I saw some guy who needed a shave, black goo (as Orlando said), and some cars moving. I saw nothing that made me think Venom, nothing that made it even seem like a Marvel movie at all. As far as trailers go (teasers or otherwise), this seemed VERY weak. Hopefully the next trailer is better. Also hoping it'll be way better than the garbage that was Spidey: Homecoming. Otherwise I'll skip it.
kronk wrote: Ah, you do plan to have actual Venom in your Venom exhibit eventually. Right? Hello?
I really do hate that man!
Dammit, I was thinking this in the car earlier today, hoping someone would do an Ian Malcolm quote at this!! Thank you, Kronk! You made my freaking day!
Cap is alive, Spidey is alive. Dr. Strange is alive. Thanos gets all the gems except time. Dr. Strange is like, feth it. We need to get out of here. The very end of the movie is a retreat through time.
Ant man and the wasp takes place before infinity war, post credit or end of movie is a time portal opening up and Cap going, we need your help! Lets go!
Captain Marvel takes place in the 90s, where has she been this whole time? End of the movie is a time portal, Lets go we need your help!
Avenegers 4 is a weird time travel adventure through the marvel universe grabbing people and things they need to bear thanos. Cap sees peggy carter in the 50s. they get their dance. Peggy doesn't remember because shes all Alzheimer in the modern day. Grab a quick silver. Yadda yadda. At some point they are in space. Spidey gets the black suit. They beat Thanos.
The first movie in phase 4 is spider man 2. You can see the suits corrupting influence on him throughout the movie and by the final conflict he ditches it. Post credits is it getting to Eddie Brock.
THEN you get the Venom movie.
It was a good theory. It would have been great. Awesome story and all that.
Then I found out venom comes out this October and I got real bummed because this is probably going to be real stupid.
Cap is alive, Spidey is alive. Dr. Strange is alive. Thanos gets all the gems except time. Dr. Strange is like, feth it. We need to get out of here. The very end of the movie is a retreat through time.
Ant man and the wasp takes place before infinity war, post credit or end of movie is a time portal opening up and Cap going, we need your help! Lets go!
Captain Marvel takes place in the 90s, where has she been this whole time? End of the movie is a time portal, Lets go we need your help!
Avenegers 4 is a weird time travel adventure through the marvel universe grabbing people and things they need to bear thanos. Cap sees peggy carter in the 50s. they get their dance. Peggy doesn't remember because shes all Alzheimer in the modern day. Grab a quick silver. Yadda yadda. At some point they are in space. Spidey gets the black suit. They beat Thanos.
The first movie in phase 4 is spider man 2. You can see the suits corrupting influence on him throughout the movie and by the final conflict he ditches it. Post credits is it getting to Eddie Brock.
THEN you get the Venom movie.
It was a good theory. It would have been great. Awesome story and all that.
Then I found out venom comes out this October and I got real bummed because this is probably going to be real stupid.
Venom isn’t tied to Homecoming Spidey, from what I understand.
Cap is alive, Spidey is alive. Dr. Strange is alive. Thanos gets all the gems except time. Dr. Strange is like, feth it. We need to get out of here. The very end of the movie is a retreat through time.
Ant man and the wasp takes place before infinity war, post credit or end of movie is a time portal opening up and Cap going, we need your help! Lets go!
Captain Marvel takes place in the 90s, where has she been this whole time? End of the movie is a time portal, Lets go we need your help!
Avenegers 4 is a weird time travel adventure through the marvel universe grabbing people and things they need to bear thanos. Cap sees peggy carter in the 50s. they get their dance. Peggy doesn't remember because shes all Alzheimer in the modern day. Grab a quick silver. Yadda yadda. At some point they are in space. Spidey gets the black suit. They beat Thanos.
The first movie in phase 4 is spider man 2. You can see the suits corrupting influence on him throughout the movie and by the final conflict he ditches it. Post credits is it getting to Eddie Brock.
THEN you get the Venom movie.
It was a good theory. It would have been great. Awesome story and all that.
Then I found out venom comes out this October and I got real bummed because this is probably going to be real stupid.
Venom isn’t tied to Homecoming Spidey, from what I understand.
You understood wrong. Tom Holland finished up his shooting in a couple of days. He doesn't have a big part in the movie but he is definitely in it.
Cap is alive, Spidey is alive. Dr. Strange is alive. Thanos gets all the gems except time. Dr. Strange is like, feth it. We need to get out of here. The very end of the movie is a retreat through time.
Ant man and the wasp takes place before infinity war, post credit or end of movie is a time portal opening up and Cap going, we need your help! Lets go!
Captain Marvel takes place in the 90s, where has she been this whole time? End of the movie is a time portal, Lets go we need your help!
Avenegers 4 is a weird time travel adventure through the marvel universe grabbing people and things they need to bear thanos. Cap sees peggy carter in the 50s. they get their dance. Peggy doesn't remember because shes all Alzheimer in the modern day. Grab a quick silver. Yadda yadda. At some point they are in space. Spidey gets the black suit. They beat Thanos.
The first movie in phase 4 is spider man 2. You can see the suits corrupting influence on him throughout the movie and by the final conflict he ditches it. Post credits is it getting to Eddie Brock.
THEN you get the Venom movie.
It was a good theory. It would have been great. Awesome story and all that.
Then I found out venom comes out this October and I got real bummed because this is probably going to be real stupid.
Venom isn’t tied to Homecoming Spidey, from what I understand.
You understood wrong. Tom Holland finished up his shooting in a couple of days. He doesn't have a big part in the movie but he is definitely in it.
