Spider-Man 3 - UK-Exclusive DVD on Page 37

[raphael_is_cool]

Originally Posted by KROW

And so would Venom be if he were in the third film.

Not if he were Cpt. Jameson.

[Peanut]

I think you can stop trying to sell the 'John Jameson as Venom' idea now.

[KROW]

Originally Posted by raphael_is_cool

Not if he were Cpt. Jameson.

So forget Eddie Brock and just throw in a replacement to get Venom into the movie by any means necessary? Why?

[Voltron]

Because I'm a fan of Venom, KROW, and I relish the opportunity to converse with other Spider-Man fans about what villains should and should not be in the third movie. What have I done wrong here other than state my opinions and hold a perfectly legitimate debate? Now will you get off my back or what?

[Barkworm]

I encourage everyone to spread the love like Matt did.

[raphael_is_cool]

Originally Posted by KROW

So forget Eddie Brock and just throw in a replacement to get Venom into the movie by any means necessary? Why?

Because he's already established as a character and could have motives to hate Peter Parker. Cuts all the 'story development' crap people keep going on about when they were happy to sit through around 45 minutes of 'Peter Parker has problems with his job, he and his Aunt are having financial troubles, he loses his job, his education is suffering'. When at the end of it all it was boring as hell and barely any of it is even resolved anyway, you just see he beats the bad guy and gets MJ (although you could argue MJ brings money in and he gets his life back on track but the film shows no such pay-off)

Originally Posted by Peanut

I think you can stop trying to sell the 'John Jameson as Venom' idea now.

I'm actually surprised someone noticed

[KROW]

Originally Posted by Voltron

Because I'm a fan of Venom, KROW, and I relish the opportunity to converse with other Spider-Man fans about what villains should and should not be in the third movie. What have I done wrong here other than state my opinions and hold a perfectly legitimate debate? Now will you get off my back or what?

For the luvva Peter Parker...

Did I say you were wrong? Did I say your opinion was crap? No, I didn't. I said it was realized and well thought out. I know you're a big Venom fan. I am, too. However, I think it's best to stop arguing about it and instead actually discuss it. That's what I'm saying, and it wasn't directed solely at you. I understand that you want to debate the issue. Others seem like they don't.

So, with that, let's discuss the issue, shall we?

I feel that to have Venom in a Spider-Man film, it needs to target on Venom instead of another villain on the side. Venom, to me, is too important a character to be sidelined by another villain. This is another reason why Venom wouldn't work right in the third movie. Venom's pertinence in the third film is overshadowed by the Green Goblin's. To have both those characters in the same film would not do Venom any justice at all. It's too much story and it would bog down the whole movie experience.

Picture this. Let's say that Venom was in the film. We'll need an origin, a motive, and a big fight scene (maybe two) to resolve the conflict with Spider-Man. Now, to do Venom right, you'd need Eddie Brock, The Daily Bugle, a hoax of some kind to make Brock hate Spider-Man, the symbiote's introduction, as well as it's own reasoning for eventually bonding with Brock, and the fight scenes. Gather that with Peter's life with MJ, his aunt, his job, his schoolwork, etc., and you've got a film, right?

Wrong.

Most people would sit there and think, "Where's Harry? What about the Green Goblin? Are they saving that for a fourth film? I thought they were only making three. What happened?"

Venom + Spider-Man 3 = bad decision

The Green Goblin has been etched in the proverbial stone as Spider-Man's main arch-nemesis. Venom is way too important to be taken lightly just so a few fans can see him on the big screen.

As for the "Only three movies" debate, this was told to be the last Spider-Man movie for Raimi and the original cast, not altogether.

Originally Posted by raphael_is_cool

Because he's already established as a character and could have motives to hate Peter Parker. Cuts all the 'story development' crap people keep going on about when they were happy to sit through around 45 minutes of 'Peter Parker has problems with his job, he and his Aunt are having financial troubles, he loses his job, his education is suffering'. When at the end of it all it was boring as hell and barely any of it is even resolved anyway, you just see he beats the bad guy and gets MJ (although you could argue MJ brings money in and he gets his life back on track but the film shows no such pay-off)

That's basically what Spider-Man is about right there. But Jameson hating Parker just for stealing MJ, when it was her decision to leave him, is ridiculous to have him bond with a homicidal symbiote and kill him.

