Venom Movie 3 3

[theCapraAegagrus]

2 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I think Carnage will keep the juice going.

The ultimate villian for Venom.

I can't watch another anti-hero/villain-turned-hero movie. It's lame.

[Comicopolis]

On 3/12/2019 at 5:12 PM, ComicConnoisseur said:

I liked it. It was fun and I want a sequel. I enjoyed it more than the Ant-Man movies and most of the X-Men movies.

Have you been replaced by a pod person?

[ComicConnoisseur]

7 minutes ago, Comicopolis said:

Have you been replaced by a pod person?

I thought it was fun. This is a Venom movie. Wasn't expecting a Shakespeare play. 

 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, ComicConnoisseur said:

I thought it was fun. This is a Venom movie. Wasn't expecting a Shakespeare play. 

 

 

Dang. I was. Was what why I didn't like it?

Is that why I liked The Avengers in 2012?

"Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?"

[Hawkman]

3 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

I can't watch another anti-hero/villain-turned-hero movie. It's lame.

You must be fun at parties. Jesus.

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 hours ago, Hawkman said:

You must be fun at parties. Jesus.

I am, actually.

How many villain-turned-hero movies can you stand? All of them?

I have a higher threshold for "entertainment". It can only be done so many times before it's boring (like, now). Let villains be villains.

It's not like Venom was a new concept. Loki has already gone back-and-forth so many times. Magneto, too. Venom offered nothing new to the genre.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwoPiece

[ComicConnoisseur]

Sorry for the double post,but I think this might actually fit in better here than the Joker thread(don't want to derail that).

My friend just pointed out to me that a certain segment of old time comic book fans were in an uproar that they made the Venom movie without Spider-Man, but that same certain segment of old time comic book fans don't really seem to care that much that Batman won't be in the Joker movie.

In other words it seems more of a big deal that Spider-Man wasn't in the Venom movie compared to Batman not being in this Joker movie.

Just an observation that I think we should ask why is it acceptable for Batman not to be in the Joker movie but not acceptable that Spider-Man wasn`t in the Venom movie?

Because let`s face it a lot of "venom" (no pun intended) is aimed at the Venom movie because Spidey wasn't in it.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

It's a valid observation, though.

You don't need a Batman to have a Joker.

Venom's continuity in comics is mostly predicated on being attached to, and then damning, Spider-Man.

I ditched my expectation for origin prior to the movie. IMO, lacking that connection did hurt the movie. You're talking about the all-time most well-known Marvel hero being "missing".

Most people that know about Venom know about his origin and power being predicated on Spider-Man's existence. The Joker has never needed Batman to exist.

You're also talking about an iconic independent villain vs a symbiote. All villains are not created equal. The Joker will always be a better and more-accepted premise.

The Joker is original. Venom is not.

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

It's a valid observation, though.

You don't need a Batman to have a Joker.

Venom's continuity in comics is mostly predicated on being attached to, and then damning, Spider-Man.

I ditched my expectation for origin prior to the movie. IMO, lacking that connection did hurt the movie. You're talking about the all-time most well-known Marvel hero being "missing".

Most people that know about Venom know about his origin and power being predicated on Spider-Man's existence. The Joker has never needed Batman to exist.

You're also talking about an iconic independent villain vs a symbiote. All villains are not created equal. The Joker will always be a better and more-accepted premise.

The Joker is original. Venom is not.

1. I don't think Venom needs Spider-Man to exist going forward. I suspect that a lot of the reason why people don't like the Venom movie is because Spidey wasn't in it. That`s what I think was the main bias for people not liking the Venom movie.

2. With Joker never needing Batman to exist I always thought differently after reading this.

 

3. With Venom and Joker being compared to villians I don't see it that way as Venom is an anti-hero now compared to the Joker who truly is a villian.

4. It definitely also will be interesting to see if Joker will in fact beat Venom at the box office. I think he could because like Venom he has a huge following.

5. We are comic book fans and it`s kind of fun to talk about this stuff. 

 

Joker vs. Venom.

