Venom | 5 OCTOBER 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Social Media reactions coming in

[Curtis1986]

Dang they should have had Ryan Coogler write and Direct this.

[AJG]

7 minutes ago, Curtis1986 said:

Dang they should have had Ryan Coogler write and Direct this.

 

Wouldn't have made any difference. The problems with the movie is that it feels as if nobody was on the same page as they were making it. 

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

Wouldn't have made any difference. The problems with the movie is that it feels as if nobody was on the same page as they were making it. 

The problem you describe sound like the main responsibility of a director, creating an artistic vision and explain it well enough (convince/make everyone) go on that page, from production design/casting, costume in pre-production to the sound mix/color grade/score during post-prod.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Barnack

[dudalb]

25 minutes ago, Barnack said:

The problem you describe sound like the main responsibility of a director, creating an artistic vision and explain it well enough (convince/make everyone) go on that page, from production design/casting, costume in pre-production to the sound mix/color grade/score during post-prod.

You are under the delusion that the director has the final say in a movie.  He often does not. The Studio...the people paying for the movie in the first place...often have the final say through sheer power of the purse.

I am betting that if the film is a mess, a major reason is that Fleischer and the studio were not on the same page.

And the is why the Auteur theory ,though it sounds great in a classroom ,is often a bad joke in the real world. In the end, the people who have the money and paid for the film will have the final say unless they give that power to the director..and that seldom happens.

And then there is that there is a huge difference in a personal,small scale film and one meant to be a commericial crowd pleaser ..something which academics in the FIlm Studies department often just do not get.

Edited October 3, 2018 by dudalb

[Mojoguy]

Dang they should have had Ryan Coogler write and Direct this.

Just because Venom has black skin doesn't mean Coogler should have done it.

[Zakiyyah6]

Venom is a stupid antiquated 90's character. The studio should have gone for full blown goofy comedy like Thor Ragnarok. 

[AJG]

Let’s get to it.

 

The Good

 

1. The Movie is short.

2. The first couple of action scenes are very good.

3. Venom and Eddie relationship is very fun

4. Venom character is great

 

The Bad

 

1. Every character that isn’t Tom Hardy

2. Riz Ahmed is terrible in this movie

 

3. Michelle Williams being in this movie is mind boggling. Her character is the flimsiest Superhero girlfriend in years. One obviously reshot scene tries to give her something cool to do but it’s so bizarre and leads to her next scene making little sense.

 

4. Venom is no longer any kind of villain. He’s like a really cute teddy bear. If you got mad about Maleficent then you’re gonna be more upset about this. It’s easier to see Venom fight with The Avengers than it is to see him fight against The Avengers.

 

5. Final fight scene is similar to Black Panther. Unlike that movie I couldn’t tell which one is which. Both fighters are similar colours, the editing is choppy, and it’s shot at night time. It just looked like goo and loud noise. This movie had better CG though.

 

The Random

 

1. Every scene not featuring a CG Venom is an Honest Trailer writers’ wet dream, the movie cleverly bounces along from one thing to the next so problems really don’t sit and linger.

 

4. Tom Hardy’s entire performance can be summed up in this video. The entire performance from Start to Finish.

 

5. The movie has a 6 month time skip at one point but the next scenes were clearly intended to immediately follow the previous scenes. I know why they skipped but having it be “6 months” seems like some kind of accident.

 

Final thoughts

 

This movie is fine. I guarantee that if you watch it more then once you’ll fucking hate it, but for a quick “one and done” it ain’t gonna Kill you. You might have a better time seeing it home then on the big screen.

[dudalb]

3 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Venom is a stupid antiquated 90's character. The studio should have gone for full blown goofy comedy like Thor Ragnarok. 

I agree, but try telling the Venom fans that....

The classic Silver age Spidey villians...Gobby, Doc Ock,Sandman,and the rest still work very well today but a lot of the villians created to be trendy in the 80's and 90's are dated. I am betting that Venom was created to give Spidey a "Alien" (as in the movie "Alien") type villien to fight.

I think Raimi was smart in not wanting to do Venom in Spidey 3. Too bad SONY forced him to incluse Venom. If Raimi had been allowed to just make his Sandman movie, Spidey 3 would have been a lot better.

(And it does get confuisng that both DC and Marvel have major league charecters named "The Sandman" who have no resembelence to each other.

[Arlborn]

5 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Audiences HATED BvS,  it wasn't just critics. Audiences and critics usually agree when it comes to these big comic book movies. Venom will follow that same path. 

 

2 hours ago, AJG said:

Yeeeeeeah... This wasn't that bad at all. You can poke holes in a lot of the movie, but it's fast paced, action is good, it's funny, its short.

 

I don't think many people will come out hating it, honestly.

Sounds more like a Suicide Squad kind of case than a BvS kind of case. Hopefully we'll at the very least get spin-offs centered around Tom Hardy the same way we are getting spin-offs centered around Margot Robbie.

[AJG]

1 minute ago, Arlborn said:

 

Sounds more like a Suicide Squad kind of case than a BvS kind of case. Hopefully we'll at the very least get spin-offs centered around Tom Hardy the same way we are getting spin-offs centered around Margot Robbie.

 

No. Suicide Squad was an unholy abomination. Venom is much better.

[tonytr87]

The problem with Venom is that Eddie Brock is interesting but once he becomes Venom he's just a slobbering alien creature. 

