How the vulture would have played into the story

[Venom'sDad]

I have given facts from the book that Ive already listed numerous times that show that avi didnt force anything on anyone. Also it was sir ben kingsley that they wanted to play the vulture. He was basically cast before they left the vulture script for the venom script. Also Sam is not going to purposely screw up his movie because he isnt the biggest fan of venom so you guys need to get that out of your head. Thanks to doc ock for showing me the interview. I do believe its possible that grant curtis left some stuff like that out of his book as he says that in a meeting the name venom was just brought up (he doesnt say by who.) He also says that before any consideration at all went in to using him everyone had to read up on venom. By the time it came to choose what scripts to use (between vulture and venom) EVERYONE on the team insisted that the venom scripts brought more to the movie than the vulture script EVERYONE including sam raimi. I dont remember the exact quote but ivan raimi loved venom saying "that it was easier for him and sam to connect eddie to peter and he made for a more satisfying villain."

None of that stuff you said is true. Not one word. Where should I start. Ben Kingsley was never concidered or approached by anyone even remotely close to the franchise. Ben Kingsley is a fan favorite to play Vulture... nothing more, nothing less. That's the only reason why we ever here his name mention, involving Spiderman.I for one have never said that Raimi did purposely screwed Venom because he detest the character. You got the wrong person bud; others have said that. There was never any required reading of the comic for Venom. Sam, his brother, and Alvin read and reference material on Venom to better understand the character and incorporate his story in the film. They all hated it, which is the reason like others have said they reference TAS. No one else outside of them was require to read anything nor had a vote on who to use. It was never a democratic decision. Avi dropped the hammer, Sam & Company followed. Some of the younger crew member admitted being fans of Venom on Sony's websites... that is possibly where you got that from.Finally, no one here knows how Vulture in Spidey 3 would have played out. You don't know the synopsis or the relationship and/or connection. Many don't like Vulture and can't see how he will be use; that where you base your assumption. You are trying to fit Vulture into the story we got. It would have been a radically, a different type of story had Vulture been in it, to what degree, no one knows. Your post is full of assumptions.

 

[Toxin72]

None of that stuff you said is true. Not one word. Where should I start. Ben Kingsley was never concidered or approached by anyone even remotely close to the franchise. Ben Kingsley is a fan favorite to play Vulture... nothing more, nothing less. That's the only reason why we ever here his name mention, involving Spiderman.I for one have never said that Raimi did purposely screwed Venom because he detest the character. You got the wrong person bud; others have said that. There was never any required reading of the comic for Venom. Sam, his brother, and Alvin read and reference material on Venom to better understand the character and incorporate his story in the film. They all hated it, which is the reason like others have said they reference TAS. No one else outside of them was require to read anything nor had a vote on who to use. It was never a democratic decision. Avi dropped the hammer, Sam & Company followed. Some of the younger crew member admitted being fans of Venom on Sony's websites... that is possibly where you got that from.Finally, no one here knows how Vulture in Spidey 3 would have played out. You don't know the synopsis or the relationship and/or connection. Many don't like Vulture and can't see how he will be use; that where you base your assumption. You are trying to fit Vulture into the story we got. It would have been a radically, a different type of story had Vulture been in it, to what degree, no one knows. Your post is full of assumptions.

Well then I guess grant curtis a producer from the movie lied in his book about all this stuff then right because thats what his plan was. If you dont believe me go out and buy the book yourself. Its called the spider-man chronicles: the art of spider-man 3 and everything ive said has been pulled from that book. So to call me a liar is to call grant curtis a liar.

 

[Venom'sDad]

One other point.... for the longest time, no one could see how the Sandman/Venom team-up would work. We see it now because we all saw the film and how it played out. No one knows how Vulture would have played out in a radically different story.

