- Feb 25, 2010
- 24,952
- 23,299
Sony still making these subpar superhero movies.
It's gonna make money so they don't care.
It's gonna make money so they don't care.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
British invasion...I forgot this sequel was directed by Andy Serkis. This totally fits his personality.
I think most of the comedy was intentional tbh. Movie was straight goofy a lot of the time.The first one was an unintentional comedy. I’ll look at this one in the same light
I think what they wanted to be funny fell flat while the other things they wanted to be serious was a joke. Just my takeI think most of the comedy was intentional tbh. Movie was straight goofy a lot of the time.
I wasn’t mad at it... cool to see actors like Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams do some screwball stuff once in a while. Also because I never cared too much for Venom and his lore anyway
You just skipped years worth of storylines to say Spider-Man is a small part of his background.Spider man is a small part to Venoms story.
In the comics venom becomes hogake of all the symbiote race and even joins the guardians of the galaxy
You just skipped years worth of storylines to say Spider-Man is a small part of his background.
And the Venom that joined GoTG wasn’t Eddie Brock FYI.
Did you learn that from Tik Tok?Nothing in comics is canon so it doesn't matter. Sony can take venom in so many directions without spiderman.
What does that first part even mean?Nothing in comics is canon so it doesn't matter. Sony can take venom in so many directions without spiderman.
What does that first part even mean?
That Sony can just do anything with Venom and ignore the comics?
I mean the stuff you brought up about Venom was a recent story that was mainly pushed by Marvel cuz of who was writing it.
It's not like Venom has tons of great stories in comics cuz he doesn't. One of the best ones revolves around how terrible a person Eddie Brock is and him getting cancer and dying (all told in Spider-Man comics). He's always basically been evil Spider-Man. They just change to what degree to make him an anti-hero. He doesn't have a notable rogues gallery, his biggest villain is just as much a Spider-Man villain.
The main reason ppl keep theorizing, wanting, and clamoring for a Spidey connection is cuz the best stories with Venom are Spider-Man stories.
Did you learn that from Tik Tok?
I think the main thing is the current stories they're telling about Venom aren't good. They aren't doing it right.The first part means that Spider-Man isn't needed in order to tell a story about Venom.
Since comic book character is written by several different writers with mutiple diffetent stories, universes, and worlds that conflict each other, Sony can cherry pick which stories of Venom they want to tell.
Sure we all want a venom and spiderman story but that doesn't mean Sony needs to do that in order to tell a story about Venom.
I think the main thing is the current stories they're telling about Venom aren't good. They aren't doing it right.
Its the same problem they had when they forced it with SM3 and the reboot with ASM and its sequel. They weren't doing it right.
Sure they can tell any stories they want out of order with w/e take a director has but if its going to suck what's the point? It's not gonna make the most money it can and that just frustrates the fans and eventually the higher ups at Sony.
Quote me when you can actually formulate a response with logic.
But the question to this is, how long can Sony do this and make a big profit? You know people will cry and complain about that.Oh I agree with you that they're going to need spiderman and maybe even the MCU to make a good Venom movie (keyword good).
All I'm saying is that if they choose to continue making garbage Venom movies then they can do so without Spiderman.