![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Here is an interesting comment from Amy Pascal, right in front of Keven Feige. - DinoSlider ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure a few of these are floating around out there, but here is the clarification from Feige and Pascal on the MCU "adjunct" thing from Collider. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Deadline says that Scott has the role (so is not just in talks), but they cite Variety, who we have used here to say that Scott is only in talks. Should we just stick with what we have for now? - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This is just a notice that there is a draft for Venom at Draft:Venom (2018 film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I am aware that this is the term used by producers to discribe the relationship of the film to the MCU. However, per WP:READERSFIRST, I do not think it's a term that readers will completely understand as it relates to film. It's better to spell it, especially in the lead.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 21:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
@ Adamstom.97: Seriously? The Deadline article does not, as you say "reference" any other articles. It explicitly states that Williams, Riz Ahmed, and Reid Scott are attached to star. What makes you think that their reporting isn't accurate? -- Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Its been TWO MONTHS since the film began shooting and no press release. I say we put the cast up and if one of them ends up not being in the film then we take that persn down when we find out for sure. This is getting a bit silly. The only page i know to be this way. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 13:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Due to the regular unnecessary and somewhat vandalistic edits by some users I think that this article should be placed under semi-protection status so that people are not adding unsourced information as it clearly states in the sections that are vandalized.--Paleface Jack 02:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it okay to add horror to the lead? I heard the director was influenced by John Carpenter and David Cronenberg while making the film.-- OWSLAjosh666 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Jon Schnepp says that Tom Holland was on set filming scenes as Peter Parker for a cameo - so that would be the adjunct to the MCU. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.189.119 ( talk) 07:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Venom is an antihero to be logical. This article starts with an absolute wrong statement. Please reconsider mentioning his antihero nature somewhere, or else, I will do it myself.
I think my edits are being undone just because I'm an Indian. If anyone has that kind of hatred towards me, please write here. This user undone the grammar I fixed without mentioning anything in the edit summary. Harsh Rathod 03:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This is where misconceptions creep in. He is an antihero. Please provide a proof that I'm wrong. If the grammar was poor than why you didn't mention it in the edit summary? Harsh Rathod 03:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There are two votes in the favour that 'antihero' should be mentioned in this article. But two votes are against. I will wait for seven days. This is how WP works, I guess. If this goes in my favour, I will add that that word in this article and also make sure that it stays. Also I can provide many instances of this character's antiheroism citing the comic book chapters. But I guess It will be right to wait till this movie releases. @ adamstom97: Look, USER:Kailash29792 is in my favour. 😁 Harsh Rathod 08:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ DinoSlider: No word such as 'antihero' is mentioned anywhere in this article. Harsh Rathod 15:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I quit. 😔 Harsh Rathod 10:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: I meant I had shown another example of my stupidity. And I admit it. 😒 Harsh Rathod 08:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: [ About this]. Those were all my good faith edits. In fact, they didn't impact the page at all. Please provide a justifiable excuse, no thanks! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@
Adamstom.97: Your reply was not at all justifiable. How come you know it impacted the page people trying to edit it? 😂 Don't we have visual edit? My edits really improved the processing of this page, though it didn't impact its appearance. Reconsider. Get over your editing methods, learn new ones. It is not your matter that people could understand the code or not. They ought to learn. As you did. How come people are able to understand the code we put inside these tags: <ref>...</ref>
?
@
Favre1fan93: Why it shouldn't be improved? Any specific reason rather than it shouldn't be adjusted just because (as I did)? I don't think WP pages are subject to established editing preferences.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me!
13:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Though I'm trying seek consensus for the change by providing a reason for its usefulness but look I'm only encountering those who oppose me. Okay, I'm satisfied with User:Favre1fan93's reply. User:Adamstom.97 is still laking for source of his statement. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Due to repeating unsourced addition/vandalism by unregistered users, we should probably temporarily place this article under semi protection.--Paleface Jack 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
According to The Wrap, the recent trailer for Venom made 64.3 million views in 24 hours: https://www.thewrap.com/venom-movie-trailer-wonder-woman-24-hours/. Hope we can add this into the movie's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Will people please stop editing this article along with Silver Sable and Black Cat with false facts about Venom and Silver & Black connecting to the stupid Marvel Cinematic Universe? The planned SMU is supposed to be it's own universe! - Cineplex ( talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The planned SMU is supposed to be it's own universe! - Cineplex ( talk) 10:43PM - November 11, 2017
One of the Russo brothers has confirmed that Venom is not part of the garbage that is the MCU! Now can we remove all of the MCU nonsense? - Cineplex (talk) 10:42PM - May 4, 2018
It's been official from Entertainment Weekly and all these websites publishing this statement that Venom, Silver & Black, Nightwatch, Morbius the Living Vampire, Silk, and Kraven the Hunter are not part of the Sony-Marvel deal and are not connected to the MCU. I don't care what Tom Holland wants or what Tom Hardy wants or what Ruben Fleischer wants, it's just not happening especially with the Marvel title card saying "In Association With Marvel". - Cineplex ( talk) 9:30PM - August 2, 2018
So now we've got a detailed explanation from Fleischer on why Spider-Man isn't in the movie and how they retooled Venom so he could stand on his own: [1]. Where should we add this? Maybe try to start a writing sub-section? JOE BRO 64 12:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Under "Future" it says "Main Article: Sony's Marvel Universe", which links you back to the "Future" section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.58.249 ( talk) 16:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CillianChampion ( talk) 17:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Can i edit a bit of Venom?
