EDITORIAL: How Venom was "ruined" in Spider-Man 3

EDITORIAL: How Venom was "ruined" in Spider-Man 3

Putting a end to the bitching that should've ended back in 2007

Editorial Opinion
By EdgyOutsider - May 14, 2012 01:05 PM EST
Filed Under: Spider-Man

Venom is the most popular Spider-Man villain of all time, no question. When fans heard that the iconic supervillain/anti-hero was gonna be in Spider-Man 3, all the fans including me and my dad (My dad's favorite supervillain of all time is Venom) we were all excited to finally see arguablly Spider-Man's biggest foil on the big screen. The question was who and how would he be portrayed.



The decision: The dvd never made it clear on who wanted Venom in the film, they just explained how the decided on bringing him in. But Sam Raimi even stated that he DID NOT WANT Venom in the film, he wasn't familiar with the character and was not really a fan of him. Avi Arad has stated that he brought it up to Sam also because of his (Venom's) fanbase.

Actor: This is where alot of complaints are gonna be, Topher Grace. Topher Grace is a damn good actor (In Good Company and Predators to name a couple) but yes it was an odd choice to cast him as Eddie Brock/Venom in the film. As Eddie Brock he was what the character was spiritually, the complete opposite of Peter Parker. Now alot of people are gonna say "He was a bodybuilder, not some skinny ass!!" Yes, we all know that Eddie Brock in the comics is fricking ripped. But with a character like Venom, it's easy to get away with not picking a ripped actor to play him. I feel the suit (in the movie) gained alot of power from Peter but multiplied it by 10 once seperated and on Eddie Brock and that's how Eddie would've been stronger than Peter. People need to accept that it's not gonna be EXACTLY like the comics. There are gonna be some changes, yes Venom was rushed in but Topher Grace did what he could with how the character was written and as Eddie Brock I think he did one of his better performances, and as Venom he played very well a very sinister villain. Other than him not being ripped, they didn't really change much to the character.



Overall I am tired of hearing people complain about something that was almost 5 years ago. He was and wasn't portrayed right, he wasn't because he wasn't ripped in the film but overall he was portrayed how the character always has been. Yes he was rushed BUT he was 99% portrayed right. Spiritually he had been casted and acted correct as well as his costume but the addition of the webbing on the suit made it a bit more real and cooler. They did not mess up the character like thought, you guys have just been over reacting because he was rushed (which I understand) and because he was skinny (not everything is gonna come from the page to life exactly how it is.) So please, I know haters are gonna hate but learn to accept the truth.



I post this with respect and I thank you for taking the time to read and understand the article and it's purpose. Also I know a person or two might consider this to be hypocritical because of my original and initial reactions to The Lizard in the upcoming film. But the difference is that I grew to accept the change.
SPIDER-MAN 4: Anya Taylor-Joy Rumored To Be In Line For Undisclosed Role
Related:

SPIDER-MAN 4: Anya Taylor-Joy Rumored To Be In Line For Undisclosed Role

SPIDER-MAN's Laura Harrier Calls Out SPIDER-VERSE Star Shameik Moore: You're A F*cking Weirdo
Recommended For You:

SPIDER-MAN's Laura Harrier Calls Out SPIDER-VERSE Star Shameik Moore: "You're A F*cking Weirdo"

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

marvel72
marvel72 - 5/14/2012, 1:57 PM
the only good bit was the creation of venom in the church,they ruined everything else by having him just appear for the last 30 minutes & everytime he talked they opened up his face showing eddie brock.
Knightrider
Knightrider - 5/14/2012, 2:07 PM
The other issue I had, was they mentioned Eddie's name in the first movie, and yet they didn't know who he was in the 3rd or that is was a different Eddie, which would be saying that 2x Eddie's want/do work at the Bugle, both are photographers, both needed/pursue a shot of Spider-Man so that basically seems unlikely.

They completely ignored the fact that the character already existed in this universe already. Now I understand why we didn't see more of him in the 2nd film so that when Venom appeared in the 3rd, meeting Eddie and his relationship with Spider-Man, as Venom was never meant to make an appearance, but to ignore what you had established was wrong.

Also they had the astronaut in JJ's son, which would have worked as a better way to get venom to Earth and with Spider-Man saving them after they crash land, makes it a better way to get the black suit, rather than a comet lands and just so happens to land next to the only super powered being on Earth!

