what's the difference between Carnage and Venom, besides their color? seriously, i would like to know.
Carnage was a serial killer named Cletus Kasady who was locked up with Eddie Brock (Venom) in prison. When the symbiote (the black alien gloop) went to the prison to rejoin with Brock, it left behind a spawn which attached itself to Kasady and turned him into Carnage. Venom's entire drive as a character was to get revenge on Peter Parker/Spider-man because Brock lost his job because of him and the alien was rejected by him. Carnage was just a murdering psychopath.
Okay, seriously: the Spidey movies have been truly epic. They have succeeded where Superman and X-Men 3 failed. With the intro of 3 bad-ass villians, all 3 of whom were important in the Spiderman universe, how can they stop at this movie? There has to be a 4th. I hope so, at any rate.
Sony was planning to make 6 movies IIRC. I'm sure they'd love to make more too, assuming the movies continue to do great at the box office. That would probably be overkill though (5 probably is too). I think there might have even been a story recently about the sequels to these movies (related to Sony acquiring the rights to the Green Hornet for a movie IIRC), but I can't find the article right now. edit: Never mind...I found it. It was just saying that they were working on the script for Spiderman 4. That's all.
Carnage would be sweet. You think Spiderman 3 has a dark aura? Carnage is downright nasty. Plenty of other story arcs to take a punch at though. As long as they stay away from "clone wars" and Scarlett Spidey.
I am going to the premier, I'll write a review here afterwards. Having read the screenplay, I can tell you that this will be the best spidey movie yet. I was a little on the fence with topher grace as venom, but venom will scare the hell out of the audience and Raimi uses all his tricks. The movie is kind of split into genres: First act Super-Heroish and some drama, second is revenge, third is horror. A fourth movie is being considered but will probably have new actors. All the actors were signed for three movies and new contracts would have to be negotiated and this third movie is already one of the most expensive movies ever made. They simply cannot afford to make a fourth with the same cast unless someone makes sacrifices. Then again, this franchise is a cash cow and guarantees returns. On the other hand, Sony has to keep on making movies otherwise Marvel gets the film rights back (which might actually be better).
I heard that the Spider-Man series were going to be similar to the Star Wars, with a total of 6 movies. Also, I heard the second half of the Spider-Man trilogy were going to have a whole new cast but that wouldn't make much sense to me as Tobey Maguire has done a fantastic job so far. Either way, I sure hope there's going to be a total of six movies. Can't wait for movie 3, looks like it could possibly become the best movie ever (from a Spider-Man's fan view).
The movies will make between 750-800 mil world wide + DVD sales so They could make a 300 mil dollar movie and still turn a good profit. They should do what it takes to keep this group together.
You only need Toby and Dunst. I guess if you want another Venom storyline then you add Grace. Whoever plays Jameson is important... Thats about it. Even Dunst would be expendable. You tellin me they cant pay 3-4 people and build around them? If they can make Rush Hour 3 they can make Spidey 4.
Well, Sony wants more money for itself and they are concerned that revenue will drop over time. The actors alone are now more than half the production costs, on top of that, the main actors don't want to continue another trilogy (which is hollywood speak for "I want a raise") This wouldn't be an issue if Columbia pictures had more profitable movies, but right now they have James Bond and Spider-Man, basically funding all their other failing projects. This is a $250 million dollar movie (one of the most expensive ever) not including publicity and advertising, if they make sequels with the remaining cast, SM4-6 will cost $300 to $400 million each. And even if it grosses a billion dollars, the studio only actually gets to see about a third of that. Throw in advertising and the movie won't make money until it starts selling its DVDs. From a corporate standpoint, it's not worth it for them to spend $500 million to make and publicize a movie if they only make $600 in the end, there are better investments with larger gains. I wish all those numbers we hear were true, but you throw in all the costs that people forget about and it doesn't look as lucrative as we think.
Also Venom means well (he wants to help people), but usually does it a way that makes hurts people more than a traditional heroe (I'd say he's kind of like the Hulk in a lot ways).
yeah, the dichotomy that they made for him with spider-man is that spidey has great power and is responsible with it, while venom (after the revenge part was done with) had great power and was irresponsible when helping people. It showed how amazing spidey was in his ability to fight villains but also be able to be protective of people around him. It's kind of like comparing Shane Battier to Rafer Alston.
Then they shouldn't make them. The magic of Spider-Man is the character behind him...the conscience-ridden Peter Parker with all his frailties and vulnerabilties. Maguire has absolutely NAILED it. Honestly, I would hate to see them bring in someone else who we all compare against Maguire. Besides...Maguire is a good-looking Irishman who must pull all the babes, right? (inside joke for a few here -- no i don't have a man-crush on Maguire)
