Originally posted by: ChainsawAsh
it reminded me too much of Superman III.

I've been thinking this all weekend and have been waiting to get in here to talk about it. Raimi often talked about how much he cribbed from Superman: The Movie when he made Spidey 1. They cribbed even more from Superman II for Spidey 2, right down to the central plotline of the superhero giving up his powers to be with the woman he loved. And they dipped into that well once again. Just as in Superman III, Spidey 3 shows the hero coming in contact with a substance that brings out his dark side. He becomes a complete asshole to everybody who loves him, and eventually has to do some type of battle with himself to rid himself of this dark half.

While I liked the movie, I think Sandman was completely unnecessary and should have been saved for another movie. He's a cool character, played VERY well by Church, and deserved more development. Likewise with Venom. If every minute of Sandman's screen time had been devoted to building up Eddie Brock and Venom's character, he wouldn't have felt so tacked-on. I also think Venom deserved a much darker voice. I always heard something like Gollum, only more gutteral, in my head. The fact he still had Topher's normal voice made it very difficult to accept the villain as a badass. Topher as Eddie Brock worked quite well for me, but the voice of Venom was sadly lacking. I half-expected to hear him say "ooooo, burn."

I suspect this movie will need its EE released sooner rather than later. I've seen the Spidey 2.1 and while it is an improvement in most ways, the theatrical cut is still excellent on its own merits. But as long as Spidey 3's runtime was, I think making it longer may actually help it to feel shorter. Venom and Sandman were too short-changed and I suspect the problem is not with what's present on the reel but what's on the cutting-room floor.