 

[Toxin72]

Here are a few paragraphs taken from the book (this is word for word)
With thomas on board as the newest member of the spider-man fammily, the casting spotlight fell on the vulture. One name on the casting list was of such magnitude and engendered so much confidence, it negated the need for a list: Sir Ben Kingsley.
Sir Ben joined us in Sam's office on February 28 for what proved to be one of the most intensely pleasant meetings I have ever been involved in. He spoke with passion and purpose while expounding upon his approach if called to portray the classic marvel villain. His posture was intimidating, his stare mesmerizing. By the end of the meeting, we were so taken with sir ben as an actor and as a person that we were already trying to figure out when he could start working with costume designer Jim Acheson.
Unfortunately, less than a week after sir ben walked out of sams office the entire casting process ground to a halt. The script was undergoing major changes, and one of these was the replacement of vulture with venom. This villain swap soon became official and the vultures wings were packed away, along with the opportunity to work with Sir Ben Kingsley, to make way for venoms fangs.
So according to Venom'sdad grant curtis was lying when he put that in the book.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Here are a few paragraphs taken from the book (this is word for word)
With thomas on board as the newest member of the spider-man fammily, the casting spotlight fell on the vulture. One name on the casting list was of such magnitude and engendered so much confidence, it negated the need for a list: Sir Ben Kingsley.
Sir Ben joined us in Sam's office on February 28 for what proved to be one of the most intensely pleasant meetings I have ever been involved in. He spoke with passion and purpose while expounding upon his approach if called to portray the classic marvel villain. His posture was intimidating, his stare mesmerizing. By the end of the meeting, we were so taken with sir ben as an actor and as a person that we were already trying to figure out when he could start working with costume designer Jim Acheson.
Unfortunately, less than a week after sir ben walked out of sams office the entire casting process ground to a halt. The script was undergoing major changes, and one of these was the replacement of vulture with venom. This villain swap soon became official and the vultures wings were packed away, along with the opportunity to work with Sir Ben Kingsley, to make way for venoms fangs.
So according to Venom'sdad grant curtis was lying when he put that in the book.

This makes it seem to me that Raimi was looking forward to using Vulture and to working with Sir Ben Kingsley. Also, if they had got to point of casting the character then one would believe there was a script written that satisfied Raimi that had Vulture in it. So, why the sudden switch to Venom then? I don't get it. I've read comments that stated that Raimi dropped Vulture b/c he couldn't find a satisfying connection to Peter within the story. But if that's the case, why even bother meeting with Sir Kingsley? Shouldn't Raimi have just dropped the character after looking at the script if he wasn't satisfied with the connection instead of meeting with Kingsley? Or, was Raimi essentially "forced" to switch Vulture with Venom by Avi Arad even though Raimi and his crew were pleased with the direction they were going in with Vulture(as indicated by Grant Curtis).

 

[Toxin72]

The way its stated in the book (I dont feel like writing more word for words right now) is that venom brought more to the story because it was easier to tie eddie to peter because they worked together. Most of the meeting that are detailed in the book are group meeting so anything like maybe avi pulling sam to the side in private or something wouldnt be a part of the book because it wasnt part of the official meetings. I believe that while sam liked the vulture more he saw that eddie brock/venom enhanced the story and made it better than the vulture would have and thats why they went with venom.

 

[DACrowe]

IMO, TAS Venom is the best Brock/Venom, certainly much better than the subpar Brock/Venom we got in Spider-Man 3. I cared more for the animated Brock than I did for the flimsy and underdeveloped character in SM3. Here are the main problems I had: 1. The fact that Brock and Venom were barely in it/lack of development of the character. 2. Brock's downfall.

A couple of scenes in particular come to mind, at the battle royale where Venom confronts Peter and says "Do you remember how you humiliated me? Now I'm gonna humiliate you."(something like that) Here's the problem, IMO, we should be able to understand where Brock is coming from but when you think about it, Brock created his own mess by faking those pics, so why do we care about him and HOW IN THE HELL COULD HE BE UPSET THAT PETER OUTED HIM. He did something wrong and Peter was his competition for the staff job for god's sake!! He says to Peter at the Bugle, "Please don't do this, I'm begging you, I will lose everything". Why would Peter not do that? Did he really expect Peter to keep his mouth shut while he gets the staff job in a cheating manner?!?

And if I remember correctly, in the comics isn't Brock investigating a story about the Sin Eater and he thinks he has the right killer? Then Spider-Man finds the actual killer and Brock is made out to look like a chump? I don't need an exact carbon copy of that but the premise is great. Brock thought he actually had something, didn't fake anything and then Spider-Man actually ends up with the actual story. That's humiliation! That is so much more compelling than the fake pics weak @$$ story that we got in Spider-Man 3.

