Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy Revisited: Why the First Two Films Still Soar and Spider-Man 3 Stumbles

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy concluded roughly 20 years ago, and I think the three films starring Tobey Maguire are some of the most influential comic book movies ever made. Looking back now, the first film is excellent overall and the second has aged well, while Spider-Man 3 is not a very good movie, though it is nowhere near as awful as it was once considered to be.

At the time I wrote this, the ninth live action Spider-Man movie was just around the corner, so I wanted to look back at the trilogy that started it all: how well these films have aged, how much they shaped the comic book genre, and most importantly, how good they actually are. To judge a trilogy that began almost 25 years ago, it helps to understand what went into getting it made.

Spider-Man Spent Two Decades Stuck in Development Before Sam Raimi

Spider-Man has always been one of the most popular comic book characters. He was created by Stan Lee and first appeared in 1962, but the earliest attempts at a live action Spider-Man movie date back to the '80s. After the success of 1978's Superman, there was interest in a superhero movie to rival it. Then Superman 3 arrived in 1983 as a critical and commercial failure, comic book movies became harder to sell to studios, and the Spider-Man project was put on hold.

The Cannon Group acquired the rights in 1985 for just $225,000 and began developing a film, with Leslie Stevens writing the screenplay and Joseph Zito set to direct. Allegedly, there was interest in casting Tom Cruise as Peter Parker. But Superman 4 and Masters of the Universe, both made by the Cannon Group and both released in 1987, were commercial and critical bombs, and the film was put on hold yet again.

In the 1990s, James Cameron of all people tried to direct a Spider-Man movie, and he has revealed that he considered Leonardo DiCaprio for Peter Parker. After the disaster that was Batman and Robin, that attempt stalled too. The '80s and '90s had a few successful comic book movies like Batman, but they were not ready for Spider-Man. That changed in 1998, after the release of Blade and with X-Men in production. Marvel sold the rights to Sony for $7 million, and a screenplay was developed from some of Cameron's ideas.

Michael Bay, Tim Burton, Chris Columbus, Roland Emmerich, David Fincher, Ang Lee and even M. Night Shyamalan were all considered to direct. Fincher was offered the job and turned it down. Columbus was offered it as well, but chose to direct Harry Potter instead. Eventually Sam Raimi was hired.

Tobey Maguire Was Raimi's First Choice, and 9/11 Reshaped the Marketing

Tobey Maguire was actually Raimi's first choice for Peter Parker after the director saw him in The Cider House Rules. The studio did not love the idea, but his audition won them over. Willem Dafoe was cast as Norman Osborn, James Franco as Harry Osborn and Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. Funnily enough, Stan Lee himself was interested in playing J. Jonah Jameson, but the role went to J. K. Simmons, who has since been praised for one of the best comic book castings in history.

Principal photography ran from January to June of 2001. Some of the best known behind the scenes lore involves how the 9/11 terrorist attacks affected the film. Posters and a teaser trailer that featured the Twin Towers were both removed and replaced, although the towers still made it into two shots of the final movie. Roughly a year later, on May 3rd, 2002, Spider-Man was released in theaters.

The First Spider-Man Has More Life and Character Than Almost Any Blockbuster

Before getting to the story, I want to talk about the life this movie has. I usually cringe when people say modern movies have no character or style, because I feel a lot of them still do; the newest Superman movie is a great example. But I cannot recall a series of films with as much life and character as the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies. They exude creativity around every corner, from the way they are shot to the little transitions between scenes, the music and the montage sequences. These are things I almost never see in blockbusters these days.

Most fans talk about the swinging scenes and how that is lacking now, and I totally agree. They give these movies so much energy, and I really feel this style takes them to the next level. These films are not meant to be the most serious in the world. They are campy, and sometimes you have to suspend your disbelief, but they go out of their way to make you buy into that campiness. The sequence of Peter sketching out his suit for the first time is one of my favourite examples. When was the last time a comic book movie was filmed with this much creativity? It just does not happen anymore.

New York Is a Character in Raimi's Spider-Man

Another criminally underrated part of these movies is their setting. What caught my eye is how much time is spent on the streets of New York, in scenes that were likely filmed there. They are often establishing shots, but they do so much to give the film life. Even Peter and MJ's neighbourhood is clearly a real place where real people live. I could not tell you what the house of any other Spider-Man looks like, but I can with this one.

