Kraven The Hunter

[Big s]

21 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Wow.  You say he was a B-list villain, but surely with an outfit like that he was surely the kingpin of sartorial crime.  I assume he wasn't always quite this... killy?

This fellow is wearing a green fur-lined vest, leopard print tights, a tiger-print belt with fangs or claws on it, tiger-print arm warmers, green leopard-print exercise bands, and what appear to be either khaki pointe shoes or slipons.  Put about a pound of concealer and eyeshadow on him and he's ready for RuPaul's Drag Race.

I'd call the movie version a substantial glowup.  The movie version of that costume looks like it was nicked from the set of Kevin Sorbo's Hercules: the Legendary Journeys, rather than looking like someone mugged Roy Horn at an Elton John-themed Halloween party.

Yeah, he was definitely one of those oddball characters. He just never really seemed like anything more than a hassle and seemed to be more of a get in the way kind of villain rather than anything. Kinda like a speed bump to the stories going on.

[CoryHolmes]

I'm still in awe that someone decided KRAVEN would make for a good movie story...  Like, huh? 

[Big s]

3 hours ago, CoryHolmes said:

I'm still in awe that someone decided KRAVEN would make for a good movie story...  Like, huh? 

Seems like they changed the character so much that they may as well have just done a completely different project altogether. 
I know Scorpion does mostly basic crimes, but even he’s a more interesting character to do a movie with. They could’ve made a weird heist film with him at least. Heaven is such a low level character that his interest is gone without Spider Man’s involvement

Then again, most of these Sony movies are strange choices. Venom being the best of the bunch, then you got Morbius, Madam Web and now Kraven. I guess they’re just super desperate and maybe everyone else belongs to Disney these days or something 

[electric indigo]

Can we fix the lighting that makes every movie look like a videogame cutscene, please?

Otherwise, great choice of music and nice pacing in that trailer – I may not need to watch more of the movie.

[Seto Kaiba]

11 hours ago, CoryHolmes said:

I'm still in awe that someone decided KRAVEN would make for a good movie story...  Like, huh? 

I've never been a fan of American comic books, but looking at film industry-wide trends it looks to me like comic book movies and streaming originals have exhausted a lot of the novelty of the recognizable flagship comic properties and the law of diminishing returns has kicked in.  The studios are branching out in the hopes of finding something fresh that can keep the money coming in, because audience fatigue is a thing and they (and every other corporation) made unrealistic promises of unlimited growth to their shareholders.

 

3 hours ago, electric indigo said:

Can we fix the lighting that makes every movie look like a videogame cutscene, please?

Otherwise, great choice of music and nice pacing in that trailer – I may not need to watch more of the movie.

That's how they hide the really bad CG and cheap set design in IMAX... make it too dark to see a ****ing thing.

[Jeff J]

12 hours ago, CoryHolmes said:

I'm still in awe that someone decided KRAVEN would make for a good movie story...  Like, huh? 

Sony seems convinced that anyone connected to Spider-man can be thrust into a movie lead. Maybe he was in the hat along with Hammerhead and Tombstone but happened to to get picked due to luck of the draw.

There's also that issue about maintaining/retaining the Spidey license, so maybe this is a means to the end of hanging onto Spider-man indefinitely.

I'm generally of the opinion that the rogues galleries aren't that interesting outside of the context of their respective heroes. Still haven't watched Joker or either Venom movie. But that's not necessarily the problem with Sony's movies. It's just they're just not great movies.

Edited August 15 by Jeff J

[Big s]

30 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

because audience fatigue is a thing

I don’t think audience fatigue was the problem. Deadpool just brought in over a billion dollars so far in just a couple weeks. That’s pretty hardcore for an R rated comic film. The thing people are fatigued with is the crap movies that have been released. Things like Eternals, Madam Web and the Flash were mostly just bad movies. If they just made good films the people tend to still show up

[Seto Kaiba]

18 minutes ago, Big s said:

I don’t think audience fatigue was the problem. Deadpool just brought in over a billion dollars so far in just a couple weeks. That’s pretty hardcore for an R rated comic film.

