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?"
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
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.
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.
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.
__________________ Paying member of the Official Cliegg Lars Fan Club
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
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.
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.
Last edited by werehawk on Dec 25th, 2008 at 06:53 PM
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.
__________________ Paying member of the Official Cliegg Lars Fan Club
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Doc Ock on Dec 26th, 2008 at 10:29 PM
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.
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?
KMC Community Forums
Dec 25th, 2008 01:42 AM
People like that are, imo, incredibly boring.
