-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Venom Official Trailer
- Thread starter OrangeAtlas
- Start date
Yep, that full face reveal & line feels like it comes at the end of the second act just before Venom goes to the evil corporation to get his revenge and fights Riz Ahmed, who will presumably consume an even more dangerous symbiote and become Carnage. Or maybe they'll save that for the after-credits stinger.
Whats bugging me the most about this shot is that its just such a boring angle. It looks like a typical shot/reverse shot for a conversation but one of the people is a huge hulking alien with rows of teeth. Yes, I know Im nitpicking.
As a fan of the character I just feel Sony isn't depicting Venom the way most fans of the comics would want him depicted.
Honestly, Sony would make a heck of a lot more money if they agreed to license out Venom to Marvel Studios as they did Spider-Man. Based on the way Sony had handled Spider-Man themselves prior to the deal with Disney they're better off giving the keys to related franchises to other studios and just spotting the expenses. That train can still happen if Marvel Studios ever decides they want Venom. Hopefully, if that happens though this particular run of the character hasn't turned peoples' perception off.
I do understand the whole monetizing thing and think that they'll make a decent amount on this iteration though, especially if the low budget numbers floating around are to be believed. It's a decent looking film and will bring in a decent crowd.
Not sure if there's an explanation for this posted but why does he look like a symbiotic Spider Man? Surely Peter Parker and he wouldn't have met.
I'm playing devil's advocate here but Marvel already has a busy release schedule, I doubt they would favor Venom over another character that they fully own and let's not even mention Silver and Black. Spider-Man is their crown jewel, they had to make a concession there. But Venom would be pretty low on their priorities list even if Sony was ready to license it to them.
because thats what venom looks like, that's really all there is to it. he'll look like spider-man and there will be no explanation
Maybe Thats What buggning me too. Something about the scene feels fanfilmey. Maybe its the mundane angle Thats just straight on.
Venom would be shotgunned as a one and done, typical underwhelming MCU villain and probably killed at the end a la most MCU villains. I mean this doesn't look great, but there's still future potential for the character in this format beyond being villain of the week fodder. This doesn't look great but people that are acting as though Venom ever would have gotten a solo film under the crowded MCU banner are kidding themselves.
Don't forget Agent Venom
At first I thought Agent Venom was stupid as I felt that it was Marvel trying to be edgy by giving a Spider-Man clone a gun. But then I read it and I realised that it actually wasn't that bad and it was interesting to see Flash trying so hard to be like Spider-Man, man he idolized for so many years.
Venom's merchandising potential is a fraction of a fraction of a minuscule fraction of Spider-Man's, with proportionate prestige and financial value for MCU appearances to boot. There's no way Marvel would bite on the same movie/merchandise profit delineation here that they took with Homecoming -- they'd have to take a significant cut of the movie's haul.
At that point, the financial winner between a mid-tier Marvel product and a Sony product that isn't a total steaming hunk of box office shit is probably a toss up -- except maintaining sole control means that Sony takes the whole pot if they bang out a Deadpool/Logan-style success, and they have a leaping off point to do the same thing with the rest of the Spider-Man properties they have control over.
I am a huge fan of Venom and have no problem with how he has been depicted, in the trailer we have seen so far.
Sony is planning Venom, Silver and Black, Kraven, Morbius and Nightwatch. In addition to Homecoming 2 and Into the Spider-Verse. How would they make more money by not releasing any movies from their largest franchise? Marvel has numerous other properties to focus on, so they wouldn't be making 1-2 Spider-Man related films a year for Sony, in addition to their own slate of projects.
The trailer has 19 million views in less than 24 hours. 7 million more views than Ant-Man and the Wasp's trailer, which was released 2 months ago. Clearly Sony has recognized that there is significant interest in Venom, and feedback outside of this board has generally been pretty receptive of the trailer, so I choose to be cautiously optimistic. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to see Garfield v. Hardy (Spider-Man being a lot taller than Venom would be a little lol), but I see no reason he can't have an independent origin story.
Oh man, I was very bored today and was cooking, when I realized my mittens look just like venom lol. I was about to add googly eyes inside to replace Hardy's face, and mimic it like a sockpuppet.
That's what's wrong with this face. Its like a sockpuppet.
Pretty sure they retconned that in the comics quite a while ago and that's just how the symbiote race's eyes are.
IIRC according to the leaked Sony emails it was, in fact, for sale. But they wanted some astronomically absurd amount of money for it, I think like $5B? Which makes sense coming from the same people who thought they could reboot Spider-Man a third time, and then bring back Toby and Andrew and have a 3-way Spider-Man fight movie that would gross $2 billion WW.
Genius move to show his face; that thumbnail with his face goes a long way.
The lowest bar that it has to pass is Spider-Man 3, it's already seems to be doing that so that's something though I don't think that it will pass "Amazing" Spider-Man level and just be a mediocre movie.
It will probably do decent at the box office, especially considering that it has a low budget.
I have fond memories of Venom back in the early 90's, and always thought he was dope as fuck. But
I feel like there's an alternate reality, where Michelinie's original Venom idea didn't get gender swapped. I'm more interested in that reality right now.
TL;DR version: The Symbiote was going to merge with a woman who blames Spider-Man for both the death of her husband - and subsequent miscarriage - on collateral damage from a battle he was involved in. She would be the one hunting and tormenting him, using her immunity to Spider sense.
Of course, being the late 80's, we got the gender swapped version because:
I feel like there's an alternate reality, where Michelinie's original Venom idea didn't get gender swapped. I'm more interested in that reality right now.
TL;DR version: The Symbiote was going to merge with a woman who blames Spider-Man for both the death of her husband - and subsequent miscarriage - on collateral damage from a battle he was involved in. She would be the one hunting and tormenting him, using her immunity to Spider sense.
Of course, being the late 80's, we got the gender swapped version because:
Dave Michelinie said:
As a HUGE Venom fan I gotta say that trailer looked like shit,hype at an all time low. Transformation was neat but that head reminded me of the goofy ass Spawn movie special effects. Why Sony why?
For those asking, Hardy is doing both Brock and Venom's voice. It's probably why his Brock voice is so much higher than his normal speaking voice (to differentiate it more)
http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/04/24/yes-tom-hardy-voices-venom-in-the-new-trailer
http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/04/24/yes-tom-hardy-voices-venom-in-the-new-trailer
I think it became less (about $2B iirc?). Actually it was still on the original rights sharing deal with Marvel as an option - Sony would rake the benefits of the rights sharing deal - then after making the three movies, they would sell the rights back to Marvel circa 2022. This original proposal was prior to the Sony hacks and was rejected, but we don't know whether the actual deal still has this as an option.
Deleted member 13037
Guest
Haha, it was mostly a joke.I don't know, SM3's doesn't look as cheap:
Mostly.
Yeah I wish that they had stuck with the female villain as Spider-Man foes are mostly male, so having a female villain still would have been popular with the reader, especially if she was motivated by revenge and was one of the few villain that knew Spider-Man secret identity, could get pass his Spider-sense and was like Spider-Man in terms of ability.
Jim Salicrup just took a sexist approach to that and just gender swapped it.