Sony's VENOM Movie

[The Joker]

Looks like Sony has it's Venom alien symbiote host Eddie Brock with .... Tom Hardy!

Not bad, Sony. Not bad. I had some minimal interest in a solo Venom movie, but with this bit of casting, I can safely say that my interest in this project has gone up significantly. Truly, a outstanding choice for Brock. The embargo of complainers about Hardy's Venom being divorced from the MCU has, of course, already begun, but personally, I am A OK with this. Why's that? Simple. Being that there is no way in hell Disney is going to produce a R rated Marvel movie, a actual Venom movie would probably benefit from such a move. The Venom lore easily lends itself to a more mature audience, and given the success of non-MCU films like Deadpool and Logan, Sony is all too aware of this as well.


http://www.cbr.com/sony-venom-tom-hardy/

[thecolorsblend]

Does this also translate to Venom being separated from Spider-Man too?

I have no idea what Avi Arad's boner with a standalone, Spider-Man-less Venom movie is all about... but I hold out hope he finally STFU and goes home after this Venom movie sinks like a stone.

[The Joker]

G*ddamn, I'm falling in love with Hardy as Eddie Brock the more I think about it!

Brock's classic portrayal from the comics, has been that of a bit of a brute. He likes to lift, for a reporter, has problems with honesty (though he would fit right in these days), and can often be a absolute emotional wreck.

How the origin of the Venom symbiote, in relation to Spider-Man, is addressed within this film is a interesting one to think about. It could be done in a variety of ways. I look at Batman 1989 where what you needed to know about his origin was done in a couple or flashbacks, or let's take Blade for example, where his origin was done very simply by just a expository conversation with Whistler. Hell, I would probably prefer it be done along those lines, and spare us the Nolanesque obligitary origin story where 'everything' is spelled out to us. Let's see Venom eating up thugs and mobsters, rather than his origin story eating up running time. I see the symbiote itself probably being more along the lines of the Ultimate route where it's more of a very unique earth based created experimental organism. Possibly with a some of it's DNA coming from outer space.

A character like Eddie Brock needed just the right actor for the part, and I am confident Hardy will do the character justice in terms of acting/personality/disposition/etc. It's good to learn from past mistakes, and Hardy is going to make the Eric Forman version from SM3, tied in with Peter Parker Spider-Man and all, look like completely amatuerish sh*t.

i'm expecting the flattop buzz cut, but if they want to bring back the mullet, I'm sure Hardy could rock it. 



So yeah, we got Tom Hardy as Venom and it's planned to be shooting starting this fall?

I bet Todd McFarlane is crossing his fingers that Spawn is just a little bit closer to that reboot he's been craving, and Josh Trank must be weeping under his blanket somewhere.

[riddler]

Does this also translate to Venom being separated from Spider-Man too?

I have no idea what Avi Arad's boner with a standalone, Spider-Man-less Venom movie is all about... but I hold out hope he finally STFU and goes home after this Venom movie sinks like a stone.

He tried this with the Raimi series, the Vulture was supposed to be in that film but Arad pressured Raimi to change it to Venom. And he was pushing hard for about 3 years for a Topher Grace Venom movie.

For Venom to be portrayed properly, I think they need at least two movies to do it; we need the symbiote properly developed and attaching to Peter Parker first as well as Eddie Brock, then at least one fight with Spider-man and venom.

I'm just hoping we finally get Carnage on screen.

[thecolorsblend]

As much as I enjoy Spider-Man 3, I think a lot of the novelty with Venom was that he'd never been done in live action. Now he has. And Spider-Man 3 didn't exactly win friends and influence people.

Honestly, you could probably craft an entire trilogy out of the living costume/Venom stuff. That may be the only way to do the story real justice. But why bother when wide audiences already had a fairly lackluster with a truncated version of that story?

If anybody is eagerly anticipating this movie, I won't rain on their parade. But I couldn't care less about it.

[The Dark Knight]

Spider-Man 3's Venom is a simplified telling of the story, but it ticked all the necessary boxes.

The symbiote fell to Earth.
The symbiote followed Peter around, waiting for the right time to strike.
The symbiote latched onto Peter and gave him improved abilities.
The symbiote made Peter act out his suppressed behaviour.
Peter realized he had gone too far, and ripped it off.
The symbiote found another host.
The symbiote was finally destroyed by Peter.

That's a clear beginning and end.

The symbiote made each host stronger and amplified pre-existing personalities. The film also gave Brock more of a solid reason why to hate Peter as well, which I appreciate. The film sped through the arc, but really, apart from wanting to see Brock Venom kick ass more, what was really missing? Is the Venom storyline really that special? In terms of what the symbiote does to Peter it is, and that's what the film focuses on.