The first Avengers movie mostly takes place in New York, but it never feels as close to being New York as these films do. Everything there feels like it is simply set there, while these Spider-Man movies feel like New York. The interiors stand out too. I love the contrast between how warm and welcoming the Parker house is and how cold the Osborn mansion feels. I do not know if that is simply because these movies are older or because Raimi made the extra effort, but either way New York really stands out.

Not Everything in Spider-Man Has Aged Well

If I have to be critical, not all of the first film has aged the best. Some of the CGI is a little dated, and some of the campiness just is not for me; the skeleton bomb during the parade is comical to me. A lot of the dialogue is not the best either, most notably from Harry. The opening credits also strike me as really dated.

Still, I can look past a lot of these flaws, because overall this first movie is excellent. What makes it truly excellent is the story.

Spider-Man Is a Story About Peter Parker Discovering His Identity

The first film feels divided into two halves. The first is almost entirely character development, most notably for Peter. The second, starting with the parade, is when Spider-Man and the Green Goblin clash and the main plot kicks in. The movie deserves a lot of credit for how excellently designed it is. It is not the most serious or complex film, but that does not mean it is not brilliant, or that the screenplay does not perfectly fit the story. "Its simplicity is not a weakness, it's a strength."

Spider-Man is so much about Peter Parker and his struggles, and a good Spider-Man movie needs to focus on that. The first half has close to no plot; only the scenes with Norman move it forward. I am fine with that because the writers spend so much time developing Peter. By the time he gets bitten about 10 minutes in, we already know so much about him. This is an origin story, so it should focus more on character than plot. "These movies are Peter Parker films. They're not Spider-Man films."

I would argue the film is about discovering identity. The first line we hear from Peter after the credits asks who he is, and he does not know yet. He is a kid, and he has it rough: no one respects him, he gets bullied, and the girl he loves does not even know who he is. Young people, especially in high school, often have no clue who they are, so they define themselves by how others see them. Everyone sees Peter as a loser, so he sees himself as one. MJ makes him feel invisible, so he feels invisible. He never stands up for himself before his powers; Harry has to do it for him, and it takes an entire scene for Peter to find the courage to talk to MJ.

After the spider bite, Peter loves the attention his powers bring. What nerdy boy would not want to beat up the bully? Someone with no identity thrives on the opinion of others. I love how the film balances showing off his powers, how he feels about them and how they highlight his biggest flaws; each scene where he discovers a new power says more about him than anything else, and that is good writing. He gets arrogant, boastful and impatient, disrespects Ben and ignores his words because he only cares about impressing MJ in the most superficial way. I love that the film treats his new powers as a metaphor for growing into adulthood. Peter has to figure out what kind of man he will be, just as any graduate has to, and for a kids movie, which Spider-Man is, I think that is an excellent message.

That is why he wants a new car and why he lets the robber go: he cares more about how things make him feel than what they say about him. That leads to Uncle Ben's death, the turning point for the character. Peter suffers the consequences of not being responsible with his powers. He gets his revenge, but it does not fulfil him; it is a short term fix for a long term problem, and he still has no identity. People may complain this Spider-Man is not as quippy as other versions. I do not care as much, because this trilogy has so much heart, especially in his scenes with MJ.

MJ and Harry Both Tie Into the Film's Theme of Identity

MJ is clearly a dated character. She is a damsel in distress about three times in each movie, and all she does is scream. While I do not think she is the most interesting love interest in a comic book movie, I have to give the writers credit: she is a well thought out, well layered character with passions, dreams and characteristics. She is dated, but she is a real person, and she struggles with her identity too. At first she is the popular girl who hangs out with the popular guys because that is what girls her age do.

One of the more touching scenes is the first time Peter and MJ really talk, after Peter overhears her abusive father and consoles her in the backyard. MJ feels lost and does not even know what makes her happy. What she learns is that she needs someone who sees the real her. Her family, Flash Thompson and Harry do not, but Peter does. MJ probably wants to be an actress because that is how she feels she can be seen. It is funny that Peter's takeaway from that scene is that he needs a nice car, when in reality listening to her and encouraging her dreams is how he wins her over. When she reveals she works as a waitress, he does not shame her; he encourages her. I have to applaud the writers for tying her story into the main theme.

The same goes for Harry, whose entire story revolves around daddy issues. He has been raised to earn his father's love by doing well in school or living up to his potential. In his first scene he is shamed for falling short, and when he graduates he gets the bare minimum of approval. The only time he gets meaningful approval is when he admits he was wrong and his father was right, which is so emotionally manipulative. Unlike Peter and MJ, Harry is not really struggling with his identity, because it revolves entirely around his father's approval. That is an incredibly unhealthy way to live, and when Norman dies, Harry's issues run so deep that they carry into the next two movies. His story shows how unhealthy it is to centre your identity on another person's approval.

