[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[Syegfryed]

Venom trailer appear to be good, hope they tie that with the MCU, i kinda prefer when Venom is the anti-hero rather than a generic villain

Believe me; Marvel knows;

then why do it? weird.

you pic isn't showing btw.

[Endus]

then why do it? weird.

you pic isn't showing btw.

It was. Grr.

Let's try this one. It's a different scene from the same comic, but still ridiculous.

[tyrlaan]

Yikes.

To be fair, I've never been much of a fan of Venom and I've only liked Carnage in his original 2 issue arc. Carnage looks good and Harrelson will probably do a good job/have fun with the role.

But good lord wtf is this Brock/Venom nonsense? I did not see the first movie due to lack of interest and this trailer suggests that was a fantastic decision. Weird that the hook for Venom that Sony settled on is "the lame comedy relief character".

[Endus]

But good lord wtf is this Brock/Venom nonsense? I did not see the first movie due to lack of interest and this trailer suggests that was a fantastic decision. Weird that the hook for Venom that Sony settled on is "the lame comedy relief character".

It's the weirdness that's the only reason the first Venom wasn't just an "ugh, this?!" kind of film. They let Tom Hardy run amok, and it's gloriously weird in a way that makes the film worthwhile and unique all by itself.

IMO, it was particularly important because they had to do the film without Spider-man's involvement; Venom had to be its own separate "thing", rather than the comic version which was indelibly copying off Spider-man from the beginning (for good reasons, I'm not crapping on the idea).

They basically built the whole plot out of something that largely went unspoken (as far as I know) in the comics; all the other symbiotes seem to have more capabilities than Venom, are stronger in some regards. Venom's the baseline, everything else expands upon that baseline, basically. So, for the film, the story is basically that Eddie Brock is just some loser who accidentally bonds with Venom. But the key unique difference is, among symbiotes, Venom's a total fucking loser too. It's pretty much why it and Eddie bond so well. It turns the whole thing into an underdog story, for the both of them, and gives them both cause to learn to rely on and accept each other.

It's hard to say Venom's a "comic relief character" when Brock is at least as silly, and Hardy's playing both roles. They took a weird-ass stance on the characters and went all-in for better or for worse, and I'd argue it's the only reason the film was ever successful at all in the first place; there's a uniqueness to the insanity that IMO really works out.

[Shadowferal]

The only reason I saw Venom was for Tom Hardy. I don't think I would've had any other reason since Venom as a character I've always despised.

[tyrlaan]

It's the weirdness that's the only reason the first Venom wasn't just an "ugh, this?!" kind of film. They let Tom Hardy run amok, and it's gloriously weird in a way that makes the film worthwhile and unique all by itself.

IMO, it was particularly important because they had to do the film without Spider-man's involvement; Venom had to be its own separate "thing", rather than the comic version which was indelibly copying off Spider-man from the beginning (for good reasons, I'm not crapping on the idea).

They basically built the whole plot out of something that largely went unspoken (as far as I know) in the comics; all the other symbiotes seem to have more capabilities than Venom, are stronger in some regards. Venom's the baseline, everything else expands upon that baseline, basically. So, for the film, the story is basically that Eddie Brock is just some loser who accidentally bonds with Venom. But the key unique difference is, among symbiotes, Venom's a total fucking loser too. It's pretty much why it and Eddie bond so well. It turns the whole thing into an underdog story, for the both of them, and gives them both cause to learn to rely on and accept each other.

It's hard to say Venom's a "comic relief character" when Brock is at least as silly, and Hardy's playing both roles. They took a weird-ass stance on the characters and went all-in for better or for worse, and I'd argue it's the only reason the film was ever successful at all in the first place; there's a uniqueness to the insanity that IMO really works out.

tl;dr "so bad that it's good".

FWIW, in my previous post, I meant Venom/Brock as one character but did not convey that clearly at all.

Curious to see if repeating the formula that lucked them into a successful movie works a second time, since clearly they're embracing it. But not curious enough to see it myself; I'll watch from the sidelines

[Polyxo]

The disbelief and rage in the way Venom shouts NO is the same way I react to being disappointed by an unexpected lack of chocolate.

[Egomaniac]

It's the weirdness that's the only reason the first Venom wasn't just an "ugh, this?!" kind of film. They let Tom Hardy run amok, and it's gloriously weird in a way that makes the film worthwhile and unique all by itself.