[thecolorsblend]

Spider-Man 3's Venom is a simplified telling of the story, but it ticked all the necessary boxes.

The symbiote made Peter act out his suppressed behaviour.

The symbiote made each host stronger and amplified pre-existing personalities.

This is the angle a lot of people miss with Spider-Man 3. Peter was already a bit full of himself. He'd become a bit of a mono-maniac, in fact. The symbiote brought that out even more where he turned... well, not to the "dark" side. But to the Really Dimly-Lit Side. I rather enjoy that aspect of the movie. In fact, I dig Spider-Man 3 in general.

The film also gave Brock more of a solid reason why to hate Peter as well, which I appreciate.

Bingo. In the comics, Brock's grudge against Spider-Man is kind of thin. The movie gives him a far better motive to hate Peter specifically rather than Spider-Man generally. Raimi gets picked on for not getting what Venom is all about (not enough snot-like green drool, I guess) but the haters miss the incredible setup Raimi gave Brock in that movie. It improves upon the comic in a big way.

The film sped through the arc, but really, apart from wanting to see Brock Venom kick ass more, what was really missing? Is the Venom storyline really that special?

It's a sentimental favorite. But seriously, go back and read Amazing Spider-Man #298-#300 some time. The story is hardly the operatic epic that its fans make it out to be. Venom barely has cameo appearances in two of those issues. Compared to that, Spider-Man 3 is high art.

Still, I might've been interested in seeing Venom tear things up in the Webbverse... but I never would've insisted on it.

[riddler]

I think the movies really underplay the effects of the symbiote:

Peter does act like a jerk while under the symbiote influences but how many instances do we see him behave differently than he normally would? Look at the things he does which could be classified as wrong.
-trying to kill Flint Marko in the sewers. Maybe he went further than he normally would have but Peter didn't have too much remorse for killing Dennis Caradine when he thought he was Ben's killer so I don't think it's a stretch to say he wouldn't have done the same with the red suit especially since the Sandman got away they first time they fought (without the black suit).
-Peter generally acting cocky. The symbiote didn't help but he was already acting cocky and getting egotistical already. You can't blame the symbiote for his upside down kiss with Gwen in front of MJ.
-exposing Eddie for the fake photo. Peter wanted that job, didn't like Eddie, and most importantly knew that failing to stop a crime was what led to Ben's death. So I don't believe for a second Peter wouldn't have done the same thing without the influence (he'd probably just have been less aggressive in his manner).
- fighting Harry at his loft. Harry already tried to kill him once and broke up his relationship with MJ and Peter told him several times that he didn't kill Norman. Not that I'm condoning Peter going over there but it's not a stretch to say he stil would have without the symbiote.
-the only thing I think Peter may not have done without the symbiote is take Gwen to the jazz club MJ worked at. He probably would have stayed home crying over MJ and definitely wouldn't have drawn attention to himself or been aggressive in public like that or deliberately tried to use an innocent person to hurt MJ like that without the symbiotic influence. Normal Peter may not have even had the courage to ask her out. Sadly this scene was botched with silliness so it loss it's effectiveness.



There is a way Venom can be done without Spidey in the Ultimate Spider-man storyline, the symbiote suit is developed by Eddie Brock Sr. and Richard Parker to cure illnesses and stored at their lab. Eddie Jr. finds it and uses it to try and cure his own cancer which is what turns him into Venom. This is probably the storyline they would have used had the Garfield series continued, in fact there was a small easter egg of the symbiote container being shown in a trailer for the second film, later changed to Dock Ocks arms if I'm not mistaken, leading to theories as to what's to come. They could easily go the Ghost Rider/Ant Man approach of implying this sort of thing has happened before to someone else.

[The Joker]

One of the things I hope to see more explored with a actual Venom film, is the relationship between Eddie Brock and the Venom symbiote. Something that was only very thinly elaborated upon back in 2007.

At the time of Eddie's bonding with the symbiote, his whole victim complex was at its peak. The loss of his job, respect, and wife Ann Weying after the Sin Eater debacle, Eddie no longer saw any sort hope for validation for continuing on. Throw in his situation were a new dead-end job as a tabloid journalist writing garbage, in addition to the discovery of his cancer, all of this cumulated to his degradation and thus, to the point of suicide. If it hadn't been for the symbiote intervening, Eddie would have died. Whether it be by his own hand, or becoming consumed by cancer. It is thru both of their familiarity with pain, that in turn created a complimentary psychological bond of sorts that provided them an exclusive, empathetic relationship which thus leads the symbiote to the conclusion that it will stick with Eddie. Even to the point where Eddie and the symbiote had a more explicit relationship in which the symbiote had a more proactive role than it ever had with Spider-Man, and would sometimes overpower Eddie's own psychology.

