Venom confirmed!! No...really!

[Jakerman]

It hasn't gotten to C2F yet but superherohype has an interview with Church from MSN movies in which he confirms VENOM WILL BE IN SPIDERMAN 3.

[The Symbiot]

already been posted in the forum, "Spiderman3 Plot"

[Jakerman]

Oh........*runs off and cries*

[Pod]

http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/s/stfu.gif http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/s/steaming.gif http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/p/pissedoff.gif

Once again...NOOOO!!!!

[ToM]

I remember how I felt after I saw Spider-Man 2. It was disappointment. Oh sure, there were many things to enjoy, tons of laughs, not a bad movie really. But I'd already seen this film before, when it was called Spider-Man in 2000. Raimi had just stretched the flesh they'd flayed off the first film onto a new set of bones.

When the reveal came at the end, Harry's discovery of the Goblin's lair, my first reaction was, "Oh geeze, not this all over again already!" After spending the whole movie with slightly modified revisions of nearly every sequence in the first film (the cable car crisis is transfornmed to a chimerical elevated train, the abduction of Mary Jane by the Goblin becomes the abduction of Mary Jane by Doc Ock, just as the menacing of Aunt May by the Goblin becomes the menacing of Aunt May by Doc Ock. Just as the final confrontation between an unmasked Spider-Man and Green Goblin at a river-side abandoned ruin becomes the final confrontation between an unmasked Spider-Man and Doc Ock at a river-side abandoned ruin. Just as the Goblin at the climax is given a moment of seeming clarity relating to Peter Parker, Doc Ock is given a moment of clarity relating to Peter Parker at the climax, with boc The Goblin and Doc Ock as scientists who admire and take Parker under their wings till they go insane in lab accidents that give them super powers....) I just wasn't ready to go farther down that same road again, even more explicitly. By the third movie, I was expecting that it could get really tired.

Now, I had hopes for the third one. I mean, although I really would love to see The Lizard, it'd be yet again, scientist who favors Parker turns to evil monster in lab accident. We needed a break from that. And although in the past the use of multiple bad-guys sunk other franchise creative directions, a third movie employing this tactic would be a change of direction on the scale the Spider-Man franchise would require. When I heard names bandied about, names like Sandman, Electro and Chameleon, I started perking up. There's plenty of classic stories, really outstanding action sequences using all of these characters, a great deal of it from the outstanding sixties content, that blended, could be wonderful. I started really looking forwards to this next Spider-Man film.

When it became Green Goblin 2 talk, with Sandman and maybe Electro, I was on page. I was signed on. Sure, that reviled name, Venom, it was washing up like garbage on Lake Erie. But that's what trash talk is all about. And, to tell you the truth, I really never believed Raimi would use this character. He just doesn't fit the flavor of the first two films, or the air of the period Raimi has always sourced. And then "somebody" purchased the Venom rights from New Line. I caught a chill.

Okay, so with Sandman and Venom, the film does take a departure from where the first two were, it avoids remaking the first film all over again for a third time. And to be honest, that's something I was really worried would happen for a while. All the same, this direction isn't depending on the strength of the original content as the guiding source of direction as the first did. So, then what IS guiding it? Well, the first two movies. Not only that, but it's falling away to what was really a period of the comic book where they'd lost their sense of this character, had no idea where to take him.

Compounding this situation is the modification of the Venom character itself. He's hardly going to be as he is in the comics (which is a character I hate in the first place). So they're really just making something up to fit the movie series concept, a concept increasingly detached from the source material (and sadly I'm forced to speculate fromit's spirit as well).

Finally, we have Spider-Man running around in black. You know, in the past few years, the "darker" breed of comic hero has under performed at the box office. Spider-Man as box office champ is the child of post-911 America. I'm not sure how audiences will respond to his going dark on them. Besides, now he's going to be in black, right along with Batman, right along with the X-Men, right along with V from V For Vendetta (another film dying at the box office). You can even throw Zorro in there as well as Aeon Flux and Blade. This isn't something I really want to see happen.

I really don't see how anybody thought this a winning direction.

