@drphilter said:

I can appreciate that we all have different opinions, but I must ask.. really?!

I'm glad to hear that and yep, really!!

First of all I highly recommend reading Last Days of American Crime. Amazing read.

Thanks for the recommendation, looks interesting!

*See who's the writer*... I probably won't read it though! ;p

Secondly. To say he doesn't care about the characters is hogwash. Just because he is willing to shake up the status-quo doesn't mean he doesn't carea bout them.

IIRC I said: "Sure, if it's the main characters in his book or if Marvel explicitly tell him to let a character live, no problems. But if it's a secondary character or one with a lot of potential but in comic book limbo, he just doesn't give a damn and kill them off for shock value!" which is true. Heck, he even kills off the main characters if he feels like it!

He has done things in his self contained series that Marvel would normally build an event around. That to me is AMAZING. Think about AvsX. a whole 12 issue crossover event dedicated essentially to the idea of killing a loved character. Worth it? no. But a single series really causing characters to expand, grow, that's what we should expect from every series.

I totally agree with this statement. Although AvX and the whole concept behind it are just pure crap so it's not really a fair comparison.

What's the point in reading a book if you have that subconscious reassurance that no one but the bad guy will die? That's why I stopped reading.

Actually, I have absolutely no problem if a good guy die as long as it doesn't happen too often. In The Walking Dead, I know it's bound to happen but it's an independent comic and even if a great character die we can look past it as long as the story is still good. However, killing off or butchering beloved characters in mainstream comics is another story altogether.

Like everyone else, I am sick of all those characters being killed off and later resurrected just to boost sales, that's a really cheap gimmick IMO. That doesn't mean that I want the writers to systematically kill off every character I care about. If it happens from time to time with lasting consequences, that's cool but with Remender I'm nearly certain to see at least one of my favorite characters bite the dust or being butchered beyond repair. I find it very difficult to enjoy his stories after that.

I can appreciate that we all have different opinions, but I must ask.. really?!

First of all I highly recommend reading Last Days of American Crime. Amazing read.

Secondly. To say he doesn't care about the characters is hogwash. Just because he is willing to shake up the status-quo doesn't mean he doesn't carea bout them. He has done things in his self contained series that Marvel would normally build an event around. That to me is AMAZING. Think about AvsX. a whole 12 issue crossover event dedicated essentially to the idea of killing a loved character. Worth it? no. But a single series really causing characters to expand, grow, that's what we should expect from every series.

What's the point in reading a book if you have that subconscious reassurance that no one but the bad guy will die? That's why I stopped reading.

@VenomMelendez said:

He didn't rob O'Grady of his character development. O'Grady died saving the life of a child. He died a hero. Perfect end for him.

If you liked it then good for you but I'm sure you wouldn't say that if a single writer butchered and killed some of your favorite characters in just a couple of months. I may be a little biased because I really liked O'Grady but he didn't deserve to die now, no matter how heroic this death might seem to some people.

That's not the first time Remender does something like this and it's quite infuriating when it happens again and again. Some of his stories might be great but using the same gimmick too often shows a lack of creativity and a certain level of disrespect towards fans of these characters.

And Eddie Brock was always a homicdal maniac. He was never a hero, he was just crazy enough to thing that he was.

• Sure he was a homicidal maniac and if you read my previous posts you will see that I clearly acknowledged it.
• He was never a hero, that's true. Though he should have been considered one after Spider-Island.
• Yep, he was crazy enough to think he was a hero but the character changed in recent years. Ever since he was separated from the symbiote and became Anti-Venom, he was a damn good anti-hero. An overly brutal and religious one but still an anti-hero who killed criminals and protected the innocents.

He didn't rob O'Grady of his character development. O'Grady died saving the life of a child. He died a hero. Perfect end for him.

And Eddie Brock was always a homicdal maniac. He was never a hero, he was just crazy enough to thing that he was.

so true......pslocke sniff fantomex sniff.

@Symbiocide: Thanks for the reply! :)

And yeah, it sure looks like we agree on a lot of things. I feel the exact same way about Pat, I wish he was still alive but because his death happened off-panel there's still a chance to see him brought back.

As for Toxin and Eddie... I don't know. What you said about the Toxin symbiote makes sense and there's a lot of potential here. If Pat returns, I'm sure it would make for a great and interesting story.

However, I really disliked what happened to Eddie for numerous reasons. If he went crazy again after his bond with Toxin, fine. I could have understood that and even supported the change but that's not what happened. Eddie clearly lost it before his bond with Toxin, when he became this "symbiote hunter". I mean, the guy just saved a whole city and all its inhabitants then suddenly, out of the blue, he declares he knows a secret about the symbiotes and hunts down and murder Scott Washington. Eddie was an anti-hero then, not a villain so it was clearly out of character and not only did he kill a good guy but he did it for nothing because the symbiote survived.

