MCU - X

[Quijote Light]

He lost his immortality when he killed his father. 

[red snow]

On 10/4/2018 at 10:32 PM, WarGalley said:

Just read the Venom film synopsis on Wikipedia. As someone who still owns the Venom #1 this is supposedly based on, I think I'll have to give this movie a pass. 

@red snow spoiler question for you. 

  Hide contents

In the post-credits scene, do you actually see Cletus Kasady or is he just referenced?

 

You do and it is probably the most unintentionally funny scene I've seen this year.

check the cast list and it's pretty easy to work out who it is especially when they haven't appeared and film is half done

[Bastard of Boston]

I'm baffled at the way Venom was marketed. Make no mistake, the movie was not good -- if it was, I'd be motivated to make a new topic about it, heh -- but Hardy's performance is a ton of fun. He felt like he was in a different movie than everyone else. And that's the problem, everything else about the movie -- literally everything else about the movie -- was terrible. There's a scene in a restaurant with Eddie Brock and a lobster where I "got it." This movie should've been Little Shop of Horrors. Instead, it was Hardy gleefully running in circles around a group of grownups talking about the weather.

[The Anti-Targ]

Venom posts an October $80M (estimated) opening weekend record for the USA, shattering the previous record held by Gravity. Seems like Sony has a relative hit on its hands. And with over $200 million world wide there's every chance the movie will be profitable for Sony in its theatrical run. Which they might have been having anxiety attacks about a week ago.

As a Venom sequel is all but guaranteed. Tom Hardy kind of gets his first major hit movie as the leading man, and will get to make another Venom movie. I just found out Hardy wanted the role of Venom because his son is a big fan of the comics. That personal motivation to play Venom is probably reflected in his performance, because I could otherwise see an actor like Hardy looking at Venom purely as a payday and somewhat phoning in the performance. Sony is fortunate to have got an actor like Hardy who would put their best (and considerably talented) foot forward. Apparently a large chunk of the audience who went to Venom said their main reason for going was Tom Hardy. And also apparently, while women over 25 was the smallest age/sex demographic to go to the movie, they liked it more than the other demographics.

I wonder if Sony is thinking about Hardy as the next Bond. Would it work Hardy playing bond in odd numbered years and Venom in even numbered years? That would be a very sweet deal for Hardy while it lasts. Audience turning out specifically for Hardy in Venom should translate to him being a draw for Bond.

[red snow]

On 10/6/2018 at 2:46 PM, Bastard of Boston said:

I'm baffled at the way Venom was marketed. Make no mistake, the movie was not good -- if it was, I'd be motivated to make a new topic about it, heh -- but Hardy's performance is a ton of fun. He felt like he was in a different movie than everyone else. And that's the problem, everything else about the movie -- literally everything else about the movie -- was terrible. There's a scene in a restaurant with Eddie Brock and a lobster where I "got it." This movie should've been Little Shop of Horrors. Instead, it was Hardy gleefully running in circles around a group of grownups talking about the weather.

As soon as Hardy gets to turn on "crazy person" mode the film is fun but I agree Hardy is the only thing holding the film together (besides the decent Venom battle effects)

15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Venom posts an October $80M (estimated) opening weekend record for the USA, shattering the previous record held by Gravity. Seems like Sony has a relative hit on its hands. And with over $200 million world wide there's every chance the movie will be profitable for Sony in its theatrical run. Which they might have been having anxiety attacks about a week ago.

As a Venom sequel is all but guaranteed. Tom Hardy kind of gets his first major hit movie as the leading man, and will get to make another Venom movie. I just found out Hardy wanted the role of Venom because his son is a big fan of the comics. That personal motivation to play Venom is probably reflected in his performance, because I could otherwise see an actor like Hardy looking at Venom purely as a payday and somewhat phoning in the performance. Sony is fortunate to have got an actor like Hardy who would put their best (and considerably talented) foot forward. Apparently a large chunk of the audience who went to Venom said their main reason for going was Tom Hardy. And also apparently, while women over 25 was the smallest age/sex demographic to go to the movie, they liked it more than the other demographics.

