3 Changes that could have Saved Spiderman 3

December 9, 2012 6:00 pm

I have never thought of Spiderman 3 as a bad movie. I think of it as a good film with terrible decisions made throughout its production. Often I find myself pondering how I would have avoided the criticism Sam Raimi suffered if I was the director of this film. Below are the three points of the film that I believe need to be changed. Feel free to disagree in the comments below. And this article will contain spoilers.


I get that Sam Raimi likes to name drop in his Spiderman films. In fact, its something I would usually encourage, as it gives the fans something to get excited over. However, Gwen Stacy’s addition in this film felt out of place. She was not needed as a character, other than a narrative device to show how Peter Parker was slipping into his symbiote’s personality. That could have been achieved in another way, one that doesn’t tarnish a character that could have been used more efficiently in a later film.

Also, there is enough storyline on Peter’s personal life anyway. The storyline of Peter getting so caught up in his Spiderman life that he is neglecting Mary Jane was good. It was played believably and Tobey Macguire made his character sympathetic, yet blindly ignorant. The addition of Gwen Stacy slowed down the film.

Also, we would have been spared Peter Parker’s horrific emo street dance.


OK, this one may cause a bit of a debate, as Venom was the main reason fans were getting so excited about Spiderman 3. Despite the Green Goblin and Doc Ock being Spidey’s main nemesises, Venom is the most memorable villain from the comics. Also, it is hard to include the symbiote storyline, without referencing Venom. However, if I was a director, I would have openly said that Venom would not be taking part in my film, eliminating all expectation of his appearance.

And here’s why: he is not needed. The film already has two villains who are good enough to handle the film themselves. Harry Osborne’s storyline could have been rounded up better for the main conflict of the film and the Sandman, although not the best bad guy from the comics, was reinvented by Raimi to become a decent opponent. His background story was touching and something I wanted more focus on. Simply put, Venom’s appearance stretches the film out into an unnecessary third act, which made the film too packed and took away from the existing storylines which need more exploration.


I wasn’t much of a fan of two part movies, until recently, when the Harry Potter and Twilight franchise proved that they could be done, if the writers were clever about it. I think Spiderman 3 could have split in a way that would lead onto Spiderman 4 in a good way.

Remember when I said about getting rid of Venom. I lied. Imagine the scene where Peter Parker is in the bell tower, distraught, having done something unforgivable in his new symbiote suit (probably killing Harry, looking at how my movie differs from Raimi’s). He smashes the bell, realising that the symbiote is weakened by noise. He pulls the suit off and throws it away, free from his dark side. However, the symbiote finds a new victim: Eddie Brock, spying on Parker from below, as is done in Raimi’s movie.

The symbiote takes over Brock. Slowly, he straightens up as the horrific Venom. The film fades to a close. To be continued… And the fans could have a proper Spiderman movie starring Venom as the fourth instalment. Don’t tell me that that prospect doesn’t sound enticing to you!

%d bloggers like this: