Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
It should come as no surprise that the first reviews for this movie are less than gushing
www.vulture.com
www.empireonline.com
Venom: The Last Dance Is Bad on Purpose
And even though Tom Hardy’s digitally enhanced hand-puppet act is fun to watch, that starts to feel insulting.
www.vulture.com
Venom: The Last Dance
Tom Hardy returns for one last time as Eddie Brock in the Venom threequel, directed by Kelly Marcel. Read the Empire review.
Last edited:
As the last two movies box office have shown no one cares about the reviews.
But that doesn't guarantee success, either. Venom 2 cost about the same or maybe a bit more then Venom 1 and made 350 million less. Plus, since Venom 2 Sony has really tanked their Spider-Adjacent Universe's reputation with Morbius and Madame Web.
To use a recent movie as comparison, Joker made a billion dollars and Joker 2 absolutely bombed. Venom 3 probably won't be that unsuccessful, but it could easily under perform or even be outright unprofitable in the end.
It made less at a point in time when many cinemas around the world were closed or operating at limited capacity.
How quickly we forget history.
How quickly we forget history.
Also, and I'm repeating myself here, Sony is relatively reasonable with budgeting their Spider-verse movies. Venom 3 has a budget of $120 million. The upcoming Kraven movie is their biggest financial risk to date with a budget of $130 million.
Which shows just how poorly Morbius (roughly broke even) and Madame Web (bombed) did at the box office.
The fact that these are considered moderate budgets make me feel old as dirt. I still remember the Hollywoo scuttlebutt about how insane it was that Terminator 2 cost $100 million to make.
The fact that these are considered moderate budgets make me feel old as dirt. I still remember the Hollywoo scuttlebutt about how insane it was that Terminator 2 cost $100 million to make.
The fact that these are considered moderate budgets make me feel old as dirt. I still remember the Hollywoo scuttlebutt about how insane it was that Terminator 2 cost $100 million to make.
I admit, I've never really understood inflation. Why is it that a book that cost $2.50 when I was a kid would cost $16 or more today? Why does the amount you can buy for a dollar keep decreasing? Why doesn't it ever go the other way? It all seems so arbitrary.
Because money is inherently imaginary.
I didn't forget history, I just forgot when Venom 2 released
Plus, like I said Morbius and Madame Web have came out since Venom 2 and have kind of made Sony's Live Action Spider-Verse into a laughing stock even with the general audience.I'm not saying that Venom 3 won't be successful, I'm just saying that its far from guaranteed.
Er, I'm the farthest thing from an economist, but the answer seems obvious to me: there are far more humans around than when you were a kid, and all those humans mean more people making money. More people making money means more competition for limited resources, and that drives prices ever higher. (Real estate is the clearest example of this, because, as Lex Luthor noted in Superman Returns, land is the one thing nobody's making more of.) Higher prices require higher incomes, thus maintaining that darn old wealth gap that endures in virtually all modern societies, and higher incomes normalize and lock in higher prices, such that prices rarely go significantly down.
Likewise, fewer consumers means cheaper products. At the end of a school year, college students without space in their cars (or who're flying home) will give/discard all sorts of chairs and lamps mini-fridges and stuff away, not because the stuff is suddenly broken or has no utility, but because no one's offering them any money for it. And surely we all remember how cheap used cars were after the Snap?
Exactly. If it's imaginary, shouldn't that give people the power to change it in whichever direction they want? As a kid, I often wondered, why doesn't everyone just get together and agree that a dollar is worth twice as much?
Er, I'm the farthest thing from an economist, but the answer seems obvious to me: there are far more humans around than when you were a kid, and all those humans mean more people making money. More people making money means more competition for limited resources, and that drives prices ever higher. (Real estate is the clearest example of this, because, as Lex Luthor noted in Superman Returns, land is the one thing nobody's making more of.) Higher prices require higher incomes, thus maintaining that darn old wealth gap that endures in virtually all modern societies, and higher incomes normalize and lock in higher prices, such that prices rarely go significantly down.
Likewise, fewer consumers means cheaper products. At the end of a school year, college students without space in their cars (or who're flying home) will give/discard all sorts of chairs and lamps mini-fridges and stuff away, not because the stuff is suddenly broken or has no utility, but because no one's offering them any money for it. And surely we all remember how cheap used cars were after the Snap?
That's the grade-school explanation, but it's inadequate, as the US population is only about 1.5 times the size it was when I was a kid, yet prices are maybe 4-8 times as high. And as for "limited resources," that presumes a zero-sum game, but that's a gross oversimplification at best, since new resources can be tapped, new materials and processes can be invented, and one of the main resources has always been human labor and creativity, a resource that's always increasing as the population grows.
While we're at it, people are making more real estate all the time. Coastal cities like New York, San Francisco, Tokyo, etc. have major portions built on artificial landfill that's extended the coastlines into the adjacent bays/rivers, filled in marshlands, etc. For thousands of years, inhospitable regions such as deserts have been made habitable through artificial means such as irrigation -- otherwise Las Vegas wouldn't exist. The place I'm sitting right this moment, atop one of the steep hills surrounding downtown Cincinnati, was accessible only to wealthy people with private transport until the inclines were built in the 1870s, and then the roads when automobiles came along. So the amount of habitable real estate on the planet is constantly increasing, and whatever writers gave Luthor that line in the movie didn't know what the hell they were talking about.
Honestly, I think it's basically like the recent price gouging at gas pumps and grocery stores. Once the factors causing inflation die down, prices could go down again, but the greedy bastards running the businesses keep the prices artificially high because they can.
It does for technology.... computers with less memory than a basic Word file or conputing power of a modern coffemaker cost thousands of dollars 35 years ago. Or my basement TV... 17 years ago this 50 inch cost us $1500 plus interest in installment payments. I can get a bigger one (but weighing less) with higher definition and waaaay more apps for like $300
A blind man on a galloping horse?Aaaaaanyway.
Venom 3 is getting a lot of mediocre-to-bad reviews. Who could have possibly seen that coming?!
Sure, but those were expensive when they were still new, emerging products, scarcer and harder to make. Everything's more expensive when it's new. Once things are standardized, then the prices tend to rise with inflation. I'm thinking of buying a new laptop, and looking into it, I get the impression that their prices are going up lately.
Which shows just how poorly Morbius (roughly broke even) and Madame Web (bombed) did at the box office.
The fact that these are considered moderate budgets make me feel old as dirt. I still remember the Hollywoo scuttlebutt about how insane it was that Terminator 2 cost $100 million to make.
I remember that. Studios were wishy-washy when it came to complaining about budgets; they barely raised an eyebrow when 1963's Cleopatra (an alleged "guaranteed success") cost $31 million ($319,422,581.70 adjusted for inflation), until it became one of the industry's biggest bombs, yet some did whine about 1974's The Towering Inferno's $14 million budget ($144,255,359.48 adjusted for inflation), despite Irwin Allen delivering the second highest grossing film of '72). Its a case of perception value, at least when Hollywood once held bloated "historical" films in high regard, until that bit them in the ass.