[Barnack]

22 minutes ago, dudalb said:

And the is why the Auteur theory ,though it sounds great in a classroom ,is often a bad joke in the real world. In the end, the people who have the money and paid for the film will have the final say unless they give that power to the director..and that seldom happens.

And then there is that there is a huge difference in a personal,small scale film and one meant to be a commericial crowd pleaser ..something which academics in the FIlm Studies department often just do not get.

Isn't the auteur theory all about the ability to influence the output under/despite the studio/machinery strong influence and take it fully into account.

 

One big influence on the theory was Hitchcock work, and he did many movie under the studio system that were often not involved in the post production directing 3 movie a year and shaked or put their hand in front of the camera to try to control what the studio would have available in the editing room,made very long one shot or used a precise timing with a song, etc... to leave them less option. 

Quote

 

I am betting that if the film is a mess, a major reason is that Fleischer and the studio were not on the same page.

 

Then why the result would not have been any different with a different director, one that would have been with the same page of the studio or one strong enough to get is vision through ? Consistent tone and all the actor seeming to be in the same movie is rarely something a studio disagree with.

 

[rjones1325]

At long last, after much anticipation, we have “Venom”, the movie nobody except Sony wanted. Since they don’t have their precious spider to milk for cash anymore, they have to substitute it with something else… Something that is spider-related but not quite. Oh wait, SYMBIOTE! It’s like Marvel raided Sony’s dungeon and saved Spider-Man and some of his villains and left them with the film rights to their third-tier characters. Venom was somehow left behind with the bunch AND NOW WE HAVE THIS MOVIE! That Sony Universe was going to happen one way or another.

 

Here's My Review of VENOM: http://www.rendyreviews.com/movies//venom-review

 

 

 

 

[The Futurist]

How funny that people who write about movies have built for decades this narrative that a studio suit or executive is the de facto an enemy of the movie, the director and that everything they do will somehow hurt the movie or bring it down.

Same dimwits built the narrative that directors are these little precious, fragile creatures that know everything about everything  and are ALWAYS right because they are pure because they are 

ARTISTES (I used the french spelling intentionally)

 

Sorry to 120 years of "film journalism" but you are just clueless people and your hot takes about how movies ( studios and the so called indies) are made are

basic

black and white

simplisistic

[dudalb]

4 minutes ago, rjones1325 said:

At long last, after much anticipation, we have “Venom”, the movie nobody except Sony wanted. Since they don’t have their precious spider to milk for cash anymore, they have to substitute it with something else… Something that is spider-related but not quite. Oh wait, SYMBIOTE! It’s like Marvel raided Sony’s dungeon and saved Spider-Man and some of his villains and left them with the film rights to their third-tier characters. Venom was somehow left behind with the bunch AND NOW WE HAVE THIS MOVIE! That Sony Universe was going to happen one way or another.

 

Here's My Review of VENOM: http://www.rendyreviews.com/movies//venom-review

 

 

 

 

And they don't have James Bond to bring in the bucks anymore either.. No doubt SONY is hungry for a new franchise.

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, dudalb said:

And they don't have James Bond to bring in the bucks anymore either.. No doubt SONY is hungry for a new franchise.

They have one.

The Jumanji CU is coming.

Oh yes it is.

[TMP]

6 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

How funny that people who write about movies have built for decades this narrative that a studio suit or executive is the de facto an enemy of the movie, the director and that everything they do will somehow hurt the movie or bring it down.

Same dimwits built the narrative that directors are these little precious, fragile creatures that know everything about everything  and are ALWAYS right because they are pure because they are 

ARTISTES (I used the french spelling intentionally)

 

Sorry to 120 years of "film journalism" but you are just clueless people and your hot takes about how movies ( studios and the so called indies) are made are

basic

black and white

simplisistic

thefuturistmorelikethecontrarianahahahahaha

[AJG]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

And they don't have James Bond to bring in the bucks anymore either.. No doubt SONY is hungry for a new franchise.

 

They weren’t making money on Bond to begin with

 

Quote

Sony and MGM split the production-cost funding 50/50 and then MGM takes 75% of the profit and Sony 25%, with the latter not getting a distribution fee on top of that, which is an amazing deal for MGM.

https://deadline.com/2016/03/spectre-profit-box-office-2015-james-bond-1201723528/

 

I’m pretty sure they only earned less than $20m on Skyfall. 

[KeepItU25071906]

41 minutes ago, AJG said:

2. Riz Ahmed is terrible in this movie

 

[tonytr87]

30 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Isn't the auteur theory all about the ability to influence the output under/despite the studio/machinery strong influence and take it fully into account.

 

One big influence on the theory was Hitchcock work, and he did many movie under the studio system that were often not involved in the post production directing 3 movie a year and shaked or put their hand in front of the camera to try to control what the studio would have available in the editing room,made very long one shot or used a precise timing with a song, etc... to leave them less option. 

Then why the result would not have been any different with a different director, one that would have been with the same page of the studio or one strong enough to get is vision through ? Consistent tone and all the actor seeming to be in the same movie is rarely something a studio disagree with.

 

 

The thing is...you have to be blind and deaf not to believe in auteur theory. Film is a collaborative process, yes, but a great director often means a good movie, and a lesser director often means a bad movie. Plus, just take a look at every famous director...nearly all of them have quirks/signatures/styles unique to only them, even the much-maligned ones like Bay. That's auteur theory. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by tonytr87