Talk:Venom (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venom (comics) article.
Article policies
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Recreated talk page from redirect

Since we now have Venom (comics) and Venom (Eddie Brock) as two distinct articles, they should really have two different talk pages - no point in redirecting this to Talk:Venom (Eddie Brock), especially as that now complicates things such as comicsproj template settings. --Mrph 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The first apperance is wrong... if you want it to be Eddie Brock when Venom was first called Venom that is Spider-Man 300. But if you are talking about the suit its first appearence was Secret Wars number 8... either way you want to do it what you have as a first appearce is wrong. If you actually want the first appearance though it's Amazing Spider-Man number 299 in the last panel.

[edit] Spider-Man

He was never the original host for Venom since it wasn't called such until it left him. He shouldn't have an individual section here.Darkwarriorblake 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, D, can you anything other than complain? Anyway, it's part of the symbiote's history. I'll take another look but...gees. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've barely been here in a month so I don't get what you're whining about. Darkwarriorblake 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Three words: Eddie...Brock...Junior. But whatever. You dont- er...it doesn't matter. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Someone change the top image. It is not common of Venom, find something more common and typical of the character.--Viridis 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it; the most recent one looked like the Juggernaut. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but that picture is the symbiote alone, and Venom would be the symbiote with a host, I think? That picture is used for Symbiote (comics), aswell. How about the one used for Venom (Eddie Brock)?--Viridis 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television Synopsis

The Television section deserves to be commended for its level of detail (anyone reading it hardly needs to see the episodes now), but needs a great deal of work on its style. There seems to be missing words, lack of consensus on spelling, switching back and forth between past and present tenses (present is the correct choice) and long convoluted sentences that can be very difficult to follow. I just attempted an edit, but it is really a bigger job than I have time for now. Additionally, where it is ambiguous, I can't really help, not having seen the episodes in question.


A. Boisvert 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)amboisvert

[edit] Wrong Angel

Removed a link to what I presume was the wrong Angel Medina (a professional wrestler, and current police officer). If it actually is the same guy moonlighting as an artist, and I'm wrong, please fix. -AS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.61.111.132 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Film - Eddie Brock dead?

Why is there a section about the Spiderman 3 Eddie Brock possibly being alive? I clearly saw Eddie Brock being skeletonized by the bomb spidey threw at the symbiote, in much the same way the board members from spiderman 1 were. Am I the only one who noticed this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.26.105 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Possibly, because I didn't. --Gundor Twintle Fluffy

I just saw it today. He was most definitely fried to the bone leaving behind only symbiote residue, which also burned into nothingness. Liz-Prof. still has a bit though. Detha 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing (though my girlfriend insists she did) the scene with part of the symbiote going through the cracks in the construction site, maybe there is different versions? But there is still part of the symbiote in Dr. Conner's lab so maybe he's not dead that way?? Also, where is the citation for the quote about the character not being dead in 4?

All this is pure speculation and/or original research and does not belong here in the first place. --R. Wolff 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the final film is not identical to the screener version I have... there is no skeleton in that version. The bomb explodes, there's a big fireball, and it dissipates and there is just a small fire on the floor that seems to burn up the last scraps of the symbiote. My reading is that if Harry Osborne can survive one of those bombs right next to his head relatively uninjured (other than some scarring), it seems that unless there is a body visible, a similar bomb exploding and leaving no trace of Brock is not conclusive evidence that he is dead. Particularly with the symbiotes protective properties. If people think that it is 100% clear that brock and the symbiote are dead, then I suppose it should be written that way. I suggest a vote. TheHYPO 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest watching the scene closely in the best quality available. A screener may lose some detail. --R. Wolff 20:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of film vote

This is a vote on whether it is appropriate to indicate in the article that Brock/Venom are "killed"/"destroyed" at the end of the film, or juyhtiytjytoje;ytujist "apparently destroyed" or similar wording. Feel free to vote, and leave a short comment if you wish (one liners please), but extended discussion should please remain above this vote. TheHYPO 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Apparently destroyed unless there is more in the final cut that is not in the screener I've watched. TheHYPO 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Burned down to a skeleton, which then vanished into dust as if caught in the focus of a nuclear blast! (Because that's exactly what happened on screen.) --tjstrf talk 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently destroyed just because he's a highly marketable character.--Sherwood-Nightshade 06:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That has no bearing on this discussion though. They can, and I agree probably will, retcon whatever explanation they want to for either Brock or the symbiote's revival if they feel like it, but that doesn't change that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we don't get to speculate as to what they will do in the future, even if we think we can make a really good guess. So until they bring him back, he's dead because they showed him dead. --tjstrf talk 06:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Destroyed. By writing anything that contains the words "apparently" or "seemingly," we'd actively imply he survived, which there is absolutely no clear evidence for. tjstrf above me already stated my further arguments. --R. Wolff 16:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but remember when Dr. Connors was looking at a piece of the symbiote? There is no further mention of this again in the movie once Dr. Connors calls Peter about his findings. So who knows if Dr. Connors killed the symbiote piece or if it’s still contain in his lab. If you remember the piece was moving and assuming it's alive too. Could this be Carnage symbiote that would later escape in a future film or somehow the reintroduction of Venom?