Norman Osborn Works Because He Is Tragic Beneath the Goblin Mask

I would argue Norman is the second most important character. The Green Goblin is an over the top villain, for sure; no military grade armour would ever look like that. But his story works because of how tragic he is. External success and approval are the only things that matter to him. He wants to feel right and superior, and his identity depends on how others view him. He shames his son for not meeting superficial expectations and gives him approval only when Harry agrees with him.

The Goblin persona is built up anger at a world he sees as trying to tear him down. He does not feel rewarded for his hard work and sacrifice. Once he loses his company and its funding, he concludes, as he says, that people will always turn on you despite all you have done for them. The Goblin wants to destroy everything outside Norman's control. It does not matter that he is rich or successful; others need to see him as exceptional. So when he meets Spider-Man, he cannot understand that Spider-Man helps people because it is right. He thinks it is all for approval and sets out to convince Peter otherwise.

I do not really love this thread of Norman challenging Peter's beliefs, because Peter does not struggle with it much in the second half. He looks at a newspaper once, questions it once, and that is it. The end of the film is more about Peter affirming his new identity. Norman's ultimatum, save MJ or save the innocent people, is designed to make the public turn on Spider-Man. Peter saves both, which I really hate, because I hate false stakes, though that is not too important here. The New Yorkers stand up for Peter, proving the Goblin wrong.

"I Have a Father" Caps Peter's Arc Perfectly

Everything climaxes in a truly beautiful ending. Peter gets beaten up, which I love, because I love the physicality of these movies. Then Norman tries one last time to turn him. Believing everyone is driven by external validation, he gives Peter his approval, telling him he is like a son and that he is proud of him, speaking to Peter the way he speaks to Harry. At the start of the film, that would have worked. But Peter knows who he is now. "I have a father. His name was Ben Parker" is so important to his arc, because what Ben told him is who he wants to be: a good man who treats his great power responsibly. When you are comfortable with your identity, other people matter less, so Norman's manipulation fails and gets him killed.

The film does not end there. MJ wants to be with Peter, but he decides the responsible thing is to protect her, so he lets her go despite his feelings, and the film closes with Peter answering his own question: "Who am I? I'm Spider-Man." A great way to end.

Spider-Man scored 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, with a suspiciously low 67% audience score, and a 7.4 out of 10 on IMDb. It grossed $804 million, making it a massive success for Sony and the third highest grossing movie of the year behind Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and it outperformed Star Wars pretty easily. It resonated worldwide, but especially with New Yorkers; with September 11th still fresh, the unity of New Yorkers on screen hit hard for a lot of people. It also reinvigorated belief in the genre far more than Blade or X-Men ever did. It is fair to say that without it, the MCU and the comic book industry as we know it would not exist.

Spider-Man 2 Nearly Lost Tobey Maguire to a Back Injury

The sequel was greenlit right away, and Raimi instantly signed on to return. Honestly, not much interesting happened during production. Raimi knew from the start that Doc Ock would be the villain. Early drafts made him a much younger character who would compete with Peter for MJ's love, but that idea was scrapped relatively quickly.

More notably, Maguire re aggravated a pre existing back condition while filming Seabiscuit, and it was said that if he injured his back he could be paralysed. That led to Jake Gyllenhaal being cast to replace him, but Maguire recovered and reclaimed the role, and the episode became the source of Peter's back joke in the film. Principal photography began in April 2003, reshoots wrapped the following February, and Spider-Man 2 was released on June 30th, 2004.

Spider-Man 2 Looks Better, Fights Better and Is Genuinely Funny

Spider-Man 2 has even more style than the first. It switches from a 16:9 widescreen ratio to a more cinematic 21:9 ultrawide ratio, allowing more on screen, which is typically good when someone is swinging through New York. I would also argue the visual effects are much better. 22 years later, it still looks really good; it is a little dated, but you will only notice if you look for it.

The action is much better too. It seems Raimi had more freedom here, and for a Raimi film that is usually a good thing. Is there anything more iconic than the train sequence? The transition into Doc Ock's glasses is one of the most iconic transition shots in a comic book movie, and the fight that follows does so much visually and technically. I love the detail at the end where Peter needs a second to figure out what to do rather than solving it on the spot.

