The "Raimi" Spiderman Franchise

[johnnygobbs]

Did the fanboys ruin the franchise?

After two excellent movies, I can't help feeling that Sam Raimi executed a 'Schumacher' on the Spiderman series with the third film.  I was really hyped up for Spiderman Parts 2 and 3 after their respective predecessors, but after Spiderman 3 I can't say I feel too excited about the prospect of a fourth film anymore.  In fact I'm almost hoping for a reboot, which is a pity considering the evident care and skill Raimi invested in the first two Spiderman films.

It's not that Spiderman 3 is a particularly bad film, it's just that it seems to undo the admirable work that went into the first two films in creating a polished, compelling and comprehensible ongoing story-line.  And IMHO these failings can be levelled at one clear factor:  the introduction of Venom.

As I understand it, Raimi's original intention was to have Sandman team up with The Vulture, another golden era villain, as a pair of escaped convicts, with the latter assuming the more assertive, unrepentent role of the duo.  This would have worked brilliantly, since The Vulture's backstory is relatively straightforward, and not as overly-complex as Venom's.  However, at the insistence of Avi Arad (and dare I say, the collective calls of many of the fanboys on the net screaming out for an early introduction for Venom), Raimi was cajoled into shoehorning Venom and the symbiote's backstory into a film that already had to deal with the climax of the Harry Osbourne arc, as well as the revelation that Sandman was in fact Uncle Ben's killer (a storyline that although not canon, I have little issue with).  If I were Raimi, I would have just told Arad where to go by stating that I'd already made two excellent and profitable Spiderman films without paying too much attention to the fanboys' requests, and that I should just be allowed to carry on with the franchise as I saw fit.

As it happens, I don't dislike Venom.  Quite the contrary in fact, which makes it a shame that the introduction of the character was so badly rushed.  It makes NO sense at all, even within the over-the-top logic of a comic-book film, for the symbiote to just happen to land in the same spot as Peter Parker.  As far as I recall, in the comics the symbiote entered the story having attached itself to John Jameson's spacecraft.  Since it had already been established that there was some connection to Parker and Jameson JR., surely it would have made for a far more credible and dramatically satisfying story if over a couple of films we got to see the emergence of Wolf-Man (AKA Jameson JR.), a gradual build-up of the Eddie Brock character, and finally the introduction of the symbiote (which Jameson would have unknowingly brought to Earth).

What rankles even more is that after a rather truncated presence in Spiderman 3, Venom (who surely had the potential to be an ongoing nemesis, certainly far more than the essentially decent Sandman) was unceremoniously killed off.  Irrespective of my misgivings regarding his introduction, it would surely have been easy for Eddie Brock to say, fall into a coma following the impact of the pumpkin bomb's detonation, instead of having him die at the centre of the explosion.  Then the filmmakers could have added a little coda in which we find out that a part of the symbiote survived, thereby allowing for its later reemergence in a future film.  With Eddie in a coma within a prison hospital, you could have him revived by the symbiote, and even include a role for Claytus Cassidy (Carnage) as a fellow prisoner who witnesses Venom's rebirth, and later becomes possessed by another part of the symbiote himself.

Anyway, that's my take.  I apologise if none of you are interested in the Spiderman films.    Although IMHO, prior to Nolan's Batman series they were shaping up to be the best current comic-book franchise, and it's really a shame that the series ultimately suffered the curse of the threequal.  

[The Joker]

Nice post.

yeah, there's not much I can disagree with you on. Spider-Man 3 suffered for a number of reasons, but the inclusion on Venom certainly does stand out as one of those moments where it was painfully obvious that the franchise was 'jumping the shark' so to speak by including this character which really did not lend itself very well with the character of the Sandman (a favourite of both Rami and Maguire), or the storyline presented so far with the first film, and followed up with the second. Having Sandman and Vulture team up would have flowed much more evenly I believe, than what we ultimately got. Especially when you factor in Harry's arc as well. Just way too much being thrown at the audience, and in the end, the film suffered because of it.

Unfortunately, the idea of including Venom in 3 wasnt a surprise in the least bit. That's one character that's been heavily anticipated ever since the first film, and I still remember when Thomas Hayden Church was first announced, alot of fans were actually thinking he was playing Eddie Brock! This was around the same time that speculation of Topher Grace was playing Electro. Both assumptions were proven wrong, but many were very supportive of the casting, and needless to say, hoped for the best.

But as you say, it's easy to see the film suffered the curse of the threequal. 

[thecolorsblend]

I think the Spidey franchise is overall a bit of a disappointment.  I was never nuts about the first one (talk about overrated).  The second flick is good but it felt like it went a little heavy on how much Peter's life sucks.  Spidey 3 simply had too much going on.  It's two movies compressed into one.  I didn't like Sandman being an accessory to Ben's murder.  It tied Peter too closely in to one of his enemies.  And then Peter effin' let him go!!  The guy robbed banks, caused millions in property damage, beat up (and possibly killed) cops... and PETER LET HIM GO?!!?!?

I think Raimi said something about being a little burnt out on Spider-Man by the time he started making the third one.  I believe it.  He should've taken a break or made some other movie or something.