And yet, it's still not part of the MCU. Marvel and Sony have both stated it's part of Sonys Spiderman Universe, not Marvels Cinematic Universe.
If it was part of the MCU, Marvel would make sure we know. A good indication is they don't list it as part of the phase 3 lineup.
Okay, okay...it was better than Amazing Emma Stone 2: enter Jamie Foxx. But that’s as far as I’ll go. And if the same team is behind this, I’m afraid for Venom’s chances. Look, I thought Holland did great in Civil War. But I already picked apart Spidey: Crapcoming in its own thread. And I stand behind my comments, 100%.
Okay, okay...it was better than Amazing Emma Stone 2: enter Jamie Foxx. But that’s as far as I’ll go. And if the same team is behind this, I’m afraid for Venom’s chances. Look, I thought Holland did great in Civil War. But I already picked apart Spidey: Crapcoming in its own thread. And I stand behind my comments, 100%.
I do remember reading that now. Not being a comic book reader it didn't really bother me at all, and the film itself (separate from its faithfulness to the source) is my favourite of the MCU. But I won't argue against your own feelings over the setting. Each to their own on that.
More on topic, as the Venom film isn't in the MCU I doubt your concern about the same team is warranted (they might share a catering company?). I'm far more bothered about the trailer just being Tom Hardy in hospital and Tom Hardy riding a motorbike. Neither one screams 'Venom Movie! Get Excited!' to me (and there's the added complication I really don't like Tom Hardy. He ruined Picard).
Tom Hardy is an actor that can sell tickets. So it makes sense this early in the game to have a trailer that says "LOOK! LOOOOOK!!! We've got Tom Hardy get interested in us!!!!"
You'll get the rest of your nerdy porn once his fans that dont know what a venom is start talking about his pain and feelings of being at a hospital
I loved the trailer, but you're right it would be good to see some actual Venom . The story behind the host was always one of the most interesting parts to me, though.
I like Tom Hardy, but this movie is going to be difficult for me to like. Venom is soo tied to the Spiderman mythos and removing that aspect feels like a disservice to its history. It also explains why Venom uses webs.
But on the otherhand, I liked the Venom run with Flash Thompson as the host. That aspect could be cool.
AdeptSister wrote: I like Tom Hardy, but this movie is going to be difficult for me to like. Venom is soo tied to the Spiderman mythos and removing that aspect feels like a disservice to its history. It also explains why Venom uses webs.
Agreed.
AdeptSister wrote: But on the otherhand, I liked the Venom run with Flash Thompson as the host. That aspect could be cool.
Yeah but that really worked after the character had some history and in this case there really isn't any.
They look like they are taking bits from Ultimate Spider-man villian where it is a organism created to battle disease/cancer by covering the host but doesn't quite work as planned.
The issue with the trailer is WE all know its a venom movie but the general public doesn't know what they hell they are looking at.
There is a guy. It looks like he has cancer. G-Men are chasing him at night with black SUVs. He's running in the woods. Canister of black goo for half a second... maybe thats what gave him cancer? He's screaming in a bed.
What is this movie about? The general public has no fething idea.
If you didn't know Sony was making a Venom movie and you didn't recognize the Venom face at the end you would think this was a whole lot of confusing nothing. The end of the trailer doesn't even say Venom. It says "V".
Thats.....a very good point actually. Infact I only knew it was Venom because the trailer tag said it. If I watched it I wouldnt of saw that and thought "oh cool a Venom movie" and I grew up loving that character
It's been out for a little over two weeks. Barely one comment per day on this thread.
And we're Nerds. We're meant to be excited by such teaser trailers. It's meant to pique interest in the film when it comes out.
But so far, a resolute 'meh' is pretty much universal. We're not knocking the film, because they didn't even show us enough to be able to do that (consider the Justice League trailer, where Cyborg's CGI looked half rendered)
But so far, a resolute 'meh' is pretty much universal. We're not knocking the film, because they didn't even show us enough to be able to do that (consider the Justice League trailer, where Cyborg's CGI looked half rendered)
I cannot recall a less exciting trailer for something I should be excited about. There's absolutely no content in it besides a made for TV color palette.
Lance845 wrote: The issue with the trailer is WE all know its a venom movie but the general public doesn't know what they hell they are looking at.
There is a guy. It looks like he has cancer. G-Men are chasing him at night with black SUVs. He's running in the woods. Canister of black goo for half a second... maybe thats what gave him cancer? He's screaming in a bed.
What is this movie about? The general public has no fething idea.
If you didn't know Sony was making a Venom movie and you didn't recognize the Venom face at the end you would think this was a whole lot of confusing nothing. The end of the trailer doesn't even say Venom. It says "V".
It's only a teaser. Clearly, the audience for this teaser is comic fans, who'll watch it for the name. I, for one, have no idea what it's about, and it doesn't make me want to see this film. Hopefully an actual trailer will be more informative.
Lance845 wrote: The issue with the trailer is WE all know its a venom movie but the general public doesn't know what they hell they are looking at.
There is a guy. It looks like he has cancer. G-Men are chasing him at night with black SUVs. He's running in the woods. Canister of black goo for half a second... maybe thats what gave him cancer? He's screaming in a bed.
What is this movie about? The general public has no fething idea.
If you didn't know Sony was making a Venom movie and you didn't recognize the Venom face at the end you would think this was a whole lot of confusing nothing. The end of the trailer doesn't even say Venom. It says "V".
It's only a teaser. Clearly, the audience for this teaser is comic fans, who'll watch it for the name. I, for one, have no idea what it's about, and it doesn't make me want to see this film. Hopefully an actual trailer will be more informative.
