Talk:Eddie Brock/Archive 2

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.--Viridis^{talk|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.--Viridis^{talk|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.--Viridis^{talk|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?
  • The web is made of symbiote material, like the rest of the suit.--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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.--Viridis^{talk|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.--Viridis^{talk|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)

Move to just Eddie Brock?

The article covers Eddie a lot, and the other Venom's article is Mac Gargan, not Scorpion (Mac Gargan) or Venom (Mac Gargan). If Anti-Venom turns out to be Brock, would anyone oppose moving this article to simply Eddie Brock?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I second the move. He hasn't been Venom is years. Now it appears he's going under a new name: Anti-Venom. (I haven't been following the recent comics. Is it confirmed he's Anti-Venom, or is it just possible?) Regardless, I think it should be moved. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The last issue has him becoming Anti-Venom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the decision to change it, he is no longer venom and as such the article should be changed to reflect that. He's a new character which means he needs a new image, and minor editing on all the links to him and also change up the main page and possibly the URL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.104.65 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna change the parts about Brock as Anti-Venom. Anti-Venom isn't a symbiote so it's pretty inaccurate referring to him as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.16.200 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Anti-Venom is a symbiote. Mr. Negative fused the remaining Venom symbiote cells to Brock's white blood cells. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Hero?

Someone has been putting Venom only as an Anti-Hero, now I know he is one, but he is mostly a supervillain. So in my opinion, they need to label him a supervillain AND an anti-hero, or non at all. Because he defenently belongs in the supervillain category more than anti-hero category —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.168.216 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly?

The lead should be as clear and simple as possible. That means it should be limited to:

• Eddie Brock is a character in works of fiction (fictional character);
• The works of fiction are comic books; and
• The comics are published by Marvel Comics.

Beyond that, nothing should be based on a drawn conclusion or interpretation by a wiki-editor.

"Superhero" and "Supervillain" are generally not used since they are not universally applied and need a little bit more ground work to be supported. The categories have be found to be fairly stable with clear inclusion criteria.

"Anti-hero" is a subjective term, period. It may come up in the publication history if there are verifiable, reliable sources other than the publisher and/or writer that show the character fits the literary device. And it has been shot down as a category for the same reason: any inclusion criteria is going to be subjective.

- J Greb (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, early in his career Venom was strictly a supervillain, being only obsessed with killing and eating Spider-Man. However, once he developed a sense of "honor", ie. protecting the homeless people in San Francisco and joining forces with Spider-Man on multiple occasions (albeit reluctantly), he became an anti-hero. He was not a true hero because he still wanted to eat Spider-Man, and he killed and ate people he judged to be guilty. To be clear, most of the info I've drawn from what could be called the Spider-Man "expanded universe" novels, most of which are set during the 1990's Marvel era, where Peter and MJ were still married, Eddie was Venom and living in San Francisco, Mac Gargan was the Scorpion, Norman Osborn and Harry were assumed dead, Jason Macendale was the Hobgoblin, Mysterio was a living Quentin Beck, Kraven the Hunter was dead, Cletus Kasady was Carnage, etc. (I could go on forever with all the changes that have occurred since then, but I won't.) 75.157.72.47 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Full Appearance

As explained on the Venom (comics) talk page, Venom appears in ASM #299 only in a single-panel cameo. Contrary to this article, Eddie Brock's first "full appearance" as Venom was not until issue #300, wherein Venom is seen throughout the book. Is there any strong opposition to a change in the wording of this information in the article from its current state to the correct form? --Darktower 12345 04:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. FFirst appearance is first appearance, which would be 299, apparently. Done and done. ThuranX (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I refer to the use of the term "full appearance", which is incorrect. Venom's appearance in 299 is only a cameo. --Darktower 12345 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice you using the word, apparently. This leads me to believe that use do not have the primary sources, the comics, as I do. I don't want to offend anyone, so I will leave the info about #299, but I am going to add the information about #300 as well. I hope the compromise can satisfy everyone. --Darktower 12345 05:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got the issues, Mr. Argument From Special Knowledge. (Look it up.) It's the first Venom, done, and done. No need to get into whether or not it's enough of an appearance, by your own admission we first see Venom in 299. That's all that's needed. Introducing trivia as some major difference is a fannis hbit of unencyclopedic writing, and I've reverted it.. ThuranX (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you seemed to be unfamiliar with the issue, but are now claiming to possess it. In any case, you have ignored a reliable 3rd party source, although you do seem to have had some trouble with the Wikipedia policies in the past, as you have been blocked on several occasions, but such is the case with many Wikipedia users.

I'm not sure what you mean by the information being a "fannis hbit of unencyclopedic writing", could you clear up this typo?

