Why didn't Venom just get an ongoing in the 90s?

[DKR]

I mean, they released tons of minis that were released back-to-back over the 90s, wouldn't it have been simpler for Marvel to just give him his own ongoing title instead of just a bunch of minis?

[Schmed]

I mean, they released tons of minis that were released back-to-back over the 90s, wouldn't it have been simpler for Marvel to just give him his own ongoing title instead of just a bunch of minis?


Without doing any research on this I will venture a guess.

Spider-Man comics featuring Venom had great sales, but Marvel probably wanted to get their feet in the water before giving Venom his own ongoing, so we got minis in which the sales probably petered off at the end due to poor writing in the series, subsequently never warranting an ongoing.

Sound good?

That or just not enough story for an ongoing...

[Idjit]

Without doing any research on this I will venture a guess.

Spider-Man comics featuring Venom had great sales, but Marvel probably wanted to get their feet in the water before giving Venom his own ongoing, so we got minis in which the sales probably petered off at the end due to poor writing in the series, subsequently never warranting an ongoing.

Sound good?

That or just not enough story for an ongoing...

Actually, Marvel milked Venom a whole lot since people liked him, I'm not sure why he never got an ongoing...

[Tom Daylight]

Those minis actually ran back-to-back, one immediately after the other. There wasn't a month during that period where there wasn't a Venom comic, so it was effectively an ongoing monthly (until they stopped). I suppose they just liked to put out a new Venom #1 every few months. Or maybe they just felt nervous about putting out an ongoing series with a villain in the title.

[Alan2099]

I'm betting it had something to do with them being able to have a new #1 issue every few months.

[Evil-Spidey]

Then why didn't they do that for all the other characters?

[Crimson]

#1's where selling well inthe 90's. Why have 1 when you can have 5? ha

[David Walton]

I'm betting it had something to do with them being able to have a new #1 issue every few months.

I'd agree. I'd also argue that there wasn't enough depth to Venom's character to justify a monthly, but he could sustain several mini-series. You write a serial series you have to come up with filler whether there's story or not. But if you stick with mini-series you can just publish as writers come along with good pitches.

[Tom Daylight]

I'd agree. I'd also argue that there wasn't enough depth to Venom's character to justify a monthly, but he could sustain several mini-series. You write a serial series you have to come up with filler whether there's story or not. But if you stick with mini-series you can just publish as writers come along with good pitches.

Except of course they published it every month. But granted, it gave them a good excuse to switch the creative teams around.

[Ronin II]

As far as I know there was 60 issues worth of those minis. They were telling a huge story and one followed the other. So, basically had a 60 issue long ongoing composed of 10 or so minis.

[Jim Thompson]

I'd agree. I'd also argue that there wasn't enough depth to Venom's character to justify a monthly, but he could sustain several mini-series. You write a serial series you have to come up with filler whether there's story or not. But if you stick with mini-series you can just publish as writers come along with good pitches.They actually kind of took the same approach to the character they are using with Spider-Man right now -- rotating creative teams for an ongoing narrative.

[RDMacQ]

I think it might have been because while Venom was popular enough to warrant a spinoff, he didn't have much going for him in terms of personality and backdrop to warrant an ongoing. Plus, putting Venom in another series made it harder for him to be a Spider-Man bad guy. Also, the creators probably didn't want the fans to become too sympathetic to Venom. So with the ongoing mini-series, it allowed the option to cancel the series at any point if they wanted to bring Venom back around to being just a Spider-Man bad guy or if his popularity waned.

[Mister Mets]

They actually kind of took the same approach to the character they are using with Spider-Man right now -- rotating creative teams for an ongoing narrative.
The lack of a consistent creative team is probably the big reason.

I do remember you could subscribe to "Venom" at one point in the late 90s.

[Jim Thompson]

The lack of a consistent creative team is probably the big reason.

I do remember you could subscribe to "Venom" at one point in the late 90s.Yeah, now that you mention it, I remember that, too. Venom was hugely popular back then, not without reason perhaps. But yeah, there was very little consistency to the creative teams that worked with the character.

[RDMacQ]

Yeah, now that you mention it, I remember that, too. Venom was hugely popular back then, not without reason perhaps. But yeah, there was very little consistency to the creative teams that worked with the character.

Might be that there was no creator that wanted to tackle the character for any extended period. His immense popularity may have created some backlash from the creative forces at Marvel.

