Talk:Venom (2018 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Strange twist for the cinematic universe

Here is an interesting comment from Amy Pascal, right in front of Keven Feige. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like its going to be a bit of a one-way street, similar to how the TV shows play in the world of the films but Marvel Studios has no plans to work with them either. I think I have added this in a way that doesn't imply Marvel's involvement. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. - DinoSlider (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure a few of these are floating around out there, but here is the clarification from Feige and Pascal on the MCU "adjunct" thing from Collider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Reid Scott

Deadline says that Scott has the role (so is not just in talks), but they cite Variety, who we have used here to say that Scott is only in talks. Should we just stick with what we have for now? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

IIRC Deadline credits Variety as being their sister company so I think they generally share their news stories. Even still like any site they can tend to change up wording when they do their own article. So some will go "George Clooney and Allison Mack are in negotiations to join Deal or No Deal film adaptation" and others will go "George Clooney and Allison Mack have joined the cast of Deal or No Deal" and not mention anything about negotiations. So it's better to be safe then sorry and wait for more concrete confirmation that they're officially cast. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft for Venom (2018 film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Venom at Draft:Venom (2018 film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Shirt58 What happened to the draft? It is now a redirect to a section in another article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

What a tragic incident of collateral damage. The history saved anywhere? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

We might need to asksomeone to WP:UNDELETE, but lets wait and see what Shirt58 says about it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops! What was that? I've requested to czar, wait if he could do it. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. All of the edit history was here, just needed to restore it. Shirt likely either wanted to undo the move or confused the mainspaced draft with the draft page, but suffice it to say it was likely a mistake. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Adjunct"

I am aware that this is the term used by producers to discribe the relationship of the film to the MCU. However, per WP:READERSFIRST, I do not think it's a term that readers will completely understand as it relates to film. It's better to spell it, especially in the lead.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I just don't think that the way you have interpreted this is the same as what we have been told. We know that Marvel Studios is not working on the film and it will not be integrated into the MCU like Homecoming, but Sony considers it to be set in the same fictional universe as Homecoming anyway and sees the potential for crossover at some point. That does not say "related to, but not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" to me, though it also doesn't feel honest to outright call this an MCU film, because it isn't really that either. So how do we not say it is in the MCU, but also not say that it isn't? I feel like "adjunct" is a pretty good option, and it also happens to be the word that they used! I do understand wanting to help the readers, but I don't think the lead is the place to be going into all these details on something that I doubt will be that significant in the full scope of this article. Perhaps we could accompany my wording with a note that further explains it? For example:

Venom is an upcoming American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, produced by Columbia Pictures and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. It is intended to be the first film in Sony's Marvel Universe, adjunct to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The film is being directed by Ruben Fleischer, from a script by Scott Rosenberg & Jeff Pinkner and Kelly Marcel, and stars Tom Hardy in the title role.

I think that is a good compromise that helps explain what we know to the reader without the personal interpretations. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The note is a good option but I have two objections. First is the phrase "their MCU". The MCU is Marvel's property, but this makes it sound like Marvel and Sony have their own MCUs. Just say "the MCU". Second, "does not plan to have it crossover with" should be changed to "does not plan to include it in", which is closer to Feige's wording and makes a more explicit distinction.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How about "integrate" instead of "include", since that is the word used for Homecoming? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make that change. I also wanted to bring up the issue with the MCU template. We have agreed that we aren't going to say that it is in the MCU, but we aren't going to say that it isn't either. I feel like putting it in a "Related" section of that template works with that thinking. However, I can also see an argument for just having a link to Sony's Marvel Universe in that section (once that article exists) and then leaving the individual film links out of it. Just some thoughts to be considered. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Michelle Williams and co.

@Adamstom.97: Seriously? The Deadline article does not, as you say "reference" any other articles. It explicitly states that Williams, Riz Ahmed, and Reid Scott are attached to star. What makes you think that their reporting isn't accurate? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rest of the Cast should be added

Its been TWO MONTHS since the film began shooting and no press release. I say we put the cast up and if one of them ends up not being in the film then we take that persn down when we find out for sure. This is getting a bit silly. The only page i know to be this way. TheMovieGuy (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

And we can wait some more. Remember, there is no deadline and all information must be verified. If we can’t verify it, then it doesn’t belong. This is not the news or a fan site.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection

Due to the regular unnecessary and somewhat vandalistic edits by some users I think that this article should be placed under semi-protection status so that people are not adding unsourced information as it clearly states in the sections that are vandalized.--Paleface Jack 02:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Horror film?

Is it okay to add horror to the lead? I heard the director was influenced by John Carpenter and David Cronenberg while making the film.--OWSLAjosh666 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD, it should be "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". - DinoSlider (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with DinoSlider. We have to avoid an opening sentence that characterizes the film in a way that has not been done before. Per the guideline, we try to follow what most sources say. "Superhero film/movie" is what they seem to say. OWSLAjosh666, you could make the case to mention the horror/Carpenter/Cronenberg detail somewhere later in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom Holland in the movie

Jon Schnepp says that Tom Holland was on set filming scenes as Peter Parker for a cameo - so that would be the adjunct to the MCU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.189.119 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is just a rumour at this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Antihero

Venom is an antihero to be logical. This article starts with an absolute wrong statement. Please reconsider mentioning his antihero nature somewhere, or else, I will do it myself.

I think my edits are being undone just because I'm an Indian. If anyone has that kind of hatred towards me, please write here. This user undone the grammar I fixed without mentioning anything in the edit summary. Harsh Rathod 03:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You need to be very careful throwing accusations like that. Your edits were reverted because you are incorrect and using poor grammar. Whether he is an antihero or not, this film is in the superhero genre. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This is where misconceptions creep in. He is an antihero. Please provide a proof that I'm wrong. If the grammar was poor than why you didn't mention it in the edit summary? Harsh Rathod 03:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying that he isn't an antihero. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary. What ever character type he is (hero, antihero, villain) is irrelevant to stating that the film is simply based on this character. We don't need to classify what type of character it is, just that it is a character. Also there is not such thing as an "antihero" film genre. It all exists as a general superhero film genre. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not all Marvel-based movies are of the superhero genre. Howard the Duck and the Punisher movies are perfect examples. After this movie releases, let's see how to rewrite the lead based on genre. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two votes in the favour that 'antihero' should be mentioned in this article. But two votes are against. I will wait for seven days. This is how WP works, I guess. If this goes in my favour, I will add that that word in this article and also make sure that it stays. Also I can provide many instances of this character's antiheroism citing the comic book chapters. But I guess It will be right to wait till this movie releases. @adamstom97: Look, USER:Kailash29792 is in my favour. 😁 Harsh Rathod 08:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

