Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Deuce66, May 10, 2021.
‘Venom: Let There Be Carnage’ Drops Intense First Trailer – The Hollywood Reporter
Sense of humor intact, I see.
The mood whiplash is wild. Still haven't seen the first one to get a feeling for how well they balanced that.
Strong orange and teal vibes.
I like it...It's got plenty of 'silly' in it, which is always a plus for me.
Director Andy Serkis breaks down the trailer, I wonder if this is going to become a thing.
Director Andy Serkis exclusively breaks down the first trailer for Venom: Let There Be Carnage with IGN, pointing out all the Easter Eggs and Marvel Comics references as well as explaining the story, characters, and themes explored in this sequel to the 2018 blockbuster. Serkis explains what's going on between Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock and the symbiote Venom at this point in their relationship, and sheds light on Woody Harrelson's Cletus Kasady and Naomie Harris' Frances Barrison (aka Shriek). Sony's Venom: Let There Be Carnage opens only in theaters on September 24 in the US, September 15 in the UK and September 16 in Australia.
Looks even more kiddy-targeted than parts of the first one were.
Still, Harrelson looks like he'll make for a good Cletus Cassidy.
They seemed to be doubling down here even more on the Venom symbiote chatting to Brock.
The emphasis on silly humor ruined it for me. Venom is supposed to be a pretty dark, horrific character. If they can't even take this character seriously, then what superhero is safe from being turned into a self-parody? Superhero movies are looking more and more like Superman III with Richard Pryor than they are looking like the original Superman these days.
Also, this is just "off" from what the character of Venom is, at least from when I was reading him for his first 8 years or so. You can tell when people watch these movies that they all come away thinking "Venom" is the symbiote and that "Venom" jumps around attaching himself to whoever he wants to. That's simply incorrect. Venom is the entity formed by the combination of Eddie Brock and the symbiote. His famous phrase is "We are Venom." They do not stand around talking to each other all day as if they are two different entities. Their standard condition is that they have accepted their symbiotic relationship and think and act as one entity. So this movie is taking a compelling, creepy idea of a human losing his identity by giving up his soul to a symbiotic entity and turning it into a slapstick comedy in the vein of The Corsican Brothers...or Steve Martin's All of Me.
Also, expressing Venom's powers so heavily as tentacles sticking out of his back and grabbing things is a really boring way to use Venom. It's just turning him into a variation of Doc Ock.
The only plus side here is that Woody Harrelson seems to be giving a better performance than I was expecting. I was thinking he might be too comedic or campy in his part. Instead I'm seeing bad comedy coming from Tom Hardy while Woody seems to be doing okay from what little we see of him.
The box office of this, though, will be explosive. Carnage is simply one of the top most popular comic book characters that has not yet been seen in live action, if not the most popular of all. Spider-Man's other villain Hobgoblin is one of the few other not-yet-done characters who could compete with him for opening a movie at this point. This would easily surpass the domestic box office of the original without COVID. If things continue looking up for reopening, it probably will still do that.
And I'm very pleased to see Sony advertising it as "only in theaters." We need to put the days of simultaneous streaming releases behind us and fast and get back to a healthy theatrical exclusive window.
I agree, Venom was a creepy and effective villain when he first appeared in Spider-Man. With each subsequent appearance, they watered him down more and more, eventually turning him into some kind of twisted anti-hero so they could sell more comics with him in them. The take on him in the Venom movie was an odd one.
I know most hated Topher Grace's "Eddie Jr." / Venom in Raimi's Spider-Man 3, but that is probably the closest we'll ever get to how the villain was meant to be portrayed as he first appeared. These Tom Hardy movies seem to hew closer to the "Lethal Protector" stuff from the 90's comics. But it's a formula that seemed to work for Sony and audiences generally with the first film.
I thought Franco was basically Hobgoblin in Spider-Man 3?
No, Harry Osborn was simply another Green Goblin in the comics. His costume didn't even change so, at first, I think Pete was left wondering if Norman had come back to life. I think "Green Goblin 2" would be how most sources would refer to Harry's Goblin in the comics. He tended to be called "New Goblin" when referring to the movie.
