Venom (October 5, 2018) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

Well...until December at any rate...

Yeah. We'll see how that goes. I would've thought this was crazy a few months ago,but if audiences will accept Spider-Verse and Holland simultaneously, I don't think it would be too much of a leap to accept Holland in the MCU and another actor outside the MCU, especially if the other actor were older than Holland and had a substantially different take on the role.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I do recall an interview with Pascal around the time of Homecoming where she did make it seem as if the Marvel partnership would end after the second solo film - i.e. Far From Home.

A bigger question might be, if Far From Home is successful, and Pascal does not want an additional partnership with Marvel, does she still have the kind of clout to torpedo that arrangement at Sony? Or would the Sony bosses axe her and continue to work with Feige? The success of Venom may encourage Sony to pick Pascal if it came down to that. I think there’s little question that she wants out from that deal, based on her interview comments.

 

[Tino]

Well...until December at any rate...

Do animated films count?

 

[Jake Lipson]

Do animated films count?

I'm not sure I understand your question. It is another version of Spider-Man on film.

A bigger question might be, if Far From Home is successful, and Pascal does not want an additional partnership with Marvel, does she still have the kind of clout to torpedo that arrangement at Sony?

Good question. And if Sony does "break up" with Marvel, what happens to Tom Holland's version of the character? Now we're back to my earlier point that, because Tom Holland as Spider-Man exists in the MCU, any film featuring him is automatically in that continuity regardless of who is making it. So again, I hope that Marvel has insisted upon a clause which does not allow Sony to move forward with Tom Holland without their involvement. I hope.

If the Sony-Marvel deal breaks up, and assuming Sony can't make a Tom Holland Spider-Man film without them, he would be the only Marvel hero not to get a trilogy of solo films in the MCU. I hope that doesn't happen.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Now we're back to my earlier point that, because Tom Holland as Spider-Man exists in the MCU, any film featuring him is automatically in that continuity regardless of who is making it.

No more so than “Never Say Never Again” not being an official Bond movie despite the presence of Connery.

 

[Tino]

I'm not sure I understand your question. It is another version of Spider-Man on film.

Yeah. An animated one.

 

[Jake Lipson]

No more so than “Never Say Never Again” not being an official Bond movie despite the presence of Connery.

Point taken. But: Try explaining that distinction to the average moviegoer who goes to the movies a few times a year and doesn't follow the industry news like we do here. They won't get it. The public perception will be that if Holland is in it, it's in the MCU, and if Sony produces a bad movie, that could taint the MCU.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But that wasn’t your question/comment before. You were saying that any film with Holland is automatically in the MCU, and factually speaking, that’s not necessirily so.

 

[Jake Lipson]

But that wasn’t your question/comment before. You were saying that any film with Holland is automatically in the MCU, and factually speaking, that’s not necessirily so.

Contractually, sure. But since Holland's Spider-Man exists in the world alongside Iron Man and Captain America and these other superheroes, and they suddenly disappear because the deal isn't renewed, he's not suddenly in a different world. He would still be the same version of himself, informed by hi experiences being mentored by Tony, etc. etc. The events of Civil War, Homecoming, Infinity War, Avengers 4 and Far From Home will still have happened to him, so practically, it's still the MCU. That would be a major problem for Marvel if Sony ends up making a bad Spider-Man solo film in their space without their involvement.

 

[Malcolm R]

I don't think it would be quite as dire for Marvel as you claim. People might stay away from the subsequent SM film from Sony, but I don't see audiences staying away from future Black Panther, Avengers, or Thor films because the last SM film was not up to par.

And if it does have an effect, I lay most of that at the feet of Marvel for giving away perpetual rights to their most famous character. It shows a real lack of leadership and forward-thinking, regardless of whether or not they had a functioning film studio at the time. The characters are out of the stable now, and Marvel will just have to manage the consequences of others' choices.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I saw this today, it was entertaining, but forgettable. I don't know much about Venom except for that Spider-Man 3 movie. So Venom is an anti-hero?

 

[Jake Lipson]

I don't think it would be quite as dire for Marvel as you claim. People might stay away from the subsequent SM film from Sony, but I don't see audiences staying away from future Black Panther, Avengers, or Thor films because the last SM film was not up to par.

You're right about that. But (generally speaking) Kevin Feige runs a tight ship over there, and the quality is mostly consistent. It's still an image problem they don't want to have if people associate a bad Sony movie featuring Spider-Man with the MCU.

