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

[Godzilla2014]

With how the symbiote was pissed off once Peter tore it off and how it clinged and pulled on Eddie on taking him over, it makes sense for how the symbiote stayed pissed off to the point of eating away at Eddie. Look at it this way as well, the symbiote was making Peter look way more pale than even when the spider bit his hand, so while not making Eddie look like some goth kid, it eating away at Eddie made some sense, imo.

And also...if you want to speak on inconsistency, let's bring up something that's way more inconsistent than what we're talking about...Peter being able to rip off his black-suited "mask" so easily...that's a pointless change when the symbiote should have done what it did with Eddie during the final battle.

The symbiote feeding off Eddie because it's pissed off at Peter is utterly ******ed.

 

[Anno_Domini]

The symbiote feeding off Eddie because it's pissed off at Peter is utterly ******ed.

Nope.

It makes perfect sense to me.

 

[VenomSpawn]

The symbiote feeding off Eddie because it's pissed off at Peter is utterly ******ed.

I think it makes perfect sense, actually.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Nope.

It makes perfect sense to me.

I think it makes perfect sense, actually.

Let's assume/pretend that part makes sense: Why the hell would the symbiote keep Eddie's bones?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Let's assume/pretend that part makes sense: Why the hell would the symbiote keep Eddie's bones?

Perhaps it wasn't actually done "eating" until during the final battle and then he "dropped the bones". I don't think he finished up Eddie as soon as it latched unto Eddie, just feeding on him throughout that time period.

 

[VenomSpawn]

Let's assume/pretend that part makes sense: Why the hell would the symbiote keep Eddie's bones?

Oh, no I didn't read the whole conversation. I assumed you were just talking about the effects the symbiote had on Eddie's personality and how it was feeding off of their mutual hatred of Peter Parker. I didn't think you guys were talking about it literally eating away at his flesh.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yes, the novelization had the symbiote literally eat away Eddie's flesh, organs and what not and only left his bones.

 

[VenomSpawn]

Yes, the novelization had the symbiote literally eat away Eddie's flesh, organs and what not and only left his bones.

Oh. Well then yeah, that's pretty ****ing stupid and taking it to the extreme.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I would still not call it stupid, but extreme? Yes, it does sound extreme, but something that I'd want to see. I mean, will Raimi be using the symbiote on a future installment if there were more? I highly doubt it, so why not go to the extreme with Venom? Raimi wanted to display the symbiote as a drug, and drugs can kill, so I think it'd work out nicely if the symbiote indeed ate away and killed Eddie. After the *****-footing with Sandman and New Goblin, why not go "all the way" in making Venom a full-on monster in a way?

 

[Ken-Kaniff]

WHATEVER U SAY LIGHTNING FLESH

Gimme venom used properly or shut it

 

[Anno_Domini]

WHATEVER U SAY LIGHTNING FLESH

Gimme venom used properly or shut it

Excuse me, but(and no, the word is not 'butt') is that towards me?

 

[Godzilla2014]

Perhaps it wasn't actually done "eating" until during the final battle and then he "dropped the bones". I don't think he finished up Eddie as soon as it latched unto Eddie, just feeding on him throughout that time period.

I'm sorry, but the symbiote feeding off Eddie's flesh is idiotic.

Oh, no I didn't read the whole conversation. I assumed you were just talking about the effects the symbiote had on Eddie's personality and how it was feeding off of their mutual hatred of Peter Parker. I didn't think you guys were talking about it literally eating away at his flesh.

Understandable mistake.

Oh. Well then yeah, that's pretty ****ing stupid and taking it to the extreme.

Completely agree.

I would still not call it stupid, but extreme? Yes, it does sound extreme, but something that I'd want to see. I mean, will Raimi be using the symbiote on a future installment if there were more? I highly doubt it, so why not go to the extreme with Venom? Raimi wanted to display the symbiote as a drug, and drugs can kill, so I think it'd work out nicely if the symbiote indeed ate away and killed Eddie. After the *****-footing with Sandman and New Goblin, why not go "all the way" in making Venom a full-on monster in a way?

I'm sorry, but I never be able to take Venom seriously as a threat if that happened.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I'm sorry, but the symbiote feeding off Eddie's flesh is idiotic.

I'm sorry, but I never be able to take Venom seriously as a threat if that happened.

And you took Venom as a serious threat in Spider-Man 3? Lol. If Raimi wanted to portray the symbiote as a drug, he should've went to the extreme of how the novelization portrayed it. That was the main reason of why the symbiote ate away at Eddie, because of that drug-like portrayal, and yet Raimi tip-toed with the idea in which, if you wanted to go that route, go to the extremest measures with the idea that was on the novelization.

Now, sure, if you didn't go that route, then the symbiote eating away at Eddie would be unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't go that route otherwise; but comparing the symbiote to a drug? Yes, I'd go that extreme, imo. It would show us a better example of the comparison in which Sam Raimi had first intended. It would be akin to how Batman Beyond portrayed Bane in a way that was never done before or what I can recall: the drug killing Bane instead of just making him a formidable foe. Having the symbiote being almost like a drug to Peter, but only feeding on his powers and then moving unto a human and destroying him. Literally destroying him.