That's the meat of the problem for me with Brock/Venom in SM3, he was not compelling at all. I could care less about him. He just always seemed like a throw in villain and in the end felt like a waste of a character. Completely disappointing to me.

I do agree that TAS is the best version of Venom (at least in the first season before they made the same stupid mistake of turning him into an anti-hero). And I'd point out that the SM3 movie pulled more from that than they did from the comics.

In that show though, Eddie Brock was a well developed character (you don't think Brock had enough screentime in SM3? Brock didn't exist in the comics until Venom unmasked himself in ASM #300) who was a rvial to Pete in many ways and did cheat and take short cuts. He was selfish, greedy and Spider-Man EXPOSED him as such and got him fired.

In the movie he is a straight through and through rival of Peter Parker who cheats to get ahead by framing Spidey (like in TAS) and gets exposed by a rage induced Peter (not Spidey) and his career is ruined. To add insult to injury "his girl," is also "stolen" by Peter. It just is twisting the knife a little deeper. Yeah it is his own fault, but that is the beauty of the sleeziness of the character. He is responsible for his own downfall but cannot take responsibility but blame it on others like a vengeful little snot.

It IS BETTER than the origin in the comics.


Raimi hated the character because his motivation to become Venom has always been idiotic and mediocre to say the leasat. He is a reporter who Peter never heard of until he got fired. He wrote a story with a bad source who was apparently a compulsive confessor that he didn't fact check as the Sin Eater. Sin Eater keeps killing though and Spidey brings in the serial killer. So Brock CHANNELS his anger for losing his job because he didn't check his sources on Spider-Man. NOT THE SERIAL KILLER who did it or the guy who lied to him and tricked him into writing a story that was false. No he blames it on the guy who brought in the killer.

It MAKES NO SENSE. And that was it. He lost his career because of this and he places it squarely on Spidey and continually wallows in misery calling himself "a lost innocent" or "avenging the loss of innocence." What innocence? There was none. It isn't that he was humiliated he just has no real justification to be that way.. And he was written paper thin flipping between one who kills people in his way (though regretabbly) to an anti-hero who helps those in need and will not kill anyone but Spidey and perhaps Carnage, because he feels responsibility...yet he feels no responsibility for his job loss.

He is a crappy character. Raimi saw this and used the TAS origin but deepened it by making the rivalry not between Brock and Spidey but between Brock and Peter and made Brock a mirror image of Peter. His justification is stronger, because while it is his fault he lost his job, career, girl, etc., Peter was directly responsbile for setting that punishment into motion. Same as TAS. Not some character with no backstory who just happens to have a slew of people to scapegoat the blame on more prominant than Spidey but for some reason targets him because the plot says he must. His motivation is terrible in the comics.

TAS writers realized that and changed it. They also made him much more dangerous and cruel/evil than the comics without him killing anyone (while in the comics he would do it but then semi-lament having to do so, before just refusing to kill at all after a while). In the movie he is just a through and through villain who enjoys being evil. And to be the opposite of Spidey i prefer that, but we didn't get enough time with him to be definitive. But I think it is closer to the perfect iteration than the comics is.

Venom the anti-hero has never wroked and his origin and motivation for "restoring innocence" has never been very good. TAS made Spidey's involvement in Eddie's woes more central and developed him before the transformation and the movie followed by that example and made him more of a foil too. You call him not compelling in the movie, there was nothing to be compelled to in the comics. Spidey had NOTHING to do with his humiliation and certainly didn't take away his childhood wide-eyed innocence.

I'll take that over the comics version.

 

[Toxin72]

I do agree that TAS is the best version of Venom (at least in the first season before they made the same stupid mistake of turning him into an anti-hero). And I'd point out that the SM3 movie pulled more from that than they did from the comics.

In that show though, Eddie Brock was a well developed character (you don't think Brock had enough screentime in SM3? Brock didn't exist in the comics until Venom unmasked himself in ASM #300) who was a rvial to Pete in many ways and did cheat and take short cuts. He was selfish, greedy and Spider-Man EXPOSED him as such and got him fired.