Well yeah but a good teaser should let you know what it's teasing.
20 seconds in we know he's a rogue and a scammer. We know he's a pilot. We also know he's strong willed and goes against the grain. (he was kicked out)
By 30 second we can see the recognizable falcon cockpit.
By 37 we know woody Harleson is building a team, presumably for some kind of job.
Then BAM. Chewie. Even if you somehow never saw a starwars ever you could at this point in the trailer be like... OooH. A heist movie in space with people robots and crazy aliens. And then in the final shot a big logo telling us the name of the movie.
The Venom teaser doesn't even tell us what genre the movie is. Is this another Bourne movie? How could any of us know. It's called V apparently! I think thats actually my biggest actual issue. It doesn't even say the title of the movie at the end. What in the actual feth?
The face is kind of goofy looking, but otherwise the effects don’t look terrible. So more than one symbiote right off the bat. Wonder if we’ll see a Carnage for him to fight as his evil him he has to overcome.
oof. When you finally see the face, man that is a rough go.
I have to say not much of an improvement over the Topher Grace version, although the symbiote subvocalizing was better. I think Venom is just never really going to look good onscreen.
AduroT wrote: The face is kind of goofy looking, but otherwise the effects don’t look terrible. So more than one symbiote right off the bat. Wonder if we’ll see a Carnage for him to fight as his evil him he has to overcome.
It's apparently based on Lethal Protector, so expect some combination of Scream, Phage, Riot, Lasher, and Agony as villains.
He looks okay. Storywise they seem to be stripping Venom of his origin, which dumbs him down to a pretty generic hero with evil powers. Not expecting much, but as a trailer its not a complete trainwreck this time.
Liking the look so far, but it could use a little more touch ups. Im really glad they fit in the "We" its important to the character. Think I like the more subtle "We" from when the goons attack him in his apartment more than the 'big' reveal at the end.
Don't care for all the Tom Hardy symbiote shenanigans. It just looks goofy. Probably has to do with face time being written into his contract or they aren't all that proud of the Venom CGI. Definitely not enough Venom for my tastes so far.
Also felt like the "Upgrade" trailer when he was fighting the 3 dudes in the apartment. Instead of the implants doing the muscle work instinctively, it was symbiote doing the work, while the "host" was befuddled by what was going on. The two actors even look alike.
Not all that hyped for this and I was a huge Venom fan back in the day.
The trailers are getting better, but I'm really getting no "gotta go see it!" vibe. I think it's a tough ask to make Venom when the market is in the middle of being overwhelmed with continued superhero movies.
I feel like you need to be bringing something really unique, new, or cool, and I don't know if Venom is doing that.
I almost said that at least then they might have had a budget for proper CGI... But I just got around to watching Age of Ultron last weekend, and was amazed at how bad the opening chase scene was.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Can anyone understand what Venom is saying? Was his last line "a turd rolling in the wind"? That can't be right, can it?
Yes, definitely a turd rolling in the wind. I now have a new metaphor I need to work into my daily dialog.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just watched the trailer again. I think there are at least two other symbiotes. If I had to guess, Scream and Riot are in there. It's a shame if they didn't somehow fit Carnage in. The other symbiotes were forgettable, by Carnage just stuck with you.
Mysterio wrote: That was 3 years ago - CGI is way better now!
The Venom trailer says 'Hi!' ...
Keep in mind that Trailers often use clips that don't have 100% "polished" CGI. It makes sense from a business standpoint. You want to get the hype going for a film, but the effects depo isn't quite finished. As the vast majority of viewers are not likely to notice unfinished effects, especially when trailers rapidly cut through shots, studios often put out the trailer anyway (the Deadpool 2 trailer makes fun of this very practice).
Having said that, the CGI looks fine to me, but I haven't seen it on anything HD, just on my phone. Venom is also a goo monster, so my brain expects a bit of "waxiness" that is common with unfinished effects. So they actually look finished to my brain.
Lance845 wrote: Also joss wheddons an over rated hack. The first 2 avengers movies are some of the worst marvel movies. Definitely in the bottom 5
The first Avengers movie was awesome. But don't let that stop you from gakposting like usual.
The first avengers has some good moments and some good lines (which is very wheddon. He writes snappy dialog with little one liners all over). But it also turned every character into a single defining character trait. Cap was the old guy who doesn't get jokes. Iron mans pure snark. Etc etc.... Just compare their character there to their own movies where they have some depth or cap winter soldier/civil war where they pile in characters who are actual people instead of caricatures.
Galef wrote: Keep in mind that Trailers often use clips that don't have 100% "polished" CGI.
-
Indeed. I've always thought that was a bloody stupid idea. You want your trailer to show the movie at its best, not leaving people wondering how much less it will suck.
Galef wrote: Keep in mind that Trailers often use clips that don't have 100% "polished" CGI.
-
Indeed. I've always thought that was a bloody stupid idea. You want your trailer to show the movie at its best, not leaving people wondering how much less it will suck.
It does have that unfortunate side effect, however the alternatives are no better Either delay the trailers to accommodate the effects team, meaning the trailer comes out literally weeks before the movie Or delay the release date of the movie
Both options could hurt the movie's revenue. We also live in a time in which most movie goers are accustomed to CGI and typically see trailers on their phones. So unpolished CGI is very unlikely to be noticed by most.
I remember growing up when animatronics were still a go-to and it was like a game for me to pick out what shots were CGI or practical in movies like Jurassic Park and Jumangi. My kids, now 14 and 11, cannot seem to always tell the difference because CGI is everywhere for them. The "uncanny valley" for CGI is not so wide for them as it is for us who grew up in the 80s/90s (or older).
