Sony Pictures ends the rumors. The long awaited film about ‘Venom‘ will not have any kind of relationship with Tom Holland’s Peter Parker or the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
‘Venom’ is the first spin-off of characters from the ‘Spider-Man’ comics that Sony plans to carry out. These films will be totally independent to the films that have the Spider-Man of Tom Holland, integrated in the UCM after the agreement reached by Disney and Sony Pictures.
Sony Pictures has confirmed to Entertainment Weekly that ‘Venom’ will be set in “a world separate from ‘Spider-Man: Back home'”. The study ditches the issue by assuring that the tape “is not part of the agreement between Sony and Disney.“
Everything we know about ‘Venom’
‘Venom’, starring Tom Hardy (who gives life to the Symbiote), Michelle Williams or Woody Harrelson, will arrive in Spain on October 5th. Ruben Fleischer (‘Land of Zombies’) is in charge of the staging . We are expected to see new developments in the film during Comic-Con. We will have to see if they serve to end the multiple controversies surrounding the appearance of the character.
All the villains of Spider-Man, from worst to best
Announced as one of the highlights of ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2: The power of Electro’, the Rhino played by Paul Giamatti ended up being something like a scam. Granted, the idea was to have him as a villain of a third installment that never saw the light, but that’s no excuse to remember that the presence of the character in the failed sequel directed by Marc Webb was summarized in just under three minutes. Not one more nor one less. The worst thing is that, in that short time on screen, his appearance caused more laughter than terror. In the end, it seems that to be without Giamatti’s Rhino was more luck than misfortune.
What was the most negative of ‘The Amazing Spider-Man: The power of Electro’? Electro. As is. Beyond the visual spectacular of his appearances, undisputed, Jamie Foxx can do little and what he does, he does wrong, with a character presented, written, interpreted and developed with reluctance and autopilot, unable to create the slightest interest , used opportunistically and, what is worse, skimming the most fearsome comic parody.
Self Marc Webb and his team seemed aware of the mistake and decided to park most of the time the plot, focusing all their attention on the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey, the real engine of the film. Better like that.
The producer Avi Arad was very clear with Sam Raimi in the meetings prior to the launch of ‘Spider-Man 3’: Venom must appear in the film. The director, tired of so much insistence / orders, agreed and put a villain more to an unbalanced movie of pure ambition, unsustainable of so much weight.
Perhaps because of that lack of will of the filmmaker, this version of Eddie Brock played by an enthusiast Topher Grace, the only one who seems interested in the character, ends up occupying a much more secondary place than desired, remaining in the anecdote and curiosity. His presence, on a visual level and in our condition as admirers, is appreciated, but the memory he leaves is absolutely null.
Did the Spider-Man franchise need to reinvent itself five years after ‘Spider-Man 3’? If we analyze the moment in which was the vision that Sam Raimi had given the character and taking into account a third installment turned into guilty pleasure for very few instead of superhero movie praised by crowds, yes, a facelift The spiderman did not seem so outlandish. The head of ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’, nothing more and nothing less than Marc Webb fresh out of the wonderful ‘500 days together’, seemed clear about his mission to rethink, locate and repeat the schemes of the previous trilogy, contributing more drama and less humor. Pity that the theory never gets to put too much (good) into practice.
After a hesitant start of quite absurd jokes and an underscore of the original story that we all knew by heart, the movie took off (more or less) thanks, among other things, to a villain, Lagarto, who made himself beg, yes, but He did not disappoint when he made an appearance. Interpreted in its human form by a compliant Rhys Ifans and little else, we are facing an enemy that, when it launches its roar between scales, really intimidates.
5The man of sand
Performed by a dedicated Thomas Haden Church, the Sandman of ‘Spider-Man 3’ was, without a doubt, the most interesting villain in a movie that was beaten by a large part of the public and critics. And that there is no place for yawning in a third installment Raimi brand that, to identify errors, bet too much on the accumulation of elements, something that, on the other hand, has accused the genre on many other occasions that have not been received with such hatred.
In any case, and returning to the character that concerns us, we are facing a creation with a motivation much more interesting than the average, with extra dose of mercy and compassion and with a more satisfying dramatic development than the protagonist, for example, the very Spidey Special mention for your emotional outcome.
In the absence of one, three have been the Green Goblins that have passed before our eyes throughout these almost two decades of the arachnid film saga. Starting with Willem Dafoe, going through James Franco and ending, in every way, in Dane DeHaan. The best of them all? The doubt offends.
Dafoe brought a malignant energy, a remarkable charisma and a real feeling of perversion to the character in ‘Spider-Man‘, that neither a correct (and already) DeHaan nor, above all, one of the most lazy and boring possible versions of Franco, they got. That first meeting with Norman Osborn is the one that continues to count as a real reference , authentic material worthy of poisoned applause.
When Sam Raimi saw the wonderful interpretation of Alfred Molina in ‘Frida’, it was clear that he had found his Doctor Octopus, the villain of the superb ‘Spider-Man 2’, in all probability, the best of the spiderman’s deliveries in cinema. After a first conversation with the actor, who thought that his options to get the role were little less than none, the director confirmed his suspicion and hired him. The success, in view of the final results, was total.
Molina knew perfectly the character of his character, deepening in his feelings and in his pain, in his sarcasm and in his despair, in his lack of control and compassion. That is why, since we witnessed his birth as a villain until we said goodbye to him, we are always looking forward to seeing Octopus on screen. A plus capital in an exemplary blockbuster from start to finish.
Two words: Michael Keaton. The actor, protagonist of one of those returns made in Hollywood so characteristic and celebrated, returned to the genre of film superheroes through the front door, changing his hero costume (‘Batman‘ and ‘Batman returns’) for the villain in the great ‘Spider-Man Homecoming‘, the also applauded premiere of Tom Holland as a spiderman. Everything worked at full thrown in one of the most successful chapters of the Marvel film catalog, except for action scenes too chaotic and, ahem, dark, but, to choose, it is clear that The Buzzard marked the real difference.
An enemy that was more frightening when he wore jeans and shirt than when he was propelled by the air ready to kill Spidey. Keaton, we go back to the beginning, finished rounding the character with a bulletproof charisma. The interpreter was having a blast and it showed. A real enjoyment of interpretation, film, Spider-Man and of course, villain.
Our beloved Spidey has had to deal with his last appearance on the big screen with the best villain in the Marvel film universe to date: Thanos. And with the most dangerous. Capable of almost completely stealing a movie of the size, merit and forcefulness of ‘Avengers: Infinity War‘, the character played by Josh Brolin is already an essential part of Spider-Man’s film history, allowing / provoking the scene of Tom Holland’s biggest dramatic show with the arachnid suit. And here we can read. We hate and love equally this ruthless titan.