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit the venom page please Raj kumarawala ( talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The person who wrote this never mentioned the post credits scene (the one with an intro to "into the spider-verse") , only the mid-credits. MrMango77 ( talk) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the source, it is "something that Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, Spider-Man star Tom Holland, Marvel director Joe Russo and Spider-Man director Jon Watts have all made abundantly clear, for over a year now. In fact, the only time there seemed to be a glimmer of hope for Venom crossing over into the MCU, was last year when Sony's Amy Pascal misspoke about the possibility, nearly causing Feige's head to explode". So I think that should be used to clarify any confusion in the article. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
We already got clarification from Sony, Ruben Fleischer, and Matt Tolmach that Venom is standalone and it's own universe.
Now, to adamstom97, thejoebro64, or whoever made this article over a year ago, may we please PLEASE drop the consensus and leave out any MCU connections for the sake of Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters? The movie is already in theatres, there's no MCU reference in there whatsoever, and it's gotten bad reviews. Do you think Kevin Feige would want this world of Venom to be a part of his universe considering that all 20 movies in said universe have received positive reviews? - Cineplex ( talk) 7:33PM, October 5, 2018
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Who's Donna Diego? Her name is "Homeless Woman Maria" acted by Melora Walters.
see the page of IMDB [1] 42.200.236.43 ( talk) 07:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There should be an added sentence in the section about critic reviews under the “reviews” section, as well as the general info stating that “Although critic reviews for the film have been negative, the audience reviews as recorded by Rotten Tomatoes rank the film with an aggregate score of 88% on opening day.” 2001:5B0:2A22:13D8:55ED:8DFF:F790:9B7B ( talk) 04:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@ PeeJay2K3: This is the first film in Sony's MU. It just is. Whether that shared universe goes on to include any more feature films is irrelevant. - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Should you mention that the filming also took place at Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia? Xyuehong ( talk) 17:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the film's production notes, the "Malaysian village" was built on a dirt lot in Georgia.
Anyone got any source on the 100 Million budget? asking because I've not seen a source on that. - 74.116.240.2 ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Please change "he is invited to interview incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady" to "he interviews incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady, who promises he will escape and there will be carnage". -- 37.110.218.43 ( talk) 09:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit request: The article uses the phrase "Worldwide, it grossed $125.2 million from foreign territories" and needs to be changed as "foreign" is USA centric POV, which WP:MOSFILM already recommends against. The phrase can be replaced with "other territories" or "international territories". -- 109.79.191.81 ( talk) 22:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Venom has legs! Beside the pun that Venom fans should understand, the article needs more information about the second weekend at the Box office holding up better than expected. -- 23:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.247.142 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Venom is stated as a "Superhero film". This is not true as Superheros tend to protect the public whilst Venom is the 'arch-enemy' of Spiderman and should be correctly categorized as a Super Villain. Smakhija96thetruth ( talk) 04:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The film venom was Directed by Ruben Fleische and has grossed approximately 470 million dollars and has also set many box office records. Venom is a symbiote and is two of his weaknesses are fire and sound. Filming for this movie began on October 23, 2017 and wasn't promoted until 2018. The filming took place in Atlanta and New York City. The film was promoted by Hardy, and ahmed at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con. Venom is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. He takes place in the sony universe and not the MCU though. The intentions for this movie was to set a new shared universe and all crossovers are now possible through spiderman into the spiderverse. The next film called Venom 2 will be released in october of 2020. 47.26.66.27 ( talk) 02:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
We do not have a reliable source stating that the film received "generally negative reviews" or that audiences were more favorable.
We have Metacritic's algorithm, without editorial oversight, applying the term "generally unfavorable reviews", which we appropriately quote directly with in-line attribution later on. The algorithm is not a reliable source. The shift from "unfavorable" to negative seems to indicate that rather than misquoting Metacritic it is inappropriately combining the multiple sources cited.
