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

I look at it this way- there is no character that is inherently bad. Only the writing is bad. So I was giving examples of how Venom, the comic book character could have been developed so we'd have an interesting character on the movie screen. But that's not what we have in reality- in reality we have an idiot who wants to kill Spidey for indirectly making him lose his job (At least in the film Peter has a direct hand in it), uses dialogue about eating brains and refers to himself in the plural. As I mentioned in another post, it would take two films to get Venom to main villain status. And frankly the character simply isn't worth it, IMO. The fans who really crave seeing him are for the most part thinking of the vicseral things. A tough, scary customer who gives Spidey hell. Not enough to build a full two hours on.

I wouldn't say all the fans who crave Venom are wanting that. Now, I do agree with you in saying that you really need two movies to set up Venom properly, that I agree with. I do think he's worth the effort, but that is also just my opinion. I wanted Venom to be more then a tough, scary looking guy to give Spidey hell.

I wanted a Venom whose main goal was not just to kill Spidey, but to tear every aspect of his life apart, and be one of the few Villians that actually could, because he knows Spidey's dual identity. It's like the little write up I did a page ago, I would want Venom to display how he could, at any time, find Peter and destroy him, and show how, throughout the movie, he goes around tearing apart Peter's life. Committing crimes and making it look like Spider-man did it so the police are after Spider-man constantly, randomly appearing as Eddie Brock at Aunt Mays and Mary Janes just to see Pete sweat, get Peter so antsy that it troubbles his marriage and Mary Jane leaves him, ect. ect.

If I were to do a movie about Venom I would make Venom more intelligent, and a person who would want to destroy Spider-man on every possible level. It would show just how dangerous a villian could be to Pete if they ever found out his identity.

The one thing I do find interesting is that, while many people think Venom could hold his own movie as a main Villian, no one has any objection against Sandman, a character who had even less backstory in the comics and basically only function was to be visually stunning, as a main villian.
 
That is the strangest argument ever. "We can't have Venom because his story revolves too much around good guy beats bad guy."

Hello, that's the point of comics.
 
"Can't be done"? I strongly disagree.

The only challenge is that it that Venom's origin is more complex than the GG or Doc Ock. I guess they don't HAVE to give Spidey the black suit, but I'd certaintly like them to.

If we knew for sure they were making a fourth one, honestly I think it might be best to do what the comics did. Have Parker get rid of the suit, and think it's gone. Then in the 4th film, reveal that Brock got it and is now Venom.
But the 4th one is iffy.

Even though I love Sandman, I don't think there is room for him in this film.
 
"Can't be done"? I strongly disagree.

The only challenge is that it that Venom's origin is more complex than the GG or Doc Ock. I guess they don't HAVE to give Spidey the black suit, but I'd certaintly like them to.

If we knew for sure they were making a fourth one, honestly I think it might be best to do what the comics did. Have Parker get rid of the suit, and think it's gone. Then in the 4th film, reveal that Brock got it and is now Venom.
But the 4th one is iffy.

Even though I love Sandman, I don't think there is room for him in this film.
I disagree. If they were going to make Venom the main villian in the fourth film then what would peter do in the mean time when he get's the symbiote off? fight Sandman? sure but I strongly think that not only do we need Venom but without Venom how will Harry helping peter work when it is going to be one on one between Spider-man and Sandman? now they aren't deviating from the comic's by not doing what the comic's did with how much of a time span is between when Peter get's rid of the symbiote and when Spidey and Venom meet for the first time.

not to mention that other Villian's need to be used in the spidey franchise and there's a good chance that this franchise will hopefully go up to six film's.

my point is mainly that it's better to have a time span that is alot shorter between when peter get's the symbiote off and when Venom and spidey come in contact with eachother (let's not forget that Eddie Brock has been planning to get revenge on peter ever since he got the symbiote in the comic's) than it was in the comic's.
 
Even though I love Sandman, I don't think there is room for him in this film.

