Venom Venom Rotten Tomatoes Thread

[ironwez20]

No no, that doesn't hold any credibility at all. Just because the current writers decided to re-write the last 30 years of comic book lore doesn't make this spin off bastardization a valid interpretation.

You think fans would accept an Uncle Ben free Spider-Man origin just because Marvel decided to recently do one? Spider-Man is the Uncle Ben of Venom's origin in terms of importance.

This. Any venom fan can blankly see that you need spidey for venom. It’s just how it is. Venom is made to be the dark incarnation of Spider-Man. Idk what’s so hard for him to grasp about that. Just cause this movie ignores the lore doesn’t mean suddenly venom and spidey aren’t supposed to have ties anymore and he’s just a separate entity

 

[ludovica]

Obligatory disclaimer that we're cooking with way too much Off-Topic sauce, should we open a dedicated thread?

But what a fascinating conundrum the legitimacy of interpretation is!
I already said I believe nobody has the necessary PhD to speak authoritatively BUT.
I think we would all agree that a Catwoman that's a flying alien male would not be a valid version of the character (or would it)?

So I propose a little method: name three (arbitrary, I know) core defining traits plus a superpower.
Spider-Man: science nerd, guilt complex, unlucky, does what a spider can.
Daredevil: blind catholic lawyer, ninja.
Batman: rich, traumatized and dresses to scare, doesn't murder no matter what.

Obviously even this could be debated for years, I know.

In the case of Venom we could even split it in two characters, Eddie and the symbiote.
Care to give it a try? Fight!

 

[Lantern Venom]

How do you know their father was not Magneto? We never met their parents. What difference does them having their powers through mutation or not make to them still being outsiders with powers? That is ultimately what the stigma of being a mutant is about. You have these special abilities which the world fears/frowns upon. I never read the Guardians comics, so I will take your word on those changes, but from what I am told by those who read them, the movies turned an uninteresting flaccid (and unpopular) group of comic characters into the polar opposite. In fact from what I'm told the comic Guardians even completely disappeared from Marvel comics for over a decade because of lack of interest. I understand they were cancelled again in the 90's. Am I incorrect about this? If not, would you not agree it doesn't ultimately matter what they do to characters who fans don't really care for in the first place?

Fox owns everything (cinematically) having to do with the X-Men's corner of Marvel, which is how I know that Magneto isn't their father. And while teams like Avengers/Defenders/Fantastic Four/New Warriors have faced periodic distrust from the world in the comics, the themes of prejudice and ostracism have been pervasive in mutant stories. That's amplified with two characters whose father was originally a supervillain.

As for the GotG, they each existed individually prior to 2008 (they appeared in anthology titles like Marvel Spotlight or guess-starred in comics like The Incredible Hulk), but that's when this particular incarnation of the team, along with Adam Warlock, got their own title. There have been many other characters to work with them since then, including Agent Venom. At one point in the last few years (I can't recall the name of the story), the symbiote ended up jumping between the Guardians for a short time.

 

[The Joker]

Fox owns everything (cinematically) having to do with the X-Men's corner of Marvel, which is how I know that Magneto isn't their father. And while teams like Avengers/Defenders/Fantastic Four/New Warriors have faced periodic distrust from the world in the comics, the themes of prejudice and ostracism have been pervasive in mutant stories. That's amplified with two characters whose father was originally a supervillain.

As for the GotG, they each existed individually prior to 2008 (they appeared in anthology titles like Marvel Spotlight or guess-starred in comics like The Incredible Hulk), but that's when this particular incarnation of the team, along with Adam Warlock, got their own title. There have been many other characters to work with them since then, including Agent Venom. At one point in the last few years (I can't recall the name of the story), the symbiote ended up jumping between the Guardians for a short time.

It doesn't matter if Fox owns everything cinematically to do with X-Men. Sony owned all things Spidey until they jumped into bed with the MCU. That didn't stop them from slipping Spider-Man into the MCU, and they didn't even need to cover his origin. He was a ready made Spidey. Characters can exist without our knowledge. There's no key themes missing from the two characters just because they didn't come into this world as mutants. Prejudice and ostracism are there.

I don't doubt what you say about the Guardian comics for a second. You know more about them than I do. But I see you didn't dispute the information I was given regarding them and their comics. They were a low rate bunch, with little popularity, they can't even sustain an ongoing comic book for long. And were missing for many years from the Marvel comics as the Guardians. The movies turned their characters into popular beloved ones. Which was my point. You can argue the changes they made in the movies were not true to the original versions. But does that matter when fans really don't care for them. If you make a change to something or someone that is not held sacred to fans, then really what does it matter?

