Talk:Venom: Let There Be Carnage

There was a fan screening yesterday, should we add this? AxGRvS (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 15:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This film did not come out in September in the U.K. as suggested here, it instead has a 15th October release date. My source is literally every cinema in the country including the one I work in. 84.64.88.210 (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need an actual reliable source, personal experience isn't usable. —El Millo (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article only states the London fan screening, not the actual UK premiere. —

talk) 23:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Having just seen the movie, the currently provided plot summary (9/30/2021) is wildly inaccurate, and apparently based entirely on conjecture after viewing the trailers. Someone should definitely edit it ASAP to describe the actual film. Butteredtoastman (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LizardKing007: introduced the plot summary with this edit. Is this true, LizardKing007? —El Millo (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just got back from the movie. The movie’s summary is inaccurate in parts- Shriek is kept at the Ravencroft institute and Carnage breaks out of San Quentin prison- they only meet up after he breaks out of prison. Mulligan is kidnapped by Carnage and is present for the final battle between Venom and Carnage. Shriek is also killed by a falling church bell at the film’s climax. There are several other inaccurate portions of the summary. 2600:8805:5C02:9700:D413:4C2F:82E:2D49 (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the character Mulligan isn't connected to his comic counterpart's page. 2600:8800:170C:EF00:51F3:F840:9F5C:ABEA (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Changing grammar of "facility, that is hardened against" to "facility that is hardened against."

Changing "Brock is contacted by his ex-fiancée Anne Weying, who tells him that she is now engaged to Dr. Dan Lewis, and leaves the prison in frustration." to "On patrol for criminal activity, Eddie and Venom begin to argue before Eddie is contacted by his ex-fiancée Anne Weying, who wishes to meet with him in person, later meeting with him at dinner to tell Eddie that she is now engaged to Dr. Dan Lewis. Eddie, along with Venom, leave the restaurant in frustration."

Changing grammar of "breaks Brock out the police station" to "breaks Brock out of the police station."

Changing spelling of "wherabouts" to "whereabouts."

Changing "Barrison apparently kills Mulligan with her sonic powers" to "Barrison apparently kills Mulligan by pushing him off a construction platform while he's wrapped in a chain."

Changing spelling of "stepts" to "steps." Espiownage (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are trying to correct small grammar mistakes, but please provide us with the addresses of the lines. It's really hard for us to find a line from such a big article. (I'm not closing the request btw, anyone knows where the lines are, please fix it) WikiSilky (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's the easy-to-use Google Chrome find tool with either Ctrl+F or F3. —El Millo (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit this page in order to list the positive reception the film got. 72.138.171.142 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reception was mixed, not positive. —El Millo (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna happen, you gotta tell us the edit or don't do anything, and when you are doing so, provide a reference. WikiSilky (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted line, or some variation of it, has repeatedly been added to the sentence in the lede about the film receiving mixed reviews from critics. In order to include such a claim, that claim must be present in the body of the article, or cited in the lede to a reliable source. Additionally, in the latter case, the cited source must state that critics broadly/generally agree that the film was better; a previously provided source called it "bigger and weirder", which is not the same thing. Also, it is not sufficient to make this claim just based upon a number provided reviews, which would be a textbook example of

That line is still there, although rephrased as "generally considered an improvement". It is a terribly vague description, "better" in what way exactly? It also depends on the fact that critics did not like the first film very much to begin with. Even some of the critics reviewing the film positive called it "dumb" "junk" amongst other pejoratives, and several expressed relief that the brevity of the film.