But that does not mean I'm saying to right away change the genre in the lead to "antihero film" or "supervillain film". Because those are not officially recognised genres. What I mean to say is, if the film is not like Suicide Squad, which depicted villains as heroes, but more like Dracula or The Shining where the lead character is the villain, then we could write the lead like Venom is a 2018 American science fiction horror film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not saying to change the film genre. Though I did that in my edits and later regretted it. I just want the word 'antihero' to be mentioned in the article. And you want that too, I think. Harsh Rathod 09:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article, but why does it need to be in the lead? - DinoSlider (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you were not intending to change the genre, then it should still stay as it is now: "Marvel Comics character of the same name" because "character" is the most generic description to use. But as with Dino, I don't see a need currently to make a mention of it in the lead. Maybe once an official premise is released, depending on that wording, that would be where it could be included in the lead with the plot synopsis. But currently, no need to have it in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@DinoSlider: No word such as 'antihero' is mentioned anywhere in this article. Harsh Rathod 15:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There are currently two mentions in the article: in the development section ("an antihero who becomes a defender of the innocent") and the pre-production section (Fleischer said he has "always been drawn to the more antihero superheroes"). - DinoSlider (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I see those too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I quit. 😔 Harsh Rathod 10:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No need to quit. Wikipedia is not about winning. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I meant I had shown another example of my stupidity. And I admit it. 😒 Harsh Rathod 08:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Format

@Adamstom.97: [About this]. Those were all my good faith edits. In fact, they didn't impact the page at all. Please provide a justifiable excuse, no thanks! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It impacted the page for people trying to edit it. There is no need to make it harder for everyone to edit when, like you say, it doesn't even impact the actual article. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)*

If a page has an established reference and code formatting (as it did), it shouldn't be adjusted just because (as you did). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Your reply was not at all justifiable. How come you know it impacted the page people trying to edit it? 😂 Don't we have visual edit? My edits really improved the processing of this page, though it didn't impact its appearance. Reconsider. Get over your editing methods, learn new ones. It is not your matter that people could understand the code or not. They ought to learn. As you did. How come people are able to understand the code we put inside these tags: <ref>...</ref>?
@Favre1fan93: Why it shouldn't be improved? Any specific reason rather than it shouldn't be adjusted just because (as I did)? I don't think WP pages are subject to established editing preferences. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a guideline that states once a formatting method has been used consistently for an article, it shouldn't be changed. I can't find the direct link at the moment, but it exists and is standard practice. So yes, there was no need to adjust the article formatting as you did. We also don't need to be trying to optimize article coding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CITEVAR. The same principle can be applied to other formatting uses established, not just the citation style. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not everybody uses the visual editor. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Though I'm trying seek consensus for the change by providing a reason for its usefulness but look I'm only encountering those who oppose me. Okay, I'm satisfied with User:Favre1fan93's reply. User:Adamstom.97 is still laking for source of his statement. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Due to repeating unsourced addition/vandalism by unregistered users, we should probably temporarily place this article under semi protection.--Paleface Jack 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We put in requests at WP:RPP. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Just took a quick look at the edit history. Yeah... Request filed. DarkKnight2149 03:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Venom trailer statistics

According to The Wrap, the recent trailer for Venom made 64.3 million views in 24 hours: https://www.thewrap.com/venom-movie-trailer-wonder-woman-24-hours/. Hope we can add this into the movie's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.53.84 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sony's Marvel Universe

Will people please stop editing this article along with Silver Sable and Black Cat with false facts about Venom and Silver & Black connecting to the stupid Marvel Cinematic Universe? The planned SMU is supposed to be it's own universe! - Cineplex (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced information from the article just because you don't like it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's some sourced information after the whole "adjunct to the MCU" from last summer that should prove you wrong and consider changing the article for the better!

• http://ew.com/movies/2017/10/24/tom-hardy-venom-movie-set-photo/
• http://collider.com/venom-spider-man-mcu-explained/#tom-holland-kevin-feige-amy-pascal
• http://torontosun.com/2017/07/06/marvels-kevin-feige-on-spider-man-the-future-of-the-mcu-and-replacing-robert-downey-jr/wcm/11bc434f-3071-497b-a9d1-94e33b992238
• http://in.ign.com/movie/114707/news/tom-hardys-venom-will-be-brought-to-life-via-performance-cap

The planned SMU is supposed to be it's own universe! - Cineplex (talk) 10:43PM - November 11, 2017

Of those sources, the only one that is relevant to this discussion is the Collider interview where Pascal tries to distance the MCU and SMU films. However, she then went ahead two days later and said, "Although you’re not going to see them in the Marvel [Cinematic] Universe, it’s in the same reality." So again, they are not MCU films as we would know them, and Marvel Studios is not involved, but Sony wants them to be in the same "world" or "reality" as Homecoming. I know this isn't as neat and tidy as we would like it, but it is pretty straight forward: as far as Marvel is concerned, these films are separate from the MCU; as far as Sony is concerned, there is at least a tangential connection. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The question is though even thought it is not neat and tidy what should we do with it? Should we mention the MCU in the SMU articles and not vice versa, or what? Perhaps leave out any mention until something is confirmed more concretely? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think what we have is fine, just give the facts that we know and change it later if we need to. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

https://movieweb.com/venom-movie-poster-brazil-comic-con/ says it's not connected to the MCU! - Cineplex (talk) 12:02PM - December 8, 2017

That doesn't mean anything to this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the Russo brothers has confirmed that Venom is not part of the garbage that is the MCU! Now can we remove all of the MCU nonsense? - Cineplex (talk) 10:42PM - May 4, 2018

See how you can use this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that the director of a different film does not necessarily have any more insight on the matter than we do, this interview doesn't actually give us anything new to work on. He just states that Marvel considers it a separate Sony product, which is what we say in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been official from Entertainment Weekly and all these websites publishing this statement that Venom, Silver & Black, Nightwatch, Morbius the Living Vampire, Silk, and Kraven the Hunter are not part of the Sony-Marvel deal and are not connected to the MCU. I don't care what Tom Holland wants or what Tom Hardy wants or what Ruben Fleischer wants, it's just not happening especially with the Marvel title card saying "In Association With Marvel". - Cineplex (talk) 9:30PM - August 2, 2018

Do you know what Wikipedia doesn't care about? What you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not about what I want. It's the fucking truth! It just said so on these websites during Comic-Con. And besides, the Marvel title card says "In Association With Marvel", not Marvel Studios. - Cineplex (talk) 2:59PM - August 5, 2018