In the movie he is a straight through and through rival of Peter Parker who cheats to get ahead by framing Spidey (like in TAS) and gets exposed by a rage induced Peter (not Spidey) and his career is ruined. To add insult to injury "his girl," is also "stolen" by Peter. It just is twisting the knife a little deeper. Yeah it is his own fault, but that is the beauty of the sleeziness of the character. He is responsible for his own downfall but cannot take responsibility but blame it on others like a vengeful little snot.

It IS BETTER than the origin in the comics.


Raimi hated the character because his motivation to become Venom has always been idiotic and mediocre to say the leasat. He is a reporter who Peter never heard of until he got fired. He wrote a story with a bad source who was apparently a compulsive confessor that he didn't fact check as the Sin Eater. Sin Eater keeps killing though and Spidey brings in the serial killer. So Brock CHANNELS his anger for losing his job because he didn't check his sources on Spider-Man. NOT THE SERIAL KILLER who did it or the guy who lied to him and tricked him into writing a story that was false. No he blames it on the guy who brought in the killer.

It MAKES NO SENSE. And that was it. He lost his career because of this and he places it squarely on Spidey and continually wallows in misery calling himself "a lost innocent" or "avenging the loss of innocence." What innocence? There was none. It isn't that he was humiliated he just has no real justification to be that way.. And he was written paper thin flipping between one who kills people in his way (though regretabbly) to an anti-hero who helps those in need and will not kill anyone but Spidey and perhaps Carnage, because he feels responsibility...yet he feels no responsibility for his job loss.

He is a crappy character. Raimi saw this and used the TAS origin but deepened it by making the rivalry not between Brock and Spidey but between Brock and Peter and made Brock a mirror image of Peter. His justification is stronger, because while it is his fault he lost his job, career, girl, etc., Peter was directly responsbile for setting that punishment into motion. Same as TAS. Not some character with no backstory who just happens to have a slew of people to scapegoat the blame on more prominant than Spidey but for some reason targets him because the plot says he must. His motivation is terrible in the comics.

TAS writers realized that and changed it. They also made him much more dangerous and cruel/evil than the comics without him killing anyone (while in the comics he would do it but then semi-lament having to do so, before just refusing to kill at all after a while). In the movie he is just a through and through villain who enjoys being evil. And to be the opposite of Spidey i prefer that, but we didn't get enough time with him to be definitive. But I think it is closer to the perfect iteration than the comics is.

Venom the anti-hero has never wroked and his origin and motivation for "restoring innocence" has never been very good. TAS made Spidey's involvement in Eddie's woes more central and developed him before the transformation and the movie followed by that example and made him more of a foil too. You call him not compelling in the movie, there was nothing to be compelled to in the comics. Spidey had NOTHING to do with his humiliation and certainly didn't take away his childhood wide-eyed innocence.

I'll take that over the comics version.

While I like movie venom over TAS venom I do agree with everything you said and couldnt have said it any better myself.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

I do agree that TAS is the best version of Venom (at least in the first season before they made the same stupid mistake of turning him into an anti-hero). And I'd point out that the SM3 movie pulled more from that than they did from the comics.

In that show though, Eddie Brock was a well developed character (you don't think Brock had enough screentime in SM3? Brock didn't exist in the comics until Venom unmasked himself in ASM #300) who was a rvial to Pete in many ways and did cheat and take short cuts. He was selfish, greedy and Spider-Man EXPOSED him as such and got him fired.

In the movie he is a straight through and through rival of Peter Parker who cheats to get ahead by framing Spidey (like in TAS) and gets exposed by a rage induced Peter (not Spidey) and his career is ruined. To add insult to injury "his girl," is also "stolen" by Peter. It just is twisting the knife a little deeper. Yeah it is his own fault, but that is the beauty of the sleeziness of the character. He is responsible for his own downfall but cannot take responsibility but blame it on others like a vengeful little snot.

It IS BETTER than the origin in the comics.


Raimi hated the character because his motivation to become Venom has always been idiotic and mediocre to say the leasat. He is a reporter who Peter never heard of until he got fired. He wrote a story with a bad source who was apparently a compulsive confessor that he didn't fact check as the Sin Eater. Sin Eater keeps killing though and Spidey brings in the serial killer. So Brock CHANNELS his anger for losing his job because he didn't check his sources on Spider-Man. NOT THE SERIAL KILLER who did it or the guy who lied to him and tricked him into writing a story that was false. No he blames it on the guy who brought in the killer.