An underrated part of the film I do not hear discussed enough is the humour. It is genuinely funny, and not in an MCU kind of way, which makes it feel fresh. Little things stuck out to me, like the 15 seconds spent on Peter putting brooms back in the closet. J. Jonah Jameson is hilarious; when Peter hands him a photo, he says, "It stinks. Page one, please." The film tortures Peter at every turn, but some of it is simply comical, like Peter repeatedly missing out on an hors d'oeuvre at the banquet, or dropping his books while people keep walking into him. It is funny without being overbearing. And New York remains an important character, with Raimi again showing its people on the streets. I love it.

Spider-Man 2 Shows Being a Hero Is Hard

If the first film was about identity and responsibility, the second feels like it is about choice: what it means to do the right thing, and how that is not always easy. Like the first, what makes it so great to me is how focused it is on Peter, and the characterisation of Peter Parker is the most important part of any Spider-Man movie to me. This film nails that more than any other. It follows a similar formula, balancing Peter's struggles with the villain's rise in the first half before the two go to war.

The first hour feels devoted to beating Peter up emotionally. He gets fired from his pizza job for being late after saving a kid, and the Daily Bugle treats him unkindly. It turns out to be his birthday, which makes for a pretty miserable one, and in a sad scene we learn Aunt May is losing her house because Ben is not there to help pay the bills. Being Spider-Man is hurting every other part of his life. MJ, now a somewhat successful actress, has her face on posters and billboards across the city, constantly thrown in his face.

I love that the film explores a hero living with the consequences of sacrifice. Peter chose not to be with MJ because it was right, but that does not mean he is content with it, and seeing her everywhere makes him feel terrible. Sacrifice is not supposed to be easy. At the time, I really hoped Brand New Day would do something similar with how hard Peter's sacrifice at the end of No Way Home was. He misses MJ's play, which upsets her, he cannot make it to class, and he cannot form meaningful relationships because of his secret. No superhero movie has done a better job of showing how being a superhero would affect someone. It makes being Spider-Man feel awful, which is a really hard thing to do.

That internal conflict is the foundation of the film. Peter meets Doc Ock, who appears to be everything Peter wants to be: successful, making a difference, in love. Then Otto's experiment goes awry and he loses everything, while Peter starts losing his powers because of his inner turmoil. The banquet is Peter's worst nightmare: he cannot get food or a drink, cannot get good pictures, gets yelled at by his boss, Harry lashes out in resentment, MJ rejects him again, and she is revealed to be marrying his boss's son. The way it plays out is a bit comical, but each problem is very real, including May losing her house, which is not resolved by the end. It is not like Bruce Wayne shows up to buy it back, and that is okay. That is real life.

Aunt May's Speech and the Train Fight Remind Peter Who He Is

Tired of the weight, Peter just wants to be Peter Parker again. What makes that hard is that rejecting Spider-Man also means rejecting Ben, so Peter convinces himself it was Ben's wish, not his own, and gives it up. At first everything improves: his classes, his work, his stress levels. Then reality hits. MJ, May and Harry are still upset with him, crime is up, he fails to stop a mugging and cannot save everyone from a burning building. Giving up Spider-Man does not make him feel better.

That leads to Peter telling May the truth about the night Ben died, a scene that is emblematic of the whole film. May initially rejects him, but later apologises and is glad he told her. They grow closer because of it. Then comes her speech about how being a hero is not easy, and how doing the right thing, or what is truly fulfilling, will sometimes be painful, but eventually makes you and everyone around you better. Being Spider-Man was hard for a while, but Peter just had to hold on a little longer, because Spider-Man was never only Ben's wish. It is who Peter really is.

So when Otto attacks and captures MJ, Peter is ready again. The train fight ends with him nearly dying to save the passengers, and their thanks remind him why he does this. Doing the right thing is not always glamorous, but it is worth it. When the kid hands back his mask, Peter remembers all the pain is worth it for them. It is not just the action that makes this scene great; it ends in such a beautiful way, and any superhero fan feels inspired by it. That is what Spider-Man is supposed to represent.

Harry and Doc Ock Mirror Peter's Struggle for Balance

Otto delivers Peter to Harry, who learns the truth and is stunned. Harry is struggling with balance too. He starts the film leading his father's business and working towards something positive, though how Oscorp survived the first movie is a mystery to me. When Otto's experiment fails and Oscorp allegedly goes out of business, Harry delivers an awful line, "I'm ruined. I have nothing left besides Spider-Man", but it matters narratively. At his lowest, he gives in to his worst impulses. In a way, Oscorp was Harry's Spider-Man, and without it he fixates on his destructive dream of killing Spider-Man. Chasing dreams feels good, but it is not always right or fulfilling.

