Sequels "Venom Carnage" movie in 2017?

[I'm Venom]

It's a rumor, I hope it's not true. That title is terrible. Also saw where they plan to feature Venom in the ASM3 movie. Not sure how old this info is, but thought I'd share it for the benefit of those who may not already know.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/04/venom-movie-now-called-venom-carnage

 

[Sexy Magician]

I don't really want to see anymore from this franchise full stop.

 

[Spooderman]

I don't really want to see anymore from this franchise full stop.

Although the good news is that if they space the Spinoffs apart enough, they could release a reboot of Spider-Man more than 5 years after the last.

 

[Sexy Magician]

Although the good news is that if they space the Spinoffs apart enough, they could release a reboot of Spider-Man more than 5 years after the last.

I really wish they would leave it alone for now, if and when they do eventually reboot, the spinoffs would affect a reboot, no filmmaker is gonna want to use the villains that were used in the spinoffs for a reboot, movie goers would get bored, you would end up with a Spider-man reboot with him facing Owl or Boomerang or someone equally lame.
As much as a sinister six, or Venom Carnage movie gets me excited, I can't get excited about either in this franchise.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I don't really want to see anymore from this franchise full stop.

So don't. Exercise free will.

 

[Sexy Magician]

So don't. Exercise free will.

Thats pretty much what I just said........??
Whats your point?

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

I gotta hear more about this.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Venom Carnage?

It's like naming Man of Steel, Superman Zod.

Or naming Avengers, Avengers Loki.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think Agent Venom is the one spin-off that actually is a strong enough character to handle his own film or series of films.

But I'm gathering this is regular ol' drooling Venom. In which case, no thanks.

 

[k1dn1nj4]

Venom Carnage?

It's like naming Man of Steel, Superman Zod.

Or naming Avengers, Avengers Loki.

Not really. The hypothetical titles of Avengers & Loki, or Superman & Zod have the names of the specific characters in it which are clunky and only speak about those characters. Venom and Carnage are both just nouns that can mean different things besides the characters and it's also catchier. It paints the picture of a very violent and graphic movie, and also happens to have the protagonist (or anti-hero) and antagonist in the title. It's a very efficient title and I can see it working, and I like it much more than something like 'Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.'

 

[Fincher]

Venom: Carnage doesn't look bad to me, but it needs that colon.

 

[DigificWriter]

Venom Carnage?

It's like naming Man of Steel, Superman Zod.

Or naming Avengers, Avengers Loki.

Wrong.

The title is clearly meant to be hyphenated even if there's not a physical hyphen in it.

 

[GuestStar2004]

It's probably not gonna be called venom carnage this is likely an intentional leak to tell people carnage will be involved without actually saying it

 

[GuestStar2004]

Although the good news is that if they space the Spinoffs apart enough, they could release a reboot of Spider-Man more than 5 years after the last.

After all the spin offs I doubt they will be in a rush to reboot again that soon so maybe another 8 to 9 years

 

[Dasher10]

I don't see how they can shoehorn in the black costume for Peter while Ed is the POV character AND then throw Carnage into things. TASM3 has to happen first just to set up Venom before he gets his own spin-off. TASM2 was cluttered and clunky. The spin-offs give a chance to tell more focused stories but Sony apparently doesn't learn from mistakes.

 

[DigificWriter]

I don't see how they can shoehorn in the black costume for Peter.

They don't have to.

Nowhere is it specified that you can't have Venom without first having Peter Parker use the 'black suit'/symbiote in a filmic adaptation of the character and concept of Venom.

People have it in their heads that there's some hard-and-fast 'rule' governing how people adapt any given thing into another medium, but that's a ridiculous fallacy.

 

[Sexy Magician]

They don't have to.

Nowhere is it specified that you can't have Venom without first having Peter Parker use the 'black suit'/symbiote in a filmic adaptation of the character and concept of Venom.

People have it in their heads that there's some hard-and-fast 'rule' governing how people adapt any given thing into another medium, but that's a ridiculous fallacy.

Whilst I agree comic book movies don't have to be a carbon copy of the source material, the whole black suit Spider-Man story really is what gave Venom his essence, Peter rejected the symbiote, so the symbiote hates him, Eddie Brock hates Spider-Man for exposing the real sin-eater, the symbiote sensed Eddies hatred for the same person it hated, hence the birth of Venom.
Spider-Man 3 did something similar, it didn't feature the sin eater, but Peter exposed Eddies pics of Spider-Man as fakes, giving Eddie a reason to hate him.

The fact that the symbiote was fist attached to Spider-Man is what gives it the ability to spin webs and wall crawl and such, it imprints the wearers ability, no black suit Spider-Man, and Venom technically shouldn't be spinning webs or wall crawling, if there is no black suit Spidey first is it just going to be coincidence that Venom in this movie has very similar powers to Spider-Man? That would be lame.