 

[Jick]

I like that idea. They should've went with that, given the context, idea and themes behind the movie.

I despise that version of Venom, so I wouldn't have minded that at all.

 

[Godzilla2014]

And you took Venom as a serious threat in Spider-Man 3? Lol. If Raimi wanted to portray the symbiote as a drug, he should've went to the extreme of how the novelization portrayed it. That was the main reason of why the symbiote ate away at Eddie, because of that drug-like portrayal, and yet Raimi tip-toed with the idea in which, if you wanted to go that route, go to the extremest measures with the idea that was on the novelization.

Now, sure, if you didn't go that route, then the symbiote eating away at Eddie would be unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't go that route otherwise; but comparing the symbiote to a drug? Yes, I'd go that extreme, imo. It would show us a better example of the comparison in which Sam Raimi had first intended.

Having the symbiote feed on Eddie Brock's flesh would have given Venom even less credibility as a threat than we ended up with. And as for the drug metaphor, that doesn't justify it. Even a metaphor should make sense in the context of the story, and the symbiote eating away at Eddie, but not Peter doesn't make any sense. Peter wore the symbiote longer than Eddie, and he's not consumed by the symbiote, so why would Eddie?

I personally think that the drug symbolism works better with his fate in the film: Brock chooses to die rather than live without the symbiote. That's a lot more subtle, honest, and interesting than the symbiote eating away at him until he's just a skeleton.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I like that idea. They should've went with that, given the context, idea and themes behind the movie.

I despise that version of Venom, so I wouldn't have minded that at all.

Having the symbiote feed on Eddie Brock's flesh would have given Venom even less credibility as a threat than we ended up with. And as for the drug metaphor, that doesn't justify it. Even a metaphor should make sense in the context of the story, and the symbiote eating away at Eddie, but not Peter doesn't make any sense. Peter wore the symbiote longer than Eddie, and he's not consumed by the symbiote, so why would Eddie?

I personally think that the drug symbolism works better with his fate in the film: Brock chooses to die rather than live without the symbiote. That's a lot more subtle, honest, and interesting than the symbiote eating away at him until he's just a skeleton.

Venom didn't have credibility in the film anyways if you ask me, and neither did the symbiote, so something had to give and one of those had to show how powerful one of it was. For me, I'd go with the latter to show how terrible the symbiote can be with going back to that drug metaphor. But, you don't seem to be understanding where I am coming from though. The symbiote wouldn't eat away at Peter because it was happy with Peter, acknowledging that it had powers and enhancing them as well, but after Peter ripped the symbiote off of him, it went to find a very depressed man with no abilities. It gave what Eddie wanted, a way for him to kill Peter, but the symbiote could have very well feed on Eddie because it was looking for that type of nutrition that it can't get that it got from Peter. To me, it makes sense as to how the symbiote could've been portrayed with Eddie, differing for how it was with Peter.

And plus, even if the drug metaphor was shown nicely of how Eddie wanted death instead of living without the symbiote, I prefer the novelization. Always will in this idea of Spider-Man 3.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Venom didn't have credibility in the film anyways if you ask me, and neither did the symbiote, so something had to give and one of those had to show how powerful one of it was. For me, I'd go with the latter to show how terrible the symbiote can be with going back to that drug metaphor. But, you don't seem to be understanding where I am coming from though. The symbiote wouldn't eat away at Peter because it was happy with Peter, acknowledging that it had powers and enhancing them as well, but after Peter ripped the symbiote off of him, it went to find a very depressed man with no abilities. It gave what Eddie wanted, a way for him to kill Peter, but the symbiote could have very well feed on Eddie because it was looking for that type of nutrition that it can't get that it got from Peter. To me, it makes sense as to how the symbiote could've been portrayed with Eddie, differing for how it was with Peter.

And plus, even if the drug metaphor was shown nicely of how Eddie wanted death instead of living without the symbiote, I prefer the novelization. Always will in this idea of Spider-Man 3.

Again, I thought that Eddie's fate in the film was much better. It's much truer to the drug metaphor, showing Eddie to value the symbiote more than his own life, like an addict who would rather die than live without using drugs.

And your explanation for why it doesn't eat Peter, but does eat Eddie is just ridiculous. It's happy with Peter, so it doesn't eat him, but it hates Eddie, so it eats away at him? Why the **** wouldn't it just leave?

 

[Jick]

Well, some food for thought: Peter is super powered. He is tough enough to resist being hit directly by a train. The symbiote would have a hard time consuming his flesh without Peter noticing.
Also, he didn't embrace the symbiote in the same manner Eddie did.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Well, some food for thought: Peter is super powered. He is tough enough to resist being hit directly by a train. Also, he didn't embrace the symbiote in the same manner Peter did.

I don't see what superpower Peter has that would allow him to survive being eaten away by the symbiote.

