Venom could never have been a main villain... think about it.

[Conan_O'Brien]

He is a side villain for a good reason.

A story of him being the main villain just doesn't have enough substance.

What would happen if the whole movie was just about Venom? 30 minutes of Brock getting jealous of Peter... 30 minutes of the transformation... 30 minutes of Venom terrorizing the city... 30 minutes final battle. That's just not movie material. It's not enough. It sounds too much like a good guy beats the bad guy story. Done too many times. It was already done in Spider-Man 1. People will say, oh it's exactly like what happened in the first movie, Peter struggles, tries to find himself, gets tired of being a hero, etc. etc.

It just couldn't be done.

 

[Eggyman]

I think Venom would be an excellent main Villain -- but I do believe that you would need a side villain for some action scenes. I think it would be incredible to be able to see Venom on screen how he originally emerged -- stalking Peter, turning up at Aunt May's, introducing himself to MJ and stuff like that. And then have a final battle . . . or maybe it wouldn't be a final battle, just a battle. Venom is a great psychological villain that gets right inside Peter's head, and when you say things like 'terrorizing the city', that just doesn't sound like Venom to me. Why would he want to terrorize the city? He wouldn't! He just wants to terrorize Peter, that is his only goal.

EDIT -- Oh, FYI: There is a Venom thread stickied, a thread relating to all aspects of the character.

 

[matthooper]

He certainly couldn't have been a main villian in part 3. There simply wouldn't have been enough time. You have half of the movie with Peter having the symbiote. You couldn't have introduced Venom until over half the movie was over.

 

[Eggyman]

No I do agree that it wouldn't work in one film like how we are getting it -- Spidey needs a villain for while he's wearing the sybiote. But if they had used the symbiote in another film, Venom could quite easily be a main villain, but I still think they would need a second villain.

 

[November Rain]

even though i'm not a venom fan, a whole movie on him is very plausible.

 

[Arcturus]

Venom could easily be the main villain.

 

[matthooper]

No I do agree that it wouldn't work in one film like how we are getting it -- Spidey needs a villain for while he's wearing the sybiote. But if they had used the symbiote in another film, Venom could quite easily be a main villain, but I still think they would need a second villain.

That's why I said he couldn't work in part 3. But yes, Venom could work in another film if Peter and his dealing with suit had already been established.

 

[gdw]

He is a side villain for a good reason.

A story of him being the main villain just doesn't have enough substance.

What would happen if the whole movie was just about Venom? 30 minutes of Brock getting jealous of Peter... 30 minutes of the transformation... 30 minutes of Venom terrorizing the city... 30 minutes final battle. That's just not movie material. It's not enough. It sounds too much like a good guy beats the bad guy story. Done too many times. It was already done in Spider-Man 1. People will say, oh it's exactly like what happened in the first movie, Peter struggles, tries to find himself, gets tired of being a hero, etc. etc.

It just couldn't be done.

Aside from the fact that you could argue that for any villan, they have their backstorry, get changed, and terrorze and are stopped by spidey, Venom would also have just as much potential to fill oiut a film as the first GG did.

GG's main motives were getting spidey.

With Venom, you have the added element of the black suit's time on Peter.

Personally, I would have made that time, and the Brock rivalry one movie, ending with Peter tearing off the suit and Brock getting it, then continue with a second film with Venom, as the main guy, and another villan to complicate things.

 

[Craig Monday]

I think that Venom could definately have his own movie. It might turn some people off to the movie, but a simple remedy such as a less important side-villain could cure that.

 

[pedro parkero]

Venom could be established in a movie, sort of a cliffhanger, battling Spidey but wouldn't be killed and then he can be the main villain in the next sequel. Still, it helps to have another villain on the side to spice things up.

^ At least that's what I'd do if I were in the helm. My reason is that I should spread the great villains as thinly as possible. Like what they did with Harry Osborn.
Case in point: Look at what will happen at 3 now. Looks like they brought all of their aces in the table already. Now all that is left for a potential great villain is The Lizard, and I don't really trust that he can carry a movie all alone after viewers experiencing 3 villains in S-M3. All I'm saying is S-M3 is setting the bar too high that I would foresee any more sequels to be a disappointment compared to it. Know what I'm saying?
And if that's the case, then it's a reason to never bother making a Spider-Man 4. Which is sad, really. But that's a perspective from an executive who wants Spider-Man to be their cash cow. The perspective of a great artist, however is: why create 2 films that are average when you can make one great film now?

 

[pedro parkero]

And oh yeah: If this ever was their last movie together (which I am now hoping it is, until I get convinced it shouldn't be so), and this turned out to be the epic I always wanted a Spider-Man movie should be like, I applaud them for making such a decision and ending with a bang and flourish. (Unlike the so-called "Final Stand" of X3 which ended with a whimper [and some bulls **it])

Now I really do wish they stop this at 3 if they are only capable of making a mediocre 4...

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I agree. Sort of.

Venom can carry a movie as the main villain, but still, while he's stalking Peter and torturing him, you need a lesser villain for Spidey to contend with, like the Shocker or Rhino. So Spidey has enough menace to keep us entertained, since Venom doesn't plan or actively attack others like Doc Ock or the Green Goblin do.

He's not really a villain in the normal sense, since he only wants to hurt Peter, despite the fact that he wouldn't care about hurting somebody who got in his way.

So you are right in some ways. You can't use him like a typical villain. But he can be the main villain in a multi-villain film quite easily.

 

[Dugath]

I admit I have not been keeping up to date. But is it not it possible that Venom defeats spiderman? Thus continuing into SM4. Could also develop a sub plot involving the Lizard in #4

 

[Visionary]

Thank God Venom is not the main villain.