We've known that from the beginning, and it is in the article already. Also, be careful how you talk to other editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This coming from you, Mr. Wikipedia doesn't care about what I want? What the fuck was that? Also, who died and made you president of Wikipedia, huh? I found sources proving my point regardless of what Ruben and the two Toms want and say? These website articles and Entertainment Weekly comment (https://screenrant.com/venom-movie-mcu-connections-sony/, https://geektyrant.com/news/fans-are-once-again-reminded-that-venom-is-not-part-of-the-mcu, https://www.comicbookmovie.com/venom/as-expected-venom-is-officially-not-set-in-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-a162101) all confirm it. Having MCU connections to this, Silver & Black, etc. is like adding the theory that the depressing horror movie Life is a prequel to Venom because of Spider-Man 3 footage being used. What's next: is Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse part of the MCU now because the directors also said "anything's possible"? - Cineplex (talk) 9:35PM - August 6, 2018

You have proven nothing. This situation has not changed since the current consensus was formed. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man explanation

So now we've got a detailed explanation from Fleischer on why Spider-Man isn't in the movie and how they retooled Venom so he could stand on his own: [1]. Where should we add this? Maybe try to start a writing sub-section? JOEBRO64 12:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Redundant link

Under "Future" it says "Main Article: Sony's Marvel Universe", which links you back to the "Future" section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.58.249 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

CillianChampion (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Can i edit a bit of Venom?

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Was there a particular reason the article was completely locked rather than partially locked and set to allow flagged edits? It feels like an ongoing problem that admins overreact and completely lock an article instead of taking the less restrictive step of allowing flagged edits. As a newly released film this article is in need of substantial changes. Obvious improvements like adding reviews haven't happened yet and would have happened[took longer than] if the article hadn't been locked. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Pending changes is typically only used on a fairly inactive article, because frequent edits by multiple editors cause very complex situations for reviewers to untangle. (I speak from experience - even edits by two different editors can be a headache. I can't even imagine trying to review something with this level of activity.) Until the activity on the article slows down significantly, semi-protection is a better fit for the article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

I want to edit the venom page please Raj kumarawala (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

The person who wrote this never mentioned the post credits scene (the one with an intro to "into the spider-verse") , only the mid-credits. MrMango77 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Officially NOT part of the MCU

According to the source, it is "something that Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, Spider-Man star Tom Holland, Marvel director Joe Russo and Spider-Man director Jon Watts have all made abundantly clear, for over a year now. In fact, the only time there seemed to be a glimmer of hope for Venom crossing over into the MCU, was last year when Sony's Amy Pascal misspoke about the possibility, nearly causing Feige's head to explode". So I think that should be used to clarify any confusion in the article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless we get clarification from Pascal or Sony then the consensus wording shouldn't change. We always new that this was considered separate by Marvel and was essentially being considered separate by Sony, but deep down the latter seems reluctant to fully cut ties and we can't say they have until they actually tell us that's the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe the opening credits on the new poster say "in association with Marvel and Tencent Pictures" which seemingly confirms it's not MCU since there's no Marvel Studios in it. - Cineplex (talk) 10:40PM, September 17, 2018

We have known that Marvel Studios was not involved this whole time. That is stated pretty clearly in the article and in past discussions here. This new poster does not change anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We already got clarification from Sony, Ruben Fleischer, and Matt Tolmach that Venom is standalone and it's own universe.

• http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/venom/news/a867731/venom-mcu-connections-marvel-ruben-fleischer-interview/
• https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/kevin-feige-marvel-studios-had-no-input-on-sonys-venom
• https://lrmonline.com/news/lrm-exclusive-venom-producer-on-whether-or-not-venoms-world-is-the-mcu/

Now, to adamstom97, thejoebro64, or whoever made this article over a year ago, may we please PLEASE drop the consensus and leave out any MCU connections for the sake of Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters? The movie is already in theatres, there's no MCU reference in there whatsoever, and it's gotten bad reviews. Do you think Kevin Feige would want this world of Venom to be a part of his universe considering that all 20 movies in said universe have received positive reviews? - Cineplex (talk) 7:33PM, October 5, 2018

Just because there's no references to the MCU doesn't mean it's entirely separate. As this Screen Rant article notes, Sony's hope is to retcon Venom as taking place in the same world as the MCU, and Fleischer has said that they are hoping Venom will interact with MCU characers. And I'm pretty sure it's not up to Feige to set a movie in a universe. JOEBRO64 23:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

ARE YOU NUTS? Kevin Feige created and owns Marvel Studios. So, of course it's up to him! - Cineplex (talk) 10:44PM, October 5, 2018

Feige is president of the studio, he doesn’t own it nor did he create it. Rusted AutoParts 03:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

Who's Donna Diego? Her name is "Homeless Woman Maria" acted by Melora Walters.

see the page of IMDB 42.200.236.43 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018

There should be an added sentence in the section about critic reviews under the “reviews” section, as well as the general info stating that “Although critic reviews for the film have been negative, the audience reviews as recorded by Rotten Tomatoes rank the film with an aggregate score of 88% on opening day.” 2001:5B0:2A22:13D8:55ED:8DFF:F790:9B7B (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't consider that type of poll to be a reliable source (here's an example why). Note that audience surveys like CinemaScore and PostTrak are okay, which is why they have been already included. 212.139.194.211 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

"Intended to be..."

@PeeJay2K3: This is the first film in Sony's MU. It just is. Whether that shared universe goes on to include any more feature films is irrelevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you can't call it a "shared universe" if it's not sharing the universe with any other films or characters. But be that as it may, I don't think it's unfair to say it's "intended to be" the first in this universe, as that recognises that there is an intention to make further films but also intimates that those future films are not yet in production (and may never be, based on the reaction to this dumpster fire). – PeeJay 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we say it "is the first film in Sony's planned Marvel Universe"?-TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree that any wording change is necessary, but that does seem like the best compromise for the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

East Malaysia

Should you mention that the filming also took place at Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia? Xyuehong (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the film's production notes, the "Malaysian village" was built on a dirt lot in Georgia.

https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/groove/2018/10/418084/malaysians-tizzy-over-sarawaks-starring-role-marvels-venom

Sorry to disappoint, but it was only set in Malaysia not filmed there. Interesting production information, maybe worth mentioning for other reasons. -- 109.77.203.86 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Budget?

Anyone got any source on the 100 Million budget? asking because I've not seen a source on that. -74.116.240.2 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a source in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo do not say where they get their budget figures from and sometimes they change them later too (see reports from FilmLA.com) but Variety also says the budget for Venom was $100 million.

