Venom Venom Rotten Tomatoes Thread

[ludovica]

No, you really don't have to give credit to the opinions of others if you don't believe the opinion they are stating has any merit to it. You say there for sure exists somewhere a fan who doesn't like the Gotg changes. That goes for any adaption of a comic book character into a movie. None of them, no matter how beloved they are, are universally loved. You will always get some detractors. Always.

But it depends entirely on the nature of the argument of what they are criticizing. Let me give you some analogies;

Heath Ledger's Joker; there were people who complained that him having make up instead of bleached skin means he is not a true Joker. Which is nonsense since his bleached skin is not some super power that defines who he is. It simply gives him his clown like visage. Its his insanity and evil actions that make him the threat he is, not the fact he has bleached skin. Ledger's Joker was absolutely nailed in characterization of insanity, evil, and threat to Batman. Nolan got the character right. He was not missing any vital component that defines the Joker for who he is and what he does. Ever since he's regarded not only as the greatest comic book movie villain, but one of cinema's greatest villains. Contrast to Jared Leto's Joker, he had bleached skin, but was missing all the real key ingredients that make a great Joker. Hence why he's regarded as bottom of the pile of Jokers. Didn't matter a jot in the end that he was a bleached skin Joker. It didn't save the character, and a great showing of how little bleached skin means in the grand scheme of things. Even now with this Joker spin off, people are dubious of having a Batman free Joker movie, but nobody is batting an eyelid to the fact that he's a make up wearing Joker, because we all know now that it doesn't matter, and the best Joker we've ever gotten in the eyes of most wore make up.

In the case of this movie, the analogy I made before I will make again as it is the most apt. Doing Venom's origin without Spidey is the equivalent to doing Spidey's origin without Uncle Ben. He's a key component character, and the entire foundation for the character's being. Always has been. There is no evolution or natural progression to some Johnny come lately writers recently turning around and saying hey Spidey is no longer relevant to Venom's origin. Ignore the last 30 years. As if that makes it totally valid. Like if they did the same with Spidey's origin and said forget Uncle Ben. He's no longer relevant to making Peter into Spider-Man. Which is the argument being out forth to excuse this bastardization. I don't see that as a valid argument or opinion. It has no merit. You don't just tell fans to ignore something that has defined a character since their inception and say that's valid just because some writer came along recently and said so.

Obviously anyone is entitled to have that opinion, but I give no credit to it.

1 - That goes also for your opinion. This way dialogue and discussion is impossible.
2 - You continue to move the post and ignore what is said to you. Making discussion even more aimless.

You like to stress that certain things are fact (when they are not). How's as a fact that some people feel this is a faithful adaptation? You do not have to agree with them but we obviously exist and it is presumptuous to believe you somehow are more right in your opinions: no matter how much you believe it, there is no way to measure these things.

Nobody is asking you to consider this movie anything different from what you feel it is.
So why are you trying to assert your opinion as the correct one?

 

[Ozbridge]

Um, I'm gonna be the bad/controversial guy here. But does anyone think... does anyone think the audience score is being rigged/spammed?

I just saw the movie last night. There is no way in goddamn hell that this deserves a higher audience score than any of the Transformers films, Deadpool 2, the Iron Man sequels or the (deflated) Black Panther score.

I don't think you can guess general audience's reception purely based on your own reception; sometimes you can't even guess it based on yours, your family's and your friends/ colleagues ' reception (who belong to the same social class, have the same education background, cultural background, etc. as you and can very well have the same taste as you).

Take me as an example, I'm sort of a snob who never see movies marked "Rotten" by critics in theaters, because most of the time I agree with critics (so frankly I have no motive to defend Venom, a movie that I'll probably see in network TV some day). A few years ago I saw The Dark Knight for the first time and honestly I don't understand why it's praised that much. Sure it is a well-made movie, but it's no better than the generic MCU movies these days. I honestly don't understand why it's considered god-tier classic by fans, but you will never ever hear me saying "There is no way in goddamn hell that it deserves" such high praise, because even if I agree with critics most of the time, I don't have the exact same taste as the aggregated RT score, or the same taste as collective fans.

 

[The Joker]

1 - That goes also for your opinion. This way dialogue and discussion is impossible.
2 - You continue to move the post and ignore what is said to you. Making discussion even more aimless.

