receive approval from the Writers Guild of America to be listed as a screenwriter."

"Supervising producer supervises the creative process of screenplay development, and often aids in script re-writes. They usually supervise less experienced story editors and staff writers on the writing team.
"
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 9/10/2014, 7:34 PM
Also copy/pasted:

Producers don't tell the director and writers what to do. Most of them just handle the finances for a film. So let's stop acting like just because Sam Raimi was a producer for Spider-Man 3, that he was the ONLY person responsible for the final product. That's just patently untrue.
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 9/10/2014, 8:06 PM
@MexicanChinman Haha yep, and I even left out a bunch of other producer sub-categories too! I think your brother is sort of right, in that some producers most likely hold their money over the director/writers as leverage. Something along the lines of "You better include Venom in Spider-Man 3, or I walk out and my funding goes with me!"

But more or less, they control the finances of a film and MAY have some input on some parts of the creative process, like Christopher Nolan and his very small role with Man of Steel.
TucksFrom2015
TucksFrom2015 - 9/10/2014, 11:29 PM
Marc Webb is definitely a cooler, more stylish director than Raimi -
greasy black hair? navy blue corduroy with the collar popped? mom jeans? really?!? that was just Sam projecting his geeky personality onto Parker. Marc Webb is a music video director - and a hipster, so he tends to bring the swagger out of his actors while offering none of his own. but I do think Spider-Man 3 wass a great Sam Raimi movie, the two fights between Peter and Harry are highlights of action bliss and trademark Raimi-isms.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 9/11/2014, 7:11 AM
I think Sony is responsible and so is Avi Arad.
Odin
Odin - 9/11/2014, 8:06 AM
Besides dance-scene, I think Spiderman 3 is okay. Venom could've been waaay better, but that incarnation is still much more better that Ultimate Venom or Agent Venom.
PAF
PAF - 9/11/2014, 9:09 AM
The delusion.
MileHighRonin
MileHighRonin - 9/11/2014, 11:33 AM
I do not blame Raimi or Arad, I blame fans. Be careful what you wish for. We wanted Venom, and we got a bad Venom. SM3 was good up until the Venom Flint team up. Should have stuck with Goblin and Flint team up. End it with symbiote parker defeating them, but realising the symbiote is driving him mad, he heads to the church gets rid of symbiote, brock and symbiote bond, film over. SM4 should of been all Venom, with part of the symbiote becoming Carnage.
HOTSHOT
HOTSHOT - 9/13/2014, 4:36 AM
ManCalledSting, really? NOBODY blames Sony for TASM2? NOBODY?! Wow. You must be new here.

Spider-Man 3 was mediocre and TASM2 was about the same. I don't care who's fault it was.
Origame
Origame - 6/4/2017, 4:16 AM
@HOTSHOT - Honestly, people claim ASM2 to be this horrid excuse of a movie, but at least in comparison to Spider-Man 3 it was at least competently made in terms of story structure. With Spider-Man 3 each villain is given so much time to shine that you can't even tell who's the main villain. With ASM2, it's clearly Harry who's the main villain, since all the main plot developments are either from him or Peter with Electro being the muscle and Rhino being the bookend villain.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 9/13/2014, 12:17 PM
He tried to do too much. You're overlooking the most egregious error: Sandman killed Uncle Ben! I have yet to read an iteration wherein one of Spidey's eventual villains has slain his uncle. This is so much worse than Burton's Joker killing the Waynes.

That's when he lost me. The rest was never going to be better than the biggest mistake. That goes with little mention of the lack of chemistry between Gwen and Peter as well as a one-shot character like Eddie attempting to become his biggest villain.

Origame
Origame - 6/4/2017, 4:20 AM
@ThunderKat - Uh, why is Sandman killing Uncle Ben a problem? I get that it's something that didn't happen in the comics, but why does it hurt anything? With the Joker killing the Waynes it turns the story from someone seeking justice to a more simplistic revenge story. With this change, there's still the concept of responsibility since Ben was only there because Peter was using his powers for personal gain. I just don't get how it hurts it at all.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 6/9/2017, 12:53 PM
@Origame - @Origame -
In Burton's "Batman," it (too, see below) lightens the weight of their deaths. Once, Bat-Keaton has his revenge, what's left? He spends his whole life becoming powerful enough to avenge his parents' murders. Once he's able to complete the task, yes, the focus, drive, and dramatic impact of the character are lessened.

The weight of Ben's death is lightened in two ways:
1. As in the comics, it's just some guy that Peter could have stopped with his pinky. Because he was having a moment of selfishness, he did nothing. It becomes his biggest regret and gives him his true purpose whether it's small time crooks or cosmic goons.

2. He forgives Sandman because of circumstance. I'm sorry. Ben wasn't trying to kill him. Therefore, there is nothing justifiable in his murdering Ben. There was zero need for the story to delve into the origin.

I understand you feel these guys would still feel the responsibility to use their powers/abilities to keep doing more of the same. However, Burton and Raimi are inherently changing the integrity of the characters' story.
Origame
Origame - 6/9/2017, 2:12 PM
@ThunderKat - Dude I agree on Burton but that still doesn't apply since the guy Peter could/should have stopped was still ultimately responsible as we see in the last flashback. That guy comes in, it startles Flint, and he kills Ben on accident. If Peter stopped the guy, then Flint would have just taken the opportunity to leave and probably take what Ben said to heart. So the part of Ben's death being his responsibility is still there.
View Recorder