 

[Jick]

Didn't I just say that he is resistant enough to survive being hit directly by a train?
Peter is hundreds of times more resistant than a normal human. It would take a lot more for the symbiote to eat his flesh than it would for a regular guy like Eddie.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Again, I thought that Eddie's fate in the film was much better. It's much truer to the drug metaphor, showing Eddie to value the symbiote more than his own life, like an addict who would rather die than live without using drugs.

And your explanation for why it doesn't eat Peter, but does eat Eddie is just ridiculous. It's happy with Peter, so it doesn't eat him, but it hates Eddie, so it eats away at him? Why the **** wouldn't it just leave?

Again, you're still not understanding what I am trying to get.

Peter: The symbiote knows Peter has powers and abilities none like any other human being, so it sticks to Peter and content(therefore, what I call "happy") with being with Peter. While I don't believe it fed on Peter literally, it did "feed" on his abilities while also changing him, emotionally, mentally even and physically(made him look pale at times). Maybe it did try to eat at Peter, who knows, but it never said so in the novelization, only that it was corrupting Peter.

Eddie: When Peter ripped the symbiote off, it angered it where we can clearly see as it was tugging and pulling on Eddie, something it didn't necessarily do with Peter, thus taking him over to become Venom. While the symbiote had powers that it copied from Peter, perhaps, like I said, since it didn't find that same kind of "nutrition" from Eddie that Peter had, it ate him away as read in the novelization. Sure, I get that the film did make some sense still with the drug metaphor with Eddie "not being able to live without it", but the drug metaphor could still be used as the drug, which was the symbiote, ate away at Eddie as drugs do.

And..."why the **** wouldn't it leave"? Because there's no one like Peter. So while it was giving Eddie what he wanted, the symbiote just wanted what it wanted, to stay "alive" in a way, and obviously once it got done with Eddie, when it had its chance, it tried to get back to Peter, to which it failed.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Again, you're still not understanding what I am trying to get.

Peter: The symbiote knows Peter has powers and abilities none like any other human being, so it sticks to Peter and content(therefore, what I call "happy") with being with Peter. While I don't believe it fed on Peter literally, it did "feed" on his abilities while also changing him, emotionally, mentally even and physically(made him look pale at times). Maybe it did try to eat at Peter, who knows, but it never said so in the novelization, only that it was corrupting Peter.

Eddie: When Peter ripped the symbiote off, it angered it where we can clearly see as he was tugging and pulling on Eddie, something it didn't necessarily do with Peter, thus taking him over to become Venom. While the symbiote had powers that it copied from Peter, perhaps, like I said, since it didn't find that same kind of "nutrition" from Eddie that Peter had, it ate him away as read in the novelization. Sure, I get that the film did make some sense still with the drug metaphor with Eddie "not being able to live without it", but the drug metaphor could still be used as the drug, which was the symbiote, ate away at Eddie as drugs do.

And..."why the **** wouldn't it leave"? Because there's no one like Peter. So while it was giving Eddie what he wanted, the symbiote just wanted what it wanted, to stay "alive" in a way, and obviously once it got done with Eddie, when it had its chance, it tried to get back to Peter, to which it failed.

Again, the idea is horrible. How could Venom be an overwhelming threat to Spider-Man if all Spider-Man has to do is wait for the symbiote to eat away at Eddie?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Again, the idea is horrible. How could Venom be an overwhelming threat to Spider-Man if all Spider-Man has to do is wait for the symbiote to eat away at Eddie?

For the movie? For one, the symbiote is destroyed, and Raimi would have never used the symbiote again, or even any symbiote character if he planned on directing future sequels.

And two...Spider-Man didn't even know what the symbiote was doing until the end.

You make it seem like it matters what and how the symbiote is portrayed when it'll be only a one-and-done.

 

[Godzilla2014]

For the movie? For one, the symbiote is destroyed, and Raimi would have never used the symbiote again, or even any symbiote character if he planned on directing future sequels.

And two...Spider-Man didn't even know what the symbiote was doing until the end.

You make it seem like it matters what and how the symbiote is portrayed when it'll be only a one-and-done.

Perhaps, but let's forget the context of Spider-Man 3, and think of another film appearance by Venom down the road: How would the symbiote eating away at Eddie serve the character of Venom?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Perhaps, but let's forget the context of Spider-Man 3, and think of another film appearance by Venom down the road: How would the symbiote eating away at Eddie serve the character of Venom?

Sam Raimi would have, more than anything, not have used the symbiote at all.

Plus...the symbiote would've been destroyed; I'd rather see that than the symbiote "making an escape". And if we were to have been given Carnage, I bet we'd get a take on Ultimate Carnage since using a serial killer would've been too much for Raimi's light franchise of Spidey.

And a re-appearance by Venom in Raimi's continuity? Unlikely; he doesn't deserve more than just a one-shot because he really doesn't have anything more to give as a villain, unlike Doc Ock, Green Goblin, et cetera. I just wouldn't even dream of Venom being in a future Raimi movie...if that series continued. And as well with the fact that Carnage would've been shown rather than Venom.

And also, with "down the line", for a different continuity such as Webb's, he would probably have a much different idea for the symbiote than Raimi had. I was never a fan of the drug comparison to be honest, but it should have ended the way the novelization had it end.