Why Sam Raimi dislikes Venom

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Doc Ock
Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20037557,00.html

I have to say I totally agree with Sam. Venom as a character is extremely weak. His popularity stems from the cool look, and the fact that he is simply a villain with Spidey's powers.

Scratch the surface and there's nothing much beneath. Even in terms of being a villain he has accomplished nothing substantial against Spidey. He's so weak that they had to produce a bunch of rip off symbiote characters to try and keep the whole concept fresh.

Anti-Monitor
This guy totaly screwed up SP 3 and the franchise after this. He should NEVER make another comic book movie again.

steverules_2
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20037557,00.html

I have to say I totally agree with Sam. Venom as a character is extremely weak. His popularity stems from the cool look, and the fact that he is simply a villain with Spidey's powers.

Scratch the surface and there's nothing much beneath. Even in terms of being a villain he has accomplished nothing substantial against Spidey. He's so weak that they had to produce a bunch of rip off symbiote characters to try and keep the whole concept fresh.

I don't like Venom due to his 'cool look' I like him because I think he is a good villain and I find his stories to be very interesting.....when it was Eddie. So saying that he is liked due to his look isn't entirely true.

Keehar
Originally posted by Anti-Monitor
This guy totaly screwed up SP 3 and the franchise after this. He should NEVER make another comic book movie again.

That's rather harsh. The first two Spider-Man movies are extremely popular. I hardly think one bad movie ruins the whole franchise. The James Bond franchise has had a few terrible movies, but they didn't kill the franchise. They can bounce back by making Spider-Man 4 good.

And I think Raimi is correct. Venom is a weak character. He has no depth or substance. He's just a glorified stalker with a chip on his shoulder. Can't blame him for not wanting to use Venom in his movies.

And since Raimi is helming Spider-Man 4, I think it's safe to say we wont see a whiff of any symbiote related characters. Thank god.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20037557,00.html
the cool look, and the fact that he is simply a villain with Spidey's powers.

This is what makes the rivalry interesting. This what attracted me to Venom in the first place. Part of it is because he looked cool, why would anyone like a villian that didn't look appealing? However, the fact he can play at Spidey's own game is what makes the whole concept of Venom interesting. Plus, I think with Green Goby and Doc Ock around, we have enough mad scientists.

Doc Ock
Gobby and Ock have played Spidey at his own game. And they've done it better than Venom. They've infiltrated his life, hurt and killed people he cares about, more than able to match him in a battle.

Like Raimi said, Venom is merely eye candy.

steverules_2
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Gobby and Ock have played Spidey at his own game. And they've done it better than Venom. They've infiltrated his life, hurt and killed people he cares about, more than able to match him in a battle.

Like Raimi said, Venom is merely eye candy.

Gobby has done worse than Ock, the only person Ock killed who Peter cared about was captain Stacy and that wasn't even on purpose...Gobby killed Gwen on purpose. Ock hasn't done anything to ruin Pete's life one bit. Ock's a good character but's not as evil as Gobby. The only possinle reason for you putting Ock next to Gobby is because your an Ock fanboy or something. Not to mention that Gobby is also the reason why Pete and MJ's baby died. Whats Ock done? He's kidnapped Aunt May once or twice, killed captain stacy (by accident) and he neally married Aunt May....thats it! Venom could kick Ocks ass anyday, I dunno if you've read any of the venom story lines but there have been many times where Venom has KO'd spidey and he is able to match spidey in battle, Venom doesn't trigger spideys spider sense which makes him even more dangerous.

Anti-Monitor
He was a lot better off not putting Vemon on film than saying screw it! I dont like him so I will make a pile of shit movie just for the fans.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by steverules_2
Gobby has done worse than Ock, the only person Ock killed who Peter cared about was captain Stacy and that wasn't even on purpose...Gobby killed Gwen on purpose.

That's not the point at all. The fact is that Ock was such a danger to the public that Spidey had to resort to such drastic measures to stop him, and it resulted in the death of someone he cared about.

Intentional or not, Ock was responsible for the death of Captain Stacy because he's THAT dangerous.



Infiltrated Peter's life thru May, trashed the Parker home and caused May to have a stroke, beat Black Cat to near death and put her in such critical condition that she needed open heart surgery, killed Captain Stacy.



Bull s***. Ock is every bit as evil as Gobby. Maybe even moreso. Goblin has never tried to kill an entire city just because he can. Ock has.

The only reason Norman has screwed with Peter's life more is because he learned Spidey's secret identity. Ock doesn't have that benefit, and he's still managed to really screw with Peter's life. That's extremely impressive for a villain who doesn't know his enemy's true identity.

What has Venom done, other than stalk and fight Spidey? Diddly squat. And he knows who Spidey really is, too. Pathetic.



No, it's because I recognize class when I see it. And so does Sam Raimi. That's why he and Sony gave Goblin and Ock a movie each to themselves as the solo villains. They deserve it. They're THAT good.



Oh big deal, he can match Spidey in a fight. 90% of the Spider-Man villains can do that.

Heck Morlun KILLED Spider-Man and ate his eyeball. Does that mean Morlun is the number one villain? Of course not.



Hahahaha, please! Ock kicked the Hulk's ass once. And he's Bruce Banner. He's super smart. Ock once held off the entire Sinister Six by himself while smoking a cigarette.

I have scans of all this if you'd like to see them.

With a half wit like Brock, Ock could probably convince him to kill himself.

steverules_2
Ock beating Hulk is pure BS, sure he beat Hulk but that was lamest thing ever, hulk could easily beat Ock that fight was just pure PIS. Hulks taken craps that could ock. Morlun killed spider-man which something ock seems to have failed to do, please do tell me when has ock killed spidey? Oh wait he hasn't. The only reason Ock doesn't know spidey's identity is because he's too stupid to even try and work it out, Norman was able to successfully find out spidey's identity by using his brain which is something ock might wanna try sometime. I remember Ock also needing spidey's help so that he could protect himself from the sinister six. Yes 90% of the villains match spiderman in a fight and yet you say how norman and Ock can do it and don't even think to mention that 90%! Since your going to use the whole 'ock beat hulk' thing why don't I use the fact that venom held is own against superman and spider-man smile Norman has more evil in his pinky than Ock does in his entire body. And if I remember correctly Ock got pwned by aunt may in the spider-man 2 movie. haermm

harri
Originally posted by Doc Ock






No, it's because I recognize class when I see it. And so does Sam Raimi. That's why he and Sony gave Goblin and Ock a movie each to themselves as the solo villains. They deserve it. They're THAT good.







UMMMMM mate havn't you heard, venom's gonna get his own movie, he is THAT good.

steverules_2
Plus the only reason why Venom wasn't a solo villain was cause Raimi dislikes Venom erm

harri
yes, Raimi was extremely wrong to do that, i mean cmo'n sometimes he's gotta listen to the fans.

steverules_2
If it had been venom on his own and had been done right it woulda made for a better storyline. Plus no.3 gained more money due to the fact that Venom was in that movie.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by steverules_2
Ock beating Hulk is pure BS, sure he beat Hulk but that was lamest thing ever, hulk could easily beat Ock that fight was just pure PIS.

Waaaah waaaah waaaah!

Don't throw a temper tantrum because the comic book writers don't agree with your opinion smile



Are you actually stupid or is this just an act? Ock, Goblin, or Venom have never killed Spidey. That's my POINT.

You were spouting that Venom can match Spidey in a fight and that somehow makes him something special. It doesn't. Venom is only doing what most of Spidey's enemies can do.

One of many reasons why Venom doesn't belong with the big boys. Sam Raimi is correct. He researched Venom's comics and saw the same thing anyone with half a brain can see. Venom is not a good villain. He has not done anything substantial as a character.

He's mere eye candy.



Oh you silly, silly, boy. Ock DID learn Spidey's identity during the Clone Saga, when he and Stunner captured and unmasked him. They retconned it when they brought Ock back from the dead after the Clone Saga by saying he didn't remeber anything just prior to his death.

Norman and Venom didn't figure out Spidey's identity either. Norman worked out a way to numb Peter's Spidey sense and then followed him home.

As for Venom, he was handed the knowledge on a silver plate thru the symbiote. Nothing clever about that.

Ock and Gobby employed strategies to learn Spidey's identity. Venom was just told it. Lame.



Never happened. Ock had no fear of the Six. He faced them head on.



I merely mentioned it as part of the many great things they've done.



That's fantastic. That's one of the many reasons why Norman is one of the big boys. No arguement there. Thanks for backing up my point smile



You still have failed to prove why you believe that.

It's just sour grapes because I've listed valid reasons and comic book instances that show Venom is inferior, and Ock and Gobby are vastly superior.

Don't shoot the messanger.



And Goblin got pwned by failing to kill Spidey because the citizens threw trash at him. "You mess with Spidey then you mess with New York".

It was to show ordinary citizens stand up against adversity to support the hero. Corny but true.

But they rectified that by showing Ock pwning all the citizens on the train when they tried to protect Spidey.

harri
Yep.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by harri
UMMMMM mate havn't you heard, venom's gonna get his own movie, he is THAT good.

