The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 24

[Willie Lumpkin]

Venom has been losing to Spider-Man for over 20 years, so I think that wouldn't bother anyone.

But that's the comic books where Venom has been a "villain" since the beginning. So even the comic-book readers who like Venom recognize his place.

But by leaving Spidey out of it and making Venom the main character, they've created a different mind-set for film-goers than comic-book readers had.

Venom is now like Tony Soprano and a lot of the fans who turned up for this film may not like the idea of Spidey winning. They'll see Spider-man like the annoying, party-pooping, goody-goody FBI in Sopranos.

 

[Iceman]

I don't think people would expect Venom to win, even if he appeared more powerful. Everyone expects the *real* heroes to win by the end.

 

[Iceman]

But that's the comic books where Venom has been a "villain" since the beginning. So even the comic-book readers who like Venom recognize his place.

But by leaving Spidey out of it and making Venom the main character, they've created a different mind-set for film-goers than comic-book readers had.

Venom is now like Tony Soprano and a lot of the fans who turned up for this film may not like the idea of Spidey winning. They'll see Spider-man like the annoying, party-pooping, goody-goody FBI in Sopranos.

Haha, maybe you're right. But I think that would help make a meeting an even bigger event.

 

[ludovica]

Nun is the highest grossing Conjuring movie yet it's widely considered the worst or the second worst along with the first Annabelle. Box office means nothing to me. I have seen the reviews and the majority of the audience scores are mediocre to bad. This is another SS stiutation where the movie made bank but it's bad. There is no need to sugarcoat it.

High BO does not equal quality. I am in agreement there. However, this movie has legs and low weekend to weekend drops. That is indicative that WOM on this movie is not bad. Let's look at your example of The Nun. The Nun dropped 66% going into weekend 2. Suicide Squad also saw a near 67% drop in its 2nd weekend. That is very high and says something about WOM on the movie. Venom only dropped 56%, which for a superhero film is low. It has dropped under 50% each weekend after, as well. The overall BO number means less than a movie's staying power in theaters. Venom is showing it has staying power.

Baron, do not strawman me, nobody is using the good drops of Venom for arguing its quality, just that it looks like a success with audiences, see what Spider-Fan wrote.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But that's the comic books where Venom has been a "villain" since the beginning. So even the comic-book readers who like Venom recognize his place.

But by leaving Spidey out of it and making Venom the main character, they've created a different mind-set for film-goers than comic-book readers had.

Venom is now like Tony Soprano and a lot of the fans who turned up for this film may not like the idea of Spidey winning. They'll see Spider-man like the annoying, party-pooping, goody-goody FBI in Sopranos.

He's Spider-Man. In wrestling terms, if your favorite wrestler was facing Hulk Hogan back in the day, you knew who was going to win. I don't agree with your point at all.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

He's Spider-Man. In wrestling terms, if your favorite wrestler was facing Hulk Hogan back in the day, you knew who was going to win. I don't agree with your point at all.

Not everybody reads comic books. A bunch of people just saw a film in which Venom won. Those people were rooting for Venom.

This is a film in which Spider-man was nowhere to be seen and Venom was the hero. That changes the dynamics from the comics.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

High BO does not equal quality. I am in agreement there. However, this movie has legs and low weekend to weekend drops. That is indicative that WOM on this movie is not bad. Let's look at your example of The Nun. The Nun dropped 66% going into weekend 2. Suicide Squad also saw a near 67% drop in its 2nd weekend. That is very high and says something about WOM on the movie. Venom only dropped 56%, which for a superhero film is low. It has dropped under 50% each weekend after, as well. The overall BO number means less than a movie's staying power in theaters. Venom is showing it has staying power.

I still think that comes down more to novelty winning out of WOM. The actual reviews, including audience reviews and things like Cinemascore, have not been generally positive. We won't know until the sequel, but there are definitely some worrying signs there. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but right now I still expect a sequel to be both far more front-loaded and lower grossing overall than Venom 1.

That assumes that the sequel is Venom 2, and not Spider-Man vs. Venom. That would change things and generate new interest. Much like sticking Batman in Man of Steel's "sequel."

 

[Spider-Fan]

Not everybody reads comic books. A bunch of people just saw a film in which Venom won. Those people were rooting for Venom.

This is a film in which Spider-man was nowhere to be seen and Venom was the hero. That changes the dynamics from the comics.

People are aware he is a Spider-Man villain. Spider-Man 3 to date is the highest grossing Spider-Man movie. People are aware of who Venom is in relation to Spider-Man. No one is going to complain is he loses to him. Changes to the source material or not.

It just seems like your trying to find reasons a Spider-Man vs Venom movie would fail with this type of argument.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I still think that comes down more to novelty winning out of WOM. The actual reviews, including audience reviews and things like Cinemascore, have not been generally positive. We won't know until the sequel, but there are definitely some worrying signs there. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but right now I still expect a sequel to be both far more front-loaded and lower grossing overall than Venom 1.