1. Fans of the classic Spider-Man, the character they knew, be they Boomers or whatever, will be let down that he's not on screen. Newer audiences won't recognize him as Spider-Man, because that's the face shown in the first two films.

2. Venom fans, the smallest portion of the audience by far, will be dissapointed by the fact that the "real Venom" isn't in the movie at all. So, not only are classic Spider-Man fans and general audiences who love the last two films getting let down, even the people boosting Venom for years aren't getting what they want either.

Nobody is really getting what they want here. So, why did anybody think that was a good thing? Unless Raimi and company think they've come up with something better than the source material. And that's always how these things go south, not by finding the best in it, but by thinking you're brining something better to it (rather than making something better from what's at the core of the thing).

Marvel came to understand that to get Spider-Man successful again you had to make him MORE like his classic self, not less (re-discovering that core). That's where his strength as a character sits. And they threw that black costume away. The people I know that saw the new look in the USA Today were all dismissive of it, thought it depressing, weren't favorable to it. This isn't the Spider-Man they know or want to see. Me either. My enthusiasm for this movie is really wrung dry. Unless Spider-Man is only in that black get-up for a couple of breif scenes, I think Sony is going to be really sorry they did this. I am.

ToM

[easy D]

You know, Marvel really does seem to be pushing Venom and the symbiote costume into the spotlight. And plus, Venom has more fans than any other Spidey villain. True, Doc Ock is the most recognizable, but Venom is more beloved than any other villain, I know. I worked with a guy who wasn't a comic fan, but was a huge, huge fan of Venom. (I've talked about him before, saying that Venom could beat Silver Surfer :roll: )
I think the biggest mis-step is the missing white wrap-around Venom logo spider. But then we haven't seen a picture of Venom in all his glory.
And I'm pretty sure that since Venom will be in the film, it would be better if Sam Raimi gets back to his horror roots, and possibly do some real creepy Evil Dead type horror scenes (similar to the Doc Ock escape from the hospital in Spider-Man 2). But then with the other villains being Sandman and (possibly) Harry as Green Goblin Jr., the film would be overloaded with villains and love interests and one of the bad guys (possibly Sandman) would be pushed back into the shadows. I really don't want that.

[norrinraad]

When I first read that Venom would be in the film, I felt an odd tinge of disappointment. Not because I don't like the character, but I felt that he would have to be toned down too much to fit into Spidey's movie universe. Then I remembered a couple of things. First of all, the first two Spider-Man films did have some edgy moments in them. My friend tried to show the first one to her son (he's 4) and she had to turn it off because he kept crying evertime the Goblin was onscreen. Now, in no way am I suggesting that the film was even remotely "horror", but I also don't believe it was as watered-down as it could have been.

I agree that it's important to remember Raimi's horror roots. If Venom is in this film (and I'm still not 100% convinced he is), this could be a great opportunity to bring a little more darkness into the franchise. I have no idea how far Sony would let him go with the concept, and I still would prefer to see a hard "R" rated version of the character over at New Line. I just don't see how he could be all that twisted in a PG-13 film. However, many people forget that Spidey always lent himself well to moodier, more horrific type stories in the comics. I seriously doubt Raimi would bring Venom into the franchise only to neuter him. That just doesn't seem to be his style.
_______________
"I'd kill the dragon for you"

[shaneomac]

Although ToM makes some good points about the first two movies being "the same", I think we are all assuming just a little too much about the third one. Yea, we know Venom will probably be in Spidey 3, but we have gotten no images of Venom himself. We do not even know who is going to play him. So, before you around saying that this movie is going to be bad and that Venom will not be done right, you should consider the little amount of information that we have received. And I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you, ToM. You make some good points, and, quite frankly, I'm not as excited about SM3 as I have been in the past as well. But I haven't given up on Sam, and you shouldn't either. Let's wait for some more news before we jump to conclusions that are too extreme.

[ToM]

Venom, as he exists in the original material, would infuse some darkness into the Spider-Man franchise. And that won't work.

Darkness isn't what sells this concept to the public, but heart, and color, and humor, and grand spectacle. You send it down a dark alley, and you're walking a well worn path, and one that hasn't had as much demand as there's been for this franchise out of all of them.