And if it does have an effect, I lay most of that at the feet of Marvel for giving away perpetual rights to their most famous character. It shows a real lack of leadership and forward-thinking, regardless of whether or not they had a functioning film studio at the time. The characters are out of the stable now, and Marvel will just have to manage the consequences of others' choices.

The ironic thing, though, is that I'm not sure they could have built the MCU without having sold off Spider-Man and X-Men first. The success of Fox's X-Men films and, even moreso, the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films demonstrated that audiences were hungry for comic book movies again at a time when the most popular cinematic superheroes up until that time (Superman and Batman) were left for dead.

The original Spider-Man was the first movie ever to break $100 million in its opening weekend and it outgrossed Attack of the Clones, which marked the first (and, until Solo, only) time that a new Star Wars movie wasn't the #1 film of the year. If Sony hadn't made that movie when they did and struck such gold with it, Marvel probably wouldn't have been able to secure financing to produce their own slate independently. They might not even have conceived of that as a possibility. So I do think that the MCU owes Sony a metaphorical debt for the success of Spider-Man laying the groundwork for their own ascension to the top of Hollywood.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Speaking of bad decisions.....

When Sony’s Spider-Man offer came in, Marvel’s new chief, Ike Perlmutter, offered up an even sweeter deal. Sony could have the rights to virtually every Marvel character, including Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, and Black Panther, for a cool $25 million.

Sony Pictures executive Yair Landau was unimpressed with the deal. At the time, most Marvel characters were obscure to general audiences, so Landau offered this response per the WSJ: “Nobody gives a shit about any of the other Marvel characters. Go back and do a deal for only Spider-Man.”

Sony Turned Down The Rights To Black Panther, Iron Man, Thor And Other Marvel Characters

Fascinating article!

 

[Thomas Newton]

I saw this today, it was entertaining, but forgettable. I don't know much about Venom except for that Spider-Man 3 movie. So Venom is an anti-hero?

Not an anti-hero. A villain. My understanding is that Venom is the result of an sentient alien symbiote bonding to a host. The symbiote alters the host's behavior, usually for the worse. While Venom symbiotes often bond to individuals in the Spider-Man "universe", a Wikipedia article says that they have bonded to others, including Groot, Rocket, Drax, the Hulk, and a Kree soldier.

 

[Thomas Newton]

FYI: In comics, Venom first appeared as an all-too-convenient new costume for Spider-Man. Suit up in haste, repent at leisure …

The Venom movie features Eddie Brock, "its second and most infamous [human] host."

 

[Robert Crawford]

Not an anti-hero. A villain. My understanding is that Venom is the result of an sentient alien symbiote bonding to a host. The symbiote alters the host's behavior, usually for the worse. While Venom symbiotes often bond to individuals in the Spider-Man "universe", a Wikipedia article says that they have bonded to others, including Groot, Rocket, Drax, the Hulk, and a Kree soldier.

Yeah, but they appear to be trying to make him not a villain in this film.

 

[Detour (1945)]

Friday estimate is nearly $33 million. Weekend estimate anticipated $70 to $80 million.

Of course box office success does not mean a quality film. The Transformer movies have made billions and they are pretty much unwatchable.

 

[Detour (1945)]

They say it's the same Cinemascore as Suicide Squad and Justice League, each of which did pretty well (though JL was a disappointment considering the characters involved). If Venom comes close to those numbers, I think Sony will be happy.

Venom also attracted quite a young audience in the first weekend. Older moviegoers are more likely to skip a film the first week, so that may also give the film a small boost over the longer term as older viewers catch up in the next couple weeks.

SUICIDE SQUAD was terrible, JLA watchable, but not great. But neither is something to be held up to in comparison.

I think most older comic book fans will just wait for Netflix and cheap rentals on VENOM. I expect a huge drop-off in the second week.

 

[Malcolm R]

Of course box office success does not mean a quality film. The Transformer movies have made billions and they are pretty much unwatchable.

SUICIDE SQUAD was terrible, JLA watchable, but not great. But neither is something to be held up to in comparison.

As long as people are buying tickets and the butts are in the seats, perceived critical quality is a non-issue to the studio. Hence why we have five Transformers films and the upcoming spinoff, Bumblebee. They're shredded by critics, but make billions of dollars. The studio will be very satisfied if the box office is in the same hemisphere as SS or JL; they don't care about comparisons to the critical quality of those films.

 

[Detour (1945)]

That will never happen. Holland is the only Spiderman for the foreseeable future. Why confuse the audience with two Spider-Man’s?

Yeah, that would be stupid. Next thing you know, DC will have two Joker movies, with two different actors, in the works...