[Jim Thompson]

Might be that there was no creator that wanted to tackle the character for any extended period. His immense popularity may have created some backlash from the creative forces at Marvel.Didn't for Wolverine -- can't imagine it would have for Venom.

[RDMacQ]

Didn't for Wolverine -- can't imagine it would have for Venom.

Wolverine was already an established character before Venom though. Plus, his popularity was built up over a long period. Yes, he was overexposed in the nineties's, but he was used very sparingly in the eighties. Unlike Venom who just seemed to explode onto the marketplace. In addition, Wolverine is more heroic than Venom. Maybe the creators at Marvel at the time didn't feel like working on a book featuring a protagonist who is essentially a psychopath with few redeeming features.

[Jim Thompson]

Wolverine was already an established character before Venom though. Plus, his popularity was built up over a long period. Yes, he was overexposed in the nineties's, but he was used very sparingly in the eighties. Unlike Venom who just seemed to explode onto the marketplace. In addition, Wolverine is more heroic than Venom. Maybe the creators at Marvel at the time didn't feel like working on a book featuring a protagonist who is essentially a psychopath with few redeeming features.I don't know -- a lot of those mini-series portrayed Venom as something of an anti-hero, in the spirit of Wolverine.

[RDMacQ]

I don't know -- a lot of those mini-series portrayed Venom as something of an anti-hero, in the spirit of Wolverine.

I think Wolverine was often portrayed a little more heroically than Venom, though. Venom was a character that never left his villainous roots, he just shifted his target away from Spider-Man. Plus, Venom never really seemed conflicted about his actions, unlike Wolverine who was often trying to rise above his lesser instincts and be a better person.

[Jim Thompson]

I think Wolverine was often portrayed a little more heroically than Venom, though. Venom was a character that never left his villainous roots, he just shifted his target away from Spider-Man. Plus, Venom never really seemed conflicted about his actions, unlike Wolverine who was often trying to rise above his lesser instincts and be a better person.Venom became fixated on the protection of innocents as time progressed. Take his pathology in regards to Spider-Man away, and he was basically just another one of Marvel's bad-boy 90s heroes, I think.

[RDMacQ]

Venom became fixated on the protection of innocents as time progressed. Take his pathology in regards to Spider-Man away, and he was basically just another one of Marvel's bad-boy 90s heroes, I think.

But his fixation on innocents still stemmed from his obsession with Spider-Man. In that he believed Spider-Man to be the "villain," and himself as the "hero." So his desire to save innocents was more about his own warped view of the world. The other anti-heroes like Wolverine and Punisher at least acknowledged that what they were doing wasn't noble, but they felt it had to be done. Venom was convinced he was right, through and through.

[Jim Thompson]

But his fixation on innocents still stemmed from his obsession with Spider-Man. In that he believed Spider-Man to be the "villain," and himself as the "hero." So his desire to save innocents was more about his own warped view of the world. The other anti-heroes like Wolverine and Punisher at least acknowledged that what they were doing wasn't noble, but they felt it had to be done. Venom was convinced he was right, through and through.Not sure how that would take him out of the realm of being an anti-hero.

[RDMacQ]

Not sure how that would take him out of the realm of being an anti-hero.

But it would explain why there would be more interest in a Wolverine ongoing than a Venom ongoing.

[Jim Thompson]

But it would explain why there would be more interest in a Wolverine ongoing than a Venom ongoing.Was there bigger interest in Wolverine in the 90s than Venom?

[RDMacQ]

Was there bigger interest in Wolverine in the 90s than Venom?

I say there was about equal interest, but Wolverine still has an ongoing series published today, whereas Venom is a bit of a mess of a character at this point.

[Jim Thompson]

I say there was about equal interest, but Wolverine still has an ongoing series published today, whereas Venom is a bit of a mess of a character at this point.Well, and Venom isn't a member of the X-Men. :biggrin:

[David Walton]

They actually kind of took the same approach to the character they are using with Spider-Man right now -- rotating creative teams for an ongoing narrative.

You're right. I hadn't thought to make the comparison. Honestly, I think this approach works much better with second-tier characters. I would really love to see two monthly Spidey titles with a consistent team right now.


Might be that there was no creator that wanted to tackle the character for any extended period. His immense popularity may have created some backlash from the creative forces at Marvel.

