|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 0:33:12 GMT
They had the backing from their literary fanbases. Most original fantasy movies didn't do so well because they had no pre-existing fanbase. I'm sure that if MCU Spidey fought Sandman or Venom no one would bat an eye. But back in 2007 they couldn't accept it. Seems like they were willing to accept it just fine, given that the movie broke the opening weekend record back when it was released. That was more the goodwill from SM2 it had. If Venom had been the bad guy in SM2 I doubt that film would've done so well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 0:38:25 GMT
It'll be a long time before another superhero movie gets nominated for a major Oscar. The MCU doesn't have the nuts to make a movie that really goes for it, and DC has just been trying to copy Marvel as of late.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 0:49:53 GMT
Seems like they were willing to accept it just fine, given that the movie broke the opening weekend record back when it was released. That was more the goodwill from SM2 it had. If Venom had been the bad guy in SM2 I doubt that film would've done so well. Given that Venom is a popular villain, and that the whole reason he was in the movie in the first place was because of fan demand, I find this idea that Venom’s presence would’ve hurt a film, difficult to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 0:54:37 GMT
That was more the goodwill from SM2 it had. If Venom had been the bad guy in SM2 I doubt that film would've done so well. Given that Venom is a popular villain, and that the whole reason he was in the movie in the first place was because of fan demand, I find this idea that Venom’s presence would’ve hurt a film, difficult to believe. It hurt SM3. The common audience member thought he was too much for the Raimi movies and the concept just didn't work in a "grounded" setting. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 0:56:23 GMT
Given that Venom is a popular villain, and that the whole reason he was in the movie in the first place was because of fan demand, I find this idea that Venom’s presence would’ve hurt a film, difficult to believe. It hurt SM3. The common audience member thought he was too much for the Raimi movies and the concept just didn't work in a "grounded" setting. We just went over this: SM3 had the biggest opening weekend of all time back when it was released. Part of that was no doubt because of the hype fans had for Venom. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 1:23:52 GMT
It hurt SM3. The common audience member thought he was too much for the Raimi movies and the concept just didn't work in a "grounded" setting. We just went over this: SM3 had the biggest opening weekend of all time back when it was released. Part of that was no doubt because of the hype fans had for Venom. I'd say it was more just the goodwill from SM2's success. When they actually went and saw the movie Venom was pointed out as one of its flaws, not its strengths. Common audience members just didn't think the idea of an alien parasite fit. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 1:28:31 GMT
We just went over this: SM3 had the biggest opening weekend of all time back when it was released. Part of that was no doubt because of the hype fans had for Venom. I'd say it was more just the goodwill from SM2's success. When they actually went and saw the movie Venom was pointed out as one of its flaws, not its strengths. Common audience members just didn't think the idea of an alien parasite fit. It’s not that they didn’t think an alien parasite “fit”, it’s because the character was poorly integrated into the story, and gave us scenes like this. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 4:01:56 GMT
I'd say it was more just the goodwill from SM2's success. When they actually went and saw the movie Venom was pointed out as one of its flaws, not its strengths. Common audience members just didn't think the idea of an alien parasite fit. It’s not that they didn’t think an alien parasite “fit”, it’s because the character was poorly integrated into the story, and gave us scenes like this. He was poorly integrated BECAUSE the setting was "grounded" and an alien parasite wouldn't fit in. It's a fundamental incompatibility. And look at how Sandman was criticized for his origin, compared to the Goblin and Ock. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 30, 2018 11:34:23 GMT