We do not have anything comparing audience reactions to critics reactions. We do have various polling services cited later, which someone seems to have decided were more positive than the critics' reviews. - SummerPhD v2.0 21:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Now we are synthesizing the statements "Critics tear (it) to shreds" and "the reviews tend to skew a little negatively" into "generally negative". Neither one of those statements says "generally negative" and the two conflict with each other. - SummerPhD v2.0 17:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The intentional lack of audience review is highly disrespectful. If the box office income didnt prove it a simple search online will show that actual people loved this film. This striking contrast should be mentioned because of how drastically different and widespread this view is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8952:E600:9F8:9178:BF49:257A ( talk) 17:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.82.8.20 ( talk) 10:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
There is obviously no such thing as an "adjunct film". By this terrible logic some rando Chinese studio or fan filmmaker could just claim something is in continuity with the MCU if they felt like it. They have 'nothing from Marvel Studios which supports that they approve of this, at best they've ignored it at all fronts. It's nothing but Sony marketing spam and it's honestly embarasing to see it show up on a Wikipedia article like this. It's nothing but false marketing to misslead nonsense. But considering that there is a user here who does everything in their might to protect Sony's Marvel related articles I'm sure this will be pressed down like usual. ★Trekker ( talk) 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The page's plot summary section states that the fatal experiments Eddie Brock read about in Anne's email were the ones involving the symbiotes, but that is not the case. The Life Foundation only acquired the symbiotes after the interview that got Eddie fired took place, and only started human trials after the six month timeskip. 142.231.89.51 ( talk) 05:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Erik: in response to this edit: Hardy does not portray the Marvel Comics character that this film is based on, he plays a character based on a Marvel Comics character. It also does not make sense to list him twice in the same paragraph, and to not acknowledge the name of one of the characters he plays in the film. For the third paragraph, including Rotten Tomatoes in the lead gives too much weight to that website and their editorial consensus, when we should be noting what the critics actually said. The lead needs to summarise the article as it is, which means giving a proper summary of the critical response section and also having some summary of the audience response section (which is in fact in the article, despite what you said in one of your edit summaries). From what you have said so far, your issue is believing that the reception summary does not reflect the article's body accurately, so could you productively suggest a summary that better reflects the body rather than deleting the whole thing? - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No consensus exists for the claim the MCU is "adjunct" or connected to the MCU - this was a decision between two people. Per the tag given, this claim can and should be removed when confirmation has been given, which Amy Pascal helpfully provided in June 2017, when she said she had been misunderstood and confirmed the two series are "separate, independent" franchises. Of course, Sony does not get to decide what is in the MCU - Marvel Studios does, and it is not in the MCU according to them. Re-adding this claim it is "adjunct" is not only factually inaccurate, it's literally been contradicted by the person who made that claim initially (Pascal). Barring any other developments, there is literally no reason to claim a connection to the MCU here and it is disruptive to continue re-adding the debunked claim. I have at least a dozen sources I can pull right now that say it isn't, and most importantly the people who run the series say it isn't. Toa Nidhiki05 22:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator ( talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am willing to review the article. Right now, it seems to me that the article does meet the good article criteria, but I will not be passing the article immediately or rubber-stamping it. It's appropriate to leave some time for discussion first.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The first good article criterion is that an article be well-written. I think the article meets this criterion. I can think of only minor criticisms.
In the sentence reading, "Pinkner and Rosenberg were told that Spider-Man could not be in Venom before they made their initial pitch for the film, and took the approach of trying to stay faithful to the spirit of the comics even if certain elements had to be changed such as having Brock cross a moral line in his journalism which the character does in his comic book origin story", I would have added a comma after "changed".
I think the sentence reading, "Fleischer wanted Venom to stand out compared to other comic book-based films, and felt tonally that it would not remind viewers of the lighter MCU or the somber DC Extended Universe", would make better sense if "tonally" and "that" switched places.
I think the sentence reading, "The opening of the film went through several iterations, but Fleischer always wanted it to "start with a bang" which led to a spaceship crash in the opening scene", would benefit from a comma after ' start with a bang '.
Like a number of other sentences in the article, the sentence reading, " Due to the differences in the character's facial design from comic-to-comic, and even panel-to-panel, the designers 'distilled the essential elements' into a design that could be photorealistic " employs a somewhat informal style of English. This isn't a problem, per se. However, although there could be legitimate differences of opinion about how a sentence of that kind should be written, my view is that it would read slightly better if "from" were removed from before "comic-to-comic." The "comic-to-comic" part stands by itself and surely doesn't need "from" to make its meaning clearer.
The grammar of the sentence stating, " A teaser for the film was released in February 2018, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming' " doesn't seem correct. It could be corrected by rewriting the sentence somewhat, for example as, " A teaser for the film, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming', was released in February 2018. "
One sentence starts, "He was particularly positive of the film's differences from other Marvel films..." Would "about" make better sense than "of"?
One sentence starts, "Rozsa was especially positive that the film did not take itself too seriously..." I might have written that instead as "Rozsa especially liked that the film did not take itself too seriously..." Readers will presumably understand what "especially positive" is intended to mean, but the term is potentially ambiguous - it could be used to express certainty that something is the case rather than approval of it.
"Gardner soon noticed fan art depicting Brock and Venom as a couple appearing across social media sites, and acknowledged that there were several moments throughout the film that implied such a relationship such as Venom deciding to turn against his species because of his time spent with Brock and deciding to French kiss Brock when it is transferring from Weying's body to Brock's" - this is another case where added punctuation would help (another comma after "such a relationship").
Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
2. The second criterion is that an article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing no "copyright violations nor plagiarism." I don't think there is any obvious copyright violation or plagiarism. However, this sort of thing isn't always obvious. Potentially there might be something that isn't apparent to me. I understand that articles like this have been subject to disputes over alleged copyright violation and plagiarism. If there is a problem like that here, then I would think that this would probably be the only real reason for not passing the article. So you are going to have to give me your own assessment of the issue. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
3. The third criterion is that an article be "Broad in its coverage". The article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
4. The fourth criterion is that an article be neutral. The article is neutral.
5. The fifth criterion is that an article be stable. Looking at the article's history, it doesn't seem perfectly or absolutely stable - there has been some edit warring and conflict between editors. Of course the article is about a comic book movie, which makes of it interest to a significant number of people. It thus isn't surprising that there has been some conflict and disagreement. The level of conflict that has occurred does not seem serious enough for the article to be failed, however (unless it gets significantly worse during the course of the review...).