Doc Ock is such a layered villain, mirroring Peter perfectly. His energy project was his own version of Spider-Man: right and fulfilling. But bad things happen even when you are doing right. He is a little arrogant, with an ego, so the arms convince him to chase his dream at any cost. He loses sight of why it was his dream, to make a difference, and never gives himself a chance to steady himself. In a way, Otto gave up his Spider-Man to chase his dream.

Peter, Harry and Otto are all searching for balance. Peter completes his arc, Harry does not, and Otto is reminded with Peter's help, which makes the ending so powerful and personal. Peter tells him what he has learned about responsibility, and Otto gives his life to stop the machine, giving up his dream to do the right thing and not dying a monster. The theme and Peter's arc are unlike anything I have seen in a superhero movie. It is not a flashy message, but it is so important, and it is no surprise to me how well the film has aged. It ends with Peter finally getting MJ, another great payoff two films in. I love this movie, and by the time I finish reviewing all eight live action Spider-Man films, I would be shocked if it was not my favourite.

Spider-Man 2 scored 93% on Rotten Tomatoes with an 82% audience score, and 7.5 out of 10 on IMDb. It grossed $786 million, the third highest grossing movie of the year, and was a success by basically every metric.

Venom Was Forced Into Spider-Man 3 Over Raimi's Objections

Spider-Man 3 went straight into development, with Spider-Man 2 writer Alvin Sargent returning and even signing an option to write a Spider-Man 4. Raimi and his brother spent two months writing a treatment in which Sandman would be the main villain and the story would explore Peter discovering the humanity in the villains he fights.

However, Sony producer Avi Arad thought the previous villains were too niche and wanted a more popular one, which is why he wanted Venom, arguably Spider-Man's most popular villain. Raimi hated Venom. He felt the character had no humanity and went completely against the themes of his treatment. Raimi lost that fight and was forced to include him. Allegedly, the Vulture was also considered, but thankfully that idea was scrapped.

Principal photography ran from November 2005 to July 2006. There were no major problems, but it was an extensive and demanding shoot, and it was said Raimi would need to shuttle between up to seven working sets at once. The film was still completed on time and released on May 4th, 2007.

Peter's Arc Is the Biggest Problem With Spider-Man 3

Spider-Man 3 is not a very good movie, but I am surprised it was once considered genuinely awful, because it is not, not even close. Many people point to the crowd of villains; with Raimi focused on Sandman and Arad on Venom, neither gets enough development. That is definitely a factor. Another I have not heard discussed enough is how convenient so many events are. Things happen because they need to rather than flowing naturally. The first two films were somewhat like this, but the third is on another level. Still, the biggest reason I do not find it very good is Peter's arc, which leads to an ending that feels a bit anticlimactic and unearned.

Peter starts with life going perfectly. People love Spider-Man, he is balancing school, and he and MJ are doing great, so he wants to dismiss any problem that might disrupt that. When MJ gets poor reviews, he is not outright neglectful, but he diminishes her problems, telling her to brush them aside because if he can as Spider-Man, she can as an actress. He tells her how to fix things instead of listening, and she ends up burying her problems, which only makes things worse. With Harry, who learned the truth at the end of the last film, a fight leaves Harry with amnesia, one of the many conveniences, clearly there to buy time for the other villains. Peter then does not tell Harry the truth because it would create another problem. That is a bit of a regression after he told May a hard truth in the last film, but Peter is human, so I am not going to attack the movie for it.

Because of Peter's lacklustre support, MJ does not tell him she was fired, creating a rift he does not know about. Peter tells May he plans to propose, and she tells him a man must be understanding and put his wife first. Their one on one talks usually establish a film's theme, so I thought this would be key to his arc, but it kind of is not. At the proposal dinner, MJ storms off, leaving him confused. Peter also does things I just do not buy him doing. I can accept his ego inflating, but kissing another girl, knowing MJ was watching, seems so unlike him and unnecessary.

Then Peter and May learn that Flint Marko really killed Uncle Ben and has escaped prison. I really do not like changing who killed Ben. It is too cheap and easy a way to make the new villain personal, at the expense of a previous film's plot point. When MJ tries to console him, Peter shuts her out, distancing them further. Then the symbiote attaches to him, and again, talk about convenience: an alien crashes from space right next to Spider-Man in the middle of the night. A plot point literally falls from the sky. The villains in the first two films entered Peter's life organically; this is clearly the result of Raimi not wanting Venom and not knowing how to include him naturally. It also takes agency from Peter. His bad behaviour should come from his own arc, not a symbiote; tone down the rudeness and edginess and it becomes far more realistic.