IMO, it was particularly important because they had to do the film without Spider-man's involvement; Venom had to be its own separate "thing", rather than the comic version which was indelibly copying off Spider-man from the beginning (for good reasons, I'm not crapping on the idea).

They basically built the whole plot out of something that largely went unspoken (as far as I know) in the comics; all the other symbiotes seem to have more capabilities than Venom, are stronger in some regards. Venom's the baseline, everything else expands upon that baseline, basically. So, for the film, the story is basically that Eddie Brock is just some loser who accidentally bonds with Venom. But the key unique difference is, among symbiotes, Venom's a total fucking loser too. It's pretty much why it and Eddie bond so well. It turns the whole thing into an underdog story, for the both of them, and gives them both cause to learn to rely on and accept each other.

It's hard to say Venom's a "comic relief character" when Brock is at least as silly, and Hardy's playing both roles. They took a weird-ass stance on the characters and went all-in for better or for worse, and I'd argue it's the only reason the film was ever successful at all in the first place; there's a uniqueness to the insanity that IMO really works out.

The problem with Venom is that Spider-Man is so indelibly tied to them (not just Brock and the Symbiote...but pretty much everyone else that's been a host to it) in the comics The film isn't wrong with portraying Brock and the Symbiote as losers...they both kind of are. The issue is, without Peter Parker, they don't have someone else to put the blame on...and so they both have to kind of internalize it. That was the key to their bond originally....their shared hatred of Spider-Man and the feeling that neither of them alone would ever be able to get the revenge they felt they were owed. So moving forward with a film about Venom without that connection left a really big hole. They decided to fill that hole with Wacky Antics... which, to be fair, are not outside of Venom's character... but they dialed that part up to 11.

Also, and this is a personal thing, but the Sin-Eater storyline that is the driving force behind Brock's personal hatred of Spider-Man is truly a fantastic story and I've always felt a little cheated that we've never got to see that storyline played out in film or TV. If I had to make an elevator pitch to Kevin Feige about the next Disney+ Series....I'd pitch a Spider-Man/Daredevil team up that adapted that arc. There are some really great character moments in there and I think Charlie Cox's Daredevil could be great as a fill in for the mentor void left by Tony Stark. Someone that can be like "Listen Kid, I've been where you are right now...". But I digress

[Syegfryed]

They basically built the whole plot out of something that largely went unspoken (as far as I know) in the comics; all the other symbiotes seem to have more capabilities than Venom, are stronger in some regards. Venom's the baseline, everything else expands upon that baseline, basically. So, for the film, the story is basically that Eddie Brock is just some loser who accidentally bonds with Venom. But the key unique difference is, among symbiotes, Venom's a total fucking loser too. It's pretty much why it and Eddie bond so well. It turns the whole thing into an underdog story, for the both of them, and gives them both cause to learn to rely on and accept each other.
.

isn't Venom like super strong, and especially being the "main Simbionte those come from?

i though it was the deal, he is strong but don't have the others special powers, carnage is weaker physically, but have the ability to create more weapons, change his body more and all.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

isn't Venom like super strong, and especially being the "main Simbionte those come from?

i though it was the deal, he is strong but don't have the others special powers, carnage is weaker physically, but have the ability to create more weapons, change his body more and all.

If there was a gap in strength originally(honestly can’t remember) it was closed some years ago same with weapon making.

Excluding Simbiontes with special powers like say scream they are all pretty much evenly matched in what they can do and the differences come into play based on the host and compatible they are though that all changed with knull.

[Triceron]

A bit weird to get bent out of shape over the real world concept of "there will always be someone better at the thing than you are" being put on display in a comics universe.

Power creep is generally regarded as bullshit. Shouldn't be hard to understand.

[Jotaux]

isn't Venom like super strong, and especially being the "main Simbionte those come from?

i though it was the deal, he is strong but don't have the others special powers, carnage is weaker physically, but have the ability to create more weapons, change his body more and all.

The Venom symbiote's offspring are all stronger than him.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The Venom symbiote's offspring are all stronger than him.

Most of the kids aren’t stronger there just more varied, the lab kids all have special powers but are physically weaker due to crappier host. Dreamer doesn’t use a actual host at all so is the weakest of them all and carnage is stronger because he has a perfect match with Kassidy where Eddie and venom weren’t a perfect match until recently.