Actually, there isn't enough room for venom. Sandman has always been a primary villain for sm3, venom was just thrown in and adjusted to just about fit in this movie. Personally, given the choice of either having venom or sandman for sm3, I'd pick sandman purely because he has a lot of potential in the comics but has sucked for decades and seeing as he's a classic villain, a film's take with inevitable changes on the character interests me more.
 
I am not trying to make him one. I am purely saying that using this logic of villians who put things in motion as opposed to react things, Venom would have to fall under the 'puts things in motion' and would therefore be classed as a main villian. He isn't a main a villain, but I don't think I could call him a minor villian either, he is not like the Shocker or someone who doesn't pose much of a threat, he batters Spidey around like a fish (batters, fish...geddit...cough) and makes the battle royal possible, lest we forget he kills Harry. I know we are only going to see him for around 15 minutes but he does an awful lot in these 15 minutes to be classed as a throw away minor villian. But he isn't really in it long enough to be a called a major villian. I know I am going of screen time but this also seems to the way people discern major from minor.

Yeah, I mean, Venom isn't a major villain in this film but he himself is a major villain, with impact. That is why he ends up causing some serious mayhem in the little screen time he has. I personally, would have liked it if, Brock got the symbiot either right at the end of sm3 as a cliff hanger or in sm4 where he could have had the freedom to flesh out his time in a spidey movie.
 
Actually, there isn't enough room for venom. Sandman has always been a primary villain for sm3, venom was just thrown in and adjusted to just about fit in this movie. Personally, given the choice of either having venom or sandman for sm3, I'd pick sandman purely because he has a lot of potential in the comics but has sucked for decades and seeing as he's a classic villain, a film's take with inevitable changes on the character interests me more.

I agree. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that if Raimi originally had his way - Venom wouldn't even be in the film in the first place? The fans demanded it... which means the producers demanded Venom because Venom = $$$$ for them.

I'm not saying I'm against having him in the film, he fits in nicely with the whole revenge theme they've got going on. I'm just saying, I'm not entirely sure he was part of the original story Raimi wanted to tell... whatever that may be.
 
As i understand it Raimi just said he didn't like the character to throw fans of course.
Now, this could be just the PR spin on the story. Raimi could really not like the character. However, Raimi so far has been very succesful and very good to the Spiderman franchise. If he REALLY didn't want Venom in the movie, why would the producers risk antagonising him over such a risky move. Not everybody is a fan of Venom.
 
As i understand it Raimi just said he didn't like the character to throw fans of course.
Now, this could be just the PR spin on the story. Raimi could really not like the character. However, Raimi so far has been very succesful and very good to the Spiderman franchise. If he REALLY didn't want Venom in the movie, why would the producers risk antagonising him over such a risky move. Not everybody is a fan of Venom.

It could've been a PR suppose. I distinctly remember him being quoted saying "Venom is for Squares!" But then as the making of the movie went on, he also did say he gained more respect for the character and has grown to like him.

And the producers pay Raimi - a lot. A LOT. That's another reason why he would agree to add Venom.
 
I don't know. I guess I'm naive. I just don't see Raimi as the greedy bastard type. He said he is fascinated with the Spiderman character. Why would he speak so passionately about this stuff if he made compromises about his vision. :)
 
I don't know. I guess I'm naive. I just don't see Raimi as the greedy bastard type. He said he is fascinated with the Spiderman character. Why would he speak so passionately about this stuff if he made compromises about his vision. :)

I don't see Raimi as a greedy bastard either. I think he's a very open-minded individual. Here's what I think happened in my head...

Raimi went to the producers and said, "I want to use Sandman in the next one. And I want to turn Harry into the next Goblin."

And in response, the producers said, "Great! You can construct whatever story you want! But, on one condition - you have to use Venom as well."

And Raimi agreed. Granted, it was probably much more in depth than this, but in a nutshell, that's probably basically what happened. Raimi got to tell his own Spider-Man story and use the the villians he wanted, but the fans and producers strongly recommended that Venom be in there. And why would Raimi want to disappoint the fans?
 
