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

[WittyUsername]

22 minutes ago, MagnarTheGreat said:

For the curious. Note that not all movies launched on a weekend, such as TASM, though I haven't gotten around to specifically noting the titles. Sequels are more frontloaded than origins or first entries in general, and the calendar also has an effect, as does the overall opening and box office.

 

Live-action Comic Book Superhero Movies (2008 – 2018)	Multiplier (DG ÷ FW)	90% of Gross on Day	Domestic Gross	First Weekend	Release Month
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice	1.99	18	$330.4M	$166.0M	Mar. 2016
X-Men Origins: Wolverine	2.11	24	$179.9M	$85.1M	May 2009
Kick-Ass 2	2.16	17	$28.8M	$13.3M	Aug. 2013
Fantastic Four	2.18	20	$56.1M	$25.7M	Aug. 2015
Green Lantern	2.19	20	$116.6M	$53.2M	Jun. 2011
The Amazing Spider-Man 2	2.21	24	$202.9M	$91.6M	May 2014
Captain America: Civil War	2.28	23	$408.1M	$179.1M	May 2016
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance	2.34	22	$51.8M	$22.1M	Feb. 2012
Iron Man 3	2.35	25	$409.0M	$174.1M	May 2013
X-Men: Apocalypse	2.36	20	$155.4M	$65.8M	May 2016
Avengers: Age of Ultron	2.40	26	$459.0M	$191.3M	May 2015
Kick-Ass	2.42	20	$48.1M	$19.8M	Apr. 2010
Suicide Squad	2.43	30	$325.1M	$133.7M	Aug. 2016
The Incredible Hulk	2.43	23	$134.8M	$55.4M	Jun. 2008
Iron Man 2	2.44	27	$312.4M	$128.1M	May 2010
Justice League	2.44	23	$229.0M	$93.8M	Nov. 2017
Man of Steel	2.50	22	$291.0M	$116.6M	Jun. 2013
The Wolverine	2.50	24	$132.6M	$53.1M	Jul. 2013
Deadpool 2*	2.54	29	$318.5M	$125.5M	May 2018
Logan	2.56	26	$226.3M	$88.4M	Mar. 2017
Thor: Ragnarok	2.57	29	$315.1M	$122.7M	Nov. 2017
X-Men: Days of Future Past	2.58	28	$233.9M	$90.8M	May 2014
Avengers: Infinity War	2.63	30	$678.8M	$257.7M	Apr. 2018
X-Men: First Class	2.66	24	$146.4M	$55.1M	Jun. 2011
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2	2.66	30	$389.8M	$146.5M	May 2017
Captain America: The First Avenger	2.72	26	$176.7M	$65.1M	Jul. 2011
Captain America: The Winter Soldier	2.73	30	$259.8M	$95.0M	Apr. 2014
Doctor Strange	2.74	29	$232.6M	$85.1M	Nov. 2016
Deadpool	2.74	31	$363.1M	$132.4M	Feb. 2016
Thor	2.75	26	$181.0M	$65.7M	May 2011
The Dark Knight Rises	2.79	30	$448.1M	$160.9M	Jul. 2012
Ant-Man and the Wasp*	2.85	31	$216.2M	$75.8M	Jul. 2018
Spider-Man: Homecoming	2.86	36	$334.2M	$117.0M	Jul. 2017
Marvel’s The Avengers	3.01	35	$623.4M	$207.4M	May 2012
Ant-Man	3.15	37	$180.2M	$57.2M	Jul. 2015
Iron Man	3.23	37	$318.4M	$98.6M	May 2008
The Dark Knight	3.37	36	$533.3M	$158.4M	Jul. 2008
Black Panther	3.47	38	$700.1M	$202.0M	Feb. 2018
Guardians of the Galaxy	3.53	43	$333.2M	$94.3M	Aug. 2014
Wonder Woman	4.00	41	$412.6M	$103.3M	Jun. 2017
The Amazing Spider-Man	4.23	25	$262.0M	$62.0M	Jul. 2012
average of table	2.70	28
median of table	2.57	27
* highlighted in yellow: numbers are not final / still in theaters
display of dollars rounded to nearest hundred thousand
this is an incomplete work-in-progress / numbers current as of October 2, 2018

 

Calendar effect

Release Month	Average Multiplier	Median Multiplier	Release Month	Average Multiplier	Median Multiplier
January	2.88	2.66	July	3.30	3.22
February	2.81	2.73	August	3.22	3.00
March	3.02	2.89	September	2.87	2.75
April	2.76	2.65	October	3.02	2.75
May	2.95	2.82	November	3.43	3.23
June	3.13	3.01	December	5.45	4.76
all (1025 movies)				3.21	2.93
excludes 2018 releases
highest month in blue; lowest month in red
numbers from top opening domestic earners (2008-2017) as of August 16, 2018

The legs for WW really were remarkable for a movie that opened in June. 