 

[Micromind]

Can Venom be considered as a vague sequel to Spider-Man 3 ? (Even though it isn't.)

That way we can have comic book accurate Origins and a comic book accurate Venom.

 

[Sithborg]

It doesn't matter if Fox owns everything cinematically to do with X-Men. Sony owned all things Spidey until they jumped into bed with the MCU. That didn't stop them from slipping Spider-Man into the MCU, and they didn't even need to cover his origin. He was a ready made Spidey. Characters can exist without our knowledge. There's no key themes missing from the two characters just because they didn't come into this world as mutants. Prejudice and ostracism are there.

I don't doubt what you say about the Guardian comics for a second. You know more about them than I do. But I see you didn't dispute the information I was given regarding them and their comics. They were a low rate bunch, with little popularity, they can't even sustain an ongoing comic book for long. And were missing for many years from the Marvel comics as the Guardians. The movies turned their characters into popular beloved ones. Which was my point. You can argue the changes they made in the movies were not true to the original versions. But does that matter when fans really don't care for them. If you make a change to something or someone that is not held sacred to fans, then really what does it matter?

Ehh, Bendis when he took over the book really shot them up in popularity, in comic book terms. And one could argue, that the movies are based on the Bendis versions.

 

[Best]

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.

Its either that, or its being horded by people who are simply saying it wasn't as bad as the critics say. As in they're voting positive simply because of that.

 

[ludovica]

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.

Its either that, or its being horded by people who are simply saying it wasn't as bad as the critics say. As in they're voting positive simply because of that.

Lotsa people probably just had a great time at the cinema.
No film deserves anything, people like what they like.

 

[ludovica]

The Batman tv series in the '60s was an accurate and legitimate interpretation.
Nowadays it would still be legitimate, accurate not so much.
Characters change, whether or not we like the new versions is another matter.

 

[ludovica]

If you make a change to something or someone that is not held sacred to fans, then really what does it matter?

For sure there exists somewhere at least one fan who was not enthused by the Gotg changes to things they found sacred.
Wait, I personally remember some hardcore fans on comic book boards who were extremely against the changes to Drax and Star Lord even before release. Some still are.

All your arguments fall apart if you do not give the same credit to the opinions of those fans as you do your owns.
And there comes the kicker, no matter which property, there will always be a minority opinion held by a contingent as much invested in it as the majority one.

That's why no one has ownership of what makes an interpretation legitimate.

 

[ehh]

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.

Its either that, or its being horded by people who are simply saying it wasn't as bad as the critics say. As in they're voting positive simply because of that.

Note that Venom only has 23,000 ratings for the audience score, which is really, really low. I don't think we have a good sample size here.

The 2002 Spider-Man film has an audience score of 67%, but that's based on 34 Million ratings. Big difference there.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Sigh. Okay guys, time for a lecture on fandom. Liking a character one way or seeing them one way vs another doesn't make you a better fan than someone else. Nor does it really matter. Characters have many different versions or characterizations. It happens when you're dealing with a continuity as expansive as comics. So what you think of as core aspects of Venom may not be to someone else. That doesn't make you a better fan. This constant fan measuring contest is useless, and ultimately this arguing of who is the better fan makes you sound like a baby who didn't get his bottle (or in this case, your character wasn't done your way). This type of garbage needs to stop. You're posting on a superhero message board in a Venom forum. You're a fan, I'm a fan, we're all fans. Stop the stupid fan measuring contest. Discuss the friggin movie like an adult. You can convey your thoughts on changes to Venom without defaulting "Well, a REAL fan would think X." I'm sorry, you start a sentence like that, your point is already meaningless to me and you're just insulting people who don't agree with you. It's a bush league tactic you wouldn't need to do if you actually had a valid point. Your argument should be able to stand on its own without insulting people.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T guys. Learn it.

 

[Another_Fool]

I know I'm keeping it off topic by continuing the conversation but I wouldn't go so far to call it a bastardization of the Eddie character. Outside of Spidey, they get a lot of things right about Eddie, and ultimately told a story where a surprising number of the audience accepted that Spider- Man wasn't a part of it.

Let me be very clear that I'm in agreement with the importance of Spider-Man in Venom's origin and it is disappointing that as far as we can tell they have no connection. So I can understand why some don't like that it's not the driving force to the creation of Venom in the film. However, at the same time they did create a little wiggle room for an insertion of Spider-Man which allowed me to mostly roll with what we got in Venom.

Spoiler

Anne in the first act specifically mentions to Eddie he got run out of New York due to the Daily Globe incident. If they chose they can easily slip that Spider-Man was the one who ruined his career in New York. So I can buy that Eddie has animosity towards him in the sequel if they write it in.

