Venom Movie 3 3

[1Cool]

1 hour ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

Is that the artist prints?  Look too big for books but I wonder how someone would do selling comics before a comic mic movie.

Edited October 4, 2018 by 1Cool

[KEY ISSUES Comics]

It was better than expected. I wasn't expecting much, and I'm not a fan of the Venom/symbiote characters, so I really cannot tell if it's at all faithful to the comic book version. But as a movie, it offers nothing new. I can say that the special effects seemed rather cheap in comparison to other Marvel movies.

I did enjoy the interactions between Eddie and Venom, but other than that I was indifferent most of the time. Long car chases and busy fight scenes are not my cup of coffee.

Could have been better. Could have been worse.

[ADAMANTIUM]

1 hour ago, 1Cool said:

Is that the artist prints?  Look too big for books but I wonder how someone would do selling comics before a comic mic movie.

I won a trivia question before the movie started and won a shirt, also stayed afterwards and got a free autographed poster...

As far as new to the cinema maybe not much to add, but it was a different but nice way to approach introducing venom. In my humble opinion with it not going on laurels of Spiderman, it brings more questions than answers about venom, but is still a complete movie....

[Azkaban]

I'll being seeing it tomorrow with some friends after work, will report back when I get home.

[PunisherPunisherPunisher]

Wow what a awesome movie, taking away all the talk about spiderman it was brilliant.

Tom Hardy killed it, absolutely smashed it outta the ball park

End of credit scenes gave me a Woody, bring on Part 2 

 

[Hawkman2]

Cotdamn was this mess terrible
 

I imagine if Tom Hardy wasn't in it, this movie would be savaged and dead on arrival. Sony, Amy Pascal, and Avi Arad should be ashamed of themselves for putting out something with little effort.  Say what you want, but let's be real, almost every diehard comic book fan out there knew that this mess wasn't going to work the moment we learned that Spiderman wasn't in it. They lost the goodwill of whoever was leftover after that when they changed their tone and made it PG-13 instead of hard R. In their defense, I think they knew they didn't have a Logan/Deadpool on their hands, so they toned it down to at least pad the numbers with that under 18 ticket money. We can only hope that this tanks hard enough so that Sony has to give up on their Spiderman-less Spider-verse, and maybe sell off the rights to the better villains back to Disney/Marvel, who actually knows what to do with them.

[Jaydogrules]

Updated tracking:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/box-office-venom-deliver-57m-65m-a-star-is-born-could-cross-30m-1148793

-J.

[jason4]

I really hope the critics are wrong. Seeing with my son this weekend. If it sucks and I waste my money I’m going to hate Sony. They should give it all to disney

[1Cool]

RT is back down to 28%.  

[theCapraAegagrus]

16 hours ago, MGsimba77 said:

http://www.businessinsider.com/venom-rated-pg-13-so-that-character-can-meet-spider-man-in-future-2018-9

Meanwhile I think it's a bit of an overreaction to be obsessed over one line in one trailer. It's just a line in the movie. Why let it influence your outlook of the whole thing?

I'm just withholding any objections I have until I see the movie and/or learn of any future plans they have with possible sequels. If I think it blows I'll be all over Sony like flies on dog s**t! Don't have any positive or negative preconceptions. Just waiting till I see. 

1. I haven't overreacted to anything. I'm not obsessed with the "turd in the wind" line. It is a poor inclusion to an otherwise decent trailer, though. Someone wanted to push their POV on "comedy" and it fell 100% flat. Not a good sign when people are saying the movie seems heavily comedy-oriented.

2. It hasn't influenced my outlook on the entire Venom movie. That's such an obsessive overreaction to my comment(s) that I can't even dignify it with a retort.

3. I don't see how Sony can be planning any sequels when Marvel Studios will be taking over (hopefully) shortly. This movie won't do well enough or be good enough for the MCU to carry-on any additional solo ventures.