Anyway.  I'm cautiously optimistic about the fourth and fifth ones though.

[johnnygobbs]

I think the Spidey franchise is overall a bit of a disappointment.  I was never nuts about the first one (talk about overrated).  The second flick is good but it felt like it went a little heavy on how much Peter's life sucks.  Spidey 3 simply had too much going on.  It's two movies compressed into one.  I didn't like Sandman being an accessory to Ben's murder.  It tied Peter too closely in to one of his enemies.  And then Peter effin' let him go!!  The guy robbed banks, caused millions in property damage, beat up (and possibly killed) cops... and PETER LET HIM GO?!!?!?

I think Raimi said something about being a little burnt out on Spider-Man by the time he started making the third one.  I believe it.  He should've taken a break or made some other movie or something.

Anyway.  I'm cautiously optimistic about the fourth and fifth ones though.

I've got to disagree.  I think the first Spiderman is up there as one of the best origin comic-book movies along with Superman:The Movie.  It certainly wasn't overrated and I probably prefer it to the second film, which although highly enjoyable suffered slightly from the opposite problem to part 3 in that it dragged a relatively slight story across two hours.  Either way I definitely rate both Spiderman 1 and 2 although on the basis of part 3 I have some doubts about the future of the franchise.

Really part 3 should have dealt with The Lizard, since his alter ego, Dr Curt Connors had already been partially established in part 2.  If they do introduce The Lizard in a future film I think he would be perfectly complimented by Kraven the Hunter.  Ordinarily I have some reservations about multiple villains since team-ups can often seem rather contrived and in some cases non-sensical (see Poison Ivy and Mr Freeze - seriously how is a new Ice Age compatible with Ivy's vision of a plant-based utopia?).  However, in the case of The Lizard and Kraven you could easily incorporate both characters into a single story that dovetails perfectly by having Kraven enter New York as a hired hunter out to take down The Lizard.  Such a story would work perfectly from Spiderman's angle since he would naturally be conflicted as to whether to also take down The Lizard, or in fact protect his friend Dr Connors.  It would also helpfully cast Spiderman back into the role of a pariah, something that J Jonah Jameson would no doubt exploit.

In any case, I think there's a lot of potential for a future Spiderman film, but I do wish the filmmakers had held back on Venom for a few more movies, not least because most subsequent antagonists are going to seem like something of an anti-climax by comparison.

[Gotham Knight]

Loved one and two. Three was by no means a 'Shumacher ' in my book, but due to the over load of characters, the film ends up being disappointing.

[Azrael]

Loved one and two. Three was by no means a 'Shumacher ' in my book, but due to the over load of characters, the film ends up being disappointing.

Same

[Sandman]

I like the Spider-man series no its not the best but its still far from the worst. I agree 3 had to much going on and to many stupid scene (struting down the street, Jazz club, making omlets) which took away alot of time which should have been used more for the villain.

But say what you will about Rami he really knows how to cast villains Alfred Molina and Thomas Haden Church were perfect.

[thecolorsblend]

I agree 3 had to much going on and to many stupid scene (struting down the street, Jazz club, making omlets)

I rather liked that.  To paraphrase Tori Amos, Peter is not the prince of darkness, he's the squire of dimness.  What we saw was Peter giving in to his dark side... but as a goofy nerd who always sees hope for tomorrow, his dark side isn't going to be all that dark.

I think it plays.

[The Dark Knight]

I agree 3 had to much going on and to many stupid scene (struting down the street, Jazz club, making omlets)

I rather liked that.  To paraphrase Tori Amos, Peter is not the prince of darkness, he's the squire of dimness.  What we saw was Peter giving in to his dark side... but as a goofy nerd who always sees hope for tomorrow, his dark side isn't going to be all that dark.

I think it plays.

Agreed. I really don't get the hate directed at that scene. His bad side, when directly exposed to the symbiote, isn't really bad at all. Cocky, over-confident and a tad mean yes, but nothing too serious. He still has that goofy 'Peter Parker' vibe to him. It just shows how much of a good soul Peter Parker is at heart. He's a true hero.

[johnnygobbs]

I agree 3 had to much going on and to many stupid scene (struting down the street, Jazz club, making omlets)

I rather liked that.  To paraphrase Tori Amos, Peter is not the prince of darkness, he's the squire of dimness.  What we saw was Peter giving in to his dark side... but as a goofy nerd who always sees hope for tomorrow, his dark side isn't going to be all that dark.

I think it plays.

Agreed. I really don't get the hate directed at that scene. His bad side, when directly exposed to the symbiote, isn't really bad at all. Cocky, over-confident and a tad mean yes, but nothing too serious. He still has that goofy 'Peter Parker' vibe to him. It just shows how much of a good soul Peter Parker is at heart. He's a true hero.

I kind of like that scene too.  I even remember chortling a little as Peter sashayed down the street in a John Travolta-Saturday Night Fever style.  There's nothing wrong with a little goofy humour in these type of films now and again. 

My issues with film (and by no means do I think the film is that bad, it's just not as good as the first two) relate to the over-contrived plot, specifically Venom.  Even for a two hour plus film there was simply too much going on to fully develop all the characters.