Or it could be that there really wasn't enough to Venom to interest writers for extended arcs. It seemed to be more about the situations Venom would find himself in than moving any kind of story forward.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[Jim Thompson]

You're right. I hadn't thought to make the comparison. Honestly, I think this approach works much better with second-tier characters. I would really love to see two monthly Spidey titles with a consistent team right now. I think that'd have more appeal to me, too.

[RDMacQ]

Or it could be that there really wasn't enough to Venom to interest writers for extended arcs. It seemed to be more about the situations Venom would find himself in than moving any kind of story forward.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

That is true. Venom didn't really have much of a supporting case or any roots to set down, which are what I think are necessary for any ongoing comic. In addition, the creators probably didn't want to develop Venom's character too much or make him too sympathetic, since they might want to use him as a straight up villain later.

[David Walton]

I think that'd have more appeal to me, too.

There's something to be said for the kind of momentum a single creative team can build.

One thing that really hurt the Clone Saga was having writers pass the baton. That meant that they were killing momentum and picking up plot threads that didn't necessarily play to their interests or strengths.

[Jim Thompson]

There's something to be said for the kind of momentum a single creative team can build. It's not impossible, but ensemble pieces, it seems to me, are a lot less likely to get viewed as being magnificent works. They often turn into something resembling "art by committee."

[David Walton]

It not impossible, but ensemble pieces, it seems to me, are a lot less likely to get viewed as being magnificent works. They often turn into something resembling "art by committee."

I generally prefer writers in constant contact who nonetheless have their own sandbox to play in.

If a writer is interested in, say, Glory Grant, it's going to be harder to generate reader interest if they can only work with her every few months. Whereas you see the kind of work a guy like Gerry Conway (master of subplots) can do with the supporting cast during his WOS and SSM runs.

[Jim Thompson]

I generally prefer writers in constant contact who nonetheless have their own sandbox to play in.

If a writer is interested in, say, Glory Grant, it's going to be harder to generate reader interest if they can only work with her every few months. Whereas you see the kind of work a guy like Gerry Conway (master of subplots) can do with the supporting cast during his WOS and SSM runs.I don't think one has to look any further than the pages of Captain America right now to see how one writer with a vision can tell a compelling, commercially successful story.

[RDMacQ]

I generally prefer writers in constant contact who nonetheless have their own sandbox to play in.

If a writer is interested in, say, Glory Grant, it's going to be harder to generate reader interest if they can only work with her every few months. Whereas you see the kind of work a guy like Gerry Conway (master of subplots) can do with the supporting cast during his WOS and SSM runs.

Just look at members of the current supporting cast. Someone like Norah Winters only seems to get development when Joe Kelly is on the title. JJJ Sr got most of his development under Mark Waid's pen. It is, like you said, hard to build momentum on a character when the creators are passing the baton on a book since they will probably want to do their own thing rather than continue someone else's story.

The passing the baton approach worked better for Venom, since there really was only one character to keep track of, and he could have a different status quo each mini-series. Creators didn't have to worry much about keeping track of various plot lines since it was just Brock and his symbiote.

[RDMacQ]

I don't think one has to look any further than the pages of Captain America right now to see how one writer with a vision can tell a compelling, commercially successful story.

Or Green Lantern. Geoff John's is getting some help from Pete Tomasi, but it really is his vision for the Green Lantern franchise.

[Jim Thompson]

Or Green Lantern. Geoff John's is getting some help from Pete Tomasi, but it really is his vision for the Green Lantern franchise.Or Morrison over in Batman.

[flashdisk]

Were there sales estimates during those times?

Was the fact that Venom only had minis the cause of his loss in popularity? It was stated previously that writers didn't have to take the time to connect plots and story lines together.

Maybe overall readers ended up bored of one shots and wanted a direction for the character. I think I read somewhere that Venom seemed to have moving from good guy to bad guy a lot of the time. Was this caused by the lack of direction, and because he ran mostly in minis?

Also maybe with the minis, supporting cast members are usually forgotten.


And now Eddy Brock is antivenom. Is it going to end up the same way as in the 90's?

[Jim Thompson]

And now Eddy Brock is antivenom. Is it going to end up the same way as in the 90's?Geez, I hope not. I think Venom suffered from over-exposure in the 90s. Hate to see the same thing happen again.

[Idjit]

Yeah, now that you mention it, I remember that, too. Venom was hugely popular back then, not without reason perhaps. But yeah, there was very little consistency to the creative teams that worked with the character.

Like how ASM is now.

