Sequels "Venom Carnage" movie in 2017?

[Sexy Magician]

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.

Exactly, I agree filmmakers should have freedom in adaptations, but like he said.......Catwoman.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ If you're going to take the stance that an adaptation should at least bear some resemblance to the thing it's being adapted from, then you really need to condemn every single film that Marvel Studios has put out so far, because the vast majority of them take significant liberties with the source material from which they're being adapted, largely using it as inspiration for the telling of brand-new stories that differ quite significantly from other versions of stories featuring the same characters.

As I noted, you don't have to necessarily like it when an adaptation bears little resemblance to its source material, but that doesn't change the basic fact that it is the adaptor's right to make said adaptation as close to or as different from its source material as they choose to.

 

[Sexy Magician]

^ If you're going to take the stance that an adaptation should at least bear some resemblance to the thing it's being adapted from, then you really need to condemn every single film that Marvel Studios has put out so far, because the vast majority of them take significant liberties with the source material from which they're being adapted, largely using it as inspiration for the telling of brand-new stories that differ quite significantly from other versions of stories featuring the same characters.

As I noted, you don't have to necessarily like it when an adaptation bears little resemblance to its source material, but that doesn't change the basic fact that it is the adaptor's right to make said adaptation as close to or as different from its source material as they choose to.

Hahaha stories differ for sure, that only makes sense, but Iron Man was captured by Terrorists and made the armour to escape, Iron Man is born, on screen and on page, Captain America, a skinny guy refused entry to the army in ww2, is enrolled in the super soldier program, fights nazis, accidentally frozen, woken up in modern time, Cap is born on screen and on film, albeit Thor doesn't feature his alter ego Donald Blake, but he is an Asgardian prince, their essence is the same and the reason they are who they are is their origins which Marvel studios respects, Venoms origin is no different.

 

[k1dn1nj4]

^ If you're going to take the stance that an adaptation should at least bear some resemblance to the thing it's being adapted from, then you really need to condemn every single film that Marvel Studios has put out so far, because the vast majority of them take significant liberties with the source material from which they're being adapted, largely using it as inspiration for the telling of brand-new stories that differ quite significantly from other versions of stories featuring the same characters.

As I noted, you don't have to necessarily like it when an adaptation bears little resemblance to its source material, but that doesn't change the basic fact that it is the adaptor's right to make said adaptation as close to or as different from its source material as they choose to.

It's a fine line when adapting a property between changing certain things when it makes sense, and keeping things that well, define the character. It's still an adaptation at the end of the day after all. And I'm not against changing things in adaptations. In fact, when it makes sense, I'm super up for it. I'm not deriding Marvel Studios for their changes because they still maintain the crux of those characters. So Thor doesn't adapt Donald Blake as his secret identity, doesn't matter: it still preserved the fish out of water humor, the story of the arrogant son of Odin that earns the worth and heroism to wield Mjolnir, etc. So what if Ironman revealed his secret identity in the end instead of saying that Ironman was his bodyguard? He was still the mechanical genius who, under his armor, was a broken man struggling with vices and ego (Hell, when it serves the story, like with Mandarin in IM3, I don't even mind it). They preserved the crux of those characters and respected the thematic poignancy of them by adapting WHY people liked them in the first place.

Venom, as a character, is Spidey's foil. Arguably one of the things that make him so popular is that his powers and even look, is a dark mirror to Spidey. To me, and I'm sure to many fans, that connection with Spider-Man is integral to the character itself. It wouldn't "be" Venom, I would argue.

They have the right to make changes when adapting a property, but at the same time, straying too far from the iconography or backstory of a character and suddenly, is it even that character anymore? It's a fine line. For instance, if somebody made a movie titled Spider-Man about a guy with spider powers, but didn't get them from a spider bite, didn't learn about power and responsibility, didn't have a lapse of judgment that resulted in his uncle's death, could that still be rightfully called Spider-Man? I'm not arguing the fact that technically it could be, I'm arguing the fact that I'm not sure it should be. That's why I used the Catwoman example.

 

[DigificWriter]

The only reason the origins of the characters featured in the MCU have been similar to their comic counterparts is because Marvel Studios wanted to make them similar; if they so chose, the company could've gone as far 'off-script' as they wanted, which goes back to my original point.