Also, "darkness" is for the "dark middle chapter" of a series, not for the climax where it comes to summer blockbusters. Of course, in third outings the rule is all bets are off. But audiences normally want resolution for a third film in a series. All the more for one that's sold the way Spider-Man has been. Downbeat is one thing, darkness is another.

I also tried to picture Venom on screen as adapted very directly. It is very much a horror concept. He's running around eating people, the works. Yet, in the middle of all this, he's making comedic remarks, doing goofy things, very campy. You know what? We saw this before, it's called Freddy Krueger, and it's almost impossible to watch now. People thought Robery Englund was going to be the new Vincent Price. He wasn't even the new Robery Qaurry. Man, I would never want to see this in a Spider-Man movie.

Then, you're stuck with Venom himself. He's this shark jawed monster in a Spider-Man costume, with a foot long tongue dangling out of his mouth like a frothy dog (and sporting froth himself). Picture this. It looks incredibly stupid on screen!

And, yes, Raimi might well neuter Venom, if only because on screen he's a bad idea. Another reason is because Raimi himself has said he doesn't like that character. Frankly, I can't see Raimi devoting this much time, energy and love on something he doesn't like. Most of all, this is what I worry about. Raimi has a powerful love for these characters, and that shows up on screen. He knows the material, knows what to seek out, what to source. He spent his childhood picturing these things on pages coming alive. Venom? He never pictured that, and clearly never wanted to have to bring it alive. If we trust Raimi, then we have to trust him with regard to Venom. He's wrong for this series.

The direction Raimi is going I suspect is with just a black clad "evil Spider-Man." He's a huge fan of the classic '67 cartoon show, and there's a couple of stories that run this way. In the cartoons, they're called "The Human Flies." They look exactly like the black Spider-Man costume, only without the white spider insignia. Naturally, they frame Spidey as they have largely the same powers and gimmicks. I rather suspect Raimi is going to be taking Venom in this direction. And it makes sense, Parker facing the dark version of himself, the cautionary tale of what he could've become, might become, if his foot falls out of the well lit path.

Still, in order to go that way, Raimi is taking it all away from it's roots, to a place I'd just as soon not visit. The problem, I must admit, is that although there's many more stories one could tell with the character of Spider-Man, there's not much farther on his journey Parker can go as a character. And something like this is the next logical stop. But I disagree on so much of how they're doing it, the black costume, all that.

ToM

[The Symbiot]

Personally, I'm very torn at the moment. I think Sam will do a good job with the overall film. I have no reason to believe this film, will in fact, be bad, or even mediocre. He has given us two good pictures, even though he altered some of the characters, whos' persona I though was sacred. Spiderman adapt to film very well, thanks to Sam.

However, I'm very discourage that Venom will be in this film, in a major way.... regardless, if he reportedly appear at the film's end. I was more than prepared to accept the idea that only Eddie Brock would appear in some cameo role, just to finally introduce him to the fans.... and not just a name drop. Now with Venom, basically confirm, although not officially, is in this film, hinted to be doing some major stuff; I can't help but feel that he will be tremendously rushed. Which to me, never ends, because they rushed and had no direction for Eddie Brock/Venom in the comics, and now I feel the same is happening in film. How can the greatest villain ever, be so hollow. Look at what they're doing to him now in the comics. I was hoping film Venom would be a new re-creation, a new beginning, with depth for both Eddie, the Symbiot, and Venom.