 

[DigificWriter]

Whilst I agree comic book movies don't have to be a carbon copy of the source material

I'm not just talking about comic-book movies; I'm talking about any adaptation of anything.

BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, this is something that I've only recently come to realize, as it wasn't all that long ago - relatively speaking, anyway - that I was whining about the film adaptation of Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief cutting out the character of Clarisse.

As far as Venom goes, there's no hard-and-fast rule stating that, for a filmic adaptation, the root of the character has to even be the symbiote, especially if the trend of connecting things to Oscorp is something that they continue to use independent of the TASM movies.

 

[Sexy Magician]

I'm not just talking about comic-book movies; I'm talking about any adaptation of anything.

As far as Venom goes, there's no hard-and-fast rule stating that, for a filmic adaptation, the root of the character has to even be the symbiote, especially if the trend of connecting things to Oscorp is something that they continue to use independent of the TASM movies.

Then whats the point in making a Venom movie? You also neglected to give your opinion on why Venom would spin webs and wall crawl if Spider-Man didn't wear the suit first? If your oscorp theory is true, it either suggests, the symbiote, or whatever you want to call it, was made in a lab, did they make it to copy Spider-Man and thats why he has similar abilities? I doubt it because that sucks and makes no sense. Another option is that the Symbiote/ whatever you want to call it, mimics what it sees, wouldn't it mimic villains powers that it sees to? Essentially becoming a Venom no one wants to see.

I agree with what you're saying about Film adaptations not having to be exact to their source material, but Venom is Venom because Spider-Man wore the suit first, I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is.

 

[DigificWriter]

Then whats the point in making a Venom movie?

Because you're taking the source material and ADAPTING it (IOW, you're using it as inspiration for the story you're telling).

You also neglected to give your opinion on why Venom would spin webs and wall crawl if Spider-Man didn't wear the suit first?

I didn't state an opinion on this matter because stating my opinion isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, but if you must have my opinion, I honestly don't think it really matters because, in the end, the reason for the symbiote being able to mimic Spider-Man's powers and subsequently transfer them to the person it's attached itself to is, to use a crime story term, a 'macguffin', and can ultimately be whatever the people telling the story want it to be.

 

[Sexy Magician]

Because you're taking the source material and ADAPTING it (IOW, you're using it as inspiration for the story you're telling).



I didn't state an opinion on this matter because stating my opinion isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, but if you must have my opinion, I honestly don't think it really matters because, in the end, the reason for the symbiote being able to mimic Spider-Man's powers and subsequently transfer them to the person it's attached itself to is, to use a crime story term, a 'macguffin', and can ultimately be whatever the people telling the story want it to be.

There is no hope for you.

 

[DigificWriter]

There is no hope for you.

Why?

The fact of the matter is that, in an adaptation, the person doing the adapting can basically do whatever the hell they want with the material they're using as inspiration. You don't have to necessarily like that fact, but it's still a fact nonetheless.

 

[Sexy Magician]

Why?

The fact of the matter is that, in an adaptation, the person doing the adapting can basically do whatever the hell they want with the material they're using as inspiration. You don't have to necessarily like that fact, but it's still a fact nonetheless.

Wowzers, Peter wearing the black suit is what makes Venom who he is! Its his origin, would you expect a Batman movie where his parents were not killed when he was a kid, or a Spider-Man movie where Uncle Ben wasn't killed?

 

[DigificWriter]

^ All of those things are the COMIC origins of those characters, but they don't necessarily have to be the origins of said characters if/when they're adapted to other mediums.

 

[k1dn1nj4]

Why?

The fact of the matter is that, in an adaptation, the person doing the adapting can basically do whatever the hell they want with the material they're using as inspiration. You don't have to necessarily like that fact, but it's still a fact nonetheless.

I see your point Digific, but ultimately I'd have to agree with SexyMagician here. Of course they aren't necessarily tied down to the source material, but at the end of the day they're still adapting a character and work, not making their own property. For an adaptation to not be viewed as, and I use this word loosely, "sacrilege," they'd have to respect the canon and not deviate from it too much. If it was named Symbiote, or something more ambiguous, I can see it, but VENOM has a very particular identity in people's minds. The culture would expect certain things if they're paying for a Venom movie. Though it is their version of the character, it's still supposed to be a version of the character. While the creators technically could keep only the base aspects of what makes Venom Venom and take away all the plot elements leading up to and surrounding it, it would be the same thing as taking the name Catwoman, making her NOT Selina Kyle, or a thief, or an anti-hero, and no one's stupid enough to do that?-oh wait.