Venom: Let There Be Carnage l October 1 2021 | NOT getting delayed

[Firepower]

20 minutes ago, MrPink said:

It's critics getting on the wavelength between now and then. The first movie had an obvious disconnect from the initial reviews for whatever reason and it seems to have taken hold since then

It was more of a disconnect between critics and general audience. Reviewing the same sequel based on audience reaction to the first one is kinda dishonest, what's the point of those reviews then?

[Porthos]

Let this be a lesson to all of you that studios are NOT infallible when it comes to playing games with embargo dates and critics.

 

They might be usually right, but sometimes studios just whiff on these sorts of things.

 

Not even sure it would have mattered for pre-sales, as this thing exploded the last week+, but it certainly couldn't have hurt.

 

In short: Lol Sony.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Porthos

[TigerPaw]

15 minutes ago, Firepower said:

It was more of a disconnect between critics and general audience. Reviewing the same sequel based on audience reaction to the first one is kinda dishonest, what's the point of those reviews then?

There is a lot of speculation at this stage. How about watching the movie first and then see how it goes - maybe there is really something in this one that made it much better than the first.

 

Also at this stage we cannot conclusive said critics reviews are better yet. We have like 50 reviews but total reviews will  go to at least about 300; we don’t even know whether it will remain fresh.

[MrPink]

16 minutes ago, Firepower said:

It was more of a disconnect between critics and general audience. Reviewing the same sequel based on audience reaction to the first one is kinda dishonest, what's the point of those reviews then?

 

In the same way critics can influence our opinions, it's certainly possible for general audiences to reveal something in films that critics could not upon their initial viewing. Regardless, I do think in general there was an undercurrent of appreciation with the oddball aspect of Venom with some critics, and it seems when more critics approached the film from that perspective they were more forgiving of it here. 

 

I don't think it's dishonest per se. They probably felt that way when they saw the first movie, but none of us are infallible to influence, and how it can change our perceptions.

[fabiopazzo2]

23 hours ago, fabiopazzo2 said:

20% or 40% on RT?

This post didnt age well 

[cookie]

How about before another round of dumb claims about critics being paid off or being dishonest we do one of two things:

 

1. Wait until there's a similar quantity of reviews as the predecessor

2. Look at individual critics' opinions and compare them with their reviews for the previous film

 

This is why just going by aggregates (early aggregates on top of that) is bad.

Edited September 30, 2021 by cookie

[Porthos]

5 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

In the same way critics can influence our opinions, it's certainly possible for general audiences to reveal something in films that critics could not upon their initial viewing. Regardless, I do think in general there was an undercurrent of appreciation with the oddball aspect of Venom with some critics, and it seems when more critics approached the film from that perspective they were more forgiving of it here. 

 

I don't think it's dishonest per se. They probably felt that way when they saw the first movie, but none of us are infallible to influence, and how it can change our perceptions.

 

There's also the possibility that if the film fixed complaints like uneven tone and had better execution of its vision, then that'd be enough to bump enough grades over the pass/fail line that is RT.  The difference (so far) in x/10 is showing that [5.7/10 versus 4.5/10].

 

Like, some critics can be more forgiving to a film that faithfully executes its vision even if it isn't High Art.  Even in genres that critics are notoriously hostile to (horror comes to mind) one can see this happening.  In a genre that is currently more critic friendly, not entirely surprising to see something of a shift is all the excess fat was cut off the bone.

 

Mind, it still is relatively early in the RT run (only 57 reviews at the moment), so it could easily still wind up rotten.  OTOH more than enough reviews in now to say it shouldn't come anywhere close to the first film's reception.

[cheesypoofs]

RT score is higher than I thought it would be which is a nice surprise because I really liked the first movie

[Valonqar]

67% with 5.6 average. I knew that 5.8 average was a bad news for over 70% rating. However, 61 review so far indicates there won't be drop to 30% or close. So definitely an improvement. 

 

[Firepower]

1 hour ago, TigerPaw said:

There is a lot of speculation at this stage. How about watching the movie first and then see how it goes - maybe there is really something in this one that made it much better than the first.

That prison break clip pretty much sealed the deal for me whether I should watch this or not, somehow it looks even worse than the first one. There's this saying that nobody sets out to do a bad film, but at times it feels like there are exceptions like this one because it doesn't look like Sony tried to make a good film here at all, they didn't even increase the budget or use additional year to fix horrible CGI, they think people are dumb enough to make this movie a big success again which is sad.

 

1 hour ago, MrPink said:

 

In the same way critics can influence our opinions, it's certainly possible for general audiences to reveal something in films that critics could not upon their initial viewing. Regardless, I do think in general there was an undercurrent of appreciation with the oddball aspect of Venom with some critics, and it seems when more critics approached the film from that perspective they were more forgiving of it here. 

 

I don't think it's dishonest per se. They probably felt that way when they saw the first movie, but none of us are infallible to influence, and how it can change our perceptions.