I get that they wanted to "thin the symbiote herd a bit with Eddie Brock's storyline" but by doing so they also killed off Pat Mulligan (a great character that was sadly in comic book limbo) and destroyed all the recent character development of Eddie Brock. I'm sure Remender could have written a better story without destroying these characters and I don't know if any other writer care about them.

I Have not read any of his stories yet but I want to.i hated o'grady Anyway

Uncanny X-Force started good but started to lag so stopped getting it, Venom started great but unfortunately had to cut back so cant judge any further but I HATED his run so far on Secret Avengers

I agree with Circle of Four being a waste. And I agree tremendously on Patrick Mulligan's fate. I would have rather Pat's fate had been left open. Eddie isn't going to stay Toxin forever; he'll either eventually go back to being Venom after a long series of character-status-quo changes, or he'll get yet another symbiote, or he'll just lost Toxin. Pat could have been spared. I would have liked to see the original Toxin somewhere down the road, or at LEAST kill him in an actual comic, where we can read and see it. Well, since it didn't happen in any comicbook form, and was explained to us off-the-table, I wouldn't argue continuity if Pat was brought back...off-panel, non-written deaths don't count. Vague deaths that happen and are alluded to IN A COMIC (like a character his crushed by flaming falling debris, but no one is able to retrieve the body, suggesting that maybe they survived and scuttled off somewhere off-panel)...THAT counts. Just saying "Oh, Debra Whitman? Killed herself...didn't take place in any issue...I just declared it"...that can be easily ignored. I can't quite agree with your feelings towards Eddie as Toxin. There's no telling what hell the Toxin symbiote suffered while Blackheart had it. It could have greatly changed for the worse, forgetting all the positive life-lessons Pat taught it, being forced to turn violent and angry. And since Venom DID try to kill it (twice...back when Eddie was still Venom and in Flash's Venom book), it would naturally regress to a vicious state. That's believable. And Eddie has no control of what he's doing as Toxin, so seeing Eddie regress from being something decent to something crazy again isn't his fault.

Well, I'm not trying to force you to agree with me, just throwing out my thoughts. We do agree on everything else.

@Lokheit said:

What makes him so good is the same that made Kyle and Yost so good: They're not afraid of killing characters, but they know when they have to kill one.

I agree that not being afraid of killing characters can make for some interesting stories when it's done right and at the right time. However, a really good writer shouldn't rely only on that or overdo it which is the case with Remender IMO.

Yes, killing a character kills him for the entire 616 continuity, but neither of them have done that in a bad way. Kyle and Yost writed the death of my favourite character, Nightcrawler, and while it saddened me a lot, I LOVED how his death was written because no other writter would've done it better.

o_O

Gotta agree with you about the death of Nightcrawler though, sad but very well written.

And making that bus explode at the x-school? A lot of x-kids dead for shocking value... but it gave a lot of story development.

Yep.

Rick have killed/dramatically affected some characters now, but for example, I love Archangel evolution after that. The whole "dark side on me" thing was getting too repetitive and it needed to explode at some point as it was really anticipated, and it couldn't explode in a better way than under the hands of Remender. Now Archangel is becoming a nice character, still with the metal wings, quickly regaining intellect and apparently adquiring new powers (and I also like the samll change to his old costume, that white scarf thing and having the metal wings on his normal body makes him different and not so boring as old normal angel).

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Warren was so boring but what Remender did seemed like the next natural step for the character and it was really great. His death was very touching, well written and had a real impact on other characters. It also introduced a new character with a lot of potential so I admit that Remender did it right this time.

If it's kill for the sake of kill, no please. But if it's well done, it's well done. I'm sad about Nightcrawler and I wish for his resurrection (though I don't see it happening soon :( ), but his dead had a meaning, it had a reaction on many characters, specially wolverine, and was adequate to his personality.

Totally agree with this!

About O'Grady, I don't know much about him, but it appears like there is still room for him returning, and if not, he died fulfilling his desire to turn into a real hero. Once a hero, that character would become just another ant-man with some funny phrases, but the prove myself as a real hero thing that made him special was gone.

I really hope he isn't really dead but with the way the story was written, it seems highly unlikely that he managed to survive and if he did it would only confirm that Remender's bad guys were really lame this time.

I don't agree with the rest though, if he really died this way it would only be a cheap death with no lasting consequences on anyone and the character would be quickly forgotten. This supposedly heroic death was more like a way to kill him off without infuriating a lot of people and by doing so it was really an insult to the intelligence of his fans. If all the characters automatically became obsolete and were killed off after accomplishing their main objective then 90% of the Marvel Universe would be dead already...