Disappointed, but will still go see...... because I'm a fan. :|

[Pod]

Disappointed, but will still go see...... because I'm a fan. :|

That's how it is sometimes...We can't always get what we in these comic-to-films.... :(

[shaneomac]

I agree, Symbiot. Venom will be somewhat rushed in this filmed. You can assume that just from the simple fact that Venom will appear in the same movie as Sandman. Although Sandman's origin will not eat up a lot of time, he will (or should) be deeply involved throughout the movie, considering his strength and potential. And the issue of Harry Osbourne becoming the Green Goblin 2 is still up in the air, and has a fairly good chance of happening. Plus, there is the whole "love triangle" thing going on. So this does not leave a lot of time for Eddie Brock/Venom to develop, which poses a problem because we are talking about a very complex character. There will ultimately be too much going on in Spidey 3 for us to handle. So, the only solutions are to take something out (which probably won't happen) or to shorten or rush through something (which may happen to Venom). This is the reason that some people are becoming less and less excited about this movie. So, I think they should, as The Symbiot suggested, just introduce Eddie Brock in SM3, and save Venom for SM4 (assuming there is one). But, Sam and them can be very unpredictable, so we'll have to wait for some more info first; the teaser trailer is slated to appear in early August I believe.

[B]

I suppose they could make Sandman the Indiana Jones/James Bond style openiong act villain... but I really hope they don't, cause it'd be a waste of a character with lots of potential as a villain. I totally agree, if they're dead set on doing Venom, they should just introduce Eddie in this one, maybe bond him to the symbiote at the end, and then use him as the villain in SM4, if there is one. (And if this one follows up on the box office of the last two, there should be.)

[easy D]

I don't think that would happen. Why would they cast Theresa Russel as "Mrs. Marko", if they weren't planning on some kind of backstory?

[theguilty1]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about with Venom being in the film. No offense Tom, but I've heard the same argument from you for the last six months regarding Venom. People complain that Venom is a horrible character (everyone is entitled to their opinion), but why should the movies only cater to the fans of Spider-man who claim to know every fact about every character and every story line? The fact that the general audience won't accept a darker tone or that they won't recognize Spider-man in a black costume and somehow feel alienated because of it is just not true at all. If the story is good it won't matter. We don't even know the plot of this movie yet. Venom isn't one of my favorite characters either, but who's to say it can't work? But, of course there will be people who will hate the movie no matter what because it's not their vision. You can't please everybody.

Having Venom in the movie is obviously a move by the studio, and not Sam Raimi. Raimi not liking a character doesn't mean he won't use him if he's told to. Hell, Terrell Owens is playing for the Dallas Cowboys next year and the coach there can't stand him, but the owner is the one who made the decision. Plus, movie studios don't tend to listen to the smallest portion of an audience.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's just too early to say it can't work. I definitely have my reservations about Venom being in the movie. But I'm very interested in seeing how it turns out. If it's terrible, then I'll be there right along with Tom. I don't want this to sound like a dig at anyone. I'm just spouting off. haha.

[tecspyder]

I had almost given up on this message board thing and I promised myself that I wouldn’t read another endless message written by a fellow fanboy predicting bloody hell and bashing a movie that hasn’t even come out yet. But today I lucked up and took a peek and finally find someone who stood out and spoke some truth. Guilty1, I completely agree with you and let me tell you why.

WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE. Sure, we can pretend to be well informed by stating over and over and over again that the villains are Sandman and Venom, and that the Stacy’s are going to show up. Wow. Lots of info there… Yet with just these little crumbs of information, we automatically assume that Venom is not going to appear until the end of the movie, the Green Goblin is going to show up in full Goblin gear, and that Aunt May or Mary Jane are going to die. What’s with all this love triangle stuff between Gwen, Mary Jane, and Peter? How do we know that Gwen isn’t just going to be an admirer from afar like Betty Brant has been? Who says there’s going to be a dark tone to Spider-Man 3? Where are we GETTING this stuff from? Sure speculation is fun and exciting but panning a film and clinging on to false ideas that just SOME GUY made up about a movie that doesn’t even have a teaser trailer is ridiculous.

Now, I’m not a fan of Venom either, but I’ve got no reason believe this movie won’t work. We have an amazing cast, a director who has proven that he is the right guy for the job TWICE (which is extremely rare), and a great staff of writers who have not let us down yet. Don’t forget that these are the same people who made Spider-Man 1 AND Spider-Man 2 Oscar contenders! Heck the second movie actually WON an Oscar in 2004! If ANTHING we should be giggling like little school girls over excitement for this movie (I know I am)!

