Rick Remender: Why I will stop buying every book he is working on

  • 64 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

Let me start by saying that Remender is a very talented writer and he can write very good stories. Then what's my problem with him?

From Next Big Thing Liveblog: Venom

"Beaten to death in a gutter." -Rick Remender on the fate of Pat Mulligan, Toxin's former host. "It took place off panel, but Blackheart killed him to acquire the symbiote."
"I think everybody responded well to Anti-Venom, and it was cool, but a lot of the symbiotes have become too sympathetic. We wanted to give Venom his own Venom. You've got Carnage out there, but we wanted one more. Eddie Brock as Toxin is a revenge-fueled nightmare monster." -Rick Remender

This pretty much sums it up. It's probably the last time I will ever read anything concerning Rick Remender. It made me think back to a lot of things and that opened my eyes. Now, I have the irresistible urge to take all my issues of Uncanny X-Force, Venom and Secret Avengers and to throw them in the trash, because that's exactly what he is doing with all of our beloved characters. Don't believe me? Then read on! (ps: If you are lazy, just go to the CONCLUSION)

(WARNING: There may be some spoilers below)

Uncanny X-Force

The reason why I started reading his other books. It's really a great series but some things bugged me ever since the beginning.

  • In the first arc (The Apocalypse Solution), Apocalypse is reincarnated in the form of a kid... Yeah, I get that it's a book about a hit squad but to use a character who was never written to his full potential in 616 and transform him into a kid just to kill him off for shock value was cheap. Then, there's the odd reactions of the characters to this situation: Wolverine (and even Deadpool!) who didn't want to kill the boy when it was already too late because he was fully endoctrined, and the stupid idea of Fantomex with the cloning of kid Apocalypse. Taking the risk of cloning the threat that he just ended just to prove his point about the Nature vs. Nurture theory (or to ease his conscience is more like it) is probably one of the stupidest thing that I ever read. And now that they did this and introduced Genesis, we will probably never see the real Apocalypse again.
  • There's no denying that The Dark Angel Saga was really a great read, but at what cost? I admit that all this story with Archangel and the death of Warren at the end was really wonderful (of all the recent deaths, it was probably one of the most beautiful along The Death of Spider-Man in the Ultimate Universe) but it's sad to think that a character with all this history is definitely gone and was replaced by some sort of clone who acts like an angel. Sadly, it doesn't end here because a lot of secondary characters didn't have the same treatment as Warren. Nearly all the things that people liked in the Age of Apocalypse Universe were destroyed, wiped out in a horrible way: Weapon X as the new Apocalypse, Bobby Drake as a traitor, nearly all of these X-Men killed and the last two depowered... Sure, AoA Nightcrawler joined the team and yeah, it's a really cool character but his very existence in 616 means that the chances of seeing our Nightcrawler return are almost non-existent (similarly to what happened with AoA Blink and the defunct Exiles Mimic who are now in comic book limbo while Marvel is trying to tweak their 616 counterparts).
  • The Otherworld storyline was an odd one for me. I admit that I never had the chance to read a Captain Britain or Excalibur comic before (but I will probably do so when I will have more time) but I thought it was pretty lackluster (and the art wasn't great but that's an other story). And from the little I know about the Captain Britain mythos and what I've read online, it seems that Remender changed quite a lot of things which will probably upset some fans. It was still pretty confusing to me and I found the ending to be quite disturbing, way more than in The Apocalypse Solution.

Venom

I was excited about this series since it was announced and The Amazing Spider-Man #654.1 proved me that the concept could work. The first issue didn't disappoint me and the first twelve issues were pure awesomeness, nothing more to say about them. Sadly, what happened next really disappointed me.

The Circle of Four storyline was a huge step back. I know that Remender wasn't the only writer working on it but some characters really seemed off (like X-23 and the "New" Ghost Rider for example) and when I was reading it, I couldn't help but think that it was all unnecessary because it didn't feel like the same book anymore. The interactions between Rulk and Venom were interesting but that's the only thing that I enjoyed in this arc.