I've been hearing rumours about a Venom solo movie for years. Didn't happen then, and it's not going to happen now.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by steverules_2
If it had been venom on his own and had been done right it woulda made for a better storyline. Plus no.3 gained more money due to the fact that Venom was in that movie.

Or the fact that it had THREE villains in it instead of one.

Yet it's the least popular, and least critically acclaimed of the trilogy with critics and fans.

Wade Wilson
Doc Ock, no offense but the idea that Venom is popular because of the way he looks is bs. I dont like him because he has simillar to Spider-man powers, i like the character. His background, the fact that he has his own moral code. Venom's actually deeper than ANY other Spider-man villain and the fact that Spider-man caused Venom to exist only makes it more interesting. Raimi didn't understand ALL that, which is the ONLY reason Spider-man 3 sucked ass.
Also, Venom is the only enemy Spider-man is REALLY affraid of.

Keehar
Originally posted by harri
UMMMMM mate havn't you heard, venom's gonna get his own movie, he is THAT good.

They wont make that. No way. That's been rumoured for years.

Why do you think they blew up Venom at the end of Spider-Man 3? If Sony wanted to continue with the character, he'd have lived. They'd have had Brock escape or put in prison etc. It's all baseless, mate.

Don't get your hopes up.

Keehar
Originally posted by Wade Wilson
Venom's actually deeper than any other Spider-man villain

He really not. Venom's motivation is that he believes Spider-Man ruined his life. When in fact Spidey and Brock had never even met until Brock became Venom.

All Spidey had done was catch the serial killer, Sin-Eater. Brock construed that as the cause for him losing his job and his wife leaving him. It was utter contrived nonsense. Not deep at all.

harri
Well that's your opinion, and maybe your right, but maybe your wrong to.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by harri
Well that's your opinion, and maybe your right, but maybe your wrong to.

I like you. You're very polite and respectful of differing views.

Keehar
Originally posted by harri
Well that's your opinion, and maybe your right, but maybe your wrong to.

Yeah, it is just my opinion. I mean when you look at all the great comic book feuds between hero and villain: Reed Richards vs Dr Doom, Batman vs The Joker, Daredevil vs Bullseye etc.

They are all great because there is a real basis for the feuds. Something personal happened between them that caused it. Either in their past, or when they met.

Venom decided to hate Spidey when they never even knew eachother. All Spidey did was catch a killer. And Brock construed that as Spidey ruining his life. Utter nonsense.

steverules_2
Me? Stupid? laughing out loud You sir are the one who has a f*cked up brain due to that fact that all your blood goes to a certain place due to the fact that Ocks going to be in more episodes of the spec spiderman than Venom roll eyes (sarcastic) Don't believe me about Ock asking for spideys assistance, Amazing spider-man (vol 2) issue 12. Norman is way more evil than ock and it's plain and simple, I shouldn't even have to explain, he killed spidermans unborn child, he killed Gwen Stacy the love of spidermans life before MJ, he got spiderman to believe he was a clone which sent spiderman over the edge for a while. If I remember the only reason why ock found out spidermans identity was because spiderman was dying and not at a 100%, Norman was able to find out spidey's identity by himself and not requiring the aid of someone else. You retard I know they haven't killed him, I never said they did...I was making the point that a villain that wasn't your beloved ock was able to kill spiderman which is something ock has tried and failed at doing. Norman isn't a big boy because he's never had a chance to face hulk or supes..wow no expression I am glad I was able to back up your retarded non existant point. roll eyes (sarcastic) Ock beating hulk is just retarded, the only reason your using that stupid win is because you obviously are blind to the fact that Ock would easily get his ass kicked if it was done by writers who actually knew what the hulk can do and how powerfull he is.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by steverules_2
Me? Stupid? laughing out loud You sir are the one who has a f*cked up brain due to that fact that all your blood goes to a certain place due to the fact that Ocks going to be in more episodes of the spec spiderman than Venom roll eyes (sarcastic)

As usual, you missed the point entirely. The point I was making, like with the cartoon thread, is that these professionals in the entertainment industry know that the Venom character is not up to the standards of Goblin and Ock.

That's why they limit him. In Raimi's case he never even wanted to use him, but did so for the sake of the fans.



I have that issue. It ain't there.



Because he knows Spidey's real identity. If Ock did, he'd do all that and more. Probably give MJ's baby radiation poisoning or something while still in the womb.

What is Venom's excuse? He has the knowledge, yet in nearly 20 years the writers have never let him do anything big with it.

Why is that? Because Venom is not as high a class of villain as Norman and Octavius.



Wrong!

Norman used his henchman to lure Spidey into a fight so he could expose him to the gas that would dull his spider sense. And lacking a spider sense is not being at 100%



Tsk tsk, sticks and stones.

Why did you point out such an obvious fact? Every villain, bar Morlun, has tried and failed to kill Spidey. That's not exclusive to Ock. And it's not something I ever denied.

So thanks for derailing the discussion with such an obvious and pointless piece of info.



No, Norman is a big boy because his status was achieved by more than being able to match an enemy in a fight.

Don't you see what I'm saying by now? All of your points about Venom have been purely about his fighting skills. That seems to be the whole basis for your pro Venom arguement.

Most of Spidey's enemies are very able fighters. They have to be to be able to fight Spidey. So unless you have something to add about Venom other than his fighting skills, then stop wasting my time and yours.

Give me something of substance. What has Venom achieved as a villain? Has he seriously hurt someone Peter cares about? Killed someone Peter cares about? Done anything remotely clever as a villain other than stalk and fight him?



They do know. And they know how powerful Ock can be. He's toppled speeding trains in the comics. Toppled whole buildings in the comics.

Like I said, it's just sour grapes with you. Not my fault I have the comic book facts to back up my opinions.

Wade Wilson
Originally posted by Keehar
He really not. Venom's motivation is that he believes Spider-Man ruined his life. Um.. that's just a part of a much bigger story. It's not just about Spider-man, its more about Brock's father, long story. Also, Brock wants to be a good guy, and at some point of his life he had to face the possibility that for many years his actions were not his own, that he doesn't have a free will, that he was a slave for many years, and his hatred for Spider-man and desire to punish bad guys is actually caused by the symbiote but at the same time he couldn't leave the alien. There's a lot of inner struggle in the character, while Ock's and Osborn's motives are pretty obvious and not complicated. So yes, he IS deeper,

Keehar
Originally posted by Wade Wilson
Um.. that's just a part of a much bigger story. It's not just about Spider-man, its more about Brock's father, long story. Also, Brock wants to be a good guy, and at some point of his life he had to face the possibility that for many years his actions were not his own, that he doesn't have a free will, that he was a slave for many years, and his hatred for Spider-man and desire to punish bad guys is actually caused by the symbiote but at the same time he couldn't leave the alien. There's a lot of inner struggle in the character, while Ock's and Osborn's motives are pretty obvious and not complicated. So yes, he IS deeper,

Oh man, Ock and Gobby both have backstories with their parents, too. Norman's dad used to lock him up in dark rooms when he was a kid. That's what Norman did to Peter when he tried to force him to become his air.

As for Ock, his father used to verbally abuse him, while his mother was overbearing and used to suffocate his life and ruined his engagment to a woman he loved.

All this was referenced several times in their stories.

Brock wanting to be the good guy was something they cooked up in the 90's when the stalking Spidey thing got stale. So they made Venom anti hero. And they invented Carnage, a one dimensional character who just likes to kill, for someone new for Venom to fight other than Spidey.

It was all plot devices, man. Nothing deep about it at all. Look at what they're doing now with the Anti-Venom rubbish. And I wont even get started on Toxin.

steverules_2
I liked spiderman 2 alot, the train fight scene was truly amazing and extended in 2.1 was mind blowing big grin Best fight scene ever!

Doc Ock
Originally posted by steverules_2
You have the issue? Well you really must suck at reading since it's in the issue, he says to spiderman: "I require your aid" before he chucks him to venom.

Ok, I'll re-read it and see. But then Venom has teamed up with Spidey many times before.

So it's not a weakness. Just a matter of usefulness.



But you have failed to say why. I can list a dozen stories where Ock cooked up schemes so unspeakably foul and evil. Big mass murder schemes.

I mean it doesn't get more evil than that. If Ock was armed with the knowledge of Spidey's identity, he'd wreak unspeakable evil on Spidey's life. Moreso than he has already done.

And we both know it.



Yes, that's exactly my point. That's what I've been saying all along. Venom has inhibitions. They writers don't let him expand on that. He's not on the villain scale of Ock and Goblin.

They are evil. They are schemers. They have little to no morals. That's why they have wreaked more havoc on Spidey's life.



Well, of course. Don't get much worse than death lol.

steverules_2
laughing out loud Dammit I edited the post after the PM you sent and got the unedited one, oh well

Doc Ock
Originally posted by steverules_2
laughing out loud Dammit I edited the post after the PM you sent and got the unedited one, oh well

It's cool. I just read your PM now.