Lastly, I do not see how the first time Venom was featured as a main character in a comic book can be considered "trivia", if a panel "in which he was obscured by shadow" is not. I suggest you either revert your edit back to my change, or remove issue 298 as well. Also, input by other users would be greatly appreciated, as this page has many active users. --Darktower 12345 05:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something. Because Wolverine appeared in the X-Men movies, would it then be considered trivia that he had his own spin-off? No, no it wouldn't. And it's exactly the same thing here. Kindly consider reverting your removal of the information about #300. Thanks. --Darktower 12345 06:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful with those assumptions, you'll soon be a beast of burden. 'Apparently', which, like a Birther you've hooked onto as proof of something in your own head only, referred to your own statement that he appeared in 299. I never said I don't have the issues. You inferred something I never implied. Your bad. "fannis hbit of unencyclopedic writing" should have been "fannish bit of unencyclopedic writing", my bad. It doesn't matter if he was the 'main character' (a bit of original research/opinion writing on your part) one issue later or fifty, that's up to the writers. We dont' mark from 'first major appearance' or 'first fight with the lead', we mark first appearance. And for so many obvious reasons that it's a complete straw-man, NO, re: your wolverine idea. ThuranX (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is so important to only have the first appearance (to you), then why have both 298 and 299? --Darktower 12345 06:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument there held a bit of water, it was that one was Brock, the other Venom. I"m not happy with it, but it makes at least some modicum of sense. I'd be much happier with a single first appearance, 298, and let the publication history cover more. However, the argument that there's a significance to the character AND the villain holds a lot more sense and credibility than the idea that how many pages he appears on matters. In fact, the status quo for a long time was JUST 299, referring to Venom. The page was moved, to Brock, so if you want to go to just 298, i'll fully support it. A great compromise.ThuranX (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I love productive conversations! A great compromise indeed. --Darktower 12345 06:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Venom vs Punisher

In the New Ways to Live Anti-Venom series, he fights the Punisher. I added that and put a reference in, but someone took it out. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.110.73 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Venom

Would it be prudent to say Anti-Venom produces antibodies? It makes sense, because the symbiote cells bonded to his white blood cells, which produce antibodies to destroy foreign substances (in AV's case the Venom symbiote, radioactive particles, and drugs). 142.26.194.190 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rephrase Needed

What's "he reverts back to his Venom persona" supposed to mean? Does the symbiote go from being white-and-black to black-and-white? Does Eddie refer to himself as "We"? Does he go to try and kill Spider-Man? Just saying it's a poor word choice that needs to be properly explained; Eddie is struggling to control his murderous impulses. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue Needed for Anti-Venom's new info

Amazing Spider-Man Presents: Anti-Venom - New Ways to Live #1, according to http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=12742. I just don't know how to put that in. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Cole

Apparently Jenna means a lot to Eddie. I mean,the instant anyone badmouths her Eddie threatens to julienne them, but when she tells him to stop, he stops. He calls her his "angel", in keeping with the shoulder angel motif and the sociopathic urges left by the Venom symbiote being the devil he refers to. Jenna holds the key to Eddie's grip on sanity such as it is (Eddie threw what was left of his sanity out the window after finding out she's back on drugs), and I kinda think he's in love with her the same way he was in love with Anne (and look how well that turned out). Seeing as this character is playing such a major role in Eddie Brock's life, should we expand on her a little more? (Personally, I believe the vote, if there even is one, is going to be overwhelmingly no, but even so...) 75.157.110.77 (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I the Only One Who Visits This Talk Page?

Come on, people! New Ways to Live 3 came out a month ago! Hasn't anyone read it? We need more than just a basic overview of the first two pages! How does it end? Does Eddie redeem himself or go back to being a serial killer? Does Jenna OD, does Eddie eat her, or does he bring her back to her senses (or vice versa)? Does Punisher try to kill Eddie (again) or do they join forces against Osborn and the Dark Avengers? 142.26.194.190 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Why is brocks other media section so short he is one of spidermans archenemies he should have a bigger one every other spidey villains one is big why is his not.

I don't know what's going on on his later issues. Check and see if it is or isn't on Venom (comics) first. And about his in other media section. He's only been on two animated series, one movie, and quite a few video games. He's a new character compared to other Spidey villains, don't expect an other media section to be as big as the older Spidey villains. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Early Life

I think the move Marvel made to retroactively give Eddie cancer in the post-clone saga comics shouldn't be assumed to be the main "accepted cannon" in the origin section. A description of Venom's origin as originally depicted in the 80's spider-man comics makes more sense as that has been Venom's origin story for the majority of the character's existence. Let's put the cancer stuff in its own section and leave the normal origin story clean.

    -RZ

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.216.155 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In this section it says that 'Allan' is also his middle name, is this right? and it also says he was born in San Francisco, but on marvel.com it says he was born in New York City. Have a look - http://www.marvel.com/universe/Venom_%28Eddie_Brock%29. Lee 20 January 2008, 12:51 (UTC).

Read Planet of the Symbiotes. That's where the Allan and San Francisco reference is. What is more canonical? A website or an issue of the comic from which it originated? Dark hyena (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah your right! thanx. Lee. 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.61.107 (talk)

Movie information too streamlined?

I agree that the article should keep there relevant bits but I think the section for Spider-Man 3 is far too short. 213.166.17.12 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents. The less we say about Spiderman3 the better. -RZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.216.123 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Time

Anti-Venom is coming back as a villain in the new Big Time Amazing Spider-Man arc. To quote:

• "IGN Comics: Do you see this as a direct continuation of Brand New Day?