In the comics (or at least the well written ones) Spidey would often be getting the better of Ock when Ock would resort to similar strategies as with the film. For example ASM #89, when to wear Spidey down, Ock topples a water tower endangering the bystanders below. Spidey stops the tower's fall with his body. In ASM #12 Ock released zoo animals to endanger bystanders. In the Master Planner and Nullifier story arcs, Ock used his gang to soften Spidey up.

Again "beating" someone is about more than out-muscling them. Ock is first and foremost a thinking man. For him, outsmarting Spidey is equal if not greater than merely beating him up. This is also why he's a master criminal who you can easily build an entire film around.



Again, we'd have to go over an actual cartoon for you to understand what I mean. I'm certainly not saying the cartoon MEDIUM is childish. Storytelling is the same regardless of the medium. I'm saying that as I watched the 90's cartoon, what turned me off of it was inferior (I'll substitute this for childish) writing. The same thing was going on in the comics at that point.

And I agree that movie Peter is simplified more than he should be. For example, In the comics, even after Gwen's death he never chose to eliminate the possibility of love in his life due to his life as Spider-Man. But- what the movies have at least done is strived to give real, dramatic motivations to the characters that are logical given their circumstances. All I can say is in general with the cartoons, that I'd get turned off by the "cartoony" writing and have to flip channels. And the MTV "adult" one was worse. MJ sees two people decapitated and is nearly killed herself, then jokes with Spidey and goes trapsing off as if nothing happened. CRAP.



Nothing is "groundbreaking". Especially in cops and robbers type stories. BUT- it was a logical and reasonable concept. And- it was a shift from Osborn merely deciding to kill Spidey. No question- all of these Spidey films have had some bad plotholes and so forth (How easy would it be to know who the Goblin is? A place like Oscorp would have security monitoring that could tell who was in the lab when Stromm was killed). But they have enough strong points to make them worth the while.



Anything can happen "potentially". But we're talking about the character at hand. Why does Venom deserve so much attention? Even better stories could have been told with second appearances by the Goblin or Ock.



I look at it this way- there is no character that is inherently bad. Only the writing is bad. So I was giving examples of how Venom, the comic book character could have been developed so we'd have an interesting character on the movie screen. But that's not what we have in reality- in reality we have an idiot who wants to kill Spidey for indirectly making him lose his job (At least in the film Peter has a direct hand in it), uses dialogue about eating brains and refers to himself in the plural. As I mentioned in another post, it would take two films to get Venom to main villain status. And frankly the character simply isn't worth it, IMO. The fans who really crave seeing him are for the most part thinking of the vicseral things. A tough, scary customer who gives Spidey hell. Not enough to build a full two hours on.



He didn't beat him- only stalled him. You described Peter as sending Venom to jail.



Apparently it is, (At least for the writers) since Venom's first appearance is about the only one when Peter stops him cold. Having Venom "feared" by Peter was the only way to make Venom a major player. And, as I said, this involved dumbing Peter down severely and making him a *****. Not necessary with the likes of Ock and the Goblin.

In the movies, Sam was smart enough to see through this cheezifying effect and placed Venom where he belonged- riding shotgun to Sandman.



But you see, it shouldn't have happened in the comics either. When Venom came along, Peter was an experienced superhero, who'd been to the edges of the universe and back. He shouldn't have been as easily shaken. That's why I say Peter was weakened as a character to make Venom stronger.

On the big screen, on a film that would take several years to produce, this just isn't enough. As I mentioned with the Harry fight, Sam is into Peter PROGRESSING (Something the comic folks can't seem to get). He actually gets stronger and smarter with each film. That's we need 3 villains to challenge him. When Venom appears in the comics, Peter shouldn't or wouldn't be thinking "I'm afraid of him. He's going to kill me-" He'd be thinking- "okay... no spider sense, he's stronger than me (No way he should be faster..) how can I stop him?"