In all honesty, I don't think Deadpool in any way disproves that the superhero movie genre is suffering severe audience fatigue.  I'd argue its success is in no small part because of that fatigue.  Most superhero movies are high-stakes serious business stories where the fate of the city/country/world/universe/multiverse depends on the heroes.  Doing that all the time, without a break in the middle to de-escalate things, makes subsequent escalations less impressive and burns the audience out more quickly.  Deadpool, Deadpool 2, and now Deadpool & Wolverine are that de-escalation.  They're a breather episode that isn't afraid to poke fun of how grimly serious the other titles are.

Sony's Spider-Man is a great, and related, example.  They've never been able to get more than three movies out of Spider-Man before audiences get bored with the character.  They have the rights to the series in perpetuity as long as they put out a movie every six years, and through that they have the rights to his rogue's gallery and supporting characters, so here we are with a movie about a member of Spider-Man's rogues gallery coming out three years to the day after No Way Home seemingly reimagined as Great Value John Wick rather than doing a more typical superhero story or supervillain origin story.

 

18 minutes ago, Big s said:

The thing people are fatigued with is the crap movies that have been released. Things like Eternals, Madam Web and the Flash were mostly just bad movies. If they just made good films the people tend to still show up

That's the thing, though... those (bad) movies and the multiverse shenanigans are being done because audiences are getting bored with the most mainstream superheroes.  The studios want to keep this gravy train going indefinitely because they paid a fortune for those acquisitions.  So they're hitting up less widely known superheroes and trying to move into different kinds of stories because you can only sell the spandex brigade punching space monsters so many times in a row before audiences are just bored with the whole bit.  Three movies seems to be the limit for any given superhero or superhero team... even extremely well-received ones like Guardians of the Galaxy. 

[Bolt]

2 hours ago, Big s said:

I don’t think audience fatigue was the problem. Deadpool just brought in over a billion dollars so far in just a couple weeks. That’s pretty hardcore for an R rated comic film. The thing people are fatigued with is the crap movies that have been released. Things like Eternals, Madam Web and the Flash were mostly just bad movies. If they just made good films the people tend to still show up

For the most part, I agree. Granted Deadpool has the R rated tongue in cheek approach. But it's still working up a tedious formula with the multiverse thing.  And even builds on existing Marvel IP's . 
Many of these other side movies all have potential to be good, they're just aren't well written, IMO. 

[Thom]

2 hours ago, Jeff J said:

...

I'm generally of the opinion that the rogues galleries aren't that interesting outside of the context of their respective heroes. Still haven't watched Joker or either Venom movie. But that's not necessarily the problem with Sony's movies. It's just they're just not great movies.

Me neither. No interest in Joker/Panguin, et al, unless they are being chased by the Bat. .

1 hour ago, Big s said:

I don’t think audience fatigue was the problem. Deadpool just brought in over a billion dollars so far in just a couple weeks. That’s pretty hardcore for an R rated comic film. The thing people are fatigued with is the crap movies that have been released. Things like Eternals, Madam Web and the Flash were mostly just bad movies. If they just made good films the people tend to still show up

Yeah, but that's Deadpool and this is... Kraven... A guy who gets bit by a tiger and gains super powers, like Spiderman, just not as cool... And, of course, there is another superpowered enemy for him to fight, this time Rhinoman! (I guess that's his name, I don't know.) Heck, even if this was another Spiderman movie, I wouldn't really be all that tempted anymore. Yes, you can tell the same basic story a hundred different way, but pumping them all out within a few years was, though fun, a bit excessive.

I can see doing a trilogy of movies and then relaxing for a few years to let the audience recuperate, but, esp with comics, there are so many character tie-ins, and the urge to hit while the iron is hot and while the casts still look young enough to fit the roles (and the costumes,) that that momentum drives it more. And money. Grab the money while the people are spending. If they were smart they would do it in 'spurts.' Make two or three movies and then let it rest, rather than the cash-grab of the last few decdes.

[Raikkonen]

17 hours ago, CoryHolmes said:

I'm still in awe that someone decided KRAVEN would make for a good movie story...  Like, huh? 

Why surprised?

Blue Bettle?

Pengiun series with no batman?

Black Adam?

Madam Web but isn't Madam Web?

That Agatha Harkness show due 2 years ago?

