Talk:Venom (Eddie Brock)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Fight with Iron Man

Can someone please menton that Venom fought Iron Man in issue 302? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 360man (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Size

Is it just me, or has Venom been getting bigger since his creation? Look at the first appearance, the symbiote's skin-tight and compare it with the recent Venom comic placed in the Artic, the symnbiote's a giant mass, even over the smallest host.--Viridistalk|contributions 00:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, Todd McFarlane made Venom fairly simple. Just a man wearing what is essentially a costume, adding maybe a foot in height. Over the years, artists have been exaggerating the Symbiote's abilities. Especially in the Thunderbolts where it's the size of Optimus Prime yet can still hide itself within Mac Gargan. Maybe the more humans it eats the bigger it gets? -Courtney-

Encyclopedia

I deleted a big, rambling paragraph that was a detailed blow-by-blow of all traces of venom in all the trailers. It's totally unecessary, it was not encyclopedic at all, it just sounded like a fanboy's rant.Rglong 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

Pic an image for Spider-Man 3 and use it. You cannot justify fair use for 3 images in a mediocre section of an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

Where did the information come about what happens to Venom at the end of the final battle because I'm almost positive about the symbiote growing around half of the construction site not just it getting exploded. Could some one help here Thanks! ManofSTEEL2772 May 2 2007 3:35

Hello? Um, could one my foreign friends who have seen this movie already please tell me what i just asked above, thank you very much. ManofSTEEL2772 May 2 2007 10:28

Hello, ManofSTEEL2772. I was the one who made those edits and, having seen the movie last night I can say that while the symbiote expands it doesnt cover half of the contstruction site. It grows upright, taller than Spider-Man, and attempts to reattach to Spider-Man before Spidey uses a pumpkin bomb to blow it up. Chebo May 4 2007 14:35

Oh so it just raises upwards very tall, not expanding, well thank you. Some where I read that it was growing around it and was bigger than the gigantic Sandman, I now know (thanks to you!) that it does not grow around but would you say it is the same hiegt as the gigantic Sandman or not? Thank you very much ManofSTEEL2772 May 4 2007 8:35

I just saw it earlier tonight. It expands just a bit, getting maybe twice as tall as Spider-Man.--Viridistalk|contributions 09:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay thank-you very much.


I wish to object to the claim in the SM3 portion of the article that Brock and the symbiote are destroyed by the pumpkin bomb. If you watch the bottom of the screen carefully after the explosion clears, you can see something black disappearing (possibly through a drainage hole or something) underground or wherever. I'm pretty sure this is the symbiote, possibly Venom himself with some not previously demonstrated power of liquifying himself.75.131.196.86 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the last remains of the symbiote burning away, friend. --R. Wolff 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says (no body) well, if that referring to Eddie? Cause if you watch, during the explosion you can see a skeleton, so I'd say Eddie was vaporized. chrombot, May 5th 2007 2:58

Hey I noticed that Venom didn't refer to himself as we. Did anyone else notice that?--Cojin 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice it while watching, but yes, he didn't use we.--Viridistalk|contributions 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that sorta sucks but I guess its because he just bonded with the symbiote.--Cojin 03:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept hoping the whole movie that he was gonna say, "We are Venom!!" like in marvel vs capcom. I saw that movie like three times. LOL--Cojin 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if the whole symbiote at the construction site was destroyed, there is still some left. Dr. Connors had a bit, and I'm pretty sure that's all that is needed. Neospawn 04:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno what happened Im not saying he died Im not saying he's alive we should leave it up to the writers.--Cojin 05:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying it's a possibility. They could bring him back, or at least bring in Carnage. Neospawn 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/485915953_ca1a33e2f4_o.jpg He's just as dead as every other villian who's died in the movies.GreenMamba2 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, while the symbiote appears to be entirely destroyed in the final battle sequence, part of it remains alive in Dr Curt Connor's office. On Wikipedia page Venom (Eddie Brock) Venoms' suit is blue... not black. Can someone explain? Spider-man freak 17 6/4/07 6:58

Venom is most likley alive because in an article on IGN says that FoxNews.com reports that one character that appears to die in Spidey 3 may return in Spidey 4.I'm not saying its defenite that he is alive but Fox does help make the Spiderman movies.My guess is that Venom is alive and there will be a movie involving Spiderman and Venom trying to take down Carnage.