4. Trailers exist to garner hype. It's supposed to give potential audiences a good insight into what the movie will 'speak to', look like, and "feel". If it doesn't give you any preconceptions for the property then i'm not sure why you'd bother watching them. Just go to movies based off of their titles, I guess.

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 hour ago, 1Cool said:

RT is back down to 28%.  

Interesting it`s upcoming competition the Halloween remake got a 85% on RT.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/halloween_2018

Halloween 2018 is the opposite of Venom in that it had no embargo and let people review it early as it won't hit theatres until October 19th.

This tells me Venom might only have about 2 weeks shelf life to make some good box office cash.

Venom`s budget was about 100 million. Now interesting to see how profitable it will be.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by ComicConnoisseur

[ComicConnoisseur]

3 hours ago, jason4 said:

I really hope the critics are wrong. Seeing with my son this weekend. If it sucks and I waste my money I’m going to hate Sony. They should give it all to disney

Yeah, I am seeing it Tuesday or Wednesday. I still expect it to be a fun movie. I am going in with the mindset it`s a popcorn movie and not a Schindler's List. Usually this strategy works. lol.

Edited October 4, 2018 by ComicConnoisseur

[fantastic_four]

8 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Venom`s budget was about 100 million.

This is half of the reason I really never understood why Sony was so bullish on a Venom movie.  Blade's budget was $45 million, but it's far easier to render Wesley Snipes on screen with a sword cutting in occasional vampire CGI shots than it is a fully-CGI character like Venom, so you knew from the start they couldn't do this character cheaply.  Yet the potential income should have been projected to be roughly the same as a dark character like Blade who brought in $70 million in 1998 which translates to about $110 million when adjusted for 2018 dollars.  That's not a lot of meat on the bone for a profit on a Venom movie.

An effects-heavy character with minimal broad audience appeal has always seemed like the biggest risk in comics movies.  As a big fan of Venom I've always been glad they've been persisting like they have in trying to make it happen, but wow, I never understood it from a financial perspective.  

[Not A Clone]

10 hours ago, KEY ISSUES Comics said:

It was better than expected. I wasn't expecting much, and I'm not a fan of the Venom/symbiote characters, so I really cannot tell if it's at all faithful to the comic book version. But as a movie, it offers nothing new. I can say that the special effects seemed rather cheap in comparison to other Marvel movies.

I did enjoy the interactions between Eddie and Venom, but other than that I was indifferent most of the time. Long car chases and busy fight scenes are not my cup of coffee.

Could have been better. Could have been worse.

Looking forward to seeing it. Doesn't surprise me though that the special effects seemed cheap compared to a Marvel MCU movie. Sony's Marvel movies have been mostly . But, I like Venom so I'll check it out. With the current Venom book having changed so much of what we thought we knew about the symbiotes, I'm sure the movie won't come close to matching the comics. But they usually don't anyways.

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 minutes ago, Not A Clone said:

Looking forward to seeing it. Doesn't surprise me though that the special effects seemed cheap compared to a Marvel MCU movie. Sony's Marvel movies have been mostly . But, I like Venom so I'll check it out. With the current Venom book having changed so much of what we thought we knew about the symbiotes, I'm sure the movie won't come close to matching the comics. But they usually don't anyways.

One thing about Sony Marvel movies is they actually were quite good like ASM 1 and 2 with Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi, so the question is how did Sony fall from making good super heroes movies or is it that the Kevin Feige Marvel movies keep growing to get better, and Sony just got stagnated in mediocrity?

I think we all will admit those first two Sony Tobey/Raimi Spider-Man movies were the best Spider-Man movies ever, but somehow since 2004 Sony hasn't gotten better and in fact has regressed at making super hero movies.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

13 minutes ago, Not A Clone said:

Looking forward to seeing it. Doesn't surprise me though that the special effects seemed cheap compared to a Marvel MCU movie. Sony's Marvel movies have been mostly . But, I like Venom so I'll check it out. With the current Venom book having changed so much of what we thought we knew about the symbiotes, I'm sure the movie won't come close to matching the comics. But they usually don't anyways.

