Why does Sam Raimi insist on killing villians?

[VoiceOfReason]

Back in 1988, Venom was a unique character full of potential. He was the first major comicbook villain who had no ambition of riches or world dominance, just the death of the hero. All other villains in comics (Joker, Luthor, Magneto, Dr. Doom, Doc Ock) saw the hero as a mere roadblock to their ultimate goal.

Venom had a great opportunity to become a true perversion of Spider-man. However, pathetic writers trying to hit unrealistic deadlines took the easy way out and played Venom out like a $5 streetwalker. What Marvel needs to do is a major continuity edit and rework Venom:

-rework the lethal protector bit (have him killing local criminals while hunting for Spider-man). Venom is basically The Punisher with Spidey powers. He lost his wife, his relationship with his father, his job, his existance as a human... so many things that could be developed in the hands of someone competent.

-keep the dark humor (what's a "we want to eat your brains" among friends, eh?)

-play up the lethal rivalry. reduce Venom's use of tendrils, and re-inforce the connection to Spidey. Have both characters in New York, and when they meet up, it's a bloody fight with no real winner, rather than the usual cat-n-mouse chase with Venom ending up knocked out in a pool of black goo.

Venom is only a shallow character because he's never been written by a halfway decent writer.

This is a long post and I doubt too many people read long posts on forums anymore, but I'd *really* love for people to debate this.

I must say the above post I've quoted is a much more eloquent way of putting it than I did earlier. Venom could certainly become a very deep character, but he has never really struck me as one because of how he is portrayed. I think he could easily fall into one of two categories, but normally we only see him in the first:

1. Badass juggernaut. Everyone loves a villain who is full of muscle and able to beat the **** out of the hero with an utterly vicious hatred. His appearance just screams "Don't screw with me unless you feel like losing some vital organs," and compared to the arguably tame appearance of most Spider-man villains, and even many villains of other series in general, Venom gives Spider-man a run for his money with his strength and attitude. His name's badass, his jagged, blank white eyes induce fear, his strength is unparalleled, and he would be good at hammering Spidey through multiple walls of steel if he so chose.

However, he could easily be in the following category:

2. Villain of circumstance. Venom is the perfect example of someone who used to be much more calm. Eddie Brock wanted to make a living for himself and so many opportunities were stripped clean. He lost everything important to him, and at the core of that sensitive pain was Peter Parker. He had a justifiable anger, and the symbiote granted Eddie the powers to do something about it. Spider-man's powers are no longer unchallenged -- Eddie Brock is now placed on an even playing field with Spider-man through the gift of the symbiote, which feeds off Eddie's emotions and transforms him into a superhuman being of pure hatred. So many of these concepts seem to be underplayed in the portrayal of Venom. How strange can it be for one of the most vicious villains to emerge as a matter of circumstance? His sole goal is to kill Spider-man -- a goal fueled by pain and unbridled anger, and this is a goal that is not brought to light NEARLY as much as it should.

Battles and epic wars are much more closer to the reader/viewer when there is effective character development. It's the difference between casually viewing a badass villain pounding on the hero just because he can, and gripping the edge of your seat because you're witnessing the culmination of the characters' essences during some intense battle where emotions manifest themselves through the hero and villain.

Instead of settling for Venom punching Spider-man in the face for the sake of being a badass villain, you get Venom relentlessly hammering on Spider-man, devoid of mercy, with each punch deliberate and full of raw power derived from sheer vitriol -- you have Venom's clawed hands wrapped around Spider-man's neck, attempting to mercilessly squeeze the life out of Parker until the veins in Venom's muscles burst, fueled by anger and an undying wish to utterly obliterate the source of all hatred, pain, and anguish at all costs. It makes the fight that much more meaningful because you are also able to empathize with the villain -- you then genuinely care about who comes out victorious. You develop a relationship with the hero and villain, and this is what gives characters depth. Motives intermix and we share a personal side with the characters and learn to relate.

This is probably something similar to what Raimi saw in Venom, if I had to guess. It's a smart move on his part to both appeal to both audiences: Those who want the crazy juggernaut killer, and the other side who are more interested in epic battles fought by awesome characters fueled by emotion. So many characters have such potential and I feel as if Venom has been largely underplayed, but I really hope that Raimi is able to bring all of this to light in Spider-Man 3, and this is something I am really rooting for. I hope someone does Venom right this times, and I hope that someone is Raimi.

