Originally posted by: Mojo_LA
I agree that Peter wanting revenge on the Sandman is a good part of the story, but it's just not enough to justify that entire other subplot... Sandman's origin, his crime spree and daughter subplot are ridiculous and do not fit in the film at all - it just adds length and takes you away from the main story. Even with more Sandman footage on a DVD release, it's still going to drag the movie down as being too long and too scattered. As much as the 5 minutes of the revenge story does work, it's not enough to justify his entire subplot and, of course, the idiodic notion that someone ELSE killed Peter's uncle.
I agree that Peter wanting revenge on the Sandman is a good part of the story, but it's just not enough to justify that entire other subplot... Sandman's origin, his crime spree and daughter subplot are ridiculous and do not fit in the film at all - it just adds length and takes you away from the main story. Even with more Sandman footage on a DVD release, it's still going to drag the movie down as being too long and too scattered. As much as the 5 minutes of the revenge story does work, it's not enough to justify his entire subplot and, of course, the idiodic notion that someone ELSE killed Peter's uncle.
It's kind of like the decision to identify the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents. Is it better that it is an anonymous thug? Or Joe Chill? Or Jack Napier? Or that it was ultimately caused by al-Ghul's attempt to destroy Gotham?