Should Gwen Stacy appear in the Venom spinoff

[Stevens25]

Personally,as much as I love Venom,I don't wanna see him as the anti-hero. I HATE how writers did that to the character! I like him as a villain,an evil monster. But how can you use him like that in his own film? He would have to be the "hero," wouldn't he(Assuming Carnage would be the main villain here)? Otherwise who would you cheer for?
Unless they go the Freddy vs. Jason route and have both Venom and Carnage be evil and fighting each other,and then just have a human hero in there trying to destroy them both.
If a Venom film is made,I doubt it will be rated R because you wanna bring in as many people as you can,so PG-13 would be the best bet,but I would love to see a horror/action film with Venom/Carnage,considering the fact that they are both insane killers.
As for Gwen,I doubt she'd make it into the film. In Spider-man 3 she already showed that she has no feelings for Eddie Brock,so why would she exist in Venom's film? Give Brock a new "love interest." Someone who,despite Venom taking over Brock,still believes there's a good man inside the symbiote.
As for Venom not working in a movie,as I've mentioned,the only thing I wouldn't like is seeing Venom as the hero. Other than that I think a script could be made and made to work,despite what happened in Spider-man 3. Honestly,it could be a much better version of Spider-man 3. Eddie(instead of Peter)would have to face his darkside and battle his inner demons,while trying to deal with the symbiote and how it beings out the evil in him. Meanwhile,Venom's even darker side(Carnage)could cause Eddie to try and overcome his depression and anger to try and fight this new "spawn" of Venom. I don't know. Something could be worked out,I believe.
Also,even if the Venom film doesn't make over $300 million dollars at the box office,you know it would still be a hit film. I know alot of people don't like him,but many more do. He was the main reason(well,Venom and the symbiote)why Spider-man 3 had such a huge opening. Everyone wanted to see him,but when the film only showed him for 7-10 minutes and the rest of the film became too crowded,that's when the box office dropped. Venom,is the most popular Marvel villain ever. And we're talking mainstream here,too. Spinoff films like Electra didn't work because hardly anyone outside the comic world knew who she even was or much less cared,and even if they did it wasn't like she's this over the top,jaw dropping character. Venom is the opposite. He's Spidey's most well known and popular enemy(and Spidey is king of the comic book heroes). Which is propably a reason some don't like him,because he's TOO popular. But,I've talked with alot of people who know nothing about comics or Spidey's universe(outside the films),but they all know who Venom is. I've often heard that complaint from people concerning Spider-man 3...."The film would've been so much better had Venom been in it more,and had more development," and "Venom was the best thing about the film." So,you KNOW there's a huge fan base out there,even from non-comic book fans.
Would a Venom film work? I don't know,but I'm sure if would make money,no doubt. I'm on the fence about it because I'm a HUGE fan,so I'd love to see Venom get his own film and get the screntime he so lacked in Spidey 3. But,just like with any other film,their is the possibility for disaster here. Who knows?
For now,nothing is set in stone so I'm in the "wait and see" mode,right now.

 

[Johnny Israel]

In this case, they did. Sam Raimi said it himself that Arad came to him and said he had to put Venom in for the fans. Raimi obliged because he said he didn't want to let down the fans.

That's a fact.

It's a fact, and fact you still do not get it. They said the fans, not the comic fanboys, not the people here on this website. Non-comic readers, and people who grew up on the cartoon show (90s TAS), and your average joe-blow like Venom. It's a fact. Arad did come up to him to change it because he realized Venom is money. Do i want to see a solo venom pic? Probably not because it will most likely suck. This ranting on here is so pointless because at the end of the day companies will do what makes money. You can flap your face hole a thousand times as to venom sucks this or that, or his back story is so and so. But all in all this debate is meaningless, yes even on my end.

Venom > Norman > Ock

There I said it. It's my opinion. Venom being more bankable to the mass audiences over almost all others in Spidey's rouge gallery is Fact.

 

[The Joker]

It's a fact, and fact you still do not get it. They said the fans, not the comic fanboys, not the people here on this website. Non-comic readers, and people who grew up on the cartoon show (90s TAS), and your average joe-blow like Venom. It's a fact.

Don't be absurd. Of course they meant the comic book fans. The mainstream audience wouldn't give a damn who the villain was as long as it was good.

That's why Raimi originally intended to have the Vulture with Sandman. Bald old man on bird wings. How compelling. But we know the movie would still have made a s*** load of money like the previous two.

Venom was there strictly for the Venom fanboys, as in the comic book fans who know the character. Did you really need that spelled out in fifty foot high letters for you?

Yeeeesh!

Arad did come up to him to change it because he realized Venom is money.