 

[FinchersGhost]

This is a long post and I doubt too many people read long posts on forums anymore, but I'd *really* love for people to debate this.

I must say the above post I've quoted is a much more eloquent way of putting it than I did earlier. Venom could certainly become a very deep character, but he has never really struck me as one because of how he is portrayed. I think he could easily fall into one of two categories, but normally we only see him in the first:

1. Badass juggernaut. Everyone loves a villain who is full of muscle and able to beat the **** out of the hero with an utterly vicious hatred. His appearance just screams "Don't screw with me unless you feel like losing some vital organs," and compared to the arguably tame appearance of most Spider-man villains, and even many villains of other series in general, Venom gives Spider-man a run for his money with his strength and attitude. His name's badass, his jagged, blank white eyes induce fear, his strength is unparalleled, and he would be good at hammering Spidey through multiple walls of steel if he so chose.

However, he could easily be in the following category:

2. Villain of circumstance. Venom is the perfect example of someone who used to be much more calm. Eddie Brock wanted to make a living for himself and so many opportunities were stripped clean. He lost everything important to him, and at the core of that sensitive pain was Peter Parker. He had a justifiable anger, and the symbiote granted Eddie the powers to do something about it. Spider-man's powers are no longer unchallenged -- Eddie Brock is now placed on an even playing field with Spider-man through the gift of the symbiote, which feeds off Eddie's emotions and transforms him into a superhuman being of pure hatred. So many of these concepts seem to be underplayed in the portrayal of Venom. How strange can it be for one of the most vicious villains to emerge as a matter of circumstance? His sole goal is to kill Spider-man -- a goal fueled by pain and unbridled anger, and this is a goal that is not brought to light NEARLY as much as it should.

Battles and epic wars are much more closer to the reader/viewer when there is effective character development. It's the difference between casually viewing a badass villain pounding on the hero just because he can, and gripping the edge of your seat because you're witnessing the culmination of the characters' essences during some intense battle where emotions manifest themselves through the hero and villain.

Instead of settling for Venom punching Spider-man in the face for the sake of being a badass villain, you get Venom relentlessly hammering on Spider-man, devoid of mercy, with each punch deliberate and full of raw power derived from sheer vitriol -- you have Venom's clawed hands wrapped around Spider-man's neck, attempting to mercilessly squeeze the life out of Parker until the veins in Venom's muscles burst, fueled by anger and an undying wish to utterly obliterate the source of all hatred, pain, and anguish at all costs. It makes the fight that much more meaningful because you are also able to empathize with the villain -- you then genuinely care about who comes out victorious. You develop a relationship with the hero and villain, and this is what gives characters depth. Motives intermix and we share a personal side with the characters and learn to relate.

This is probably something similar to what Raimi saw in Venom, if I had to guess. It's a smart move on his part to both appeal to both audiences: Those who want the crazy juggernaut killer, and the other side who are more interested in epic battles fought by awesome characters fueled by emotion. So many characters have such potential and I feel as if Venom has been largely underplayed, but I really hope that Raimi is able to bring all of this to light in Spider-Man 3, and this is something I am really rooting for. I hope someone does Venom right this times, and I hope that someone is Raimi.

This really is the best post I've ever read on SHH - Here's something I wrote on another forum a while ago. Kinda in the same vein, it's about what I think Venom should represent in these movies.

There isn't much to my thought, but I’ve noticed that a lot of people believe Venom represents what Peter could have become had he not rid himself of the suit. This is true, and a point worthy of consideration.

However, I think a bigger picture is being painted.

Peter Parker is a good guy. That will never change so long as he is Spider-Man. I never expect to walk into a SM movie or comic arc to find that Peter is evil at the end. Some things in life are constant, and Spider-Man being good is one of them.

In most serious art forms, characters are really just symbols of struggles, events, and philosophies, ECT... Doc Ock broke down to What you Want v. What is Right. Green Goblin broke down to the Blurring Lines of Duality, and this is the case for almost every character. But what makes it interesting is how the main character plays into those archetypes.

I'll elaborate.

In SM2, Ock is the one who becomes dominated by what he wants, while Peter only indulges his desires momentarily. But Peter's real lesson was learning to reconcile pleasure with duty. Peter took the step that Ock was never able to - equilibrium.