I'll address the remaining article criterion soon. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
6. The sixth criterion is that an article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". This criterion is met. There doesn't appear to be a copyright problem with any of the images. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 06:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I intend to pass the article unless there is a copyright problem standing in the way of that. I'll spend some time checking things and then (almost certainly) will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is this mentioned in the article? This is all just speculation from unreliable blog forums and not any sort of notable story that needs to be mentioned on the page. Aardwolf68 ( talk) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: I realize that the credits read "in association with Marvel" but there is no reason that we cannot be more specific than that. We are not beholden to use the same exact wording as the primary source. Without following the link, a reader easily may assume that Marvel = Marvel Studios, which can cause confusion. I think WP:Readers first applies here.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Have you known that after Venom damages the probe, the damage causes the probe to spill the fuel and oxidizer onto the burning, but still hot, engines, thus rupturing the engines and fuel tanks of the probe, destroying it and killing both Riot and Drake in the process? It didn't "explode", the fuel and oxidiser were leaking from Venom's sabotage of the probe's launch, until it contacted the burning engines, causing it to ignite the fuel in the fuel tanks, the engines to rupture,, killing Riot and Drake, and destroying the probe in the process. Jostcom2 ( talk) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently removed unsourced content about the film's reception from the lead and replaced it with the critical consensus summary from Rotten Tomatoes
[3]. The content in the lead should not be based on individual reviews that are synthesized together by editors here to determine what is the general reflection of the critical reception, as that is a form of
original research. The manual of style at
WP:FILMLEAD was also recently updated to address this situation: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews.
" This added language was the result of a discussion that can be found at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 20#Reception details in lead. Further, the content I removed was mostly not even supported by individual reviews the article's main reception section, and some of it is even contradicted by the reviews there, such as the statements about Hardy's performance in the film. I replaced the unsourced content with the Rotten Tomatoes summary for now as that reflects the critical consensus as determined by a reliable source. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk)
23:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews" (emphasis added). If multiple reviews included in the article's body discussed the same aspects of the film, then there could be an argument that adding it to the lead is appropriate for its weight in the body, but that is not the case with the terms that were in this article, which is why I have suggested two alternative wordings for the lead. If you cannot explain what sources supported the content, maybe you could also suggest alternative wording that would address those concerns about the content? – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 02:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Reading the actual Critical response section, the generally negative reviews from critics for its script, tone, pacing
are clearly there, the lack of connection to Spider-Man
is only present in the Rotten Tomatoes critic consensus, not in any specific review cited, but perhaps that's enough. The Hardy's performance received some praise
is a bit more difficult, because many critized it with the rest and many others noted it as entertaining at least. The word some
does imply that the praise was mixed though, so it might be fine. —
El Millo (
talk)
02:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
criticized under;
felt the film spent too long on Venom's origin story— Hardy bad, pace bad, script bad
Hardy ... whose performances he all criticized;
unfocuseddirection;
dingiestcinematography — Hardy bad, direction bad, cinematography bad
critized the film's tone;
compared it to a rejected superhero film treatment from the 1990s— tone bad, script bad
close to an hour of tedium; Hardy
usually excellent (but not this time)— pace bad, script bad, Hardy bad
an unwatchable disasterif not for Hardy's performance;
inconsistent tone;
bog-level computer effects and washed-out colours— Hardy good, tone bad, VFX bad, cinematography bad
incosistent mess of tones, acting styles and visual effects; not sure if Hardy's performance
adds up to anything in Venom. But it's something to behold— tone bad, VFX bad, Hardy mixed
Hardy was the only reason to watch the film; direction was
competent and unmemorable— Hardy good, direction mixed
sloppy and formulaic script; Hardy's performance
wicked fun;
liked that the film did not take itself too seriously— script bad, Hardy good, tone good
kind of neat to look at; Hardy's performance as
fun to watch— VFX good, Hardy good
I've found several "review roundup" articles. Let's see what kind of summaries they make:
"Venom" has released to mixed reactions, many of which have been highly critical of the film despite a strong performance from Tom Hardy. Although scenes involving Hardy’s banter with the alien symbiote Venom did garner some praise from reviewers, the character wasn’t enough to save the rest of the film from the boring monotony that sometimes afflicts superhero films.[1]
And critics say "Venom" is a mess, and it currently has a 27% score on Rotten Tomatoes. But even the most scathing reviews of the movie indicated that it is still a good time, because it is so awesomely bad that you can't help but enjoy yourself. Hardy, Williams, and Ahmed do what they can with a clunky, boring plot, but the film doesn't seem to know what its own tone is. The movie is, essentially, exactly what you'd expect after seeing the hilarious trailer.[2]
Turns out actual journalists don't love this weird story about a journalist. Across the board, reviews for director Ruben Fleischer's Venom are ranging from mixed to vicious. ... Critics agree Tom Hardy committed big time to his parasitic role. However, they also contend that the film's uneven tone and laughably thin story kept it from achieving full potency.[3]
the film has been described as “poisonously dull”, and “an example of what not to do” when making a superhero movie.[4]