We will probably find out more when any tax rebates for New York and Atlanta have to be declared. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Deadline says "the production cost was net $100M before P&A" and "it’s around $116M with Georgia tax credits".

The reason I'm even checking the source is the difficult to believe statement "We’re told that a $450M global take ultimately gets Venom to break-even during its theatrical release." I can only guess they have a whole lot of marketing and other costs, but $450 to break even, wow! -- 109.77.203.86 (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request Carnage

Please change "he is invited to interview incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady" to "he interviews incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady, who promises he will escape and there will be carnage". -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done as we don't just quote dialogue in a plot summary like that, and that would be a WP:EGG link anyway which is based on outside knowledge rather than the plot itself (read: WP:OR). - adamstom97 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the requirements for brevity the phrasing is sloppy in any case "he was invited to interview", instead of "he interviews". I wasn't suggesting that dialog be quoted directly but it is weird for the article to merely state that he interviews Kasady without saying anything about the substance of that interview, the point is Kasady makes a threat.

I disagree with the suggestion that WP:EGG even applies to a case of such an obvious link from the word "carnage" to the comics character Carnage. It is leading the reader but it isn't surprising them with an egg or using wildly unrelated link text, but with or without a wikilink, rephrasing would improve the sentence.

You make an interesting point about outside knowledge, but following that logic through you might need to deleting the mid-credits scene from the plot section entirely, since it is tangential to the plot and requires outside knowledge. (I note the into the Spider-Verse post credits scene has been deleted since I last looked at the article.) So maybe the mid-credits scene should be removed from the Plot section, after all Harrelson is already explained in the Cast section, but if it is going to stay then the phrasing could be improved. -- 109.77.203.86 (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no good reason to remove the scene entirely or to not say what actually happens in it. The rest of my points still stand. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not Foreign

Edit request: The article uses the phrase "Worldwide, it grossed $125.2 million from foreign territories" and needs to be changed as "foreign" is USA centric POV, which WP:MOSFILM already recommends against. The phrase can be replaced with "other territories" or "international territories". -- 109.79.191.81 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Venom has legs

Venom has legs! Beside the pun that Venom fans should understand, the article needs more information about the second weekend at the Box office holding up better than expected. -- 23:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.247.142 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

Venom is stated as a "Superhero film". This is not true as Superheros tend to protect the public whilst Venom is the 'arch-enemy' of Spiderman and should be correctly categorized as a Super Villain. Smakhija96thetruth (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the main character is, the genre is still the superhero genre. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

The film venom was Directed by Ruben Fleische and has grossed approximately 470 million dollars and has also set many box office records. Venom is a symbiote and is two of his weaknesses are fire and sound. Filming for this movie began on October 23, 2017 and wasn't promoted until 2018. The filming took place in Atlanta and New York City. The film was promoted by Hardy, and ahmed at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con. Venom is a fictional character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. He takes place in the sony universe and not the MCU though. The intentions for this movie was to set a new shared universe and all crossovers are now possible through spiderman into the spiderverse. The next film called Venom 2 will be released in october of 2020. 47.26.66.27 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYN

We do not have a reliable source stating that the film received "generally negative reviews" or that audiences were more favorable.

We have Metacritic's algorithm, without editorial oversight, applying the term "generally unfavorable reviews", which we appropriately quote directly with in-line attribution later on. The algorithm is not a reliable source. The shift from "unfavorable" to negative seems to indicate that rather than misquoting Metacritic it is inappropriately combining the multiple sources cited.

We do not have anything comparing audience reactions to critics reactions. We do have various polling services cited later, which someone seems to have decided were more positive than the critics' reviews. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the audience stuff, which is not noteworthy enough for the lead, the removal of a summary of the critical response section from the lead is completely inappropriate. The lead is a summary of the entire article and should weight everything according to article significance; critical responses are one of the most important parts of an article. If you take issue with specific wording then I am happy to discuss that here, but please stop outright deleting important content from the article in such a disruptive way. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we have a guideline that the lede should summarize the article. However, we have a policy that we do not synthesize. We do not have a statement from a reliable source which provides a statement of the critical consensus. I am sorry if you find it disruptive. Looking through the history of this and most current film articles, you will find conflicting "summaries" synthesized from various sources. However much you discuss it, it's synthesis. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it is not a fact (and also not an issue that I have ever come across before, in all my years working on film and TV articles). While I am not going to go into a detailed analysis of the line in dispute since I personally do not think it is as good as it should be, and also the current reception section is not all that great either, I will strongly contest any claim that the line "It received generally negative reviews from critics" is not supported by sources in the article. We have two distinct sources that say exactly that: the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sources are included precisely for this reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes does not say "generally negative reviews", "mostly negative reviews", "strongly polarized reviews" or anything else you might think it says. Metacrtic's algorithm assigned a phrase that it assigns to ALL films that calculate out to a certain score. There is absolutely no editorial oversight on that, thus the recommended language at Wikipedia:Review_aggregators#Use_in_articles. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• A bunch of different sources have called the film's reviews "negative":
  • https://www.gamespot.com/articles/venom-movie-reviews-roundup-what-do-the-critics-th/1100-6462234/: "a poor critical response"
  • https://bgr.com/2018/10/03/venom-review-roundup-movie-reviews/: "Unfortunately, it appears that without the direct involvement of Marvel Studios, Sony has once again failed to do an iconic Marvel character justice on the silver screen."
  • https://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/10/03/venom-review-spoiler-free-good-bad-tom-hardy/: "while there's been a lot of excitement for the Marvel Comics-inspired film, the reviews tend to skew a little negatively with the film apparently struggling to find a consistent tone with much of the film simply not working at all."
  • https://www.eonline.com/news/973482/venom-review-roundup-critics-tear-the-spider-man-spinoff-to-shreds: "Critics tear the Spider-Man spinoff to shreds"

And that's barely scratching the surface; you can find a lot more in Google. JOEBRO64 01:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we have some reliable sources in there. Pick one, add it with language that approaches what it says or quote it directly), cite it and we're done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Summer, this article is already in line with the link you provided to Wikipedia:Review aggregators, and already has a better solution than what you are proposing to Joe here. Why would we use the opinion of a single journalist of the article to give an overview of all online film critics when there are literally sources that tell us what they all said? And a source does not have to literally say the word "negative" for us to use it as a source for the word "negative", since we are not saying that the term is quoted from the source. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic both clearly say the film received generally negative reviews, and so that is what we say in the article. Anything more than that is getting into editors' personal opinions and interpretations. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus." The "summary" in the lede is being presented as the critical consensus. The sources cited above provide a range that is not reflected in that statement, from "Critics tear (it) to shreds" to the considerably milder "the reviews tend to skew a little negatively".

