Talk:Venom: The Last Dance

Toxin?

I've heard conflicting reports on whether or not Toxin is in the movie. Is he in the movie or is the "Green Toxin" a different symbiote? HiGuys69420 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So in some promotional trailers for the film, when the green symbiote that is attached to Mulligan speaks, the subtitles attached to those trailers identify the symbiote as Toxin. However, there's important context missing. Studios outsource their trailers to specialized creative marketing teams, which often operate without input from the main filmmakers. These teams receive selected scenes, clips, and soundbites to craft a trailer, frequently without the full context only available in the final film. This likely led the trailer team to assume that Mulligan’s green symbiote was Toxin, drawing on the character’s comic history where Toxin is often linked with Mulligan. While what I just noted may be difficult to cite within the article, the film itself can be used to verify that Mulligan was previously bonded with a different symbiote not shown in the film. This is because, in the brief scene where Mulligan is first brought in to the facility, a line of exposition explicitly states that Mulligan was found left for dead by his original symbiote. That unseen symbiote is presumed to be Toxin. Furthermore, the actor Stephen Graham is only credited as his character Patrick Mulligan in the film with no mention of Toxin. UnqstnableTruth (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"Toxin" isn't mentioned a single time in the entire movie, the symbiote's appearance does not resemble Toxin in the slightest so as of now it is just an unnamed green symbiote Kala7992 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I Do Have Serious Concerns About The Honesty Concerning The Stories Which Keep Claiming Films Need To Make Almost Four Times Their Production Budget In To Make A Profit Are Accurate

I just don't see advertising expenses as that high. I feel it is like Anchorman 2 sponsorship led news stories, which Minneapolis reporter Don Shelby acknowledged had truth to it.[1] Shelby also wasn't the only source who backed the way the film portrayed sponsorship influence over news stories either.[2][3][4] This time, and from a neutral point of view, I feel there is the possibility that companies focused on building their movie theater-rivaling streaming could be the sponsors of such stories.Speakfor23 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, isn't this a long title? I'm so far looking at a bunch of original research about sponsorship influence, and reads frankly almost like a fringe theory about movie theatre owners being chopped by streamers who want the idea that theatrical... films are.. uh, not commercially viable? Huh? Hey, Wikipedia isn't the place for these strange fringe theories. BarntToust 12:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not a NPOV claim. There was certainly not "original research" in how the news articles responded to Anchorman 2's portrayal of news sponsors.Speakfor23 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I Have Additional Concerns About How The Deadline Hollywood Article Hyped "Audience Weariness" Of Superhero Films

Deadpool & Wolverine was recently an exception to this, as it made over $1.3 billion worldwide.[5]Speakfor23 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Will this movie have a box office failure?

I mean, will it? Lenny7092 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)