Gatsby77

Here's one of the reasons I really liked Black Panther (putting aside the unique afro-futurism, ensemble acting, humor, etc.). It met my primary criterion for a good comic book film - a plot that would hold up even if you took out all the superhero elements. We've seen so many comic book films over the last decade that it's no longer enough to be wowed by "Whiz, bang! - that's the superhero on screen!" -- Today's comic book movies should be solid movies in their own right that *just happen* to feature superheroes. The Dark Knight was an amazing crime thriller. With a few minor edits, Wonder Woman could have been a great WWI espionage thriller. Winter Solider was a great espionage thriller about the moral limits of the PATRIOT Act -- easily better than the last Jack Ryan or Bourne films. So where does Black Panther fit? It was legitimately Shakespearan family drama, featuring a flawed king, a murdered brother, an orphaned son/prodigal nephew, and T'Challa himself, a prince-made-king too soon and struggling with the knowledge that his father -- and perhaps the entire royal court -- had been wrong. Take out all the superhero elements, and it could have been a great gritty mob film. That's the level of plot -- and care in writing -- that we as comic book fans deserve, and whiy I despise misfires like BvS, Suicide Squad, Venom, and the first Hulk movie so much -- they all take the easy way out, insulting audiences by thinking that seeing the titular heroes on-screen is enough and aiming for a minimally-viable-product, rather than using the heroes as a starting point -- a canvas on which to craft a truly compelling story. The creators of Black Panther could easily have taken the easy route -- selling it merely "look - they're superheroes, but they're black!" That they didn't, and instead gave us a solid family drama with flawed heroes, sympathetic villains, and moral ambiguity, puts it squarely in the former category.

Fair - I never saw it. And I've seen maybe four episodes of Agents of Shield total. The first episode was so bad I had to check and double-check Joss Whedon's involvement. Like...it reminded me of Night Man from 20 years ago.

Other than Coulson, the only other movie character I remember was Jaime Alexander appearing as Lady Sif in Agents of Shield a few seasons back. Was that before or after her last movie appearance (which I'd guess was The Dark World)? Has Maria Hill ever appeared on the show?

I agree with this. Red Sparrow basically was the Black Widow movie -- and Atomic Blonde was similar in theme, but a bit stronger. A solo Black Widow film would have worked well four years ago (say...immediately after Winter Soldier) but today I don't see the appeal. Best case scenario - they end up with a great Russian sleeper spy thriller a la Salt. The problem? We've already seen Salt.

Here's another scenario. As a childhood super-fan of Valiant Comics, I'd pay more for the unpublished Jim Starlin issues of Unity 2000 # 4-6 (I'm not sure if all of these exists, or just # 4-5 do) than I would for any of the published issues (# 1-3). Why? Because I want to read them to see how the story ends. And given that they were written by Shooter and drawn by Starlin, there's some cache there. Likewise, I wondered for years about the supposed "alternate copy" or Batman # 429 had the voting gone the other way. That said, I'm not sure the OA would go for more than the published OA to # 429. (Ironically, Starlin also did this one - albeit as writer rather than artist.)

I'll take that bet. Like Wonder Woman 1984, they delayed the release date a full year to make sure they got it right. And it's got a solid cast: Tom Cruise Jennifer Connelly Jon Hamm Val Kilmer Miles Teller Ed Harris

So...it comes out two weeks before Top Gun 2? That doesn't bode well.

Oh. Hey - Look! Halloween made more about $1 million more opening day (which, as Paperheart correctly notes, includes Thursday previews) than Venom did. Not bad for a "studgy, 40 year-old franchise."

Umm...my point was never to say A Star is Born would out-gross Venom. That was never an option, to say nothing Venom's costing >3x as much. But that Venom's not exactly holding well day-to-day, despite its strong opening. And no -- A Star is Born has *not* lost ground against it. As you say, it made $35MM less opening weekend, in fact just 52% of Venom's take. And yet merely 4 days later (Thursday) it outgrossed Venom. That's the very definition of "gaining ground." And it's not a good sign for Venom's legs.