So while it is annoying to see trailers with unfinished CGI, those of use that see it are in a minority. So film producers are making the right choice in that regard.
There's also lessons learned about where to put the 'seam' between the CGI character and the scene it's been inserted into. Gollum, for example, extended an inch or so beyond his 'body' so despite the focus and lighting behind different than that of whatever scene he was in (and it really irked me), he belonged there way between that composited characters like they were green-screened in.
All that said, I've often thought that bad CGI would work really well for 40k daemons because they're not really there.
I wasn't too fixated on the need for this to be R-rated, but some folks are crying foul about it not following Deadpool and Logan's R-rated lead and is instead going with a PG-13.
Via Bloody Disgusting:
Sony’s “dark” comic universe is going to kick off with Venom, a long-promised R-rated adaptation of the popular comic antihero who was first introduced in “Amazing Spider-Man” #298. It has been rated PG-13 by the MPAA, if the AMC listings are to be believed.
Director Ruben Fleischer has publicly stated that, in the case of a PG-13, he pushed the limits of the gore and violence. What he’s essentially saying is that Sony hasn’t neutered his movie much like they did that of Sylvain White’s Slender Man. Truth or not, all that matters is what’s on the screen come October 5th. An “R” is all but an arbitrary rating offered by the MPAA’s own bias. It’s possible that Venom has all the bells and whistles us fans have been promised, and still was able to score a much more audience (and box office) friendly PG-13. As a fan, I’ve got skeptical eyes, but it’s hard to complain when one of the coolest comic characters ever is getting his own film – with Tom-fuckin’-Hardy starring nonetheless. Oh, and the runtime is an awesome 1 hr 52 minutes.
As for the reason why the studio wanted a PG-13 rating, we’ve previously discussed it here, but essentially it’s the start of a new universe that would include Morbius, Silk, Jackpot, and Nightwatch. With Venom tracking around $60M for its opening weekend, it seems more and more likely that we’ll not only get to see all of the aforementioned characters, but also Carnage and then maybe…SPIDER-MAN?
I've only heard of Morbius from that list (from the early 90s cartoon) but it suddenly strikes me that a novel twist idea for a franchise could be to make films of some of the more tragic/sympathetic of the Spider-man 'rogues' and then when you do the inevitable team-up film you essentially bring in Spidey as the villain of the piece.
Riquende wrote: I've only heard of Morbius from that list (from the early 90s cartoon) but it suddenly strikes me that a novel twist idea for a franchise could be to make films of some of the more tragic/sympathetic of the Spider-man 'rogues' and then when you do the inevitable team-up film you essentially bring in Spidey as the villain of the piece.
I *hate* Carnage, but I find it hard to believe you've never heard of him!
The others listed are really, really odd choices, being basically D-list 'super' heroes and/or villains.
And Spider-Man might be one of the hardest heroes to portray as a 'villain', especially to movie-goers!
I *hate* Carnage, but I find it hard to believe you've never heard of him!
The others listed are really, really odd choices, being basically D-list 'super' heroes and/or villains.
And Spider-Man might be one of the hardest heroes to portray as a 'villain', especially to movie-goers!
Sorry I only meant the first ones listed. I've heard of Carnage of course...
And yes, it would be crazy hard to write (you'd probably have to stick rigidly to the protagonists' PoV and how they see Spider-man as a threat - maybe the reveal who is 'stalking' them is only towards the end) but I'd rather a risk taken than watch people try to just "do the MCU again".
OH!
What about a collaboration between Sony and Disney where they make a legit Tom Holland SM film and launch it within weeks of the Sony thing and they cover the same event from different perspectives...
Not a good look when the star says his favorite scenes didn't make the cut:
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, no?
Originally announced as an R-rated project, Sony Pictures’ Venom has slowly become a PG-13 that the filmmakers claim “push the limits” of the rating. As a lifelong fan of the comic character, I’m trying my best to accept this truth and be open to the idea that Sony just wants the film to appeal to a broader audience. It’s a business first and foremost, and it’s hard to blame Sony for wanting to tap into the Spider-Man audience, which is predominantly teens. As for “pushing the limits” of a PG-13, I know that, at times, there’s truth in this statement. It’s quite possible that director Ruben Fleischer did, in fact, have his cake and ate it too. Maybe, just maybe, Fleischer’s version of a R-rating ended up being PG-13? I’m willing to give them all the benefit of the doubt. Still, I can’t shake the feeling that this is all politics and that behind the scenes everyone is steaming from their ears.
Everyone is putting on their best smile for the Venom junket, although Tom Hardy sounds like a man secretly frustrated. Is he grinning through his teeth? Here’s what he said when ComicsExplained asked about his favorite scene:
“Things that aren’t in this movie,” he replied. “There are like 30 to 40 minutes worth of scenes that aren’t in this movie… all of them. Mad puppeteering scenes, dark comedy scenes. You know what I mean? They just never made it in.”
Obviously, it’s typical that a lot of a film is cut from the final product, especially when most blockbusters go under a series of reshoots, which Venom did. The question here isn’t as to if it’s a big deal that there are 30-40 minutes of lobotomized footage, it’s as to why? Especially if they’re Hardy’s favorite bits? It’s all a bit confusing.
As for the coveted rating, Collider reported back in March of 2017 that Venom will be rated R. They say the plan was for the film, scripted by Dante Harper (Alien: Covenant), to launch Sony’s own dark Marvel universe. It made a whole lot of sense with the major hits of Logan and Deadpool.
