The Amazing Spider-Man If Venom is used again, this is how he should look!

Yeah I want the classic symbol to be on his chest too. But seeing as it's a reboot they might go for something a bit different.
 
Maybe not symbol at all
ultimate-spider-man-20051011042456576-000.jpg
 
Yeah I want the classic symbol on his chest too. Although seeing as it's a reboot they might go for something a bit different.

Personally, I hope they don't try fix something that isn't broken.

Maybe not symbol at all
ultimate-spider-man-20051011042456576-000.jpg

Hell no. The symbol is Venom's way of taunting Spider-Man for rejecting the symbiote.

No symbol is fine for the Ultimate version, because Eddie Brock's Venom suit isn't the same one that Peter wore, and Eddie doesn't really have that much control over the Venom suit.
 
I prefer the look without the symbol. Having the symbiote put a logo on itself seems silly.
 
I prefer the look without the symbol. Having the symbiote put a logo on itself seems silly.

It looks however the host wishes to look, so if the host wants a logo on their chest, the symbiote forms a long on their chest. And besides, the symbiote putting a logo on itself is no more silly than it putting lenses on itself.

By your logic, black suit Spider-Man shouldn't have a logo either.
 
I stand by my statement that the symbiote shouldn't put logos on itself.
 
I stand by my statement that the symbiote shouldn't put logos on itself.

Why is a logo silly, but lenses are not? And are you stating Spider-Man's black suit shouldn't have a symbol?
 
Lenses can be dismissed as simple eye coverings. A creature will naturally protect it's eyes, it's pretty rare that a creature brands itself.
 
Lenses can be dismissed as simple eye coverings. A creature will naturally protect it's eyes, it's pretty rare that a creature brands itself.

But that doesn't explain why they're a different color from the rest. It could have black lenses if it wanted to.
 
I'm not expert on symbiote reasoning. I can only assume it's because black is darker than white, if the coverings needed to be seen through, it stands to reason they'd be lighter in color.
 
I'm not expert on symbiote reasoning. I can only assume it's because black is darker than white, if the coverings needed to be seen through, it stands to reason they'd be lighter in color.

The symbiote doesn't even have a fixed color. It could be any color it wants. And why are the lenses shaped like Spider-Man's lenses?

And you still haven't answered my question of whether or not you're implying that symbiote Spider-Man shouldn't have a symbol.
 
Perhaps that shape best suits the host? As far as symbiote Spider-man having a symbol, I don't see why it's necessary. Do you think is someone were web-slinging around New York in a black suit sans logo that people would assume it's not Spider-man?
 
Perhaps that shape best suits the host? As far as symbiote Spider-man having a symbol, I don't see why it's necessary. Do you think is someone were web-slinging around New York in a black suit sans logo that people would assume it's not Spider-man?

Why would that shape suit the host better?
The symbiote changes it appearance according to the will of the host. The symbiote can alter its appearance however the host wishes, from forming a symbol on the chest to to a T-shirt. That's the way it works.

Without their symbols, both symbiote Spider-Man and Venom look incredibly generic.
Symbiote Spider-Man without a symbol just looks like some dude in a generic skin-tight black suit.
Venom without the symbol just looks like a generic monster.
 
Symbiote Spider-Man without a symbol just looks like some dude in a generic skin-tight black suit.
Who swings around on webs.
Venom without the symbol just looks like a generic monster.
Who is huge and swings around on tendrils and is sometimes murderous.

I don't see the issue. I personally feel that a creature wouldn't put a logo on itself. Not really a far-off concept. It's a matter of personal opinion.
 
Who swings around on webs.

Spider-Man. But outside of that context, it would look incredibly generic.

Who is huge and swings around on tendrils and is sometimes murderous.

There's probably a lot in Marvel's collection of symbiotes they've created over the years. And again, outside of that context of webswinging, the design would be incredibly generic.

I don't see the issue. I personally feel that a creature wouldn't put a logo on itself. Not really a far-off concept. It's a matter of personal opinion.

But the host is the one choosing to emblazon a logo on their chest, and the symbiote enacts that choice. It's one of the coolest aspects of symbiotes as a concept: They reflect the personality of the host through their appearance.
 
Why on earth would we be discussing symbiotes out of the context of Spider-man? That doesn't make sense.
 
Why on earth would we be discussing symbiotes out of the context of Spider-man? That doesn't make sense.

I meant that the designs themselves outside the context of the movie/comic/game/whatever, such as it would be in concept art, for example.
 
Who cares what they would look like outside this particular context? They're fictional.
 
Who cares what they would look like outside this particular context? They're fictional.

I would.
And again, you would be removing one of the coolest aspects of symbiotes: They remove all limits of what a person can look like, so their appearance becomes an extension of their characters.
 
Wouldn't concept art still lie within the realm of Spider-man related media?
 
I don't understand the last part of that statement.
 
I don't understand the last part of that statement.

I meant that concept art of Spider-Man and Venom probably won't show them doing things like web/tendril-swinging, for example.
 
You're asserting that the no-logo design would look odd if they were simply standing, doing nothing?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"