Also that was the main fault with the DC movies BvS and Justice League. Their cgi looked cheap or fake compared to Marvel`s. I remember Doomsday looked cheap and it stood out.

Maybe these movie studios should hire the guys who do the Marvel special effects or find a team like them?

Edited October 4, 2018 by ComicConnoisseur

[theCapraAegagrus]

4 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

One thing about Sony Marvel movies is they actually were quite good like ASM 1 and 2 with Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi, so the question is how did Sony fall from making good super heroes movies or is it that the Kevin Feige Marvel movies keep growing to get better, and Sony just got stagnated in mediocrity?

I think we all will admit those first two Sony Tobey/Raimi Spider-Man movies were the best Spider-Man movies ever, but somehow since 2004 Sony hasn't gotten better and in fact has regressed at making super hero movies.

 

The Amazing Spider-Man 1 was really good IMO. I might like it better than Spider-Man 2.

[Not A Clone]

2 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

One thing about Sony Marvel movies is they actually were quite good like ASM 1 and 2 with Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi, so the question is how did Sony fall from making good super heroes movies or is it that the Kevin Feige Marvel movies keep growing to get better, and Sony just got stagnated in mediocrity?

I think we all will admit those first two Sony Tobey/Raimi Spider-Man movies were the best Spider-Man movies ever, but somehow since 2004 Sony hasn't gotten better and in fact has regressed at making super hero movies.

 

Agreed on the McGuire ASM movies. I liked those. Didn't even hate 3 completely lol. They lost me on their next batch of Spidey movies. I couldn't even finish the first one. Awful. I own the second one & never opened it. 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 minute ago, Not A Clone said:

Agreed on the McGuire ASM movies. I liked those. Didn't even hate 3 completely lol. They lost me on their next batch of Spidey movies. I couldn't even finish the first one. Awful. I own the second one & never opened it. 

 

So at one time Sony could and did make good super hero movies, since then a huge disappointment. I wonder why the fall?

[fantastic_four]

The other thing is Sony has consistently proven for almost two decades they haven't the foggiest idea how to make a good superhero movie.  Spider-Man was great, Spider-Man 2 was monumentally epic, and Spider-Man 3 was OK.  But I give NO credit to them for that and ALL the credit to Sam Raimi, and everything wrong with Spider-Man 3 I blame on Sony.  Sony gave Raimi free reign on the first two movies, but they forced him to stick three villains into the third, one of which he fought back against and lost.  The result was a watering down of the franchise and the loss of the only good thing they had ever done in hiring Raimi.  Similar to the way the only good thing DC has done is to hire Christopher Nolan and later perhaps Patty Jenkins, the only good thing Sony ever did was to hire Raimi, and the worst thing they did was to chase him out of the franchise by taking control away from a director who was in the midst of some of the finest filmmaking we've ever seen in the genre.  I seethe every time I think about how badly Sony has managed to screw up Spider-Man with the way they handled Spider-Man 3.  

Amazing Spider-Man was OK, but it's universally accepted they didn't need to reboot the damn series with an origin re-telling.  ASM 2 was just not good.  Homecoming was fantastic, but obviously that's because Sony yielded control to Marvel, the best decision they've made in over a decade.  And I've been half-expecting Venom to be another example of them just having not the first damn clue how to make a superhero movie like all the other movie execs who've failed before them.  The unknown factor for me is the director; I'm unfamiliar with Ruben Fleischer's work.  I've consistently heard great things about Zombieland, but I still haven't seen it.

Any studio who picks a good director can make a good superhero film even if they have no idea how to do it themselves, but is Sony even still capable of letting that happen?  Or did they screw with Fleischer like they did with Raimi or ASM in dictating a reboot?    That's a more expanded version of what I said earlier--the best way for me to look at this is it's one step closer to Amy Pascal pulling her head out of her butt and handing production of these films back to Marvel Studios for however long Sony holds the rights to Spider-Man.