Sony & Marvel work it out

[Ralif Redhammer]

I suspect that movie is going to sit in development hell. At the point they announced it, I think it was a premature ambition, and still is.

The other question mark is Venom. Are we going to see Tom Hardy's Venom and Spider-Man go head-to-head? It seems like that would be the end goal, but much about their strategy with Venom could be described as mystifying, shall we say.

Wonder if Sony's on-again/off-again sinister six film will include the characters are protrayed in the Tom Holland's films?

 

[Umbran]

The other question mark is Venom. Are we going to see Tom Hardy's Venom and Spider-Man go head-to-head? It seems like that would be the end goal, but much about their strategy with Venom could be described as mystifying, shall we say.

I admit, I didn't see Venom. I wasn't in the mood for anti-heroes at the time. And it has been a long time since I found the character generally interesting. And, why that is speaks, to me, about the success of a movie that's got him and Spider-Man.

One of the big attractions of Spider-Man as a character is that... he's psychologically acceptable. Yes, he's a genius and a hero, but he's also... a person we can understand and care about. That means that many of his best stories arent' just about the fight between Spider-Man and Villain X. They are about the relationship between Spider-Man/Peter and the villain. In each of the last two Spider-Man movies, they crafted really interesting relationships that impact Spidey's choices.

In the original comic, Spider-Man as a nigh-disturbingly intimate connection to Venom. And that relationship makes a conflict between Spidey and Venom interesting. But, in this iteration of Venom... the connection isn't there. At all.

So, other than super-strange fight scenes, I don't know why they'd put them in the same movie. Nor do I think Sony recognizes that this is what makes Spider-Man movies interesting (leading to the lack of success of their own forays with the character). I don't think they'll try to craft a relationship, or do a good job of it if they did try.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I saw it, and while it wasn't as bad as I expected, it wasn't great. Like DC's movies, it felt like they were trying to jump right into this character without doing the work to build those connections. They mention a Daily Bugle incident, but it's ever so brief. Hardly the source for the all-consuming obsession that fueled Venom in the comics originally.

I've been re-reading the original Spider-Man comics, and the comics are absolutely on-fire good. No small part of that is Spider-Man's relatability. He's not some chisel-chinned heroic archetype, but a smart kid that thinks, that feels, that worries. That has to put up with being bullied, comes down with the flu, sprains his ankle.

I admit, I didn't see Venom. I wasn't in the mood for anti-heroes at the time. And it has been a long time since I found the character generally interesting. And, why that is speaks, to me, about the success of a movie that's got him and Spider-Man.

One of the big attractions of Spider-Man as a character is that... he's psychologically acceptable. Yes, he's a genius and a hero, but he's also... a person we can understand and care about. That means that many of his best stories arent' just about the fight between Spider-Man and Villain X. They are about the relationship between Spider-Man/Peter and the villain. In each of the last two Spider-Man movies, they crafted really interesting relationships that impact Spidey's choices.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Plus, are they going to try this when the Suicide Squad was so lackluster? Hasn't that proven that establishing a whole crew of villains at once isn't a great idea?

Suicide Squad was a success, though, even though it wasn’t that good. And besides, they know damn well that the poor critical reception was a result of bad execution.

It is getting a reboot/sequel with a MCU director, after all.

 

[Umbran]

Suicide Squad was a success, though, even though it wasn’t that good.

Well, we get to quibble over "success" now.

It made money, yes, but it was #9 in the box office that year. It was beaten by Finding Dory, The Secret Life of Pets, and Jungle Book, among others. It was also behind Batman v. Superman, which made money, but was not considered a success for what it did for the franchise.

And besides, they know damn well that the poor critical reception was a result of bad execution.

No, they don't. I mean, yes, Suicide Squad was not well executed, but that may not be entirely the fault of the production itself - introducing and establishing a half-dozen characters, all at once, so you find them compelling enough to care what's going on, is not easy. It may well be a Herculean task - it can be done by a hero, perhaps, but even then it is not a sure thing.

Not that Sony Pictures has proven to be all that bright, mind you. Folks are talking about them getting bought for a reason. So, yeah, maybe they'll have failed to learn from the failures of others, and will try anyway. More's the pity.

 

[Morrus]

introducing and establishing a half-dozen characters, all at once, so you find them compelling enough to care what's going on, is not easy. It may well be a Herculean task - it can be done by a hero, perhaps, but even then it is not a sure thing.

Ensemble casts aren't that uncommon -- Dirty Dozen, Reservoir Dogs, Ocean's 11, Lord of the Rings (though admittedly most viewers already knew some of the characters), Guardians of the Galaxy, X-Men, The Usual Suspects, Fast & Furious. It's often done; just in this case it wasn't done well.

 

[Beleriphon]

What about Spider-Dude actor Hom Tolland? He will forever remain unknown.