We're both cool with eachother, myself and steverules. Sorry for letting things get so heated, folks. When us comic book geeks get going, we take no prisoners laughing out loud

Anyway, regardless of differing opinions, Goblin, Ock, and Venom are "The big three" of the Spidey rogues gallery.

steverules_2
People always seem to get my un-edited quotes....damn my slow internet and editing abilities. I apologize as well for letting it go over board. My avatar was fortunately able to calm things down big grin

werehawk
I have to put my 2 cents in on Venom. I did like Venom because of his cool look BUT also because, I've said this before, Spiderman-Venom is a love story. Not because of Brock (who has been handled inconsistently at best) but because of the symbiote and Peter's rejection of it. The symbiote is half of Venom. It HATES Spiderman because he rejected its love. Spurned affection makes for good story (as does the 'wrong' type of love).

To prove my point, look here at the last few pages when Spiderman is by the church bell destroying the symbiote. It SAVES him with its 'last dying breath'.
http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/5032078.html#cutid1

Silent Guardian
okay, Spiderman 3 should have just been Spidey dealing with Sandman and his black suite issues. Than he eventually defeats Sandman comes to terms with his inner evil and the death of his uncle ben and expels the black suite. Harry is still alive but still pissed at him and wants to kill him. MJ and Pete are still shaky. Than maybe at the very end of Spider-man 3 we get to See the famous bell tower seen and Eddie Brock turning into Venom.

This would than be the perfect set up for Spider-man 4 which could have totally been focused with Eddie Brock and Venom. How Spidey deals with them. Venom is stronger/superior to Spider-man and there is the threat he tells the world his secret.

Than in this movie, Harry can die if that is what marvel/Sam Raimi wants. Peter and MJ reconcile. And I do not know if Venom should die or not.

Also no cheesy scenes like in Spidey 3 that was over the top.

But I will admit it is easy to say this/criticize especially since the movie is already out

Keehar
The Vulture was actually originally supposed to be the third villain. He was supposed to be Sandman's cell mate in jail or something like that.

harri
Originally posted by Doc Ock
I like you. You're very polite and respectful of differing views.
hey thnx alot man, you too.

Wade Wilson
Originally posted by Keehar
Oh man, Ock and Gobby both have backstories with their parents, too. Norman's dad used to lock him up in dark rooms when he was a kid. That's what Norman did to Peter when he tried to force him to become his air.

As for Ock, his father used to verbally abuse him, while his mother was overbearing and used to suffocate his life and ruined his engagment to a woman he loved.

All this was referenced several times in their stories.

Brock wanting to be the good guy was something they cooked up in the 90's when the stalking Spidey thing got stale. So they made Venom anti hero. And they invented Carnage, a one dimensional character who just likes to kill, for someone new for Venom to fight other than Spidey.

It was all plot devices, man. Nothing deep about it at all. Look at what they're doing now with the Anti-Venom rubbish. And I wont even get started on Toxin. Wait, you're saying that Carnage was brought just to make Venom more interesting?? confused Carnage, Toxin and orher symbiotes were created because someone was too lazy to think of an original character, the same way they created a dozen goblin rip offs, like Menace in brand new day for example. So I dont see how that makes Venom a bad character. And as for plot devices, look at Goblin's story, a buisenessman who wnet crazy, died, ressurected, and died again only to ressurect even more crazy than before. What's so deep about this character? And yes, Venom's full story was written in 90s but so what? It's not like Ock's whole story was revealed in his first appearance. A scientist who becomes a villain because of issues he had as a child and as a grown up... no I'd stick with Venom...

Keehar
Originally posted by Wade Wilson
Wait, you're saying that Carnage was brought just to make Venom more interesting?? confused

That's exactly it. Carnage was created because of Venom. Someone new for Venom to fight because the stalking Spidey routine got old. So they changed Venom's routine.

Suddenly killing Spider-Man was not priority one. Protecting innocents was. It was a lame plot device. That whole Lethal Protector storyline is one of the best examples of why 90's Spidey comics suck.



No, the difference here is that all the Goblin rip offs came after Norman Osborn was killed off in the early 70's. They tried to fill his void.

All the lame symbiote rip off characters came while Venom was still around. They were plot devices to try and keep Venom interesting.



Everything. His obsession with Spider-Man, his relationship with his son, the symbolism of the Goblin persona.



If you've read Octavius' backstory, you'd see his evil stems from more than just his parent troubles. Same with Norman Osborn. The parents were factors, but ultimately these guys became products of their own making. The accidents that gave them their powers was the final push to send them over the edge.

The difference here is that the classic villains when they were created in Stan Lee's day were never given a backstory in their original appearances. Stan didn't have the luxury of fitting that into one issue stories. Every issue had to be a new story and a new villain. Different times back in the 60's. Later on future writers added a back story to all the classic villains. Stan lay the foundations, other writers built on it.

Venom came in the 80's, when characters could be given full backstories in multiple issue stories. They waited until the 90's to give Venom one with his dad because they were changing his motive in order to try and keep the character interesting.

Why do you think Sam Raimi could not understand where Venom's humanity was when he researched the character in the comic books? The writing for him is all over the place. It's shallow and makes little to no sense.

Arachnid1
Originally posted by steverules_2
Me? Stupid? laughing out loud You sir are the one who has a f*cked up brain due to that fact that all your blood goes to a certain place due to the fact that Ocks going to be in more episodes of the spec spiderman than Venom roll eyes (sarcastic) Don't believe me about Ock asking for spideys assistance, Amazing spider-man (vol 2) issue 12. Norman is way more evil than ock and it's plain and simple, I shouldn't even have to explain, he killed spidermans unborn child, he killed Gwen Stacy the love of spidermans life before MJ, he got spiderman to believe he was a clone which sent spiderman over the edge for a while. If I remember the only reason why ock found out spidermans identity was because spiderman was dying and not at a 100%, Norman was able to find out spidey's identity by himself and not requiring the aid of someone else. You retard I know they haven't killed him, I never said they did...I was making the point that a villain that wasn't your beloved ock was able to kill spiderman which is something ock has tried and failed at doing. Norman isn't a big boy because he's never had a chance to face hulk or supes..wow no expression I am glad I was able to back up your retarded non existant point. roll eyes (sarcastic) Ock beating hulk is just retarded, the only reason your using that stupid win is because you obviously are blind to the fact that Ock would easily get his ass kicked if it was done by writers who actually knew what the hulk can do and how powerfull he is. Steve? Your sig is depressing.

Also, welcome back to the forums Ock!

steverules_2
Originally posted by Arachnid1
Steve? Your sig is depressing.

Also, welcome back to the forums Ock!

Well then look at my avatar

Bad Ash231
Originally posted by steverules_2
I don't like Venom due to his 'cool look' I like him because I think he is a good villain and I find his stories to be very interesting.....when it was Eddie. So saying that he is liked due to his look isn't entirely true.

Venom was popular in the '90s, but he's a poorly-conceived character with a confusing origin and an idiotic motivation.

steverules_2
Originally posted by Bad Ash231
Venom was popular in the '90s, but he's a poorly-conceived character with a confusing origin and an idiotic motivation.

They try and make the motivation better...the fact that spiderman cauught the real killer did kinda mess up Eddies life but it's not spidermans fault for catching the right guy and proving eddies story false. The original idea for venoms motive (when he was gonna be a she) was much better, a mother wanting revenge against spiderman since her son died due to an error made by him but it was changed as most people know.

Bad Ash231
Originally posted by steverules_2
They try and make the motivation better...the fact that spiderman cauught the real killer did kinda mess up Eddies life but it's not spidermans fault for catching the right guy and proving eddies story false.

That's what annoys me whenever I read a Venom centered story. He talks about Spider-Man finding the real killer like it's a BAD thing.

Originally posted by steverules_2
The original idea for venoms motive (when he was gonna be a she) was much better, a mother wanting revenge against spiderman since her son died due to an error made by him but it was changed as most people know.

I've read about that one. It could have been an interesting idea.

I-Drop
Originally posted by Keehar
That's rather harsh. The first two Spider-Man movies are extremely popular. I hardly think one bad movie ruins the whole franchise. The James Bond franchise has had a few terrible movies, but they didn't kill the franchise. They can bounce back by making Spider-Man 4 good.

And I think Raimi is correct. Venom is a weak character. He has no depth or substance. He's just a glorified stalker with a chip on his shoulder. Can't blame him for not wanting to use Venom in his movies.

And since Raimi is helming Spider-Man 4, I think it's safe to say we wont see a whiff of any symbiote related characters. Thank god. If he didn't wanna use him, he shouldn't have. S3 wasn't horrible, but Venom deserves to be done right or not done at all. I was really pissed when S3 1st came out, but it's not that bad about a year later.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Bad Ash231
Venom was popular in the '90s, but he's a poorly-conceived character with a confusing origin and an idiotic motivation.

The motivation may be weak, but it obviously was enough to push him over the edge. The more Venom appeared, the more we learn that Eddie was actually kind of loony even before he acquired the symbiote, so it's important to keep in mind that any sort of failure could be enough to make him crazy.

Sparkz
Blimey it's been a while since I've made a post...anyway, you can't say Goblin is more evil than Doc Ock from the things he's done to Peter, Doc Ock has done plenty of evil things, just because they weren't aimed at Spidey every time dosen't make them any less evil.