And while nobody part of production ever confirmed plans for an R rating, Columbia Pictures’ president Sanford Panitch raised eyebrows when he said that Venom will draw on the work of John Carpenter or David Cronenberg while promising “more pop and fun.”
“We only ever talked about this movie as being PG-13,” Fleisher told Comicbook.com.
“What I’ve said in the past is that we wanted to push the violence to the hilt. The Dark Knight was always a huge reference point for me, personally, just as far as how far you could take a PG-13.”
The film’s producer Matt Tolmach added: “Everyone is asking us that. Is there an R-rated cut sitting there? There isn’t. We came into this production and the development of the movie wanting to make a movie that was true to Venom, true to the comics, and true to the character, but at the same time is a movie that 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds can see.
“We had to push right up against it. We’re 15+ in England. It’s not like we just wanted to make a family film. We wanted to push it as hard as we could, but also to make it accessible. That was always the goal.”
It’s hard to know what the truth is, but all of the footage looks exemplary except for the lack of gore. Was there ever that much violence in Venom or was it all implied? This is hugely debatable and will cast a dark cloud over the film if it doesn’t deliver the goods this coming weekend. With that said, we’re getting a solo Venom movie in theaters. It’s hard to complain.
Mysterio wrote: You still probably decide for yourself though, and not rely solely on someone else's opinion.
I mean, if you're at all interested and aren't just in it for the schadenfreude.
I blame the Lady Gagabots!
As "Venom" and "A Star Is Born" heads to the box office this weekend, it seems social media is in disarray over the two movies.
On Tuesday, early reactions to "Venom," a superhero movie starring Tom Hardy and based on the Marvel Universe character of the same name, have started to appear on Twitter—which in any other case would be considered normal.
However, eagle-eyed fans have noticed that a lot of the tweets are almost identical, and are suggesting people are "fabricating negative reviews" in support of Lady Gaga's film "A Star Is Born." Both movies premiere on October 5.
"Beware of fake #Venom movie reviews. There are people trying to promote Lady Gaga's #AStarIsBorn and are fabricating negative reviews. Look out for bots and only trust proper and regular reviewers," Marvel Mania captioned a photo of tweets from what appears to be three separate accounts writing the same comment.
"I am the biggest marvel fan but i just watched #Venom and I don't know what to say," the comment in question reads. "Easily the worst movie this year. I expected so much better and now I'm just disappointed."
Another Twitter user posted the same screenshot with the caption: "Okay, something is up. The negativity around the #Venom movie is looking very artificial."
Sooooo there are BOTS attacking the #Venom movie. LMAO," tweeted another individual with the same screenshot along with another repeated comment shared across several accounts.
"Just got out of a #Venom preview.. Thankfully it was free," the comment in question reads. "Worst two hours of my life. I will be taking my wife to see Lady GaGa's new movie #AStarISBorn with Bradley Cooper on Friday. Their song shallow is great.."
One Twitter user, who was accused of being a bot, explained to Buzzfeed News that "it was a joke between two of my mutuals."
"We steal each other's tweets," the Twitter user said, noting that they are a fan of Lady Gaga, but ultimately that didn't affect their tweet about "Venom."
However, a Gaga fan account, Twitter user @LGMonster95, admitted to the outlet that the superstar's fans are trying to boost support for her movie.
"It's us Gaga fans creating fake ids to trash 'Venom' premiere. They both are getting released on the same day so we want more audience for 'A Star Is Born,'" the social media user explained.
A separate Lady Gaga fan account insists it's not them and it's actually DC Comics' aficionados who are behind the bot accounts.
"Those are DC fans," @gagamorphosis wrote. "They’re trying to pin in it on us Lady Gaga fans. They’re the one who started it. I know a big DC fan account who’s making these troll accounts."
One Twitter user account dedicated to Lady Gaga, just pleaded with the Twitterverse asking for people to "please stop posting fake reactions to that other movie (or really don't talk about it at all).
"It could backfire really badly," the social media user added.
"Venom" follows the story of Eddie Brock (Hardy), who gets the powers of a symbiote. Meanwhile, "A Star Is Born" follows musician Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper) as he helps a young singer, Ally (Lady Gaga), with her budding career.
CBM wrote:As of right now, 29 reviews have been counted with 8 Rotten and 21 Fresh. That means with an average rating of 4.3/10, Venom's current Rotten Tomatoes score is a lowly 28% putting it firmly in Suicide Squad territory but well above Fantastic Four. A lot of reviews still need to be counted so this score could change over the coming days but it's likely to increase or decrease significantly at this stage.
As for the Critics Consensus, that says: "Venom's first standalone movie turns out to be like the comics character in all the wrong ways - chaotic, noisy, and in desperate need of a stronger attachment to Spider-Man."
LunarSol wrote: IGN's review of makes comparisons to Catwoman, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Elektra. :(
Seems a bit unfair to LoEG to be associated with those two, but its been awhile since I saw it. I remember vaguely enjoying it and didn't even know it was based on a comic book until like 4 years ago.
CBM wrote:As of right now, 29 reviews have been counted with 8 Rotten and 21 Fresh. That means with an average rating of 4.3/10, Venom's current Rotten Tomatoes score is a lowly 28% putting it firmly in Suicide Squad territory but well above Fantastic Four. A lot of reviews still need to be counted so this score could change over the coming days but it's likely to increase or decrease significantly at this stage.
As for the Critics Consensus, that says: "Venom's first standalone movie turns out to be like the comics character in all the wrong ways - chaotic, noisy, and in desperate need of a stronger attachment to Spider-Man."
