Venom sucks out loud in every single one of his incarnations, so it's hardly surprising that he was terrible in the movie.
SPIDER-MAN 4 on "indefinite hold"
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
Venom sucks out loud in every single one of his incarnations, so it's hardly surprising that he was terrible in the movie.
Actually the comics' Sandman was eventually revealed to be a relatively decent guy and went straight for several years (real time). So the movie's version was basically a distillation of the character's comics history, not a Raimi invention.
You don't have to slavishly copy something to be true to its spirit. The whole point of making an adaptation of a story is to find fresh approaches to its telling, ways to give new meaning to its elements. Sometimes those approaches don't work as well as others, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to try. It's not creativity if you just imitate.
Venom? Interesting? I don't think so. The movie would've been far stronger and more coherent without that nonsense forced into it.
Thomas Haden Church is a damn good actor and the FX on Sandman was excellent but there's only so much you can do with a cliched character that's not the least bit compelling.
I think that's the problem with the majority of Spider-Man's villains. They're all memorable no doubt but when you get past Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom, whose left? The rest of Spider-Man's villains are either criminals or have a psychotic desire to destroy him. Not exactly characters with much depth to them. The Lizard? The groundwork is there no doubt and it's a personal story for Peter but basically, the Lizard is another guy whose "not an evil man" who's transformed into a mindless monster. The Vulture? Just some old guy who likes to commit crimes. Kingpin wouldn't be bad but he was already used in Daredevil by another studio. Kraven would be a good one.
When you look at it, Spider-Man's rogue gallery can't hold a candle to Batman's. Although at least Spider-Man can actually fight his entire rogues gallery, unlike Superman.
Topher Grace made his charater interesting as the anti-Peter Parker.
I think that's the problem with the majority of Spider-Man's villains. They're all memorable no doubt but when you get past Green Goblin, Doc Ock, and Venom, whose left? The rest of Spider-Man's villains are either criminals or have a psychotic desire to destroy him. Not exactly characters with much depth to them. The Lizard? The groundwork is there no doubt and it's a personal story for Peter but basically, the Lizard is another guy whose "not an evil man" who's transformed into a mindless monster. The Vulture? Just some old guy who likes to commit crimes. Kingpin wouldn't be bad but he was already used in Daredevil by another studio. Kraven would be a good one.
When you look at it, Spider-Man's rogue gallery can't hold a candle to Batman's. Although at least Spider-Man can actually fight his entire rogues gallery, unlike Superman.
Topher Grace made his charater interesting as the anti-Peter Parker.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
There's nothing wrong with Venom. He's Peter Parker's "dark side" given form via the symbiote, basically. The problem is he got overexposed in the comics, and they just played up the "killer alien symbiote" trope at the expense of the deeper moral and psychological exploration of the Parker psyche he represents.
As for the new movie...any significant delays may cost them Toby, who has other irons in the fire (like his production company, which has acquired the rights to do a Robotech LA movie)...
As for the new movie...any significant delays may cost them Toby, who has other irons in the fire (like his production company, which has acquired the rights to do a Robotech LA movie)...
It's too bad Vulture wasn't in #3 because Sandman/Vulture makes a good old-school pairing and then they could have focused on someone else now. Of course, part of that could be because I don't care much for Venom.
I think strictly on a visual level that Lizard (or Electro or Mysterio) might be more interesting since I imagine Vulture would work a lot like Goblin when it comes to the onscreen action.
I think strictly on a visual level that Lizard (or Electro or Mysterio) might be more interesting since I imagine Vulture would work a lot like Goblin when it comes to the onscreen action.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
I agree, but Batman's baddies have had more media exposure, which, along with less outlandish attire (more suits than tights!), makes them seem, as a whole, greater than they are. After the Joker, Two-Face and maybe Ra's Al Ghul (would be world conquerors are pretty cliched!), what does Batman's enemies list have but a bunch of thieves and thugs with merely varying M.O.'s? Mr. Freeze had the depth of a twinkie before his 90's cartoon version.
Anyway, Carnage, Hobgoblin and Hydro-Man should be in the next Spider-Man movie. I mean, look at how expansive Spidey villains are...he has redundant ones! And even back-ups on those (Doppleganger Spiderman, Jack O'Latern, Demogoblin...)
Like I already said: given that Raimi's Doc Ock was substantially modified from the comics' version, why assume the same couldn't be done with any other villain?
True. But given Raimi's work on Sandman, it's not something I'm looking forward with.
One thing I think you lose in the Spider-Man films is a sense of the bigger world. Marvel doesn't own the film rights so Spider-Man is literally the only show in town in his films.
I think it would be a cool idea to start the next film with Spidey thrashing one of his B-list villains.
One thing I think you lose in the Spider-Man films is a sense of the bigger world. Marvel doesn't own the film rights so Spider-Man is literally the only show in town in his films.
I think it would be a cool idea to start the next film with Spidey thrashing one of his B-list villains.
No, the problem is that Venom is a hilariously retarded, over-the-top villain, even by Spider-Man standards. Let's not forget that at one point, Venom discovered that eating chocolate was a substitute for human brains.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Not as originally presented. The symbiote simply amped Peter's powers and gave him other benefits. However, it also reduced his inhibitions, letting his darker impulses come to the forefront. After Peter got rid of it, it bonded with Eddie Brock, who was nearly psychotic with rage over Spider-Man's ruining of his career (as he saw it). That hatred fused with the hatred of the symbiote for Peter's abandonment (as it saw it) and created Venom is Brock's sick mind. However, the symbiote DID absorb some tiny bit of Peter's ethics and basic morality.
Thus Venom became Spider-Man's dark reflecton, trying to do good in it's own twisted way (except where SM himself was involved, then all bets were off).
Bullsh*t that was concocted by later writers who badly MIScharacterized who and what Venom really was.
I think Raimi could make The Vulture work, although I'd much rather see a Vulture/Lizard combo.
The most popular idea involving Kraven that I've heard revolves around Dr. Connors finally becoming The Lizard, and Kraven coming to New York to hunt him.
I like that.
Now that could be compelling. Spider-Man and Kraven both hunting The Lizard and then coming into conflict with each other.
agreed I like that idea as well
More costly than the CGI for the Sandman?
What the f*** is it with Raimi not giving the fans what they want? I mean fans have wanted Venom ever since the first film, but when they DO get him, its a twisted and retarded version of Venom. And now the Lizard is a definite fan need not to mention he is already set up, and if not him then Morbius. Vulture? Really? Hey Raimi! Get a clue! The last time a director wanted to go only with his style, we ended up with Superman Returns!
And Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, X2, etc...
Even though it would be more of the tragic villain vain, I think Morbeius would be kind of cool.