I’m just trying to say we should have a lot more faith in this movie. I have no reason what so ever to jump to the conclusion that this film is not going to work and I don’t think anybody else on this board does either.

Now feel free to object to everything I just wrote and bring back that hazy cloud of frustration and doubt that’s been hanging over this message board for the last six months. Odds are I’m not going to be here to read it anyway.

[The Symbiot]

^^^ :shock: ....you're just a little girrllll. ^^^ :)

[The Symbiot]

Seriously, I think some of us has express that we thought this movie would overall be good, because of Sam's track record from the first two.... at least I know I have. I think the big concern is that Venom may be rushed, with such a huge, complicated story revolving not only around Eddie Brock(which IMO is the smallest backstory of the three areas surrounding Venom), but the Symbiot, who has it's own story, it's story with PP/Spidey, than it's story with Eddie and the birth of Venom.

Now in a movie featuring Venom.... no ploblem.... plenty of time to explore as much you need to keep the film interesting. However, with all the reported cast, and their stories.... partial/full or not, time will be take away from Venom.... especially when Sandman is the main villain.... what does that tell you about Venom.... he's second fiddle. We still don't know the full role of Harry and the Goblin Legacy... and let me say right now, LIZARD. I have always thought that if Venom was brought to the big screen, Spidey would need help in the form of another ravaging beast... Lizard... but that's a discussion for another time.

So although we have not even seen a teaser, yet alone a trailer, or a official synopsis... we have concerns. Again, I think the movie itself will be find... I've said this before, I have no reason to think otherwise... as for Venom...I dunno. BTW we also don't know about the statis on SM4.... that's speculation too.

[shaneomac]

If Venom is indeed "second fiddle" in SM3, he will not die. That's almost a given. You can't just throw Venom in the movie as a cameo and have Spidey just toss him off a building or something. Venom is too powerful for that to happen, without them giving us a cheesy ending. If he is not the main villain, he will stay alive and it will carry over to SM4. That's why the best scenario would be to have Sandman as the main villain and have Eddie Brock appear, to become Venom at the end or in the next movie.

As for the symbiot itself, the back story could be told quickly and easily with a flashback. It could be a brief, staight-to-the-point segment showing John Jameson on the moon finding a black substance, and the symbiot in a jar in a lab or something. Then they can just show it escaping from the lab and continue on with the movie, just to let us know that the symbiot is out and lurking somewhere in New York City. I think that's the easiest thing they could do, without spending 25 minutes telling the whole origin of the symbiot.

[The Symbiot]

Well, I don't think they would spend 25 minutes on anyone's backstory, but even a flash-back would take some time. One would focus on the person at hand and what he's doing, let's say John, than have the flash-back, then conclude what he was doing and obviously how it is effecting him. They could possibly do two or maybe three flash-backs which of course would take up a little time. Whelther you do the story or have flash-backs, time is still added to all the possible backstories, and is taken away from Venom.

I agree with you about Venom however.... Venom will live regardless if there is a SM4 or not.... that door will remain open.

[ToM]

Guilty is right to say you can't please everyone. What's missed in that statement is that you can please ENOUGH people. To have a film as costly as one of these be successful, you MUST please ENOUGH people. And as I said before, nobody with this creative direction seems to be getting what they want (out of the specific demographics).

Now, it's been said that it won't matter, regarding these issues, if the story is good. That's dead wrong, full stop on the iceberg wrong. The Wizard of Oz is, today, a classic. But, good story, wonderful cast, great musical numbers aside, it was a flop when released (and became a classic thanks to television). There's many other such examples with established classics. The point is, every year there are really great movies released....that nobody sees. For whatever reason, people looked at it and shrugged. You turn Spider-Man into a black outfit, and his audience doesn't recognize him as well.

I'm not advocating that Raimi simply source the material that's "most known" simply because it's most known. But because that content is the cleanest distillation of what that character is about, and what worked the best. The Venom period of the 90's is when the series had an horrible case of identity crisis and was most exploitive. Raimi understood this, and said often times he didn't "get" that material, didn't want to take the films there. If you trust Raimi, you have to trust him here as well. If it works on screen as a concept, it'll be Raimi's concept, and not that garbage from the comics.

