I feel like we're missing some CGI tentacles in there.
Also, I feel confounded whenever I see evidence that this film isn't a hoax.
Also, that sounded like Terrance Mackie (or whatever his name was, who was the first to play Rhodey, pre-War Machine, in Iron Man 1). Not like Tom Hardy??
Also... so is this going to be about Eddie Brock (the original Venom) at all? Are they going straight to some version of the Flash Thompson Venom (who operates a lot like G I Joe's Snake Eyes)? I have to infer not entirely, since he still has his legs: the point to Thompson getting the symbiote suit was that he had lost his legs in action in the Middle-East, which would be a much better hook for a film adaptation I think; but I guess he's in the MCU now, so never mind...
Also... I really, really, reaaaallllyyy don't care for Venom. More looking forward to the Cat-and-Sable project.
And write a haiku
You should about the new Venom
Bane voice read it in
This could poison the MCU. ::)
It's not in the MCU ;)
Isn't he the 'evil twin' of Spidey?
Basically, but it's a Sony movie and afaik it's in the other Spidey-verse. You know the one that gave us Emo Tobey Maguire and hipster Andrew Garfield.
Since Sony totally effed up Spiderman, they are now trying to build a Sinister Six franchise and I think Venom is the first step down that road.
"Sony's Marvel Universe" ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venom_(comics)#Sony's_Marvel_Universe
Rumors were swirling pretty recently that the Tom Holland Spider-man would have some kind of cameo in this film. I don't doubt Sony considered it, but I do doubt he's in there. There have been slightly stronger rumors that this will be set in Sony's Amazing Spiderverse but absent Andrew Garfield (unless Garfield decides to come back which is unlikely).
I see that this is, in fact, supposed to be Eddie Brock, although without a strong connection to both Parker and Spider-man I fail to see how this character could possibly develop into a monster version of Spider-man (or why even bother calling him Brock). Ditto for Kletus Cassidy / Carnage, whose form is based on a more twisted version of Venom.
I appreciate that the creators of the film are aiming for a mix of Cronenberg and Carpenter body-horror. That's a smart move for this property, as long as they're committed to distancing themselves from Spider-man per se as a part of the property. But then why would he look like Evil Spiderman? -- and if he doesn't, the Venom fans (such as they are) will be miffed.
The whole thing gives me a headache. :buck2:
Maybe the Sony Spidey will go one-on-one with the Marvel Spidey in some future movie.
Apparently that's going to happen, sort of, in the animated Spider-film coming up! -- which is about alternate continuity Spideys.
Too many Spideys.
Quote from: JasonPratt on February 08, 2018, 05:01:41 PM
Rumors were swirling pretty recently that the Tom Holland Spider-man would have some kind of cameo in this film. I don't doubt Sony considered it, but I do doubt he's in there. There have been slightly stronger rumors that this will be set in Sony's Amazing Spiderverse but absent Andrew Garfield (unless Garfield decides to come back which is unlikely).
I see that this is, in fact, supposed to be Eddie Brock, although without a strong connection to both Parker and Spider-man I fail to see how this character could possibly develop into a monster version of Spider-man (or why even bother calling him Brock). Ditto for Kletus Cassidy / Carnage, whose form is based on a more twisted version of Venom.
I appreciate that the creators of the film are aiming for a mix of Cronenberg and Carpenter body-horror. That's a smart move for this property, as long as they're committed to distancing themselves from Spider-man per se as a part of the property. But then why would he look like Evil Spiderman? -- and if he doesn't, the Venom fans (such as they are) will be miffed.
The whole thing gives me a headache. :buck2:
I have a feeling this movie may be a way to introduce a new Spiderman without doing a full re-reboot of the Spiderman franchise. Even if they make him a relatively minor character, they could recast the role in the Venom movie and then do a new Spiderman flick down the road. Entirely speculation on my part, but it would be a way for Sony to handle recasting the character.
Andrew Garfield grew on me after I watched his Spiderman films a couple times. Not that those were particularly good movies (the second one was supremely stupid) but I came around on Garfield in the role.
But was Amazing Spider-Man 2 at a Spider-man 3 level of stupid?
Quote from: BanzaiCat on February 09, 2018, 10:04:40 AM
But was Amazing Spider-Man 2 at a Spider-man 3 level of stupid?
yes. they both sucked big hairy spider ballz.
(https://thepwnzone.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/spiderman_meme_by_gothicgir66-d3cs1rq.jpg)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F017%2F994%2Fcac.jpg&hash=22aa98e772cea15f7a8eb4dba3c745de0863c5d5)
Quote from: mirth on February 09, 2018, 08:55:54 AM
Andrew Garfield grew on me after I watched his Spiderman films a couple times. Not that those were particularly good movies (the second one was supremely stupid) but I came around on Garfield in the role.
Same. I hated the first film less than I thought I would, and have eventually come around to liking it somewhat. I even approach liking Amaz2 occasionally: some parts at least look goooOOOHGODWEBHANDWEBHAAANNNNNNDDDD!! {cringe!}
The first AmazingSpider-game spin-off sequel to the first movie, much to my surprise, I liked A TON! I've played it through at least twice, maybe three times. The second game, after the second movie, hurts from having to half-jettison the story of the first game in order to try cramming in a loose plot remake of the second movie, but I still liked it more than the second movie. (It probably helps that I bought it after its many initial rushed-release bugs were stomped.)