You like to stress that certain things are fact (when they are not). How's as a fact that some people feel this is a faithful adaptation? You do not have to agree with them but we obviously exist and it is presumptuous to believe you somehow are more right in your opinions: no matter how much you believe it, there is no way to measure these things.

Nobody is asking you to consider this movie anything different from what you feel it is.
So why are you trying to assert your opinion as the correct one?

1 - Its not impossible. Not in the slightest.
2 - I haven't moved anything. I have responded directly to everything being said. Furthermore, if you believe this discussion is aimless, then why are you constantly trying to engage me in discussion on this? Are you are glutton for punishment doing things you see as aimless, or do you just enjoy wasting your time? Because I really cannot wrap my head around someone willingly doing something they think is pointless.

What I have stated is fact. This is not a faithful adaption. It cannot possibly be when its missing one of the defining aspects of it. Its like trying to do the recipe for something and omitting a key vital ingredient. Its not going to be right if its missing something that makes it what it is. People can feel it is all they like, as much as they can believe the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese. I am not, nor could I even if I wanted to, stopping anyone from thinking what they want. That's their right. They can think what they like. What I am doing is not giving this line of thinking any credit for the aforementioned reasons. I'm not obligated to and neither is anyone else. Simple as that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

No, you really don't have to give credit to the opinions of others if you don't believe the opinion they are stating has any merit to it. You say there for sure exists somewhere a fan who doesn't like the Gotg changes. That goes for any adaption of a comic book character into a movie. None of them, no matter how beloved they are, are universally loved. You will always get some detractors. Always.

But it depends entirely on the nature of the argument of what they are criticizing. Let me give you some analogies;

Heath Ledger's Joker; there were people who complained that him having make up instead of bleached skin means he is not a true Joker. Which is nonsense since his bleached skin is not some super power that defines who he is. It simply gives him his clown like visage. Its his insanity and evil actions that make him the threat he is, not the fact he has bleached skin. Ledger's Joker was absolutely nailed in characterization of insanity, evil, and threat to Batman. Nolan got the character right. He was not missing any vital component that defines the Joker for who he is and what he does. Ever since he's regarded not only as the greatest comic book movie villain, but one of cinema's greatest villains. Contrast to Jared Leto's Joker, he had bleached skin, but was missing all the real key ingredients that make a great Joker. Hence why he's regarded as bottom of the pile of Jokers. Didn't matter a jot in the end that he was a bleached skin Joker. It didn't save the character, and a great showing of how little bleached skin means in the grand scheme of things. Even now with this Joker spin off, people are dubious of having a Batman free Joker movie, but nobody is batting an eyelid to the fact that he's a make up wearing Joker, because we all know now that it doesn't matter, and the best Joker we've ever gotten in the eyes of most wore make up.

In the case of this movie, the analogy I made before I will make again as it is the most apt. Doing Venom's origin without Spidey is the equivalent to doing Spidey's origin without Uncle Ben. He's a key component character, and the entire foundation for the character's being. Always has been. There is no evolution or natural progression to some Johnny come lately writers recently turning around and saying hey Spidey is no longer relevant to Venom's origin. Ignore the last 30 years. As if that makes it totally valid. Like if they did the same with Spidey's origin and said forget Uncle Ben. He's no longer relevant to making Peter into Spider-Man. Which is the argument being out forth to excuse this bastardization. I don't see that as a valid argument or opinion. It has no merit. You don't just tell fans to ignore something that has defined a character since their inception and say that's valid just because some writer came along recently and said so.

Obviously anyone is entitled to have that opinion, but I give no credit to it.

If we're arguing the film's accuracy to the origin of Venom, then yes you're correct. But this is not what Venom was essentially about. The film is more attempting to adapt what Venom became when he started getting his own solo series in the 90s. So on that level, the movie does FEEL like Venom from that era. Outside of spider iconography, his physique and appearance are based on that era, he has the lust for organs (which was not a staple of McFarlene's era), and he even has the goofy sense of humor Venom had during that time. So the film may not be accurate to how Venom got from point A to point B, but it is an accurate portrayal of what Venom is like in the comics during that time. So, I cannot completely agree with you here. In regards to origin and motivation for how he became Venom in the first place, you're right that it changes who Venom is at a fundamental level. But, his actions and how the character are presented are very accurate to the Lethal Protector era. I would say that is an element that this movie got right that Spider-Man 3 got wrong (though SM3 was much closer on the front of his origins and motivations).