But the worst part is what he did with Toxin and Eddie Brock, he destroyed all I ever liked about these characters:

  • Toxin was really an underused character with a lot of potential and when I say "Toxin", I'm talking about Patrick Mulligan and his childish but deadly symbiote. The character faded into comic book limbo and it's a real shame. I always hoped that a good writer could see all this potential and make this character shine. Seeing what Remender did with Venom, I had high expectations but when I read the piece of dialogue with Blackheart about the Toxin symbiote, I couldn't believe it. Killing Patrick Mulligan off panel, "Beaten to death in a gutter." That's one of the most infuriating things that he ever did (but not the only one, sadly) and killing him was really unnecessary. If he really wanted to use the Toxin symbiote this bad, he could've left things vague, and another writer could still use that chance to write about the character. I don't know, something like "they left him for dead after stealing his symbiote and killing his wife but he might have survived". That could be enough to make him a Punisher-like character who will do whatever is necessary to save Toxin, go after the bad symbiotes like Carnage and beat the crap out of Blackheart (way more credible than what Remender did with Eddie in my opinion).
  • Eddie Brock... Probably one of the characters who suffered the most because of Remender. He had a lot of potential as Anti-Venom (even if the writers didn't see it) and I didn't understand why Dan Slott depowered him following Spider-Island but I guess that he didn't have much choice in the matter: Remender wanted to use the character so what happened kind of makes sense now, sadly. Eddie was the first Venom and one of the best hosts for the symbiote which made him into an awesome villain/anti-hero. After some time, people got tired and he wasn't Venom anymore. When he became Anti-Venom, that was just awesome but the writers didn't use him at his full potential and except for his mini-series and some cameos, nothing really happened with him until Spider-Island and its aftermath. That's when Remender ruined the character for me. He made him into a homicidal maniac who didn't mind killing symbiote hosts, innocent or not (Scott Washington is another character who clearly didn't deserve this fate).

In Venom #17, Eddie Brock was turned into the new Toxin against his will. And the only thing in his mind is "Kill.... VENOM!" *sigh* How original! Even if the whole appeal of the real Toxin was the fact that it was one of the few symbiotes who wasn't really bad (and who was educated by Patrick Mulligan). And Eddie Brock was way past the point of being a mindless killing machine, he was a damn good anti-hero as Anti-Venom (only killing criminals) and finally became a real hero in Spider-Island.

It's a huge step back for these characters and for this series in general. For me, this story ended after the twelfth issue.

Secret Avengers

At the time it was announced that Remender was taking over this book, I was still willing to give him a chance. I still regret it.

Three issue in and he killed Eric O'Grady, the Irredeemable Ant-Man. WTF! I still buyed the following issues to see what this was all about, it couldn't be true, it just couldn't. At the end of the next issue we see him alive and well, which is strange because he was just beaten to death! In the last issue of this arc, in the last few panels, we finally discover the truth: Eric O'Grady was dead all along and was replaced by one of the bad guys...

O'Grady was not a regular superhero, far from it. It was a jerk but a lovable jerk. He tried his best to be a true hero and when he was finally on the path to becoming one, Remender just discarded all this character development and just killed him off.

That's definitely the worst thing that he ever did, the most infuriating and probably my breaking point.

Conclusion

Here it is, True Believers! The conclusion to my terrific rant. If you had enough willpower to read it in its integrality, then you truly deserve a Green Lantern ring. If not, I understand because just looking at it makes me tired ;p

Anyway, my real problem with Rick Remender is that he just doesn't care about the characters he writes about. 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!

I wouldn't have any problem with it if it wasn't for the fact that his books are in continuity, in the main Marvel Universe! I read the books in 616 because it's entertaining, I love a lot of these characters and even with the more serious books, I can still care about them without fearing that they will all die in meaningless ways. If I wanted something like that, I'd be re-reading The Walking Dead or the Ultimate Universe comics. People are often complaining because a lot of characters die only to be resurrected some months later, that doesn't mean that they want great characters with a lot of potential to be killed off permanently.

Now, I understand that a lot of people love his work, it's a really great writer who can write awesome stories. But his habit of ruining every single character I care about is just too much for me. I read comics because I love the stories but also the characters and with all he has done, some of his victims will probably never be able to be brought back.

#1 Posted by ReVamp (22865 posts) - - Show Bio

I like Rememder. Never had any particular love for O'Grady, but I loved Warren.

#2 Posted by SC (12893 posts) - - Show Bio

I find Remender overrated. I like him, but yeah. In order for me to enjoy him I have to forget everything I know about a characters continuity or characterization and pretend I am watching cartoon versions. Reading his understandings of characters way back put me on this path way back (oh and nice write up)  

Moderator Online
#3 Posted by Billy Batson (57905 posts) - - Show Bio

Haven't read anything by Remender myself yet but I'm interested in his work.
BB

#4 Posted by Renchamp (2333 posts) - - Show Bio

I like Remender because he's willing to stretch things. I hate static characters that stay the same for the sake of protecting the fans. In addition, Deadpool actually makes sense in Remender's hands. He isn't some slapstick lunatic but the crazed killer he was always meant to be. Remender isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but he is so fun to read.

Moderator
#5 Posted by saoakden (1034 posts) - - Show Bio

I recently became a fan of Remender and I do enhoy his work. I'll admit that in the current books some well known or somewhat known characters have suffered. But it makes the story more interesting. I mean in the Dark Angel Saga, I think everyone knew Warren was going to change one way or another.