[raphael_is_cool]

Originally Posted by KROW

[COLOR=Yellow]That's basically what Spider-Man is about right there. But Jameson hating Parker just for stealing MJ, when it was her decision to leave him, is ridiculous to have him bond with a homicidal symbiote and kill him.

You're missing obvious possibilities. Surely if he blamed MJ, Peter Parker is still involved...otherwise, the symbiote can be known for bringing out irrationality. You get a more complex character if the enemy wants to kill his quarry yet at the same time can't understand his motives (although that was done in the past two films but only exploited at the very end of each). He loved MJ and she betrayed that trust and left him at the altar for great embarrassment. He can also believe Parker is responsible.

I'm just saying I'd make a more inventive play-on the concepts. I like to write scripts and work with adaptations, personally. Not that I expect the film to use any of these. I just figured I share some ideas and open them up for discussion as I'm not greatly knowledgable on Spider-Man history. I don't expect everyone, or even anyone, to agree but perhaps just discuss it

[ZariusTwo]

I agree a great deal with what KROW has been saying, Sandman will not be this grand villain with an agenda against Peter, he will be a FLUNKIE for the real threat: Harry, this film will see him cofront more than a handful of demons which have been relevent to his life, his father haunting him, knowing Peter is Spider0Man, M.J's love, and the alleged slayer of his father, it will see him look at the deeds Spody performs and wrestle with a fairly unstable conflict.

I hope a great deal of "The Child Within" will be used in this movie, it would deeply explore Spidy's character as far as his parents are concerned and his abandoment issues, as well as Harry struggling with his father's expectations

Like it or not, this trilogy has had a story arc between three specific individals, and throwing Venom in there, someone universally more powerful than Harry, and with his own personal storyline, would unfairly unbalance the scales and just prove a distraction for the personal conflicts between Harry and Peter, and for what? So audiences can get off on a special effect?

[Brodie]

Originally Posted by cqb101

Man-Wolf would be a better choice than Venom if that's what you're looking for.

Hey whens Tarantino's Band Of Brothers rip-off coming out?



Joking...

[cowabunga14]

Sandman is a great idea for a villain and his origin won't take up almost half the movie. Norman Osborn's Oscorp drug that made him Green Goblin was a very short orgin for the first movie. Sandman's shouldn't be really long. Would you rather have Kingpin or Big Wheel as the Main villain for Spider-Man 3? I think not. Sandman's a good choice for the main villain and its not really hard for his origin to be made short.

[Brodie]

Wow, I agree totally.

I changed my mind, SANDMAN ALL THE WAY!

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by KROW

For the luvva Peter Parker...

Did I say you were wrong? Did I say your opinion was crap? No, I didn't. I said it was realized and well thought out. I know you're a big Venom fan. I am, too. However, I think it's best to stop arguing about it and instead actually discuss it. That's what I'm saying, and it wasn't directed solely at you. I understand that you want to debate the issue. Others seem like they don't.

So, with that, let's discuss the issue, shall we?

I feel that to have Venom in a Spider-Man film, it needs to target on Venom instead of another villain on the side. Venom, to me, is too important a character to be sidelined by another villain. This is another reason why Venom wouldn't work right in the third movie. Venom's pertinence in the third film is overshadowed by the Green Goblin's. To have both those characters in the same film would not do Venom any justice at all. It's too much story and it would bog down the whole movie experience.

Picture this. Let's say that Venom was in the film. We'll need an origin, a motive, and a big fight scene (maybe two) to resolve the conflict with Spider-Man. Now, to do Venom right, you'd need Eddie Brock, The Daily Bugle, a hoax of some kind to make Brock hate Spider-Man, the symbiote's introduction, as well as it's own reasoning for eventually bonding with Brock, and the fight scenes. Gather that with Peter's life with MJ, his aunt, his job, his schoolwork, etc., and you've got a film, right?

Wrong.

Most people would sit there and think, "Where's Harry? What about the Green Goblin? Are they saving that for a fourth film? I thought they were only making three. What happened?"

Venom + Spider-Man 3 = bad decision

The Green Goblin has been etched in the proverbial stone as Spider-Man's main arch-nemesis. Venom is way too important to be taken lightly just so a few fans can see him on the big screen.

As for the "Only three movies" debate, this was told to be the last Spider-Man movie for Raimi and the original cast, not altogether.