[Syegfryed]

The Venom symbiote's offspring are all stronger than him.

how, and more important, why? Venom as the main simbionte should be the big deal here.

like i said, i always though Venom was stronger physically, being big and bulky, while others had more special abilities and superior capactiy to change body parts into weapons/mist and the fluff.

Pretty sure i read that in some old comics where it explained that, unless they changed

[Jotaux]

how, and more important, why? Venom as the main simbionte should be the big deal here.

like i said, i always though Venom was stronger physically, being big and bulky, while others had more special abilities and superior capactiy to change body parts into weapons/mist and the fluff.

Pretty sure i read that in some old comics where it explained that, unless they changed

Venom isn't the original, theres a whole planet of symbiotes. The reason given for the Carnage symbiote is stronger than the Venom symbiote as given by Eddie Brock (The Amazing Spider-Man No. 362) is due to the fact it was gestated in an environment alien to it, Earth. The Carnage symbiote is supposed to be stronger than Spider-man and Venom combined. Toxin, Carnage's offspring, is supposed to be even more powerful.

- - - Updated - - -

Most of the kids aren’t stronger there just more varied, the lab kids all have special powers but are physically weaker due to crappier host. Dreamer doesn’t use a actual host at all so is the weakest of them all and carnage is stronger because he has a perfect match with Kassidy where Eddie and venom weren’t a perfect match until recently.

I didn't count the symbiotes created by the Life Foundation as they were "seeds" extracted and given life prematurely. I'm not familiar with Dreamer though.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I didn't count the symbiotes created by the Life Foundation as they were "seeds" extracted and given life prematurely. I'm not familiar with Dreamer though.

If your not counting the life foundation ones aren’t his only kids carnage and sleeper(not dreamer forgot the right name). Other then those two the only ones I can think of that come from venom is mania but was just a part of venom not a real kid and guys like Toxin are carnage’s kids.

Sleeper for reference, they ran around with a brain dead body before it died and now runs around as a goo cat with no host.



- - - Updated - - -

how, and more important, why? Venom as the main simbionte should be the big deal here.

like i said, i always though Venom was stronger physically, being big and bulky, while others had more special abilities and superior capactiy to change body parts into weapons/mist and the fluff.

Pretty sure i read that in some old comics where it explained that, unless they changed

Venom isn't the original, theres a whole planet of symbiotes. The reason given for the Carnage symbiote is stronger than the Venom symbiote as given by Eddie Brock (The Amazing Spider-Man No. 362) is due to the fact it was gestated in an environment alien to it, Earth. The Carnage symbiote is supposed to be stronger than Spider-man and Venom combined. Toxin, Carnage's offspring, is supposed to be even more powerful.

What Jotaux said was the old explanation they changed it a few years back to be that venom was weaker due to mental damage by his first host using him as a slave and then an inability to have a complete bond like carnage. After all those problems are seen to venom would have been on equal footing with carnage or likely stronger as the host strength is taken into account (why spiderman is the strongest host) but then abunch of power ups happend leading into knull and carnage stayed stronger for a time.

[Syegfryed]

Venom isn't the original, theres a whole planet of symbiotes.

i know that, i mean the original of the ones we have here are descendent off.

- - - Updated - - -

What Jotaux said was the old explanation they changed it a few years back to be that venom was weaker due to mental damage by his first host using him as a slave and then an inability to have a complete bond like carnage. After all those problems are seen to venom would have been on equal footing with carnage or likely stronger as the host strength is taken into account (why spiderman is the strongest host) but then abunch of power ups happend leading into knull and carnage stayed stronger for a time.

this what i i read too.

but i can't say much i think the last comic i read about then was an anti-venom and barely something about agent venom

[Egomaniac]

isn't Venom like super strong, and especially being the "main Simbionte those come from?

i though it was the deal, he is strong but don't have the others special powers, carnage is weaker physically, but have the ability to create more weapons, change his body more and all.

No, Carnage is stronger than Venom. Carnage got all the same abilities that Venom has and his symbiote is something of a "mutant"...which gives it even more abilities.

[Shadowferal]

Just have to say those are decent panels.

[tyrlaan]

Power creep is generally regarded as bullshit. Shouldn't be hard to understand.

Who's struggling to understand the concept?

My comment was clearly about how upset people get about something that happens in nature.