Peter then hunts down Marko and pretty much kills him; that was his intention, so that is what matters. His life spirals. MJ breaks up with him. He ruins Eddie's life, which Eddie kind of deserved for submitting a fake photo. May is disappointed Spider-Man would kill someone. He attacks Harry, then hurts MJ during his edgy phase. I get all the criticisms of that version of Maguire. It is cringe and funny, but I think the movie wants you to cringe at Peter, so even though I chuckled because I know the memes, I do not hate it.

After hurting MJ, Peter realises he must change, sheds the symbiote and talks to May, which is when the theme is established: to move on, he must forgive himself. Forgiveness also applies to the three villains. But every film in this trilogy is about Peter acknowledging an internal struggle and growing from it, and here the answer to his first half problems is simply to forgive himself. His persistence in keeping the status quo at any cost is never addressed again. The film did not begin because Peter could not forgive himself or anyone else, so this is not a fair arc. He barely faces the consequences of his actions, which leads to an anticlimactic final fight. The action is pretty good, but what is at stake emotionally? Nothing. Harry forgives Peter through no effort of Peter's, Eddie cannot forgive him and dies, and Flint just shows up, tells the truth and is forgiven.

Harry, Sandman and Venom Are All Weak Villains in Spider-Man 3

Harry attacks early, then gets amnesia and spends most of the film relaxing, including a hangout with MJ where he kisses her. Conveniently, visions of his father restore his memory, he gets his revenge, and Peter retaliates, literally scarring him. I guess the film argues Harry must forgive Peter, but there was nothing to forgive; Peter did not kill Norman. It is also convenient that Harry's butler waited all these years to tell him the truth. After one conversation, Harry teams up with Peter and gives his life to protect him, something his father never would have done. It completes a trilogy long arc of Harry stepping out of his father's shadow, and on paper I do not hate it, but I do not think it was entirely earned. He never dealt with why he was so desperate for his dad's approval. Both Harry and Peter have one conversation and change, without the actual work that goes into a person changing.

I am surprised so many people call Flint Marko the one bright spot, because I think he is just as shallow. His whole motivation is a sick daughter, so he steals money, presumably to help her. That is a decent foundation, but it is his entire character. He is not especially clever or menacing, and three of his Sandman sequences start with him casually walking around until someone confronts him. I might be missing something, but the film never explains what the money is for, whether research or bills. He joins the final fight simply because Eddie asks if he finds Spider-Man annoying and wants to fight him, with no promise of money or help for his daughter. In the first two films, the final fight had a reason beyond wanting to attack Spider-Man. Nothing in the fight leads Flint to confess; he is attacking Peter one minute and telling the truth five minutes later, then flies away with no resolution. Did he help his daughter? I could not tell you. He is fine, but far from good.

A truly bad villain is Venom. He and Eddie Brock are simply unnecessary, barely crossing into any other storyline until Eddie casually walks up to Flint Marko. Eddie is hollow, someone who just wants to be loved and has no identity because of it. Peter just happens to visit the church where Eddie is to remove the symbiote, which is convenience, not meaningful storytelling. His final motivation boils down to being mad at Spider-Man and wanting to kill him. I think the film kills Eddie to say his inability to forgive Peter was his downfall, but it is so shallow, and his death is comical.

Spider-Man 3's Fallout Ended Raimi's Spider-Man 4

Spider-Man 3 scored 62% on Rotten Tomatoes with a 51% audience score, and 6.3 out of 10 on IMDb. It still grossed $885 million, the third highest grossing movie of 2007 and the highest grossing film of the trilogy.

The fallout led to tension between Raimi and Sony. Spider-Man 4 went into production with a release date of May 6th, 2011. Unhappy with how Spider-Man 3 went, Raimi wanted far more creative control to give his story a satisfying, emotional ending, but the script kept going through extensive rewrites and left him unhappy with the direction. In January 2010 it was announced that Raimi was leaving, Spider-Man 4 was cancelled, and the franchise was rebooted with The Amazing Spider-Man. It is unfortunate that a film that is not good led to such a big change.

Do you think Sandman is the bright spot of Spider-Man 3, or is he as shallow as the rest of its villains?