Capitalizing on the origin story of a very famous villain was an interesting direction to take by Sony. The Venom movie has critically 'survived' its release, but where will the story eventually go? So much of Venom's origin is built around his interactions with Spiderman, causing some people to criticise the appear of 'web-like' powers from the character despite no canonical appearance of Spiderman. Should other films focus solely on villains? Or can a villain's story only be told when alongside their famous superhero.
It's a great question: where does Sony plan to go with this? it may be a good idea to examine the thought processes leading up to the Venom movie, and possibly touch on the other films Sony has announced for their shared universe: does a standalone Kraven film without Spiderman make more sense than a Venom one, and can these films survive without Spiderman? On that note, I'm not sure that referencing the Sam Raimi films would be a good idea, as they are two completely separate continuities. – LaPlant06 years ago
Maybe this is a cynical take on it, but its not clear that they had much of a plan for the franchise after this initial film. I wonder if instead it was meant to be a final effort to pool together Spider-Man fans after the decline of the Amazing Spider-Man movies. The film itself felt directionless in many ways, like they didn't know what to do with what they already had let alone continue it on further. Still, I would be interested to see if they could pull together a fully-formed continuation and have it stand out among the other comic-based movies out. – MSQuigg6 years ago
Analyse the movie in the light of recent negative hero releases like ‘Joker’, ‘Brightburn’ and even ‘Glass’. – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
The success of the MCU has been one of the hallmarks of cinema for the past decade. Arguably what has contributed to this is a significant amount of planning, and team of people dedicated to the topic, as well as a large amount of source material. Given that the X-Men universe has the third reason locked in, what's to stop 20th Century capitalizing on the blueprint laid down by the founders of the MCU and giving them something to compete against? Arguably all it could take is a team passionate about making this a reality.
It might be important to isolate some of the more well loved characters and explain why they are so compelling that they deserve their own film, considering that the team dynamic of X-Men is likely more important than merely separate characters: it's only by working together that the X-Men are able to overcome insurmountable odds. It may also be a good idea to discuss the Deadpool and upcoming X-Force film series. Another thing to consider is exactly what in the X-Men film universe is currently considered canonical, considering the inherent conflict between X-Men Origins: Wolverine's depiction of Deadpool and the more faithful representation of the Deadpool films. Not only that, but Days of Future Past and the ending of Deadpool 2 apparently completely rewrote the timeline. – LaPlant06 years ago
The vigilante archetype in superhero movies push the boundaries of societal rules and morality. Last year, audiences were treated to the release of Marvel’s Venom, Deadpool 2, and DC’s Arrow season 7, and these all have strong vigilante archetypes. These characters regularly circumvent the rules to enforce their own type of laws in the name of justice. But does rectifying violence with more violence solve anything? Does bypassing the local law enforcement when they fail to protect the city make a hero? When an antihero blurs the line between good and evil, serving their own form of justice, where do audiences stop and say “this isn’t heroic anymore.”? Characters to analyze could include (from both Marvel and DC respectively): Venom, Batman, Green Arrow, The Punisher, Deadpool, Wolverine, etc. The article could explore: what makes an antihero, what makes a vigilante, and where heroics breech the boundary of evildoing.
This is a good topic. However, I would clarify differences between what is violent, what can be seen as martial arts, etc. – Yvonne T.6 years ago
Very good idea Yvonne T.! Writers could analyze the MPAA rating system (and other motion picture systems) and create a violence rating scale to differentiate what is and isn’t acceptable. Good determining factors could include: whether the violent act only maims or actually kills, whether it was a kick or punch verses a firearm or other weapon, and how much collateral damage was involved in the process. I agree, there is a definite difference between martial arts and other types of violence. However, martial arts did originate to damage opponents in combat, and that type of violence is still violence, although how it’s depicted on screen does matter. There are many scenes in Deadpool 1 and 2, as well as Venom, that could be analyzed concerning depictions of martial arts related violence, and these different levels could be evaluated as well. – M. L. Flood6 years ago
Does the audience stop and say, "this isn't heroic anymore?" Usually, it seems these characters evolve (some a little, others more). So do audiences change their feelings as a story develops? – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
So often we are drawn to the darker side of life, a quick purview of most films coming out in the last 5 years tends to support this. Yet why is this?
Why are we so drawn to the dark, to the evil, to the bad?
Is it a desire to engage safely with taboos? Does this appeal to our baser natures that desire an interaction with danger and amoral ideas? Or simply do we want to watch safely from our seats the downfall of others?
There are obvious genre appeal in watching horror or thriller films, an aspect of the viewing is the narrative structure and the expectation of the horror themes. But what about drama or action or even romance films that are also engaging with these darker tones? Why is there a trend towards the macabre, the sinister and the frightening? Consider 'Coco' a Pixar animation in the land of the dead, or 'Three Billboards' about the lack of progression in the investigation of the murder of a young girl, or even 'I, Tonya' with its brutal depiction of domestic violence, even the romance 'The Shape of Water' features a rather horrific villain.
Films that portray a darker side allow the audience to experience something dark and scary without actually having to physically live it or be harmed. Also, life itself can be very dark, imperfect, violent, and so on. Thus, sometimes the dark side of things can address certain issues present in modern society and be relatable to some viewers. Another way to look at this is that having darker tones in a film can instigate conflict and thus make stories more interesting. – jay6 years ago
The Movie, Priest (2011) or the way Gotham in any Batman movie is presented are dark cities. So the impression created adds to what viewers feel. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
I think that it is largely a desire to engage with these rather frightening ideas while still remaining perfectly safe. These bad things are out there, and by engaging with them through fiction, we can learn about them and how they come about, as well as considering how we might deal with them if they impacted us, but don't have to worry about any real world consequences. In a similar vein, we get attached to villains we see in stories who reflect our darker impulses, but again, because they're not real, we can engage with and explore these darker thoughts we have without anyone getting hurt. – Debs5 years ago
Steve McQueen's Widows is an excellent film but the film that was advertised in trailers is not the film that audiences received. How did this deception, and the deceptive marketing strategies of other now-beloved films (think Shyamalan's The Village), affect Widow's box office gains (or lack thereof) and critical reception?
I'm not sure if I understand this. I saw the movie (it was OK). The ads I saw addressed some wives (widows and a girlfriend) steal lots of money. The movie was a bit disjointed. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
I would also include other examples of films where the marketing was off and how they affected the films' success. – BMartin436 years ago
Is the verve or is it the persona? How much of an influence does the performer's name have on the crowd? Would Johnny Cash, Eddie Money, Tom Cruise, River Phoenix, Chris Rock, Paris Hilton be any less fascinating in physical presence alone? Explore the notoriety or the appeal of the name behind the spectacle. Does being a Barrymore, Sheen, Fonda, Howard, or Coppola make something out of nothing? Does Hollywood provide the grit or does the audience induce the alchemy?
Some names are catchy, others are not. Does that make a difference in success. A good idea for an article. – Joseph Cernik6 years ago
With the release of Aquaman, viewers are torn on its impact on DC's popularity and current direction. Examining some of the reactions, as well as what DC needs to do to close the ever-growing gap with Marvel (In terms of popularity and revenue) may be interesting.