I've said this many a time too, Green Goblin is Peter's worst enemy attacking his loved ones etc.

Doc Ock is Spidey's worst enemy, challenging the web head whenever he can, forcing him to unmask in front of new york or he would kill a senator (or something like that) and saving spidey from a virus just so he could keep on fighting him.

As for Venom, he's kind of in the middle, he trounces Spidey in the power set and stalks Peter, he has plenty of depth thanks to the moral code, but alot is taken away when you hear why he hates spidey. Venom is great ( I find him intresting, as eye candy and story wise) but he isn't like GG or Ock.

That's my opinion anyway take it or leave it lol

Doc Ock
Originally posted by Sparkz
Blimey it's been a while since I've made a post...anyway, you can't say Goblin is more evil than Doc Ock from the things he's done to Peter, Doc Ock has done plenty of evil things, just because they weren't aimed at Spidey every time dosen't make them any less evil.

I've said this many a time too, Green Goblin is Peter's worst enemy attacking his loved ones etc.

Doc Ock is Spidey's worst enemy, challenging the web head whenever he can, forcing him to unmask in front of new york or he would kill a senator (or something like that) and saving spidey from a virus just so he could keep on fighting him.

As for Venom, he's kind of in the middle, he trounces Spidey in the power set and stalks Peter, he has plenty of depth thanks to the moral code, but alot is taken away when you hear why he hates spidey. Venom is great ( I find him intresting, as eye candy and story wise) but he isn't like GG or Ock.

That's my opinion anyway take it or leave it lol

Great post!

I also feel like Raimi really ruined Spider-Man 3 and I was hoping he'd have nothing to do with the fourth. Unfortunately he's on board. Meaning I wont go see the fourth opening day, and will probably wait for it on DVD. I don't ever see how this franchise could be redeemed after such a crappy third installment. I honestly couldn't believe how bad it was.

Magic_attack
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Great post!



Yeah, not bad.

Kazenji
Originally posted by [email protected]
I also feel like Raimi really ruined Spider-Man 3 and I was hoping he'd have nothing to do with the fourth. Unfortunately he's on board. Meaning I wont go see the fourth opening day, and will probably wait for it on DVD. I don't ever see how this franchise could be redeemed after such a crappy third installment. I honestly couldn't believe how bad it was.

And also since when has a superhero movie had 3 Different villains and been good.........none

Last one that tried that idea was Batman and Robin before Spider-man 3.

Arachnid1
Originally posted by Kazenji
And also since when has a superhero movie had 3 Different villains and been good.........none

Last one that tried that idea was Batman and Robin before Spider-man 3. Scarecrow
Two Face
The Joker

The Dark Knight

Nuff' said.

srankmissingnin
Spider-man three was bad because the studio force Venom into the mix. I doubt Sony is going to interfere with four to the same degree considering the fan outcry.

I agree with Rami, Venom is the archetypal 90's character that only exists to be "hardcore". There is very little to justify his existence, all he is good for is a good fight scene... and writing a movie around a fight scene isn't very compelling, it needs to be the other way around.

srankmissingnin
Originally posted by Arachnid1
Scarecrow
Two Face
The Joker

The Dark Knight

Nuff' said.

If you count the 10 seconds Scarecrow showed up in The Dark Knight, you might want to start counting Bonesaw in Spider-man... they both had the same amount of importance to the story and screen time. evil face

Final Blaxican
I agree with Raimi as well. The entire concept of "Venom" is inherently weak imo. And yes he is liked because of his appearance and essentially his mirror of Spidey's powers...

harri
well, in the movies, ock was the best, man he was so cool with the jacket no doubt about it. But in comics spidey doesn't really have a greatest foe, just people think ock, goblin and venom are the 3 perhaps archenemies of spidey.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
The entire concept of "Venom" is inherently weak imo. And yes he is liked because of his appearance and essentially his mirror of Spidey's powers...

Anything wrong with that?

Final Blaxican
Yes.

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
I agree with Raimi as well. The entire concept of "Venom" is inherently weak imo. And yes he is liked because of his appearance and essentially his mirror of Spidey's powers...

And his humor, as well as his psychotic nature and well also he's that force the villain Spidey is truly frightened of, unlike other villains Venom just wants Spider-man dead, unlike the others who want him out the way so they can for instance rob a federal reserve, he's just a force who keeps going and keeps coming back, although they did make the character a bit more interesting then he already is, with the whole symbiotes feelings for Spidey angle.

Eddie's motivation isn't exactly great but I imagine that's due to the script change close to the characters first appearance. (Btw just to clarify I'm talking about the comic version of Venom here.)

Final Blaxican
Well, I guess if that's what people like about them that's their perogative. I feel that being a stalker is a bit boring. Granted, being a bank robber or a world dominator (Like Vulture or somthin'), is weak too though imo. I prefer more psycological villains personally.

Arachnid1
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
If you count the 10 seconds Scarecrow showed up in The Dark Knight, you might want to start counting Bonesaw in Spider-man... they both had the same amount of importance to the story and screen time. evil face Not entirely true, but I get your point. stick out tongue

werehawk
I think what the true reason for the issues in Spiderman 3 have nothing to do with the merits and negatives of Venom's character. It has solely to do with Raimi not liking him so half-assing the comic-to-screen adaption of the character and the dilution of Venom's time onscreen with two other villains, one of which (Harry) bore even less resemblance to his comic origins than Venom did (and made less sense). Maybe Raimi didn't like him either. (No arguments that Sandman was true to character here).

So the question shouldn't be "Why Sam Raimi disliked Venom?" It should be "Why did he let that affect his onscreen interpretation of the character?"

werehawk
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
I agree with Raimi as well. The entire concept of "Venom" is inherently weak imo. And yes he is liked because of his appearance and essentially his mirror of Spidey's powers...

It is a visual medium. Who would like Doc Ock without the metal arms? Who would like Green Goblin if he wore a suit...err, I mean...forget it.

Final Blaxican
That's an extreme example though. That's like saying who'd like Spiderman if he had no powers or abilities. There's a difference between a character having a cool appearence and a character having a cool appearence and a good personality and motive. Venom lacks the latter. He's just... there.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
There's a difference between a character having a cool appearence and a character having a cool appearence and a good personality and motive. Venom lacks the latter. He's just... there.

Why is Venom back story so incredibly weak? IMO, his back story is pretty realistic. Many people in the real world strive to be the best, strive for success, and eventually do become the best, and this is all they know. Something happens and they fail. This becomes very shocking to someone who has only known success for most of their lives and they cannot stand the shame of it. Failing makes someone like Eddie Brock lose what little sanity he had left and he goes off the deep end. Scenarioes like this do happen all the time, and ought to be a totally understandable back story.

Final Blaxican
Realism does not equal= Good. no expression People like that are, imo, incredibly boring.

SpyCspider
hmm..didnt' read through the whole thread.

BUT if Raimi disliked Venom for his lack of motive/character, what's so deep about Sandman? Didn't Raimi just like him because he was a "classic" villain and then had to concoct the whole sick daughter/accidentally kill Uncle Ben backstory? At least Venom had a similar story to his comic book origin (exposed for fraud).

My apologies if I don't know enough about Sandman as a comicbook character with depth.

Final Blaxican
Sandman sucks to imo.

But his history is relatively tragic. Grew up with no father, alcoholic mother, bullied throughout school, kicked off the football team so that he could help a women with her debt, changed his name after becoming a criminal so that his mom wouldn't know her son was a criminal, bbecomes a good guy until he's brainwashed into becoming evil again, etc. He's more of an anti-hero than anything imo.

werehawk
So FB, what's so great about Green Goblin or Doc Ock? As far as I can tell, the only things about Goblin that can be considered interesting are his insanity and the strength of his hatred for Peter (which developed over time and definitely led to some great moments, but was not there to start). I would argue Brock is just as insane and at least one of his little voices is real. Osborn was a bored psychotic rich entrapeneur with a bad relationship with his son. That's it. No depth really.

And Doc Ock was made more interesting in Spiderman II than his backstory really is. Driven scientist yes, but greedy not tragic like in the movie.

How can either have more depth than Brock? It's all opinion with these three.

I do agree with you on Sandman. Tragic character and portrayed as such in the movie even if the details are different. So done well even if I never really liked him.

SpyCspider
well if Osborn isn't that interesting or deep when he first started out...they're sure making him Marvel's #1 villain now by the looks of Dark Reign. All of SHIELD's property belonging to him, leader of the "Illuminaughty", etc. Almost Lex Luthorish.

Final Blaxican
Originally posted by werehawk
So FB, what's so great about Green Goblin or Doc Ock? As far as I can tell, the only things about Goblin that can be considered interesting are his insanity and the strength of his hatred for Peter (which developed over time and definitely led to some great moments, but was not there to start). I would argue Brock is just as insane and at least one of his little voices is real. Osborn was a bored psychotic rich entrapeneur with a bad relationship with his son. That's it. No depth really.

And Doc Ock was made more interesting in Spiderman II than his backstory really is. Driven scientist yes, but greedy not tragic like in the movie.

How can either have more depth than Brock? It's all opinion with these three.

