Venom: The Movie?

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:53 am

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=21929

Ugh.

Maybe.

Give it to Mac!

Actually, sod it, give us a Thunderbolts movie. Ellis style.

Dreadwind's Ghost · Post by **Dreadwind's Ghost** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:13 pm

I think they should just leave this alone. The CGI just isn't around that won't make Venom look like a giant cartoon, which, let's face it, he is.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:26 pm

Im pretty sure the CGi is around to pretty much do anything now.

Dreadwind's Ghost · Post by **Dreadwind's Ghost** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:34 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Im pretty sure the CGi is around to pretty much do anything now.

And still Venom looked like a turd in a wig.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:55 am

Still, the fact remains that the CGI exists to create photo-realistic fantasy creatures.

Transformers, Pirates, 300 to Beowulf, Golum? ...etc...

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:12 am

Honestly, what's not to like about a Venom movie? It's not like they could possibly screw up the character any more than the abortion that was Spider-Man 3 did. It can only get better from there. Even if they went the whole Lethal Protector route with it, mullet and all, it could not possibly be worse than Spider-Man 3. If the entire movie in Venom flashing old ladies it would STILL be better than Spider-Man 3. A Venom movie in which the title character does nothing but take it in the ass from a string of anonymous men... You get the point.

There are two 90's villains that I really liked. Venom and Bane. Both incredibly deep characters with real motivations and excellent gimmicks. Why, then, did Hollywood choose to make them bit-characters to give more time to a plant-woman, a human popsicle, and a pile of sand?

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:24 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Honestly, what's not to like about a Venom movie? It's not like they could possibly screw up the character any more than the abortion that was Spider-Man 3 did. It can only get better from there. Even if they went the whole Lethal Protector route with it, mullet and all, it could not possibly be worse than Spider-Man 3. If the entire movie in Venom flashing old ladies it would STILL be better than Spider-Man 3. A Venom movie in which the title character does nothing but take it in the ass from a string of anonymous men... You get the point.

A lot of people here (including you) seemed to think it was okay at the time...

http://transfans.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6490

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:20 am

We all make mistakes. Just look at Sam Raimi. He made Spider-Man 3, for example.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:53 pm

According to Danny Elfman, that wasn't Sam Raimi, he was a different person.

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:11 pm

Rebis wrote:According to Danny Elfman, that wasn't Sam Raimi, he was a different person.

How strange that Danny Elfman dislikes the Spidey-movie that is considered pretty much the best of the lot, by critics and fans alike, yes?

Methinks his judgement is clouded by personal issues.