Should we " use the opinion of a single journalist of the article to give an overview of all online film critics when there are literally sources that tell us what they all said?" Yes, "because such sources are likely to be more authoritative and to provide descriptive prose.". Instead we've synthesized those into one statement. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not appropriate to use for a prose-based conclusion unless its critics consensus is that clear. Metacritic is appropriate because it has such a conclusion available to use. It's also appropriate to reference high-level sources about how critics received a film per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged." If sources seem to say different things, then they can be combined with in-text attribution. You can search for "critics"|"reviews" to ensure that results include the plural form (in Google, anyway). This is a pretty interesting source, for example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history closer, I also confirm that SummerPhDv2.0 is correct that the critics sentence in the lead section is 100% original research through synthesis. I'm a little surprised that Adam thinks this is okay? I hope this is not the same approach being taken elsewhere too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, I cannot speak for the specifics of the summary sentence (i.e. what someone has said are the things that are praised and criticised) because I have not even read the critical response section yet—I assume that it is all not in a great state. However, using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to decide whether a film has received generally positive or negative reviews is how all film articles that I have ever seen work. I'm not sure why everyong is trying to change that here, as this film is not special or different in any way. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article now it is even worse than I thought. Why have the audience polls been moved to the box office section? Why has a leading section based on random, opinionated journalists been added to the critical response section that will only ever reflect the opinions of the editors who have selected those sources? This is all kinds of bad, and is completely unnecessary since other film articles do not do these things and also do not have any problem here. I think these changes should be reverted straight away, and am interested to see what sort of reasoning people have for them. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Now we are synthesizing the statements "Critics tear (it) to shreds" and "the reviews tend to skew a little negatively" into "generally negative". Neither one of those statements says "generally negative" and the two conflict with each other. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not even close to WP:SYNTH. The only problem with the wording now is, as I stated above, that we are basing it off the random personal opinions of a couple of journalists which is a violation of WP:UNDUE. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we use what reliable sources with editorial oversight say "because such sources are likely to be more authoritative and to provide descriptive prose." The alternative seems to be rewording a blanket statement assigned by an algorithm without editorial oversight which runs headlong into the problem described by one of those reliable sources.[2]

Combining "Critics tear (it) to shreds" and "the reviews tend to skew a little negatively" and coming up with "generally negative" is, of course, WP:SYN. Neither source says anything remotely like "generally negative". But if we combine them, hold the paper at an angle so the light hits it just so and squint a little it kinda sorta says that new thing we created.

If both sources said critics tore it to shreds, no one would say "generally negative". If both sources said "skew a little negatively" no one would say "generally negative". It is a new statement "not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes obviously has editorial oversight, or do you think an algorithm writes the consensus statement as well? And that is not what SYNTH is about. No one is saying "Critics tear (it) to shreds" + "the reviews tend to skew a little negatively" = "generally negative", they are just reading those two articles and interpreting them in an encyclopaedic way. There is nothing wrong with that. Or do you think Wikipedia should only ever use direct quotes from its sources? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Reception: Critical Response

The intentional lack of audience review is highly disrespectful. If the box office income didnt prove it a simple search online will show that actual people loved this film. This striking contrast should be mentioned because of how drastically different and widespread this view is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8952:E600:9F8:9178:BF49:257A (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thbox office income does prove it, which is why it is thoroughly discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

103.82.8.20 (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Your "consensus" is clearly wrong and it's embarrassing

There is obviously no such thing as an "adjunct film". By this terrible logic some rando Chinese studio or fan filmmaker could just claim something is in continuity with the MCU if they felt like it. They have 'nothing from Marvel Studios which supports that they approve of this, at best they've ignored it at all fronts. It's nothing but Sony marketing spam and it's honestly embarasing to see it show up on a Wikipedia article like this. It's nothing but false marketing to misslead nonsense. But considering that there is a user here who does everything in their might to protect Sony's Marvel related articles I'm sure this will be pressed down like usual.★Trekker (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please at least try to appear WP:NEUTRAL. We are using the wording from Sony because they are making this film and they get to decide what it is, not you or Marvel Studios or anyone else. Since you obviously aren't paying enough attention to realise what you are actually trying to remove from the article, let me clarify for you: Sony considers this film to be adjunct to the "same world" that the MCU Spider-Man films are set in. Sony owns those films, and wants them to crossover with their new universe at some point. It is not up to people like you to say that they cannot. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe try to act neutral yourself. You know, take your own advice? You're clearly trying to protect Sony content on this site that should not be. I knew you would be the one to respond to this. "Sony owns those films, and wants them to crossover with their new universe at some point.", but they havn't, and they might very well not, so pointless "point".★Trekker (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am being completely objective and looking at the facts: Sony made this film, Sony made Homecoming, and Sony says this film and Homecoming share the same world and are adjunct to one another; we say that in the article. It's not that complicated. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You know what, sorry, I should not overreact like this. I do not agree on this but I will leave it be and not be a bother on this subject here. I'm sorry if I was rude or uncivil, that's not ok.★Trekker (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot Summary

The page's plot summary section states that the fatal experiments Eddie Brock read about in Anne's email were the ones involving the symbiotes, but that is not the case. The Life Foundation only acquired the symbiotes after the interview that got Eddie fired took place, and only started human trials after the six month timeskip. 142.231.89.51 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead changes

@Erik: in response to this edit: Hardy does not portray the Marvel Comics character that this film is based on, he plays a character based on a Marvel Comics character. It also does not make sense to list him twice in the same paragraph, and to not acknowledge the name of one of the characters he plays in the film. For the third paragraph, including Rotten Tomatoes in the lead gives too much weight to that website and their editorial consensus, when we should be noting what the critics actually said. The lead needs to summarise the article as it is, which means giving a proper summary of the critical response section and also having some summary of the audience response section (which is in fact in the article, despite what you said in one of your edit summaries). From what you have said so far, your issue is believing that the reception summary does not reflect the article's body accurately, so could you productively suggest a summary that better reflects the body rather than deleting the whole thing? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate lede and a so-called consensus