I do agree with you on Sandman. Tragic character and portrayed as such in the movie even if the details are different. So done well even if I never really liked him.

Norman's storyline isn't tragic either, but tragic does not= a good character either. Norman is interesting because he has a psychological affect on Peter's entire life. He helped make him who he is, in a way. ****ing with Aunt May and his family, killing Gwen Stacy. GG is the only character (to my knowledge) that has actually driven Peter to not hold back at all and fight to kill permanently. He damaged Peter on a level so deep that it changed him forever, made him not to want to fight anymore. "Gwen Stacy Syndrome" is one of the biggest aspects of Peter. The Green Goblin's influence damaged him even more when Harry, his best friend, took up the mantle. Spiderman and Osborn's conflict go beyond "being afraid". The Green Goblin actually suceeded in making Peter lose it. To make an example, Norman did to Peter what Joker tried to do to Batman in TDK. Norman is Spiderman's joker.

I don't like Doctor Octupus, and I know very little about him so I can't comment.

Accel
Originally posted by Wade Wilson
Raimi didn't understand ALL that, which is the ONLY reason Spider-man 3 sucked ass.

Spider-man 3 sucked for a number of reasons, but Venom surely didn't help.

The thing is, the whole idea of introducing an alien symbiote just didn't work in the Spidey movie-verse in the first place. Sure, it's fine in comics and cartoons, but in the movie it just comes off as silly and out of place.

Venom could never have really worked as a suitable movie villain no matter how any one tried to spin it.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Norman's storyline isn't tragic either, but tragic does not= a good character either. Norman is interesting because he has a psychological affect on Peter's entire life. He helped make him who he is, in a way. ****ing with Aunt May and his family, killing Gwen Stacy. GG is the only character (to my knowledge) that has actually driven Peter to not hold back at all and fight to kill permanently. He damaged Peter on a level so deep that it changed him forever, made him not to want to fight anymore. "Gwen Stacy Syndrome" is one of the biggest aspects of Peter. The Green Goblin's influence damaged him even more when Harry, his best friend, took up the mantle. Spiderman and Osborn's conflict go beyond "being afraid". The Green Goblin actually suceeded in making Peter lose it. To make an example, Norman did to Peter what Joker tried to do to Batman in TDK. Norman is Spiderman's joker.

I don't like Doctor Octupus, and I know very little about him so I can't comment.

I think we can all agree that Norman is Peter's primary villian with out any serious debates due to the history these two characters have with each other.

werehawk
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I think we can all agree that Norman is Peter's primary villian with out any serious debates due to the history these two characters have with each other.

No argument here.

As for Venom, while it may not have been as strong as the effect of Osborn, the symbiote affected Peter in a very personal and invasive way. And Brock twisted that knowledge and history to have a very psychological twisted impact. I remember the chills down my spine when Peter came to Aunt May's and found Brock helping her hang her laundry outside. What a nice young man Aunt May thought. That was just Brock's (scary) way of reminding Peter that it was just between the two of them (Peter had just tried to get help from the FF). And that scene, one of Venom's best, was Brock without wearing the symbiote.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by werehawk
No argument here.

As for Venom, while it may not have been as strong as the effect of Osborn, the symbiote affected Peter in a very personal and invasive way. And Brock twisted that knowledge and history to have a very psychological twisted impact. I remember the chills down my spine when Peter came to Aunt May's and found Brock helping her hang her laundry outside. What a nice young man Aunt May thought. That was just Brock's (scary) way of reminding Peter that it was just between the two of them (Peter had just tried to get help from the FF). And that scene, one of Venom's best, was Brock without wearing the symbiote.

Perhaps it is just a matter of whether or not you appreciate a villian who can almost simply and easily defeat the hero, the villian's deadliness so to speak, or the villian who can anticipate almost every action taken, and twist and manipulate the hero.

I have nothing against GG as he is, but it's hard to ignore the direct effect Venom has against Peter. There's nothing more threatening than a villian who can pounce onto a hero at almost any given time, IMO.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
I agree with Raimi as well. The entire concept of "Venom" is inherently weak imo. And yes he is liked because of his appearance and essentially his mirror of Spidey's powers...

Agreed.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001

I have nothing against GG as he is, but it's hard to ignore the direct effect Venom has against Peter. There's nothing more threatening than a villian who can pounce onto a hero at almost any given time, IMO.

But that threat is rendered ineffective because Venom is never going to kill Spider-Man, and we certainly know he's not going to kill any of Peter's loved ones.

We know Goblin and Ock have, and would again given half a chance. But Venom, he's just going to keep on doing what he's been doing since he was created: stalking and fighting Spidey. Never crossing that line.

Are we supposed to be impressed by that? Especially considering how tame Venom has become in the last decade. He's teamed with Spidey several times, had cancer, sold his symbiote, slit his wrists, and all other nonsense like that.

I'm sorry, but I find nothing effective about that.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by werehawk

And Doc Ock was made more interesting in Spiderman II than his backstory really is. Driven scientist yes, but greedy not tragic like in the movie.

Actually Ock's backstory in the movie is not that dramatically different from the comics. In the comic books, he was engaged to be married, but his mother sabotaged the relationship with emotional blackmail. This was the beginning of his downfall into his dark path.

In the movie, he actually was married, but he was still shown to have some irrational and violent tendencies before he became a villain. Remember the demonstration scene, when the fusion reactor went haywire and starting destroying everything, and Octavius refused to shut it down, despite all the danger it was creating.
Then Spidey showed up and tried to unplug it, and Octavius smashed him into the wall with one of the tentacles. And it ultimately cost him his wife's life.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Doc Ock
But that threat is rendered ineffective because Venom is never going to kill Spider-Man, and we certainly know he's not going to kill any of Peter's loved ones.

We know Goblin and Ock have, and would again given half a chance. But Venom, he's just going to keep on doing what he's been doing since he was created: stalking and fighting Spidey. Never crossing that line.

Are we supposed to be impressed by that? Especially considering how tame Venom has become in the last decade. He's teamed with Spidey several times, had cancer, sold his symbiote, slit his wrists, and all other nonsense like that.

I'm sorry, but I find nothing effective about that.

To each his own.

chilled monkey
Originally posted by Doc Ock
But that threat is rendered ineffective because Venom is never going to kill Spider-Man, and we certainly know he's not going to kill any of Peter's loved ones.

We know Goblin and Ock have, and would again given half a chance. But Venom, he's just going to keep on doing what he's been doing since he was created: stalking and fighting Spidey. Never crossing that line.

Are we supposed to be impressed by that?

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but is that really such a bad thing? The fact that Venom will 'never cross that line' shows that he's different from Ock and Goblin because he does have some morals.

If he didn't, then wouldn't you just be complaining about him being 'unoriginal' and just having basically the same goal, motive, methods etc as Goblin and Ock?

Doc Ock
Originally posted by chilled monkey
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but is that really such a bad thing? The fact that Venom will 'never cross that line' shows that he's different from Ock and Goblin because he does have some morals.

If he didn't, then wouldn't you just be complaining about him being 'unoriginal' and just having basically the same goal, motive, methods etc as Goblin and Ock?

But the glaring difference here is that the hatred Venom has for Spidey is based on a personal vendetta. It's personal between Spidey and Venom. Even though Spider-Man never did a thing on Brock, and Brock's motivation is weak, he does hate Spider-Man because he thinks he ruined his life.

A personal vendetta between hero and villain has to evolve, grow, have something shake it up in order to keep it interesting. Venom and Spidey are in the same position they were in 20 years ago. Marvel has not done anything with their feud.

All the great personal vendettas between hero and villain have involved tradgedy, loss etc. Not with Spidey and Venom. It's been stuck in a rut from the get-go.

If there was something interesting there to work with, then Raimi would have leapt at the chance to put that on screen. But when he researched the character he found nothing but shallow stories. Because that's what they are, IMO. And what director wants to use a character like that?

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Doc Ock
But the glaring difference here is that the hatred Venom has for Spidey is based on a personal vendetta. It's personal between Spidey and Venom. Even though Spider-Man never did a thing on Brock, and Brock's motivation is weak, he does hate Spider-Man because he thinks he ruined his life.

A personal vendetta between hero and villain has to evolve, grow, have something shake it up in order to keep it interesting. Venom and Spidey are in the same position they were in 20 years ago. Marvel has not done anything with their feud.

All the great personal vendettas between hero and villain have involved tradgedy, loss etc. Not with Spidey and Venom. It's been stuck in a rut from the get-go.

If there was something interesting there to work with, then Raimi would have leapt at the chance to put that on screen. But when he researched the character he found nothing but shallow stories. Because that's what they are, IMO. And what director wants to use a character like that?

Someone said that realism doesn't necessarily equal good. In that case, neither does tragedy.

It seems to work for Venom's character for he has faired very well among readers over the years.

Toku King
Originally posted by Anti-Monitor
This guy totaly screwed up SP 3 and the franchise after this. He should NEVER make another comic book movie again.

How was ANY of that his fault? His original idea was pretty god damn good.

If you blame anyone, blame Arad and his fanwanking.