I loved Suicide Squad, so I should probably see this...
Screen Junkies reviewers both liked it. One said that Hardy's performance saves an otherwise garbage movie, so if you aren't a big Hardy fan you likely won't enjoy it. The other says the film is "hot garbage in the best way" and compared it to Showgirls. They both agree that you have to be in a certain mood to roll with the movie or you'll hate it.
Mysterio wrote: You still probably decide for yourself though, and not rely solely on someone else's opinion.
I mean, if you're at all interested and aren't just in it for the schadenfreude.
Limited time and money. I do the cinema once a month tops. When it’s nearly £20 to get in and some scran, better for me to wait for the digital release and rent it for £5. YMMV, and fair enough. Only ever speak for myself.
The odd thing is, messy as they say it is, they’re also saying it’s actually fairly fun.
Mysterio wrote: You still probably decide for yourself though, and not rely solely on someone else's opinion.
I mean, if you're at all interested and aren't just in it for the schadenfreude.
Limited time and money. I do the cinema once a month tops. When it’s nearly £20 to get in and some scran, better for me to wait for the digital release and rent it for £5.
Ah, got it!
Ctaylor wrote:io9 gave it a mostly positive review, with some concerns.
Some movies are critic proof, and Venom fits that profile.
Be interesting to see boxofficemojo’s prediction on Friday.
I think it will just have one of those 'record' week 2 drop offs that some outlets will love to see and report on, but that yeah, it will end up being a fun movie if you've set your expectations accordingly.
Sounds as if they made the classic mistake for an origin story and fail to have Venom arrive until most of the audience is becoming comatose,
but once he does arrive there is fun to be had (wonder if there is a chance we could get a re-cut for DVD/Blu Ray as there's meant to be a bunch more venom stuff that wasn't used)
Vulcan wrote: Given that the critics loved the Ghostbusters remake and The Last Jedi, I'm actually thinking this makes Venom look a lot better.
Very good point!
I don't need a movie to get nominated for an Oscar, I just want to be entertained for a couple hours. Too many critics and filmmakers forget that. (But, hey, not all movies for all people. I'm glad there is a variety of films and TV shows these days. Heck, there is too much media to consume thanks to Netlflix, Hulu, Amazon and the like.)
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Screen Junkies reviewers both liked it. One said that Hardy's performance saves an otherwise garbage movie, so if you aren't a big Hardy fan you likely won't enjoy it. The other says the film is "hot garbage in the best way" and compared it to Showgirls. They both agree that you have to be in a certain mood to roll with the movie or you'll hate it.
To be fair, Showgirl is a great movie to watch with the sound off. I have a fairly strong crush on Elizabeth Berkley, so I may be prejudiced.
As far as the Venom movie goes, this was always going to be a Redbox at best for me, more than likely a Netflix/Disney streaming/whatever. Reviews won't change that, I simply am not as moved by the character as I am other characters. For instance, literally ANY character from the Ultraverse.
Mysterio wrote: You still probably decide for yourself though, and not rely solely on someone else's opinion.
I mean, if you're at all interested and aren't just in it for the schadenfreude.
Limited time and money. I do the cinema once a month tops. When it’s nearly £20 to get in and some scran, better for me to wait for the digital release and rent it for £5.
Ah, got it!
Ctaylor wrote:io9 gave it a mostly positive review, with some concerns.
Some movies are critic proof, and Venom fits that profile.
Be interesting to see boxofficemojo’s prediction on Friday.
I think it will just have one of those 'record' week 2 drop offs that some outlets will love to see and report on, but that yeah, it will end up being a fun movie if you've set your expectations accordingly.
I get the sense that the negativity brigade has been hard at work all along with Venom. Goes to show you that they don't just target DC movies.
Anyway, the trouble with doombaiting is that it sticks somewhat if the movie doesn't get stellar reviews. There were people trying to work that gak with Wonder Woman in advance of its release -- starting stories about it being a troubled production, etc. -- but they didn't stick because the movie was good and audiences liked it. With mixed reviews, Venom might not be able to brush that stuff aside as easily.
I doubt I'm going to get the chance to see it in the theater, but like LunarSol I think I'm more interested in it now because of the negativity.
I think it will just have one of those 'record' week 2 drop offs that some outlets will love to see and report on, but that yeah, it will end up being a fun movie if you've set your expectations accordingly.
I get the sense that the negativity brigade has been hard at work all along with Venom. Goes to show you that they don't just target DC movies.
Anyway, the trouble with doombaiting is that it sticks somewhat if the movie doesn't get stellar reviews. There were people trying to work that gak with Wonder Woman in advance of its release -- starting stories about it being a troubled production, etc. -- but they didn't stick because the movie was good and audiences liked it. With mixed reviews, Venom might not be able to brush that stuff aside as easily.
I doubt I'm going to get the chance to see it in the theater, but like LunarSol I think I'm more interested in it now because of the negativity.
I have to wonder what these Negativity Brigades get out of this?
And maybe they target DC and non-Disney Marvel movies?
I was interested anyway, so I'm with you there - I'll probably go see it this month sometime.
Captain Joystick wrote:
Mysterio wrote: Carnage is a one note thin 'character' that should have been in his one (maybe two!) story arc, and then never heard from again.
I think it will just have one of those 'record' week 2 drop offs that some outlets will love to see and report on, but that yeah, it will end up being a fun movie if you've set your expectations accordingly.
I get the sense that the negativity brigade has been hard at work all along with Venom. Goes to show you that they don't just target DC movies.