There were remains of Venom. Though seemingly unimportant, after the explosion, a small burning pile can be clearly seen. What happens to this pile is currently unknown. 65.103.61.154 14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We've all seen the movie. The pile very clearly burns away onscreen. 7 July 2007

Should we include events from 'The Black"? It details what happens between the Symbiote consuming Brock and him finding the Sandman. Ggctuk 10:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Movie info section needs cleanup

It sounds like a novelization. I know everyone's real excited about the movie, but this section doesn't sound encyclopedic at all, it needs to be cleaned up and kept neutral, not an enthusiastic fanboy description of all of Venom's scenes.Rglong 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC

I was just about to add a topic about this. There is a main article for the Spider-Man 3 film. The section in this article should be nowhere near as long, it doesn't require a run down of his full actions when there is an article dedicated to it, nor does it require a personality section. At most it requires a sentence or two saying that he speaks in the singular self.Darkwarriorblake 18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Brock IS dead (Spider-Man 3)

I’m getting tired of having to remove implications that Eddie is still alive in the film version. His skeleton is plainly visible a split second after the explosion, meaning his flesh had completely burned off, and the symbiote can bee seen burning away after the explosion. As far as we know, Eddie Brock is dead in this continuity, and there is nothing implying otherwise. Ridiculous explanations and fan speculation for how he might have survived do not belong in the article. Xargon666x6 12:26, 06 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I just saw it a second time and noticed the skeleton blowing apart. He's dead as dead can be.Rglong 05:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Um not that it's a big deal, but someone added "and he went to hell" to my previous comment, which I don't appreciate. Write your own comments, you can't edit other people's. Not to mention I don't believe in hell so I doubt Venom went there.Rglong 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Which really begs the question of how Harry survived that one pumpkin bomb going off an inch from his head earlier in the film with only some hefty scarring... What was that, the NERF version?
But yeah, Eddie's dead, and the symbiote is as dead as it ever gets. (Read: Dead until they need it back later to spawn Carnage.) --tjstrf talk 08:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC
Why do people keep pointing out that there is no body/remains? He was f-cking incinerated! Why would there be a body? Are they expecting to see a half charred Topher Grace, just as his bowels empty, in a PG-13 movie? Xargon666x6 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? A similar bomb blew up in Harry's face and did little more than scar him. would it make sense that the bomb would then be able incinerate Brock even partly protected by the symbiote? Maybe? But it's certainly not a sure thing in my eyes. TheHYPO 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you guys have not heard that recently an unknown actor that appeared in SM 3 said that his character is thought to be dead but will return for SM 4. Well Harry IS dead, and we have no absolute proof that Eddie is dead, just becuase of what some of you thought you saw. And the symbiote is not dead, maybe the huge version that just kept on growing while Spider-Man threw the pumpkin bomb at. But as I'm sure we all know here that symbiotes can stretch and grow over any host no matter how big or small they are. Well, the sample in Dr. Conners lab is still very much alive and its possible that in the next movie, (if they truly make one) that that small sample could escape that lab find a host and bond with him to become a new version of Carnage or another Venom. So don't go around saying that Eddie Brock truly is dead untill you have ABSOLUTE proof. ManofSTEEL2772 May 12 2007 5:49 pm

It goes just the other way around. Don't make statements implying he'll be returning unless there is definite proof. Definite proof, not just "they only ruled it out 99%" proof. We don't have absolute proof VenomÄs alive just based "on what some of you think you saw." --R. Wolff 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What, I have proof that an unknown actor that appeared in SM 3 said that his character is thought to be dead but will return for SM 4. I'm not saying it is Venom but its likly. I don't have 100 precent truth, but I'm close, so lets just rule out that he is dead, or alive. Lets just say he went to a happy place until all of us have 100 percent truth that he is alive or dead. Okay? ManofSTEEL2772 May 13 2007 3:25