What makes him so good is the same that made Kyle and Yost so good: They're not afraid of killing characters, but they know when they have to kill one.
 
Yes, killing a character kills him for the entire 616 continuity, but neither of them have done that in a bad way. Kyle and Yost writed the death of my favourite character, Nightcrawler, and while it saddened me a lot, I LOVED how his death was written because no other writter would've done it better. 
 
And making that bus explode at the x-school? A lot of x-kids dead for shocking value... but it gave a lot of story development. 
 
Rick have killed/dramatically affected some characters now, but for example, I love Archangel evolution after that. The whole "dark side on me" thing was getting too repetitive and it needed to explode at some point as it was really anticipated, and it couldn't explode in a better way than under the hands of Remender. Now Archangel is becoming a nice character, still with the metal wings, quickly regaining intellect and apparently adquiring new powers (and I also like the samll change to his old costume, that white scarf thing and having the metal wings on his normal body makes him different and not so boring as old normal angel). 
 
If it's kill for the sake of kill, no please. But if it's well done, it's well done. I'm sad about Nightcrawler and I wish for his resurrection (though I don't see it happening soon :( ), but his dead had a meaning, it had a reaction on many characters, specially wolverine, and was adequate to his personality. 
 
About O'Grady, I don't know much about him, but it appears like there is still room for him returning, and if not, he died fulfilling his desire to turn into a real hero. Once a hero, that character would become just another ant-man with some funny phrases, but the prove myself as a real hero thing that made him special was gone.

@ApatheticAvenger: Yeah, maybe I jumped to conclusions a little too fast about O'Grady but that doesn't change the fact that I really dislike some of the things Remender did and it's become pretty hard for me to enjoy his stories. If it doesn't bother you that's cool, to each his own I guess.

PS: And I agree with you about the The Dark Angel Saga, that's one of my favorite recent X-Men storylines :p

Freaking love Remender, Uncanny X-Force and Venom are two of my favorite titles out right now. The Dark Angel Saga is easily one of the best X-Men storylines in recent memory, and I have had very few problems with his characterization. I really couldn't care less what he does to Toxin, and we have yet to really see what will come of O'Grady so I don't think jumping to conclusions does any good (besides, Secret Avengers is the best Avengers title out right now, much better than anything Bendis writes). Also, the dude has made Grant Morrison's Fantomox as awesome as he was in New X-Men. How can you have a problem with that? :P

Always thought O'Grady was jerk if you ask me he had it coming but it's a shame what he did to Pat and Eddie he ruined them :(

@venomoushatred1001 said:

@InnerVenom123 said:

@hectorsquall said:

Eddie was an anti-hero, not a murderer who doesn't give a damn about who he kills. And what I really can't understand is this: if Eddie really wanted to kill the symbiote and was forced to kill Scott for that, after all this prep time he didn't make sure that the symbiote was really dead? That doesn't make any sense!

1. Eddie was a serial killer pretending to be heroic. He used his bravado as an excuse to act out his violence. "WE KILL PEOPLE WHO DESERVE IT-- AND THAT'S MORE FUN!".... he said that to Carnage.
2. It's not like Eddie took out a symbiote bio 101 textbook and studied the states of life and death. For all we know it really did die but when split back into normal it revived. Having Eddie become a super-symbiote-biology whiz would be what really made no sense.

Its been revealed that symbiotes can only die by choice. This might explain how the Hybrid symbiote survived:

That is literally the most retarded thing I have ever read in my entire life.

I don't mean that at you, I mean that at the scan.

Also the art is clearly from Planet of the Symbiotes, and he's referring to making the symbiotes kill themselves.

Saying that symbiotes can't die unless they want to is hilariously stupid.

Bad writing. Bad.

@InnerVenom123 said:

@hectorsquall said:

Eddie was an anti-hero, not a murderer who doesn't give a damn about who he kills. And what I really can't understand is this: if Eddie really wanted to kill the symbiote and was forced to kill Scott for that, after all this prep time he didn't make sure that the symbiote was really dead? That doesn't make any sense!

1. Eddie was a serial killer pretending to be heroic. He used his bravado as an excuse to act out his violence. "WE KILL PEOPLE WHO DESERVE IT-- AND THAT'S MORE FUN!".... he said that to Carnage.
2. It's not like Eddie took out a symbiote bio 101 textbook and studied the states of life and death. For all we know it really did die but when split back into normal it revived. Having Eddie become a super-symbiote-biology whiz would be what really made no sense.

Its been revealed that symbiotes can only die by choice. This might explain how the Hybrid symbiote survived:

I usually can't be bothered to post things that long, good work!