So in short, I don't think it is as easy to say this Venom is not Venom. I would say he's just not Venom in the way you value Venom.

 

[ludovica]

This over here. More reasonably explained than that is not possible.

 

[The Joker]

If we're arguing the film's accuracy to the origin of Venom, then yes you're correct. But this is not what Venom was essentially about. The film is more attempting to adapt what Venom became when he started getting his own solo series in the 90s. So on that level, the movie does FEEL like Venom from that era. Outside of spider iconography, his physique and appearance are based on that era, he has the lust for organs (which was not a staple of McFarlene's era), and he even has the goofy sense of humor Venom had during that time. So the film may not be accurate to how Venom got from point A to point B, but it is an accurate portrayal of what Venom is like in the comics during that time. So, I cannot completely agree with you here. In regards to origin and motivation for how he became Venom in the first place, you're right that it changes who Venom is at a fundamental level. But, his actions and how the character are presented are very accurate to the Lethal Protector era. I would say that is an element that this movie got right that Spider-Man 3 got wrong (though SM3 was much closer on the front of his origins and motivations).

So in short, I don't think it is as easy to say this Venom is not Venom. I would say he's just not Venom in the way you value Venom.

But this movie is Venom's origin movie is it not? It sets up Brock, the symbiote, how the two come together, and how he becomes Venom. How do you do Venom's origin story, say that is Venom, and omit Spider-Man?

Could you look at a Spider-Man origin story, have them omit Uncle Ben from it, then jump to Spider-Man being a hero, and say this is Spider-Man because its showing what Spider-Man is like once he becomes a hero, even though it covered his origin story and was totally missing Uncle Ben?

No, of course not. You can't cover the origin story and omit essential components of what makes the character who they are, and then say its valid just because they are trying to cover the feel of the character years after the origin. This is not MCU Spider-Man where we skipped the origin and had a ready made Spidey. We saw the origin of Venom, the movie took you through the whole origin process. It was Spider-Man free. That alone makes this an invalid interpretation of Venom.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But this movie is Venom's origin movie is not? It sets up Brock, the symbiote, how the two come together, and how he becomes Venom. How do you do Venom's origin story, say that is Venom, and omit Spider-Man?

Could you look at a Spider-Man origin story, have them omit Uncle Ben from it, then jump to Spider-Man being a hero, and say this is Spider-Man because its showing what Spider-Man is like once he becomes a hero, even though it covered his origin story and was totally missing Uncle Ben?

No, of course not. You can't cover the origin story and omit essential components of what makes the character who they are, and then say its valid just because they are trying to cover the feel of the character years after the origin. This is not MCU Spider-Man where we skipped the origin and had a ready made Spidey. We saw the origin of Venom, the movie took you through the whole origin process. It was Spider-Man free. That alone makes this an invalid interpretation of Venom.

The movie really only I think went the origin angle so they could establish more organically what a symbiote is and how the whole thing works within the confines of this world. Spider-Man's super powers require no such explanation like that. Spider-Man 3 didn't establish enough that the host and symbiote communicate and "talk" to one another. The host still seemed to be its own entity and just crave its power like a drug. They didn't merge as one true entity. So they had to rewrite the rules of the symbiote a bit. I don't think you can do this in every case, but I think in Venom's case I can understand the logic in why they approached it the way they did. Would I have done it the way Sony did? No, but I can understand their logic.

Plus that is also to ignore possible real life implications and restrictions on Sony's ability to reference Spider-Man while he is in the MCU. Maybe there was a restriction against his mention or use until FFH comes and goes, we don't know. But that is personal speculation.

 

[The Joker]

The movie really only I think went the origin angle so they could establish more organically what a symbiote is and how the whole thing works within the confines of this world. Spider-Man's super powers require no such explanation like that. Spider-Man 3 didn't establish enough that the host and symbiote communicate and "talk" to one another. The host still seemed to be its own entity and just crave its power like a drug. They didn't merge as one true entity. So they had to rewrite the rules of the symbiote a bit. I don't think you can do this in every case, but I think in Venom's case I can understand the logic in why they approached it the way they did. Would I have done it the way Sony did? No, but I can understand their logic.

Plus that is also to ignore possible real life implications and restrictions on Sony's ability to reference Spider-Man while he is in the MCU. Maybe there was a restriction against his mention or use until FFH comes and goes, we don't know. But that is personal speculation.