Anyway, the trouble with doombaiting is that it sticks somewhat if the movie doesn't get stellar reviews. There were people trying to work that gak with Wonder Woman in advance of its release -- starting stories about it being a troubled production, etc. -- but they didn't stick because the movie was good and audiences liked it. With mixed reviews, Venom might not be able to brush that stuff aside as easily.
I doubt I'm going to get the chance to see it in the theater, but like LunarSol I think I'm more interested in it now because of the negativity.
I have to wonder what these Negativity Brigades get out of this?
And maybe they target DC and non-Disney Marvel movies?
I was interested anyway, so I'm with you there - I'll probably go see it this month sometime.
Well, the bloggers and clickbait-filled geek sites undoubtedly get more clicks. I don't think there's anything more nefarious behind it than that. I think they'd start gak with MCU movies too, but they're generally well received and so the negativity doesn't get much traction.
timetowaste85 wrote: Opinions from anyone who saw it last night? I assume it had a show around 10pm and somebody from here must have gone on opening night.
I'm easily pleased, so YMMV, but I was thoroughly entertained. It started slow as they set up the villain and showed how Brock is a bit of a jerk. Venom was well characterised and watch the two of them bicker was fun. Didn't care much for the villain, they were really just their for Venom to knock down.
Half decent pacing. Half decent plot. Cool action scenes. Tom Hardy/venom was well accomplished.
Spoiler:
And a scene with she-venom that reminded of certain feelings from my teenage years.
We liked it. The first half could have been condensed in favor of more day to day conversation between Brock and Venom, and would have been better as an R, but the second half is a romping good time.
So I saw it, ended up liking it, but it's by no means a good movie. It ended up reminding me of Spawn, or a louder, angrier Guyver 2.
Someone in my theatre didn't feel the same way, got up when the (incredibly terrible) Eminem credits song started playing and started wailing "this movie sucks!" and "worst film of 2018!" so... Maybe not suitable for 18 year olds up past their bed time.
Spoiler:
It's actually a pretty hard PG-13, Venom actually bites some heads off on-screen and we get protruding bones and such, but there's at least one scene where they very clearly cut out a shot of a cute fluffy bunny getting attacked by the monster from Life so this stuff about it 'always being meant to be PG-13' is a lie. I expect an uncensored cut.
Two post-credits sequences, the first is worth staying for because it's laughably bad but the second is just a preview of that animated movie they're making.
I liked it and found it entertaining, but like Captain Joystick said, it is by no means a good movie. It falls apart if you look too closely (or well closely at all) at the plot or the bad guy, or the romance subplot.
Its a good shut off the brain and have fun sorta thing.
Surprised to see it's been so well received, since to be honest it looks like hot trash. I guess I'm glad it did ok since it's a comic book movie, and you kind of need to pick up those non-MCU wins where you can.
To be clear, i wish this WAS hot garbage. Sony needs encouragment to give it all back to marvel instead of trying and failing to make their own spiderman stuff. Marvel could and would have done a much better job.
Yeah, very true, and then we would have gotten that spider logo (and presumably, backstory) :/
Despite the fact I think this looks terrible, I'm still going to go see it. If not this weekend, next. I fully admit to watching bad movies though so that doesn't mean anything in terms of merit.
I'm going to wait for the inevitable online iTunes leakhome video cassette on this. Love the character but not sure about him being removed from the wider SM universe, but really can't get on with Tom Hardy.
I really don't trust critics any more. It's not just them liking Ghostbusters.
My major gripe: Black Panther. It's not a bad movie at all. It was pretty good, but by far not the best in the MCU. Better than Thor the Dark World, by far. Not Avengers good though. The problem I have? It's being said it's going to win multiple awards.
Seriously over hyped, and people just can't admit it was just above average.
Black Panther actually has a lot of stuff in it that appeals more directly to critics in the same way that The Last Jedi did. The difference is that the rest of the movie is an Antman level Marvel movie instead of disjointed garbage*. If TLJ was "Laural/Yanny" for critics/audiences, then Black Panther is more "Laurel/Linney". There is more alignment and agreement on the general quality of the film, but by no means is everyone on the same wavelength.
cuda1179 wrote: I really don't trust critics any more. It's not just them liking Ghostbusters.
My major gripe: Black Panther. It's not a bad movie at all. It was pretty good, but by far not the best in the MCU. Better than Thor the Dark World, by far. Not Avengers good though. The problem I have? It's being said it's going to win multiple awards.
Seriously over hyped, and people just can't admit it was just above average.
Black Pather was a great fun movie - it is going to win awards due to the fact that most of the cast are black - I am not that bothered about that as there are much worse reasons for giving the awards at the Oscars etc.
Don't trust or listen to critics- ever - say it with me Enjoy or don't enjoy films on their own merit or lack of same not because some self proclaimed expert (as most have little or no actual qualificaitons) says it is.
Films are always gooing to be subjective and no critic is less baised than you or I, many lie and claim they are not.
Many just parot others or simply regurgete the press relases - a critic is a parasite, nothing more. Others do what they are paid to do.
Venom not manged to see but I will and judge it myself, on my own criteria.
LunarSol wrote: It's not that you shouldn't trust critics, its that you should find critics that you trust.
Yes. The idea that no critic anywhere is worth anything is pretty absurd. A good movie review will let you know if you are likely to like a movie even if they didn't.