To put it bluntly, you believing it to be so is not a basis for including it in what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Anyway, what about "being completely obliterated by an explosion" as definite or at least very, very strong evidence of death? Venom was shown to have been killed as thoroughly as anyone could short of a closed caption reading "YES HE IS DEAD." Let it rest until there's official material stating he'll return. --R. Wolff 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no 'definite' answer, because there isn't even a guarantee that we'll ever see another SM movie. As stated, you can say that the film implies that Venom is killed until proven that it's alive, and state taht as if it's the only reasonable way, but I see equal reason in the statement that he is not dead unless explicitly stated. I see no "blasphemy" in a phrasing that embrases both possibilities - something like "the symbiote appears to be destroyed, although this is never explicitly confirmed in the film." I don't care that deeply, however. Until he showed up with some nice plastic surgery, I would have definately ASSUMED that Harry was killed by a bomb 2 inches from his head, but that turns out not to have killed him. The assumption that Venom is dead is as much an assumption as the assumption that it survived. Unless something in the film states that it is destroyed. If there really is a shot of brock disintegrating, that would probably be sufficient. I haven't seen that shot tho. TheHYPO 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/485915953_ca1a33e2f4_o.jpg Skeleton circled, for your convenience. Until we are directly told or shown otherwise, Eddie is just as dead as the other villians who perished, and shall be written as such in the article. Speculation does not belong.GreenMamba2 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Who knows maybe the light from the blast just showed an X ray or somethin and he got away.--Cojin 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? --R. Wolff 07:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes somewhat.--Cojin 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just say he appears to die. I mean its a comic movie based on a comic. He will probably be recreated by a genetically engineered mouse based on Eddies DNA created by his super scientist mother with good intentions but obsessed with her work.Darkwarriorblake 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Probably" is not a good source. We can write "apparently" or "seemingly" as soon as there's official word there's a next movie and Venom will be in it. Not a minute sooner. --R. Wolff 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

it could be an X Ray Effect from the flash, bassically lets leave it at they can bring him back if they want to, but they can just as easily say that Venom Died, people don't want Venom to die so soon, not before Carnage shows up, much less before he starts refering to himself as "we" or is refered to as Venom verbally or in print in the film (end credits don't count) Yeah, but remember, THE MOVIES ARE'NT RIGHT!!!!!! Because for 1 thing Venom helps Spider Man kill Carnage. 2, Venom dosen't die because as it says on this page Spider Man tricks the symbonite to bond with Venom permently. spiderman freak 17

I think that Spiderman 4 will be forced to include Venom and Carnage because of fans.It will probably be a good idea because who else can they use as a villan?Chameleon?Hydroman?Beetle?Maybe.Most of the good villans were already shown in the games,so they most likley won't be used so I doubt the Lizard will be featured.

I think Venom with return in Spider-Man 4. Until then, just like the saying is "Innocent until proven guilty", Eddie Brock is dead until proven alive.

Venom is not dead... he's getting hisown spin-off movie.

In which Topher Grace has refused to star in so far. Evidence: http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/04/27/topher_grace_won_t_do_solo_venom_movie 213.166.17.13 10:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Venom is a huge spiderman villain, so the fact that he barely appears in the movie then gets killed off makes no sense to me. Implieng that the pumkin bomb killed him is also ridculous. In the first movie a bomb explodes in Pete's face and does little damage. In this movie a bomb detonates even closer to harry's and all he gets is scars and looses an eye. So to say the pumpkin bomb was able to disengrate Eddie's body entirely is a little ilogical. And,as mentioned above, he might be getting his own spin off movie. Although i doubt it because they've been trying to make a venom solo movie for a while now.-DiablosInferno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.232.80 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All of this is true. However, all of it is also outside interpretation, not a valid source. =P -R. Wolff 11:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to believe that it's a different type of pumpkin bomb? The one thrown at Harry was weaker than the new and improved ones thrown at Eddie. That would easily explain it. Alternatively, the movie could be just stupid and we can call this a plot hole. Still, I believe he's dead. The spin-off movie could be his resurrection, but that requires him to be dead first. --Vinnyvinny2 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There is equal proof on both sides. Let's just do this, we will not say he is dead or alive. We will say "Peter throws one of Harry's Pumpkin bombs into the symbiot, as Eddie makes a desperate attempt to rebond with the with it. After the explosion there is no sign of Eddie or the symbiot." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.105.195 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone keeps on changing it back to "Eddie Brock is dead" type stuff. I think if we implement what 24.255.105.195 said (Username?), then we should word it like this:

"Peter throws one of the Pumpkin Bombs from Harry's Sky Stick into the Symbiote. Eddie makes a desperate attempt to re-bond with the Symbiote, but before he can complete the bonding, the bomb explodes. After the explosion, there is no sign of Eddie, and only a small trace of the Symbiote burning away."