I wasn't really talking about the choices Sony made in how they explain how the symbiote works. But in regards to that, if they wanted to they could easily have explained the workings of the symbiote through flashbacks, exposition etc on how it was connected to Spider-Man previously. They had lots of creative choices here. They didn't even need to cover Venom's origin at all. They could have done what the MCU did with Spidey, just skip the origin and have the character already Venom.

They chose to cover the origin. They chose to do it in a way that completely omitted Spider-Man. They had the creative freedom. This was not a Sam Raimi in the shackles of Avi Arad's demands in Spider-Man 3 type situation. Sony still owns Spider-Man. They were not forbidden from verbally referencing him in any way I am aware of. Even if they were, they are choosing to divorce Spider-Man villains away from Spidey and put them in their own little Spider-Man free worlds. Again that makes them invalid interpretations.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I wasn't really talking about the choices Sony made in how they explain how the symbiote works. But in regards to that, if they wanted to they could easily have explained the workings of the symbiote through flashbacks, exposition etc on how it was connected to Spider-Man previously. They had lots of creative choices here. They didn't even need to cover Venom's origin at all. They could have done what the MCU did with Spidey, just skip the origin and have the character already Venom.

They chose to cover the origin. They chose to do it in a way the completely omitted Spider-Man. They had the creative freedom. This was not a Sam Raimi in the shackles of the Avi Arad's demands in Spider-Man 3 type situation. Sony still owns Spider-Man. They were not forbidden from verbally referencing him in any way I am aware of. Even if they were, they are choosing to divorce Spider-Man villains away from Spidey and put them in their own little Spider-Man free worlds. Again that makes them invalid interpretations.

Again, that's from a certain point of view and based off how you choose to value what makes Character X that character. I probably would not have made Venom's movie an origin film, but I understand Sony's thinking. It's not like Venom's been in a ton of movies like Batman or Superman or Spider-Man, so with Venom there was more to explain to the uninitiated. But when watching the movie, I do feel like the character I was watching was Venom. They made changes for sure, but while I never felt like I was watching Dr Doom for example in any of the FF films, here I felt like I was watching Venom. It didn't tick every box, but it ticked some boxes. For me, it was maybe not the best approach, but I see it as a valid take.

Even good movies can make drastic changes to characters. Not on the CBM front, look at Kubrick's The Shining. Cinematic master piece. But Stephen King hates the movie and I can see why he feels that way and how he thinks that the movie robbed the story of its tragedy. But, would we still call Kubrick's The Shining a valid take on it? I would. Stephen King disagrees. Same thing here. Ultimately valid take or invalid take is up to whoever is watching. Venom to you is not a valid take. I am not going to tell you you're wrong because that's your opinion. Based on what metrics you judge Venom being Venom, it's not valid. But the issue here is you're making your criteria the only criteria. That's not the only criteria anymore than King's opinion on Kubrick's The Shining.

 

[Nathan]

I don't understand why Sony couldn't simply wait. Doesn't Holland owe them another Movie after Far From Home? What was stopping them from waiting until Marvel is done and then use Holland in a 6th Movie and introduce Venom?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't understand why Sony couldn't simply wait. Doesn't Holland owe them another Movie after Far From Home? What was stopping them from waiting until Marvel is done and then use Holland in a 6th Movie and introduce Venom?

Do you want the real answer?

$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Nathan]

Well, again, why didn't they wait? Yeah, Venom made them Money, but you'd think a proper Venom origin with Holland's Spider-Man would have earned them even more. Plus, they could have used the time to actually polish the script.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well, again, why didn't they wait? Yeah, Venom made them Money, but you'd think a proper Venom origin with Holland's Spider-Man would have earned them even more. Plus, they could have used the time to actually polish the script.

Why do that when they can make money off a moderately priced Venom movie now (that is cheaper without Spider-Man) and then make huge bank later on if they can connect Venom & Spider-Man in another movie? That way, they bank off 2 films instead of 1, and they earn money quicker. Not to mention using it to launch a whole slew of movies that can make the studio money for years.

I get your argument in terms of quality. But financially, their plan is working.

 

[The Joker]

Again, that's from a certain point of view and based off how you choose to value what makes Character X that character. I probably would not have made Venom's movie an origin film, but I understand Sony's thinking. It's not like Venom's been in a ton of movies like Batman or Superman or Spider-Man, so with Venom there was more to explain to the uninitiated. But when watching the movie, I do feel like the character I was watching was Venom. They made changes for sure, but while I never felt like I was watching Dr Doom for example in any of the FF films, here I felt like I was watching Venom. It didn't tick every box, but it ticked some boxes. For me, it was maybe not the best approach, but I see it as a valid take.

