@CATPANEXE said:
@sesquipedalophobe: That's a lot of speculation and personal opinion. Movie companies and corporations likewise don't base market projections on that. So I'm kind of going to agree to just about everything that your entitled to have your personal opinions and respected for it. But...
@sesquipedalophobe said:
However cool it would be to see Venom on his own, what's being thrown out there chiefly relies on the success of the earlier films. Either they scrap the character (and design), completely reboot it or they deconstruct the character to make him stand on his own.
Again, you mean it would have this effect on you personally? Because none of that is otherwise true in the actual marketing and sales of the Venom character, nor ever has been, and proven as such. I could easily equate any of that to the Punisher. Or Elektra is a better example actually. Or Wolverine not being tied to Hulk. And the reboot factor is moot. The entire film continuity was just scrapped and is being rebooted. Either way audiences already know who Venom is essentially, as they did Elektra. These little details only matter to comic book fans, who in fact represent the minority share of world wide film going audiences. We pretty much low ball every comic book film, because we have too high of expectations. The rest of the movie goer audience doesn't share our comic book nostalgia whatsoever.
@CATPANEXE said:
@sesquipedalophobe said:
I honestly don't see a reason to make a Venom film.
Merchandising and for reason Venom sells like hotcakes. Venom wasn't originally written into the third film, and the company noted that his character pulled in a lot of attention and revenue and forced a script change (this is a probable reason Raimi ended up abandoning the franchise before his already green lit 4th and 5th films, no one likes creative interference). The same as there's no reason to consistently have Venom, another characters antagonist in his series, something Marvel has done since the characters introduction, as well as have several of his own toylines isolated from the actual Spider-man ones. Venom sells. The company notes this so highly that they have bopped the idea of a Venom movie around since the early nineties. The issue was always in actually pulling off a legit film instead of a B movie that tarnished the properties reputation and lost revenue. Noting your second post: Venom does not rely on Spider-man for popularity, that's proven itself. If anything, it could be said Venom sells as a darker version of Spider-man well enough on his own. For a long time the Spider-man comics themselves depended on the sales the symbiote characters drew in, and having them gracing the covers and what not.
Reposting does nothing for me. I understood everything, but in terms of the critics' reviews and the disappointment of the fans how would they honestly justify reconciling the character to the fans using the apparent arced Spider-Man/Sony universe and still allow him to be his own man? Eating brains (didn't do this in Spider-Man 3 so woe upon fans), exacting justice, jumping from host to host, from the teeth to the faceless expression squinting in a Spider-Manesque style while spraying bullets: what do fans expect and how should the director handle a character whose origin relies on something as iconic and still more prone to honest review and keep a manageable franchise itself?
Yes, Venom has shirts, brass slammers, figurines, a variety of segments in the Ultimate Spider-Man's game, massive and boring stories where he's overcoming sound, fire and his own instincts with the hopes of overcoming Spider-Man, statues, fan art, party plates and balloons, knockoffs and costumes, and outside of that he is as marketable as Schopenhauer is to the illiterati. Mention Spider-Man and it's instant success (within reason). Mention a spin-off and it's held to scrutiny, which should be the case with any Marvel film.
Log in to comment