And this idea is in the first movie with battling dual identities. Peter is able to reach a conclusion with himself that being responsible means protecting everyone, especially loved ones (which Norman was unable to do for Harry)... and so on.

So there is a certain theme that we can see throughout the first two, and it is clearly being continued on into the third... we can tell this just from watching the trailers for SM3.

Point: Every villain is teaching Peter something new, and one of those early lessons was about doing the "Right Thing" (visa vie Uncle Ben's killer) To me, he doesn't grow by teaching him to do the "Right Thing" again. Been there, done that. He grows by learning something foreign but incremental. Say, like, finding the required courage to confront those said misdeeds.

Because what is Venom if not Peter's own creation? He fuels the symbiote, becomes egotistical, ruins Brock, and creates havoc. We know this. He has indeed found the darkness within himself. He's doing bad guy-like things. So we know he has to rectify the situation, but how is he going to do that? By the time it's over he has to be Spider-Man again, the hero we love.

And the only way he can continue to develop is by taking that next step that his villains always seem unable to take. Peter needs to own up to his mistakes. And it comes in the form of Venom/Eddie Brock.

So while I do think Venom is a representation of what Peter could have been, I think more importantly it's about doing what Eddie doesn't - identifying your sins and paying the penance. And we know it will come down to a physical price in the final act, but I fear Harry's life is going to be Peter's real consequence.

His errors will most likely be so grievous that he can’t correct them alone.

Fin.

 

[Visionary]

If I really had to break down why they kill villlains, it would be because they have no plans of ever using them again. Although word has it that Doc Ock isn't dead, but I still think they'll go with all new villain(s) for SM4.

 

[FinchersGhost]

How isn't he dead? Last time I check, metal isn't buoyant. He should know that. He's a scientist.

 

[Visionary]

He isn't dead because the director said so. In MOVIELAND, that's all you need.

 

[FinchersGhost]

O. Then why are people upset that Brock "dies" when he can just be brought back?

 

[Visionary]

Because he was blown to bits...or was he?

 

[seishin87]

O. Then why are people upset that Brock "dies" when he can just be brought back?

Probably because

Spoiler

according to most there won't really be much left of Brock to bring back.

Edit:^ What Visonary said.

 

[FinchersGhost]

I really wish I could get that piece of Brock outta my eye...

 

[SPIDER-MAN-ROX]

Is Sandman the only villian surviver in Spider-Man 3?

 

[Visionary]

Nope, there's also that small piece of symbiote that Curt Connors has...I smell Carnage.

 

[Sashman]

How does Venom die?

Well, I am sad to read this. And disappointed

 

[McVenom]

well from what i heard we never actually see his dead body so it is possible to bring him bak and say he never really died or something creative

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I heard that Doc ock wasn't dead, and only brock die, not venom. Venom will return with Gargan.

You are sentenced to never post ridiculous ideas EVER again

EDIT:
Ock is alive, at the end of SM2, his tentacle lights were still on

 

[CAH]

NO...if Gargan EVER appears in a film, he should NEVER get the symbiote...i think that the whole 'Scorpion-Venom' storyline is completely ******ed and useless...as he can still be beaten easily by Spidey.

The one and only TRUE Venom, Eddie Brock, dies at the end of the third film...so, unless it is Carnage/Cletus Kasady (from the symbiote bit that Connors still has), I do not want to see the symbiote again. I have come to terms with Eddie's death...it is sad, because he is my favorite villain, but I have accepted it. And I think we all know that the only reason they left Connors with a piece of the suit is so that there is a POSSIBILITY of Carnage.

I do want Mac Gargan/The Scorpion to appear in a future film, but not as Venom.

CAH

 

[Radford]

so is brock dying just leaked hearsay or did someone see SM3 and say so?

 

[FinchersGhost]

At this point, it's academic, Radford.

 

[Capt Throbberson]

so is brock dying just leaked hearsay or did someone see SM3 and say so?

Novelization

 

[Radford]

At this point, it's academic, Radford.

roger that. t:

 

[DocLathropBrown]

Brock has to die, because that's the culmination of what the film's all about. If you let revenge rule your life, it destroys you. Everyone in the film stops short of letting that happen, but Eddie lets it happen to him; he accepts it. Raimi kills Venom to help teach Peter a lesson, and the audience at the same time.