Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

It's pretty easy to understand.

Phase 1: Venom is a massive success. Twice.
Phase 2: What other anti-heroes/villains we can make into anti-heroes do we have?
Phase 3: Profit.

Sorry...

Phase 3: #itsmorbintime

 

I hate how right you are about that.

I had the same issues with Venom as I do with Kraven (also, I can't stand Venom), so I worry whatever dreck Sony comes up with will make just enough money to encourage them to keep going forward with this shit.

 

Venom made money while being a terrible movie (two terrible movies, now), but that can't sustain Sony's non-MCU Spider films forever. Morbius is probably considered at least a big disappointment, and I doubt that Kraven will do as well as Venom, since Venom at least had more mainstream appeal to prop itself up on.

Anyway, hopefully Kraven will not be another surprise money maker off a terrible movie, and Sony actually has to change up their strategy. Morbius seems to have burned them a bit, they probably just need one more under performance, or outright failure, to at least change their game plan.

 

This really isn't a new plan that Sony came up with because Venom worked, though. This is what Sony has wanted ever since they forced Venom into the third Raimi film. It's why the Amazing SM films were forced to set up a hypothetical future Sinister Six movie.

Whereever this obsession comes from, they've already stuck with it even after it ruined their classic SM movie series and ruined their reboot SM movie series and became one of the most pathetic memes of the 21st century with Morbius. It may take a lot more than just one more failure for them to finally admit they need different ideas.

 

I'm not sure who at Sony keeps pushing for this. I think it's less Amy Pascal and more Avid Arad.

 

So, hold on. They saw them memes, thought people were laughing with them, rereleased the film and made $86K?!

My word. That’s hysterical

 

This is Sony, expect stupidity.

 

If you're trying to slam Sony, using a proven clickbait site (even with an article that quotes a legitimate journalistic source like Variety) to do so isn't really the best choice

 

Yes, but given said cited reputable source, what's your actual opinion on what's being discussed?

 

Characterizing Kraven as both a hunter and conservationist is fine with me.

 

Did you enjoy the Venoms and Morbius?

 

Haven't seen them, but I want to at some point.

 

Then that's why you're still on Sony's side.

I wish I hadn't seen both Venoms (my sister's fault). And my sister, who genuinely loves the almost b level action movies (Venom, Underworld, Resident Evil, etc) said Morbius is worse than even she expected.

 

The first Venom movie is basically an American take on the basic plot of "The Guyver" and the 2nd one is just garbage.

 

Kraven being characterized as both a hunter and a conservationist doesn't bother me because I'm willing to let stories be adapted or told however the people adapting or telling them want to do so.

Whether or not I've seen the two Venom movies and Morbius is irrelevant to that stance.

 

This is just the start. Changing a detail doesn't make a bad movie. You'll see. Making a bad movie makes a bad movie. That's just one of the many ingredients in creating this disaster cake. History is showing us the way.

 

"Bad is a point of view, Anakin".

There is no universal standard for determining the quality of film or television, nor should there be.

 

Yeah, I've never understood Sony's obsession with Spider-Man's villains. There are tons of supporting heroes they could go with, but instead they just keep going to the villains and trying making them heroes, a lot of whom don't really work as anything but villains, and don't really make sense without Spider-Man

You can't be a hunter and a conservationist, it's a complete contradiction. You can't claim you love and want to protect something, and then go around killing it.
And in relation to Kraven, it just goes completely against what the character is supposed to be. The whole point of the character is that he's a brutal, ruthless hunter, and trying to turn into an animal lover and "protector of the natural world" completely misses the point.

They actually did this this season on The Connors, Becky's daughter went from being a baby who could barely roll over on her own, to being about 5 or 6 in between episodes, but there was no time jump.

 

Absolutely wrong. There are many responsible hunters who are also conservationists. Just because they track and kill game animals doesn't mean they aren't concerned with the ecosystem's well-being or aren't interested in conservation. In fact at least in some parts of the US there's a need for hunters to control the population of deer, for example.

Do you think every person that's ever hunted throughout history didn't care about the wild?

Now, big game hunting or trophy hunting, like the kind Kraven is usually shown to be... yeah they're generally not conservationists or interested in conservation. It's a very... unique take and I don't know how it's supposed to work.

 

Theodore Roosevelt was famous as both a big game hunter and a conservationist. It is possible. After all, you can't keep hunting if all your prey animals die out.

Although I agree that an ethical and measured approach to hunting seems out of character for Sergei Kravinov, a guy who thinks it's okay to hunt and kill human beings purely for his own entertainment and pride. Although IIRC, we did get a more antiheroic, redeemable version of Kraven in the '90s animated series.