• Dan Slott: Yeah! Totally! You'll see characters like Norah Winters and Mayor J. Jonah Jameson, and bad guys like Mr. Negative and Anti-Venom. But it's also a direct continuation of the JMS years, and the DeFalco years, and the Michelinie years, and the Stern years, and Roy, and Stan, and all the way back to Amazing Fantasy #15."

Link: http://comics.ign.com/articles/110/1108839p1.html 173.180.72.42 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation/Conception section

This article leads off with a chunk about the creation/conception of the character...except it's mostly about Venom, not Eddie Brock. Does it really belong on this page? Darquis (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because Eddie Brock was the original Venom, so any material about the creation of Venom and the creation of Eddie Brock is essentially the same thing. Nightscream (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that Venom wasn't seen for almost a full year after the Sin-Eater stuff, and wasn't even conceived of as a character for 17 months after Sin-Eater (I know that doesn't sound like it makes sense, but that's comics). The stuff about Venom's conception belongs in Venom's article, not Eddie's. Might as well put stuff about the conception of Anti-Venom there, or the Venom stuff in Mac Gargan's article. Darquis (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Because Eddie Brock and his identity of Venom appeared at the same time, the origins of both are intertwined, even if the plot points appeared in issues that were published at sporadic intervals. The same does not hold true for subsequent characters to bear the mantle. Some material on the nature of the symbiote does belong in Gargan's article, but in more limited fashion, particularly in the section on his powers. Nightscream (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

1) Work on the past tense to present tense.

2) Chronological. Eddie does A, then does B. Not 'Eddie does B after doing A'.

3) Mention how Eddie fakes being nice to Aunt May in order to screw with Peter. Lots42 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any case of this in Venom's history, but concerning past tense, the only time past tense should be used is, for example "Spidey chases Venom to the hospital, where he learns that, prior to attacking the bank, Venom had taken a large amount of medicine." Something like that, where you find in the "present" something that happened in the past. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

4) If were mentioning stuff like "Anti-Venom", someone could throw stuff in about "freak Venom" in "Venom: The Madness." Remember? He was infected by that disease he refers to as "the creep" and grows a bunch of extra heads and arms. Awesome... -RZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.216.155 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

5) Like I said, i don't like that the recent retrochange (or whatever it is you'd like to call it) marvel did to Eddie involving the cancer is threaded into the main origin description of the character. You have a picture from the old comic right next to the origin story (amazing 300?), but describe cannon from 2000 something. Maybe exclude the cancer subplot from this section and add a separate section for the addition of Eddies new cancer story, it can be confusing is all. -RZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.216.155 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try and edit the fiction biography section so that there is little to no past tense. Everything will be written as the present unless stated like mentioned above. Unless anyone disapproves of me editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Publication Section

Reading this, i see that it really needs to be rewritten focus on the Published titles that Eddie Brock was featured in such as the various mini series and a little backstory / behind the scenes info on the decisions to produce and cancel each title and some more industry insight on the intended direction and target audience for each title. Also and some sales satistics and criticism would be nice to add to the significance of Eddie being worthy of his own series and maintaining that. Reprints and collected editions starring or prominently featuring Eddie should also be mentioned here. I believe there has been other companies that bought a license to use Eddie in their own published novel, so those should be discussed as well. If noyone volunteers to do this soon, I will take the liberty.--76.110.22.186 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Im trying to work on the page right now please, respond here if you have concerns. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.22.186 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The fiction section

The "fiction character biography" section is written with stunted, insignificant sentences that do not complete a train of thought or have conjuction with the next sentence of the paragraph. For example:

"Venom confronted the Black Cat, and battled Spider-Man in a meat-packing plant."

This is insignificant info without perspective as it pertains to Eddie Brock's direction or motivation. I propose instead of a summary, which would just be an attempt to avoid a copyright issue, the section should be replaced with a chronological listing of Eddie's appearances such as ASM 298-300.76.110.22.186 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterization

Please before any decides to edit what I have written in the characterization page, please understand the necessity of the information for research purposes, as the fictional character biography section very much fails to clarify character motivation from one sentence to the next,making it somewhat irrelevant. Also this way Eddies plot can be better understood. If you have any concerns please talk before editing my changes thank you kindly.76.110.22.186 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you did, but whether it's necessary or not, you still need to work within Wikipedia policy, including WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. That first large paragraph you added is unsourced original research, which is not permitted.

As for the rest, the second passage about Paul Jenkins' 2003 storyline is easily integrated into the publication sections, as is the passage after that about Lethal Protector, which makes no mention of his characterization. Ditto for the New Ways to Live storyline, which is already mentioned in the article, and makes no mention of his characterization. (Mentioning that he's the protagonist of the story is not characterization, since that's simply his function in the plot, or conflict.) Nightscream (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:76.110.22.186 left the following message on my talk page:

I love how you just undid all my work on the Eddie Brock page without asking me to change or edit. Thanks so much for being considerate. Unsourced original reasearch? Its already sourced at the bottom of the page , do you really need me to resource it? It's all in Amazing Spider-Man and it's all characterization which is completely essential to the article whether you fail to realize that or not. So you removed it stating that it could be integrated into the publication section...IT WAS ALREADY INTEGRATED THERE BEFORE YOU REMOVED IT.

