I am not a comic aficionado, so I am coming at this from a purely movie nerd standpoint, engrossed in all-things cinema from news to reviews, including a love for recent superhero movies. The Marvel Cinematic Universe fascinates me on many levels, and one of the key things I love is that they consistently surprise people, managing to blow through what fans on the internet expect. When the MCU started, the bar was so incredibly low that just being good was enough, regardless of strict loyalty to existing material. The general consensus seems to be that they take a lot of liberties with characters and evolving stories, but the fanboy community has grown to trust them – and with that trust comes an acceptance of change. With Venom, I believe a lack of trust caused a unique take on the character to be altered to fit what fans expected, causing the tonal mash-up currently in theaters. Sony was/is understandably the least trusted studio when it comes to comic/superhero films. They helped launch the current era with the original Sam Raimi Spider-man films, but after Spider-man 3, it all went downhill. The original Amazing Spider-man was bad, and the sequel was awful. Emma Stone & Andrew Garfield worked well together, but not as Peter Parke & Mary-Jane. Sony then did the right thing (for both fans & stock holders) by letting Kevin Feige and team take over the character, guiding the process that led to Tom Holland’s fantastic portrayal and seamless integration into the MCU. This left Sony in a difficult position. They still owned the rights to many characters, but they were all tethered to Spider-Man and now couldn't share the screen with him. Fanboys had a bad taste in their mouth for Venom before production even started – ‘how will you do a Venom film without Spider-Man?’ ‘Sony is going to try a cinematic universe? Ugh.’ There was no winning with this base, but Sony thought they needed them to drive a successful film. And of course Sony was going to try to make a bunch of inter-connected films as it would be an irresponsible business decision to shelve those characters. They put together an incredible core cast, with Tom Hardy leading the way and Michelle Williams(!) doing a big studio film. From the first trailer back in March, you could see Sony trying to hit the sweet spot with the fans who paid attention. It was dark, it was gritty, it even looked like it might be rated R! It felt like the buzz had become cautiously optimistic. That alone was a huge win for the studio. Around this time, I randomly ended up speaking to someone at Sony. She described the film as a ‘buddy comedy,’ and confirmed it would be rated PG-13. This surprised and confused me. But I will say, I was even more curious about what the hell this would be. As the release date got closer, the tone of the marketing remained consistent, appealing to the fanboys while also showing action, a little bit of humor, and everything else general audiences expect. Whether the marketing reflected the film or not, it was clearly effective given the $80mm opening weekend. I’ll say – I had a good time with this movie. As everyone seems to agree, it’s a tonal mess and feels like it was made 15 years ago. But that was kind of fun. Regardless of overall tone, Tom Hardy is doing something special. It’s absurd, ridiculous, and completely unexpected, and that’s what makes it work. He truly is in a buddy comedy with himself, but everyone else is in a gritty drama. Hardy went for Ant-Man while everyone else went Dark Knight (maybe because he’s already done that?). And Hardy's take worked. It’s good to see that he’s getting some credit for this despite the mess around him, but I really wish everyone else jumped into the lobster tank with him and went fully funny with it. But what if they tried and the studio got cold feet? Ruben Fleischer has made some terrible movies, but when I see his name, I always think of Zombieland. His was the first name I saw after the movie finished, and all I could think of is what if he got to commit to the gory comedy – taking cues from his debut feature. When I think of how well that tonal mash-up worked, I think of what Venom could have been. Fanboy expectations may have changed that. Tom Hardy has a passion for this character, and he had an interesting spin. Ruben Fleischer must have understood that, and there was clearly script punch-up to acknowledge the comedy. If the studio at one point described it as a buddy comedy, even they understood it. The problem comes back to trust. They don’t have the trust of fanboys, so they weren’t willing to take a full risk. I think the comedic tone was compromised because of what the internet expected from day one. When I walked out of the theatre, I thought Tom Hardy should return and they should ditch everything else (except Woody Harrelson). Now I’m thinking they should just take what he did and let that direct the movie, regardless of expectations. I don't think they had the wrong team. The good news is that expectations will be low, but ROI will be big. People are now familiar with the character, which means it’s time to take risks. Sony got very lucky with the box office after the initial reviews destroyed this film, and I'm happy we'll presumably see a sequel. Honestly, there’s a reason Iron Man could start a cinematic universe and The Dark Knight wouldn’t have even if they tried. It’s much easier to add more drama to a lightly comedic tone. But if you start completely serious, you’re stuck there and most humor becomes awkward in the mouths of your characters (See Warner Brothers/DC). I don’t envy the studios who need to keep fans happy with initial marketing that reflects the expected take even if that’s not the best way to handle characters, and then deliver a product that works. To a certain extent you need their approval to get over the starting line. But in reality most fanboys are going to the movie no matter what, and letting that vocal minority alter the end product is a dangerous turn to take.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
April 2019
|