Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
I don't know if Silver Sable was ever in any comics I read, I took a look a look at her wiki page. She's quite the adventuress , I think she has potential. Like all things I guess it comes down to a good story idea written well.
I dont see anything that links Black cat with Silver Sable , so it might be best to split this up rather then spend story time explaining the pairing.
I also saw mention of a possible Silk movie ; that would be awesome. I read two random Silk comics sometime, somewhere, and I quite enjoyed the character. She's very Spiderman-ish but distinct enough to stand on her own .
Honestly, Silver Sable is probably the one I thought best worked for a solo movie separate from Spider-Man.
Woops, I forgot about Morbius. He works pretty well on his own. I even think Jared Leto could work very well in that role.
That Sony universe is s mess...the execs seem incompetent..and now seem to lack Faith in a female leader...
Sony gets mocked or bashed a lot for trying to make many spin-offs but does it actually deserve credit for taking its time with Venom? It wasn't just rushed and released, as you might expect, 2-4 years after Spider-Man 3, nor even 3 years after the reboot The Amazing Spider-Man, instead five years after the latter. A cynic would say they had to wait more because those movies didn't impress audiences but I could easily see greedier people thinking they impressed enough people and were profitable enough so crank out more product quickly.
The fact that Venom looks pretty bad (and sounds bad, assuming that Tom Hardy is trying to speak English in the trailer), and that its looking like it s aSpider-Manless film take away any "credit" from Sony. They're making a stupid spin off that probably won't connect to the actual Spider-Man movies at all. So, overall its not like they're doing very well.
Tracking predictions have been narrowed down to a still impressive 65 million dollars.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/veno...ver-the-course-of-its-opening-weekend-a163512
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/veno...ver-the-course-of-its-opening-weekend-a163512
First clip from Venom...
I wish they didn't decide to push this to PG-13 because I feel like if you see it in the theater you are paying a premium for a compromised experience since the complete product will likely be put out on home release.
Everyone knows that cutting down a Rated R experience to PG-13 definitely works, and totally doesn't completely fail 99.9% of the time 
Seriously though, I can't think of a single movie where lowering the rating made it better. In fact, don't most movies, especially sequels, that lower the rating to make more money actually end up doing really poorly in the box office? Stuff like the Robocop sequels and Expendables 3 come to mind, but I'm sure it probably happens a lot, especially with horror movies that lower their rating. PG-13 might make more then R, but that's talking about movies specifically made to be PG-13. Cutting stuff to lower the rating never seems to work out well.
Now, I don't know if Venom was R rated or if they always intended it to be PG-13, but either way this is a pretty bad idea. The only thing the movie had going for it was the possibility of getting to see Venom cut lose. I think venom works fine in PG-13, since most mainstream comics are about the equivalent of that rating anyway, but for a solo Venom movie going more extreme would make sense. I wasn't intending to see the movies in theaters regardless, but it does seem like an odd decision.
Seriously though, I can't think of a single movie where lowering the rating made it better. In fact, don't most movies, especially sequels, that lower the rating to make more money actually end up doing really poorly in the box office? Stuff like the Robocop sequels and Expendables 3 come to mind, but I'm sure it probably happens a lot, especially with horror movies that lower their rating. PG-13 might make more then R, but that's talking about movies specifically made to be PG-13. Cutting stuff to lower the rating never seems to work out well.
Now, I don't know if Venom was R rated or if they always intended it to be PG-13, but either way this is a pretty bad idea. The only thing the movie had going for it was the possibility of getting to see Venom cut lose. I think venom works fine in PG-13, since most mainstream comics are about the equivalent of that rating anyway, but for a solo Venom movie going more extreme would make sense. I wasn't intending to see the movies in theaters regardless, but it does seem like an odd decision.
I just don't see what good ramping up the gore factor would do for this movie.
I don't have a problem with PG-13 movies but I don't like it when a movie is forced to be cut down to PG-13. I can't knock that feeling out of my head that I'm watching a compromised product.
Well it certainly isn't going to succeed based on its story or Tom Hardy's "acting", so being as violent as Venom is usually supposed to be would at least be something mildly interesting. Like I said, Venom can work fine as PG-13, but this specific movie would probably be better as an R rated movie (and if it was R rated and cut it down, that is a very bad sign).