[Valonqar]

Audience is loving Venom. negative tweets were clearly WB-funded Russian bots. 

[dudalb]

16 hours ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

If Sony didn't spend 250/300 million with Venom, then I guess the movie's gonna be profitable.

 

Sony wasted a ton of money with TASM 2. Some sources say budget was 200 million + 190 million for marketing/promotion. That's insane. I can fully get why did they give up the TASM universe even after TASM 2 managed to make more than 700 million worldwide.

 

They spent way too much money.  Hopefully Venom has a smaller budget

Problem is that SONY needs Venom to be a big hit and to be well liked by audiences to get it's
"Spideyverse" franchise launched. A modest success ain't going to do it.

And TASM2 for all the money it made, ended up killing the TASM franchise. When it comes to a franchise,money is not everything. I think Venom will be a successful failure:It will make a good profit for SONY but not do what SONY needs it to do for the Spideyverse franchsie.

Anyway, the idea of a Spideyverse without Spidey seems questionable. The way I understand it, Marvel Studios has to sign off on the Tom Holland Spiderman being in any of the Spiderverse movies, and Fiege  is going to be reluctant jto do that unless Sony has a couple of big successes .

[AJG]

Are we getting a spoilers thread?

[AndyK]

Mrs wants to see Venom at the weekend because.....Tom Hardy 

[Pinacolada]

25 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Mrs wants to see Venom at the weekend because.....Tom Hardy 

Smart woman

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, dudalb said:

Problem is that SONY needs Venom to be a big hit and to be well liked by audiences to get it's
"Spideyverse" franchise launched. A modest success ain't going to do it.

And TASM2 for all the money it made, ended up killing the TASM franchise. When it comes to a franchise,money is not everything. I think Venom will be a successful failure:It will make a good profit for SONY but not do what SONY needs it to do for the Spideyverse franchsie.

TASM 2 didn't do any money too, third party financier even did loose money on it (5M)

 

Sony profit was expected to be for the movie life time of just 14m (at the time of the Sosy leak it was still 50m in the red), 14m is less than the 24.8m paycheck they got from Marvel. If that movie would have lot of money I am not sure it would have not got a sequel.

 

Quote

 

Marvel Studios has to sign off on the Tom Holland Spiderman being in any of the Spiderverse movies

 

 

That a really interesting point, according to collider that seem to be the case:

 

Because the Sony/Marvel Studios deal for Spider-Man: Homecoming involves the character of Peter Parker and Holland’s portrayal, he can’t be used in any of these other Marvel Comics movies Sony is developing.  But since Sony has the license for Peter Parker, why can’t he have a cameo in Venom you ask? Because if Tom Holland shows up, even for a split second, in Venom, by association that immediately means that Venom has to exist within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

You cannot have MCU spider-man appear in some Sony R rated movie for example and create confusion among family audience I guess (or just in bad movies)

Edited October 4, 2018 by Barnack

[Wrath]

First the Dark Universe, now the Spideyverse. The world is a cruel place.

[dudalb]

13 minutes ago, Wrath said:

First the Dark Universe, now the Spideyverse. The world is a cruel place.

I think the Dark Universe was a more viable idea for a franchise then the Spideyverse, it was just horribly handled. I think that Frankenstien's Monster, Drac, Wolfie,The Mummy and the Creature from the BLack Lagoon were a lot more viable as a solo movie then some of the what Sony was talking about for in the Spideyverse. A Silver Sable solo movie? Really?

I think a Universal Monster franchise is still probably going to happen, but they won't call it the Dark Universe,and understand you can't approach it in the same way you would a Comic Book Universe. I suspect they will also make it more of a straight up Horror franchise, rather then a hybrid Horror Action franchise.

Edited October 4, 2018 by dudalb

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

TASM 2 didn't do any money too, third party financier even did loose money on it (5M)

 

Sony profit was expected to be for the movie life time of just 14m (at the time of the Sosy leak it was still 50m in the red), 14m is less than the 24.8m paycheck they got from Marvel. If that movie would have lot of money I am not sure it would have not got a sequel.

 

 

That a really interesting point, according to collider that seem to be the case:

 

Because the Sony/Marvel Studios deal for Spider-Man: Homecoming involves the character of Peter Parker and Holland’s portrayal, he can’t be used in any of these other Marvel Comics movies Sony is developing.  But since Sony has the license for Peter Parker, why can’t he have a cameo in Venom you ask? Because if Tom Holland shows up, even for a split second, in Venom, by association that immediately means that Venom has to exist within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

You cannot have MCU spider-man appear in some Sony R rated movie for example and create confusion among family audience I guess (or just in bad movies)

I also think Feige is pretty skeptical that the Spideyverse will ever really get off the ground (at least the live action version) and does not want to ruin Marvel Studio's record of success. It is not by chance that Marvel Studio's invovlment with Venom was pretty much non existents .

