Venom Venom Rotten Tomatoes Thread

[Spider-Fan]

Audicence scores can be manipulated.

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



The comments .

Today:

How many user reviews did it have, though? Even in the image you posted here, it has less than 8K. Venom has over 24K. I don't see a conspiracy for Gotti so much as maybe people just were not voting because no one watched it, LOL!

 

[shinlyle]

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.

Truth. There is enough backstory on Eddie or the symbiote to make something decent. Shoot, they could have followed the current direction of the Venom comic and referenced the Vietnam symbiote soldiers from Project Rebirth, and then, if the movie rocked, bring in Eddie.
Who am I kidding? I'm not going to like it without Spider-Man. That's probably why I haven't gone to see it, yet. Bad reviews, but faithful, I'll risk it. Bad reviews plus completely wrong, I'll stay home until it hits the cheap theaters.
I'l go get my "sym-buy-oates" somewhere else. (still my most cringe-worthy Venom trailer moment, and that includes the "turd in the wind")

 

[Spider-Fan]

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.

Popular opinion doesn't make anything a fact. It just makes it a popular opinion. Obviously, someone thought they had a valid take on Catwoman with CINO because they wrote and made the movie. Evidence only backs up facts when something is undeniable or indisputable. Clearly some people thought that Venom's interpretation in the movie was a valid take. If this was something factual, there would not be contradictory opinions. This is why you're wrong. You cannot deny that I had pancakes for breakfast if I had pancakes for breakfast. You cannot say Tom Hardy didn't play a character named Eddie Brock in a movie called Venom. This is an undeniable fact. When you're getting into questions like was this a valid take, was this actor right for the role, or things of that nature then you're speaking to people's preference on characters. No 2 people see a character the same exact way, so you will always get 2 different versions of a character from people because they will gravitate or emphasize different things. Even the MCU has made major changes to characters. When was Hela ever Thor's sister and not the queen of her own realm? When was Ego ever Starlord's father? Hank Pym was cut out of Ultron's backstory in the same way Spider-Man was for Venom, Etc. Don't these changes radically change their motivations relative to their goals in the comics? But these changes don't inherently invalidate the take. That's up to the people watching it. Even if an opinion becomes popular, like Movie X sucks, that is still an opinion. It is not a fact.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Popular opinion doesn't make anything a fact. It just makes it a popular opinion.

I'm happy to say that someone saved me the need to say it.

 

[ehh]

Of course there is a general consensus when it comes to all movies, games, music, and other forms of entertainment. It's good to be aware of what that general consensus is, but your own personal opinion is what should matter most to you.

 

[The Joker]

Popular opinion doesn't make anything a fact. It just makes it a popular opinion. Obviously, someone thought they had a valid take on Catwoman with CINO because they wrote and made the movie. Evidence only backs up facts when something is undeniable or indisputable. Clearly some people thought that Venom's interpretation in the movie was a valid take. If this was something factual, there would not be contradictory opinions. This is why you're wrong. You cannot deny that I had pancakes for breakfast if I had pancakes for breakfast. You cannot say Tom Hardy didn't play a character named Eddie Brock in a movie called Venom. This is an undeniable fact. When you're getting into questions like was this a valid take, was this actor right for the role, or things of that nature then you're speaking to people's preference on characters. No 2 people see a character the same exact way, so you will always get 2 different versions of a character from people because they will gravitate or emphasize different things. Even the MCU has made major changes to characters. When was Hela ever Thor's sister and not the queen of her own realm? When was Ego ever Starlord's father? Hank Pym was cut out of Ultron's backstory in the same way Spider-Man was for Venom, Etc. Don't these changes radically change their motivations relative to their goals in the comics? But these changes don't inherently invalidate the take. That's up to the people watching it. Even if an opinion becomes popular, like Movie X sucks, that is still an opinion. It is not a fact.

I'm not talking about popular opinions. I'm talking facts. There's a distinct difference between the two. You keep repeating its a fact Hardy played a character named Eddie Brock, what you had for breakfast etc is a fact. Nobody denied those were facts. You don't need to keep reaffirming things nobody has disputed. People contradict factual things all the time. You're confusing the liking of a characterization, and what it factually is. Look at the X-Men franchise. Half the characters are almost nothing like the comics, and are therefore invalid interpretations of the characters. But they are enjoyable characters in predominantly well made movies. So fans, audiences, critics etc end up loving them. Same with some those other characters you mentioned. I say some. Characters like Ultron and Hela still had the same motivations and goals regardless.

It is a fact that if you remove something that is a defining aspect of what makes a character who they are, that is an invalid interpretation of the character. A character cannot be who they are if they are missing something that is crucial to making them who they are. That is cold hard fact. Whether people enjoyed turd in the wind's version of Venom, that's when you go into opinion territory. But make no mistake, this was not a valid interpretation of Venom. Without Spider-Man it cannot ever be. That is a fact.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm not talking about popular opinions. I'm talking facts. There's a distinct difference between the two. You keep repeating its a fact Hardy played a character named Eddie Brock, what you had for breakfast etc is a fact. Nobody denied those were facts. You don't need to keep reaffirming things nobody has disputed. People contradict factual things all the time. You're confusing the liking of a characterization, and what it factually is. Look at the X-Men franchise. Half the characters are almost nothing like the comics, and are therefore invalid interpretations of the characters. But they are enjoyable characters in predominantly well made movies. So fans, audiences, critics etc end up loving them. Same with some those other characters you mentioned. I say some. Characters like Ultron and Hela still had the same motivations and goals regardless.