I can tell you that the explosion isn't even given enough screen time with Brock for it to show him disintegrate in this screener. Perhaps they expanded the shot to avoid just such an disclarity. I do believe screeners are often pre-final edits of the films. I obviously would defer to the theatrical cut TheHYPO 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an upcoming sm3 spin-off starring venom. that's proof enough that he's alive

Worth keeping in mind, once more information surfaces definitely worth mentioning in the article. --R. Wolff 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Apparently Destroyed" I recently rented SM3, and I watched my favorite parts (the parts with Venom) in slow motion. Once the bomb goes off, it shows the fire expanding, then it flashes to Peter, NOT showing Venom at all, then the small piece of the symbiote burning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch it frame-by-frame. It's thereMavrickindigo (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics or TV?

Was there ever a scene in any comic book that parallels the scene in the film where Parker is asleep, and wakes up in the symbiote, looking at himself (black suited) in the windows of a skyscraper? I can swear I've seen it before... might have been in the Animated series, but I thought it was comic based... But since Parker got the costume on the alien planet, it wouldn't make sense for him to ever be surprised looking at himself in a window in that suit. But maybe when it came back later? Ever happen in the comics? 74.102.119.57 05:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in the animated series. 75.84.185.89 06:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No,it never happened in the comics.I don't remember the series that well but it might of happened.The 3rd film wasn't based on the comics andyou might just have a case of De Javeu.

Actually, while he never wakes up, there was at least one instance in the comics in which the suit took him swinging in his sleep. It was pretty funny.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Aliensymbiote.jpg

Image:Aliensymbiote.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.

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 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I suggest adding lolilovesvenom.livejournal.com as an external link, its a fan comic based on the symbiote with humouristic stylings.

[edit] Alternate versions

Was there an Amalgam Comics version of Venom. I have trouble recalling or finding any information as one, but I feel such a prominant character (particularly in the 90's) would have likely been utilized then.66.109.248.114 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no Amalgam version of Venom. There was, however, an amalgamed Carnage/Bizzaro character known as Bizzarnage who appeared in an issue of Spider-Boy. (Specimena 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Wrong First Appearance

I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm posting this here instead of changing the page. The first appearance you have listed for Venom is incorrect. It was not ASM Vol 1 #300. Eddie Brock's hand is shown being covered by the symbiote on the last page of ASM 298 as a cliff-hanger. A subsequent cliff-hanger is the final page of ASM 299, in which Venom stands before Mary Jane saying, "I'm home!" It's picky, I know. But this is an encyclopedia so I think it should be right. For reference, I'm reading these comics one-by-one via the Amazing Spider-Man Complete Comic Book Collection.

-Agreed. Besides (if I can remember this off of the top of my head) wasn't there an even earlier appearance in Web of Spider-man 18? That was where Eddie Brock pushed Peter Parker in front of a moving subway train without activating his spider-sense. ASM 300 is the 1st FULL appearance of Venom although the others were actual 1st appearances. There should be a change from ASM 300 or at least an explination of his earlier cameos.

[edit] Fan reaction?

There needs to be some info on fan reaction. What about Venom has kept him so popular? What was the motivation for creating this character? --24.249.108.133 13:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bomb adjustments

I think I know why the explosion was smaller with Harry, and bigger with the symbiote. The symbiote may be flammable so when eddie brock was killed with it, he was partially bonded, he was in the explosion. - User:Hyuuga-sama23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)hyuuga-sama

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Venom.jpg

Image: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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Venomoviepic7.png

Image:Venomoviepic7.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Brideofvenom.png

Image:Brideofvenom.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference 22 (Venom movie)

This reference is extremely misinterpreted, I believe. The article doesn't state that a Venom movie is being made. It simply says that Topher would have no interest in starring in it if it was made. DurinsBane87 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you should know, Spider-Man producer Avi Arad, in a one-on-one interview with someone or other, stated that a Venom spin-off IS in the works... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but the specific cite I was talking about was misinterpreted. DurinsBane87 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venom (Eddie Brock) Merge?