First off, you're giving Peter about 10 minutes of development with the symbiote, then it's all Eddie. Secondly- you're still making the focus of the story from Eddie's perspective. Peter's story needs to be about him ONLY. Eddie is a supporting character. What you're talking about is Peter's story being a side note. You're obviously a very clever person, but your concept favors Venom over Peter.



But we know from the novelization this isn't the case. The story (As it should be) focuses on Peter's experience and the villains are merely accelerants. Yes, they get character development as well (also as it should be). But Peter is the main focus.



No it doesn't. You just in fact described one of my biggest problems with KLH. It should have been told from Peter's POV. But moreover- it can't happen that way in a feature film. That's one of the big reasons why the Batman films went downhill. It's certainly EASIER to shift the focus to the crazy guy causing all the mayhem. But not better. The main character should be the main focus. You can shift the focus on TV and in comics, but not films.



True.



As I've been saying- a strong villain is about how he challenges the hero to be BETTER. This was never the case with Venom. It falls inline with Marvel policy at that point developed by then EIC Jim Shooter. Basically he wanted to sell more comics. So he came up with the edict "A hero is only as good as his villains". So he basically had the writers merely stretch out the stories by making them unwinnable for the heroes (Spidey in particular). The writers however chose the laziest of approaches and made the heroes weaker and dumber. This means a two part story can drag out to six parts and the money rolls in.



Exactly. Which means it's been done.. Let's do something different.



The point is, Venom is a loser out of the gate. This makes for very bad pacing and no dramatic edge. I'm not for the crappy way that Venom was built up in the comics- but he should be a threat- seemingly unstoppable up until Spidey actually figures out how to beat him.



That's "comic booky" writing. 'Let's drag this out as much as possible by having the villain made numerous attacks.'

No. Let's get into the villain's head and feel what he's feeling. He wants the one who causes him pain, who he believes ruined his life- GONE. If he attacks and has the adrenaline rush pumping- he sees his foe weakened- he's not going to let up until it's over. It's like sex with no orgasm. Eddie takes things too far- That's why he's a criminal. He's a victim of his compulsions.



Yeah, that's why the Ultimate line sucks, IMO.

First off, Peter being driven by the symbiote's hallucinations is a BAD IDEA, and I got a big laugh at it everytime fans were bringing that up here regarding Sandman. Only comic fans would find something like that satisfying, because they're used to settling for that type of comic booky writing. For the real world- only taking Peter TRULY to the edge- by making Ben's killer REAL- and then worse- making him superhuman and thus hard to beat- would take mild-mannered, self-sacrificing, Peter Parker to the dark place he needed to be in this story. And this is also the only way for him to achieve redemption by learning to forgive THE REAL KILLER.



Again- not enough. Only an all-out war-like campaign between Peter and this villain would be enough to drive Peter (As opposed to some like Wolverine) to the extreme he needed to reach for this concept to work. And you're still talking about shortchanging the other villain so Venom can shine.
Dragon, sometimes i just think you are far too rigid with your thought process and there is no middle ground.

I will just make a point about your ock point. Although valid, it doesn't set up the fundamental relationship that ock and spidey have with one another, with the achilles' heel of the character (only being human and potentially easily defeated) not being properly used.

In short, if this third film hadn't already been made, i believe there is potential to have a a sequel somewhere down the line with the majority of the focus being on venom being spidey's main adversary.

I would also say that a film in the perspective of one of spidey's foes isn't such a bad idea. There is nothing wrong from my eyes in having spidey having no major issues with his life and trying to make it as normal as possible and having a villain constantly interrupting it. Spidey doesn't need to grow with each encounter with a villain, I do like villain's demise if written well. But it seems you don't.

No point flogging a dead horse here, although my intentions were never to really change your opinions, it's just the thought of 'never' that bugs me, especially in a medium where anything is possible.

cheers for the chat.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,540
Members
45,875
Latest member
shanandrews
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"