It MAKES NO SENSE. And that was it. He lost his career because of this and he places it squarely on Spidey and continually wallows in misery calling himself "a lost innocent" or "avenging the loss of innocence." What innocence? There was none. It isn't that he was humiliated he just has no real justification to be that way.. And he was written paper thin flipping between one who kills people in his way (though regretabbly) to an anti-hero who helps those in need and will not kill anyone but Spidey and perhaps Carnage, because he feels responsibility...yet he feels no responsibility for his job loss.

He is a crappy character. Raimi saw this and used the TAS origin but deepened it by making the rivalry not between Brock and Spidey but between Brock and Peter and made Brock a mirror image of Peter. His justification is stronger, because while it is his fault he lost his job, career, girl, etc., Peter was directly responsbile for setting that punishment into motion. Same as TAS. Not some character with no backstory who just happens to have a slew of people to scapegoat the blame on more prominant than Spidey but for some reason targets him because the plot says he must. His motivation is terrible in the comics.

TAS writers realized that and changed it. They also made him much more dangerous and cruel/evil than the comics without him killing anyone (while in the comics he would do it but then semi-lament having to do so, before just refusing to kill at all after a while). In the movie he is just a through and through villain who enjoys being evil. And to be the opposite of Spidey i prefer that, but we didn't get enough time with him to be definitive. But I think it is closer to the perfect iteration than the comics is.

Venom the anti-hero has never wroked and his origin and motivation for "restoring innocence" has never been very good. TAS made Spidey's involvement in Eddie's woes more central and developed him before the transformation and the movie followed by that example and made him more of a foil too. You call him not compelling in the movie, there was nothing to be compelled to in the comics. Spidey had NOTHING to do with his humiliation and certainly didn't take away his childhood wide-eyed innocence.

I'll take that over the comics version.

+ 1 on everything

 

[GoldGoblin]

^
Is that a pic of what the Vulture would of looked liked?

 

[Frodo]

I do agree that TAS is the best version of Venom (at least in the first season before they made the same stupid mistake of turning him into an anti-hero). And I'd point out that the SM3 movie pulled more from that than they did from the comics.

In that show though, Eddie Brock was a well developed character (you don't think Brock had enough screentime in SM3? Brock didn't exist in the comics until Venom unmasked himself in ASM #300) who was a rvial to Pete in many ways and did cheat and take short cuts. He was selfish, greedy and Spider-Man EXPOSED him as such and got him fired.

In the movie he is a straight through and through rival of Peter Parker who cheats to get ahead by framing Spidey (like in TAS) and gets exposed by a rage induced Peter (not Spidey) and his career is ruined. To add insult to injury "his girl," is also "stolen" by Peter. It just is twisting the knife a little deeper. Yeah it is his own fault, but that is the beauty of the sleeziness of the character. He is responsible for his own downfall but cannot take responsibility but blame it on others like a vengeful little snot.

It IS BETTER than the origin in the comics.


Raimi hated the character because his motivation to become Venom has always been idiotic and mediocre to say the leasat. He is a reporter who Peter never heard of until he got fired. He wrote a story with a bad source who was apparently a compulsive confessor that he didn't fact check as the Sin Eater. Sin Eater keeps killing though and Spidey brings in the serial killer. So Brock CHANNELS his anger for losing his job because he didn't check his sources on Spider-Man. NOT THE SERIAL KILLER who did it or the guy who lied to him and tricked him into writing a story that was false. No he blames it on the guy who brought in the killer.

It MAKES NO SENSE. And that was it. He lost his career because of this and he places it squarely on Spidey and continually wallows in misery calling himself "a lost innocent" or "avenging the loss of innocence." What innocence? There was none. It isn't that he was humiliated he just has no real justification to be that way.. And he was written paper thin flipping between one who kills people in his way (though regretabbly) to an anti-hero who helps those in need and will not kill anyone but Spidey and perhaps Carnage, because he feels responsibility...yet he feels no responsibility for his job loss.