Toku King
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20037557,00.html

I have to say I totally agree with Sam. Venom as a character is extremely weak. His popularity stems from the cool look, and the fact that he is simply a villain with Spidey's powers.

Scratch the surface and there's nothing much beneath. Even in terms of being a villain he has accomplished nothing substantial against Spidey. He's so weak that they had to produce a bunch of rip off symbiote characters to try and keep the whole concept fresh.

Even though I love Venom, I can see where he's coming from. Most people I know actually do like Venom only for the way he looks and his 'scary-scary' routine.

Me? I loved Venom for what he was in his first few appearances before becoming a sell-out. He wasn't an evil Spider-Man to me, or any type of personal opposite. Venom was interesting because he was just a character all his own that just so happened to look like Spider-Man and have a personal vendetta against him.
And then after only, like, three appearances, Marvel decided to turn him into one of the most annoyingly dumb characters in their arsenal. Very heart breaking, actually.

Kazenji
Has anyone checked out that Venom: Dark Origin comic ?

Doc Ock
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Someone said that realism doesn't necessarily equal good. In that case, neither does tragedy.

Tragedy for a superhero always works. There is nothing more effective or profound when a hero fails and loses a loved one.

Especially when the reason they lose them is because of them. Gwen Stacy died because Peter loved her. Robin died because he was Batman's partner. Uncle Ben died because Peter didn't act to stop a criminal etc.



Because he's eye candy with Spidey's powers. Just like Raimi said. There's nothing profound about the character.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Because he's eye candy with Spidey's powers. Just like Raimi said. There's nothing profound about the character.

And the next thing you're going to say is that Doc Ock can pass as Doc Ock without the metalic arms. Seriously, this arguement holds little water because every villian was designed to look 'eye candy' to attract readers for their time.

When Doc Ock and GG were created, there wasn't anything all that profound about their characters either. However, readers were attracted by their unusual appearances, gadgets, and powers. So why should Venom be treated any less for his 'eye candyness'?

werehawk
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Actually Ock's backstory in the movie is not that dramatically different from the comics. In the comic books, he was engaged to be married, but his mother sabotaged the relationship with emotional blackmail. This was the beginning of his downfall into his dark path.

In the movie, he actually was married, but he was still shown to have some irrational and violent tendencies before he became a villain. Remember the demonstration scene, when the fusion reactor went haywire and starting destroying everything, and Octavius refused to shut it down, despite all the danger it was creating.
Then Spidey showed up and tried to unplug it, and Octavius smashed him into the wall with one of the tentacles. And it ultimately cost him his wife's life.

Tragedy is very different than being ****ed in the head because of your mom. IMO, these two stories are nothing alike.

--- Hey! they censored me. Bastards!

werehawk
Originally posted by Kazenji
Has anyone checked out that Venom: Dark Origin comic ?

Kazenji, look at the last page of the Venom in August thread for some (negative) opinions on Venom: DO and a few scans.

werehawk
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Tragedy for a superhero always works. There is nothing more effective or profound when a hero fails and loses a loved one....

Because he's eye candy with Spidey's powers. Just like Raimi said. There's nothing profound about the character.

I think the error many readers (and a number of writers) make is that they mistake the wearer of the symbiote for the entire character. There is nothing more tragic than the symbiote. She comes from a race of completely ruthless beings and was imprisoned for caring. Then Spidey comes along and rejects her. She bonds with Brock because he 'loves' her as long as she can get him Spiderman. Tragic to a T.

And, as many people have pointed out, Venom's handling by writers has been inconsistent to say the least, with a lot of the stories utter crap. That is true of many characters. Remember when Doc Ock tried to marry Aunt May? Of course, it may be more true of Venom than others because he was an overnight sensation and they tried to milk it. But that doesn't negate that his original stories and characterization had potential that was overlooked by Raimi and others. Potential that mostly dissipated by his 3rd appearance I'd say.

I guess I need to stop here. We all have our opinions and Raimi has his and no one is going to be convinced that they are wrong. Oh well...

Kazenji
Originally posted by werehawk
Kazenji, look at the last page of the Venom in August thread for some (negative) opinions on Venom: DO and a few scans.

So theres a thread called The venom which has scans for Venom: DO, is that what your trying to say ?

Accel
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
When Doc Ock and GG were created, there wasn't anything all that profound about their characters either. However, readers were attracted by their unusual appearances, gadgets, and powers. So why should Venom be treated any less for his 'eye candyness'?
Because they were created 40+ years ago and standards have changed greatly since then. Plenty of characters didn't start out as good characters, but they still managed to at least develop as time went by. Venom... actually got worse over time.

Today, though, people have a far easier time citing what makes Osbourne or Octavius good characters outside of their powersets than they do for Brock.

Kazenji
Don't worry Warhawk i found the thread as you can see

Weird thing was when i did the search i put Venom that thread did'nt come but yet when i did Dark Origin into the search it did.......One weird search function on this site.

Toku King
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And the next thing you're going to say is that Doc Ock can pass as Doc Ock without the metalic arms. Seriously, this arguement holds little water because every villian was designed to look 'eye candy' to attract readers for their time.

When Doc Ock and GG were created, there wasn't anything all that profound about their characters either. However, readers were attracted by their unusual appearances, gadgets, and powers. So why should Venom be treated any less for his 'eye candyness'?

Actually, even in the beginning, both GG and Doc Ock had special character quirks and personalities that strengthened the characters, not just the gadgets. I still read Stan Lee-era Spider-Man comics, and I see the appeals that go even past the costumes and powers.
Originally Venom had that as well, but Marvel decided to turn him into one big gimmick shortly afterwards.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And the next thing you're going to say is that Doc Ock can pass as Doc Ock without the metalic arms.

Actually no. Alot of artist renditions of Doc Ock or Green Goblin can hardly be considered eye candy. I mean Ock is a middle aged man in glasses with a bowlcut and usually wears green spandex type outfits. Green Goblin used to fly on a broomstick in his early days, and he wears a purple nightcap and purple elf boots with green spandex, and carrys a handbag full of pumpkin bombs.

Nobody is accusing these guys of being eye candy. Both of these guys got major costume revamps for the movies. Venom was practically identical to the comics in the movie. It's the writing of them as great villains who have had variety and spice in the Spidey world that makes them good. When Raimi researched these characters he found interesting possibilites and themes to be used with them in his movies.



As I described above, no they were not. Even goofier looking villains like Vulture, who's a bald old man on green bird wings, was going to be in Spider-Man 3 instead of Venom, until Avi Arad stepped in and forced Raimi to use Venom.

You're not going to tell me that Mysterio, with a fish bowl on his head, or Kraven in a leopard skin outfit, or Electro with yellow lightning bolts on his face, were designed as eye candy.



We've been thru this already. No, there was no backstory to any of the villains back in the early days of the 60's because Stan Lee didn't have the luxury of spending several issues writing one. The future writers built on the foundations of those characters.

Not only that, Stan made different exciting things happen with these villains. In the first 100 issues or so of their creation, Ock and Goblin had both been responsible for the death of the one of the Staceys. Gobby had discovered Spidey's identity. Ock had infiltrated Peter's home and trashed it, and caused Aunt May to have a stroke. Ock had unmasked Spidey and kidnapped his gf, Betty Brant.

All that in the space of a few years. Venom's had 20 years now and he hasn't even had a quarter of that kind of impact or excitement in his feud with Spidey.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by werehawk

And, as many people have pointed out, Venom's handling by writers has been inconsistent to say the least, with a lot of the stories utter crap. That is true of many characters. Remember when Doc Ock tried to marry Aunt May?

That wasn't inconsistent. Ock wasn't trying to marry May because he loved her. He was trying to get his hands on her inheritance of a nuclear facility on some island. He was going to build atomic weapons there.

Ock did develop a fondness for May Parker because she was the only one who saw him as a decent man and treated him that way. But he still had no qualms about using her for his own evil gain. He was willing to woo her into a sham marriage just so he could get her inheritance. He used her home as a hideout while he lay low from the Cops etc.

Even to this day the writers still acknowledge that continuity. Anyone read that Doc Ock story JMS wrote in Amazing Spider-Man back in 2003, the one where this guy name Carlyle tried to steal and duplicate Ock's tentacle technology? Ock bumped into May during the course of that story, and they still recognised eachother. This was set shortly after May learned Peter was Spider-Man. They have a discussion at the end of the story how May never knew what Octavius was really like.
In Spectacular Spider-Man they are going thru an old photo album, and they come across a picture of May with Ock, and she says "Oh Peter, can you ever forgive me for allowing that awful man into our home? It must have been so hard for you seeing that knowing all the awful things you knew about him".

chilled monkey
Originally posted by werehawk
I think the error many readers (and a number of writers) make is that they mistake the wearer of the symbiote for the entire character. There is nothing more tragic than the symbiote. She comes from a race of completely ruthless beings and was imprisoned for caring. Then Spidey comes along and rejects her. She bonds with Brock because he 'loves' her as long as she can get him Spiderman. Tragic to a T.