I guess you could tell his character was rushed, didn't have the care put into it.
BIGBMH
BIGBMH - 5/14/2012, 2:50 PM
You make some good points. A lot of people complain that he wasn't big enough, but that's pretty minor. In Spider-man 3, Eddie Brock was intended as a dark reflection of Peter Parker. He's a guy that seems to have it all together and first comes off as a better Peter, but underneath, he's a dirtbag. It's not a bad idea, just a lackluster execution since they had so much going on that was more important. Eddie was just kind of there, popping up throughout the movie. At the end, they threw Venom in, but he only played a small role in the end and was killed off.

If they payed as much attention to Eddie Brock as The Dark Knight did to Harvey Dent, then let him become Venom at the end as a lead-in to the next movie, we might have gotten Spider-man 4. Maybe things turned out for the best though.
Curmudgeon
Curmudgeon - 5/14/2012, 3:09 PM
Meh. I tend to give Venom a pass in SM3, because so much more of where the film went wrong was with Mary Jane and Harry.

But they did make Brock into Gwen Stacy's jealous (ex-)boyfriend, and IMO that's enough to ruin the film's portrayal of him.
Ghostt
Ghostt - 5/14/2012, 7:39 PM
The choice to cast Topher grace was due to his resemblance to TObey McGuire--he was the anti-Peter. Actually not a bad idea. The problem is TOpher Grace is annoying and not threatening.

I thin kmost people ddidn't ahve beef with Venom in the movie; the beef was with damn near everything else. Retconning Ben Parkers death, cheesy Goblin, and the Stay Puffed Sandman ruined it for me. Oh, and weird emo Peter with slick hair.
RobGrizzly
RobGrizzly - 5/17/2012, 2:46 PM
Here's the thing:

The studio/producers wanted Venom because they know how popular he is with fans. How do you go through an entire trilogy, and one of Spidey's greatest foes never even shows up? The studio was absolutely right, and I fully agreed with it. (They even set up JJ Jameson's son going to space in the 2nd movie!)

The problem was Raimi, who wanted to use one of his personal favorites- The Sandman. A character no one gives to sh**s about.

What ended up happening was they hedged their bets, by keeping both. Raimi got his bad guy and the studio got theirs. However, because Sam also wanted to wrap up the trilogy's arc with Peter and Harry, Goblin II was also squeezed in there. Now, I actually thought this made sense, so I'm of the feeling that Spider-Man 3 would have been better if it was ONLY Osborne and Venom. Two villains is fine (Batman always does this) but 3 is a crowd.

And while The Sandman in the movie actually has the best story, the fact that Raimi retconned the origin was really where I took issue. Did he need to make the trilogy come full circle so much that Flint Marko is Uncle Ben's killer? Like Joker killing Batman's parents, this is an unnecessary mistake.

But back to your point, where we feel cheated is because all the MARKETING advertised the hell out of Venom, and we expected a more major role. Its disappointing to see him only appear at the end of the movie, but I'd be lying if I didn't say Venom's segment was the part of this crappy film I LIKED BEST.

It makes you wonder: if Sam Raimi doesn't "get" one of Spider-Man's best characters, if he thinks a cheap backstory redo is enough to justify connecting a hero with a villain, maybe he shouldn't be making Spider-Man movies after all.

Great article. Agreed that Topher did well in the movie.

Calitrees
Calitrees - 5/19/2012, 12:28 AM
@knightrider
.. when i first watched spider man 2 i noticed m.j.'s fiance was the astronaut that brought the symbiote in the cartoon. i thought
,''holy balls theyre gonna bring venom in with the shuttle crashing the bridge either in this one or the next?''
and they brought the symbiote with a meteorite that just so happened to land next to peter parker.. i know he had bad luck and that was one of the themes raimi loved.. but that scene literally made me laugh in the theater..
i was really sad on the inside
Calitrees
Calitrees - 5/19/2012, 12:33 AM
and the way they killed off the only true villain of the movie was ASS..
sandman shouldve died..
harry should have had the same exact costume as his late father.. then get put in a mental hospital like the cartoon! not DIE!

and venom shouldve LIVED.. ran away because of loud noises or whatever, reproduce after the credits.. to make carnage
:O
but now we gotta wait another 7 years for sony to
HOPEFULLY get it right this time:(
View Recorder