I’m sorry that you’re upset over the removal of the material you added, but part of editing on Wikipedia means that your edits may be mercilessly edited, and if the material you add is found to be in violation of policy, then editors are required to remove it. They are not under any obligation to ask your permission to do so, and in general, the Wikipedia community is not going to rearrange the way they do things in order to suit the demands of a newcomer. Rather, it is your obligation to learn the ropes here. Responding to my rather polite post above, in which I complimented your work, and provided links to the relevant policies in question, with the message you left on my talk page, which was rather rude in tone, and ended with an all-caps remark (which is considered the equivalent of yelling on the Net), is a violation of the Wikipedia's Civility Policy, and is not the best way to show the community that you’re willing to be a part of it.

For now, I’ll put aside your message to me, and try to explain a bit further the policies in question.

Yes, Wikipedia’s Verifiability Policy does require that we source the material we add to articles, so that readers can verify the material. They cannot do this if we do not inform them of where the material comes from.

The sources in question have to be reliable. That means they must be considered credentialed experts in the area in question. For comics, examples would be sources such as Wizard magazine, Comics Buyer’s Guide, The Comics Journal, Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, books by analysts like Danny Fingeroth, interviews on DVDs of movies adapted from comics, as well as any mainstream press stories you can find.

Websites whose content is user-generated, such as personal blogs, forums, message boards, fan sites, other wikis, The Internet Movie Database, The Comic Book Database, etc., are not reliable, because anyone can create a blog or submit material to those sites, which do not exercise editorial control over that material. Exceptions to this would be the personal websites of people would be considered reliable sources in the field in question, such as Mark Evanier, John Byrne, Peter David, etc. (See WP:USERG, which is part of WP:Identifying Reliable Sources.)

Similarly unacceptable is material derived from the editor’s own personal opinions, observations or analyses, which is called Original Research. Adding an analytical comment to an article about a film is fine if it's from a review you cite by Roger Ebert. Adding such a comment when the observation comes from the editor who adds it is not. Some editors point to the primary material in which the narrative is found, but the primary sources (such as an issue of Amazing Spider-Man) only contains the narrative itself; it does not contain any analysis of it. Material not quoted or paraphrased directly from a source, but which constitutes an analysis or observation derived from it is called synthesis, which is a form of original research. The bottom line is the need to ask, Who is the person making the observation? If it's the editor, it's simply not permitted.

The website you cited in your revert is not a reliable or verifiable source, not only because it is a fan site, but because it doesn’t even mention any of the material you added. It simply lists issues of the books. You can’t just point to books and say, “It's all in Amazing Spider-Man”. The original stories might be, but comments like "The key difference between Brock's heroism and Peter Parker's mainly being..." are not.

As for the remaining issues:

• As far as the issue of integration is concerned, the analysis by Mike Conroy does not deal with the issue of characterization, so I added it to the Lead, where such summary-type analyses can go. The material on Paul Jenkins’ run belongs in the Publication section, along with the rest of that material, since it deals with the content of those issues. I indeed integrated that material into those other sections, and therefore, did not "remove" it.
• Names of books are italicized, and names of stories or storylines are quoted, which is why I added that formatting to those section headings. There was no reason for you to revert that.
• The only words that should be capitalized in section headings are the first word of the heading, and proper nouns. Please do not revert that.
• Synopsis of fictional works should generally be written in the present tense, not the past tense, which is why the passage “Venom admitted….” should be “Venom admits…”

Please read and familiarize yourself with these policies, as they will improve your editing. If it helps, I sympathize with you, because I myself have seen work I've added to articles removed, particularly when I was a newbie myself, but learning the site's editing guidelines is why my additions are more likely be preserved, much as yours will be. Please do not revert the article until you can supply reliable sources for the analyses you wish to add to it. If you feel I have presented or implemented the policies in question in a manner that is not accurate, let me know, and we can invite other editors to join this discussion.

Editors who intend to continue editing are expected to sign up for a username account. It's free, takes seconds, and allows the community to get to know and communicate with you one-on-one. Lastly, always make sure to sign your talk page messages. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them.

If you ever have any other questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Brock in Spider-man 3