Yeah, because the Spider-Man movies were really struggling to make money and get critical acclaim, weren't they

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Personally,as much as I love Venom,I don't wanna see him as the anti-hero. I HATE how writers did that to the character!

Agreed, but that may just happen. However, it might not as well. It all depends on if they are going to stay true to how Venom was when Erik Larsen took over or not.

 

[Johnny Israel]

Don't be absurd. Of course they meant the comic book fans. The mainstream audience wouldn't give a damn who the villain was as long as it was good.

That's why Raimi originally intended to have the Vulture with Sandman. Bald old man on bird wings. How compelling. But we know the movie would still have made a s*** load of money like the previous two.

Venom was there strictly for the Venom fanboys, as in the comic book fans who know the character. Did you really need that spelled out in fifty foot high letters for you?

Yeeeesh!




Yeah, because the Spider-Man movies were really struggling to make money and get critical acclaim, weren't they

Your going to keep talking and your going to keep making yourself look clueless. Was the film series struggling? Oh good knock on me...because clearly movies don't look to make the most money possible. And which of the series was the highest grossing? Oh yeah 3...would it have done as good if venom wasn't in it...guess we won't know. But if you think the fact Venom was in it did not help considerably your a fool.

If you think that mainstream fans would of cared as much if it was vulture, shocker, electro, ect. as opposed to Venom then you are a flat out moron. Because even before this film, what spiderman foe has the most merchandise out there in the way of clothing and figures. I'm 90% positive almost all on this board, yourself included saw and still see people wearing those hot topic venom logo shirts before and after the film. To think Venom is simply a force due to comic fan boys is moronic.

Your hatred makes you blind and your argumentative process is weak because of it.

Making Venom in there because of fanboys? They put him in there because of money..giving spiderman organic web-shooters pissed off fanboys, but did that matter? No, because they make a movie for a mainstream audience, not us. Get over yourself.

 

[The Joker]

Your going to keep talking and your going to keep making yourself look clueless.

Seeing as how I'm producing facts to back up what I'm saying, that's unlikely.

Was the film series struggling? Oh good knock on me...because clearly movies don't look to make the most money possible.

If that was true, they'd have put Venom in the first one, if he's the huge money maker you say he is. The first movie is always the risky one, so why not put in the supposedly most financially successful villain to help it's success? Why wait until the third movie, when the series is a huge money maker already?

Oh yeah, because the fanboys wanted Venom.

And which of the series was the highest grossing? Oh yeah 3...would it have done as good if venom wasn't in it...guess we won't know. But if you think the fact Venom was in it did not help considerably your a fool.

Name calling, how mature. You sure you're 22?

It can easily be argued that the third movie made the most because of three villains. Or that there was a three year wait for this one, instead of two, and fans were desperate for their Spidey fix.

But, it is a fact that this movie was the least well recieved by the fans. And the critics, too.

If you think that mainstream fans would of cared as much if it was vulture, shocker, electro, ect. as opposed to Venom then you are a flat out moron.

Why not? Sandman was a bigger villain in this over Venom, and the movie still made money. Venom only had about 10 minutes on screen, and even then he had to share it with the other two villains in the final fight scene.

Yet you claim it's moronic to think otherwise.

To think Venom is simply a force due to comic fan boys is moronic.

What is it with you? Can your ego not handle reality or something? That fact is that Avi Arad told Raimi to include Venom for the Venom fans. Not for money purposes. It was for his fans. Pure and simple. That's straight from the horse's mouth.

You are simply trying to twist it to make it sound like it was for money. Money was never an issue. The Spider-Man franchise was already a gold mine. They didn't need Venom for that. If the movie needed more financial gain, the Vulture wouldn't have even been considered. Neither would Sandman for that matter.

Your hatred makes you blind and your argumentative process is weak because of it.

What hatred? Where did I say I hate anything?

If anyone is producing weak arguements here, it's you. Your arguements are based purely on your own warped analysis of something that is so absurdly simple, and has been said by the director with such clarity, that it boggles the mind as to how or even why you would construe it as anything else.

Venom was put in for the fanboys. Pure and simple.

Making Venom in there because of fanboys? They put him in there because of money..giving spiderman organic web-shooters pissed off fanboys, but did that matter?

LOL! You have just proven my point. Making a change like that was a risk to the first movie, so why would they not use the supposedly most financially successful villain in their first movie to help ensure success?

No, because they make a movie for a mainstream audience, not us. Get over yourself.

Yeah, the mainstream audience who never read the comics care THAT much about a character who appeared in mere 3 episodes in TAS, that Arad felt huge pressure to include him.

LOL! Your logic is hilarious.