He is a crappy character. Raimi saw this and used the TAS origin but deepened it by making the rivalry not between Brock and Spidey but between Brock and Peter and made Brock a mirror image of Peter. His justification is stronger, because while it is his fault he lost his job, career, girl, etc., Peter was directly responsbile for setting that punishment into motion. Same as TAS. Not some character with no backstory who just happens to have a slew of people to scapegoat the blame on more prominant than Spidey but for some reason targets him because the plot says he must. His motivation is terrible in the comics.

TAS writers realized that and changed it. They also made him much more dangerous and cruel/evil than the comics without him killing anyone (while in the comics he would do it but then semi-lament having to do so, before just refusing to kill at all after a while). In the movie he is just a through and through villain who enjoys being evil. And to be the opposite of Spidey i prefer that, but we didn't get enough time with him to be definitive. But I think it is closer to the perfect iteration than the comics is.

Venom the anti-hero has never wroked and his origin and motivation for "restoring innocence" has never been very good. TAS made Spidey's involvement in Eddie's woes more central and developed him before the transformation and the movie followed by that example and made him more of a foil too. You call him not compelling in the movie, there was nothing to be compelled to in the comics. Spidey had NOTHING to do with his humiliation and certainly didn't take away his childhood wide-eyed innocence.

I'll take that over the comics version.

You make some good points but I still think that Venom is a far better villian then Sandman is . His dynamics are much more intresting then Sandman's. He knows all of Parkers secrets, He's far more powerful then Parker, and his look alone is like something out of a nightmare. There was some much potential that Raimi could have done with Venom showing up in MJ's apartment, Being with Aunt May , etc. And that's not counting on how he could have expanded on his concept of Brock being Peter's mirror image by showing his situation. Even with the little we got a Venom ,he was still a more intresting character then Sandman , the one Raimi preferred.

I still think Topher Grace was miscast though . Actually, I think Thomas Hadden Church should have played Brock. He knows how to play sleazy balls well. After seeing SM3 it confirmed to me that Grace should have been the next actor to play Spiderman.

Getting back to the topic at hand though, I think Vulture and Sandman should have been kept out . Let the film be about Hobgoblin and the Symbiote leaving Venom for part 4.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I do agree that TAS is the best version of Venom (at least in the first season before they made the same stupid mistake of turning him into an anti-hero). And I'd point out that the SM3 movie pulled more from that than they did from the comics.

In that show though, Eddie Brock was a well developed character (you don't think Brock had enough screentime in SM3? Brock didn't exist in the comics until Venom unmasked himself in ASM #300) who was a rvial to Pete in many ways and did cheat and take short cuts. He was selfish, greedy and Spider-Man EXPOSED him as such and got him fired.

In the movie he is a straight through and through rival of Peter Parker who cheats to get ahead by framing Spidey (like in TAS) and gets exposed by a rage induced Peter (not Spidey) and his career is ruined. To add insult to injury "his girl," is also "stolen" by Peter. It just is twisting the knife a little deeper. Yeah it is his own fault, but that is the beauty of the sleeziness of the character. He is responsible for his own downfall but cannot take responsibility but blame it on others like a vengeful little snot.

It IS BETTER than the origin in the comics.


Raimi hated the character because his motivation to become Venom has always been idiotic and mediocre to say the leasat. He is a reporter who Peter never heard of until he got fired. He wrote a story with a bad source who was apparently a compulsive confessor that he didn't fact check as the Sin Eater. Sin Eater keeps killing though and Spidey brings in the serial killer. So Brock CHANNELS his anger for losing his job because he didn't check his sources on Spider-Man. NOT THE SERIAL KILLER who did it or the guy who lied to him and tricked him into writing a story that was false. No he blames it on the guy who brought in the killer.

It MAKES NO SENSE. And that was it. He lost his career because of this and he places it squarely on Spidey and continually wallows in misery calling himself "a lost innocent" or "avenging the loss of innocence." What innocence? There was none. It isn't that he was humiliated he just has no real justification to be that way.. And he was written paper thin flipping between one who kills people in his way (though regretabbly) to an anti-hero who helps those in need and will not kill anyone but Spidey and perhaps Carnage, because he feels responsibility...yet he feels no responsibility for his job loss.