• "Eddie Brock appears as Venom in the 2007 feature film Spider-Man 3 played by Topher Grace and serves as the main antagonist (although he only becomes Venom, well into the film) Eddie Brock is portrayed from the beggining as shallow, superficial and vindictive as well as willing to cheat to get ahead along with being an insuferable flirt. His vindictiveness is amplified to murderous hate under the influence of the symbiote. Unlike in the comics, Eddie Brock is influenced by the symbiote but appears to have more control over it and refers to himself as 'I' instead of 'we'. In the comics, despite having a vendetta against Spider-Man, Brock was also a man of honnor and principles, unlike the amoral Brock portrayed in the film. The film Brock shares traits with Mac Gargan (the first to assume the Scorpion mantle and the third main host of the Venom symbiote in the mainstream comics), being greedy and unscrupulous in his work. Eddie Brock is another freelance photographer working at the Daily Bugle shortly before Spider-Man joins with the symbiote and becomes Peter Parker's rival over a staff job. He is romantically attracted to Gwen Stacy (however that doesn't stop him flirting with Betty Brant, who has no interest in him), although she doesn't return his feelings. Eddie faces public humiliation after creating a fake photo of Spider-Man robbing a bank and is fired by J. Jonah Jameson after being mocked and exposed by Peter, who is under the influence of the symbiote. After Spider-Man abandons the symbiote in a church bell tower, Eddie, who had been in the church praying for Peter's death, discovers Spider-Man's identity. The symbiote falls onto Brock, transforming him into Venom and he uses his newfound powers to attempt to kill Peter as revenge for his public humiliation. Venom encounters Sandman in an alley and proposes a partnership to eliminate Spider-Man. The bargain sealed, Venom proceeds to kidnap Peter's girlfriend, Mary Jane Watson and uses her as bait to lure Spider-Man into a trap. Venom fights Spider-Man one-on-one (proving to be his equal but opposite in combat) until Sandman joins the battle as he and Venom proceed to overpower Spider-Man, almost killing him but are stopped by Harry Osborn, who eventually defeats Sandman. Venom brutally beats Spider-Man and prepares to finish him when Harry intervenes and is mortally wounded by Venom in the process. Peter manages to release Eddie from the symbiote by building a cage of hollow metal pipes around him, hitting them to create a makeshift sonic weapon and weakening the symbiote. Peter then throws a bomb from Harry's glider into the symbiote to destroy it for good. Eddie tries to prevent its loss by jumping towards the bomb just as it detonates and, despite Peter's attempt to save him, is caught in the resulting explosion along with the symbiote."

How is this information non reliable or unverifiable? Just asking. I want to understand.

--Jdogno5 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First, as I stated in my edit summaries (repeatedly) this way too much blow-by-blow detail for an "Appearances in other media" subsection that forms a minor portion of an article near the end of that, article. Do you realize that the synopsis you gave for that film is about the same size as a decent-sized synopsis that can appear in an article about the film itself? The point of this subsection is to mention appearances of the character in other media, and not give an entire synopsis of one of those appearances.

Second, the following two passages:

Eddie Brock is portrayed from the beggining as shallow, superficial and vindictive as well as willing to cheat to get ahead along with being an insuferable flirt. His vindictiveness is amplified to murderous hate under the influence of the symbiote. Despite the Symbiote influencing its host, it cannot make them do something that they would never potentially do (as stated in many comics and other sources)).

Eddie, trying to prevent its loss, jumps towards the bomb to knock it away just as it detonates, killing himself and the Symbiote in the explosion. Unlike in the comics, Brock is influenced by the Symbiote but appears to have more control over it. Also, despite having a vendetta against Spider-Man, Brock was also a man of honnor and principles (comics)."

Some of these comments, like the notion that Brock has more control over the symbiote, is not sourced. Others constitute opinions, subjective analyses, or personal observations. In other words original research, which is not permitted. You've been trying to make a comparative analytical point about the difference between Spider-Man and Venom's character, based on your own personal observation of the movie, and this is simply not permitted. One sign of this is the fact that you even cite unspecified issues of the comics to do this, yet this subsection isn't about the comics, but the movie. The only analyses of the character that can added to the article are those that come from sources such as books, movies and credentialed websites whose critics or authors make those analyses, which must be cited in the article. A good example of this is the second paragraph of the article's Lead section.

You ask what is not verifiable in that above paragraph. The whole point of the Verifiability Policy is that readers can look up the source and verify the that source says what the article says it does. Editors cannot be sources, nor can they add such material on the basis that "it's in the movie" (as editors who violate these policies sometimes argue), because while the narrative is found in the movie, critical analyses of it are not. A key question that may help explain the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH policies is this: Who is the person making the observation? If it's the editor, then it's not permitted. Please read these policies that have been linked here, and familiarize yourself with them if your edits to be retained. I also would point to the discussion right above this one, in which I pretty much went over these same points. Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sinister Six

Is it worth saying he was a member of the Sinister Six in the infobox? Infobox is for notable information and as far as I can tell, he was a member of the Sinister Six for about 20 minutes, once. Doesn't seem like it is really a team affiliation any more than Carol Danvers was ever actually Venom. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot headers

I'm considering removing all the headers from the plot section, such as "Bonding with the Symbiote", "Venom", "Progeny", etc and replacing them with decades instead , so you'd have:

• "1989-2000"
• "2001-2010"
• "2011-"

With those sections trimmed of all but major events that define the character (so remove the part about him rescuing a baby during a fight that is randomly in the Venom section. I think this may neaten up the article and better organize the era's of the character but it would be a large change so I wanted to ask input before I just go ahead and do it. It'd look kind of like this but the first section would be shortened to be closer to the 2010 section with more emphasis given to the linked articles, so less detail about Maximum Carnage, let the user follow through to Maximum Carnage if they want significant detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkwarriorblake/Sandbox#Fictional_character_biography This would however require that things appear in the order they were released, so the part about Brock's childhood would be moved further down to where it is actually revealed rather than reading like a true biography. Technically it could possibly stay where it is as I think that was revealed in Lethal Protector and LP occurred during the 90s. EDIT Or you could even start the section with an origin header that details that stuff then move into the date headers that detail notable events.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not enamored with dates used as plot section sub-heads with characters on a sliding timescale. A more workable set would be:

• "Back-story" - What we're told about the character with the first story, back fill, and retcons.
• "Pre-Venom" - The notable stuff from intro to getting the symbiote, if needed. If the section is short enough it would fold into the next section.
• "Venom"
• "Post-Venom" - Same caveat as "Pre-Venom"
• "Anti-Venom"

If the section is going to be re-worked as a strictly OOU "Character development", "Critical analysis", and/or "Critical reception" section, then the dates make sense.