EDIT: Here you go: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/spider31.php

All Spiderman readers love Venom, and even though you came from 70s Spiderman, this is what the kids are thinking about. Please incorporate Venom, listen to the fans now.

Is that clear enough for you, or do I have to draw you a picture?

 

[Johnny Israel]

Seeing as how I'm producing facts to back up what I'm saying, that's unlikely.



If that was true, they'd have put Venom in the first one, if he's the huge money maker you say he is. The first movie is always the risky one, so why not put in the supposedly most financially successful villain to help it's success? Why wait until the third movie, when the series is a huge money maker already?

Oh yeah, because the fanboys wanted Venom.



Name calling, how mature. You sure you're 22?

It can easily be argued that the third movie made the most because of three villains. Or that there was a three year wait for this one, instead of two, and fans were desperate for their Spidey fix.

But, it is a fact that this movie was the least well recieved by the fans. And the critics, too.



Why not? Sandman was a bigger villain in this over Venom, and the movie still made money. Venom only had about 10 minutes on screen, and even then he had to share it with the other two villains in the final fight scene.

Yet you claim it's moronic to think otherwise.



What is it with you? Can your ego not handle reality or something? That fact is that Avi Arad told Raimi to include Venom for the Venom fans. Not for money purposes. It was for his fans. Pure and simple. That's straight from the horse's mouth.

You are simply trying to twist it to make it sound like it was for money. Money was never an issue. The Spider-Man franchise was already a gold mine. They didn't need Venom for that. If the movie needed more financial gain, the Vulture wouldn't have even been considered. Neither would Sandman for that matter.



What hatred? Where did I say I hate anything?

If anyone is producing weak arguements here, it's you. Your arguements are based purely on your own warped analysis of something that is so absurdly simple, and has been said by the director with such clarity, that it boggles the mind as to how or even why you would construe it as anything else.

Venom was put in for the fanboys. Pure and simple.



LOL! You have just proven my point. Making a change like that was a risk to the first movie, so why would they not use the supposedly most financially successful villain in their first movie to help ensure success?



Yeah, the mainstream audience who never read the comics care THAT much about a character who appeared in mere 3 episodes in TAS, that Arad felt huge pressure to include him.

LOL! Your logic is hilarious.

EDIT: Here you go: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/spider31.php



Is that clear enough for you, or do I have to draw you a picture?

Alright, you use "facts". I never said Arad didnt go up to Raimi, I agreed with you. But your dense. Name calling on my part? No, the fact I lay something out there that a 3 year old could understand leads me to get a bit frustrated.

Why not use Venom in 1 for money? I don't know, because of something called story? Because of something called progression? People, the masses, wanted him already in 2 if you recall.

Sandman was in the movie more then Venom, but if you heard any buzz from people, they wanted to see Venom. They did not care about Venom. And yes this movie was panned by critics and fans, fans and critics thought the story was poor, fans....both comic and non wanted to see Venom more then 10 minutes.

If you think for even 2 seconds Avi had no desire to put Venom in the film for monetary gain then you lack any understanding of running a company.

Lets even run with that he did it solely for fan boy demand, the fact is fans demand Venom more then any other character. You even acknowledge he was put in due to fans demands.

I don't think you twist anything, but I think you simply don't understand how minute comic fans are in comparison to a main stream audience. And yes people who don't read comics know who Venom is.

 

[Johnny Israel]

Oh and as to your link, Raimi says die hard fans, fans of the comics, and kids. Reading comprehension might be a beneficial skill. I agreed with you raimi was forced to use the character, but he was forced to use him because he is popular and that is the whole point.

Oh and since we want to bring out ages, your 27, you can't read,you don't understand economics, you don't get corporate agenda, you cannot grasp marketing, and you want to quarrel endlessly? I'm done with you.

 

[The Joker]

Alright, you use "facts". I never said Arad didnt go up to Raimi, I agreed with you. But your dense. Name calling on my part? No, the fact I lay something out there that a 3 year old could understand leads me to get a bit frustrated.

You're easily frustrated then. I'd love to see how you handle yourself when actually talking about serious subject material, and not a comic book movie. A further testament to your lack of maturity.

Dense? If that isn't calling the pot calling the kettle black!

Why not use Venom in 1 for money? I don't know, because of something called story? Because of something called progression?

You honestly trying to say they couldn't have come up with a story in SM-1 to include Venom in some form? Or at the very least put Brock into it, and introduce the symbiote as a cliffhanger?

He wasn't even considered for Spider-Man 2, and nobody was pushing for him in that, either. Where was the huge demand to have him then?

I remember Wizard magazine did a poll in late 2002 for which villain should be in the sequal, and Ock won by a landslide.