Meanwhile, news today is that Venom will barely be in the Venom movie, practically not at all.
The internet's reaction is predictable:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xUOwG4lC2Jde3TOLQI/source.gif)
...mainly predictable because whatever happens with the film, that shot will always have wide memeworthiness. >:D
That could've been me last time I visited my Proctologist, Dr. Longfinger. :hide:
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 22, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
Meanwhile, news today is that Venom will barely be in the Venom movie, practically not at all.
The internet's reaction is predictable:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xUOwG4lC2Jde3TOLQI/source.gif)
...mainly predictable because whatever happens with the film, that shot will always have wide memeworthiness. >:D
Because yeah, it's going to be a deep, soul searching movie carried by its lead.
F'ing really Sony? You know who wants to see comic book movies that don't have comic book characters in them???
NO ONE
This is a rental if I ever saw one
SONY EXEC ONE: "Well, crap, we've shot our credibility with the Spider-fans, and our film division is projectile vomiting money, so we had to let Marvel play with Spidey, but we want (and need) direct profit without sharing it. So, what do we do?"
SONY EXEC TWO: "We could stop snorting cocaine off hookers."
SEX1: "Ha ha ha!"
SEX2: "HA HA HA HA HA! {snort}"
SEX1: "But seriously."
SEX2: "We still own the rights to use a bunch of other Spider-characters."
SEX1: "Which one is most popular?"
SEX2: "Back when I was a kid it was Spade. I mean Spawn. I mean, uh... Snarl?"
SEX1: "{Snort!}"
SEX2: "No, not that either, it was um... Spawn! ...no. Anyway it was an evil Godawfully ugly killer spider-man suit monster."
SEX1: "Sounds expensive."
SEX2: "No, look, we'll shoot it as a low-budget horror film, barely have the thing in it, y'know hide the monster until the end."
SEX1: "That's a time honored and well-respected notion. You can have extra cocaine and/or extra hookers tomorrow!"
SEX2: "Fans will come to see the thing, and if we shoot it cheaply enough we can recoup our production costs off the opening weekend; then marketing costs off the international market and disc sales."
SEX1: "And then what do we do with the profit?"
SEX2: "Well, there won't be enough profit to do much else afterward, so something without a lot of fx. ...hm, let's ask the girls here. What's your name, doll? Silver Pus--?"
SEX1: "I HAVE AN IDEA! IT'S -- IT'S COMING, IT'S ---!"
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xUOwG4lC2Jde3TOLQI/source.gif)
{greenlights Silver Sable / Black Cat teamup film}
{which to be fair is what they should have done in the first place}
I didn't think it was possible to F up Venom any more than Spider-Man 3 and Topher Grace did, but looks like Sony always manages to find a way.
This looks more like... something. Something Venomy. (With apparently other symbiotes.)
Angry Joe and Other Joe.
I'm not going to lie, I'm only posting this for the attention. :hide:
How does Bane end up as Venom? I'm so confused.
Damn, Hardy looks young in that trailer. How old is he?
Quote from: Sir Slash on April 24, 2018, 10:45:40 AM
Damn, Hardy looks young in that trailer. How old is he?
40
That sounds about right. I guess his part in Pinky Blinders made me think he was older.
So, does Hardy just invent a new accent for every movie, occasionally inventing another one (or two) during the same movie when he's bored?
...I would totally do that myself. O0
Quote from: mirth on April 24, 2018, 09:38:44 AM
How does Bane end up as Venom? I'm so confused.
Ironically, by an overdose of Venom! -- the drug he takes to pump up his strength level occasionally for boss fights.
Note: there was no Venom in TDKR, oddly, despite that being one of his signature props. I can't offhand think of another property where Bane shows up having nothing whatsoever to do with that drug, at least in his past. (He has a mask that apparently applies constant topical aenesthetic to his ruined face, by means of a gas apparently, but that's it.)
I got interested in the Venom character (and Spidey in general) thanks to Todd McFarlane's awesome art.
This is now NOT a rental.
Second trailer has severely whetted my crotchitorial region
I'm still a rental, but glad to be of service! O0
...
......wait. ....AGH, CONTEXT!
Quote from: JasonPratt on April 24, 2018, 04:30:24 PM
I'm still a rental, but glad to be of service! O0
...
......wait. ....AGH, CONTEXT!
:wow:
Gotta admit the most recent trailer gives me a semblance of hope...
Awww, who am I kidding??? Sony will find ways to fuck this up royally.
Sony can make a fine TV, but they can't make anything worth putting up on that TV.
I'm putting that one on my head stone. :clap:
Quote from: BanzaiCat on May 03, 2018, 05:42:44 PM
Sony can make a fine TV, but they can't make anything worth putting up on that TV.
Playstation games have generally been worth putting up on that TV, and Sony is directly involved in making some of those (as well as the hardware for implementing the... uh... putting-on?)
I mention this only as a notable exception to the rule.
Point, though I was meaning movie entertainment.
I'm sure a thing or three has slipped through the cracks here and there.
I've just been to see it - with much trepidation, not just from reviews but from what I saw in the trailer - but I have to say my daughter and I enjoyed it. It wasn't Guardians of the Galaxy - but it was entertaining. We agreed a 6.5 would be apt.
I didn't really think the film knew what it was trying to be - funny or dark - and so it did both...but the end result was we left entertained.
That's good enough for me. How was Hardy?
Very good. I'm not a BIG fan of him, but he played the part well.