No consensus exists for the claim the MCU is "adjunct" or connected to the MCU - this was a decision between two people. Per the tag given, this claim can and should be removed when confirmation has been given, which Amy Pascal helpfully provided in June 2017, when she said she had been misunderstood and confirmed the two series are "separate, independent" franchises. Of course, Sony does not get to decide what is in the MCU - Marvel Studios does, and it is not in the MCU according to them. Re-adding this claim it is "adjunct" is not only factually inaccurate, it's literally been contradicted by the person who made that claim initially (Pascal). Barring any other developments, there is literally no reason to claim a connection to the MCU here and it is disruptive to continue re-adding the debunked claim. I have at least a dozen sources I can pull right now that say it isn't, and most importantly the people who run the series say it isn't. Toa Nidhiki05 22:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This is really stupid argument. If Holland teams up with venom in a future film, which seems likely, then yes it will by actuality be adjunct. Spanneraol (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it won’t. The only people who decide what is in the MCU are the people that run it. Sony has no control over it and more importantly people like Pascal have confirmed it is a separate, distinct universe. Toa Nidhiki05 17:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the adjunct wording now that the Marvel deal has proven to be short-lived. I have replaced it with an explanation of Homecoming being part of the MCU now that future Spider-Man films will join the SMU which could make the claim that Venom is the earliest film confusing for casual readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Venom (2018 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am willing to review the article. Right now, it seems to me that the article does meet the good article criteria, but I will not be passing the article immediately or rubber-stamping it. It's appropriate to leave some time for discussion first. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

1. The first good article criterion is that an article be well-written. I think the article meets this criterion. I can think of only minor criticisms.

In the sentence reading, "Pinkner and Rosenberg were told that Spider-Man could not be in Venom before they made their initial pitch for the film, and took the approach of trying to stay faithful to the spirit of the comics even if certain elements had to be changed such as having Brock cross a moral line in his journalism which the character does in his comic book origin story", I would have added a comma after "changed".

I think the sentence reading, "Fleischer wanted Venom to stand out compared to other comic book-based films, and felt tonally that it would not remind viewers of the lighter MCU or the somber DC Extended Universe", would make better sense if "tonally" and "that" switched places.

I think the sentence reading, "The opening of the film went through several iterations, but Fleischer always wanted it to "start with a bang" which led to a spaceship crash in the opening scene", would benefit from a comma after ' start with a bang '.

Like a number of other sentences in the article, the sentence reading, " Due to the differences in the character's facial design from comic-to-comic, and even panel-to-panel, the designers 'distilled the essential elements' into a design that could be photorealistic " employs a somewhat informal style of English. This isn't a problem, per se. However, although there could be legitimate differences of opinion about how a sentence of that kind should be written, my view is that it would read slightly better if "from" were removed from before "comic-to-comic." The "comic-to-comic" part stands by itself and surely doesn't need "from" to make its meaning clearer.

The grammar of the sentence stating, " A teaser for the film was released in February 2018, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming' " doesn't seem correct. It could be corrected by rewriting the sentence somewhat, for example as, " A teaser for the film, which Dani Di Placido of Forbes called 'comically underwhelming', was released in February 2018. "

One sentence starts, "He was particularly positive of the film's differences from other Marvel films..." Would "about" make better sense than "of"?

One sentence starts, "Rozsa was especially positive that the film did not take itself too seriously..." I might have written that instead as "Rozsa especially liked that the film did not take itself too seriously..." Readers will presumably understand what "especially positive" is intended to mean, but the term is potentially ambiguous - it could be used to express certainty that something is the case rather than approval of it.

"Gardner soon noticed fan art depicting Brock and Venom as a couple appearing across social media sites, and acknowledged that there were several moments throughout the film that implied such a relationship such as Venom deciding to turn against his species because of his time spent with Brock and deciding to French kiss Brock when it is transferring from Weying's body to Brock's" - this is another case where added punctuation would help (another comma after "such a relationship").

Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

2. The second criterion is that an article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing no "copyright violations nor plagiarism." I don't think there is any obvious copyright violation or plagiarism. However, this sort of thing isn't always obvious. Potentially there might be something that isn't apparent to me. I understand that articles like this have been subject to disputes over alleged copyright violation and plagiarism. If there is a problem like that here, then I would think that this would probably be the only real reason for not passing the article. So you are going to have to give me your own assessment of the issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

3. The third criterion is that an article be "Broad in its coverage". The article meets this criterion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

4. The fourth criterion is that an article be neutral. The article is neutral.

5. The fifth criterion is that an article be stable. Looking at the article's history, it doesn't seem perfectly or absolutely stable - there has been some edit warring and conflict between editors. Of course the article is about a comic book movie, which makes of it interest to a significant number of people. It thus isn't surprising that there has been some conflict and disagreement. The level of conflict that has occurred does not seem serious enough for the article to be failed, however (unless it gets significantly worse during the course of the review...).

I'll address the remaining article criterion soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 is apparently busy and unable to respond immediately. I can put the review on hold if necessary. Other editors are free to comment if they wish. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Freeknowledge, apologies for the delayed response. I appreciate you picking up this review, and I have addressed your points for the first criterion in the article. I have re-written much of this article several times previously and really worked to avoid quotes where possible, so I am comfortable with where it is sitting regarding the copyright issue, but of course am happy to address any specific areas if another used was concerned. I also agree that the level of instability here is not really serious enough to impact this review (this is definitely one of the least active film articles that I keep an eye on). Let me know if there is anything else that you would like me to address. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with everything you've done here. More soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

6. The sixth criterion is that an article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". This criterion is met. There doesn't appear to be a copyright problem with any of the images. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I intend to pass the article unless there is a copyright problem standing in the way of that. I'll spend some time checking things and then (almost certainly) will pass the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Passed article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbrock

Why is this mentioned in the article? This is all just speculation from unreliable blog forums and not any sort of notable story that needs to be mentioned on the page. Aardwolf68 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not speculation, it is clearly noteworthy as presented in the article--we have reliable sources discussing the facts along with commentary showing its impact on the studio and actual marketing. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Mary Sue and Tumblr are reliable sources? Since when? This entire section is based off of fans overreacting to a secene where Brock kisses his girlfriend to transfer Venom. And the only time that it ever played key into marketing was AFTER the original release when it was released for DVD and Blu-Ray. This isn't the place for fan theories unless they've become notable enough- this isn't notable, period. Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes they are reliable, for this content. It's not like we are using Tumblr as the source for a major casting scoop or something. And impacting the marketing after the film's initial release is still impacting the marketing. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

How at all is this relevant to the article in general? This is just fan speculation that turned into a marketing scheme, nothing notable at all. Supporting fan theories isn't what Wikipedia's about. It's about accuracy and giving readers necessary information. This is anything but. Aardwolf68 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've already explained how it is relevant and fits in with Wikipedia's guidelines. Your emphasis on the term "speculation" suggests that you just WP:DONTLIKEIT rather than having a good encyclopaedic-based reason for wanting it removed. The data from Tumblr combined with the reliable coverage combined with the impact on the studio's marketing efforts is clearly enough to keep it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Marvel vs. Marvel Entertainment

@Adamstom.97: I realize that the credits read "in association with Marvel" but there is no reason that we cannot be more specific than that. We are not beholden to use the same exact wording as the primary source. Without following the link, a reader easily may assume that Marvel = Marvel Studios, which can cause confusion. I think WP:Readers first applies here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to do that in most places, which is why Marvel Entertainment is used elsewhere, but sticking to the credits for the opening sentence helps limit the number of production companies mentioned (it is already bad enough that we have the unnecessary full listing in the infobox). We also explain that the film is not connected to the MCU in the second paragraph, and the average reader will likely assume that Marvel Entertainment = Marvel Studios so I don't think we gain much in that area. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The explosion of the probe?