I'll admit, I did start to wonder what ever happen to Patrick and Hybrid. Zeb Wells did hint something happen to Hybrid in Carnage U.S.A., I don't think he actually said it but you can see in the story. Sad part is weather we like it or not some characters have to change at somepoint. I did find it interesting that Eddie Brock went from hero to a dude hunting down symbiotes. To me he became a Symbiote Punisher. Still, I wish Toxin and Hybrid were used a little more often.

#6 Posted by The_Tree (7250 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah. I'm pretty upset about Eric and Toxin.

#7 Posted by Dernman (14884 posts) - - Show Bio

There were to many symbiote Characters out there and to many of them were good guys. I'm glad he's getting rid of them. 
Also everybody has to remember this is all leading up to a major story hinted at in earlier issues of Venom and Carnage USA. 
 
@saoakden: Hybrid is gone. The symbiotes were split up and given to members of a special forces team..It was hinted at that something bad happened to  Scott Washington to get them.

#8 Posted by TheAnnihilator (1056 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#9 Posted by Avenging-X-Bolt (12848 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm glad that O'grady is gone but I'm gonna miss Toxin.

#10 Posted by X35 (5981 posts) - - Show Bio

They book's called Venom not Toxin.

#11 Edited by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#12 Posted by Mycroftian (109 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the current "KILL VENOM" thing Eddie/Toxin's going through might be a temporary thing. . . Eddie certainly got over the KILL SPIDER-MAN thing eventually, didn't he? I agree that it's kind of a shame that he's killed some characters who still had potential to go places, but I don't think it amounts to too big a deal, since any other author who wants to use the character will just resurrect them. Obviously this is more true of some characters than others - Apocalypse is practically guaranteed to come back in an adult form at some point, while O'Grady is a bit less probable. I personally do like that he's willing to let characters die - it's something we could use more of in comics - though I sympathize with your point of view here. More definitely could have been done with Toxin.

Even though Remender seems to think he's killed Pat Mulligan off, he never clearly depicted it - it's still very possible for someone with an interest in the character to write him back to life. Toxin's case isn't quite hopeless.

#13 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@Mycroftian: Thanks, you made some very good points and I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Maybe some people will think that I overreacted a little and maybe it's true, probably because those were some of the characters that I really cared about. Sadly, I know that a lot of people were confronted to the same situation when some of their favorite characters ended like this, it's just that I didn't expect it to happen with a good writer like Remender. At first, I really loved his work and I thought that it was awesome even if some things bugged me but when he started to make some questionable decisions, I decided to take a step back and look at it from a broader perspective. That's when I realised that after all he has done, even if some of his stories were good, it just wasn't worth the cost.

People will probably continue to buy his books as long as they enjoy his work and I understand that but I wanted to express my opinion on the subject and make them know how I feel about it. I think that in a situation like this, even if there's only a few people who are upset or feel that something isn't quite right, they should tell it to everyone because otherwise no one will pay attention.

#14 Posted by Lvenger (19048 posts) - - Show Bio

Toxin was such a great character. The fact he's ended up dead off panel really annoys me now. Remander usually is a brilliant writer but killing off an unorthodox favourite of mine is bugging me a great deal now.

#15 Posted by The_Peter_Cosmic (401 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#16 Posted by djotaku (441 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#17 Posted by Superguy0009e (2265 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#18 Posted by Time_Phantom (522 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#19 Posted by TheAnnihilator (1056 posts) - - Show Bio

@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).

#20 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#21 Posted by TheAnnihilator (1056 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#22 Edited by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#23 Posted by zackattack529 (1404 posts) - - Show Bio

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....

#24 Posted by Worbbitt (37 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#25 Edited by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

Right.

Remender made Eddie into a homicidal maniac.

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

#26 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#27 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#28 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#29 Edited by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#30 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#31 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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

#32 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#33 Posted by NyxEquitis (401 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#34 Posted by ReVamp (22865 posts) - - Show Bio

Still of the same opinion.

#35 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#36 Posted by NyxEquitis (401 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#37 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#38 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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

#39 Posted by NyxEquitis (401 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#40 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@NyxEquitis: Agreed!

#41 Posted by TheAnnihilator (1056 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#42 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#43 Posted by TheAnnihilator (1056 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#44 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#45 Posted by greenlucario (212 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

#46 Posted by daak1212 (7901 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

#47 Posted by hectorsquall (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

@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 :(

#48 Posted by htb106 (1641 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#49 Posted by venomoushatred1001 (12334 posts) - - Show Bio

@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:

#50 Edited by InnerVenom123 (29499 posts) - - Show Bio

@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.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.