It is a fact that if you remove something that is a defining aspect of what makes a character who they are, that is an invalid interpretation of the character. A character cannot be who they are if they are missing something that is crucial to making them who they are. That is cold hard fact. Whether people enjoyed turd in the wind's version of Venom, that's when you go into opinion territory. But make no mistake, this was not a valid interpretation of Venom. Without Spider-Man it cannot ever be. That is a fact.

Your definition of fact is flawed and incorrect. I'm not engaging in this debate any further as these posts are basically identical at this point. I've pasted the definition of the word and you're still disputing it and keep bringing me judgements. Judgements are not facts. Judgements can be based on facts and data, but your judgement is an opinion based upon that data, and that is a fact.

My last reply on this topic.

 

[The Joker]

Your definition of fact is flawed and incorrect. I'm not engaging in this debate any further as these posts are basically identical at this point. I've pasted the definition of the word and you're still disputing it and keep bringing me judgements. Judgements are not facts. Judgements can be based on facts and data, but your judgement is an opinion based upon that data, and that is a fact.

My last reply on this topic.

No, the definition is sound. Facts are established based on judgements of evidence, which is how you establish facts in the first place. That's what I have done. Something or someone cannot be who they are if you take away one of the defining aspects that makes them who they are. That's logic and common sense. You can't be who you are if you are missing something vital that makes you who you are.

You were never going to agree on this, but at least you kept it civil. Thanks for the discussion, Spider-Fan.

 

[Ken-Kaniff]

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.

The debates and all the discussions are interesting guys, but this post sums it up perfectly! Forget the Venom movie not staying true to the character's origins for a minute. The movie is bad to begin with and ironically, it's not because of that, but because of many other elements. If at least we would have received a good movie, we could have argued about it being true or not to the character, but adding Spider-Man to it wouldn't have made it good. It would have improved it, yes, but it still wouldn't have fixed some of the major problems it has.

 

[Mysteryman]

I always thought this film would simply flame out.
So far, it has done much better than I thought it would.
I have to give Sony credit.
They gambled and won.

 

[Mysteryman]

The debates and all the discussions are interesting guys, but this post sums it up perfectly! Forget the Venom movie not staying true to the character's origins for a minute. The movie is bad to begin with and ironically, it's not because of that, but because of many other elements. If at least we would have received a good movie, we could have argued about it being true or not to the character, but adding Spider-Man to it wouldn't have made it good. It would have improved it, yes, but it still wouldn't have fixed some of the major problems it has.

I agree
You don’t insert Spider- Man without some sort of build up.
He can’t just be a guest star in a Venom movie.

 

[ludovica]

This is satire, up to a point.

Fictional characters are functions of a story, defined by their action and thoughts as described therein. That's a fact.
Fictional characters also evolve over time and their most current versions are usually the ones considered preeminent. That's also a fact.
If we consider every story published about Venom in the 616 universe up until today, especially when the primary protagonist of them, we'd find that inside the vast majority of them Eddie and Venom are not defined by their origin or their hate towards one Peter Parker anymore, hence narratively Spider-Man as the catalyst could theoretically be removed or retconned. Also a fact.
As in, the majority of Venom stories published do not absolutely require Spider-Man, ergo the logical deduction that the fictional character Venom is not defined by the previously cited other character's presence in its origin but by an adherence to the consistent characterization of its actions and thoughts over the majority of its appareances. Another fact.

The author is herein not asserting that a Venom deeply linked with Spider-Man wouldn't possibly be a superior adaptation, but they are only highlighting, using actual logic and common sense, the undeniable fact that the motion picture Venom currently showing in theaters represents one factually accurate and faithful rendition of its titular character, percived quality notwithstanding.
Nonetheless this facts cannot assure an universal enjoyment of said motion picture by all or even most: there is no accounting for personal tastes and preferences, this the most important fact of all.



[The real point (not fact) I'm trying to make is that there is no real way to apply any semblance of the scientific method to fiction. Wait, could this be a fact unto itself? (Ok, I'll stop now.)
All of this, it is no fun and it is IMO a real problem in nerd culture as it often creeps in to try to assert what are and can only ever be opinions.
Opinions on art and fictional characters are not bad! Opinions have no grading scale!
There is NO wrong answer to adamantium vs lightsaber, that's what some people seem to forget.]