People, the masses, wanted him already in 2 if you recall.

No, I don't recall. Spider-Man 2 was the reason I joined these boards, and Venom's name was barely mentioned. People were way too hyped about Doc Ock.

Sandman was in the movie more then Venom, but if you heard any buzz from people, they wanted to see Venom.

Yes, I heard buzz from people. People were bowled over by Sandman's special fx in the trailers. And the connection to Uncle Ben plotline generated alot of buzz.

Too bad it all turned out badly, but there was buzz, and he was more well recieved than Venom was.

And yes this movie was panned by critics and fans, fans and critics thought the story was poor, fans....both comic and non wanted to see Venom more then 10 minutes.

Venom's lack of screen time was only one factor in the movie's criticism. The general cramming of too many plotlines and characters, the stupid writing of the symbiote storyline with the dancing, the Stacy characters being wasted, MJ being so annoying etc.

It wasn't just about Venom.

If you think for even 2 seconds Avi had no desire to put Venom in the film for monetary gain then you lack any understanding of running a company.

Oh I don't deny that the money was a factor in it. But the primary reason was for the fans. And I'm willing to bet the same thing will happen with the Lizard in the next one. Fan demand.

Lets even run with that he did it solely for fan boy demand, the fact is fans demand Venom more then any other character. You even acknowledge he was put in due to fans demands.

Of course. He was the only one left out of the big three that had not been done yet. It was only natural that he'd be next in line on the popularity scale.

I don't think you twist anything, but I think you simply don't understand how minute comic fans are in comparison to a main stream audience.

If the comic fans were so minute, things like Comic Con where the actors and producers go to wouldn't even be done. Events like that are flooded with the comic book fans asking nerd questions.

The fans are anything but minute. It's just movie producers don't listen to them more often than not because they want things to be almost exactly like the comic books, which is very difficult to do when adapting to a movie. Changes have to be made.

And yes people who don't read comics know who Venom is.

I have to say I don't find your reason very convincing. I don't know what makes you think that 90's cartoon had such an impact on the mainstream audience. Especially with Venom, considering he appeared the least out of the three big name villains.

The Batman animated series I could believe, as that won emmys, ran for much longer on TV, and had several spin off animated movies etc. But not the Spider-Man TAS.

 

[The Joker]

Oh and as to your link, Raimi says die hard fans, fans of the comics, and kids. Reading comprehension might be a beneficial skill. I agreed with you raimi was forced to use the character, but he was forced to use him because he is popular and that is the whole point.

He says the fans want Venom. Then he elaborates, and says the readers of the Spider-Man comics all love Venom. Specifically the kids, because they love his cool look. Something he elaborates on in this interview: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20037557,00.html

I had never read Venom in the comic books, since they came after my time. Because of that, I didn't have a natural inclination toward him. And when I read those comics, at [producer] Avi Arad's urging, I didn't understand where Venom's humanity was. I know that kids think he looks cool, and they think he's a good villain for Spider-Man. I actually didn't. What was it about Peter's own makeup that this villain represented some weaker or darker side to? Just looking like a dark version of him is not enough for me. The more I read [Venom stories], the less interested I became. But then Avi said, ''Look, you've got to be less selfish. You've got to learn what it is these kids love about Venom.'' So I tried to open my mind up. Then Alvin developed a character that I did understand, and did appreciate.

The kids he refers to are under that umbrella heading of comic book readers.

I said that from the get go. Arad told him to put him in for the FANS. Not because of money. That's why he was there. The fans want to see Venom. And you criticize my reading skills and lack of understanding. You're a walking contradiction.

I'm done with you.

Thank god for small favours!

 

[thejon93]

As for the question the thread's title asks(without the question mark). No, Gwen Stacy should not be apart of a Venom spinoff, nor should there ever be a Venom spinoff, rather a movie that, if done well, gets a sequel and if that does well, gets another sequel to end the franchise. Gwen Stacy belongs in the 'Spider-Man' universe, period. Venom shouldn't have a spinoff because of the question that many should be asking themselves and that is: "What the hell is the point?", period. I mean, why would he not go back after Spider-Man? Why the sudden change of emotions an attitude? They should TRY to make a worthy Venom film that isn't going to be a piece of garbage, actually proofread the script, don't spoil the fans(like they did with 'Spider-Man 3'), most important, make it fun and enjoyable, in the sense of the action/thriller sense.

 

[anrrd_2]

there should be no venom spinoff (imo)...that would be like giving a spinoff to spike toad archlight from X3....a venom standalone comic? absolutely! but a spin off from a movie in which he recieved maybe 15 minutes of screentime (as both eddie AND venom) isnt justifiable.