"Garbage to garbage!"-Jeffery Combs

ToM

[shaneomac]

I understand that Raimi will want to work his own perception of Venom onscreen, but you can't change too much. If you make a whole new story for Venom, then Spidey 3 will stray off the path of "comic adaptation", which is not their goal. The point is to maintain the genre, while adding little things to make it unique. So, we will see the classic "Raimi touch" on Venom, but we will not see an entirely new character, at least in terms of origin and general behavior.

[ToM]

Ahhhh.... there's a little light in the forest after all! Yes, they WILL be straying off the path of "comic adaptation" indeed. That's why this is a problem for me, this movie WILL be the one that makes the break from adaptation to an entirely new creative entity based on the first two movies. Yes, ShaneOmac, in order to bring a "Venom" character on screen, in the middle of all these other things they're doing, and who they've cast, it simply MUST stray from the path of adapting that material in the comics. There's no other way to bring together all the stuff we know they're bringing together. Now, you say that's not their goal. But their goal is to get a story that WORKS on screen. And there's no way to have it work and be be an adaptation. This will be a whole reworking.

ToM

[The Xenos]

I saw some of Spider-man 2 again the other day. They had "the power of the sun in my hands" and had nuclear fusion in a apartment lab in the middle of New York. I don't think an alien symbioant is that much of a streach.

[The Symbiot]

I'm sure I stated this somewhere before, but I will state it again. The Marvel character of Eddie Brock/Venom is hollow and lacks direction. One of the most popular villain, other than the Joker, has been ruin because of Marvel lack of direction for this character.... there is no real foundation for this character. Creativity is dead on, but it has no real solid foundation. That is why Venom is now jumping around from person to person, because they don't know what to do with him... what, he's Scorpion now... oh my googly moogly. :shock: I know hind sight is 20/20, but they should have made Eddie Brock either like Kassidy (a psychotic seriel killer) or like Mulligan (a sympathetic but tragic husband/father teathering on the bring of right and wrong). They have done Carnage and Toxin correctly... which I think the film version of Venom will incorporate one of two things, if not both:

Either film Venom will be a combination of both Carnage(as far as Venom is concern) and Pat Mullingan(as far as Eddie Brock is concern) with the Classic 616 marvel Brock background and the Ultimate Universe look(a la Ulimate Eddie/Topher) creating basically a Bazarro Spidey ....... but not Kassidy and Toxin themselves.

Or they will do a wicked new version, for film, of Venom, and establish some sort of solid foundation for the character Eddie Brock, giving the audience a true sense of who he really is. Than after the film, the Comics will pick up where the film left off, in an attempt this time to do Eddie Brock/Venom correctly. Basically re-invent the character. Yes, I know Eddie has a tragic story, but it's bland and they really never went indepth with his character's personality or soul.

In the end, YES, Sam will alter alot of the comic's version of Venom, and really rightfully so, that's a no-brainer if you ask me. I think the question is, what version or origin, of the Symbiot will they use. We know it won't be the Classic 616 Secret Wars, gift of the Beyonder storyline.... and I have a hard time with Ulitimate Universe cancer suit origin, although, they may tamper and tweak that story a little and make it another science project gone bad.... but my guess would be the 90's cartoon version, involving John Jamerson, minus the Shuttle accident..... or finally, a completely new version, straight out of the ole horror laiden mind of Sam Raimi himself. :wink:

[norrinraad]

Yes, I know Eddie has a tragic story, but it's bland and they really never went indepth with his character's personality or soul.

Actually, at his inception, I thought everything about the character, from his motivations to his origin, was just perfect. In hindsight the whole alien costume/Beyonder/Secret Wars things may seem lame, but the entire concept fit in beautifully with the spirit of the books at the time. The '80s were a weird, giddy time, and popular culture reflected that mileu, with the mainstream being full of transient, light-weight, disposable ideas. The entire concept of Venom, though, was one that I have always felt actually held some weight. In many ways he was the perfect nemesis for Spider-Man. His origin was directly tied to the Secret Wars, and his motivation sprang from Peter David's classic Death of Jean DeWolff storyline. Sure it may have been heavy-handed, but again, he was a product of his time. As a character he was far more interesting than The Spot or The Rocket Racer, to name but a couple of characters created outside of the classic Lee/Ditko/Romita villains.

