The story doesn't have to be. Remender's run is the only Venom I have read. Flash should be known to people who have seen Spidey movies, Venom has already been in a movie. Just do the best stories. No need for Spiderman.
Maybe not, but it certainly should. Yeah, Flash was in the movies as the dude who bullied Peter Parker, and Brock/Venom was in the movies as the dude who had his career ruined by Spider-Man. It's all tied to Spider-Man. You cannot do this movie properly without Spider-Man.
They should do the Mac Gargan version of Venom; a hulking monster that eats people, but by day pretends to be Spider-man on Norman Osborn's Avengers.
There's a ton they can do with Venom but I don't see how they can start it off without it being Spidey's suit, and since he's getting another reboot... All I can think of is that Spider-Man will get the suit somewhere in space during Avengers 3, then get rid of it at the beginning of the Venom movie. Unless they do another Spider man beforehand.
Is Marvel doing the Spidey movies or is Sony? Because if it's Marvel, no way they advertise for Sony's Venom movie by mentioning or setting up Venom in their Spidey movie.
As much as I remember Sony will still keep the rights to Spiderman. They are just able to use the character in their movies for I assume a certain amount time, or number of movies.
From my understanding, Marvel still has the rights to all Venom merchandise and TV rights for a possible animated TV show. So if a Venom movie is successful Marvel stands to make a ton of money from the character even without the movie. They are saying they are doing it without involving Spider-Man because cannon wise Spider-Man is now in the Marvel universe, so they can't make a Venom movie without Marvel's OK. It just seems like a terrible idea for them to try and do Venom without Spider-Man, so I think them and Marvel will work something out to bring him into the fold. Venom is not a well known character, and without Spiderman I just don't there being any kind of ground swell. It would be a major financial mistake to try it that way, even if the alternative calls for giving Marvel a cut of the film profits because Marvel + Spiderman = money.
To clarify: Sony owns the live-action film rights to the Spider-Man 'stable' of characters, including Venom and his offspring. Sony and Marvel Studios struck a deal last year where the Spider-Man characters all play in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with the Avengers. Sony can use MCU characters in their movies. I'm sure it's all subject to continuity agreements on both sides.
Disney would have to pry spiderman from Sony's cold dead hands. Spidermen is a billion dollar property. Why would Sony ever give him up?
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the worst one yet. 255 million production budget 180 million marketing. Domestic Total Gross: $202,853,933 Foreign: $506,128,390 You can float that 700 number all you want but it made far less than they thought it would. They saw a downward trend and that is the only reason they agreed to let Spidey in the MCU.
They aren't gonna give him up, and Marvel has resigned themselves to that. So they did the next best thing and worked out an agreement to share him. Having him in the Marvel verse with the Avengers should help his solo movies do the big business that he should be doing. I mean Marvel has shown the ability to make any character matter, regardless of their B-Level status. Spiderman is the crown jewel, with Marvel's help his movies could be grossing in the billions.
Yeah because those movies were ****. They had 2 things going for them: Andrew Garfield (who was awesome as Spiderman, albeit too pretty), and Emma Stone. If they had been halfway decent they would have easily grossed a billion. People love Spiderman. (I don't truly see the draw, but it's true)
Cool anti-hero that can do the story from Remender run would be great. Hopefully they do Flash route and have him in actual suit rather than the entire thing be done in CGI. They don't need Spiderman. He is more well known than Antman and Guardians. Just need a good script and director.
It's NOT connected to the MCU or Spider Man, but Sony gets Spider Man back in late 2019/2020. I think it might be a misstep for Hardy, he doesn't seem to know what he's getting into. He was nearly on board for Suicide Squad. Never heard of the director, but if he's good and the script is good, sure, it could be fun. Just feels like a waste to detach it from the emerging Spider Man.
I honestly believe he can/will pull it off. I liked his Bane character (minus the stupid megaphone voice) overall I feel like he portrayed the grim, ingenious, super-villian Bane was supposed to be, based on the comic character. Not the stupid hulking dummy from the idiotic 90s-00s films. Zombieland was gruesome yet lighthearted for a zombie movie, hopefully there's more gruesome notes in this film than lighthearted but I do hate to get my hopes up when Sony did this to Spidey.... my thoughts exactly black and white extra ladies. Clowns
ZombieLand was really fun. Tommy Hardy is always great. I am a bit tired of the same actors playing every superhero/villain role and if there was only 1 character left that i'd want to play, it would be Wolverine in an X-Men reboot. I imagine Tom Hardy is agreeing to this role in order to fund more of his own personal projects. Should be cool either way. It's amazing. Before that movie came out you would think "Sam Raimi doing Venom? AMAZING!" Then Eric Foreman was cast and the eyebrow was raised and then the movie came out and i felt embarrassed for everyone involved and myself for watching it. It was so excruciating watching all those cheesy emotional/crying scenes with a packed theater.
It really sucks that Sony can't just get on the same page with Marvel and make this an official part of the MCU. Trying to do Venom without Spidey is just stupid, and a recipe for disappointment.
