LogFAQs > #933000736

Metalsonic66 posted...

I dunno. I feel like his shift from only wanting revenge on Spider-Man to becoming his own hero is a big part of his character.

Yeah, but the problem with that is, you need like 3-4 movies to actually tell that story. And you can't even really start those stories until you have an established Spider-Man (which means at least a few more movies beforehand).

First, you need the story where an experienced Spider-Man gets the symbiote, loves the effect it has on him, then realizes it's using him, then he has to resist it, and ultimately get rid of it. Then you need the part (either in that same movie, or a completely separate movie) where Eddie Brock is "ruined" by Spider-Man and develops his hatred. Then you have the movie where Eddie gets Venom, they bond over their shared hatred of Peter/Spider-Man, he fights Spider-Man, and generally does the villain thing. THEN you can finally have a movie where Eddie repents and becomes a good guy.

(And that's not even getting into the fact that the LOOK of the costume doesn't even really make much sense if you don't have Spider-Woman in the universe for Peter to steal the look from, or the fact that he got it during Secret Wars, which you're likely never going to see on-screen).

That's pretty much impossible to do (well) in any realistic film series. And when you try to condense the entirety of that story into a single film, you get Spider-Man 3.

It's easier to do with serial TV (like the 90s Spider-Man animated series). But there's nowhere near as much money in that as there is in movies, and I'm not even sure Sony HAS TV rights at the moment, so that's never happening.

Conversely, his origin story in the Ultimates universe (which is the version of a LOT of the characters that the MCU has been using, or at least a sort of hybrid of 616 and Ultimate - which is why you got both Loki AND the Chitauri as the threat that forms the Avengers, as a blend of both origin stories) is much, much different. The symbiote was made in a lab, by both Peter and Eddie's parents, who were coworker scientists, and Peter and Eddie were childhood friends. Then Eddie becomes Venom, and never actually reforms, remaining a villain right up to the end of the line. If they'd gone out of their way to make sure Venom showed up in a Spider-Man film, THIS is the version you'd probably be getting. Because it's WAAAY easier to write a story about (in fact, this was basically Harry Osborn's storyline in Amazing Spider-Man 2).

Though I'd argue that "guy who hates Spider-Man, but who later decides to be a good guy" isn't even THAT key to his character. He really only spent a short time in the comics as a dedicated villain, and then mostly became a more complex character who probably spent more time away from Peter than interacting with him. It just feels like it's important because it's the origin we already KNOW for him... but "science made a weird symbiote/found aliens in space, guy gets infected, goes a bit crazy, but then tries to be a good guy" is actually a pretty solid basis for a movie.



Metalsonic66 posted...

They could have still done something similar without Spider-Man, if they had started him as more of a sleazeball instead of being "The guy who wanted to do the right thing but poked the wrong hornets nest"

I think that's sort of what they were trying to do. But film execs are VERY hesitant to have main characters who start out completely evil or amoral, so it got sterilized into "Well, you know, he's not such a bad guy, really." The most you get is "Hey, he's rebellious! And he read people's e-mail without permission! And he got fired for accusing people of stuff he couldn't prove! Sure, I mean, yeah, they DID those things, but still! And hey, at least we included the parts where he was a reporter who got fired and was all bitter about it afterward! That's like A++ accuracy to the comics right there! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!"

It's the same reason why you got Scott Lang Ant-Man having to explain that, sure, yes, he's a thief who hacked into corporate servers and rerouted millions of dollars, but hey, it was totally a Robin Hood situation because the company was corrupt and he was just trying to do the right thing. Hey everybody, we can root for him as a hero now! Meanwhile, comic book Scott was just a petty burglar using his tech knowledge to break and enter and steal (and keep all the money). And then literally stole the Ant-Man suit (without Hank Pym's knowledge) so he could be a better thief. It's also why you get stuff like 20th Century Fox Magneto trying to do things like turn all humans into mutants, rather than, you know, kill off most humans and enslave the others so mutants can rule. Film Magneto starts out complex. Comic Magneto was cartoonish evil for 15 years before there was even a HINT that he was maybe more complex.

It's part of why I never expect complete accuracy to the comics for most characters, especially the less moral or more violent/lethal ones, when they get films. The most I usually hope for is that the new interpretation mostly keeps the spirit of the original character while telling a well-constructed story of its own.
---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family