I also found some from The Hollywood Reporter [5] and E!. [6] Neither of them have a summary of all the reviews, but we could use the reviews contained in all of them to see how often these script, pacing, tone, and performances assessments pop up. — El Millo ( talk) 08:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Here is an interesting comment from Amy Pascal, right in front of Keven Feige. - DinoSlider ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure a few of these are floating around out there, but here is the clarification from Feige and Pascal on the MCU "adjunct" thing from Collider. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Deadline says that Scott has the role (so is not just in talks), but they cite Variety, who we have used here to say that Scott is only in talks. Should we just stick with what we have for now? - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This is just a notice that there is a draft for Venom at Draft:Venom (2018 film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I am aware that this is the term used by producers to discribe the relationship of the film to the MCU. However, per WP:READERSFIRST, I do not think it's a term that readers will completely understand as it relates to film. It's better to spell it, especially in the lead.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 21:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
@ Adamstom.97: Seriously? The Deadline article does not, as you say "reference" any other articles. It explicitly states that Williams, Riz Ahmed, and Reid Scott are attached to star. What makes you think that their reporting isn't accurate? -- Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 09:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Its been TWO MONTHS since the film began shooting and no press release. I say we put the cast up and if one of them ends up not being in the film then we take that persn down when we find out for sure. This is getting a bit silly. The only page i know to be this way. TheMovieGuy ( talk) 13:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Due to the regular unnecessary and somewhat vandalistic edits by some users I think that this article should be placed under semi-protection status so that people are not adding unsourced information as it clearly states in the sections that are vandalized.--Paleface Jack 02:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it okay to add horror to the lead? I heard the director was influenced by John Carpenter and David Cronenberg while making the film.-- OWSLAjosh666 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Jon Schnepp says that Tom Holland was on set filming scenes as Peter Parker for a cameo - so that would be the adjunct to the MCU. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.189.119 ( talk) 07:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
References
Venom is an antihero to be logical. This article starts with an absolute wrong statement. Please reconsider mentioning his antihero nature somewhere, or else, I will do it myself.
I think my edits are being undone just because I'm an Indian. If anyone has that kind of hatred towards me, please write here. This user undone the grammar I fixed without mentioning anything in the edit summary. Harsh Rathod 03:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This is where misconceptions creep in. He is an antihero. Please provide a proof that I'm wrong. If the grammar was poor than why you didn't mention it in the edit summary? Harsh Rathod 03:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There are two votes in the favour that 'antihero' should be mentioned in this article. But two votes are against. I will wait for seven days. This is how WP works, I guess. If this goes in my favour, I will add that that word in this article and also make sure that it stays. Also I can provide many instances of this character's antiheroism citing the comic book chapters. But I guess It will be right to wait till this movie releases. @ adamstom97: Look, USER:Kailash29792 is in my favour. 😁 Harsh Rathod 08:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ DinoSlider: No word such as 'antihero' is mentioned anywhere in this article. Harsh Rathod 15:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I quit. 😔 Harsh Rathod 10:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Favre1fan93: I meant I had shown another example of my stupidity. And I admit it. 😒 Harsh Rathod 08:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: [ About this]. Those were all my good faith edits. In fact, they didn't impact the page at all. Please provide a justifiable excuse, no thanks! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@
Adamstom.97: Your reply was not at all justifiable. How come you know it impacted the page people trying to edit it? 😂 Don't we have visual edit? My edits really improved the processing of this page, though it didn't impact its appearance. Reconsider. Get over your editing methods, learn new ones. It is not your matter that people could understand the code or not. They ought to learn. As you did. How come people are able to understand the code we put inside these tags: <ref>...</ref>
?
@
Favre1fan93: Why it shouldn't be improved? Any specific reason rather than it shouldn't be adjusted just because (as I did)? I don't think WP pages are subject to established editing preferences.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me!
13:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Though I'm trying seek consensus for the change by providing a reason for its usefulness but look I'm only encountering those who oppose me. Okay, I'm satisfied with User:Favre1fan93's reply. User:Adamstom.97 is still laking for source of his statement. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Due to repeating unsourced addition/vandalism by unregistered users, we should probably temporarily place this article under semi protection.--Paleface Jack 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
According to The Wrap, the recent trailer for Venom made 64.3 million views in 24 hours: https://www.thewrap.com/venom-movie-trailer-wonder-woman-24-hours/. Hope we can add this into the movie's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 ( talk) 01:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Will people please stop editing this article along with Silver Sable and Black Cat with false facts about Venom and Silver & Black connecting to the stupid Marvel Cinematic Universe? The planned SMU is supposed to be it's own universe! - Cineplex ( talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The planned SMU is supposed to be it's own universe! - Cineplex ( talk) 10:43PM - November 11, 2017
One of the Russo brothers has confirmed that Venom is not part of the garbage that is the MCU! Now can we remove all of the MCU nonsense? - Cineplex (talk) 10:42PM - May 4, 2018
It's been official from Entertainment Weekly and all these websites publishing this statement that Venom, Silver & Black, Nightwatch, Morbius the Living Vampire, Silk, and Kraven the Hunter are not part of the Sony-Marvel deal and are not connected to the MCU. I don't care what Tom Holland wants or what Tom Hardy wants or what Ruben Fleischer wants, it's just not happening especially with the Marvel title card saying "In Association With Marvel". - Cineplex ( talk) 9:30PM - August 2, 2018
So now we've got a detailed explanation from Fleischer on why Spider-Man isn't in the movie and how they retooled Venom so he could stand on his own: [1]. Where should we add this? Maybe try to start a writing sub-section? JOE BRO 64 12:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Under "Future" it says "Main Article: Sony's Marvel Universe", which links you back to the "Future" section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.58.249 ( talk) 16:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
CillianChampion ( talk) 17:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Can i edit a bit of Venom?