 

[ehh]

The debates and all the discussions are interesting guys, but this post sums it up perfectly! Forget the Venom movie not staying true to the character's origins for a minute. The movie is bad to begin with and ironically, it's not because of that, but because of many other elements. If at least we would have received a good movie, we could have argued about it being true or not to the character, but adding Spider-Man to it wouldn't have made it good. It would have improved it, yes, but it still wouldn't have fixed some of the major problems it has.

I can accept change if that change is done well. We know that Sony had no choice but to work around Spider-Man to make this film, so they did what they could. But that's not what makes the movie bad. As a fan of Venom I would have been disappointed to an extent no matter what, but the script could have still be more cohesive and less messy, the editing could have been better, we could have had better acting, and so on.

This movie was a big mess but audiences loved it, which could give Sony this message: it doesn't matter if the film isn't very good, we can still make money!

They will keep pumping these movies out if they keep making money, and they will have no incentive to improve the quality of these movies.

 

[shinlyle]

I can accept change if that change is done well. We know that Sony had no choice but to work around Spider-Man to make this film, so they did what they could. But that's not what makes the movie bad. As a fan of Venom I would have been disappointed to an extent no matter what, but the script could have still be more cohesive and less messy, the editing could have been better, we could have had better acting, and so on.

This movie was a big mess but audiences loved it, which could give Sony this message: it doesn't matter if the film isn't very good, we can still make money!

They will keep pumping these movies out if they keep making money, and they will have no incentive to improve the quality of these movies.

This is exactly why, no matter what, I didn't go see it on opening weekend. I will probably see it, and I might LIKE IT, but there is little to no chance that I will LOVE IT. I am too attached to the character of Venom to LOVE what is essentially Venom In Name Only. It still might be a fun monster movie, but that's about it. I have low expectations, too, so that may help my viewing of it.

 

[ehh]

This is exactly why, no matter what, I didn't go see it on opening weekend. I will probably see it, and I might LIKE IT, but there is little to no chance that I will LOVE IT. I am too attached to the character of Venom to LOVE what is essentially Venom In Name Only. It still might be a fun monster movie, but that's about it. I have low expectations, too, so that may help my viewing of it.

I think the most common reaction to the film that I've encountered is: "Venom isn't that bad." That's probably the best thing that this film has going for it as a general consensus. I didn't hate it to death, but I was seriously underwhelmed by it. It really does feel like a comic book movie that would have been released among Blade, Spawn, Daredevil, and Ghost Rider.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Critics:


31%
Average Rating: 4.5/10
Reviews Counted: 249
Fresh: 76
Rotten: 173

Audience:

88%
liked it
Average Rating: 4.3/5
User Ratings: 27,506

 

[jolldan]

Got to be honest I thought the ratings this movie got were pretty harsh, was it perfect no but it was great fun and it made me excited about a potential sequel.

 

[ehh]

I still wonder why there are so few audience ratings.

 

[ludovica]

Got to be honest I thought the ratings this movie got were pretty harsh, was it perfect no but it was great fun and it made me excited about a potential sequel.

Critics have gotten spoiled by great CBM that they can not compute anymore a just average and funny one.

 

[Stark Bauer]

These so called professional critics are most likely not comic book collectors. They don’t understand the character of Venom and what made him so appealing in the 90s even today Venom is one of the top selling comic books (alongside Black Panther) and they are constantly sold out and I can’t even find a copy. I’m talking about the Lovecraftian Venom series where the symbiote is a god.

 

[Iceman]

I've always had a big thing for Venom, partly because he was one of the first characters I ever saw in a comic, but also I loved his look and warped sense of humour.

 

[ehh]

I never really cared about Venom outside of the Spider-Man titles. Once Venom drifts off I sort of lose interest.

 

[ironwez20]

Honestly I just see this being big cause venom is popular and venom always has been popular and when Spider-Man 3 came out the biggest draw to the movie was seeing venom.

I don’t think Sony’s others movies will do as well as venom did. Venom is just a very popular character and Disney was stupid to just use him or Sony didn’t let them. I think Avi Arad is the only guy who knows that venom sells cause he always pushes for him to show up. Hopefully we see venom fight spidey some day tho as I only like venom when he’s a villain

 

[Spider-Fan]

Honestly I just see this being big cause venom is popular and venom always has been popular and when Spider-Man 3 came out the biggest draw to the movie was seeing venom.

I don’t think Sony’s others movies will do as well as venom did. Venom is just a very popular character and Disney was stupid to just use him or Sony didn’t let them. I think Avi Arad is the only guy who knows that venom sells cause he always pushes for him to show up. Hopefully we see venom fight spidey some day tho as I only like venom when he’s a villain

Venom makes no sense to use in a 1st Spider-Man solo. Also, Sony has to approve the characters Marvel Studios uses in their movies, so even if they wanted to use Venom, that would have been ultimately Sony's call.

 

[ironwez20]

Venom makes no sense to use in a 1st Spider-Man solo. Also, Sony has to approve the characters Marvel Studios uses in their movies, so even if they wanted to use Venom, that would have been ultimately Sony's call.

I didn’t say they should use him his first spidey solo tho??? And like I said it seemed like Disney did t want to use venom or any characters used so Sony said they would.