Someone has posted merge tags but there is no discussion so here it is:

  • Keep bot this entry and Venom (Eddie Brock) are big enough as they are (and Eddie Brock needs a trim down) so it makes sense to keep them seperate. (Emperor 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep them Separate both articles are too big to be merged. Gman124 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "You've got to keep them separated." - Eddie is too big to fit into the article. In addition, there are now two other characters to be called Venom in continuity, (which is part of the reason Venom was split off). Finally, Eddie has in both in earlier and current publications, existed as a separate character without the Venom symbiote. -66.109.248.114 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: While both articles could use a lot of trimming, it is too much to fit onto one page. Notthegoatseguy 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Really everyone else said it all already.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion closed with consensus of no merge. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Venom 2099 Merge

  • merge - it appears an ambitious editor merged the two; however, the original 2099 page still exists. The tag states it been on since May. I vote merge, due to lack of notarity, and could easily be incorporated into the Venom page as is. As Venom 2099 has not his own book, only featured in a few Spiderman and Punisher books, my vote is for merging. (As a partial merger has already taken place, I wanted to place this notice of discussion here prior to redirecting the page). - 66.109.248.114 04:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No merge at least not on this page. If someone wants to create an 'Alternate versions of Venom' article, a merge there would be appropriate, since it's unlikely this character will ever pop up again.Notthegoatseguy 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

comment- the Venom page currenlty functions as a Venom (alternate versions) as it includes both summaries of Eddie, Spider-man, Angelo and Mac, amongst others. A new page for alternate versions, altough currently a popular edit, would be needless, due to the small size of the article and the how it functions as host, for all those named Venom in comics. 66.109.248.114 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Agreed, the 2099 character is the same alien in the future and should be regarded as an alternate version.

[edit] Venom (Angelo Fortunato) merge

no mege Angelo Fortunato is separate character and venom page is already too big. Gman124 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - The character only appeared in two issues. That is neither notable, nor is it significant in the greater schemem of Venom. -66.109.248.114 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Merge Non notable character, seperate page doesn't add any expanded information.

MERGE Non-notable character who has no chance of returning, so the stub of an article that exists will not get longer. No reason to keep it separate. -Freak104 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to offer a great reason to keep them apart. Consensus says to merge them. -Freak104 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Aliensymbiote.jpg

Image:Aliensymbiote.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EXVenom.jpg

Image:EXVenom.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiped from Existance?

I have a question: With the changes made by Mephisto, wouldn't Venom be wiped from existence? I keep hearing this, is it true?Mavrickindigo (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing canon to say that he has. So until something concrete is shown we won't know, and we can't include any speculation in the article. -Freak104 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] She-Venom merge

Like the two characters above, very minor and would be better served in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.199.231 (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article on the symbiote itself, or is this it? It seems like there could be an article for both, with She-Venom there. If not, I'd merge her here.
Also, why are there summaries of the What If appearances of Venom? Not to knock anyone's effort, but this article is really long and that section seems crufty. My $0.02. joshschr (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Symbiote (comics) is all about the symbiotes as a species. This article is about Venom specifically. -Freak104 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that a merge can trivially be undone if She-Venom does reappear and become a significant figure in her own right. Until this happens, though, a merge seems appropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd go along with that. Hiding T 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge the articles and delete the What If stuff like joshschr suggested. 144.92.58.224 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
question-To anyone's knowledge did either of the She-Venoms ever have their own series, or take over for Brock as the main character in the mini's in the '90's? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
Response to question the most recent She-Venom had her own series, but Venom showed up in the end. It was that short lived series that started with all of the other 'Tsunami' series.
Merge Reading what other people have written, I change my mind. They should be merged. If She-Venom reappears the articles can be split up if necessary, but for now there is no reason to keep them separate. -Freak104 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the only person to ever post any objections to this merge, but now I support it. So we have 100% support of the merge. The merge was proposed over two weeks ago. Can we do the merge now? -Freak104 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If she has her own series, and she was not a supporting character to Brock put featured primarily or indipendently, that may make her notable enough not to be merged. In that light, I pose a weak, no merge. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC).
Response to the 'Response to question': I would have to say that Freak104 is only technically correct, because for a lot of that series the reader was meant to be confused whether it was the real Venom or this She-Venom, and it certainly seemed more like Venom than previous incarnations of She-Venom. Furthermore, the series was called Venom, not She-Venom.
Merge They can be separated if She-Venom ever becomes important in future stories, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. -144.92.58.223 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The most recent response resolves any reservations I would have against a merge. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

It appears that the only two people to ever oppose this (I being one of them) have now agreed that it should be merged, and this discussion has been open for a month now. That is more than enough time to discuss this, and now this discussion is closed with a consensus to MERGE the articles. I will take care of the merge momentarily. -Freak104 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Venomtbolts.png

Image:Venomtbolts.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move Mac Gargan to main hosts?

I think Mac more than qualifies, he's been the host for a few years now and it doesn't seem to be going back anytime soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.59.123 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)