http://io9.com/5193338/sam-raimi-spider-man-3-wasnt-my-fault

"They really gave me a tremendous amount of control on the first two films, actually. But then there were different opinions on the third film and I didn't really have creative control, so to speak."

"The best way for me to move forward on films," Raimi continued, "is that I've got to be the singular voice that makes the creative choices on the film."

http://screenrant.com/sam-raimi-controls-spiderman-4-spiderman-3-rob-6336/

“I don’t even want to comment on Venom, because I know he’s a great character and all the fans love him. I never want to say anything bad about a much-beloved character because usually it turns out that I’m the one that doesn’t understand what makes it great.”

He only had Sandman and Harry in the script.

http://collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/4168/tcid/1

"But I had worked on the story with my brother Ivan, and primarily it was a story that featured the Sandman. It was really about Peter, Mary Jane, Harry, and that new character. But when we were done, Avi Arad, my partner and the former president of Marvel at the time, said to me, Sam, you're so, you're not paying attention to the fans enough. You need to think about them. You've made two movies now with your favorite villains, and now you're about to make another one with your favorite villains. The fans love Venom, he is the fan favorite."

I always thought it was public knowledge that the studio pushed hard for Venom.

Excuses.

Studios give mandates all the time to film makers. Marvel forced Whedon to use Black Widow instead of Wasp. (just an example)

Its the director's responsibility to make the best film possible.

Raimi, failed. Period. It was his fault.

@fallschirmjager: I always thought Spider-man 3 could've been better if they didn't kill Venom so early and kept the suit mysterious up to Spider-man 4. The other problem many people have with it was that they showed ridiculous scenes like Tobey dancing on the street when it could've been filtered out.

Here is your problem.

This

Really? I thought he had to take Wasp out, and then later had to argue hard to get Black Widow in.

I heard a theory that Black Widows role in Iron Man 2 was originally supposed to be Bethany Cabe, but was changed so they could to put Black Widow in The Avengers. I think there was another actress attached who got replaced when the character changed.

Whose decision was it to cast Topher Grace? Who wrote the crappy singing and dancing scenes. Explain retconning Uncle Ben's death. Explain the crappy excuse (and use) of a Gwen Stacy. There were tons of problems with this movie, not just Venom.

Also what was his excuse for Sandman who was just as horrible as Venom?

Then he should have dropped Sandman, and focused on Venom more. I love Sam Raimi as a director, don't get me wrong, he's done some great work. Spiderman 3 just wasn't one of them. It's OK though. Every director ever has had a miss before, Spielberg made Hook, Singer made Sadman Returns, Scorsese directed Shutter Island, Eastwood had Hereafter, and The Cohen Brothers directed the Lady Killers. All great directors with mediocre or bad movies.

Wait, it was Avi Arid who pushed for Venom? Ug. He's the guy pushing for the Venom movie as well. This could still end well but it just makes me nervous. I mean, did he want to rush Venom out there and think that his handling in SM3 would be good? Was it Arid's decision for Venom being the main villain and Raimis decision to keep Sandman and Harry? See, if Arid was for having it focus on Venom only and Raimi still wanted to keep the others then I understand. They met in the middle and it turned out horribly. If Arid thinks a screen appearance is all it takes, then I have little hope for this new Venom movie.

I just hope this Venom movie doesn't get the same treatment as the Amazing Spider-Man movies. I'm sure I'm one of the few but I just couldn't like them. Not even Andrew who everyone seems to love. Yes, he looks extremely close to how Peter is portrayed in the comics and I love that. I don't like his portrayal as Peter to be a cocky hipster with a Brooklynn accent. The cocky part is my biggest issue. He's cocky even before he gets super powers.

Key points they need in the Venom movie:

Eddie Brock should be portrayed as one who feels lost and alone. He grew up always trying to impress his father yet never succeeded. This shaped who he is today and he seeks recognition for the person he's become. He still is unwilling to hurt others for personal gain though (unlike Raimis Brock). He's always seen himself as a victim and is very adamant about protecting the innocent. It doesnt matter too much why he hates Spidey in the film as long as he has a justifiable reason from his perspective. As in, if we were in Brocks shoes we would assume Spidey had wronged us as well. The symbiote itself should be what drives Venom insane. His life spirals as his rage and anger take over everything and destroy the perfect man he tried to be. Eventually he realizes the monster he's become and decides to focus his attention on protecting the innocent instead of seeking vengeance or personal recognition. He then sets off to (presumably) San Fransisco where he becomes their lethal protector.