Also, if one wanted to be negative, could just point out that A Star is Born made more than Venom on Thursday, having caught up from making just over half of Venom's take last weekend. I still think we're looking at its topping out at $180 million domestic and would bet against a $500 million total. Sure - it might repeat at number one again this weekend, but Halloween will crush it next weekend (same demographic, plus the return of Jaime Lee Curtis). Logan this ain't.

? You thought Paperheart was posting this as a negative? Isn't it a positive thing that Venom is projected to be the number one movie two weekends in a row?

1. Good riddance. The show was bad. 2. But if you read that there article, there's a huge caveat - it's gone "On Netflix." With Disney soon launching its own streaming service, it may opt to pick up the show there.

361-363 were cool. But stop there -- Maximum Carnage was horrific -- and caused me to quit the Spidey titles altogether.

So...is it better than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Ghost Rider? Or about the same?

If this ends up doing just $160 million domestic and $200 million overseas (or $360 million total), does it get a sequel? Maybe. Does it launch a universe of spin-off films? No chance.

This is a stunning piece of journalism. I can't wait! Will be in the theater tomorrow with my flask loaded with Macallan.

It's now broken 30% positive and is rising -- 31% right now. Here are my two favorite pull quotes from two of the positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes: "It's a mess, but wow is it ever a fun, fascinating mess." "As a superhero movie, it's nothing special. As a cannibal comedy, it's priceless." Looks like I'm going to have to grab my buddy, get Ghost Rider-drunk, and catch a matinee.

Nah - Friday's still the official release date. It's just that the "Thursday night previews" have been pushed up from midnight to (here) as early as 5:00 pm. Same with A Star Is Born.

I call BS on his being "exceptionally difficult" to translate. If New Line could produce a successful Rated R Blade movie 20 years ago, there's no excuse for Sony's failure to do likewise with Venom today. To say nothing of Blade II's being a straight masterpiece. But no - let's half- it with a cartoony PG-13 take...

# 1 Trending Video on YouTube right now. I lost it at

Yeah - it was at 29% positive two hours ago. Now it's at 27% positive. Even Suicide Squad settled at 28% after all the reviews were in.

Yes - we're expecting to see Holland as Peter Parker in a cameo, but no Spider-Man. And jury's still out whether one of the two post-credit sequences -- which folks on Twitter were highlighting as among the best parts of the film -- will feature Woody Harrelson as Cletus and/or Carnage.

Thanks for sharing. I'm going with 41% on Rotten Tomatoes. Anyone else?

I actually do. Kennedy is the showrunner here -- every one of Rian Johnson's choices -- from the early -script through to post-production -- had to be approved by her as well as the Lucasfilm Story Group (including Pablo Hidalgo and others). As you know, she's not shy about firing directors if their vision differs from that of hers and the Story Group (witness the firings of Lord and Miller, Colin Treverrow, Gareth Edwards (in post), and Josh Trank. You know who wasn't fired? Rian Johnson. Because he had her full faith and credit. And -- with $620 million domestic (a % drop in line with the drops of Empire and Attack of the Clones over the first chapters) and a 91% critical rating from Rotten Tomatoes, I'd say she chose Rian Johnson wisely.

Yeah, because we should all be mad excited about a PG-13 Venom flick. Has Sony learned nothing from the successes of Deadpool and Logan? We're four days away and it's still under embargo. To quote one Forbes contributor who witnessed a recent Tom Hardy interview in which even he was lukewarm on the film: "Everyone seems to be bracing for disappointment with this movie, including Tom Hardy, and you’d think that Sony would be keen to go the critically-acclaimed Logan route and tell a violent, mature story about an antihero that rips people’s heads off. But we’re going to get the kid-friendly version, like watching Wolverine bloodlessly penetrate the ribcage of his enemies in the old X-Men films. Ugh." https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2018/09/30/looks-like-venom-is-going-to-be-toothless/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_content=1810405140&utm_campaign=sprinklrForbesMainFB#2235ffde6e40