It’s not that they didn’t think an alien parasite “fit”, it’s because the character was poorly integrated into the story, and gave us scenes like this. He was poorly integrated BECAUSE the setting was "grounded" and an alien parasite wouldn't fit in. It's a fundamental incompatibility. And look at how Sandman was criticized for his origin, compared to the Goblin and Ock. It wasn't because it was incompatible, its because the villains didnt have any relatable realism about them because they were just mindless medicore CGI monsters compared to the practical Goblin or Doc Ok . The same criticism came in Indiana Jones KOTCS, where people felt the final reveal of a shoddy looking alien took them out of the film - not because it was too fantastical but it was poorly executed compared to previous Indys which were just as "out there" with magical cult leaders and 700year old knights but they felt more "real" in Indys world. And this is a general complaint across comic films too. If there is a CGI villain, people often have negative opinions on the film. Thor 1 the ending is pretty forgetable, ASM 1+2 weren't the best received because of Lizard and especially Electro, Ultron got mixed reactions (but atleast had some form of personality unlike others in this list), The Silver Samarai people didnt like because he was a mindless CGI villain, Steppenwolfe, Enchantress, Ares and Doomsday and of course SM3. If SM3 went with a humanistic type villain like Vulture from Homecoming instead of Sandman, but kept venom then the film would have definitely been recieved better. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 11:44:44 GMT
It’s not that they didn’t think an alien parasite “fit”, it’s because the character was poorly integrated into the story, and gave us scenes like this. He was poorly integrated BECAUSE the setting was "grounded" and an alien parasite wouldn't fit in. It's a fundamental incompatibility. And look at how Sandman was criticized for his origin, compared to the Goblin and Ock. Any criticism Sandman had for his origin has less to do with not being “realistic” and everything to do with how sloppy it was, and how it retcons Uncle Ben’s death. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 14:06:09 GMT
He was poorly integrated BECAUSE the setting was "grounded" and an alien parasite wouldn't fit in. It's a fundamental incompatibility. And look at how Sandman was criticized for his origin, compared to the Goblin and Ock. It wasn't because it was incompatible, its because the villains didnt have any relatable realism Exactly, not "grounded" enough. Which proves how there is still a stigma against stuff that isn't "grounded". Venom still would've been derided as not being grounded enough. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 14:07:40 GMT
He was poorly integrated BECAUSE the setting was "grounded" and an alien parasite wouldn't fit in. It's a fundamental incompatibility. And look at how Sandman was criticized for his origin, compared to the Goblin and Ock. Any criticism Sandman had for his origin has less to do with not being “realistic” and everything to do with how sloppy it was, and how it retcons Uncle Ben’s death. It was no less sloppy than magic gas driving Norman nuts or Ock's Tentacles controlling his mind. It just isn't as "grounded", because he wasn't a human anymore.
As for Uncle Ben, if they had shown Flint Marko as always having been the killer you think audiences would've been okay with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 14:16:33 GMT
Any criticism Sandman had for his origin has less to do with not being “realistic” and everything to do with how sloppy it was, and how it retcons Uncle Ben’s death. It was no less sloppy than magic gas driving Norman nuts or Ock's Tentacles controlling his mind. It just isn't as "grounded", because he wasn't a human anymore.
As for Uncle Ben, if they had shown Flint Marko as always having been the killer you think audiences would've been okay with that?
It had nothing to do with grounded or not grounded. Magic gas and mind controlling tentacles aren’t “grounded” either. You really need to let this idea that SM3 wasn’t well received due to not being “grounded” go. The movie wasn’t well received because it was a mess. That’s it. Also, Flint Marko wasn’t shown to have always been the killer, because he was never supposed to have been the killer originally. That was just something the film threw in to give Peter a reason to hate Sandman. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 14:18:38 GMT
It was no less sloppy than magic gas driving Norman nuts or Ock's Tentacles controlling his mind. It just isn't as "grounded", because he wasn't a human anymore.
As for Uncle Ben, if they had shown Flint Marko as always having been the killer you think audiences would've been okay with that?