I wonder if Sony is thinking about Hardy as the next Bond. Would it work Hardy playing bond in odd numbered years and Venom in even numbered years? That would be a very sweet deal for Hardy while it lasts. Audience turning out specifically for Hardy in Venom should translate to him being a draw for Bond.

They'd be insane to lose Hardy for a sequel and should probably allow him some control over the movie as Taboo shows it's something he likes and he seems to get this version of Eddie Brock and definitely the venom voice.

With the relatively low budget it should make a nice amount. I just hope the filmmakers take the very valid criticism on board and not regurgitate this film for a sequel.

The Bond thing depends largely on the restrictive "Bond rules" placed on the actor. I can't see there being any confusion between Eddie Brock and Bond and doubt Brock will need to be in a tuxedo. I'm not sure if Bond and Hardy is a great fit although if they want to stick with gruff style Bond I guess it could work (he was ok in that silly film about two spies trying to date the same girl).

The only loss I see with Hardy getting a Venom franchise is that the chances of him playing Wolverine have plummeted. I can't see him getting to play both at the same time.

[Corvinus85]

15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

As a Venom sequel is all but guaranteed. Tom Hardy kind of gets his first major hit movie as the leading man, and will get to make another Venom movie. I just found out Hardy wanted the role of Venom because his son is a big fan of the comics. That personal motivation to play Venom is probably reflected in his performance, because I could otherwise see an actor like Hardy looking at Venom purely as a payday and somewhat phoning in the performance. Sony is fortunate to have got an actor like Hardy who would put their best (and considerably talented) foot forward. Apparently a large chunk of the audience who went to Venom said their main reason for going was Tom Hardy. And also apparently, while women over 25 was the smallest age/sex demographic to go to the movie, they liked it more than the other demographics.

According to an interview he gave, his son kept giving him pointers on what to do and not to do.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, red snow said:

 

The only loss I see with Hardy getting a Venom franchise is that the chances of him playing Wolverine have plummeted. I can't see him getting to play both at the same time.

I'm thinking Sony would really not want him to be Wolverine, because I imagine Sony wants to hold on to the idea of the Spiderverse being officially part of the same continuity as the MCU.

Though if the venom and associated movies do well for Sony perhaps they might want to break off from Marvel. I can't see Sony not wanting to have Spider Man and Venom come face to face at some point. Imagine if after 3 tom Holland movies they recast Peter Parker as an older character, like they've done with the animated movie, and go their own way, with Miles Morales and Spider Gwen picking up the young web slinger mantle. It's pretty cunning introducing Miles Morales and Spider Gwen via an ensemble animated movie, since that primes the mainstream audience for a live action Spider Man Person who isn't Peter Parker.

I also heard that Sony not only owns the rights to Spider Man and associated characters, but they actually own the Spider Man character. So even if Sony sold the rights to Spider Man back to Disney, they would still clip the ticket every time he's used by Disney as the owner of the character. So for as long as Disney wants to use Spider Man Sony is in a pretty strong position. Which is probably why Kevin Feige has appeared alongside Amy Pascal in interviews, even though his face looks like he's trying not to look like he's caught a whiff of a stinky fart.

[Darth Richard II]

No way can the SpiderVerse even be part of the MCU, they made that very clear.

[red snow]

9 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

No way can the SpiderVerse even be part of the MCU, they made that very clear.

But the spiderverse apparently has Tobey Maguire Spidey in it so pretty much everything except Disney Spidey?

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm thinking Sony would really not want him to be Wolverine, because I imagine Sony wants to hold on to the idea of the Spiderverse being officially part of the same continuity as the MCU.

Though if the venom and associated movies do well for Sony perhaps they might want to break off from Marvel. I can't see Sony not wanting to have Spider Man and Venom come face to face at some point. Imagine if after 3 tom Holland movies they recast Peter Parker as an older character, like they've done with the animated movie, and go their own way, with Miles Morales and Spider Gwen picking up the young web slinger mantle. It's pretty cunning introducing Miles Morales and Spider Gwen via an ensemble animated movie, since that primes the mainstream audience for a live action Spider Man Person who isn't Peter Parker.