That assumes that the sequel is Venom 2, and not Spider-Man vs. Venom. That would change things and generate new interest. Much like sticking Batman in Man of Steel's "sequel."

I don't think Spider-Man will end up in Venom 2, in all honesty. But I do agree we'll see how Venom 2 fairs. I do think Carnage is going to be a draw in its favor.

 

[Shuri]

So read somewhere that Bucky and Wolverine met in the comics and that the winter soldier might have killed his wife. I think it would be cool to have Bucky in mcu wolverine movie. Bucky killing his wife could be a good back story.

 

[ironwez20]

Venom has been losing to Spider-Man for over 20 years, so I think that wouldn't bother anyone.

Barely. What appeals me to the character is that Spider-Man fears him the most out of any of his foes

 

[Spider-Fan]

So read somewhere that Bucky and Wolverine met in the comics and that the winter soldier might have killed his wife. I think it would be cool to have Bucky in mcu wolverine movie. Bucky killing his wife could be a good back story.

Eh, sounds like ground we covered with him killing Tony's parents.

 

[Shuri]

Eh, sounds like ground we covered with him killing Tony's parents.

True, but they could always write something else. I think it would be cool to see the two interact.

 

[Smurphftw]

He's Spider-Man. In wrestling terms, if your favorite wrestler was facing Hulk Hogan back in the day, you knew who was going to win. I don't agree with your point at all.

Actually that's a terrible example. I remember Hulk Hogan losing to the anti-hero wrestler "The Ultimate Warrior" and a lot of people were happy about it.

 

[Iceman]

So read somewhere that Bucky and Wolverine met in the comics and that the winter soldier might have killed his wife. I think it would be cool to have Bucky in mcu wolverine movie. Bucky killing his wife could be a good back story.

I think that would have been a good way to introduce Wolverine as an initial antagonist in an Avengers film (unless of course they went with the classic Hulk confrontation), but maybe it would seem a repeat after the CW storyline with Stark's parents.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Actually that's a terrible example. I remember Hulk Hogan losing to the anti-hero wrestler "The Ultimate Warrior" and a lot of people were happy about it.

It was a rarity, though.

 

[Iceman]

In WWE some of the "baddie" characters like Stone Cold and at times Undertaker were very popular.

 

[WeaponXCII]

I was thinking about the whole SUMC (really rolls off the tongue, eh?) thing, and a question popped into my head: We all know why Sony is listed as co-producer for Homecoming, for example, but why is Venom "in association with Marvel Studios" (at least in the trailer; haven't seen the movie for obvious reasons)? Reports indicate Marvel had no input with Venom, so why put their name on it- especially considering potential for damage to their brand? It's not like Sony could force them to, right? Barring it being a stipulation of the deal, I don't get why Marvel Studios would choose to put their name all over it. Even then, I would think they could "Alan Smithee" it... or something. It's just such a strange decision to me that I feel like I'm forgetting some crucial detail....

 

[Gamma Goliath]

It doesn't say in association with marvel studios. It says "in association with marvel". Just marvel. No studios.

 

[Darkprime]

A week today we should get EU approval. Exciting times.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

A week today we should get EU approval. Exciting times.

Disney is getting all the Infinity Stones.

And to think some of us were nervous about Comcast a few months ago.

 

[WeaponXCII]

It doesn't say in association with marvel studios. It says "in association with marvel". Just marvel. No studios.

Either way, I think my question is still valid. How does this connection benefit any division of Marvel? They didn't have to "support" Sony, most likely, with their logo, so why did they? Financial reasons? Their profit I think would be insignificant, if anything. Does Marvel still take in a percentage of earnings from other studios?

Who gave it the okay? And more important... why?

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I'm willing to bet marvel still makes some money from Sony. But to me it felt like Sony was trying to trick the GA into thinking this was with marvel studios. Because even you just made the mistake of thinking it said marvel studios. But why would marvel take their name off of it? That logo showing up anywhere is advertising the brand. Even if its attached to a crappy movie. And technically Sony hasn't done anything wrong. Nothing gets made if it's not in association with marvel to a degree.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Either way, I think my question is still valid. How does this connection benefit any division of Marvel? They didn't have to "support" Sony, most likely, with their logo, so why did they? Financial reasons? Their profit I think would be insignificant, if anything. Does Marvel still take in a percentage of earnings from other studios?

Who gave it the okay? And more important... why?

I'm sure it's all part of the original agreement. Yes. Marvel most certainly does get a percentage, and there is probably also something in the original agreement that requires Sony to mention Marvel. Remember there was a time, when the original contract was signed, that Sony was a bigger name than Marvel, so Marvel probably wrote that requirement into the contract to make sure they got credit.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

A week today we should get EU approval. Exciting times.

Then the conference call on Thursday. Next week is a big one.