Not sure what you mean by this, but it reminded me how the main 2 white guys in Black Panther were Bilbo and Gollum. They were the Tolkien white guys of the movie
Not sure what you mean by this, but it reminded me how the main 2 white guys in Black Panther were Bilbo and Gollum. They were the Tolkien white guys of the movie
-
The world has changed. Much that once was is lost: none now live who remember. It began with the forging of the Tolkien Ehite Guys joke. And some things that should have been forgotten were not lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. Until, when chance came, the Tolkien White Guys joke ensnared a new teller.
Just came from watching Venom with some trepidation but it actually was a pretty good movie. I generally liked it a lot. I was afraid there was going to be a lot of incoherent CGI mess (like when the Hulk fought a cloud in the first Hulk movie) but that was just one scene and pretty brief.
Much better than I thought the trailer made it look.
My brother and I were discussing the film and we decided that the villain scenes should have been edited differently.
Spoiler:
Remove the the scenes where the symbiote is slogging its way from one side of the planet to the other. Instead, reveal that the villain had been secretly infected at some earlier point in the film. Maybe he showed up to the crash site personally. It would have made for a more shocking reveal and would make his callous behavior more believable.
Overall, pretty enjoyable film. I like movies that know they are silly action flicks and go for it. Tom Hardy looked like he was having fun. His scenes with the symbiote were the highlight of the film for me.
The villain was the big letdown. Again. Why do comic books movies have the worst villains?
I went in expecting a dark, gritty movie and got a light-hearted buddy cop movie.
An odd couple. Car chase in San Fransisco. Borderline suicidal partner. Romantic sub plot. It’s like Lethal Weapon 7.
Which isn’t bad, just not what I expected. It doesn’t take itself seriously, but almost to the point where it’s trying to prove it isn’t taking itself seriously. I liked Hardy, couldn’t have cared less about the villains (not a good thing) and the romance plot felt forced, though the chemistry was there.
I enjoyed the Brock / Venom parts, and all the actors did a pretty good job with flimsy material. I’ll go see the sequel when it comes out. Hopefully they put a little more effort into the story.
Ctaylor wrote: That would have been an improvement, yeah.
Overall, pretty enjoyable film. I like movies that know they are silly action flicks and go for it. Tom Hardy looked like he was having fun. His scenes with the symbiote were the highlight of the film for me.
The villain was the big letdown. Again. Why do comic books movies have the worst villains?
I think the big problem is a lot of the time they like to use villains that are basically the same power/costume-wise as the hero, while not properly fleshing them out to distinguish them besides being mustache-twirling villains that do bad things because they are bad. So when they finally do clash, there's no weight to it and their samey designs make it boring to watch. A lot of Marvel movies suffer from this issue, (Black Panther, Ant-Man, Iron-Man, etc.) and part of the reason why Loki is one of the villains to actually stick out in the MCU is because he isn't just an evil version of Thor. Thanos is another exception as well since they actually took time to flesh him out and he has no immediate heroic equivalent on the Avengers' side. Both also kinda stick out since they exist in multiple movies in the MCU, rather than the throwaway ones that either die or get thrown in the slammer.
cuda1179 wrote: I really don't trust critics any more. It's not just them liking Ghostbusters.
My major gripe: Black Panther. It's not a bad movie at all. It was pretty good, but by far not the best in the MCU. Better than Thor the Dark World, by far. Not Avengers good though. The problem I have? It's being said it's going to win multiple awards.
Seriously over hyped, and people just can't admit it was just above average.
Black Pather was a great fun movie - it is going to win awards due to the fact that most of the cast are black - I am not that bothered about that as there are much worse reasons for giving the awards at the Oscars etc.
.
Excuse me? Getting an award for a generally above-average performance because of an actor's race is okay with you? Isn't that a bit racist? I know their have been questionable winners in the past, but if that happens for that reason...…#oscarssoblack.
It's absolutely fine with me, because ultimately it's an industry event to celebrate the industry itself, and if the insiders believe that pushing the idea of ethnically diverse winners is the most important thing this year then it's up to them.
Having said that, I could barely name an Oscar winner in any category for any year (Star Wars won sound effect ones, all I remember). I think recently I looked at a list of all 'best picture' winners and had maybe seen half a dozen... ever. I accept that my own film interests don't align with anybody else's so pay no attention to what awards are handed out to who.
Star wars won at least a couple - for Sound, and film Editing (Marsha Lucas won that one).
George couldn't be nominated for director (he resigned from the DG).
Ctaylor wrote: That would have been an improvement, yeah.
Overall, pretty enjoyable film. I like movies that know they are silly action flicks and go for it. Tom Hardy looked like he was having fun. His scenes with the symbiote were the highlight of the film for me.
The villain was the big letdown. Again. Why do comic books movies have the worst villains?
I think the big problem is a lot of the time they like to use villains that are basically the same power/costume-wise as the hero, while not properly fleshing them out to distinguish them besides being mustache-twirling villains that do bad things because they are bad. So when they finally do clash, there's no weight to it and their samey designs make it boring to watch. A lot of Marvel movies suffer from this issue, (Black Panther, Ant-Man, Iron-Man, etc.) and part of the reason why Loki is one of the villains to actually stick out in the MCU is because he isn't just an evil version of Thor. Thanos is another exception as well since they actually took time to flesh him out and he has no immediate heroic equivalent on the Avengers' side. Both also kinda stick out since they exist in multiple movies in the MCU, rather than the throwaway ones that either die or get thrown in the slammer.
To be fair, having a "mirror image" villain does a good job of showing how choice is what defines a hero. It isn't the powers and abilities, but the choices on how to use them for good that defines them. Having a villain with the same powers can show just how wrong things can go if used for selfish gain or some other motivation.
. The story behind the host was always one of the most interesting parts to me, though.