That line makes for a misleading summary and it would be better if someone could replace it with something more specific. -- 109.79.161.174 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement "generally considered an improvement" is blatantly false and should be removed. Even the Wiki page itself clearly contradicts it in its "Critical response" section, where hardly anyone says its a noteworthy improvement, but rather that it's worse. Gasparl (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from the movie. Curious thing: no actual mention of Tencent Pictures anywhere in the credits. They weren't in the opening crawl like the first one, and I didn't see any mention of them in the second (the copyright that had them in the first one omits them in the second as well). Do we know for sure if it's actually a co-production with them? Because I can't seem to find any serious official sources confirming it 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.119.106 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the plot, it says "the body of victims" instead of "the bodies of victims". In fact, it would be even better if it said "the bodies of his victims" as it is more specific and informative, and less confusing. 122.167.101.213 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —El Millo (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the plot section includes a note which states Brock and Venom have been transported to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), which according to TheJoebro64 has apparently been present for "several weeks". The note cites this interview from THR with Kevin Feige, but Feige himself made no statement confirming that Venom and Brock were transported to the MCU. The quote In the final moments of Let There Be Carnage, Eddie Brock/Venom (Tom Hardy) find themselves transported to the Marvel Cinematic Universe was not from Feige but context written by THR. Therefore, while commentary from critics who believe this can be included in the Reception section, this information should NOT be noted in the Plot section until it has been fully confirmed by Sony/Marvel, similar to the Tobey/Andrew/Dunst/Dafoe/Church/Ifans/Cox situation on No Way Home. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what the issue here is. THR is reporting that the scene places Venom in the MCU, and Feige confirms there was coordination between Marvel Studios and Sony as to how to handle it. He doesn't contradict what THR reports, and it's not opinionated commentary either—they're stating quite clearly the scene brings Venom to the MCU.

This also isn't like No Way Home at all. The actors, directors, and producers have actively denied that those actors are appearing, which isn't the case here. Feige could've denied the scene was bringing Venom to the MCU, but he didn't. In fact, he suggested quite the contrary. JOEBRO64 17:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is, Feige never explicitly confirmed that they were transported to the MCU. He merely responded with There was a lot of coordination ... between Sony and Marvel, while neither confirming nor denying the interviewer's statement. Treating this as confirmation sounds like

WP:OR to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

See what you can do with this: https://screenrant.com/venom-2-cgi-motion-capture-symbiote-why/ Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please put home Media release. Because Digital platforms came out of November 23, 2021 and on BluRay, DVD and 4K Ultra HD in December 14, 2021. 120.29.68.10 (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the user Adamstom97 (talk), you keep editing the "Future" section of this film as if there are actually talks of more MCU crossovers when there's no such talks.

While Tom Hardy wants to explore the multiverse in further sequels, he does not mention that he and the producers want more MCU crossovers after No Way Home. He quotes: Yeah, it's really hard because for me and the guys in the Venom-verse, we came together under Sony and that's who we work for, that's who we run with, that's our team, you know? And obviously we just look at it as creatives and say, "Look at all of these things we could play with." But we really have to establish ourselves as somebody that maybe they want to play with. Maybe somebody that belongs in that world first. And do you like what we represent as Venom? Is this established? Once it's established, we then have to continue our Venom-verse. But at the same time, we will always looking to campaign to play with that with all the brothers and sisters who are out there, do you know what I mean? Whether we can connect the dots, that's up to the constellations, and that's above my pay grade, but we would be remiss not to think about that when we're working on the material.

Also, Tom Holland didn't talk with Amy Pascal about appearing in further Venom sequels after No Way Home. He was pitching to her about what could happen to his Spider-Man after the infamous brief split between Sony and Marvel. He quotes: On the day that the announcement happened that I would no longer be in the MCU... I just drove over to Amy Pascal's house and sat with her by her pool, and we sat there for hours, just chatting, and pitching movies. How would we do a film without Marvel? Does Peter Parker fall through a portal, and then he's in the Venom world? Or do we do a Kraven the Hunter film? It was a nice distraction... because as a young kid I was so in love with Marvel, and I was so lucky to be a part of it that when they took the rug from under my feet, I was not ready to say goodbye yet.

Please let me keep my changes to this section. - Cody Fearless-Lee ✉ / 1:05AM / February 14, 2022

Those two quotes support the statements you are trying to remove, and you have not explained why you want to remove the see also section. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot all about the “See also” section. The truth is that ‘’Venom: Let There Be Carnage’’ is not an MCU film. Sure, they were briefly transported to the MCU during the events of ’’No Way Home’’, but that doesn’t automatically make it an MCU film. It’s still a SSU film. So, the whole List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films should not be in this article. - Cody Fearless-Lee ✉ / 1:50AM / February 14, 2022 Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link is there because this is not an MCU film. If it was an MCU film then the article would say that, but it isn't so that article is not linked to higher up. But it is still a relevant article since this film crosses over with those films and that article has a whole section about it, so it is included as a "see also" link for further reading. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]