[dudalb]

I think it's apretty safe bet that Venom will not make more then Spiderman: Homecoming...contrary to what a number for hard core Venom fans were saying.

[Deja23]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

Because the Sony/Marvel Studios deal for Spider-Man: Homecoming involves the character of Peter Parker and Holland’s portrayal, he can’t be used in any of these other Marvel Comics movies Sony is developing.  But since Sony has the license for Peter Parker, why can’t he have a cameo in Venom you ask? Because if Tom Holland shows up, even for a split second, in Venom, by association that immediately means that Venom has to exist within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

You cannot have MCU spider-man appear in some Sony R rated movie for example and create confusion among family audience I guess (or just in bad movies)

If that’s the case, Sony and the director were being deliberately coy about Spider-Man showing up in Venom or the sequel. Explains Kevin Feige’s facial expression during the Homecoming press tour.

 

Some reviews I read are already linking Venom to the MCU. Saying things like Marvel can fail, another movie in the assembly line, etc. Lol

[Nova]

2 minutes ago, Deja23 said:

If that’s the case, Sony and the director were being deliberately coy about Spider-Man showing up in Venom or the sequel. Explains Kevin Feige’s facial expression during the Homecoming press tour.

 

Some reviews I read are already linking Venom to the MCU. Saying things like Marvel can fail, another movie in the assembly line, etc. Lol

I actually had a friend of mine on Facebook comment about how Venom is the first real failure for the MCU. 

 

Kevin Feige when someone thinks venom is part of the universe he built: 

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, Deja23 said:

If that’s the case, Sony and the director were being deliberately coy about Spider-Man showing up in Venom or the sequel. Explains Kevin Feige’s facial expression during the Homecoming press tour.

 

Some reviews I read are already linking Venom to the MCU. Saying things like Marvel can fail, another movie in the assembly line, etc. Lol

Yeah. Travers in Rolling Stone kept referring to it as a Marvel movie instead of Sony - talking about how they went from the heights with BP to the nadir with Venom. 

 

But with or without sharing Spider-Man there were reviewers and fans who lumped the films in all together before.  I read similar things when ASM2 and APOC came out

[Nova]

Live Look at Kevin Feige acquiring all Marvel rights from Sony: 

 

[Zakiyyah6]

Saying that audiences are loving it more than critics is just as dumb as saying the opposite. We have not seen it's legs so we have no proof one way or another.

 

Also a non sequel like Suicide Squad garnering a 2.4 multi in an empty August is nothing to crow about. The audience liking it "better than the critics" meant nothing because the audiences didn't really like it. If Audiences liked it that much we would be seeing a sequel in 2019.  WB are dragging their feet because they know that audiences were not overly pleased by Suicide Squad. Audience displeasure is also why there is only a 1% chance that we are going a Man of Steel sequel.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Zakiyyah6

[ThePhasmid]

FYI, Upgrade is cheaper to watch. You can do it from home now.

12 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Yeah. Travers in Rolling Stone kept referring to it as a Marvel movie instead of Sony - talking about how they went from the heights with BP to the nadir with Venom. 

 

But with or without sharing Spider-Man there were reviewers and fans who lumped the films in all together before.  I read similar things when ASM2 and APOC came out

To be fair, Travers probably thought this was a big budget sequel to Upgrade. I don't see him as the type wholly invested in CBMs.

Edited October 4, 2018 by ThePhasmid

[TMP]

This movie sounds so batshit crazy. I hope it makes $100m opening weekend just to secure a sequel, because now I really wanna see what they'd do with even more creative freedom.

Edited October 4, 2018 by TMP

[dudalb]

18 minutes ago, Deja23 said:

If that’s the case, Sony and the director were being deliberately coy about Spider-Man showing up in Venom or the sequel. Explains Kevin Feige’s facial expression during the Homecoming press tour.

 

Some reviews I read are already linking Venom to the MCU. Saying things like Marvel can fail, another movie in the assembly line, etc. Lol

How can you tell when a Hollywood PR person is Lying?

His lips move......

 

 

[dudalb]

16 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Yeah. Travers in Rolling Stone kept referring to it as a Marvel movie instead of Sony - talking about how they went from the heights with BP to the nadir with Venom. 

 

But with or without sharing Spider-Man there were reviewers and fans who lumped the films in all together before.  I read similar things when ASM2 and APOC came out

I expect some amateur blogger to make a dumbbutt mistake like that, but not a professional who has been  covering movies for a while like Travers.