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit the venom page please Raj kumarawala ( talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The person who wrote this never mentioned the post credits scene (the one with an intro to "into the spider-verse") , only the mid-credits. MrMango77 ( talk) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the source, it is "something that Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, Spider-Man star Tom Holland, Marvel director Joe Russo and Spider-Man director Jon Watts have all made abundantly clear, for over a year now. In fact, the only time there seemed to be a glimmer of hope for Venom crossing over into the MCU, was last year when Sony's Amy Pascal misspoke about the possibility, nearly causing Feige's head to explode". So I think that should be used to clarify any confusion in the article. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
We already got clarification from Sony, Ruben Fleischer, and Matt Tolmach that Venom is standalone and it's own universe.
Now, to adamstom97, thejoebro64, or whoever made this article over a year ago, may we please PLEASE drop the consensus and leave out any MCU connections for the sake of Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters? The movie is already in theatres, there's no MCU reference in there whatsoever, and it's gotten bad reviews. Do you think Kevin Feige would want this world of Venom to be a part of his universe considering that all 20 movies in said universe have received positive reviews? - Cineplex ( talk) 7:33PM, October 5, 2018
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Who's Donna Diego? Her name is "Homeless Woman Maria" acted by Melora Walters.
see the page of IMDB [1] 42.200.236.43 ( talk) 07:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There should be an added sentence in the section about critic reviews under the “reviews” section, as well as the general info stating that “Although critic reviews for the film have been negative, the audience reviews as recorded by Rotten Tomatoes rank the film with an aggregate score of 88% on opening day.” 2001:5B0:2A22:13D8:55ED:8DFF:F790:9B7B ( talk) 04:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@ PeeJay2K3: This is the first film in Sony's MU. It just is. Whether that shared universe goes on to include any more feature films is irrelevant. - adamstom97 ( talk) 09:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Should you mention that the filming also took place at Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia? Xyuehong ( talk) 17:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the film's production notes, the "Malaysian village" was built on a dirt lot in Georgia.
Anyone got any source on the 100 Million budget? asking because I've not seen a source on that. - 74.116.240.2 ( talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Please change "he is invited to interview incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady" to "he interviews incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady, who promises he will escape and there will be carnage". -- 37.110.218.43 ( talk) 09:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit request: The article uses the phrase "Worldwide, it grossed $125.2 million from foreign territories" and needs to be changed as "foreign" is USA centric POV, which WP:MOSFILM already recommends against. The phrase can be replaced with "other territories" or "international territories". -- 109.79.191.81 ( talk) 22:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Venom has legs! Beside the pun that Venom fans should understand, the article needs more information about the second weekend at the Box office holding up better than expected. -- 23:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.247.142 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Venom is stated as a "Superhero film". This is not true as Superheros tend to protect the public whilst Venom is the 'arch-enemy' of Spiderman and should be correctly categorized as a Super Villain. Smakhija96thetruth ( talk) 04:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The film venom was Directed by Ruben Fleische and has grossed approximately 470 million dollars and has also set many box office records. Venom is a symbiote and is two of his weaknesses are fire and sound. Filming for this movie began on October 23, 2017 and wasn't promoted until 2018. The filming took place in Atlanta and New York City. The film was promoted by Hardy, and ahmed at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con. Venom is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. He takes place in the sony universe and not the MCU though. The intentions for this movie was to set a new shared universe and all crossovers are now possible through spiderman into the spiderverse. The next film called Venom 2 will be released in october of 2020. 47.26.66.27 ( talk) 02:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
We do not have a reliable source stating that the film received "generally negative reviews" or that audiences were more favorable.
We have Metacritic's algorithm, without editorial oversight, applying the term "generally unfavorable reviews", which we appropriately quote directly with in-line attribution later on. The algorithm is not a reliable source. The shift from "unfavorable" to negative seems to indicate that rather than misquoting Metacritic it is inappropriately combining the multiple sources cited.