@greenlucario: Thanks for the reply. And it looks like we have a similar point of view on the situation and both loved Toxin and O'Grady :)

Anyway, maybe O'Grady isn't really dead. I have a little bit of hope after reading the following interview: Secret Avengers Spotlight: Ant-Man (12/08/2011). It does look like Remender had plans for the character so maybe he is still alive. Then again, after what happened with Pat I'm not really optimistic :(

@greenlucario said:

I agree 100%, I really did like his work especially on Venom, but my love of Toxin (Pat Mulligan) has made me absolutely hate what he's done. And as far as Secret Avengers I couldn't agree more, he wrecked the roster, then killed off the only character that I liked that was left. Great points, great rant.

The Roster already sucked from the get-go. Brubaker was introducing arc specific characters (Nova/Shang-Chi/PoP) Spencer had some good issues when it came to meta thought and the back story of Valkyrie but then again they only really used 2 characters. Then Warren Ellis knocked that sh1t out the roof with his issues or at least the majority but then again their were only four characters.

I agree 100%, I really did like his work especially on Venom, but my love of Toxin (Pat Mulligan) has made me absolutely hate what he's done. And as far as Secret Avengers I couldn't agree more, he wrecked the roster, then killed off the only character that I liked that was left. Great points, great rant.

@TheAnnihilator: Ok, that's cool. Thanks for your comments :p

@hectorsquall: How am I tracking negative Remender threads down? This is the only one I've ever seen. You can't say he's messed up a bunch of characters because he hasn't. Eddie Brock, O'Grady, Warren, and maybe Psylocke. That isn't tons, that isn't dozens.

@TheAnnihilator: Listen, I already explained all I had to say in my previous posts and I don't want to play this game with you. If you don't have anything else to do than tracking down every negative comment about Remender and his work that's your problem. I'm all for having a meaningful conversation whether people agree with me or not but that's clearly not what you want here so don't expect any other response from me as long as you act like that.

@hectorsquall said:

@Gambit1024: Yeah, he killed him... Not a great idea in my opinion :(

edit: You should check out the following article: Requiem for an Ant-Man « Henchman-4-Hire. The guy who wrote it did a pretty good job and explained why O'Grady was such a great character and why "his death is actually a very good example of what’s wrong with death in comic books today". And I totally agree with what he said.

@TheAnnihilator said:

That's cool. Don't buy it then.

I like Remender. His stories are different. The only death I didn't like is Eric O'Grady, the rest didn't phase me and the changes served his stories well. He pushes the characters to new limits. He's the George R. R. Martin of comic books. I like him a lot.

Dozens? Really?

His stories are awesome. Sorry if you don't like him, but the era of symbiotes is long over (thank god).

Ok, cool. Buy it then.

Maybe "dozens" wasn't the right choice of words but that doesn't change the fact that he killed a lot of characters and butchered others. His stories are great for the most part but the treatment accorded to some of these characters wasn't to my taste. But if you've read all my posts you probably already know that and understand why I'm saying that, right?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion so I used this opportunity to express mine. It's just that we don't have the same point of view.

Name seven.

@NyxEquitis: Agreed!

@hectorsquall: Well that really gets to the heart of the issue:(no pun intended, lol)It's your money being spent. No one elses. So if you feel that way, then its totally fine. Not everyone else has to feel that way, nor feel any different from it.

@NyxEquitis: Ok, that's cool, I can understand that and it makes sense. I know that I'm in the minority here and it might seem like I overreacted a little. However, seeing that I didn't enjoy these stories anymore there wasn't any reason for me to keep buying these books. The last story arc in UXF wasn't really interesting for me, the recent developments in Venom weren't to my taste and I really disliked what happened in Secret Avengers so that's why :p

Maybe I will change my opinion in the future if what I hear about these books looks more to my taste. If that's the case, I could always pick up what I missed when the stories will be collected on TPB but in the meantime I prefer to spend my money on some other books that I can really enjoy ;p

He really did that to Toxin? What a load of crap!!!!! 

@hectorsquall: Well see, that's where you and I differ. I might not agree or like some of the changes that he made, but that doesn't mean that I'm gonna quit on all his other books. Now, its fine for you to do so, everyone is entitled their own opinion so I have zero problem with it whatsoever.

@NyxEquitis: Well, thanks a lot for your reply :)

Maybe it doesn't seem like it but I really liked his work on Uncanny X-Force, it wasn't perfect but The Dark Angel Saga is still one of my favorite (recent) story arc and the writing was pretty solid in my opinion. And yeah, I really miss Pat and Anti-Venom :(

I agree with you, Rick Remender is really a fantastic writer but I stopped buying his books because I didn't agree with the direction he took for some of these characters and as a result I couldn't enjoy his stories as much as I used to. Despite all of this, I really liked his run on UXF and the first twelve issues of Venom, a must read.