 

[CrashNburn]

they very easily could have changed the story of Venom in order to make him the villian if they wanted to but I think it works out fine with him as a second-hand villian.

 

[XXTBWCXX]

I think Raimi could have made it work...but just the way it is is fine...Sandman as the main villain, with the symbiote and Venom as one of the minor stories is fine...plus, Venom kicks Spidey's a, so that will thrill me.

 

[Cmill216]

He is a side villain for a good reason.

A story of him being the main villain just doesn't have enough substance.

What would happen if the whole movie was just about Venom? 30 minutes of Brock getting jealous of Peter... 30 minutes of the transformation... 30 minutes of Venom terrorizing the city... 30 minutes final battle. That's just not movie material. It's not enough. It sounds too much like a good guy beats the bad guy story. Done too many times. It was already done in Spider-Man 1. People will say, oh it's exactly like what happened in the first movie, Peter struggles, tries to find himself, gets tired of being a hero, etc. etc.

It just couldn't be done.

I have to say:

That may have been the single worst attempt at proving a point I've ever seen.

 

[HughJackFan420]

Venom doesn't necessarily have to be the main villain in the Spiderman 3 but I would like to see Venom reak havoc in a 4th installment as the main villain with Cassidy/Carnage as a new ally at first. Then maybe have Brock have a change of heart and have a Venom and Carnage battle.

 

[d1venom]

Yeah Raimi could have made it work and i love venom so i think it could work

 

[Mr Jide]

He is a side villain for a good reason.

A story of him being the main villain just doesn't have enough substance.

What would happen if the whole movie was just about Venom? 30 minutes of Brock getting jealous of Peter... 30 minutes of the transformation... 30 minutes of Venom terrorizing the city... 30 minutes final battle. That's just not movie material. It's not enough. It sounds too much like a good guy beats the bad guy story. Done too many times. It was already done in Spider-Man 1. People will say, oh it's exactly like what happened in the first movie, Peter struggles, tries to find himself, gets tired of being a hero, etc. etc.

It just couldn't be done.

I disagree and think your argument is flawed.

gdw pretty much covered it with is post. Look at Doc Ock, he got an entire movie to himself and his character was altered big time to bare some sort of personal connection to Peter. Venom as we all know is connected to Peter in some ways more than any other supervillain is. I would have focused on the Peter/Brock rivalry, making this movie a compelling drama and then the wole aquisition of the symbiot, spurning it and it falling into the hands of Brock and thus we have venom. To say venom could no way be a main supervillain is a complete joke to me. Hell, Raimi could have done a film version of the venom segment of the spider-man 1 psx game and it'd probably be better than the 2 movies we've been given so far.

 

[GoldGoblin]

Thank God Venom is not the main villain.

^
You said it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

this is so not true. Venom could be the villian for sure with no problem. I mean just because he's a side villian in spidey3 and it works out great doesn't technically mean that he can't be a main villian. quite frankly if Venom was the main villian it would still be awesome considering how much of the symbiote's story is being put into this film. not to mention that they can show even more of what Brock does when he's alone so it would be like going through a journey of both characaters, peter parker and Eddie Brock. and Venom being the main villian could have brought an interesting storyline as well. now I notice that some people are happy that Venom will probably never be the main villian but let me say this, Venom being the main villian would have been awesome to. but I am happy with what they did with spidey3.

 

[slmon]

He is a side villain for a good reason.

A story of him being the main villain just doesn't have enough substance.

What would happen if the whole movie was just about Venom? 30 minutes of Brock getting jealous of Peter... 30 minutes of the transformation... 30 minutes of Venom terrorizing the city... 30 minutes final battle. That's just not movie material. It's not enough. It sounds too much like a good guy beats the bad guy story. Done too many times. It was already done in Spider-Man 1. People will say, oh it's exactly like what happened in the first movie, Peter struggles, tries to find himself, gets tired of being a hero, etc. etc.

It just couldn't be done.

Right. Venom lacks substance. I guess that's why Sandman fanboy Raimi felt the need to retcon Sandman's history to make him more important and interesting whereas there was no such need to do so with Venom. Why? He f'ing rocks and he already had direct, personal ties with Peter Parker via the Brock/Peter hostile personal history and the symbiote's former role as Parker's black costume.

 

[Dragon]

I disagree and think your argument is flawed.

gdw pretty much covered it with is post. Look at Doc Ock, he got an entire movie to himself and his character was altered big time to bare some sort of personal connection to Peter. Venom as we all know is connected to Peter in some ways more than any other supervillain is. I would have focused on the Peter/Brock rivalry, making this movie a compelling drama and then the wole aquisition of the symbiot, spurning it and it falling into the hands of Brock and thus we have venom. To say venom could no way be a main supervillain is a complete joke to me. Hell, Raimi could have done a film version of the venom segment of the spider-man 1 psx game and it'd probably be better than the 2 movies we've been given so far.

That wouldn't work. Who would Spidey be fighting prior to Eddie getting the symbiote? These are action-adventure films. Merely presenting a rivlary between Peter and Eddie would be boring. How would Peter learn that the symbiote was destructive? Who would he test the enhancements against?

And gdw was off. The Goblin's main goal wasn't getting Spider-man. His main goal was personal power. He saw Spidey as an obstacle to that goal- but decided rather than simply killing Spidey off, he'd attempt to make him an ally, based on the idea of their mutual super human abilities. All very well conceived.

Unlike a certain comic character who blames Peter for his own failings. Even in Spidey 3 the concept was improved upon, at least making Peter directly connected to Eddie losing the things he values.

 

[neobido9999]

I 100% agree. In movie terms, venom exists to externalise PP's dark side.