This also assumes that the plot section gets trimmed down to a reasonable size and doesn't become a chronology of appearances.

- J Greb (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well this article has been relatively unchanged for a long time. I've made a big effort to source everything here but I don't think it would ever pass GAN with a plot section as it current exists. I'm going to try and create articles for the bigger stories that don't already exist as I did with Planet of the Symbiotes so more plot can go there and in this article we can just cover the major events that define the character like Lethal Protector, Maximum Carnage, Separation, suicide and becoming anti-venom. I don't mind using your headers, I only intended the dates to kind of fill in for things like Golden Age, Silver Age, etc used in DC articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What Happened to New Ways to Live?

The article says "Brock next appears in "The Return of Anti-Venom" (2011). " This is incorrect, as Eddie appeared in New Ways to Live in 2009. While the previous summary of that arc was overlong, couldn't we add a brief summary like: "Brock next appears in "New Ways to Live" (2009), where he teams up with The Punisher to save his ally, Jenna Cole, from drug dealers." and then mention "The Return of Anti-Venom"? 173.180.66.225 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Retouch Needed

The article makes it ambiguous as to whether or not Eddie Brock is still Anti-Venom, as it makes no sense for him to join the Revengers with no powers and the Spider-Island page says nothing about him sacrificing his symbiote. The article needs to be rectified. 173.180.77.156 (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing that can be done about him and his Revengers career until it is made clear if he is getting the suit back or if Revengers takes place before Spider-Island. And the Spider-Island article is not exactly something to be emulated, since it completely fails to mention what happened to Brock and is bloated with plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

While you have a point, the Spider-Island article does mention that the Horizon Labs and Reed Richards "use Anti-Venom's blood as part of a cure" to create a "serum from Anti-Venom's symbiotic antibodies", not that they use the entire symbiote. I concur, however, that we should wait for the Revengers storyline to play out before doing anything. 173.180.77.156 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever Brock arrives at the lab, Reed says he will have to give up being Anti-Venom because they need all of his suit.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's reformed in the past, like after Mac injected him with the poison. We'll just have to wait and see what the New Avengers series has to say. 173.180.77.156 (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

New Ways To Live and Toxin

Why does someone keep removing the sections on the New Ways To Live mini-series and Brock's time as Toxin? New Ways To Live was one of only five stories EVER published about Brock's time as Anti-Venom, and him becoming Toxin (and gaining new powers as a result) is an important change for the character. I don't see how they're not considered relevant.74.90.224.4 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For reasons given in the edit summaries by the editor who removed that material. You can see every edit, and the accompanying edit summaries, by clicking on the article's edit history at the top of the article.

I restored the sourced material on his knowledge of conventional weapons in the Powers and abilities section. Nightscream (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I added back some info about New Ways to Live and Brock's time as Toxin, but I shortened it to just a few sentences and removed the parts that were theories and fan speculation. Is it more acceptable for the article now?74.90.224.4 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for the editor who removed the previous material, but I removed the part about Betty Brant's kidnapping, since stories should be summarized, and not include every plot point, particular addenda that follow the main resolution. Offhand, I don't see a problem with the other portions you re-added. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that storyline's not over yet anyway so we'll see how it turns out. Could end up being important, or it could end up amounting to nothing.74.90.224.4 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Toxin

Damned 3RR rule. His character is understood in the text body which describes him being possessed by the Toxin symbiote. I link you to a guideline which says do not include short lived alias and you ignore that? And even if that wasn't incorrect, why is there then a listing for introduced as Toxin? He does not become a separate person every time a symbiote slaps itself to him and we do not need to record every introduction of any nickname he takes. The guidelines there also explain only NOTABLE team affiliations, which doesn't apply to the Savage Six either, but at least an argument may be made there. Him being possessed by Toxin for 3 issues is not a notable alias or a significant identifier to the character and its absence there does not create a lack of understanding about the character. Or do you feel this should be expressed in the lede as well? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines are not rules and are allowed to be ignored when other guidelines overrule them. Toxin is his current alias and I reverted it with the guideline that we should be concerned with what readers will want/need to know. Furthermore, how can you explicitly state it will be short lived? Since there is no explicit end to his story we cannot predict if his character will continue as Toxin or not. Yes, I do feel it should be expressed in the lead as well. In the comic books no other character has been bonded to two, let alone three, symbiotes, so I feel it is notable enough to write about that. Spidey104 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, you cannot predict. Thus until it is a notable alias, it is not notable. It isn't a notable alias until proven otherwise. There is not a symbiote bonding championship or world record. Him being bonded to 2 or 500 symbiotes does not make each bonding a special occasion, his primary identifier in and out of comics is as Venom, and in the comics to a lesser extent as Anti-Venom since he spent 4 years in that alias, had his own miniseries and appeared multiple times, plus appeared in a video game as such. Toxin was forced on him and he's been roaring around for like 20 panels total in about 3-4 issues. It fails notability. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick google search shows several things talking about Eddie Brock as Toxin, so how is that non-notable? His primary identifier is as Venom, but he has already been split from the Venom (comics) article because they are enough different to warrant separate articles. So anything that happens to Eddie should be mentioned here, but not in the Venom article.