Have you known that after Venom damages the probe, the damage causes the probe to spill the fuel and oxidizer onto the burning, but still hot, engines, thus rupturing the engines and fuel tanks of the probe, destroying it and killing both Riot and Drake in the process? It didn't "explode", the fuel and oxidiser were leaking from Venom's sabotage of the probe's launch, until it contacted the burning engines, causing it to ignite the fuel in the fuel tanks, the engines to rupture,, killing Riot and Drake, and destroying the probe in the process. Jostcom2 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILMPLOT, "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." This is obviously detail that should not be in the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced reception information from lead

I recently removed unsourced content about the film's reception from the lead and replaced it with the critical consensus summary from Rotten Tomatoes [3]. The content in the lead should not be based on individual reviews that are synthesized together by editors here to determine what is the general reflection of the critical reception, as that is a form of original research. The manual of style at WP:FILMLEAD was also recently updated to address this situation: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews." This added language was the result of a discussion that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 20#Reception details in lead. Further, the content I removed was mostly not even supported by individual reviews the article's main reception section, and some of it is even contradicted by the reviews there, such as the statements about Hardy's performance in the film. I replaced the unsourced content with the Rotten Tomatoes summary for now as that reflects the critical consensus as determined by a reliable source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO version of the article without the RT summary in the lead. As I further stated, this version has a summary in the lead of what the reviews included in article thought about the film, which may be more than what the RT consensus blurb states. I will acknowledge that some editors come by and add to these statements, so it is possible what I've restored to has veered from what is stated in article. But I would support working towards getting back to the wording that matches what's in article over using the RT quoted consensus in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, the reviews in the article do not support the content you restored (and even contradict some of it), and all content needs to be sourced and should not be restored without sourcing per the policy WP:BURDEN. However, the content in the lead should also not be the WP:SYNTH of individual reviews from the article as you suggest, as discussed in the MOS as well as the discussion I linked to above. If no reliable sources describe the critical consensus, then we as editors should not be picking and choosing which individual reviews we consider to represent that consensus. Maybe we could reword the Rotten Tomatoes consensus to avoid the attribution and quote in the lead, such as "It received generally negative reviews from critics, especially for not having a stronger connection to Spider-Man"? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert you are edit warring and need to stop. Your bold change has been reverted by two different editors with clear explanations for why your change is incorrect. The lead is a summary of the body and needs to apply due weight to the content in the rest of the article. That means summarising all of the reviews in the reception, not just Rotten Tomatoes. I remember this issue being raised once before on another film article and this was the consensus there as well. Your insistence that this is a violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:V suggests that you don't actually know what those say. Rotten Tomatoes is a useful source, and their consensus is good info for our readers, but to say that it is an accurate summary of the entire reception section of this article is blatantly incorrect. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, you repeatedly restored unsourced material that was not supported by the article body and was even contradicted by it, contrary to the policy WP:BURDEN. Please review the MOS discussion I linked above because inserting a summary of the critical consensus based on a personal synthesis of individual reviews is original research (see WP:SYNTH), which is discussed at length in that discussion that led to the additional language. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't unsourced, and the fact that two experienced editors told you that and you chose to violate WP:3RR anyway is concerning. I have reviewed the discussion and MOS update that you linked to and it doesn't support your actions here I'm afraid. They do not prohibit summaries of the reception section in the lead and they do not insist that Rotten Tomatoes be used instead, and in fact they don't even talk about the reception section matching the reception summary so a few different ideas are being conflated here. What that discussion and wording update are actually about are instances where the summary of the reception in the lead does not match the actual reception to the film, which could only be determined by going over all available reviews and review summaries of the film. You have provided no actual evidence of doing this, so using that discussion as justification for your edits when you merely believe that they might apply is misleading. A separate issue is whether the summary in the lead matches the info in the reception section, which it must do. You have provided no details on why you think that this is not the case with this article, and your solution was to completely remove the whole summary which means the lead is no longer an accurate summary of the article with due weight for each section. It sounds like you want to have a discussion about whether the summary in the lead is an accurate summary of the section, plus whether it is accurate to the film's actual reception, and it is fine if you want to do that. But in the mean time you don't get to enforce your preferred version of the article through edit warring. I strongly suggest you restore the article to the status quo and then provide details of your actual concerns here. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adamstom.97, have you actually gone through the article content and compared it to the content you were restoring to the lead? If so, could you please explain what sources supported it? Because I'm not seeing how it was sourced or supported by the content in the article body: the "pacing" is not mentioned in the article, the script itself is only mentioned by one review, the tone is only mentioned by one review (despite two other sources being described as criticizing the "tone" even though that is not mentioned by those actual sources), and the content about "Hardy's performance received some praise" is contradicted by the fact that half of the individual reviews in the article criticized the performance. If you are adding content into the lead that is based on one or two individual critical reviews, then that content should probably be attributed to the source it was from. However, taking an individual review and then claiming in the lead that it represents a consensus of critical reviews is the exact type of WP:SYNTH concern that the MOS discussion was about, which is why the discussion resulted in this language being added to the MOS: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews" (emphasis added). If multiple reviews included in the article's body discussed the same aspects of the film, then there could be an argument that adding it to the lead is appropriate for its weight in the body, but that is not the case with the terms that were in this article, which is why I have suggested two alternative wordings for the lead. If you cannot explain what sources supported the content, maybe you could also suggest alternative wording that would address those concerns about the content? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Reading the actual Critical response section, the generally negative reviews from critics for its script, tone, pacing are clearly there, the lack of connection to Spider-Man is only present in the Rotten Tomatoes critic consensus, not in any specific review cited, but perhaps that's enough. The Hardy's performance received some praise is a bit more difficult, because many critized it with the rest and many others noted it as entertaining at least. The word some does imply that the praise was mixed though, so it might be fine. —El Millo (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, the MOS says that the reception in the lead should reflect what is "widely support in published reviews", while the script, tone, and pacing are not discussed outside of more than one or two individual reviews cited in the article body. Even for the tone, while the article body claims it is mentioned by three sources, only one of those sources actually discusses the tone. Presenting the conclusions of one or two sources as a consensus of the critical reception in the lead would be original research. What would make those aspects any more noteworthy for the lead than other terms used by a few individual sources? Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source that is directly commenting on the critical consensus, and so I did not see an issue with including that content in the lead in some way. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am a significant contributor to this article and am probably responsible for the reception section and the summary of it in the lead, though I haven't reviewed it in a while. I am happy for us to do that here, I just don't think the state you have left the article in (or the way that you got it there) is appropriate. The burden is also on you to support why your change is necessary, not on me to justify why this good article that has been stable for a long time needs to stay the same. Without having time to review the article properly right now, I will say that Facu-el Millo's assessment is probably close to what my thoughts will be. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The cited reviews in the section are –hopefully and most likely given that this is a GA-status article– representative of the critical reception of the film as a whole –otherwise the section should be reworked–, so making a summary in the lead out of the reviews cited in the section is correct. Now, let's see where and how much each of these qualifiers appear in the section:

Negative

• Variety review: criticized under; felt the film spent too long on Venom's origin story — Hardy bad, pace bad, script bad
• Boston Globe review: Hardy ... whose performances he all criticized; unfocused direction; dingiest cinematography — Hardy bad, direction bad, cinematography bad
• Toronto Sun review: critized the film's tone; compared it to a rejected superhero film treatment from the 1990s — tone bad, script bad
• Seattle Times review: close to an hour of tedium; Hardy usually excellent (but not this time) — pace bad, script bad, Hardy bad
• Toronto Star review: an unwatchable disaster if not for Hardy's performance; inconsistent tone; bog-level computer effects and washed-out colours — Hardy good, tone bad, VFX bad, cinematography bad

Mixed-to-positive

• Associated Press review: incosistent mess of tones, acting styles and visual effects; not sure if Hardy's performance adds up to anything in Venom. But it's something to behold — tone bad, VFX bad, Hardy mixed
• Vulture review: Hardy was the only reason to watch the film; direction was competent and unmemorable — Hardy good, direction mixed
• Salon review: sloppy and formulaic script; Hardy's performance wicked fun; liked that the film did not take itself too seriously — script bad, Hardy good, tone good
• Time review: design of the symbiotes kind of neat to look at; Hardy's performance as fun to watch — VFX good, Hardy good

So here we have:

• Hardy's performance: 4 good, 3 bad, 1 mixed
• Script: 4 bad
• Tone: 3 bad, 1 good
• Pace: 2 bad
• Direction: 1 bad, 1 mixed
• Cinematography: 2 bad
• VFX: 2 bad, 1 good

Let it be clear that this is just based on the excerpts included in the section, not on the whole reviews, and that, being a film with a 30% in Rotten Tomatoes, negative reviews carry more weight that mixed-to-positive ones. —El Millo (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a very broad use of those terms, which are not actually used in almost any of those sources. For example, why does "the film spent too long on Venom's origin story" or "close to an hour of tedium" mean the "script" is bad, as opposed to the "direction", or "pacing", or a dull tone, or the lack of action, or poor acting, or some other issue? Also, neither the Toronto Star nor the Associated Press sources actually discuss the film's tone in their source articles, and that content in the reception section should probably be revised. Even with those numbers, given there are 11 sources and 9 reviews in the critical reception section alone, those terms would still only represent a small percent of the reviews, rather than the consensus of why the film received generally negative reviews from critics (and not including the other 46 reviews on Metacritic and 345 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes). Including some mention of Hardy's performance may make sense since it is discussed in most of the sources, but the other terms seem too vague and loosely applied to be meaningful at all in the lead without being misleading or SYNTH. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to summarise the reviews that are in the article, so if you think there is info missing then you should suggest new ones to add (though I would point out that numerous experienced editors, a GA review, and readers across several years have not had an issue with the current examples, which I feel are an accurate representation of what is available). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, there is no requirement to summarize reviews in the lead, and certainly not to make a list of vague terms that are not used in the sources. The MOS does recommend that the lead include information such as the reception "by critics and audiences", but it also says that any details in the lead should be "widely supported" in published reviews, as opposed to only one or two individuals reviews. The lead also did not include "tone" or "pacing" when it was made a Good Article in November 2019 (by a sockpuppet account that has been banned). I have made several suggestions for the wording in the lead. It would be helpful if your comments could also address the actual content under discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've found several "review roundup" articles. Let's see what kind of summaries they make:

• "Venom" has released to mixed reactions, many of which have been highly critical of the film despite a strong performance from Tom Hardy. Although scenes involving Hardy’s banter with the alien symbiote Venom did garner some praise from reviewers, the character wasn’t enough to save the rest of the film from the boring monotony that sometimes afflicts superhero films.
• And critics say "Venom" is a mess, and it currently has a 27% score on Rotten Tomatoes. But even the most scathing reviews of the movie indicated that it is still a good time, because it is so awesomely bad that you can't help but enjoy yourself. Hardy, Williams, and Ahmed do what they can with a clunky, boring plot, but the film doesn't seem to know what its own tone is. The movie is, essentially, exactly what you'd expect after seeing the hilarious trailer.
• Turns out actual journalists don't love this weird story about a journalist. Across the board, reviews for director Ruben Fleischer's Venom are ranging from mixed to vicious. ... Critics agree Tom Hardy committed big time to his parasitic role. However, they also contend that the film's uneven tone and laughably thin story kept it from achieving full potency.
• the film has been described as “poisonously dull”, and “an example of what not to do” when making a superhero movie.

I also found some from The Hollywood Reporter and E!. Neither of them have a summary of all the reviews, but we could use the reviews contained in all of them to see how often these script, pacing, tone, and performances assessments pop up. —El Millo (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, thanks for finding those sources. I think that rather than trying to force in the same vague terms that are not used in the sources, it would be more beneficial to include these sources in the article and then create a summary of the critical consensus based on them that could be added to the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary, but I don't have the time or energy to deal with this anymore so I have gone ahead and added content from these summaries to the article and updated the lead. Let me know if you are still unsatisfied. Thanks for all your help Facu-el Millo. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think having content properly sourced is unnecessary, but I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. I made a few copyedits to the material you added [4]. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

References