I mean the first one was campy af and it had a couple of fun moments, but it wasn't a good movie at all. I have more respect for people who are consistent in their opinions and don't change their mind about some movie because of external influence.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Firepower

[Chicago]

12 minutes ago, Firepower said:

That prison break clip pretty much sealed the deal for me whether I should watch this or not, somehow it looks even worse than the first one. There's this saying that nobody sets out to do a bad film, but at times it feels like there are exceptions like this one because it doesn't look like Sony tried to make a good film here at all, they didn't even increase the budget or use additional year to fix horrible CGI, they think people are dumb enough to make this movie a big success again which is sad.

 

I mean the first one was campy af and it had a couple of fun moments, but it wasn't a good movie at all. I have more respect for people who are consistent in their opinions and don't change their mind about some movie because of external influence.

 

There can be a big difference between a good movie and an enjoyable movie though. Bad Boys 2 going by a critical standpoint is not a good movie, but everyone loves it.

 

I knew watching my way through Venom that this was a piss poor standard in story telling and narrative structure but then Tom Hardy would do something funny and I would forget all about it. I'm not expecting a top tier masterpiece and I doubt critics were either so I guess it's easy to be surprised 

[Knights of Ren]

Seeing this at 8pm tonight

[Barnack]

13 minutes ago, Chicago said:

There can be a big difference between a good movie and an enjoyable movie though. Bad Boys 2 going by a critical standpoint is not a good movie, but everyone loves it.

 

It is an interesting subject but it apply more to the The Room and the Plan 9 from Outer Space movies outthere (that the spectacle of how bad they are by someone aiming to make masterpiece is what is fun) than the Bad Boys 2 movie, I bought the Bad boys movies bluray set and was not able to finish the first one.

 

I really doubt my parents would love Bad Boys 2, the idea that everyone love watching Michael Bays movies outside critic sound quite false to me (so is the idea that everyone hate them, has would anyone sitting in them OW would see that it is not the case I would imagine).

 

If actually everyone enjoy a movie for the reason the movie was trying to achieve I think one could argue it is a good movie by definition.

 

Big Lebowski, Up-Inside Out-Walle-Incredibles-Monster Inc, Shawshank redemption, Casablanca, Groundhog Day are better example of movies almost everyone loves than Bad Boys 2 or Transformer I think. Movie everyone love tend to be critics favorite almost by definition I am blanking for a counterexample of that.

 

That said Bad Boys 1-2 like most Bay output will have a lot of critics rave some elements, because of how crazy strong auteurship and 3d mental capacity the guy has.

[Firepower]

36 minutes ago, Chicago said:

There can be a big difference between a good movie and an enjoyable movie though. Bad Boys 2 going by a critical standpoint is not a good movie, but everyone loves it.

I do agree that there are movies that are enjoyable, but not actually good. But I'd argue that Bad Boys 2 was actually very well made film technically, critics never liked Bay even when he made some good movies back in 90s.

 

36 minutes ago, Chicago said:

I knew watching my way through Venom that this was a piss poor standard in story telling and narrative structure but then Tom Hardy would do something funny and I would forget all about it. I'm not expecting a top tier masterpiece and I doubt critics were either so I guess it's easy to be surprised 

I can see why people like it and I did enjoy some moments, but there's so much wasted potential here.

[Fox20]

The "Tom Hardy will do something funny so I will ignore everything else" it's too forced, that should not be a merit to waste money and time watching a movie.

 

Then again I'm one of the people that think Eddie Brock character is trash and not funny, the only saving point was Venom himself, not  Tom.

[Chicago]

3 minutes ago, Fox20 said:

The "Tom Hardy will do something funny so I will ignore everything else" it's too forced, that should not be a merit to waste money and time watching a movie.

 

Then again I'm one of the people that think Eddie Brock character is trash and not funny, the only saving point was Venom himself, not  Tom.

Didn't Tom play Venom though?

[Pinacolada]

Yeah this isn't staying fresh. Should settle in the 50% range tho.

 

I'm shocked that not even Grace Randoloh gave it a positive review

[John Marston]

Apparently the movie has a scene take place in 1996 in which Woody Harrelson is a teenager (even though Woody in real life was already 35 in 1996).

[poweranimals]

13 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Apparently the movie has a scene take place in 1996 in which Woody Harrelson is a teenager (even though Woody in real life was already 35 in 1996).

That's because he's not playing himself. 😜

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, Firepower said:

they didn't even increase the budget or use additional year to fix horrible CGI, they think people are dumb enough to make this movie a big success again which is sad.

 

 

I've seen this complaint in a couple of other films as well.

 

Why would anyone expect studios to spend a single dime on movies during this "extra year" considering that they (from what I understand) lost money each and every month it was on the shelf?

 

Or, to put it a different way, why would one expect studios to increase a film's budget when it was costing money to keep it on the shelf and was likely to make less money when it was finally released?