It had nothing to do with grounded or not grounded. Magic gas and mind controlling tentacles aren’t “grounded” either. They're more grounded than aliens and men made of sand. Maybe if Venom had just been a guy who got Spider-Powers from some experiment of Harrys' and was just an Evil Spidey without the symbiote he'd be better regarded. In part because it wasn't grounded as the other two movies were. The Alien Stuff played a part in the film not being as tightly written as it came out of nowhere. An alien was never going to fit properly into the "grounded" setting. Other Spidey series did similar stuff, they had it turn out that the Burglar was really Black Cat's father and stuff like that. No one minded there. So the idea that the killer could be more than just a random guy has been done before with no complaints. If he'd always been shown to be Flint Marko I'm wondering if there'd still be complaints when he came back later as Sandman. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 20:02:55 GMT
It had nothing to do with grounded or not grounded. Magic gas and mind controlling tentacles aren’t “grounded” either. They're more grounded than aliens and men made of sand. Maybe if Venom had just been a guy who got Spider-Powers from some experiment of Harrys' and was just an Evil Spidey without the symbiote he'd be better regarded. In part because it wasn't grounded as the other two movies were. The Alien Stuff played a part in the film not being as tightly written as it came out of nowhere. An alien was never going to fit properly into the "grounded" setting. Other Spidey series did similar stuff, they had it turn out that the Burglar was really Black Cat's father and stuff like that. No one minded there. So the idea that the killer could be more than just a random guy has been done before with no complaints. If he'd always been shown to be Flint Marko I'm wondering if there'd still be complaints when he came back later as Sandman. 1. Your assessments about Venom not being well regarded because he wasn’t realistic are completely baseless. That’s not what critics and fans were complaining about. Also, you seem to have failed to address the infamous dance sequence I brought up earlier. 2. The problem with the Sandman retcon was that it completely contradicts what we were told in the first Spider-Man film. We were led to assume that this one guy was responsible for Uncle Ben’s murder, but now through a contrived plot twist, we’re told it was actually Flint Marko who killed Ben. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 20:17:28 GMT
They're more grounded than aliens and men made of sand. Maybe if Venom had just been a guy who got Spider-Powers from some experiment of Harrys' and was just an Evil Spidey without the symbiote he'd be better regarded. In part because it wasn't grounded as the other two movies were. The Alien Stuff played a part in the film not being as tightly written as it came out of nowhere. An alien was never going to fit properly into the "grounded" setting. Other Spidey series did similar stuff, they had it turn out that the Burglar was really Black Cat's father and stuff like that. No one minded there. So the idea that the killer could be more than just a random guy has been done before with no complaints. If he'd always been shown to be Flint Marko I'm wondering if there'd still be complaints when he came back later as Sandman. 1. Your assessments about Venom not being well regarded because he wasn’t realistic are completely baseless. That’s not what critics and fans were complaining about. Also, you seem to have failed to address the infamous dance sequence I brought up earlier. 2. The problem with the Sandman retcon was that it completely contradicts what we were told in the first Spider-Man film. We were led to assume that this one guy was responsible for Uncle Ben’s murder, but now through a contrived plot twist, we’re told it was actually Flint Marko who killed Ben. 1) Him not being as "grounded" as the prior villains IS what the critics and fans were complaining about, as was the way they got an alien parasite into the plot (meteor crashing).
MCU Spidey won't have this problem, because the MCU has worked hard to get the audience to be more accepting of stuff like alien parasites and getting Spider-Man to work in a world like that. Raimis' world did not fit with things like aliens.
If Movie Venom had just been Eddie getting bitten by another radioactive spider, he'd be more acceptable.
As for the dance sequence, the symbiote had already been written off as too over-the-top and un-grounded before that scene.
2) It isn't just his personal connection to Peter, it's the whole idea of a guy being living Sand was just written off as too over-the-top even for Raimi.
Even if he'd just been some random crook or had some other connection to Peter he'd still be derided for not being "grounded" enough.
And anyways, if it had been planned right from the start that he was Ben's killer and we'd seen a guy dressed like him as the crook and he just got arrested instead of dying...would you have been okay with that, or would you think it was a silly change from the source material?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 20:24:54 GMT
1. Your assessments about Venom not being well regarded because he wasn’t realistic are completely baseless. That’s not what critics and fans were complaining about. Also, you seem to have failed to address the infamous dance sequence I brought up earlier. 2. The problem with the Sandman retcon was that it completely contradicts what we were told in the first Spider-Man film. We were led to assume that this one guy was responsible for Uncle Ben’s murder, but now through a contrived plot twist, we’re told it was actually Flint Marko who killed Ben. 1) Him not being as "grounded" as the prior villains IS what the critics very and fans were complaining about, as was the way they got an alien parasite into the plot (meteor crashing).
If Movie Venom had just been Eddie getting bitten by another radioactive spider, he'd be more acceptable.
2) It isn't just his personal connection to Peter, it's the whole idea of a guy being living Sand was just written off as too over-the-top even for Raimi.
Even if he'd just been some random crook or had some other connection to Peter he'd still be derided for not being "grounded" enough.
And anyways, if it had been planned right from the start that he was Ben's killer and we'd seen a guy dressed like him as the crook and he just got arrested instead of dying...would you have been okay with that, or would you think it was a silly change from the source material?