That's basically what Spider-Man is about right there. But Jameson hating Parker just for stealing MJ, when it was her decision to leave him, is ridiculous to have him bond with a homicidal symbiote and kill him.

KROW, if you are unhappy with the way I conduct myself then PM me and do not spam up this thread. If you are unhappy with the way the discussion is going then leave. No one else has a problem but you.

Back on topic.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Voltron

KROW, if you are unhappy with the way I conduct myself then PM me and do not spam up this thread.

He was'nt spamming the thread up at all, his comments towards you were also directed at the other Venom supporters in here arguing for thier preference rather than discuss whenever or not it was appropriate at this point, the rest of the post gave valid points regarding why Venom should'nt be included.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Voltron

Back on topic.

Am I talking to myself here? This is the third time I've asked you people to lay off. Now back on topic or I lock the thread.

[愛]

You guys got one chance to get back on topic or this is getting locked.



Switch to this shampoo and everything will be fine.

[Duke]

I totally agree w/ Krow. I'm a huge fan of Venom but he just wouldn't work in this movie and he shouldn't be included just to please some "fans." I put "fans" in quotes because I consider myself one but would actually be pretty upset if venom was in this film.

Also I'm not sure Sandman would have been my first choice but he definitely wouldn't have been my last. But since I'm sure Harry as the green goblin will be the major focus of the film, I have no problem w/ Raimi's choice.

Also if Capt. Jamenson was Venom I don't think i'd watch the film. I can't stand comic book movies that rape and butcher characters origins. Messing with Doom's origin is why I'm not so excited about the Fantastic Four movie.

[KROW]

Originally Posted by raphael_is_cool

You're missing obvious possibilities. Surely if he blamed MJ, Peter Parker is still involved...otherwise, the symbiote can be known for bringing out irrationality. You get a more complex character if the enemy wants to kill his quarry yet at the same time can't understand his motives (although that was done in the past two films but only exploited at the very end of each). He loved MJ and she betrayed that trust and left him at the altar for great embarrassment. He can also believe Parker is responsible.

I'm just saying I'd make a more inventive play-on the concepts. I like to write scripts and work with adaptations, personally. Not that I expect the film to use any of these. I just figured I share some ideas and open them up for discussion as I'm not greatly knowledgable on Spider-Man history. I don't expect everyone, or even anyone, to agree but perhaps just discuss it

I understand where you're coming from. But this approach is reminiscent of what Burton did to the Batman franchise. He did some zigzags and turned some screws in the films.

My disagreement is that I don't think being jilted at the altar is a good reason to bring an uber-violent character such as Venom into a film. It's an interesting concept but lacks a good motive. Eddie Brock had so much more reason to hate Parker and Spider-Man than Jameson could.

But hey, if you want some Jameson revenge, you'll see what Jonah does to Peter in the third flick.

[Jester]

Even though it's highly unlikely we'll see Venom in Spidey 3, I'll repeat that a character named "Eddie" was mentioned in the first movie....it'd be kinda weird if that one line character attacked parker...it'd be like...."We'll destroy you parker" *pulls back symbiote mask*
Who are you??
Eddie Brock, Bugle photograhper...you stole my job!!
Who??

[raphael_is_cool]

Originally Posted by KROW

I understand where you're coming from. But this approach is reminiscent of what Burton did to the Batman franchise. He did some zigzags and turned some screws in the films.

My disagreement is that I don't think being jilted at the altar is a good reason to bring an uber-violent character such as Venom into a film. It's an interesting concept but lacks a good motive. Eddie Brock had so much more reason to hate Parker and Spider-Man than Jameson could.

But hey, if you want some Jameson revenge, you'll see what Jonah does to Peter in the third flick.

I appreciate the discussion.

But I believe the motive is good enough, considering the last film had an evil computer chip that turned Doctor Octavius. I also explained why if the motive is not substantial enough that is what would perhaps cause an internal character conflict between the symbiote's homicidal tendencies and the bearer's rational thought.

I also don't believe losing a job is any better a motive than what I listed. Consider part of why Bill wants the Black Mamba dead in Kill Bill, perhaps. Although the engagement idea would perhaps need more development or to have been given a greater impact, (which is no longer possible).

But I understand why fans wouldn't want the origins fiddled that much and I know the film might work better with Harry as the Green Goblin at this point in time.