Even good movies can make drastic changes to characters. Not on the CBM front, look at Kubrick's The Shining. Cinematic master piece. But Stephen King hates the movie and I can see why he feels that way and how he thinks that the movie robbed the story of its tragedy. But, would we still call Kubrick's The Shining a valid take on it? I would. Stephen King disagrees. Same thing here. Ultimately valid take or invalid take is up to whoever is watching. Venom to you is not a valid take. I am not going to tell you you're wrong because that's your opinion. Based on what metrics you judge Venom being Venom, it's not valid. But the issue here is you're making your criteria the only criteria. That's not the only criteria anymore than King's opinion on Kubrick's The Shining.

Exactly my point. How can you love a character and not value what makes the character who they are? I can't imagine a Batman I love without his parents being murdered in front of him as a child. I can't imagine a Spidey I love without Uncle Ben having being killed when he could have stopped it etc. These are the the lynch-pins of the character's foundations. Much like Spidey's intimate connection to the Brock and the Symbiote's origin. Without that, it can't possibly be a valid take. I could be watching the classic wise cracking heroic Spidey in all his glory, but if he was Spider-Man because his girlfriend was paralyzed in a botched up armed robbery, that would not be a valid interpretation of Spider-Man no matter how much of his personality they captured in his red and blues.

Your Stephen King Shining example is an invalid analogy here. King loathes the movie because its not true to his book. As a movie itself, its a terrific movie. It is indeed a masterpiece. As an adaption of King's book, it falls short. Any Stephen King fan would be right to say its an invalid adaption of it. But as a movie fan, its a terrific movie. You're making two different arguments there. Good movie, and good adaption. They don't go hand in hand. Turd in the wind on the other hand not only is a bad Venom interpretation, it is a bad movie, too. Messy script, boring villain, some atrocious acting. Things you cannot accuse good movies of, much less masterpieces like The Shining.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Exactly my point. How can you love a character and not value what makes the character who they are? I can't imagine a Batman I love without his parents being murdered in front of him as a child. I can't imagine a Spidey I love without Uncle Ben having being killed when he could have stopped it etc. These are the the lynch-pins of the character's foundations. Much like Spidey's intimate connection to the Brock and the Symbiote's origin. Without that, it can't possibly be a valid take. I could be watching the classic wise cracking heroic Spidey in all his glory, but if he was Spider-Man because his girlfriend was paralyzed in a botched up armed robbery, that would not be a valid interpretation of Spider-Man no matter how much of his personality they captured in his red and blues.

Your Stephen King Shining example is an invalid analogy. King loathes the movie because its not true to his book. As a movie itself, its a terrific movie. It is indeed a masterpiece. As an adaption of King's book, it falls short. Any Stephen King fan would be right to say its an invalid adaption of it. But as a movie fan, its a terrific movie. You're making two different arguments there. Good movie, and good adaption. They don't go hand in hand. Turd in the wind on the other hand not only is a bad Venom interpretation, it is a bad movie, too. Messy script, boring villain, some atrocious acting. Things you cannot accuse good movies of, much less masterpieces like The Shining.

No I am making the same argument. I used The Shining as an example of what I consider a valid take from a great movie that fans may take issue with for various reason. Venom is just a poorly reviewed example of my same argument. But in both case, I don't agree with your assessment of these movies being invalid takes. But you're entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to the opinion that they are valid. Neither of us is factually right or wrong. That is my core point. There is no facts here.

 

[The Joker]

No I am making the same argument. I used The Shining as an example of what I consider a valid take from a great movie that fans may take issue with for various reason. Venom is just a poorly reviewed example of my same argument. But in both case, I don't agree with your assessment of these movies being invalid takes. But you're entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to the opinion that they are valid. Neither of us is factually right or wrong. That is my core point. There is no facts here.

You don't need to agree with it. Nobody does. Facts are still facts whether someone agrees with them or not. Fact is you can't have a valid interpretation of a character when you omit a key component from that character. Its like saying a chocolate cake is still a chocolate cake without the chocolate.

You're entitled to see this as a valid interpretation. But the facts don't back that up.