Still of the same opinion.

@hectorsquall: First of all, that was a very well written, eloquent "rant." Heck of alot more readable then most comic rants these days, so you get props for that. I don't agree with all of your points, specifically those dealing with UXF but you were right on when it comes to Toxin & Eddie Brock. Obviously Pat Mulligan wasn't a big character by any means, but it was a neat idea that should have been expanded upon a little more than it was. As fo Eddie Brock, Anti-Venom was an even more awesome idea that worked and I thought was really cool. Unfortunately like you said he wasn't fully utilized to his potential either because evidently there were plans for him to become the new Toxin. Anyway, thanks for such a well-written, well thought out article, although Rick Remender is still a fantastic writer whose stories I will continue to enjoy.

@InnerVenom123: I just found something on the Eddie Brock forum that makes me think that it was just a big misunderstanding between us. It's from the following thread: Off My Mind: Is Eddie Brock Better as a Hero or Villain?

@InnerVenom123 said:

" Eddie seems like a wuss."

How? Because he threw someone in a river? He's trying not to be a serial killer lunatic anymore. That's the entire point. He wants to be a hero.

It doesn't seem like the Eddie you read about? You kidding? He always said he was good guy. Even as Venom. The reason he was busting heads was because he had a homicidal alien messing around in his brain. And as Anti-Venom, he's still violent a lot of the time. Because he's Eddie Brock, and that's what he got used to doing. Not ripping guys in half all the time doesn't mean he's a wuss.

The entire point of "saving a junkie" (who has a name, and a page on CV by the way, Jenna Cole) was to illustrate how Eddie has changed. As Venom, he could only see the bad qualities in good people (Spider-man). As Anti-Venom, he could only see the good qualities in bad (or shady) people, like Jenna.

There's nothing wrong with Anti-Venom/Eddie Brock as of now.

" Where is the harsh-talking Eddie Brock we used to have? He's been around for too long to be reduced to this need-for-redemption state. I want to see him get raw on his enemies. "

And you just posted the picture of him shrugging off the option of TEARING OFF SOMEONE'S HEAD as "details" next to that statement.

This. I agree with everything you said on this (old) post. Sure he was a murderer and he acted like a psycho when he was Venom. And he used religion as an excuse for the murders of some innocents he killed because he thought it was for the greater good, that's true. But like you said on this other thread, that was because of the symbiote who was messing around with his head.

After being separated from the symbiote and dying from cancer, he suffered a breakdown and murdered a nurse before trying to kill Aunt May but he ultimately couldn't do it because she was innocent. After this, he tried to redeem himself. When he became Anti-Venom, he killed again and he enjoyed it but that was only criminals and even if I wasn't a fan of all his religious speeches I thought that it was great to see him act like a violent vigilante. But when he killed Scott Washington, I just thought that it was a step back for the character and it felt contrived because he became a hero and didn't kill innocents in a while.

I understand your point of view and when I really think about it, I agree with a lot of things that you said, it's just that I prefered him as an anti-hero when he was Anti-Venom rather than a "revenge-fueled nightmare monster" now that he became Toxin.

@InnerVenom123: Like I said, that's just the way I see it and you don't have to agree with me. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and there's no need to argue about that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts :p

@hectorsquall said:

Eddie might have his own reasons for killing Scott but that's just because Remender is writing it like that in prevision of this future symbiote event, it doesn't change the fact that it felt contrived and out of character.

That's bullsh*t.

Eddie got cancer and blamed it on the Venom symbiote, and he grew a nice hatred of symbiotes in general over time.

It's out of character for say, 90s Eddie.

Not Eddie then.

@hectorsquall said:

Eddie was an anti-hero, not a murderer who doesn't give a damn about who he kills. And what I really can't understand is this: if Eddie really wanted to kill the symbiote and was forced to kill Scott for that, after all this prep time he didn't make sure that the symbiote was really dead? That doesn't make any sense!

1. Eddie was a serial killer pretending to be heroic. He used his bravado as an excuse to act out his violence. "WE KILL PEOPLE WHO DESERVE IT-- AND THAT'S MORE FUN!".... he said that to Carnage.
2. It's not like Eddie took out a symbiote bio 101 textbook and studied the states of life and death. For all we know it really did die but when split back into normal it revived. Having Eddie become a super-symbiote-biology whiz would be what really made no sense.

@hectorsquall said:

In my previous post I said that he killed Hybrid (I meant Scott Washington but I thought it was obvious) and I agree with you that Scream and him weren't really important characters. If they had to die for this symbiote event, fine. I just thought that it could have been done differently without doing more damage to the character of Eddie Brock.

Read above posts for why it wasn't detrimental to character at all.