The real challenge is how do you get the symbiote to hate Peter. I'm not sure how they can handle it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I know I'm keeping it off topic by continuing the conversation but I wouldn't go so far to call it a bastardization of the Eddie character. Outside of Spidey, they get a lot of things right about Eddie, and ultimately told a story where the a surprising number of the audience accepted that Spider- Man wasn't a part of it.

Let me be very clear that I'm in agreement with the importance of Spider-Man in Venom's origin and it is disappointing that as far as we can tell they have no connection. So I can understand why some don't like that it's not the driving force to the creation of Venom in the film. However, at the same time they did create a little wiggle room for an insertion of Spider-Man which allowed me mostly roll with what we got in Venom.

Spoiler

Anne in the first act specifically mentions to Eddie he got run out of New York due to the Daily Globe incident. If they chose they can easily slip that Spider-Man was the one who ruined his career in New York. So I can buy that Eddie has animosity towards him in the sequel if they write it in.

The real challenge is how do you get the symbiote to hate Peter. I'm not sure how they can handle it.

Spoiler

Because I love brainstorming and throwing ideas out there and seeing if they stick, maybe the symbiote would hate Spider-Man because Eddie does. While it is not they bond over shared hatred of Spider-Man, maybe the symbiote feeds off Eddie's emotions, and much like the symbiote wanted to fix Eddie's love life to make him happier, maybe he wants to destroy Spider-Man as well to keep a happy host?

Yeah it is not as deep, but it still is a reason that would make sense.

 

[ehh]

Perhaps the symbiote would still find its way to Spider-Man at some point? I don't think that'll ever happen, but anything is possible under Sony.

 

[Dr.]

Note that Venom only has 23,000 ratings for the audience score, which is really, really low. I don't think we have a good sample size here.

The 2002 Spider-Man film has an audience score of 67%, but that's based on 34 Million ratings. Big difference there.

Since open/online surveys aren’t usually considered scientific (therefore, of dubious value), I’m not sure if concerns about sample size amount to much. (For scientific surveys, just a thousand or so participants are typically sufficient - even for very large populations.)

In any case, it’s not so surprising that older movies on RT tend to have a higher number of “user ratings.” (A Star is Born [released at the same time as Venom] has 7K; Titanic (1997) has 36 million.)

 

[shinlyle]

Exactly.



The canon crutch doesn't hold any credibility. For example, Gwen Stacy screwed Norman Osborn behind Peter's back and secretly had two Goblin babies with him. Peter selling his marriage and entire history with MJ to Mephisto in the hated One More Day storyline. All canon, too. You think they would be good storylines and characterizations to utilize in a movie just because the comics did it? Pull the other one, its got bells on it. There is only one origin for Venom, and its been his origin for the last 30 years. Its been the foundation for every on screen adaption of the character. It is the staple of the character's basis and origin. That is fact, not opinion. Some Johnny come lately writers coming along and removing the essential ingredient of that doesn't make it valid any more than if they took Uncle Ben out of Spidey's origin and said it was canon. You're seriously trying to tell me because some recent writer said ignore what has defined a character for decades, that makes it ok? Like fans are just going to ignore what defines a character just because the latest writers said so.

Audiences can enjoy turd in the wind as much as they like. Nobody is talking about enjoyment. Even the worst movies ever made have cult followings. We're talking valid interpretation of a character. Which turd in the wind's version is not. Spider-Man 3 made over 900 mil at the box office. Clearly audiences lapped that up. Does that make that version of Venom valid in your eyes? Let me hit you with another one I know you loathe; the Lego Batman character. A big success, beloved, and unlike turd in the wind also a critical success, too. In both of his movies. Do you deny he is a valid interpretation of Batman since the audiences enjoy him, because he's ticking all the boxes according to your "logic"? Game, set, match.

Well, I'll throw out an off-the-wall point of reference that has popped up in my mind lately: TMNT.

The TMNT reboot. It was critically panned, and the die-hard fans hated it, but the GA lapped it up. It made a bunch of money, and the sequel was green-lit within a month. The sequel came out, and, without that initial bump from the die-hard who held out hope, the movie fell by the wayside and no third movie is being discussed...and they can't figure out where it all went wrong. They even had Krang, Rocksteady and Bebop make their big screen debuts! How could it go so wrong?!

Fast forward to today. A Venom movie comes out, makes lots of money at the box office, is panned critically and by a good portion of the die-hard core audience. A sequel is probably inevitable...and with fan-favorite character, Carnage! What could go wrong???