It is only though Eddie's relationship with the symbiote that his own self-destructive psychology is subsided in place of vengeance. Sometimes it's more to do with heroics, and occasionally he will revert to a murderous rampage provided just the right triggers. Essentially, whatever good bonding with the symbiote did for Eddie's incredibly fragile psyche, the bonding with the symbiote also set him on a downward path of self-destruction. As there has been more than one occurrences where Eddie has re-attempted suicide when he's not with the symbiote. Effectively, making him as much of a parasite as the symbiote itself.

Much of this was incredibly glossed over in SM3, or flat out not referred to at all, and resulted in a version of Venom that felt like it was straight out of a random Spider-Man cartoon. Pick one, and the SM3 could easily fit right on in there. If that's sufficient for you, great. I see room for alot of improvement. Sony being Sony, it's a 50/50% chance a Venom movie will be worthwhile or not, but the casting of Hardy is a big plus, and given the R rating, much of the aforementioned background with Eddie and the symbiote can be expanded upon, and more.

[riddler]

One of the things I hope to see more explored with a actual Venom film, is the relationship between Eddie Brock and the Venom symbiote. Something that was only very thinly elaborated upon back in 2007.

At the time of Eddie's bonding with the symbiote, his whole victim complex was at its peak. The loss of his job, respect, and wife Ann Weying after the Sin Eater debacle, Eddie no longer saw any sort hope for validation for continuing on. Throw in his situation were a new dead-end job as a tabloid journalist writing garbage, in addition to the discovery of his cancer, all of this cumulated to his degradation and thus, to the point of suicide. If it hadn't been for the symbiote intervening, Eddie would have died. Whether it be by his own hand, or becoming consumed by cancer. It is thru both of their familiarity with pain, that in turn created a complimentary psychological bond of sorts that provided them an exclusive, empathetic relationship which thus leads the symbiote to the conclusion that it will stick with Eddie. Even to the point where Eddie and the symbiote had a more explicit relationship in which the symbiote had a more proactive role than it ever had with Spider-Man, and would sometimes overpower Eddie's own psychology.

It is only though Eddie's relationship with the symbiote that his own self-destructive psychology is subsided in place of vengeance. Sometimes it's more to do with heroics, and occasionally he will revert to a murderous rampage provided just the right triggers. Essentially, whatever good bonding with the symbiote did for Eddie's incredibly fragile psyche, the bonding with the symbiote also set him on a downward path of self-destruction. As there has been more than one occurrences where Eddie has re-attempted suicide when he's not with the symbiote. Effectively, making him as much of a parasite as the symbiote itself.

Much of this was incredibly glossed over in SM3, or flat out not referred to at all, and resulted in a version of Venom that felt like it was straight out of a random Spider-Man cartoon. Pick one, and the SM3 could easily fit right on in there. If that's sufficient for you, great. I see room for alot of improvement. Sony being Sony, it's a 50/50% chance a Venom movie will be worthwhile or not, but the casting of Hardy is a big plus, and given the R rating, much of the aforementioned background with Eddie and the symbiote can be expanded upon, and more.

What you are talking about was shown in glimpses in spider-man 3 (which came out 10 years ago last month if you can believe it) but hardly explained. Even though Topher Grace was outstanding in the church scene, I didn't like the pre-symbiote Eddie playing for God to kill Peter. That shows Eddie already had death on the brain and leaves  the audience unclear whether Eddie Brock himself is capable of murder or whether it is the symbiote in him. I don't like to see Eddie Brock himself portrayed that dark. Lying, cheating, stealing, bullying should all be part of Eddie's natural personality: Eddie Brock himself is more of a small time crook whom Spidey wouldn't even bother with if not for the work rivalry. I prefer to have the symbiote push Eddie over the edge to commit the violent crimes and murder as Venom that he never would have done himself. Especially later on when he becomes an anti-hero once Carnage is born is it important not to make Eddie and all out bad guy from the start because we need some reason to cheer him on, especially if Cletus Kassidy comes along.

Spider-man we all know is basically a boy scout, Carnage is about as nasty of a character as you can have (whether you're talking pre-symbiote Kassidy, Kassidy under the symbiote influence, or Carnage himself) and at the opposite end of the good/evil spectrum as spider-man. Venom should be somewhere in the middle but leaning more to Carnages end. That's what makes Eddie Brock  such an interesting character, along with Frank Castle, he's Marvel's version of Selina Kyle the sense that writers have a lot of freedom to how good or evil they want to make the character. but the character should never be too evil because there's definitely worse people out there.