1. What critics and fans were complaining about was how shoehorned into the plot he was, and the fact that his inclusion gave us things like the dance scene, and the Sandman retcon mentioned earlier. 2. No one ever claimed that a guy with sand powers was too over the top for Raimi. As a matter of fact, this is often considered one of the best parts of the movie. Also, critics didn’t take issue with the Uncle Ben twist for being unfaithful to the comics. People took issue with it because of how forced it was, and how it received zero foreshadowing. This is getting repetitive. Bottom line is that Nolan didn’t nearly destroy CBMs, and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are not realistic at all. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 21:10:15 GMT
1) Him not being as "grounded" as the prior villains IS what the critics very and fans were complaining about, as was the way they got an alien parasite into the plot (meteor crashing).
If Movie Venom had just been Eddie getting bitten by another radioactive spider, he'd be more acceptable.
2) It isn't just his personal connection to Peter, it's the whole idea of a guy being living Sand was just written off as too over-the-top even for Raimi.
Even if he'd just been some random crook or had some other connection to Peter he'd still be derided for not being "grounded" enough.
And anyways, if it had been planned right from the start that he was Ben's killer and we'd seen a guy dressed like him as the crook and he just got arrested instead of dying...would you have been okay with that, or would you think it was a silly change from the source material?
1. What critics and fans were complaining about was how shoehorned into the plot he was, and the fact that his inclusion gave us things like the dance scene, and the Sandman retcon mentioned earlier. 2. No one ever claimed that a guy with sand powers was too over the top for Raimi. As a matter of fact, this is often considered one of the best parts of the movie. Also, critics didn’t take issue with the Uncle Ben twist for being unfaithful to the comics. People took issue with it because of how forced it was, and how it received zero foreshadowing. This is getting repetitive. Bottom line is that Nolan didn’t nearly destroy CBMs, and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are not realistic at all. 1) And he was shoehorned in, because what he was (an alien parasite creature) just didn't fit the "grounded" setting. No matter HOW Venom was introduced he would feel shoehorned in, because he was an alien intruding in a 'grounded' movie. If they'd just had Brock be bitten by another radioactive spider, he'd be "grounded" and thus not shoehorned in. 2) I've never run into anyone who cared about that scene. What I have run into are people who thought the idea of Marko escaping to a secret testing site and no one noticing him and the experiment somehow making him a walking pile of sand, was totally ridiculous. Even though it's not that different from his comics origin. Like I said, if he'd been the burglar always and they'd planned this earlier, odds are it would still be seen as dumb. Yes, it is repetitive. My bottom line is that it's because of Nolan we keep getting people who decry the MCU for not being "grounded" even after 10 years of success. To the Nolanites, everything about the MCU is wrong and only his way is right. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 21:25:34 GMT
1. What critics and fans were complaining about was how shoehorned into the plot he was, and the fact that his inclusion gave us things like the dance scene, and the Sandman retcon mentioned earlier. 2. No one ever claimed that a guy with sand powers was too over the top for Raimi. As a matter of fact, this is often considered one of the best parts of the movie. Also, critics didn’t take issue with the Uncle Ben twist for being unfaithful to the comics. People took issue with it because of how forced it was, and how it received zero foreshadowing. This is getting repetitive. Bottom line is that Nolan didn’t nearly destroy CBMs, and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are not realistic at all. 1) And he was shoehorned in, because what he was (an alien parasite creature) just didn't fit the "grounded" setting. No matter HOW Venom was introduced he would feel shoehorned in, because he was an alien intruding in a 'grounded' movie. If they'd just had Brock be bitten by another radioactive spider, he'd be "grounded" and thus not shoehorned in. 2) I've never run into anyone who cared about that scene. What I have run into are people who thought the idea of Marko escaping to a secret testing site and no one noticing him and the experiment somehow making him a walking pile of sand, was totally ridiculous. Even though it's not that different from his comics origin. Like I said, if he'd been the burglar always and they'd planned this earlier, odds are it would still be seen as dumb. Yes, it is repetitive. My bottom line is that it's because of Nolan we keep getting people who decry the MCU for not being "grounded" even after 10 years of success. 1. It was shoehorned in because there was no buildup to Venom showing up at all. He just came down in a meteor that happened to be right near Spider-Man, and that was it. If they had properly set up Venom’s appearance in the movie (as in, making the movie revolve around him) it wouldn’t have been a problem. Again, no one has complained about Venom for being unrealistic. That’s an absolutely ridiculous belief to have. You need to stop coming up with excuses for why things you don’t like get praised, and why things you like don’t. People didn’t praise TDK because Heath Ledger died, people didn’t praise Logan because Wolverine died, and people didn’t hate because Venom was unrealistic. 