@hectorsquall said:

You and I clearly don't share the same point of view concerning Eddie. For you, it's just a religious fanatic serial killer who invent excuses for his murders. For me, even if he is a little too religious at times, he was still a good guy (or at least a good anti-hero) who only killed criminals.

The reason people think Eddie's a good guy is because of several books from his point of view.

HIS.

The SERIAL KILLER'S POINT OF VIEW.

Of course people would end up thinking he's the good guy. Hell, I did. But it became apparent to me after a while that he's nuts.

Gotta love him, but he's f**king nuts.

@hectorsquall said:

He did some very bad things when he was with the symbiote but ever since he was on his own he tried to redeem himself and to save and protect innocents (even Spider-Man!), not to kill them like he did with Scott.

He deluded himself into thinking he was doing good things. Anyone Venom ever ended up "helping" got screwed over in the end.

Aside from Spider-man, of course.

Whom Venom only ever helped when Carnage was involved, and therefore had Venom's attention the most.

@InnerVenom123: Ok, cool. I got that. It's just that what he is doing with Eddie isn't to my taste, that's all.

Eddie might have his own reasons for killing Scott but that's just because Remender is writing it like that in prevision of this future symbiote event, it doesn't change the fact that it felt contrived and out of character. Eddie was an anti-hero, not a murderer who doesn't give a damn about who he kills. And what I really can't understand is this: if Eddie really wanted to kill the symbiote and was forced to kill Scott for that, after all this prep time he didn't make sure that the symbiote was really dead? That doesn't make any sense!

In my previous post I said that he killed Hybrid (I meant Scott Washington but I thought it was obvious) and I agree with you that Scream and him weren't really important characters. If they had to die for this symbiote event, fine. I just thought that it could have been done differently without doing more damage to the character of Eddie Brock. If Eddie lost his healing powers that's probably because they planned for him to be this symbiote punisher (before becoming Toxin), he didn't like Venom but to go and kill every symbiote host (innocent or not) just because he isn't Anti-Venom anymore doesn't make sense either. Even if he knows something that no one else does it just felt really contrived.

You and I clearly don't share the same point of view concerning Eddie. For you, it's just a religious fanatic serial killer who invent excuses for his murders. For me, even if he is a little too religious at times, he was still a good guy (or at least a good anti-hero) who only killed criminals. He did some very bad things when he was with the symbiote but ever since he was on his own he tried to redeem himself and to save and protect innocents (even Spider-Man!), not to kill them like he did with Scott.

Just because we don't agree on that doesn't mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong. If you enjoy this Venom series that much and don't have any problem with it, that's cool. I already explained why I feel that way so I don't think that I've anything more to say.

@hectorsquall said:

@InnerVenom123: Well, let's just say that it's not my favorite portrayal of the character but to each his own, right? I mean, I'm not really a fan of him when he acts like a religious fanatic

He was a religious fanatic in his first appearance as Venom.

He dressed up as a priest and said that killing Spider-man was akin to an exorcism.

Religious fanaticism is true to the character.

@hectorsquall said:

@InnerVenom123: But seeing him kill Hybrid like that, that just seemed out of character and really unnecessary considering his recent character development. I'm not saying that going after the symbiotes was a bad idea, they wanted to "thin the symbiote herd a bit" and I can understand why. However there could have been a better way of doing it without making Eddie into a cold-blooded murderer, especially considering the fact that Hybrid was a good guy, who only wanted to protect his neighborhood.

Again, Eddie's a serial killer at heart.

He makes up excuses ("We are the LETHAL Protector!" - "I am THE CURE!"), but that's what he is. He tried to stop this when he was Anti-Venom, but he still ended up killing people.

But, even ignoring that, his reasoning this time appears to be slightly sound, given that he wants to stop the symbiotes from spawning and taking over the world.

Funny enough, in the Venom issue I'm not sure you've read, Toxin (through Eddie) says there will be "THE SPAWNING" soon.

In other words, Eddie might have been right in killing Scott.

Also, the Hybrid symbiote didn't die, the government confiscated it and split it back into four again. Read CARNAGE: USA.

@hectorsquall said:

@InnerVenom123: When you see Eddie trying to save Flash from the influence of the symbiote and a couple of issues later murdering a good guy, it just seemed wrong to me and I know that I'm not the only one who feels that way. Some people like you think that's cool and that it makes him more interesting but if a fan of the Punisher or Jason Todd saw one of his favorite character murdering good guys like that, that would piss him off too.

Yes, he was trying to save Flash, but he had healing powers at that time. Eddie himself says that he has no way of separating Scott from the symbiote other than death.

@hectorsquall said:

@InnerVenom123:

Maybe Eddie didn't really kill Hybrid and Scream after turning into a psycho, maybe no one really cares about them... That's an awful lot of maybe IMO.