Edited March 29, 2019 by ComicConnoisseur

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

1. I don't think Venom needs Spider-Man to exist going forward. I suspect that a lot of the reason why people don't like the Venom movie is because Spidey wasn't in it. That`s what I thing was the main bias for people not liking the Venom movie.

2. With Joker never needing Batman to exist I always thought differently after reading this.

3. With Venom and Joker being compared to villians I don't see it that way as Venom is an anti-hero now compared to the Joker who truly is a villian.

4. It definitely also will be interesting to see if Joker will in fact beat Venom at the box office. I think he could because like Venom he has a huge following.

You can think that - but Venom just isn't a good movie. When the main positive support for the movie is, "Tom Hardy" and "fun", then how can a franchise survive? Tom Hardy can only carry a movie so far. Marvel movies, and as Aquaman and Shazam have shown - Worlds of DC movies, are fun. Venom offers no separation to create a niche that those 2 can't deliver on. There's a certain relationship that Spider-Man delivers that makes any movie he's in draw attention. Outside of the Back-9 in Spider-Man 3, he's always made every movie he's in better. It's what Spider-Man brings - not what Venom lacks.

The Killing Joke doesn't facilitate the necessity of Batman to Joker, but rather puts the Joker at the forefront of another story - graphically. I don't see how this is a counterpoint.

How is Venom even an anti-hero? He serves as the objective protagonist in the movie. Killing a few guys here and there does not make one an anti-hero. See: Superman and Batman in recent cinema. Calling him an anti-hero does not take away from the fact that it seems Eddie Brock has him entirely reigned-in as a full-fledged hero. He "adopts" mankind. He's a tool for heroism at this point and nothing else.

Box office aside - the importance will be about storytelling and truth to character. If The Joker is painted as some sort of anti-hero, it will be equally as bad as Venom. We've seen that villain-centric films can prosper with The Dark Knight and Thanos.

[Gatsby77]

2 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Exactly.

There is a _lot_ wrong with your post above, @TwoPiece, butthe most glaring error was the claim that "The Joker doesn't need Batman to exist." That may have been true in the very beginning (i.e., the 1940s, when he was just a gangster), it's been well established since the 1970s in the comics, and throughout Batman: The Animated Series in the 1990s that The Joker very much needs the Batman to exist.

And nothing exemplifies that more than the entire point of their confrontation in The Killing Joke (which was briefly - but poorly - summarized / adapted in the prison cell scene in the film The Dark Knight):

Joker and Batman are co-dependent. Each needs the other to exist, but Joker needs Batman far more -- Batman's the inspiration for his crimes.

The story _absolutely_ facilitates the necessity of Batman to the Joker, esp. the last four pages. That was the whole point of what's considered perhaps that greatest single Batman issue ever.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Gatsby77

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

Exactly.

There is a _lot_ wrong with your post above, @TwoPiece, butthe most glaring error was the claim that "The Joker doesn't need Batman to exist." That may have been true in the very beginning (i.e., the 1940s, when he was just a gangster), it's been well established since the 1970s in the comics, and throughout Batman: The Animated Series in the 1990s that The Joker very much needs the Batman to exist.

And nothing exemplifies that more than the entire point of their confrontation in The Killing Joke (which was briefly - but poorly - summarized / adapted in the prison cell scene in the film The Dark Knight):

Joker and Batman are co-dependent. Each needs the other to exist, but Joker needs Batman far more -- Batman's the inspiration for his crimes.

Let me re-phrase:

The Joker's origin doesn't need Batman as much as Venom's origin needs Spider-Man to be "compelling" characters. They're completely different things regardless. It doesn't make much sense for comparison's sake.

[Gatsby77]

5 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Let me re-phrase:

The Joker's origin doesn't need Batman as much as Venom's origin needs Spider-Man to be "compelling" characters. They're completely different things regardless. It doesn't make much sense for comparison's sake.

Umm...Sure.

But if all you got out of The Killing Joke was the brief "origin of the Joker / Red Hood Detective # 168 retcon" you missed the ENTIRE point of the book.

It's thesis is that The Joker and Batman are equally psychotic, just different sides of the coin.