I also heard that Sony not only owns the rights to Spider Man and associated characters, but they actually own the Spider Man character. So even if Sony sold the rights to Spider Man back to Disney, they would still clip the ticket every time he's used by Disney as the owner of the character. So for as long as Disney wants to use Spider Man Sony is in a pretty strong position. Which is probably why Kevin Feige has appeared alongside Amy Pascal in interviews, even though his face looks like he's trying not to look like he's caught a whiff of a stinky fart.

It's more likely Disney would cast Hardy as wolverine in the MCU just to separate the sonyverse. But if Hardy accepted he'd lose the venom role as Sony can't afford the illusion to break that venom is in the MCU. 

I'm curious as to whether they can get away with using miles Morales spidey while Disney keeps Peter Parker in play? That could be a cheeky fix.

And Amy Pascal has made it pretty clear that the Disney deal is just to boost Spidey's profile for them. If they think they can go it alone and be successful they will do. I imagine Feige doesn't plan for spidey beyond the initial movie deals as Sony can pull the plug.

It's still a good deal for Disney as while Sony owns Spidey, they have the merchandising rights. Pretty sure homecoming box office went entirely to Sony and Disney probably made as much/more of the merchandise boost. If Sony could make a good Spidey film again Disney would still get the merchandise so beyond it being cool seeing Spidey as an Avenger the Sony/Disney deal was probably as much about Disney wanting Spidey selling toys and lunch boxes again. I wonder if Disney gets venom merchandise rights? 

[The Anti-Targ]

So did Marvel retain all merch rights for all of its characters when it sold off half it's family silver back in the day(s)? I would have thought that Sony owning Spiderman, not just the film rights would mean owning the merch rights. If Sony owns Spiderman, does that mean Marvel had to, technically, buy the comic book rights back off Sony? I guess the sale agreement meant Marvel retained the comic book rights, but the effect is that it meants the buying back of the comic book rights really meant a slight discount on the price Sony paid. Perhaps Sony also paid a bigger price discount to let Marvel keep the merch rights. Was that back when movie studios didn't think merch was a major source of revenue?

[red snow]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So did Marvel retain all merch rights for all of its characters when it sold off half it's family silver back in the day(s)? I would have thought that Sony owning Spiderman, not just the film rights would mean owning the merch rights. If Sony owns Spiderman, does that mean Marvel had to, technically, buy the comic book rights back off Sony? I guess the sale agreement meant Marvel retained the comic book rights, but the effect is that it meants the buying back of the comic book rights really meant a slight discount on the price Sony paid. Perhaps Sony also paid a bigger price discount to let Marvel keep the merch rights. Was that back when movie studios didn't think merch was a major source of revenue?

It'd take a bit of googling to find the articles but the gist of what I recall was Marvel were essentially bankrupt when they made the licensing deals so they weren't great deals for them. Fox was the worst as they even gave the merchandising rights away which is apparently one of the reasons they sidelined the Fox characters in the comics and didn't bother with promoting the films or trying to catch new comic readers (especially once the MCU was a runaway success). It also seems like Fox have to make a film with core characters every x amount of years or the characters revert back to marvel eg Elektra and daredevil. So prior to Disney buying Fox it was in Marvel's interest to see the fox films fail. I'm guessing they'd have got the FF back after the last failure.

I'm not sure it's true that Sony owns spidey in perpetuity as this article claims there has to be a spidey film every 3 years. Pretty shocking they sold spidey for 7 million - they must have been really desperate at the time.

[Darth Richard II]

I was thinking more it can't be in the MCU cause in Venom they clearly have no idea about Aliens and other planets yet, and people have been aware of that in the MCU for a while.

[RumHam]

I read somewhere a while ago that Marvel/Disney still has all the TV rights to Spider-Man. 

Edit: Just saw Gunn is going to DC, may direct the Suicide Squad sequel.

[The Anti-Targ]

23 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I read somewhere a while ago that Marvel/Disney still has all the TV rights to Spider-Man. 

Edit: Just saw Gunn is going to DC, may direct the Suicide Squad sequel.

A degenerate directing degenerates, fitting.

I kid, I kid!

Just as well he's not directing Teen Titans though.

Still kidding.

They'd be too old.

Yes, still kidding.

[The BlackBear]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

A degenerate directing degenerates, fitting.

 I kid, I kid!

 Just as well he's not directing Teen Titans though.

Still kidding.

 They'd be too old.

