Sam Raimi had the choice, that Tim Burton had, of walking away.
Tim Burton made Batman 1989 and Batman Returns and both movies were successful but controversial, especially the second one (which I think is actually a great movie). He then was asked to do a third movie but they wanted a lot of changes, so Burton stepped down and told WB to find a director who could work closer to what they wanted. And that worked out well for him (he went on to other stuff That was what Burton did. He stepped away and moved on to other stuff while WB did Batman Forever (which was commercially successful and critically received decently enough). Raimi did the opposite. If he didn't like Spider-Man 3 and wasn't feeling it and the studio were no longer in synch with his ideas, he should have stepped away.
Hehn...as it is the first movie wasn't all that funny anyhow.Sony wanted the humor taken out of the FIRST movie.
You don't think Venom is Spider-Man's third biggest enemy after Goblin and Doctor Octopus or you don't agree that each movie should have a big scary villain carry it after the first and second one did? Which do you disagree with specifically?“in any case, Venom is Spider-Man's third biggest enemy after Goblin and Doctor Octopus. Everyone would logically expect him in to be in the third movie”
Yeah... that’s not how logic works.
Fact is Sandman could never have carried a movie on his own, nor could Harry Goblin. Venom definitely could have done so.