I love how you say "turning into a psycho", as if Eddie wasn't before.

Oh, and Scott and Donna are dead. Hybrid and Scream weren't even B-list potentials, they were D to C-list at best.

Scream and Hybrid's symbiotes were created via editorial mandate, so they were lucky to have survived their first story (Lethal Protector) at all.

Hell, they were lucky to even come back.

@InnerVenom123: Well, let's just say that it's not my favorite portrayal of the character but to each his own, right? I mean, I'm not really a fan of him when he acts like a religious fanatic but seeing him kill Hybrid like that, that just seemed out of character and really unnecessary considering his recent character development. I'm not saying that going after the symbiotes was a bad idea, they wanted to "thin the symbiote herd a bit" and I can understand why. However there could have been a better way of doing it without making Eddie into a cold-blooded murderer, especially considering the fact that Hybrid was a good guy, who only wanted to protect his neighborhood. When you see Eddie trying to save Flash from the influence of the symbiote and a couple of issues later murdering a good guy, it just seemed wrong to me and I know that I'm not the only one who feels that way. Some people like you think that's cool and that it makes him more interesting but if a fan of the Punisher or Jason Todd saw one of his favorite character murdering good guys like that, that would piss him off too.

And about what Worbbitt said, that kind of things might work for some people but not for everyone. Considering the fact that it's Marvel and they have the habit of killing off great characters just for shock value, a lot of b-listers can really die and there's not a lot of writers who care enough to resurrect some of these characters. Maybe it was all planned from the beginning, maybe Ant-Man and Pat didn't really die, maybe they will be resurrected, maybe Eddie didn't really kill Hybrid and Scream after turning into a psycho, maybe no one really cares about them... That's an awful lot of maybe IMO.

I already cared about some of these characters, a lot of people did and there was no need to (maybe) kill them off or write them out of character to make them more interesting. Some people will wait and continue to buy these books to see how it will play out but I'm not one of them. I can understand that a lot of people love these kind of stories and I respect that but some people like me might have another point of view. Nobody is right or wrong here, I just expressed my opinion and I have no problem with people who disagree with me as long as they don't act like fanboys.

@Worbbitt said:

Remender has achieve that his characters look alive again by put them in danger and that we worry their fate.

This is a nice way of putting it.

Right.

Remender made Eddie into a homicidal maniac.

Because it's not like Eddie wasn't a serial killer before or anything.

I love Remender's comics so much. He has the guts to write courageous tales and the taste to do it right. With his first twenty issues in on Uncanny X-Force he gave us one of the best Apocalypse's tales... without Apocalypse.

I love Robert Kirkman's Ant Man and Peter Milligan's Toxin too and for kill them off panel I hate him. And because He got my hate, I love his work on the three titles. Remender has achieve that his characters look alive again by put them in danger and that we worry their fate. And He do it with grace.

When Blackheart said that Toxin's host is dead, he never gives Patrick Mulligan's name. By this, he achieve that we felt scared by his live, but if any other writer want to bring him back, he only must to say than somebody stole his symbionte. With O'Grady, he wrote the wonderful issue of his death and later he bring him alive only to shock us when we knew that ha is a LMD. But he never verifies that Eric is death. If another writer want to bring him back, he only must to write that the Descendants keep him alive.

mmm idk i think his stuff is great! incanny xofrce was enough for me to like what he writes..then from there i moved on to venom he writes fun stories as well as serious compelling arcs( at times) but to each his own i guess....

@Gambit1024: Yeah, he killed him... Not a great idea in my opinion :(

edit: You should check out the following article: Requiem for an Ant-Man « Henchman-4-Hire. The guy who wrote it did a pretty good job and explained why O'Grady was such a great character and why "his death is actually a very good example of what’s wrong with death in comic books today". And I totally agree with what he said.

@TheAnnihilator said:

That's cool. Don't buy it then.

I like Remender. His stories are different. The only death I didn't like is Eric O'Grady, the rest didn't phase me and the changes served his stories well. He pushes the characters to new limits. He's the George R. R. Martin of comic books. I like him a lot.

Dozens? Really?

His stories are awesome. Sorry if you don't like him, but the era of symbiotes is long over (thank god).

Ok, cool. Buy it then.

Maybe "dozens" wasn't the right choice of words but that doesn't change the fact that he killed a lot of characters and butchered others. His stories are great for the most part but the treatment accorded to some of these characters wasn't to my taste. But if you've read all my posts you probably already know that and understand why I'm saying that, right?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion so I used this opportunity to express mine. It's just that we don't have the same point of view.

@Gambit1024: He killed him. Then he made you think he survived until it was revealed he's actually a fake.