Carnage was forced on Ben Reilly and he roared around for about 3.5 issues, but that is still listed under his aliases and given a small section in this article. Peter Parker used Dusk, Hornet, Ricochet, and Prodigy for about 2 issues each, but they are still listed under his aliases. Comparable storylines, so it should be given comparable coverage in the article.

I'm not saying we should expand the section about Brock's time as Toxin beyond what it already is, but listing it under aliases is acceptable. Spidey104 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Other articles doing things wrong is not an excuse to perpetuate that mistake. Look at Hulk (comics). So your argument that others do it so, so should we does not fly. If you feel it is beingunfairly applied here I will happily support you removing those aliases from the offending articles. Google results also are not a method for identifying notability as you will find is the case in most Deletion cases. I've laid out very clearly why the former two aliases are notable, both are exceptionally long-term aliases, have carried their own series or arcs and have been used in media outside of the comics. This so far BRIEF excursion has not and that you're having to go "well they're doing it" to justify it probably highlights how unnotable it truly is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought up the Google results argument because I've seen that used in deletion arguments as a legitimate defense that was upheld. I did not realize that was incorrect, so I will withdraw that argument. As for the "well they're doing it" argument; I only brought that up because you already ignored my main argument/guideline. The guideline you brought up contradicts mine, but both of us are going to support the one that supports our point of view. So at this point I think you and I are not going to resolve this ourselves. I have posted on the Wikiproject board to get outside opinions. So hopefully that will help settle our dispute. Spidey104 18:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the Toxin alias is current, I think it's worth adding to the article. If it turns out to be temporary and ultimately unimportant, it can be removed later. I know officially notability doesn't have an expiration, but I think costumed identites in comic books are an exception to that rule. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service, current does not dictate what is notable. You make an exception here and then why shouldn't we be adding Venom as an alias to Ms Marvel? I mean she DID have it on for a whole 2 pages. And it was pretty current at the time. A bunch of heroes were wearing the Carnage symbiote in Carnage USA. And for like 2-3 whole issues. Best get to adding Carnage as an alias there too. OR we can accept there are qualifiers for notability, and existence is not one of them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If we were having this discussion on those pages when those events were happening, and it looked like those changes would be lasting, I'd say the same thing. It's notable now, because it's his current alias and it sounds like he may have it for some time. If it turns out to be very temporary, it can be removed. What is the harm in leaving it for now? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That by that logic anyone can add pretty much anything that happened in a recent issue and say "well it happened, if it turns out it isn't important later? We'll deal with it then". If it isn't hard to wait for it to be proven unnotable, then why is it hard to wait for it to be proven notable? It's basically asking to ignore the guideline, which is there for a reason, because "Hey, this time it might be notable". If we are ignoring the guideline as and when convenient then there is no point in having the guideline. And this decision is being based on "other articles do it", a random selection of other articles that support that stance instead of sometihng like Joker where he has one significant alias. He has tonnes of aliases but only one of them is notable. It's easy to pick just articles that support your argument. As far as I can see he has appeared in 4 issues and 30 panels, never as a focus, and then he was burnt to a point that Flash thought he was dead. So...why don't we wait to see if it, ya know, appears in more than 4 issues and is notable? But instead what I'm getting is, well screw the guideline, screw providing any reasoning for notability. It's a thing he did once so it's going in there. "Read the guideline, disagree". So I ask what the hell is the point of the guidelines? Why follow MOS, if we're just apparently picking what we agree with? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you're debating the inclusion of "Toxin" as an alias in the info box, right? Not some long paragraph detailing his short adventures as Toxin? I didn't list the examples earlier, and I agree they were cherry picked and should probably be reverted. I make an exception here because 1) it's a minor inclusion, not a huge addition 2) Unlike the Carnage USA example you mentioned earlier, it's not a given this will be undone immediately and forgotten and 3) I err on the side of inclusion when there are arguements like this. And there's a good arguement for exceptions to the guidelines in comics. These characters are old, old, old, and the notability of certain events changes with time. See Spider-man's marraige. In the current fiction, it doesn't exist. How much time should be devoted to the details of it on Peter Parker and Mary-Jane's pages? What was once notable now isn't, except in the Publication History and Controversy sections. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The marriage spans decades, covers stories and impacts events, it, like Brock being Venom, cannot become an unnotable part of the characters history. I am incredibly incomfortable with the "Introduced as Toxin" addition because that really sets a bad precedent, and the addition of the Savage Six affiliation which again, the guideline says notable ones only, and that too has been ignored. I'm not arguing against discussing events because that is part of his history in killing off two symbiote characters and conflicting with the newest Venom. Even so, its been boiled down to the basest elements of the story. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the marriage, but it's still a great illustration of how the notability of comic events can change over time. They get retconed and rewritten all the time, sometimes without explanation. See the recent resurrection of Star-Lord, Drax, and Thanos in Avengers Assemble, for an example of that. What we have here is a case where, in a few months, Wiki will either be outdated, because it doesn't list Toxin, or it will be heavily slanted toward recent events. Both should be avoided, but I think slanting is the lesser of the two evils. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Archenemy?