I had absolutely no idea of any of that. Thank you very much, that's very interesting.

chilled monkey
Originally posted by Doc Ock
But the glaring difference here is that the hatred Venom has for Spidey is based on a personal vendetta. It's personal between Spidey and Venom. Even though Spider-Man never did a thing on Brock, and Brock's motivation is weak, he does hate Spider-Man because he thinks he ruined his life.

A personal vendetta between hero and villain has to evolve, grow, have something shake it up in order to keep it interesting. Venom and Spidey are in the same position they were in 20 years ago. Marvel has not done anything with their feud.

All the great personal vendettas between hero and villain have involved tradgedy, loss etc. Not with Spidey and Venom. It's been stuck in a rut from the get-go.

If there was something interesting there to work with, then Raimi would have leapt at the chance to put that on screen. But when he researched the character he found nothing but shallow stories. Because that's what they are, IMO. And what director wants to use a character like that?

Good point.

Phoenix2001
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Actually no. Alot of artist renditions of Doc Ock or Green Goblin can hardly be considered eye candy. I mean Ock is a middle aged man in glasses with a bowlcut and usually wears green spandex type outfits. Green Goblin used to fly on a broomstick in his early days, and he wears a purple nightcap and purple elf boots with green spandex, and carrys a handbag full of pumpkin bombs.

Dude, we're talking about the sixties here, when Spider-Man was brand new and rising in popularity. Anything was bound to attract readers no matter what.

Nobody is accusing these guys of being eye candy.

I am.

Both of these guys got major costume revamps for the movies. Venom was practically identical to the comics in the movie. It's the writing of them as great villains who have had variety and spice in the Spidey world that makes them good. When Raimi researched these characters he found interesting possibilites and themes to be used with them in his movies.

Sure they had revamped looks in the movies... so? Why would they use a look that has been used for over fourty years? Raimi didn't "research" these characters, as you put it. Raimi grew up reading earlier GG and Doc Ock comics and was clearly bias towards Venom, or later Spidey stories for that matter.

As I described above, no they were not. Even goofier looking villains like Vulture, who's a bald old man on green bird wings, was going to be in Spider-Man 3 instead of Venom, until Avi Arad stepped in and forced Raimi to use Venom.

You're not going to tell me that Mysterio, with a fish bowl on his head, or Kraven in a leopard skin outfit, or Electro with yellow lightning bolts on his face, were designed as eye candy.

Yes, they were. Maybe not all were designed to be exactly 'eye-candy' but compellingly interesting to say the least. You're not going to tell me that every villian created was not an attempt at creating something sellable.

Arad forced Raimi? Yeah, I'm sure Arad really cared if Venom was actually in the movie or not. No, Arad understood Venom's popularity, and both he and Raimi used that to sell their movie.

We've been thru this already. No, there was no backstory to any of the villains back in the early days of the 60's because Stan Lee didn't have the luxury of spending several issues writing one. The future writers built on the foundations of those characters.

Not only that, Stan made different exciting things happen with these villains. In the first 100 issues or so of their creation, Ock and Goblin had both been responsible for the death of the one of the Staceys. Gobby had discovered Spidey's identity. Ock had infiltrated Peter's home and trashed it, and caused Aunt May to have a stroke. Ock had unmasked Spidey and kidnapped his gf, Betty Brant.

All that in the space of a few years. Venom's had 20 years now and he hasn't even had a quarter of that kind of impact or excitement in his feud with Spidey.

I've nothing against GG or Doc Ock. They are exciting characters, and a lot has transpired with them over the decades. However, to say Venom has no impact on Spidey is just stupid. Venom has impacted Spidey in a different way. Just because Venom doesn't endanger someone inoccent everytime you turn around doesn't mean he can't be an effective villain.

You can tell me all you want that Venom is popular because of his appearance and other such things in this respect, but so what? It seems to me that a villain is more prone to success when he resembles the hero, as the last twenty years of Venom's presence, good or bad, has shown. Who knows why? It could be because the line between hero and villain is more refined and easier to contrast between the two.

It really boils down to who is most interested in Venom. You obviously have shown you're not, but there are many others who have.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by Phoenix2001 Dude, we're talking about the sixties here, when Spider-Man was brand new and rising in popularity. Anything was bound to attract readers no matter what.

That's flawed logic right there. Amazing Fantasy, where Spider-Man debuted in was being cancelled because of poor sales. Why didn't that attract readers if they were so easily wowed in the sixties?

Also, many of the villains Stan created were not nearly as popular as Ock and Goblin. They were liked, but didn't have the wow factor Ock and Goblin had. That's why Stan used those two villains more than any of the others. Fan response for those two was astounding.

For example, do you know how many appearances Electro made in the first 100 issues of Amazing Spider-Man? Two. Do you know how many Ock and Goblin had? Ock had twelve, and Goblin had ten.



Why? Your reasoning makes no sense.



Why not? They did it with Spider-Man, Sandman, the Joker, Iron Man, The Hulk etc.



Of course he researched them. You don't think he went into directing a multi million dollar movie with nothing but fuzzy childhood memories about the characters, do you?

His natural inclination to use the classic villains is based on his fondness for them from childhood, yes. But he went and read back up on them and refamiliarized himself with them and all the stories about them. Every comic book director reads the source material before doing a script or directing a movie. Chris Nolan did it. Richard Donner did it. Brian Singer did it.



No, I'm telling you that every villain created was designed to be outlandish and powerful and a challenge to Spidey. They were not designed to be eye candy. No way. Anyone who finds a guy in cape with a fishbowl on his head, or a bald old man on green bird wings etc eye candy, then they have bizarre definitions of what looks cool.

And if your response is again going to be it was the 60's, then why do they keep those traditional comic book looks for the villains even today? I'll tell you why: Because the attraction to those villains is in the writing, not the cool look, unlike Venom.



Are you calling Raimi a liar? Are you that blinded by bias that you're saying Raimi is lying? Why would he publically tell fans that he doesn't like Venom and never wanted to use him? You think that does him any favours? No.

He's saying it like it is: He never wanted to use Venom because the character is lame. Arad told him he has to listen to please the fans and put aside his own bias.

Simple as that. Whether you choose to believe that or not is your privelege, but that's the truth. It makes no sense for Raimi to tell the Spidey fan base that he thinks the Venom character is weak unless he meant it.



I never said he can't be an effective villain. I think any villain can be effective with proper writing. Venom's just never had it, IMO.

As for Venom's impact on Spidey, stalking him, and giving him some fierce punch ups hardly puts him on the A-list. Especially when you consider he's armed with the knowledge of Spidey's true identity.



Oh really? So the Joker resembles Batman does he? Dr Doom resembles the Fantastic Four does he? Bullseye resembles Daredevil does he? Magneto resembles the X-Men does he?

Nonsense. The reason they are popular is because they are great villains. Not because they resemble the hero or have their powers or anything like that.



And I still say I agree with Raimi's stance. It's the the cool look, the similar powers to Spidey, and other shallow niceites like that which make Venom appealing.

If you were to put down a list of the biggest hallmark moments in Spidey's life, how many of them would feature Venom? Hardly any. In fact I'd say none. Only getting the symbiote because it allowed Peter to explore his dark side.

harri
IMO i like venom cuz he is basically what spiderman would have been if he had carried on with the symbiote, it shows the inner darkness in spidey. Also green goblin and ock are extremely fantastic, but the writers seem to want norman osborn to be huge. I mean this hole dark reign thing, although i think the stories pretty incredible, if i was new to comics or had a personal other favourite villain, i wouldn't be too pleased with osborn in the lead role. But i must say, like him or hate him,osborn kicks ass in that role. Dock Ock i like much more than green goblin, because he is abit more out of the ordinary, he is a brilliant genius and also with his mechanical arms is quite strong, i mean together i think he can lift 12 tonns, now that's cool, for a John Jennon or Roy Orbison ( they are both ledgends by the way) lookalike. The film i think was ocks break through, because man was he cool, again, like him or hate him, he is so dam cool. With all that said, i'm glad Venom hasn't killed anybody close to peter because it would be boring if three villains killed three of his loved ones. He is imo obiously cool, but some people might disagree. All i'm saying is, i think from what i know and seen, venom is a very wide spaced out character where osborn and ock aren't.
But you can all hate me for this comment, laughing out loud

werehawk
Originally posted by harri

But you can all hate me for this comment, laughing out loud

No worries about the comment, I already hate you!

Toku King
Originally posted by harri
IMO i like venom cuz he is basically what spiderman would have been if he had carried on with the symbiote, it shows the inner darkness in spidey.

Not really.

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Doc Ock
And if your response is again going to be it was the 60's, then why do they keep those traditional comic book looks for the villains even today? I'll tell you why: Because the attraction to those villains is in the writing, not the cool look, unlike Venom.

I actually find Venom has had some good writing, one of my reasons as to why I was attracted to the character was due to his humour, how he could be so psychotic and yet other times sarcastic/funny.

Originally posted by Doc Ock I never said he can't be an effective villain. I think any villain can be effective with proper writing. Venom's just never had it, IMO.

I think he's had good writing in the past, maybe not so much in the 90's but early appearances, I think he did.