He is a crappy character. Raimi saw this and used the TAS origin but deepened it by making the rivalry not between Brock and Spidey but between Brock and Peter and made Brock a mirror image of Peter. His justification is stronger, because while it is his fault he lost his job, career, girl, etc., Peter was directly responsbile for setting that punishment into motion. Same as TAS. Not some character with no backstory who just happens to have a slew of people to scapegoat the blame on more prominant than Spidey but for some reason targets him because the plot says he must. His motivation is terrible in the comics.

TAS writers realized that and changed it. They also made him much more dangerous and cruel/evil than the comics without him killing anyone (while in the comics he would do it but then semi-lament having to do so, before just refusing to kill at all after a while). In the movie he is just a through and through villain who enjoys being evil. And to be the opposite of Spidey i prefer that, but we didn't get enough time with him to be definitive. But I think it is closer to the perfect iteration than the comics is.

Venom the anti-hero has never wroked and his origin and motivation for "restoring innocence" has never been very good. TAS made Spidey's involvement in Eddie's woes more central and developed him before the transformation and the movie followed by that example and made him more of a foil too. You call him not compelling in the movie, there was nothing to be compelled to in the comics. Spidey had NOTHING to do with his humiliation and certainly didn't take away his childhood wide-eyed innocence.

I'll take that over the comics version.

Very well stated. I just find it funny though, that now, for some people, Raimi has brought to the them this grand vision of Brock/Venom that is definitively better than the comics version. It's funny b/c there are Venom fans who were excited(from reading the comics) to see this character, saw the changes made and then justify it by saying, "well, he sucked in the comics anyway."

And to be honest, I'm not that type of person that gets upset just because there are changes made, if the changes made make the movie better and doesn't compromise the character, then I'm all for it. But Raimi's Brock/Venom was just a paper thin character to me. Perhaps if there was a director's cut made with additional scenes of Brock(and I'm stressing Brock because I'm not the type of person that needs to see 40 min of Venom thrashing people) with added depth and development then I would maybe like him more. But as it stands now, he just feels like a throw in character who I could really care less about.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

You make some good points but I still think that Venom is a far better villian then Sandman is . His dynamics are much more intresting then Sandman's. He knows all of Parkers secrets, He's far more powerful then Parker, and his look alone is like something out of a nightmare. There was some much potential that Raimi could have done with Venom showing up in MJ's apartment, Being with Aunt May , etc. And that's not counting on how he could have expanded on his concept of Brock being Peter's mirror image by showing his situation. Even with the little we got a Venom ,he was still a more intresting character then Sandman , the one Raimi preferred.

That was part of the problem for me. The character just never felt like he reached his full potential.

 

[drmick]

"How do you feel about the way the film ended for Venom?
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]I felt pretty strongly that it should be that way. We had a lot of conversations about that. I think out of all the Spider-Man villains, he needs to be punished. The movie's about choices and he made bad choices. I thought it was very important to the film, especially because Sandman's on a very different journey and it highlights how different those two journeys are."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Source
[/FONT]

Thank you.

That isn't quite the same as Grace insisting that Venom die or he wouldn't take the role.

 

[drmick]

^
Is that a pic of what the Vulture would of looked liked?

Yes.

That is Sir Ben Kingsley.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^Are you joking? Doesn't look like him at all. Where is the pic from?

 

[Kargo Warrior]

That is NOT Ben Kingsley

 

[SlyGuyTtjn]

That is NOT Ben Kingsley

You guys, hahahaha.. Man.. It's NOT BEN KINGSLEY!! I just found some old guy on google.. He's like 110 years old. lol. I figured that saggy guy would make you all like VENOM more.. haht:

 

[DACrowe]

I do agree that Brock (and Marko) needed more screentime. I think seeing Eddie on a date with Gwen or him losing his apartment before and after his humiliation would have deepened the character. And I think seeing Marko visiting his daughter in the hospital and apologize for being unable to help her before the final fight and Venom slowly turn Marko in a long scene instead of a 90 second "Hey wanna kill Spider-Man? Cool."