He did what to O'Grady?! >:(

@hectorsquall said:

Thanks for the replies guys :p

Rick Remender is a good writer, I admit that and I enjoyed some of his stories. The first twelve issues of Venom were awesome, I liked his portrayal of Deadpool in Uncanny X-Force and when Warren died in The Dark Angel Saga it was sad but his death was meaningful and one of the best handled in the Marvel Universe recently.

My problem is what he does with the characters who are useless to him: he just kill them off for shock value! Now, I understand that some of you only care about his stories and don't give a damn about these characters, they are not the main protagonists so what's the problem, right? *sigh*

The problem is, killing characters to serve the stories can work in certain cases if handled well, but not every single time and Remender killed or destroyed dozens of characters who had for some of them years of character development or a lot of potential only to end up in the trash. He could do it in the Ultimate Universe or in an independent comic and there would be no problem but he does it in the main Marvel Universe and use all these secondary characters like cannon fodder. There's a number of good writers at Marvel but we don't see them killing off every character they don't care about just to make their stories more interesting, that's just cheap and demonstrate a lack of creativity. In Invincible and The Walking Dead for example, Kirkman does an excellent job because when he kill off some of his characters, not only does it serve the stories but every death has a real impact and is rarely gratuitous or unnecessary (and even when he kills a great character he can do whatever he wants because it's an independent comic).

Concerning the symbiotes, I admit that there were too many of them (and some who were good guys) and I can understand that they wanted to "thin the symbiote herd a bit with Eddie Brock's storyline", it was kind of necessary. Does it mean that the way it was done was good, that it was handled well? HELL NO!

In the process he completely destroyed Toxin and Eddie. I already expressed my disappointment concerning Toxin and some people will like this new (but brief) Punisher-like attitude for Brock but it was totally out of character just to serve this stupid story. Even when he was Venom, he considered himself as a kind of hero, and was the good guy when he tried to kill Spider-Man. Even if he did some very bad things he still tried to protect innocents despite his twisted mind (in some stories anyway). As Anti-Venom, even if he acted like a religious fanatic at times, he was finally sane and tried to cure those he deemed innocents. Sure, he also killed criminals and even teamed up with the Punisher, but he was still a good guy. He tried to cure Parker's radioactive blood and even tried to save Gargan and Flash from the influence of the symbiote, not to kill them. The new Eddie acts like a cold-blooded homicidal maniac and now that the Toxin symbiote bonded with him, it's just a new bad guy. Never mind the fact that the Toxin symbiote was the only one special because he wanted to help restore peace to the world, rather than conquer and destroy it, and Eddie who finally became a hero now only deserves to be killed in a horrible way by the Punisher. Two great characters becoming this... That's such a shame.

I agree with some people when they say that some characters have to change at some point. It's true, but for me that must be done with good character development not by killing off dozens of characters with potential and butchering others to serve his stories.

Dozens? Really?

His stories are awesome. Sorry if you don't like him, but the era of symbiotes is long over (thank god).

Never read his Secret Avengers, The Venom thing feels contrived and X- Force was great until the brought Warren back. AOA Nightcrawler is fine to me. But thats my op.

I think he is like BMB, give him something to do where he can do whatever he wants, everyone is happy, but he tends to write in a way that hurts other characters

I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't care about his characters. I think it's more like he's writing as if he were writing an Image series rather than the Marvel Universe where we never expect anyone to die. Frankly, it's a breath of fresh air to me.

Patrick Mulligan isn't necessarily dead, Remender just said that's how he imagines the situation with Blackheart acquiring the Toxin symbiote played out. As far as what's been depicted in the comics we only know that Blackheart believes he killed Patrick Mulligan so there's plenty of wiggle room left for any other writer who wanted to use him. Unfortunately, I don't think other writers have much interest in using that particular character.

I would also argue against the idea that Remender has done damage to the characters of Eddie Brock, Venom, or even Apocalypse. Other than the Anti-Venom/Punisher team up, those characters had either been irrelevant, in comic book limbo, or just extremely lame (Gargan Venom - never forget). I won't say that Angel was lame without his Archangel persona because I know a lot of people loved that character, but for me he was extremely boring. I loved what they did with the Dark Angel saga and the Archangel personality taking over, but that had to come to a bitter conclusion or it would have been very cheep.

Have you been reading Wolverine and the X-Men? If you have I think you'd agree that the Angel character and Genesis are being used in a very interesting way (even if they don't currently have the personalities of Apoc and Warren) that eludes to their shared identity crisis. The fact that the people around them know their shared history of Apocalypse turning Warren into his "Angel of Death", but they themselves do not makes it an incredibly interesting dynamic that I am excited to see explored in the future. Remender has shaken up the Marvel U quite a bit, but I love his stories and I think he has made the place better for them.