Hobgoblin in the comics was introduced as another mystery villain. It took years for them to reveal his identity and it got contradicted and retconned by different writers. So it doesn't really matter who the movie puts inside the mask if they ever do him, but to capture the character's original essence, they should not reveal who it is to the audience until the end of the movie.
The big problem with doing Hobgoblin is you really should have the Green Goblin story already told. They've told it twice now in the Spider-Man movies in different ways, but abandoned both of those continuities. The best way to get him in a movie would be to do Spider-Man 4 with Tobey now. Although Hobgoblin, like Venom, would be a character Raimi didn't grow up with and doesn't know. And he wasn't part of his original plans for Spider-Man 4. But then a strange, rewritten version of Felicia Hardy was, another character from the '80s Raimi probably wouldn't have knowledge of from his comics reading days.
As for the first Venom movie, I think it was done reasonably well given they had to rewrite the story to remove Spider-Man from it. Hardy's performance was good, and they told the story pretty well of having him and the symbiote struggling to form a bond and then finally accepting their symbiotic relationship on negotiated terms. That's why this sequel seems to be backtracking by making them act as separate entities, especially just for the sake of cheap comedy.
Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 borrowed the "possessed" villain storyline a bit from Venom in order to make Ock more interesting. But even there, you see the evil Ock acting as one entity most of the time. The only times he "talks" to the arms is when he's in some kind of moral crisis and they have to negotiate what they're going to do. And more importantly, there weren't any cheap comedy scenes where his arms are fixing him breakfast on their own accord and they're arguing about what toppings to put on the pancakes.
Yeah, I think one reason they never got around to doing Hobgoblin is, you kind of need the backstory of Norman Osborn "dying" as the Green Goblin (as the guy that was eventually revealed as Hobgoblin found one of Norman's old lairs and appropriated his look and gear). Interestingly enough though, the 90's Spider-Man cartoon series did have Hobgoblin (voiced by Mark Hammil) appear before the Green Goblin.
Hobgoblin was the big villain du jour when I started reading Spider-Man in the 80's, and remained at that level until the underwhelming reveal of his identity as Ned Leeds (which was later changed or "retconned" by creator Roger Stern to actually be the character Roderick Kingsley, as you mention). I was also reading the comics when Venom burst on the scene, he quickly became Spidey's top enemy, and he felt like a true threat since he knew Peter's identity and could get at him through his Aunt May or Mary Jane.
I don't know if you've been following the recent comics, but they spent years building up a new mystery villain in a Hobgoblin-esque way called Kindred that turned out to be Harry.
Yeah, I started reading right after Secret Wars, when Hobby was the big baddie of the day. I remember hearing the cartoon introduced Hobby first, and then I guess later they said he had still broken into Norman's lab and stolen stuff, even though we didn't know about Norman's goblin research at that point. But, yeah, if you do Hobby first in the movies, you undermine Green Goblin's impact later. And you also force Spidey to deal with Hobby as the first Goblin he encounters, so he doesn't get to perceive him as an amped up version of an earlier villain. But they may never want to do Green Goblin again in the movies. So if they could do Hobby as a Whodunnit villain, it'll still at least be a new angle for a villain in the Spider-Man movies. But they should be thinking about that now, so they can start establishing possible suspects in the movie canon.
I'd love to see Hobgoblin onscreen, but I somehow doubt they ever get around to it. Like Secret Wars and the black costume, the Hobby mystery made for some great long-form storyline comics, but hard to do in a couple two-hour movies with a bunch of other stuff happening.
I do see them recasting Norman Osborn for the MCU possibly, to serve as a Lex Luthor-ish threat, out of costume. That was the rumor going around a few years back.
The breakfast scene was awful as well as the chocolate gag. I liked everything in between.
Hardy sure looks like he aged a lot since the first one, that was only 3 years ago.
I saw the thread's title and came in because I thought it was about a new live dvd from the band of the same name.
Separate names with a comma.