As for Venom himself. He kicked Spidey's ass twice in the movie. The stalking might have worked but everything Venom has done GG has done better, in the movies and definetly in the comic books. Both Norman and Harry broke Peter's sanity numerous times in the comics. In the first movie Norman pushes Peter to the brink by attacking his aunt but not killing her, just to **** with Peter and kidnapping his gal pal, etc.. Harry downright pushes peter over the edge by playing very Harry-ish mindgames with Parker and have him thinks his girlfriend left him for his best friend/worst enemy. Though not out of the comics a pretty Harry-esque way of ****ing with Peter.

And Harry has already shown up in MJ's apartment and Norman caused his aunt a heart attack. Sure Venom showing up at Aunt May's....condo (since she moved out in the movies) and eating her cookies while waiting for Pete to threaten him, but Venom getting to the point, I liked.

But I think both Venom and Sandman got shortchanged in screentime. I think Venom was the better villain of the two, but Sandman was more intergal to the plotline that Raimi created, and I do think Church is a better actor. But I liked Topher as Venom, because the dopplenganger as I've stated is more interesting than the meathead in the comics.

 

[Chris B]

I think the story that was described with the Vulture could've worked. I wish that they had gone that route.

 

[Kanon]

I think general audiences would have laughed at a villain like the vulture... An old man that flies with wings under his arms...

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Brock's a pretty lame character in the comics to be fair. I think both TAS and the the movie Spider-Man 3 did him better than the comics.

His motivation is weak and has been added and retconned at least three times to try and make up for its crappiness and it still doesn't quite work and his consistant shifting from villain to anti-hero to killer to savior wasn't complex. It was shallow and showed a character that was more popular for his visual appeal.

He was written to be the unstoppable force that...well Spider-Man would eventually stop. I can understand why that bored Sam Raimi.

He instead took the concept of the TAS Eddie Brock and transformed him into a dopplenganger of Peter and gave him stronger motivations and just explored the character better.

Despite his death, I think Sam Raimi's shortlived Venom is a better character than the one we've been treated to in the comics for the last near 20 years. Really.

I love Movie Venom ALOT!. But that doesn't mean Comic Book Venom was bad. I loved Comic Book Venom as well. there were great stories between him and Spidey. They fought on an Island, they teamed up to fight Carnage (I didn't like that kind of attitude from Venom but atleast the story was good), Spidey saved Eddie Brocks wife from dieing, etc. Their encounters were great which is one of the reasons why Venom being in Spidey3 was a great choice. TAS Eddie Brock/Venom was awesome to and I enjoyed every bit of Venom in that show and I absoloutley loved it but Sam did take most of the things from The Comics which is great IMO.

 

[slmon]

For those of you who thinks the Vulture story is better... It's not. He just can't hate Peter THAT MUCH, and it's not good for the theme of Spider-man 3. Let me put it this wayy.. Who votes for this guy?

OR Who votes for this kickass guy?

'Nuff said.

I vote for the guy Raimi would do better - which, in retrospect, looks like it would have been the Vulture. It's no good using a "kickass guy" if the director is going to screw him over and shortchange him which, ultimately, turns him into a lame ass guy. And for those of you who thought movie Venom was good, pass me some of what you're smoking. Cheesy look, little characterization, little screentime. What you are saying is that you don't like Venom and are fine with him being screwed over, right? TAS version kicked the snot out of Raimi's version.

 

[SlyGuyTtjn]

I vote for the guy Raimi would do better - which, in retrospect, looks like it would have been the Vulture. It's no good using a "kickass guy" if the director is going to screw him over and shortchange him which, ultimately, turns him into a lame ass guy. And for those of you who thought movie Venom was good, pass me some of what you're smoking. Cheesy look, little characterization, little screentime. What you are saying is that you don't like Venom and are fine with him being screwed over, right? TAS version kicked the snot out of Raimi's version.

So a movie with a darker theme.. Revenge.. And you're saying you're scared by an older man who's saggyness may be his only weapon?

There's no need to put words in other's mouths.. It was a sarcastic post... Hence the picture of the 110 yr old guy. lol

 

[SlyGuyTtjn]

I think the story that was described with the Vulture could've worked. I wish that they had gone that route.

Did you see the pictures I posted?!


j/k man.. I am curious to see what it'd look like.