I hope this is sufficient. Ggctuk 09:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eddie is dead... but the symbiote has to be alive because a Venom Spin-off has been announced213.13.225.153 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's stupid. They're not gunna make a Venom movie without Eddie Brock. No matter how much it seems like it, Marvel don't acctually want to make crap movies. 81.98.227.10 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think this needs to be pointed out. People keep saying that Eddie Brock has a good chance of surviving a point-blank pumpkin bomb because Spidey and Harry did. Uh, Newsflash: Spidey and Harry are SUPERHUMANS with SUPERHUMAN DURABILITY. Eddie is a normal man, and not only that, the symbiote is extremely susceptible to heat, as well as sound. Taking these facts into account, there is no conceivable way either survived, especially when both were clearly vaporized(sans a HUGE plothole). We may see Venom again since a sample still exists in Dr. Connors' lab, but the original symbiote and Brock are history(at least until proven otherwise). And for the one who said that they won't make a Venom movie without Eddie Brock, evidently Marvel disagrees since they've been going with Mac Gargan(aka the Scorpion) as the new Venom in the comics for quite a while. While It's controversial whether that was a wise move or not, either way they're certainly not going to be against someone else being Venom other than Brock.

I'm not saying that the article should be changed since this is somewhat open to interpretation and unverified, but I just felt the need to say my piece because some of the arguments for the "Venom lives!" faction weren't very well-thought out IMO.

1. If Eddie is dead, who's gonna support Gwen Stacy in the next film or so? He loves Gwen, so he has to appear again for her somehow!

2. He probably got protected from the explosion by the symbiote and was blasted out of construction site unseen. The appearance of Eddie's skeleton means that the symbiote can give X-ray activity to its host while connecting to each other in an explosive solution, if you know what I mean: Alien activity. Eddie didn't save the symbiote, the symbiote saved him. And in what I remember in war movies, explosions from bombs or cannon shells would leave people in huge hurt appearances and have them lose lots of blood. No wounded Eddie in that movie as far as I'm concerned. It's a PG-13 movie, not R.

3. Venom must survive because Carnage has to be born. Nothing is good without a good parent-offspring quarrel. Father and son, you know. Family business. 68.228.149.192 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop assuming that the rules of the comic book completely apply to comic book movies. Even if the Venom spin-off happens, and Venom somehow survives by transporting himself at the last second, the Spider-Man 3 section should still read like this: "Spider-Man throws a pumpkin bomb at the symbiote as Eddie dives back into it, killing the symbiote and Eddie both.
"However, in the Venom spin-off, it is revealed blah blah blah." Like that. You don't say in the section of Spider-Man 3 that he escaped somehow; you wait to say that in the section of the spin-off. Anybody that just sees Spidey 3 will see him die. That is how this should be handled. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

.....You have to be joking. It doesn't matter if Eddie loved Gwen. The power of love does not resurrect the dead. And he wouldn't die because it's PG-13? Since when did PG-13 films omit death? Gee, then I guess we just imagined all those deaths in the last three Spiderman movies. Honestly, that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever read. And Spiderman is sci-fi, my friend, not a war movie. It isn't meant to be realistic. Pumpkin bombs in the first movie reduced human beings into ashes for pete's sake. And we clearly see Eddie's skeleton being blown apart in the explosion.

Secondly, The Venom symbiote and Eddie were clearly destroyed. The symbiote couldn't protect Eddie because it's incredibly vulnerable to heat and sound. It wouldn't be able to protect itself, let alone Eddie.

Thirdly, the Carnage symbiote could still appear in SM4 because there is still a sample in Dr. Connors' lab. It wouldn't require an intervention from Venom. And while Venom will appear in the spin-off, who's to say that it will occur within Sam Raimi's Spiderman continuity? The Venom movie is going to be directed by Avi Arad, a former employee from Marvel. He may just deviate from Raimi's version and create his own origin for Venom.