Yes, still kidding.

Fuck Dude, Fuck Dude, Fuck Dude.

I think that covers it.

 

I really enjoy Gunn's attitude towards the medium. So I'm excited to see what he can do. Hopefully he gets similar leeway to what he got in the cosmic Marvel stuff: he seemed to more or less have Carte Blanche.

[WarGalley]

On 10/6/2018 at 12:34 AM, red snow said:

You do and it is probably the most unintentionally funny scene I've seen this year.

  Reveal hidden contents

check the cast list and it's pretty easy to work out who it is especially when they haven't appeared and film is half done

 

Spoiler

Woody looks ridiculous in that wig. It seems like an odd choice and I dont think I've ever seen him play a role like how I imagine Kasady to be. I always pictured the guy who played Rorscach in Watchmen. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now since I like Harrelson.

 

[red snow]

10 hours ago, RumHam said:

I read somewhere a while ago that Marvel/Disney still has all the TV rights to Spider-Man. 

Edit: Just saw Gunn is going to DC, may direct the Suicide Squad sequel.

Probably the wisest move DC films have made. But they should really have him doing green lantern corps. Although I think you're not allowed to make a DC film unless Harley Quinn is in it. They should just hand Gunn the keys and let him cut loose. But way to test him by giving him a sequel to arguably the worst comic film made. I guess some would make a similar comparison with green lantern but more time has passed.

They should release at a similar time to guardians 3. So I can financially let Disney know how I feel about Gunn's firing.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, red snow said:

Probably the wisest move DC films have made. But they should really have him doing green lantern corps. Although I think you're not allowed to make a DC film unless Harley Quinn is in it. They should just hand Gunn the keys and let him cut loose. But way to test him by giving him a sequel to arguably the worst comic film made. I guess some would make a similar comparison with green lantern but more time has passed.

They should release at a similar time to guardians 3. So I can financially let Disney know how I feel about Gunn's firing.

Yeah, I'm inclined to give Guardian's 3 a miss. It's an MCU movie I don't feel any pull to go see in the cinema, and I'm extra motivated because of Disney's cowardly, mercenary decision. I get that companies are obliged to be motivated by profit, not principle. But it still annoys the heck out of me every time they show it so blatantly, and moreso when they are baited and trolled into doing it.

Some people think it's a bad move by WB because of the lingering controversy. But really, I think the vast majority of the Suicide Squuad's audience doesn't give a damn. And if he makes an actually good movie DC fans will be saying "what Tweets?". But if he makes a steaming turd, that might be career ending for big budget films.

I think they need to take Suicide Squad in the Deadpool direction, rather than make it an anti-GoTG.

[red snow]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Yeah, I'm inclined to give Guardian's 3 a miss. It's an MCU movie I don't feel any pull to go see in the cinema, and I'm extra motivated because of Disney's cowardly, mercenary decision. I get that companies are obliged to be motivated by profit, not principle. But it still annoys the heck out of me every time they show it so blatantly, and moreso when they are baited and trolled into doing it.

Some people think it's a bad move by WB because of the lingering controversy. But really, I think the vast majority of the Suicide Squuad's audience doesn't give a damn. And if he makes an actually good movie DC fans will be saying "what Tweets?". But if he makes a steaming turd, that might be career ending for big budget films.

I think they need to take Suicide Squad in the Deadpool direction, rather than make it an anti-GoTG.

Disney has slightly backtracked by keeping the script but I find that hypocritical, why is it unacceptable for him to direct but absolutely fine to keep his script? It's clearly a case of Disney refusing to admit they were manipulated into a rush decision as I don't see why people upset by his tweets would watch a film him wrote or directed. Keeping the script is just a way to win over the actors/staff and fans who said they'd skip a non Gunn film.

It sounds like Suicide Squad will not be a sequel (more like Garfield to Holland Spidey changes) so they may even be able to recast parts or completely change the roster. Your suggestion of a hybrid between guardians and Deadpool has potential as I'd like to see villainous characters having fun.

[The Anti-Targ]

I also meant to say that I hope GoTG 3 suffers a notable drop in audience from GoTG 1 and 2. To show to Disney that their weak-kneed decision had financial consequences. Though I don't want it to outright fail.