WolfCypher
...
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 14,720
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 33
In a perfect, hypothetical world, Lance Bannon would have been Venom. Or maybe Venom would have been some vengeful woman. And Marvel still would have overused and destroyed Venom.
Fact is, Venom's origins and Eddie's motivations is not what ruined Venom. Many classic villains started off with bad origins and weak reasonings, but what was done with the villains in further stories is what made them legendary.
Dr. Doom, for instance, has a very corny background and reason for hating Reed. Come to think of it, isn't Doom's hatred for Reed just as irrational as Eddie hating Spider-Man in the comics? Doom's experiment bows up in his face due to his own mistake, and he puts that blame on Reed Richards. His origin is convoluted (involving devils and sorcery and family betrayal) and his hatred for Reed is laughable, but what makes Doom badass is that over the years, he was handled well.
Dr. Doom came from a bad origin and became a killer villain.
So I understand when the Venom anti-fans express disdain for Venom. Trust me, I do. I just hate it when people say "Venom sucks because his origins and motivations are lame". No, that is not what made Venom bad. A character is only as good as how the writers make him. No one cared that Venom's motivations were 'weak' during the late 80s-early 90s, because the stories were good. What made Venom bad was what writers established later & did to him, and how Marvel decided to use him. If Venom had retained his classic style, he would be better perceived now.
Had to repost that. I'm not saying Venom's history wasn't bad, or his motivations weren't good (though I and Airwolf both agree that while you can say Eddie hating someone for his own problems is dumb, it IS real). What I'm asm saying is this:
People need to get past that.
Venom could have had the stupidest origins in history, and if his writig and stories had stayed good for many, many years, people would love him.
Same with the people saying "Venom shoulda been that pregnant chick/the symbiote should have left Eddie like planned"...we still don't know how well liked Venom would have been among the fans, or how Marvel would have handled the character. Venom in any form could have still sucked. That's a hypothetical thought, there's no way to know if the road not taken almost twenty years ago would have been better or worse.
Personally, the how "Spider-Man killed my husband and made me miscarriage" angle the female Venom would have been driven by is just as good or just as bad as Eddie blaming Spider-Man on his ruined career and lost of everything. Both characters would have been last minute introductions, with neither character having any history with Spider-Man. And David Michelinie said madness would have kept female's Venom's hatred going; same with Eddie.
I also find it funny how people say that it would have been better if Michelinie did kill off Brock and kept the symbiote alive for later stories like he had wanted (I agree, ONLY because of what was in store for Venom later on by keeping him alive...Marvel deconstruction of his character). It's funny because these are the same people who don't like Gargan/Venom...we have a new Venom, and Brock is on death's door, and you guys aren't happy. So would you really had been happy with Brock's death and a new Venom back in the early 90s like planned?
Anyway, I'm not trying to trick anyone into thinking "Venom's origins in the comics were perfect", just that "a bad origin does not automatically mean the character is bad." Bad writing and bad handling, years & years of this, is what made Venom bad.