As mirror images of each other, they need, feed off, thrive on the other. Absolute co-dependence. Almost (like Brock and Venom) symbiosis.

[ComicConnoisseur]

4 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Exactly.

There is a _lot_ wrong with your post above, @TwoPiece, butthe most glaring error was the claim that "The Joker doesn't need Batman to exist." That may have been true in the very beginning (i.e., the 1940s, when he was just a gangster), it's been well established since the 1970s in the comics, and throughout Batman: The Animated Series in the 1990s that The Joker very much needs the Batman to exist.

And nothing exemplifies that more than the entire point of their confrontation in The Killing Joke (which was briefly - but poorly - summarized / adapted in the prison cell scene in the film The Dark Knight):

Joker and Batman are co-dependent. Each needs the other to exist, but Joker needs Batman far more -- Batman's the inspiration for his crimes.

The story _absolutely_ facilitates the necessity of Batman to the Joker, esp. the last four pages. That was the whole point of what's considered perhaps that greatest single Batman issue ever.

1 minute ago, TwoPiece said:

Let me re-phrase:

The Joker's origin doesn't need Batman as much as Venom's origin needs Spider-Man to be "compelling" characters. They're completely different things regardless. It doesn't make much sense for comparison's sake.

 

I enjoyed the new Venom origin in the movie. I actually found it more realistic and modern that he doesn't have to depend on Spider-Man in future stories to exist. He is free of the web head.

Now we will see if they can pull off a good Joker story without Batman being the Joker's main nemisis in the upcoming Joker movie.

 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

Umm...Sure.

But if all you got out of The Killing Joke was the brief "origin of the Joker / Red Hood Detective # 168 retcon" you missed the ENTIRE point of the book.

It's thesis is that The Joker and Batman are equally psychotic, just different sides of the coin.

As mirror images of each other, they need, feed off, thrive on the other. Absolute co-dependence. Almost (like Brock and Venom) symbiosis.

This isn't about The Killing Joke, hence why I didn't understand why it was mentioned...

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I enjoyed the new Venom origin in the movie. I actually found it more realistic and modern that he doesn't have to depend on Spider-Man in future stories to exist. He is free of the web head.

Now we will see if they can pull off a good Joker story without Batman being the Joker's main nemisis in the upcoming Joker movie.

He's a hero, now, though. The movie isn't bad because of the new origin - as previously mentioned. Continuity of the character as an anti-hero or villain requires Spider-Man, though.

If The Joker is not a villain in his own movie, then it will just be a slap in the face to the character's history. It could be one of those things where it might be a 'good movie', but it won't be a good Joker movie if it isn't true to The Joker. Kinda how TLJ is sometimes called 'a good movie', but it's a flaming pile of ____ for a Star Wars movie.

[Gatsby77]

28 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

This isn't about The Killing Joke, hence why I didn't understand why it was mentioned...

Ahem...

You said "You don't need Batman to have the Joker."

This is absolutely wrong.

That *even Joker* recognizes he needs Batman - explicitly - has been canon in the comics since 1973, on TV (via Batman: The Animated Series) since 1993, and in the movies since 2008.

And never moreso - as ComicConnoseur noted - was this depicted than in The Killing Joke. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

Ahem...

You said "You don't need Batman to have the Joker."

This is absolutely wrong.

That *even Joker* recognizes he needs Batman - explicitly - has been canon in the comics since 1973, on TV (via Batman: The Animated Series) since 1993, and in the movies since 2008.

And never moreso - as ComicConnoseur noted - was this depicted than in The Killing Joke. 

Obviously you didn't take my prior post into consideration.

I'm not going to argue an argument that I didn't intend on making.

[theCapraAegagrus]

"Let me re-phrase" i.e. you're misinterpreting my post. That's why I reiterated. So I'm not going to debate it.

[paperheart]

On 3/28/2019 at 4:45 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Yeah - but we'll know for sure in a few days.

If Venom's "all-in" was $227M, Aquaman's may indeed be ~$300M or more.

wait, this wasn't $150-175MM all in? now, where did i hear that drivel? oh, yeah #mathharddogscan'tadd