Originally posted by Doc Ock As for Venom's impact on Spidey, stalking him, and giving him some fierce punch ups hardly puts him on the A-list. Especially when you consider he's armed with the knowledge of Spidey's true identity.

Nonsense. The reason they are popular is because they are great villains. Not because they resemble the hero or have their powers.

I think he is a great villain, he's unique and he was something different at the time (the whole Symbiote thing.) He's a villain just out to kill Spider-man unlike most other villains who just wanted to rob a bank or rule the world; I also think he added something new he tapped into Peter's fear and the thoughts that because of him (Peter) Venom now exists. Venom himself I think he was interesting not because of his pure hate but the fact he toys around and makes the most out of the moments, yes he is pure hatred, but he'll never stop and he develops a sort of sarcastic demeanor like Spider-man he makes quips usually mocking Spider-man.

Also before he got shrugged into the hero category you could see that conflict of him trying to help people, trying to be a hero yet he would also kill anyone who got in his way/stopping him from killing Spider-man, I think there's a little more their then just hatred, the hatred is the plot device, I mean you also have the whole Symbiote loves Spider-man yet also hates him scenario going on.

Originally posted by Doc Ock And I still say I agree with Raimi's stance. It's the the cool look, the similar powers to Spidey, and other shallow niceites like that which make Venom appealing.

It hallmark moments in Spidey's life, how many of them would feature Venom? Hardly any. In fact I'd say none. Only getting the symbiote because it allowed Peter to explore his dark side.

Just to state in the comics the Symbiote never made Peter bad, in fact there's never any indication that leads you to believe it's making him evil, that comes from the 90's TAS plot device.

Just my opinion on things.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen I actually find Venom has had some good writing

Can you give me some examples of stories which yield such writing?



Well, that I can somewhat agree with because he was new and fresh back then. But it's soured by his weak reasons for hating Spider-Man.



That goes for most of Spidey's villains. They're all unique in their own way. Even the various Goblins are all different in their motivations and backstories.



I'd say that makes him rather boring. Which is why he went past his sell by date in the 90's, and they totally changed his motivation and made him anti-hero.

Suddenly killing Spider-Man was not priority one. In fact he even teamed with Spidey several times.

Lame.



But he really didn't. Brock is his own self creation. Spider-Man was not standing in the way of Brock writing a proper news story about Sin Eater. Brock simply chose to focus his hatred on a stranger he never even met. A guy who did nothing but catch a serial killer.

Spidey was not directly linked to Brock in any way, shape, or form. Brock is a self made person who came across the symbiote by sheer chance.

That's one thing Spider-Man 3 actually did better. They made Peter directly responsible for creating Venom by having Peter humilate Brock, get him fired, date the girl Brock had an obsession for, and the reason Brock was in the church was because of Peter. He was asking god to kill him.



Green Goblin has done all of that. And better, too.



More example of contradictory bad writing. Again is it any wonder Raimi was put off by this?



Yet they never did anything interesting with that angle. They had the opportunity when Brock sold his symbiote, but instead they gave it to the Scorpion laughing



So why did he get rid of it in the bell tower if it was not a bad influence on him?

Keehar
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen

Just my opinion on things.

So to sum up your post, you like Venom because he hates Spider-Man and has good humour?

You must love Jonah Jameson then stick out tongue wink

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Doc Ock
Can you give me some examples of stories which yield such writing?

I can get some scans of some humor/psychotic parts to his personality but it'll take some time.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Well, that I can somewhat agree with because he was new and fresh back then. But it's soured by his weak reasons for hating Spider-Man.

I can agree the reason for hatred was weak, I think it was more because the script had to be changed, Venom was at first supposed to be a woman etc, but the editor had it changed close to his appearance deadline so that was a rush job.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
That goes for most of Spidey's villains. They're all unique in their own way. Even the various Goblins are all different in their motivations and backstories.

I'd say that makes him rather boring. Which is why he went past his sell by date in the 90's, and they totally changed his motivation and made him anti-hero.

Suddenly killing Spider-Man was not priority one. In fact he even teamed with Spidey several times.

Lame.

I think Marvel decided to make him a hero to feature him more in his own series, that and also to give him a justified response to win battles or be in certain situations etc.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
But he really didn't. Brock is his own self creation. Spider-Man was not standing in the way of Brock writing a proper news story about Sin Eater. Brock simply chose to focus his hatred on a stranger he never even met. A guy who did nothing but catch a serial killer.

Spidey was not directly linked to Brock in any way, shape, or form. Brock is a self made person who came across the symbiote by sheer chance.

More example of contradictory bad writing. Again is it any wonder Raimi was put off by this?

Again I think it was more of him being rushed into the series and then everyone wanting to put their own "stamp" on the character when he became popular.

Originally posted by Doc Ock Yet they never did anything interesting with that angle. They had the opportunity when Brock sold his symbiote, but instead they gave it to the Scorpion laughing

Yeah that was a bad move on their part no question about it.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
So why did he get rid of it in the bell tower if it was not a bad influence on him?

Because it took him out at night so he was exhausted in the morning that and he didn't like the idea of being permanently stuck to another creature.

Originally posted by Keehar
So to sum up your post, you like Venom because he hates Spider-Man and has good humour?

You must love Jonah Jameson then stick out tongue wink

Not so much the hatred that's just the excuse for him being psychotic, I like him for humor the psychotic nature and the symbiote/symbiote relationship, as well as a few other things here and there, the design for instance.

Doc Ock
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I can get some scans of some humor/psychotic parts to his personality but it'll take some time.

It's ok, mate, you don't have to put yourself to any trouble. I've read all of Venom's stories thru the years. I know what you're talking about.

His humour, while amusing, isn't anything deep. As for his insanity, well that's the fallback reason isn't it for his silly reasons for hating Spider-Man. "Oh he's crazy. It doesn't have to make sense". Well, when it comes to personal feuds between hero and villain, their basis for the feud most certainly has to make sense. It being based on nothing but a delusional mind makes for a weak feud.

It's probably why they never took the Venom/Spidey feud anywhere interesting.



They could have revamped the origin, or at least if he was going to lose his job, make Spidey have a direct link to it like in Spider-Man 3. As horrible as the movie was, they got that part right.

When Venom was hating on Spidey in that movie, I could believe his hatred for what Peter did to him.



No, they changed it because the stalking Spidey routine got stale. But the character was popular, and they didn't want to axe him. So they changed his motivations and gave him a whole new purpose, even a new character to fight .



Addressed this above.



Oh god, was that it? Man, it's been that long since I read it. How lame. No wonder they changed it for the cartoons and the movie.

Neo Darkhalen
Originally posted by Doc Ock
It's ok, mate, you don't have to put yourself to any trouble. I've read all of Venom's stories thru the years. I know what you're talking about.

Thanks man.

Originally posted by Doc Ock His humour, while amusing, isn't anything deep. As for his insanity, well that's the fallback reason isn't it for his silly reasons for hating Spider-Man. "Oh he's crazy. It doesn't have to make sense". Well, when it comes to personal feuds between hero and villain, their basis for the feud most certainly has to make sense. It being based on nothing but a delusional mind makes for a weak feud.

It's probably why they never took the Venom/Spidey feud anywhere interesting.

They could have revamped the origin, or at least if he was going to lose his job, make Spidey have a direct link to it like in Spider-Man 3. As horrible as the movie was, they got that part right.

When Venom was hating on Spidey in that movie, I could believe his hatred for what Peter did to him.

No, they changed the origin because the stalking Spidey routine got stale. But the character was popular, and they didn't want to axe him. So they changed his motivations and gave him a whole new purpose, even a new character to fight .

Reading this now I can understand and see what you're saying, I'm still a fan of the character and I still like him obviously, however I'll be honest in saying you opened up my views on him; I can see why people don't like him.

Originally posted by Doc Ock
Oh god, was that it? Man, it's been that long since I read it. How lame. No wonder they changed it for the cartoons and the movie.

I think overall the 90's TAS handled Venom's origins better.

harri
Originally posted by werehawk
No worries about the comment, I already hate you! are u kidding mate???

werehawk
Originally posted by harri
are u kidding mate???

Yep.
Sometimes I'm too sarcastic. I don't know you and agree with most of the things you've said.

werehawk
Originally posted by werehawk
Yep.
Sometimes I'm too sarcastic. I don't know you and agree with most of the things you've said.

Plus look what it says under my name. Sometimes the desciption fits.

Final Blaxican
Member?

werehawk
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Member?

Dammit. No one gets my jokes. Yes, I am calling myself a dick (sometimes).

harri
Originally posted by werehawk
Yep.
Sometimes I'm too sarcastic. I don't know you and agree with most of the things you've said. laughing out loud no worries mate, i think your extremely good at forums and stuff.

SpyCspider
http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/DarkSideoftheSpider/DarkSideoftheSpider.html

really good dissection into Venom as a character and why he started off well but ultimately crashed.

Very similar to a lot of your opinions.

Keehar
Originally posted by SpyCspider
http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/DarkSideoftheSpider/DarkSideoftheSpider.html

really good dissection into Venom as a character and why he started off well but ultimately crashed.

Very similar to a lot of your opinions.

Great website that. And the article made alot of good points.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.