 

[Spider-Fan]

You don't need to agree with it. Nobody does. Facts are still facts whether someone agrees with them or not. Fact is you can't have a valid interpretation of a character when you omit a key component from that character. Its like saying a chocolate cake is still a chocolate cake without the chocolate.

You're entitled to see this as a valid interpretation. But the facts don't back that up.

That is not how facts work, Joker. Example of a fact: Tom Hardy plays a character named Eddie Brock in a film called Venom. This is a fact. This is something provable. What I had for breakfast is something that can be proven. Now if we're talking about if the place I went for breakfast was the best option given where I live, that is an opinion. What makes someone like a character who what people see as key aspects of a character are not facts. They vary. Art is not cooking, so Venom is not a chocolate cake. Venom when he was introduced under McFarlene was one way, then he changed to an anti-hero, then he had a new host, then he was Anti-Venom, etc. So which Venom is the definitive Venom? What makes him Venom? This is something that has evolved over time, and it changes with each adaptation.

Let's examine the definition of opinion:

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Whether a take is valid or not is a judgement call. That is an opinion by its very definition. I'm sorry, but your mixing up what a fact and opinion are here. Or are just letting your opinion cloud your vision of what a fact actually is. Either way, your opinion is not a fact.

 

[Sithborg]

You don't need to agree with it. Nobody does. Facts are still facts whether someone agrees with them or not. Fact is you can't have a valid interpretation of a character when you omit a key component from that character. Its like saying a chocolate cake is still a chocolate cake without the chocolate.

You're entitled to see this as a valid interpretation. But the facts don't back that up.

One could argue, that Venom has long ago grown past that. That that isn't as key to the character as it once was.

But then again, only Feige is allowed to make that determination, it seems.

 

[The Joker]

That is not how facts work, Joker. Example of a fact: Tom Hardy plays a character named Eddie Brock in a film called Venom. This is a fact. This is something provable. What I had for breakfast is something that can be proven. Now if we're talking about if the place I went for breakfast was the best option given where I live, that is an opinion. What makes someone like a character who what people see as key aspects of a character are not facts. They vary. Art is not cooking, so Venom is not a chocolate cake. Venom when he was introduced under McFarlene was one way, then he changed to an anti-hero, then he had a new host, then he was Anti-Venom, etc. So which Venom is the definitive Venom? What makes him Venom? This is something that has evolved over time, and it changes with each adaptation.

Let's examine the definition of opinion:

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Whether a take is valid or not is a judgement call. That is an opinion by its very definition. I'm sorry, but your mixing up what a fact and opinion are here. Or are just letting your opinion cloud your vision of what a fact actually is. Either way, your opinion is not a fact.

That is how facts work. You can say an actor is playing any character, but if that character is portrayed in a way that goes against or omits important elements that define who that character is then it is not a valid interpretation. That is fact. Something cannot be what its supposed to be if its missing something that is vital to defining what it is. Yes it is a fact Tom Hardy plays a character called Eddie Brock. That is provable. Nobody disputed what character he is portraying. How he is being portrayed is the issue here.

Cooking is very much an art form; Cooking Is An Art: What Makes A Chef An Artist, Craftsman And Visionary That's why I drew an analogy. Essential ingredients define what makes what ever it is you're cooking. Just like with a character, there are things about certain characters that are essential to defining who that character is. In Venom's case, Spider-Man is one of them. Take that out, you don't have a valid version of the character. Spider-Man is an essential and defining element of Venom's origin. That is fact. This movie covered Venom's origin, defining who he is. Did that origin include Spider-Man? No. That is also fact. Therefore it excluded an essential element of Venom's origin that defines the character, just like in the art of cooking, if you omit a vital ingredient then you are not making what you're trying to make. Fact. Not opinion.

Venom's evolution over the years is not in dispute. We're talking his origin. What defined who he is. Not what character journeys he went on years later.

 

[Iceman]

One could argue, that Venom has long ago grown past that. That that isn't as key to the character as it once was.

But then again, only Feige is allowed to make that determination, it seems.

In the comics at least, Venom grew into an entity of interest by himself and I was happy to see him pop up even when Spidey didn't. On film I definitely would have preferred to see black suit Spidey first and Venom's origin linked to that, but too late now. I'd like to see Hardy stay as the character, wherever his destiny lies.