I do agree, however, that he is currently directionless in the present-day Marvel Universe. The character definitely needs an overhaul, and I don't feel that the Ultimate version was anywhere near as iconic as the 616 version. Some creator has to hit the reset button on Venom, so it's entirely possible that the books may follow the lead of Raimi's interpretation from the film.
______________
"What are you gonna do? Beat me up?"
"No. Break you."

[Essex]

Venom actually already has gone through an overhaul of sorts. In Marvel Knights Spider-Man, Brock discovered he had cancer and had a moral reawakening. He sold the symbiote to Don Fortunato for $100 million, with the intention of donating the money to charity before his innevitable death. Fortunato gave the symbiote to his "weak" son, hoping to make him stronger. However, the symbiote rejected and abandoned Angelo Fortunato in the middle of a jump across some buildings and he plunged to his death. Upon hearing this, Brock blamed himself and slit his wrists. His death seemed obvious, but then again, you never know.

The symbiote later bonded with The Scorpion and Mac Gargan is now the new Venom, as far as I know. That's the last I saw of Venom, so I'm not sure if this has changed.

[norrinraad]

Hey, thanks for the update Essex. I have to admit that I’m a little out of the loop lately where Spidey is concerned. I find it a little difficult these days to justify spending 5 bucks for something that I can read in less than 5 mins. At any point, I was aware of at least some of these plot developments, and therein lays the problem for me. I have to admit that having the symbiote hopping from host to host, abandoning those it considers “weak” is an interesting one, and actually makes sense based on what we know of it so far. It hates Spider-Man, and would naturally try and find the most powerful host to assist it in killing him. However, this is not Venom, at least as far as I’m concerned. The symbiote on its own is nothing special. At one point it was established that there exists an entire race of them. Although most were destroyed, there are still several on Earth that continue to spawn offspring. Any rogue symbiote could do what Brock’s is doing now.

To me, Venom is the perfect combination of opportunity and malevolence. The symbiote hates Peter for rejecting it, and Brock blames Spider-Man for the destruction of his career due to the whole Sin-Eater fiasco. Add to that Brock’s madness, the fact that he was an Olympic-level weight trainer, the symbiote’s ability to replicate Peter’s powers, the alien’s knowledge of his dual identity, and Brock's bloodlust, and you have the makings of a classic villain. Having the symbiote bounce around the Marvel Universe, bonding with other established villains, undermines what made the character unique and interesting in the first place. Also, it is an insult to Brock, as it suggests that he was not as instrumental to the character as he was. The symbiote learned how to hate and how to kill as a direct result of his bonding with someone as vicious, evil, and crazy as Eddie. Keep in mind, while bonded with Peter, the symbiote was not truly “evil”. It simply needed a host to survive by feeding off their bodily secretions (ewww). After Peter rejected it, the symbiote was like a jilted lover, and that’s why it was drawn to Brock, as it sensed his extreme hatred. David Micheline established that, on its own, the symbiote was basically ineffectual. Had it bonded with anyone other than Brock, Venom as we know him may never have existed.

What I would like to see is the character distilled back to his essence. I don’t have a problem with change, and having Venom re-invented is fine with me as well. However, his hatred for Spidey defines the character, and Brock is an integral part of that. I’m not exactly sure how it can be done, but the current incarnation of the character isn’t really a satisfying one, at least not as far as I’m concerned!
______________
"I'm not like you. I'm a good person."
"Aren't we all, in our own minds?"

[ToM]

Symb, Raimi *will* change the entire origin, and he'll change the visual concept of the character as well. He's not going to be this mega-mouthed shark-faced creature, he's going to be a black clad Spidey of sorts. There won't be a trip to some other world, or a trip to some other reality, or a journey from there to Earth, no space shuttle crashing on the Brooklyn Bridge, none of that. It's going to be very different.