I don't think so - Green Goblin and Doc Ock are both much better qualified. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'll undo any mention of Venom being an arch-enemy. Gustave the Steel (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the whole thing's pretty much original research either way, but yeah, I'd have to say the Green Goblin fits the criteria more in terms of his role in ruining Spider-Man's life.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GG Ock and Venom are often considered spider-mans 3 arch-enemies... of corse it's all a matter of oppinion 82.1.68.117 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Venom's hardly even a villain. He often attempts to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. He's even worked with Spider-Man a number of times. Gustave the Steel (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Venom's #1 purpose is the destruction of Spider-Man. Most other Spider-villains have ulterior-motives, and only focus on battling Spider-Man when he gets in the way. Venom is unique in that he only seeks revenge. And furthermore, he typically only teams up with Spider-Man to fight against Carnage. And even then, he has also teamed up with Carnage against Spider-Man. That whole "Lethal Protector" bit aside, Venom has been nothing but an arch-nemesis of Spider-Man. Peter has been shown to be deeply afraid for his life whenever he hears Venom is on the loose. As mentioned above, the trifecta of nemesis is usually Ock, Goblin, and Venom, and I don't see why you're so against admitting that. Trashydrummer (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, one of the defining characteristics of an archenemy is an undying hatred of the hero; Spider-Man and Eddie Brock have had truces that lasted for years, and have worked together on multiple occasions. They have let each other alone. Spider-Man doesn't let Green Goblin or Doc Ock alone. They're on a whole different level, in terms of danger and persistence.

Besides, you should read your own argument. To rephrase, you're basically saying "Venom has always been Spider-Man's archenemy, except for those times when he wasn't." You can't say that about GG or Doc Ock, to my knowledge.

Still, thanks for making your case here instead of on the article itself. I think we could all agree that Venom is "a villain", if we wanted to put something neutral in the intro. Gustave the Steel (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say that it isn't wrong to claim that Venom is considered to be Spider-man's arch nemesis. That's specifically the role he was meant to fill after Harry Osborn died. I'd say something along the lines of, "Venom is largely considered Spider-Man's arch nemesis at the time of his introduction."...or something. -RZ

He is ONE of Spiderman´s greatest villains. But alongside with GG, Ock, etc.77.13.157.122 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Movie Eddie Brock first mentioned in Spider-Man (2002)?

In the first film, when J. Jonah Jameson and Robbie Robertson are discussing about Spider-Man, Roberston states that "Eddie" is having problem getting photos of Spider-Man. DCincarnate (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The novel names Eddie Brock, apparently.213.166.17.12 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But J.J. seems to have forgotten his name then in Spiderman 3.77.13.157.122 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Venom; new film announcement

source: http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/spider-man-spinoffs-sony-marc-webb-alex-kurtzman-roberto-orci-jeff-pinkner-ed-solomon-drew-goddard/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.17.123 (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned on Venom (comics) so I don't think it needs to be mentioned here, especially seeing as a confirmation that a movie is being made is all we have, and we don't even have a list of characters or cast members, or any kind of plot line yet. If and when that happens, then I think it should be added. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eddie Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910043118/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3id9a975e26c8545c5c2f2858ae93969c4 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id9a975e26c8545c5c2f2858ae93969c4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The creation section...

"The question of who created the character of Venom became an issue of contention in 1993..."

These line doesn't seem to represent the actual events. The "contention" was between Michiellin and uninvolved third parties like Wizard, Eric Larson, and Peter David. Since McFarlane never claimed he created the character, the controversy seems rather contrived. The material is better suited for the reception section, in my opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The death of Toxin and the return of Eddie Brock as Venom

In Carnage (Volume 2) #16, the Toxin symbiote dies, and the cover for Venom (Volume 3) #6 , and subsequent solicit for Venom (Volume 1) #150, make it clear that Eddie Brock is returning to the Venom identity. Should the events leading up to this in the comics be made clear, given it looks like the article has not been touched for some time now? I can't do it myself, because I haven't read these issues but have read the plots for them. Gistech (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eddie Brock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416080151/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/22.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/22.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://marvel.com/news/story/19084/phineas_and_ferb_mission_marvel_preview
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en/downloadable_content_items/1090?t=US
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117105407/http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en-us/game_guide/ps3/downloadable_content/venom_costume/ to http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en-us/game_guide/ps3/downloadable_content/venom_costume/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Film section makes zero sense

What is with the film section here? It makes no sense, there was never any Venom in the Webb series and the info about him possibly being in a bunch of films isn't really worthy of being in their own sections, he never appered, all that info should be under a "solo film" section instead.★Trekker (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: what do you think now? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Much better. Thanks.★Trekker (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)