And before anyone makes the argument that 'adaptations that have little to nothing to do with their source material all suck', let me point out the following successful instances where this very thing happened:
Power Rangers
Robotech
Blade Runner
The Bourne Identity
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
How to Train Your Dragon
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

(Source for the films mentioned: http://dejareviewer.com/2013/04/09/10-films-that-barely-resemble-books-they-are-based-on/)

 

[Sexy Magician]

^ The only reason the origins are similar is because Marvel Studios wanted to make them similar; if they so chose, the company could've gone as far 'off-script' as they wanted, which goes back to my original point.

And before anyone makes the argument that 'adaptations that have little to nothing to do with their source material all suck', let me point out the following successful instances where this very thing happened:
Power Rangers
Robotech
Blade Runner
The Bourne Identity
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
How to Train Your Dragon
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

(Source for the films mentioned: http://dejareviewer.com/2013/04/09/10-films-that-barely-resemble-books-they-are-based-on/)

Look mate, I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree here.

 

[k1dn1nj4]

The only reason the origins of the characters featured in the MCU have been similar to their comic counterparts is because Marvel Studios wanted to make them similar; if they so chose, the company could've gone as far 'off-script' as they wanted, which goes back to my original point.

And before anyone makes the argument that 'adaptations that have little to nothing to do with their source material all suck', let me point out the following successful instances where this very thing happened:
Power Rangers
Robotech
Blade Runner
The Bourne Identity
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
How to Train Your Dragon
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

(Source for the films mentioned: http://dejareviewer.com/2013/04/09/10-films-that-barely-resemble-books-they-are-based-on/)

Well of course MCU adaptations are similar because they wanted it that way. D'uh. Your initial argument is that if I'm taking this stance with Venom, I should protest against the MCU adaptations because they're a lot different from the source material. I just pointed out that, uh, nope, they really aren't (at least not in character defining ways).

How about my Spidey adaptation point? Would that still be the same character if those changes were made? Could that adaptation still be in good faith called 'Spider-Man'? (Well, of course it could, but would it still be Spider-Man?)

My argument was never that the creators COULDN'T drastically change an adaptation if they wanted, nor that a drastically changed adaption would necessarily be bad. Just that by then it would be kinda disingenuous to even call it an adaptation of the character. Like if you made a James Bond movie and he wasn't a 00 agent... or British. And all those movies you listed change plot points, storylines, etc. but they still keep the crux of the characters. Deckard is still a hardboiled cop, Roger Rabbit is still a zaney cartoon character. Reading through the list, those were all changes to plot points, etc.

 

[Sexy Magician]

Well of course MCU adaptations are similar because they wanted it that way. D'uh. Your initial argument is that if I'm taking this stance with Venom, I should protest against the MCU adaptations because they're a lot different from the source material. I just pointed out that, uh, nope, they really aren't (at least not in character defining ways).

How about my Spidey adaptation point? Would that still be the same character if those changes were made?

My argument was never that the creators COULDN'T drastically change an adaptation if they wanted, nor that a drastically changed adaption would necessarily be bad. Just that by then it would be kinda disingenuous to even call it an adaptation of the character. Like if you made a James Bond movie and he wasn't a 00 agent... or British. And all those movies you listed change plot points, storylines, etc. but they still keep the crux of the characters. Deckard is still a hardboiled cop, Roger Rabbit is still a zaney cartoon character. Reading through the list, those were all changes to plot points, etc.

I have already given up on him my friend.

 

[DigificWriter]

Let me ask you guys a question: is it disingenuous that the film adaptations I mentioned bear little to no resemblance to the books from which they're adapted?

 

[k1dn1nj4]

Let me ask you guys a question: is it disingenuous that the film adaptations I mentioned bear little to no resemblance to the books from which they're adapted?

I see where you're going with this. My answer to that is it's not the same thing. Adapting a novel is different. It's more of an adaptation of the world and setting and general feeling of it, which, those movies do. It doesn't matter that someone else committed the murder in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The spirit of that was in the cartoon cross-overs and over the top nature. It doesn't matter that the androids were called something else in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" because the adaptation still preserved the cyberpunk aesthetic and philosophical undertones of the work.

Being disingenuous stems from, I guess, a break of trust. I don't know for certain that people were implicitly promised a scene for scene adaptation in the list of works you named. With Venom, there's an assumption for certain things. Comicbooks are beloved for their characters, it's the glue to why people keep reading. It's character focused. The impetus for story is in the character. Notice how none of the works you had on that list were named after their protagonists? It's 'Blade Runner,' not 'Deckard.' That gives you an idea of how tied to the characters comics and superheroes are. And I would argue that Venom, like Ironman, like Spidey, like Batman, wouldn't be 'them,' without certain almost mythological constants.

