Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Neo

Venom | October 5 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Ruben Fleischer to direct. Scott Rosenberg & Jeff Pinkner writing

430 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

18 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking here.

 

CHILD 44 follows a guy trying to track down a serial killer against the backdrop of the Soviet Union and Stalin's purge of officials in the 1950s. The story is wrapped up. Some people die, some people live. The story is resolved. There's no hint of "aha, there's a new story beginning or about to come" -- the movie wraps up and ends. THE END.

 

Child 44 movie is the adaptation of a first book of a book trilogy.

 

They would not create a story for that movie sequel, just adapt the second book no, like they did for the first one, thus me asking why the create a story for is sequel comments, when the story already exist ?

 

The second movie would have been this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Speech_(novel)#Synopsis

In the three years since the events of Child 44, Leo Demidov  (Tom Hardy character) has established the Homicide Division within the KGB, which he uses to investigate what he calls "real crimes".....

 

I'm asking why you think they would have created a different story for that movie sequel, instead of using that one ?

 

I'm not sure how one know that they didn't had plan for it and that it was not a reason why they accepted to take a chance on a really big budget period movie, because of is sequel potential.

Edited by Barnack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ready for dat Emma Stone cameo.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Barnack said:

They would not create a story for that movie sequel, just adapt the second book no, like they did for the first one, thus me asking why the create a story for is sequel comments, when the story already exist ?

 

I guess going back to the root of our discussion: yes, of course they would hope with a successful movie they could make more of them. This is true of literally almost every Hollywood project ever in development. But -- for me anyway -- there's a clear distinction between that a saying the first movie "hopes to launch a franchise", especially when you're talking about best-selling historical fiction as opposed to some fictional or fantastic universe. It seems odd (and weird) to tag Hardy as failing to start a franchise when basically he signed on to a prestige pic that ended up failing (not to mention it wasn't a very good movie at all).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Child 44 is the first part of a trilogy but at the same time its a self contained story.  If they didn't get an incompetent shitty B-movie director to make it, it may have done well and The Secret Speech and Agent 6 might have been made.  End of story.

Edited by Ozymandias
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

It seems odd (and weird) to tag Hardy as failing to start a franchise when basically he signed on to a prestige pic that ended up failing (not to mention it wasn't a very good movie at all).

 

No one save a 25% on RT movie of that genre for sure, the general comments was that almost all the movies with Hardy in the lead didn't work commercially, so Imagine that he is not perceived as a draw, combined with is reputation of being possibly hard to work with and is limited press junket ability/interest, in term of large paycheck lead role it is not surprising that they best he got was something like Venom from a director of that caliber (Zombieland was a massive success, but since then ?).

 

Not that it is fault those movie didn't work.

 

Maybe you are projecting more into the word franchise that I did, launch a franchise: Make a movie successful enough that the 2 book sequel adaptation get greenlight, nothing more than that (once you have books and movies, I did put it has a franchise, but it could be abusing the term from what it is normal use imply in term of level of popularity) .

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

Child 44 is the first part of a trilogy but at the same time its a self contained story.  If they didn't get an incompetent shitty B-movie director to make it, it may have done well and The Secret Speech and Agent 6 might have been made.  End of story.

 

Not sure why I didn't said it that simply (but I thought I did)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

If you had told me that the Gangster Squad guy was directing a Sony Venom spinoff, and then asked me if I would be interested in seeing it, my literal only answer would have been "If they cast Tom Hardy." So, guess I'm seeing this shit.

I had zero interest in this movie and now it one of my most anticipated 2018 blockbusters.  I would love to see Hardy in a Star Wars movies. Either in Knights of the Republic as Raven or Malak. or in Darth Bane movie as Darth Bane. Tom Hardy as a sith lord would be epic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Ready for dat Emma Stone cameo.

 

Emma Stone was by far the best part about the amazing Spider-Man films

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does Sony have some kind of dirt on Hardy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Ready for dat Emma Stone cameo.

 

Or Jesse Eisenberg lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bfd1ri77ljyy.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see this coming 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay im confused. So is Venom gonna look like Spiderman? If no, then whats the point of this? If yes, then how is that supposed to happen?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jandrew said:

Okay im confused. So is Venom gonna look like Spiderman? If no, then whats the point of this? If yes, then how is that supposed to happen?

 

All reasonable paths of logic dictate that this movie should not work.

 

But Sony is doing it anyway. I have no idea what they're going to do with it but the Tom Hardy casting intrigues me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

All reasonable paths of logic dictate that this movie should not work.

 

But Sony is doing it anyway. I have no idea what they're going to do with it but the Tom Hardy casting intrigues me.

 

That's the thing though, the Tom Hardy casting will work for the online movie sphere, but he isn't a name actor for the GA. His most watched role has him under a mask and with a weird accent. And this isn't a Ryan Reynolds-Deadpool case where fans have been casting the actor forever. Will be interesting to see how this goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

That's the thing though, the Tom Hardy casting will work for the online movie sphere, but he isn't a name actor for the GA. His most watched role has him under a mask and with a weird accent. And this isn't a Ryan Reynolds-Deadpool case where fans have been casting the actor forever. Will be interesting to see how this goes.

 

I'm honestly not sure who wants this movie, other than Avi Arad and his weird Venom thing. Most be people in the CBM-sphere seem to be pretty dead set against it from the get-go and I'm not sure how attractive Venom can really be as a solo character, but I'd love if they just do something really off the wall with it. Maybe try do it like The Thing with the symbiote jumping about between a group that's stuck in close quarters with it or something. Going down a horror route with this could be real cool IMO.

 

Whatever happens, I'm pretty interested to see how this actually turns out.

Edited by aabattery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally....Tom Hardy doing a movie where he has to wear a mask.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

"hmm, i've wanted to get back into comic book movies, but i'm not sure about this one"

"all your dialogue will be spoken through a layer of black goo, it'll be your most inaudible role yet"

"sold"

 

:rofl:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read, HOMECOMING 2 in 2019 is the last appearance of Spidey in MCU?

So if Sony releases VENOM in 2018 - and one VENOM origin movie without Spidey making an appearance is fine imo - they can have Spiderman and Venom in a movie by 2020/2021.

 

Maybe they hope/plan to let Holland to keep playing Spidey.

Just like Bat and Sup coming together in BVS, 2020/2021 could have a SPIDEY-VENOM movie acting like HOMECOMING 3/VENOM 2.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is indeed very interesting that Hardy signed up, and yet seemingly ill-conceived at the outset...there must be something more to the story, here, in terms of planning long-term. 

 

I suppose this could be conceived like...Spawn?  Dark anti-hero with animated suit.  But it's already been done...badly...not a great model to start from. 

 

This would even make more sense with some other version of Venom/host (he's been multiple people in the comics, right?).  But tying it to Brock, as Sony has now officially confirmed, has all kinds of baggage.  Will they give him some "tragic back story" to make him "sympathetic"...? 

Edited by Macleod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.