2. Plenty of people have praised that scene. Sandman as a character was not what people took issue with for the movie. People took issue with the way he retconned Uncle Ben’s death, but the character himself was not viewed as one of the weak links of the film. Also, if they had planned this whole thing earlier, it wouldn’t have been seen as dumb. The problem was that they didn’t plan it out earlier. They just decided to establish that so that Peter would have a reason to want to kill Sandman as a way of showing how the symbiote was affecting him. It’s because of Nolan that the first film in the MCU turned out the way it did. It’s because of Nolan that the villain in BP has been compared to Heath Ledger’s Joker by the people involved with the film. Nolan didn’t hurt the genre at all. End of story. Are we done here? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 21:42:54 GMT
1) And he was shoehorned in, because what he was (an alien parasite creature) just didn't fit the "grounded" setting. No matter HOW Venom was introduced he would feel shoehorned in, because he was an alien intruding in a 'grounded' movie. If they'd just had Brock be bitten by another radioactive spider, he'd be "grounded" and thus not shoehorned in. 2) I've never run into anyone who cared about that scene. What I have run into are people who thought the idea of Marko escaping to a secret testing site and no one noticing him and the experiment somehow making him a walking pile of sand, was totally ridiculous. Even though it's not that different from his comics origin. Like I said, if he'd been the burglar always and they'd planned this earlier, odds are it would still be seen as dumb. Yes, it is repetitive. My bottom line is that it's because of Nolan we keep getting people who decry the MCU for not being "grounded" even after 10 years of success. 1. It was shoehorned in because there was no buildup to Venom showing up at all. He just came down in a meteor that happened to be right near Spider-Man, and that was it. If they had properly set up Venom’s appearance in the movie (as in, making the movie revolve around him) it wouldn’t have been a problem. Again, no one has complained about Venom for being unrealistic. That’s an absolutely ridiculous belief to have. You need to stop coming up with excuses for why things you don’t like get praised, and why things you like don’t. People didn’t praise TDK because Heath Ledger died, people didn’t praise Logan because Wolverine died, and people didn’t hate because Venom was unrealistic. 2. Plenty of people have praised that scene. Sandman as a character was not what people took issue with for the movie. People took issue with the way he retconned Uncle Ben’s death, but the character himself was not viewed as one of the weak links of the film. Also, if they had planned this whole thing earlier, it wouldn’t have been seen as dumb. The problem was that they didn’t plan it out earlier. They just decided to establish that so that Peter would have a reason to want to kill Sandman as a way of showing how the symbiote was affecting him. It’s because of Nolan that the first film in the MCU turned out the way it did. It’s because of Nolan that the villain in BP has been compared to Heath Ledger’s Joker by the people involved with the film. Nolan didn’t hurt the genre at all. End of story. Are we done here? 1) Venom would feel shoehorned in no matter HOW he was introduced, because to the audience the sheer idea of the new villain being some kind of space alien just didn't fit what the previous movies had established as a setting. He was always going to feel out of place even if the whole movie was about him. The only way he'd fit the "grounded" feel they went for would be if he wasn't an alien/human hybrid, but Brock just getting bitten by another genetic spider. It IS absolutely ridiculous, but that's how badly CBMs that tried to not be "grounded" were being discriminated against back then. Until the MCU worked very hard to get people to accept that kind of stuff while Nolan was working very hard to advocate the stance that you should be ashamed of that kind of stuff. 2) Oh, his character most definitely WAS seen as a weak link. They thought practically everything about him was contrived and dumb, from his motivations to his origins to his powers, to his place in the overall plot. They didn't like him doing stuff for his daughter, they didn't like him being connected to Peter, they didn't like him teaming up with Venom at the end, they didn't like how he was portrayed sympathetically instead of just being some powered up thug, etc. Of course, Vulture in Homecoming was doing stuff for HIS family and had a connection to Peter but no one cared there. Because, even in the over-the-top setting of the MCU, he wasn't some powered human but a normal guy in a exo-suit. For all we know, those saying that Killmonger will be like Joker are just saying that for free publicity and we'll have to wait and see what he's like. And it might be for that same reason Favreau said that about Nolan as well, because I don't see much of Nolan in Iron Man. If there was, then the movie would've really been all about Obadiah Stane with Tony having barely any character. |
|