We do not have anything comparing audience reactions to critics reactions. We do have various polling services cited later, which someone seems to have decided were more positive than the critics' reviews. - SummerPhD v2.0 21:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Now we are synthesizing the statements "Critics tear (it) to shreds" and "the reviews tend to skew a little negatively" into "generally negative". Neither one of those statements says "generally negative" and the two conflict with each other. - SummerPhD v2.0 17:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The intentional lack of audience review is highly disrespectful. If the box office income didnt prove it a simple search online will show that actual people loved this film. This striking contrast should be mentioned because of how drastically different and widespread this view is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8952:E600:9F8:9178:BF49:257A ( talk) 17:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Venom (2018 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.82.8.20 ( talk) 10:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
There is obviously no such thing as an "adjunct film". By this terrible logic some rando Chinese studio or fan filmmaker could just claim something is in continuity with the MCU if they felt like it. They have 'nothing from Marvel Studios which supports that they approve of this, at best they've ignored it at all fronts. It's nothing but Sony marketing spam and it's honestly embarasing to see it show up on a Wikipedia article like this. It's nothing but false marketing to misslead nonsense. But considering that there is a user here who does everything in their might to protect Sony's Marvel related articles I'm sure this will be pressed down like usual. ★Trekker ( talk) 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The page's plot summary section states that the fatal experiments Eddie Brock read about in Anne's email were the ones involving the symbiotes, but that is not the case. The Life Foundation only acquired the symbiotes after the interview that got Eddie fired took place, and only started human trials after the six month timeskip. 142.231.89.51 ( talk) 05:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Erik: in response to this edit: Hardy does not portray the Marvel Comics character that this film is based on, he plays a character based on a Marvel Comics character. It also does not make sense to list him twice in the same paragraph, and to not acknowledge the name of one of the characters he plays in the film. For the third paragraph, including Rotten Tomatoes in the lead gives too much weight to that website and their editorial consensus, when we should be noting what the critics actually said. The lead needs to summarise the article as it is, which means giving a proper summary of the critical response section and also having some summary of the audience response section (which is in fact in the article, despite what you said in one of your edit summaries). From what you have said so far, your issue is believing that the reception summary does not reflect the article's body accurately, so could you productively suggest a summary that better reflects the body rather than deleting the whole thing? - adamstom97 ( talk) 08:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No consensus exists for the claim the MCU is "adjunct" or connected to the MCU - this was a decision between two people. Per the tag given, this claim can and should be removed when confirmation has been given, which Amy Pascal helpfully provided in June 2017, when she said she had been misunderstood and confirmed the two series are "separate, independent" franchises. Of course, Sony does not get to decide what is in the MCU - Marvel Studios does, and it is not in the MCU according to them. Re-adding this claim it is "adjunct" is not only factually inaccurate, it's literally been contradicted by the person who made that claim initially (Pascal). Barring any other developments, there is literally no reason to claim a connection to the MCU here and it is disruptive to continue re-adding the debunked claim. I have at least a dozen sources I can pull right now that say it isn't, and most importantly the people who run the series say it isn't. Toa Nidhiki05 22:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator ( talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am willing to review the article. Right now, it seems to me that the article does meet the good article criteria, but I will not be passing the article immediately or rubber-stamping it. It's appropriate to leave some time for discussion first.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
1. The first good article criterion is that an article be well-written. I think the article meets this criterion. I can think of only minor criticisms.
In the sentence reading, "Pinkner and Rosenberg were told that Spider-Man could not be in Venom before they made their initial pitch for the film, and took the approach of trying to stay faithful to the spirit of the comics even if certain elements had to be changed such as having Brock cross a moral line in his journalism which the character does in his comic book origin story", I would have added a comma after "changed".
I think the sentence reading, "Fleischer wanted Venom to stand out compared to other comic book-based films, and felt tonally that it would not remind viewers of the lighter MCU or the somber DC Extended Universe", would make better sense if "tonally" and "that" switched places.
I think the sentence reading, "The opening of the film went through several iterations, but Fleischer always wanted it to "start with a bang" which led to a spaceship crash in the opening scene", would benefit from a comma after ' start with a bang '.
Like a number of other sentences in the article, the sentence reading, " Due to the differences in the character's facial design from comic-to-comic, and even panel-to-panel, the designers 'distilled the essential elements' into a design that could be photorealistic " employs a somewhat informal style of English. This isn't a problem, per se. However, although there could be legitimate differences of opinion about how a sentence of that kind should be written, my view is that it would read slightly better if "from" were removed from before "comic-to-comic." The "comic-to-comic" part stands by itself and surely doesn't need "from" to make its meaning clearer.
The grammar of the sentence stating, " A teaser for the film was released in February 2018, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming' " doesn't seem correct. It could be corrected by rewriting the sentence somewhat, for example as, " A teaser for the film, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming', was released in February 2018. "
One sentence starts, "He was particularly positive of the film's differences from other Marvel films..." Would "about" make better sense than "of"?
One sentence starts, "Rozsa was especially positive that the film did not take itself too seriously..." I might have written that instead as "Rozsa especially liked that the film did not take itself too seriously..." Readers will presumably understand what "especially positive" is intended to mean, but the term is potentially ambiguous - it could be used to express certainty that something is the case rather than approval of it.
"Gardner soon noticed fan art depicting Brock and Venom as a couple appearing across social media sites, and acknowledged that there were several moments throughout the film that implied such a relationship such as Venom deciding to turn against his species because of his time spent with Brock and deciding to French kiss Brock when it is transferring from Weying's body to Brock's" - this is another case where added punctuation would help (another comma after "such a relationship").
Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
2. The second criterion is that an article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing no "copyright violations nor plagiarism." I don't think there is any obvious copyright violation or plagiarism. However, this sort of thing isn't always obvious. Potentially there might be something that isn't apparent to me. I understand that articles like this have been subject to disputes over alleged copyright violation and plagiarism. If there is a problem like that here, then I would think that this would probably be the only real reason for not passing the article. So you are going to have to give me your own assessment of the issue. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
3. The third criterion is that an article be "Broad in its coverage". The article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
4. The fourth criterion is that an article be neutral. The article is neutral.
5. The fifth criterion is that an article be stable. Looking at the article's history, it doesn't seem perfectly or absolutely stable - there has been some edit warring and conflict between editors. Of course the article is about a comic book movie, which makes of it interest to a significant number of people. It thus isn't surprising that there has been some conflict and disagreement. The level of conflict that has occurred does not seem serious enough for the article to be failed, however (unless it gets significantly worse during the course of the review...).