I also suspect Raimi will drop all that "We think this, and we think that" stuff for Venom. Both the Goblon and Doc Ock were "two in one" identities. A third trip to that well would be far too much. Oops, there goes another example of throwing the source material outt'a the adaptation. This isn't adapting the content, it's re-imagining the content. Venom-In-NAME-ONLY. We're talking a more radical departure here than with the Berry Catwoman people.

Now, sampling the various versions of this character from different "imaginings" that've been published, ones that don't share continuity with the original Spider-Man content, that's something I can see. Yeah, I'm sure they've poured over that stuff looking for a direction to move the film in. If anything from the comics, the movie Venom will be an amalgamation of this.

And I agree, this character is hollow, always has been. The reason why is that Venom was created as an after thought, a way of ditching that black costume off'a Parker's back. There never was anywhere to run with him, and it's amazing that they milked it as long as they did. That said, I personally believe that The Joker is just as empty. Alan Moore gave him a boost with The Killing Joke, but come on. He's just a gimmick character. Few of these figures have any real depth, aside from, say, the Magneto character of the X-Men. Sandman is the more interesting out of the two (he and Venom) as he's been a character trying to go straight, but nobody, not even Spider-Man, will allow him that. He's someone out of options, but wants all kinds of ways out. That gives him directions to be taken that can go anywhere if you just open them up in front of him.

Norrin, I grant you that Venom had possibilities. As a creature that literally grew on Parker's psyche and was rejected by him, there's all sorts of psychological directions you can go with, Oedipus complex come alive in the flesh type stuff, theological content, all sorts of different settings to have battles waged as symbols, subtext, in churches, (like where Parker "casts off that nature" in the story as it is) or in the halls of some university psych lab experiment and so on. And you can use these sorts of themes to explore ideas, make staments and so on. But this never happened.

And, yeah, in the post-Lee Romita/Kane period there were scores of awful throw away characters, like The Spot, and Speedball, and Rocket Racer (augh) and.... Stegron The Dinosaur Man, the list goes on. Actually, I'd say there were no worthwhile villians created after that point. Carnage, Toxin, these are just cheap knock offs of the Venom thing, and he was already getting stale by that point.

Speaking of that, spending five bucks on a set of comics is obscene. I haven't bought them for year (read them in Borders and slop coffee all over 'em, but that's it for me). On the other hand, this comics shop in my area sells old comics a couple times out of the month for half price. And another place for seventy five percent off (and one place has old boxes filled with 'em, I'm talking fifteen centers and twenty centers on up!) and that gives me my fix. I picked up a Stan Lee and Jack Kirby FF. #83 for, get this, two bucks. It's in very good condition. And I picked up Amazing Spider-Man #108-#116 for like, six bucks.

Man, this stuff is so much more fun than the material they're peddling now! Talk about weird material, GIANT-SIZE CREATURES #1 "featuring WEREOLF BY NIGHT AND TIGRA THE WERE-WOMAN (never mind the fact that "were" is greek for "man"....now there's a moviw that needs to be made today). Tons of old KA-ZAR and ADVENTURE INTO FEAR WITH....THE MAN-THING. The subjects they're dealing with, the subtext, all really vital and current for the time, and varied.

Also, this material is from a time when Lee and the old gaurd were moving out of the content, and their understudies were being put in, and new editorial talents were being moved in, and they were trying to find their way. All the stuff was highly personal in what was going on the page. And they were testing the limits of things, like with TOMB OF DRACULA and some of the other stuff like Conan. Skull The Slayer really grabs me, something that didn't gather an audience in it's own time.

Anyway, if you can grab this stuff for less than what you pay for the current material, man, do it! And this is all the stuff they really should be sourcing for characters like Spider-Man, Hulk, Fantastic Four, the early period. Everything by the 90's was all committee led, corporate minded garbage.

ToM

[shaneomac]

the whole Sin-Eater fiasco
Speaking of which, couldn't that fit in nicely, replacing Sin-Eater with Sandman? Forget I mentioned it............

What's that you say? You don't want Sandman to be killed quickly and easily by Spidey, while being used a plot device to set up Venom?