[ShaggyB]

I mean, they released tons of minis that were released back-to-back over the 90s, wouldn't it have been simpler for Marvel to just give him his own ongoing title instead of just a bunch of minis?

I often wondered that... made me mad. my LCS would give discounts based on the number of monthlies you subscribed to.... minis dont count... so i got venom monthly as a mini... and that always made me mad.

[Tom Daylight]

Might be that there was no creator that wanted to tackle the character for any extended period. His immense popularity may have created some backlash from the creative forces at Marvel.

Are you crazy? There are people who would do anything to work on an ongoing series regardless of what character it was about. That's a regular, stable job right there.

[Aziz Abbasi]

Venom is not good enough a character who started as a villain as DeadPool appeared to have
*DeadPool is a nut with several backstories and one reason for having his skin deteriorate, but he does have a character to explore
*Venom is/are a symbiote and a conflicted guy between killing or not, between being criminal or not, and he goes psychopath

I sure showed a slight different between those two that can make one reason that Venom desereved an ongoing, I'm glad they didn't cause having his appearances in Spider-Man were enough. Slimy tongue is disgusting

[Burning_Pumpkin]

Cos he was actually a s**t character?

[Venom]

I always wondered why Venom didn't get an ongoing in the 90s myself. But as other people have already stated on this thread it could be down to Marvel wanting a rotating creative team, not wanting Venom to be too sympathetic, releasing a new #1 every few months etc.

Although some writers did two or three Venom minis like Carl Potts and Howard Mackie. Larry Hama wrote seven of the Venom minis so you could in a way say that he was the main writer for Venom during the 90s.

[RDMacQ]

Are you crazy? There are people who would do anything to work on an ongoing series regardless of what character it was about. That's a regular, stable job right there.

But that doesn't mean that those people will be passionate about that job. And that's going to affect the quality of the work they produce.

[Karl Cook]

I may be wrong here but I recall reading an interview in Wizard magazine in the mid-'90s (y'know, back when it had a little bit of credibility...), where it was stated that Venom never took off as a solo character.
The general gist of the piece was that Venom was an updated version of The Punisher. I suppose the similarities are there: they both kill criminals to protect innocent people, they both have a black costume with a white emblem on their chest and they both don't sell nearly as many books as Marvel would like.

[Karl Cook]

Double post, please delete.

[RDMacQ]

I may be wrong here but I recall reading an interview in Wizard magazine in the mid-'90s (y'know, back when it had a little bit of credibility...), where it was stated that Venom never took off as a solo character.
The general gist of the piece was that Venom was an updated version of The Punisher. I suppose the similarities are there: they both kill criminals to protect innocent people, they both have a black costume with a white emblem on their chest and they both don't sell nearly as many books as Marvel would like.

But I don't think that Venom was just an updated version of the Punisher. The Punisher at the very least had a sympathetic origin story- we may agree with his methods, but we can understand why he would go down that path. With Venom, not so much. So saying that they are similar because they have similar costumes is drawing a bit too much of a fine comparison. That's like saying Superman and Spider-Man are similar because they have similar colored costumes and both work at newspapers. Besides, at one point the Punisher had four different monthly titles so it wasn't like that he wasn't selling enough to warrant his own series. So whoever made that argument may have been a little misguided in their assessment of the two characters.

[ViciousX]

With the exception of David Michelinie, I have never read an interview with a writer where they state their like for Venom. Most writers over at Marvel really, really dislike the character.

So, I doubt any writer wanted to to write the character for too long.

[Tom Daylight]

With the exception of David Michelinie, I have never read an interview with a writer where they state their like for Venom. Most writers over at Marvel really, really dislike the character.

So, I doubt any writer wanted to to write the character for too long.

Strange how Carl Potts, Howard Mackie, Evan Skolneck and particularly Larry Hama kept coming back for more, then, huh?

Regardless, Marvel could well have kept it going as an ongoing series that switched its creative team every five minutes - it didn't do Cable any harm starting out, did it?

I imagine what really happened was that the first six-issue miniseries was intended to be the only one, and then Marvel saw the sales and said "quick, let's do another one", carried on recommissioning it like that, and it never occurred to them to do a straightforward ongoing series instead.

[ViciousX]

Strange how Carl Potts, Howard Mackie, Evan Skolneck and particularly Larry Hama kept coming back for more, then, huh?

It's called a paycheck.

[matthewaos]

It really is strange that Venom never had an ongoing since his minis were published back to back. I wonder if it would have done more damage or not to the character.