TL;DR: It's complicated and not a clear cut yes or no.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ It's EXACTLY the same thing based on the argument that it's disingenuous (which, by the way, doesn't even apply in the context in which you're trying to use it) for a comic-book adaptation to change so much about its source material that it barely resembles - or no longer resembles at all - its source material and therefore shouldn't be marketed as being adapted from said source material.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I really want Channing Tatum to play Venom/Brock, and to style Venom's personality after the PS1 game. That would be awesome.

Always wanted Jim Carrey for Carnage but he's a bit old, now unfortunately.

 

[GoldGoblin]

I think they should just copy the movie Chronicle for this movie.Have three friends find the symbiote.One of them becomes evil with the power and kills one of them,and the other one becomes a hero and takes him out.

So you can have Venom,Carnage,and some other symbiote character in this movie.Make one a female and you can have Scream.

 

[I'm Venom]

I really want Channing Tatum to play Venom/Brock, and to style Venom's personality after the PS1 game. That would be awesome.

NO! Dude can't act to save his life.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

It's a better suggestion than Brock Lesnar lol.

 

[I'm Venom]

When I think about it, it makes no sense looking for a guy that looks like Brock. Just get a good actor and tell him to bulk up.

 

[Lantern Venom]

When I think about it, it makes no sense looking for a guy that looks like Brock. Just get a good actor and tell him to bulk up.

That doesn't always work since not everyone has the genetics to build the requisite amount of muscle, especially in only a couple of years. However, Ackles might have the base to do it.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

I want Jon Bernthal as Eddie Brock. He's already built to play the character. Plus he can pull off playing an ***hole if you've watched the Walking Dead. I think he's perfect for the role.

 

[OriginalMiles]

I say they just go the easy route and have Harry become Venom.

Norman is revived in S6, kicks Harry out, Harry gets symbiote which sets up Venom...

I'll let you guys decide if I'm kidding or not.

 

[I'm Venom]

That doesn't always work since not everyone has the genetics to build the requisite amount of muscle, especially in only a couple of years. However, Ackles might have the base to do it.

No, but the guy has a great body and would fit the character so well with his impulsive ways.

 

[spiderral]

I say they just go the easy route and have Harry become Venom.

Norman is revived in S6, kicks Harry out, Harry gets symbiote which sets up Venom...

I'll let you guys decide if I'm kidding or not.

*scratches head* I hope it's a joke(...?). That would pee a lot of fans off for sure.

 

[GuestStar2004]

*scratches head* I hope it's a joke(...?). That would pee a lot of fans off for sure.

These days I am starting to think there isn't much that wouldn't pee off alot of fans

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I'm probably in the minority but I want an Agent a Venom movie more than a Brock movie

I want Jon Bernthal as Eddie Brock. He's already built to play the character. Plus he can pull off playing an ***hole if you've watched the Walking Dead. I think he's perfect for the role.

I could see him as Brock.

 

[Venom75]

I realize and understand that sometimes,when making a comic book movie,you don't always have to stay true to the source material. But I'm a Venom purist. I want to see Spidey with the black suit,Eddie Brock get it and then a great Spidey vs. Venom battle. It's what I know and what I grew up with and grew to love. I'm also afraid of them using Flash or someone else as "Venom." To me,Venom is Eddie Brock. To use another character in the role or having an unknown character aquire the symbiote and become "Venom" would cheapen the film for me right away. It really would. It wouldn't feel like a true Venom movie without Eddie Brock.
I'm also against the anti-hero storyline(rumor is that's what they plan to use). Venom is a villian and should be used as such. Now,Eddie Brock should have a little bit more of a conscience that say,someone like Carnage. I do believe that deep inside Brock is a good man who's just been corrupted by the symbiote and his own depression/anger. And maybe Brock can spend some of the film debating what's right or wrong,but I'd love him as a villain. I've often said that a Venom vs. Carnage film should be like Freddy vs. Jason. 2 main villains fighting to the death,with human characters caught in the middle trying to stop them.

 

[I'm Venom]

Venom would work best as a set-up to the next movie. They could introduce his character just to plant the seeds.