I'll address the remaining article criterion soon. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 10:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
6. The sixth criterion is that an article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". This criterion is met. There doesn't appear to be a copyright problem with any of the images. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 06:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I intend to pass the article unless there is a copyright problem standing in the way of that. I'll spend some time checking things and then (almost certainly) will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is this mentioned in the article? This is all just speculation from unreliable blog forums and not any sort of notable story that needs to be mentioned on the page. Aardwolf68 ( talk) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: I realize that the credits read "in association with Marvel" but there is no reason that we cannot be more specific than that. We are not beholden to use the same exact wording as the primary source. Without following the link, a reader easily may assume that Marvel = Marvel Studios, which can cause confusion. I think WP:Readers first applies here.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Have you known that after Venom damages the probe, the damage causes the probe to spill the fuel and oxidizer onto the burning, but still hot, engines, thus rupturing the engines and fuel tanks of the probe, destroying it and killing both Riot and Drake in the process? It didn't "explode", the fuel and oxidiser were leaking from Venom's sabotage of the probe's launch, until it contacted the burning engines, causing it to ignite the fuel in the fuel tanks, the engines to rupture,, killing Riot and Drake, and destroying the probe in the process. Jostcom2 ( talk) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently removed unsourced content about the film's reception from the lead and replaced it with the critical consensus summary from Rotten Tomatoes
[3]. The content in the lead should not be based on individual reviews that are synthesized together by editors here to determine what is the general reflection of the critical reception, as that is a form of
original research. The manual of style at
WP:FILMLEAD was also recently updated to address this situation: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews.
" This added language was the result of a discussion that can be found at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 20#Reception details in lead. Further, the content I removed was mostly not even supported by individual reviews the article's main reception section, and some of it is even contradicted by the reviews there, such as the statements about Hardy's performance in the film. I replaced the unsourced content with the Rotten Tomatoes summary for now as that reflects the critical consensus as determined by a reliable source. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk)
23:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews" (emphasis added). If multiple reviews included in the article's body discussed the same aspects of the film, then there could be an argument that adding it to the lead is appropriate for its weight in the body, but that is not the case with the terms that were in this article, which is why I have suggested two alternative wordings for the lead. If you cannot explain what sources supported the content, maybe you could also suggest alternative wording that would address those concerns about the content? – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 02:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Reading the actual Critical response section, the generally negative reviews from critics for its script, tone, pacing
are clearly there, the lack of connection to Spider-Man
is only present in the Rotten Tomatoes critic consensus, not in any specific review cited, but perhaps that's enough. The Hardy's performance received some praise
is a bit more difficult, because many critized it with the rest and many others noted it as entertaining at least. The word some
does imply that the praise was mixed though, so it might be fine. —
El Millo (
talk)
02:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
criticized under;
felt the film spent too long on Venom's origin story— Hardy bad, pace bad, script bad
Hardy ... whose performances he all criticized;
unfocuseddirection;
dingiestcinematography — Hardy bad, direction bad, cinematography bad
critized the film's tone;
compared it to a rejected superhero film treatment from the 1990s— tone bad, script bad
close to an hour of tedium; Hardy
usually excellent (but not this time)— pace bad, script bad, Hardy bad
an unwatchable disasterif not for Hardy's performance;
inconsistent tone;
bog-level computer effects and washed-out colours— Hardy good, tone bad, VFX bad, cinematography bad
incosistent mess of tones, acting styles and visual effects; not sure if Hardy's performance
adds up to anything in Venom. But it's something to behold— tone bad, VFX bad, Hardy mixed
Hardy was the only reason to watch the film; direction was
competent and unmemorable— Hardy good, direction mixed
sloppy and formulaic script; Hardy's performance
wicked fun;
liked that the film did not take itself too seriously— script bad, Hardy good, tone good
kind of neat to look at; Hardy's performance as
fun to watch— VFX good, Hardy good
I've found several "review roundup" articles. Let's see what kind of summaries they make:
"Venom" has released to mixed reactions, many of which have been highly critical of the film despite a strong performance from Tom Hardy. Although scenes involving Hardy’s banter with the alien symbiote Venom did garner some praise from reviewers, the character wasn’t enough to save the rest of the film from the boring monotony that sometimes afflicts superhero films.[1]
And critics say "Venom" is a mess, and it currently has a 27% score on Rotten Tomatoes. But even the most scathing reviews of the movie indicated that it is still a good time, because it is so awesomely bad that you can't help but enjoy yourself. Hardy, Williams, and Ahmed do what they can with a clunky, boring plot, but the film doesn't seem to know what its own tone is. The movie is, essentially, exactly what you'd expect after seeing the hilarious trailer.[2]
Turns out actual journalists don't love this weird story about a journalist. Across the board, reviews for director Ruben Fleischer's Venom are ranging from mixed to vicious. ... Critics agree Tom Hardy committed big time to his parasitic role. However, they also contend that the film's uneven tone and laughably thin story kept it from achieving full potency.[3]
the film has been described as “poisonously dull”, and “an example of what not to do” when making a superhero movie.[4]
I also found some from The Hollywood Reporter [5] and E!. [6] Neither of them have a summary of all the reviews, but we could use the reviews contained in all of them to see how often these script, pacing, tone, and performances assessments pop up. — El Millo ( talk) 08:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
References