Personally, I'm just happy that people enjoyed it, but it still feels like people are willing to settle for a lesser Venom movie than the one they could have had, were they allowed to include SOME version of Spider-Man and the proper origin. Also, the dichotomy of Spider-Man and Venom makes Carnage work SO MUCH better! Spider-Man won't kill, Venom will only kill bad people, and Carnage kills anyone he feels like...it shows the monster Venom could have become. It's like watching a hall of funhouse mirrors gradually distort you into another thing entirely...that would have made for some interesting character study.

And we may never get that, now.

However, a Kraven movie with Spider-Man following Kraven's Last Hunt...that sounds like it has potential.

 

[Lantern Venom]

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

There was laughter and applause during the showing that I attended. With many people with whom I regularly speak, both online and in person, they are sharing similar stories.

 

[shinlyle]

There was laughter and applause during the showing that I attended. With many people with whom I regularly speak, both online and in person, they are sharing similar stories.

Agreed. I'm not in the "Pro-Venom" category right now (May change after I see it), but there are people I've talked to who said it was pretty good. No one has told me it was great or MCU quality, but I've heard a few people say it was fun and "if you liked the 'Lethal Protector' stuff, you'll love it."
So, I don't think it's being totally spammed, but anything is possible, I guess. Still, if there are a lot of people spamming it, then there are a lot of people that like it a lot...so...make of that what you will.

 

[Another_Fool]

@shinlyle I think the difference between TMNT and Venom, is that there wasn't any one element past the curiosity factor that made the first TMNT a relative success. Venom, on the other hand beyond curiosity has Tom Hardy, who is universally thought the best thing and the saving grace of the movie. Now in the sequel you're not just talking Venom vs Carnage, you have Tom Hardy playing off Woody Harrelson. That's a lot more attractive than Krang, Bebop, and Rocksteady.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I actually can see the Venom sequel not making as much as the first. Venom right now as it stands is being looked at as a possible bad movie cult favorite. Sequels to those kind of movies don't usually do well. However, the marketing of the sequel will be key, and I think Tom vs Woody gives Sony marketing some meat to pull it off again.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Can Venom be considered as a vague sequel to Spider-Man 3 ? (Even though it isn't.)

That way we can have comic book accurate Origins and a comic book accurate Venom.

I don't count it a sequel for a few reasons:

• Origin of the symbiote coming to Earth
• Eddie Brock as a character
• Connection to Spider-Man
• Apparently, no religion in this movie
• Eddie's love interest

And a few more reasons I will probably pay attention to once I finally watch the movie.

 

[Micromind]

I don't count it a sequel for a few reasons:

• Origin of the symbiote coming to Earth
• Eddie Brock as a character
• Connection to Spider-Man
• Apparently, no religion in this movie
• Eddie's love interest

And a few more reasons I will probably pay attention to once I finally watch the movie.

Yeah, I'm speaking in same vein as some fans think of The Incredible Hulk as a sequel to Ang Lee's HULK.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Yeah, I'm speaking in same vein as some fans think of The Incredible Hulk as a sequel to Ang Lee's HULK.

Reminds me of the time I thought Batman Begins was a prequel to the 1989 movie.

 

[shinlyle]

@shinlyle I think the difference between TMNT and Venom, is that there wasn't any one element past the curiosity factor that made the first TMNT a relative success. Venom, on the other hand beyond curiosity has Tom Hardy, who is universally thought the best thing and the saving grace of the movie. Now in the sequel you're not just talking Venom vs Carnage, you have Tom Hardy playing off Woody Harrelson. That's a lot more attractive than Krang, Bebop, and Rocksteady.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I actually can see the Venom sequel not making as much as the first. Venom right now as it stands is being looked at as a possible bad movie cult favorite. Sequels to those kind of movies don't usually do well. However, the marketing of the sequel will be key, and I think Tom vs Woody gives Sony marketing some meat to pull it off again.

No doubt. I'm sure a competent studio could make mountains out of that! However, we have Sony, who can't edit a preview without showing you the entire film's key points...
---either way, we'll see!

You're right also, bad/cult movies are enjoyable because they are bad, they're done, and that's it. When you get a sequel, it's like trying to catch that blend of good/bad/camp again, and it's near impossible to recreate what is essentially an accident.

 

[The Joker]

For sure there exists somewhere at least one fan who was not enthused by the Gotg changes to things they found sacred.
Wait, I personally remember some hardcore fans on comic book boards who were extremely against the changes to Drax and Star Lord even before release. Some still are.

All your arguments fall apart if you do not give the same credit to the opinions of those fans as you do your owns.
And there comes the kicker, no matter which property, there will always be a minority opinion held by a contingent as much invested in it as the majority one.

That's why no one has ownership of what makes an interpretation legitimate.

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.