Why Sam Raimi dislikes Venom

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.

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.

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.

Has anyone checked out that Venom: Dark Origin comic ?

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.

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

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

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'?

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!

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.

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...

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 ?

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'?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Seriously, this arguement holds little water because every villian was designed to look 'eye candy' to attract readers for their time.

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.

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'?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

[i]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.

I am

Why? Your reasoning makes no sense.

Sure they had revamped looks in the movies... so? Why would they use a look that has been used for over fourty years?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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, 😂