End

I'm not trying to form a story here but instead give an idea of the character himself. The 90's Venom comics gave engaging personality to him which was later disregarded as they pushed on making him solely a giant brute monster. If you've read Anti-Venom: New Ways to Live this is the Eddie Brock they set up before. This is the only version of Brock that will succeed on the big screen as he's the only version of Brock where he's more than a slobbering play-doh Hulk.

I'm eager to hear all of your thoughts on this.

(Edit: Also if Venom doesn't refer to himself as "we", I'm going to lose my sh#$)

What did you guys think of the actor who played Sandman at least? Was he a good Sandman or would you have preferred a different actor taking over the Sandman role too?

Its nice to know I'm not alone.

Whedon's original script had Wasp in it. Marvel Studios said, no take her out and use Black Widow instead.

It may not be as big of a change as not having a character vs having one, but its still a pretty big change given Wasp has powers and Widow doesn't.

And it was really just the only example I had off the top of my head. But studios do it all the time.

Studios are the one's paying the bill after all. If they want something done a certain way, you do it, period. Its still the director's job (literally what he is getting paid for) to make the best film possible.

WB wanted Nolan to put Catwoman in the script for the Dark Knight Rises too (I'm a Catwoman fan so it didn't bother me.) Nolan originally thought Catwoman was too campy but apparently his brother, Johan changed his mind thou about this decision.

@lyrafay: Ah yeah, good one.

And frankly Catwoman was one of the best things about that movie.

In any case, ultimately its still the director's fault. He's the captain of the ship so to speak, even if he doesn't own the boat.

And frankly Raimi trying to throw the studio under the bus is pretty weak if you ask me. And given that they ultimately didn't go with SM4 do to money issues which involved Raimi wanting too big of a budget and/or salary and Macguire wanting a bigger salary, it sounds like sour grapes if you ask me.

..Wow, there's so much angst and anxiety amongst comic book lovers, you lot are a funny bunch.....I never saw much wrong with Venom in SM3 and whilst that film didn't match the standard of the previous 2, it isn't that bad. I would love a Venom film and I love the Amazing Spiderman films. Its entertainment guys, about guys running around in spiderman costumes...we aren't talking about the Godfather trilogy here....relax...and breathe....

i liked sandman. and having venom in the movie throws the whole story out of wack. But it's still his fault. Harry didn't need to be hobgoblin, and sandman could have had a lesser role, or whatever you could do to make the movie work.

I don't think it was a good movie, but still lliked it better than ASM and ASM2

I don't think either ASM is great, but found both to be better than Spider-Man 3.

which is cool, like I said I didn't like 3 anyway and people have every right to hate it. ASM sucked, and you want to talk about ruining characters, green goblin, aunt may, harry, norman, electro, peter's parents. I honestly think ASM2 would have been complete crap if they didn't kill gwen, which was the only perfect scene in either movie.

that was due to venom. it was probably rushed and raimi didn't have time to develop the character.

@fallschirmjager:

Excuses.

What excuses? He admits the film didn't work and later on went as far as saying that it was awful and it was all on him.

Studios give mandates all the time to film makers. Marvel forced Whedon to use Black Widow instead of Wasp. (just an example)

Good point. Sucks that you didn't came out with on your own and just stole from John Campea. But even so, having Black Widow instead of Wasp would in no way compromise the story of the Avengers. Having an entire subplot dedicated to symbiot, Eddie Brock, and Venom does compromise a story. Which did happen with Whedon on the second Avengers movie, which was a cluster**** of a movie.

Its the director's responsibility to make the best film possible.

Okay. So if you're a Chief, and I as a customer want you to cook me a spaghetti with meatballs, but you don't have needed ingredients because your manager is a cheap schmuck who didn't bought needed ingredients and instead he tells you to use tofu instead of meat, who should be the one to take the blame for delivering an awful dinner?

Raimi, failed.

So did bunch of other directors, including Joss Whedon. At least Raimi is willig to accept it, unlike guys like Shane Black who instead call people who didn't like their movies to be stupid and such.