Most of your opinions are heavily subjective and don't plausibly correspond with what actually happened in the film. It's just your wishful thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.63.143 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Web

  • In Spider-Man 3, why does Venom's web appear to be black?
  • Where does his web come out of his body? From under his rist, like Spider-Man, or on top of his rist.
    • I believe Venom shoots it out of the back of his hand, like in the comics.--Viridistalk|contributions 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Does Venom make any hand gestures to shoot web, or does he just shoot it?
    • He just shoots it ot of the back of his hand. Once or twice (like to grab M.J.) he sent a tendril out of his finger and pulled her back. That time, it wasn't a web, but a symbiote tendril.--Viridistalk|contributions 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a power that I saw, but only in the Carnage storyline, and Venom uses it to drown the Human Torch, but that time it came from his leg. I think this power should be mentioned too. Ggctuk 11:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Eddie Brock section

At the end of this section it speaks briefly of the movie and indicates his profession as a photographer was taken from the 616 version and his appearance from the Ultimate version. The 616 version was not a photographer but a reporter. Blood Wraith 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Venom

The part about Ultimate Venom reciting the events of Ultimate Spider-Man the game are non canon. In the game you have to stop Venom from demolishing Bolivar Trask, however, in the 100th comic of Ultimate Spider Man it is revealed that Bolivar Trask been long dead.

The game takes place far from the 100th comic. In addition, as a sort of prologue, the game's ending shows Eddie confronting Trask in prison and transforming into Venom. Don't rule it out unless the writers say not to.--Sherwood-Nightshade 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The game is disputed in it's canon, and the article rquires cleanup, possibly mentioning talk of Venom in Ultimates 3.

The game isn't canon, the War of the Symbiotes is the comic version.

The game IS considered canon, despite several canon issues. The makers of the game specifically said that the game fits within the Ultimate universe. It could be similar to the Star Wars: Clone Wars series and the novel Labyrinth of Evil -- both give very different versions of how Palpatine was kidnapped right before Episode III starts, and yet both are considered canon. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is NOT. They deconfirmed that ages ago, and there is an iterview where Brian Michael Bendis say that War of the Symbiotes will assume the role in continuity that the game was originally supposed to. The game is NOT CANON, despite your best wishes for it to be so. And they aren't "several" issues, the entire plot of the game fits nowhere in established continuity, not one element makes sense in relation to the series. Please stop replacing the logical explanation with your fanboy bullshit. Thank you, and have a pleasant tomorrow. I personally hope your today sucks.

Actually, according to Brian Bendis himself, it IS canon. Part of an upcoming arc will be an adaption of the game's events for people who didn't play it. Don't take my word for it: http://www.marvel.com/videos/278.The_Ultimate%7Ecolon%7E_Brian_Bendis_on_Spidey Gustave the Steel (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EddieBrockJr.jpg

Image:EddieBrockJr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate venom.jpg

Image:Ultimate venom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have some better SM3 Venom images we could use. If I'm not mistaken, there was a Venom image up here that got deleted because we didn't wanna give away spoilers. 65.101.93.13 05:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Venom's method of crime-fighting

"In fact, Venom's methods and his willingness to kill can be interpreted as a more efficient means of crime-fighting than his contemporary, Spider-Man. During the Maximum Carnage storyline, there are several occasions where Spider-Man's moral inhibitions cause him to physically prevent Venom from finishing a defeated or disadvantaged Carnage, usually leading Carnage's escape or recovery. Venom's opinion, that Carnage only "feels alive when he's taking lives" has been proven correct by the number of times Kasady has escaped from custody and went on to murder more innocents. Spider-Man's inability to kill may in fact be partially responsible for the atrocities villains such as Carnage commit when Venom is willing to finish them for good."

Should this be removed from the article or at least rewritten? the context of the paragraph gives the impression of someone projecting their own subjective opinion or moral standpoint.

It's a highly opinionated paragraph. If I didn't know better I'd say Venom wrote that himself! It doesn't even really need to be in the article. But it could be stated like this: "As a crime fighter, Venom's methods greatly differ from that of Spider-Man's. Once a villian turned anti-hero, he treats criminals in very violent ways and has no remorse in killing them".

-Courtney- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.204.124 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)