 

[Spider-Fan]

That is how facts work. You can say an actor is playing any character, but if that character is portrayed in a way that goes against or omits important elements that define who that character is then it is not a valid interpretation. That is fact. Something cannot be what its supposed to be if its missing something that is vital to defining what it is. Yes it is a fact Tom Hardy plays a character called Eddie Brock. That is provable. Nobody disputed what character he is portraying. How he is being portrayed is the issue here.

Cooking is very much an art form; Cooking Is An Art: What Makes A Chef An Artist, Craftsman And Visionary That's why I drew an analogy. Essential ingredients define what makes what ever it is you're cooking. Just like with a character, there are things about certain characters that are essential to defining who that character is. In Venom's case, Spider-Man is one of them. Take that out, you don't have a valid version of the character. Spider-Man is an essential and defining element of Venom's origin. That is fact. This movie covered Venom's origin, defining who he is. Did that origin include Spider-Man? No. That is also fact. Therefore it excluded an essential element of Venom's origin that defines the character, just like in the art of cooking, if you omit a vital ingredient then you are not making what you're trying to make. Fact. Not opinion.

Venom's evolution over the years is not in dispute. We're talking his origin. What defined who he is. Not what character journeys he went on years later.

Let me repost this important part here:

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

What you're doing is using evidence to make some form of judgement. In this case, you're using your knowledge of Venom to make a judgement on whether it is a valid take or not in the movie. This is called an opinion. I watch cooking shows a lot, and you would be surprised what a judge will accept as cake (just watch them make cakes on Cutthroat Kitchen and see how they're judged). But at the end of the day, this is entirely your judgement. I am not going to argue in circles with this all day because at the end of the day, we''re spinning our wheels. I like you as a poster Joker. But on this matter, you're wrong. You're treating your opinion as a fact when that is not the case. This is 100% your opinion. I don't even necessarily disagree with your opinion entirely. But you keep using the word FACT, and your use of it is wrong and sort of dismissive and like you're talking down to people when you do that. To paraphrase Mr. Montoya, you use that word a lot, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[ehh]

I truly dislike the idea of Venom existing without Spider-Man, but a good movie could have still been made with that premise. But leave it to Sony to give us another steaming pile of crap.

 

[Fallen]

Um, I'm gonna be the bad/controversial guy here. But does anyone think... does anyone think the audience score is being rigged/spammed?

Audicence scores can be manipulated.

Gotti's score on RT was artificially manipulated to be used in the marketing strategy:



The comments .

Today:

 

[The Joker]

Let me repost this important part here:

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

What you're doing is using evidence to make some form of judgement. In this case, you're using your knowledge of Venom to make a judgement on whether it is a valid take or not in the movie. This is called an opinion. I watch cooking shows a lot, and you would be surprised what a judge will accept as cake (just watch them make cakes on Cutthroat Kitchen and see how they're judged). But at the end of the day, this is entirely your judgement. I am not going to argue in circles with this all day because at the end of the day, we''re spinning our wheels. I like you as a poster Joker. But on this matter, you're wrong. You're treating your opinion as a fact when that is not the case. This is 100% your opinion. I don't even necessarily disagree with your opinion entirely. But you keep using the word FACT, and your use of it is wrong and sort of dismissive and like you're talking down to people when you do that. To paraphrase Mr. Montoya, you use that word a lot, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

I like you as a poster a lot, too, so let me say this as nicely as I can without trying to sound in any way offensive. You are right in saying I have been using evidence to make a judgement. That's how you establish facts. You use evidence, which is why I am able to so confidently say what I've been saying is a fact. The evidence backs it up. There are certain essential things that define what something or someone is. In the case of Venom and his origin, Spider-Man is that. You're a Spider-Man fan, you know that. Take him out of it, you do not have a valid interpretation of that character for the simple reason that you have just taken away one of the major elements that defines who a character is.

That's not an opinion. That's a plain simple fact. If it wasn't, you could make any kind of inane changes to a character, call them Spider-Man, Batman, Venom etc and say they're valid interpretations even though they go completely against the material of the character. I can't fathom a rational explanation supported by any evidence that could defend that.

Its why characterizations like Halle Berry's Catwoman is so widely called CINO - Catwoman in name only.

 

[The Joker]

Audicence scores can be manipulated.

Gotti's score on RT was artificially manipulated to be used in the marketing strategy:



The comments .

Today:

Wait a minute, the audience score on that awful Travolta movie was changed to make it look like audiences loved it?