3 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

In all honesty, I don't think Deadpool in any way disproves that the superhero movie genre is suffering severe audience fatigue. 

People watched Deadpool 3 because of it's established R-rating content, and Hugh still attracts the ladies. 

All my male friends watched it for the stupid violence and humour. While the females in my circle watched it mostly for Hugh and the humour.

Disney knew this, and for this, they bent the knee to Ryan's requests. 

Edited August 15 by Raikkonen

[Big s]

4 hours ago, Thom said:

Yeah, but that's Deadpool and this is... Kraven...

That wasn’t really my point. I was trying to say that there really isn’t a fatigue for a good super hero film, but this looks like more morbin time

 

5 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Sony's Spider-Man is a great, and related, example.  They've never been able to get more than three movies out of Spider-Man before audiences get bored with the character. 

I don’t think anyone was tired of Spider-Man. The problem was that Toby got two decent films and then a horrible third movie that messed up the flow. Garfield got one decent one and the second was just sub par. People are still turning up for the Holland films and the cg ones. Sure, the ain’t showin up for Kraven because Sony has a bad track record and nobody has ever cared about Kraven the Hunter.

[Tking22]

Kraven might have a bit more word of mouth going for him from the masses due to Sony's Spider-Man 2 video game, he was a major villain in that and it brought him to quite a few people's attention that wouldn't have heard of him otherwise. Enough attention to warrant his own solo R rated film? Doubtful. 

[renegadeleader1]

15 minutes ago, Big s said:

Garfield got one decent one and the second was just sub par

Both of Andrew Garfield's movies were subpar, and he was just an unlikeable D-bag as Peter/Spidey who literally caused his own problems and heartaches.

 

That's actually why his redemption in No Way Home had such a massive impact. He came to terms with his mistakes and was less of an A-hole who came through when he was needed most.

[Big s]

2 minutes ago, renegadeleader1 said:

Both of Andrew Garfield's movies were subpar, and he was just an unlikeable D-bag as Peter/Spidey who literally caused his own problems and heartaches.

 

I kinda liked the first one, but he was definitely miscast for the role. He looked like a fourty year old that got held back in high school for a few decades. I mean Toby looked a bit old for high school as well, but he at least has a slightly younger dopey look that even though it was out of place wasn’t as noticeable 

[Seto Kaiba]

3 hours ago, Raikkonen said:

People watched Deadpool 3 because of it's established R-rating content, and Hugh still attracts the ladies. 

People watched it because it's fun... it's a tongue-in-cheek action comedy that's not afraid to take a few shots across the bow of the excessively serious MCU.

Which makes it the perfect break from the MCU.

 

37 minutes ago, Big s said:

That wasn’t really my point. I was trying to say that there really isn’t a fatigue for a good super hero film, but this looks like more morbin time

"Good" is subjective... and what we see with audience fatigue is that people get less willing to tolerate "more of same" even if it's something they would normally enjoy.

My favorite example of this is Star Trek: Enterprise, which went down in flames ratings-wise because it was more of the same product audiences had been getting for almost 15 years by that point.  People came back to it years later and realized it was actually pretty good TV, but it was so much like what preceded it that audiences just didn't want it so it was judged "bad" at the time.

 

37 minutes ago, Big s said:

I don’t think anyone was tired of Spider-Man. The problem was that Toby got two decent films and then a horrible third movie that messed up the flow. Garfield got one decent one and the second was just sub par. People are still turning up for the Holland films and the cg ones. Sure, the ain’t showin up for Kraven because Sony has a bad track record and nobody has ever cared about Kraven the Hunter.

Nah, I think a lot of folks got tired of Spider-Man pretty quick.  He's not a very deep character - most superheroes aren't - but once you exhaust his 2-3 iconic villains (Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and I can't think of a third) and he gets the girl there's not a lot left for him to do.  The movies can't exist in the same kind of eternal status quo the comics do, so he can only have a certain amount of character development before he stops being interesting.  From what I understand, the comics keep doing this to him too... resetting him over and over because he gets boring once he's married, lands at least moderately stable employment, moves out of Aunt May's house, etc.

I think Kraven here is something like an attempt to do something with the property other than just endlessly rehashing Peter Parker's formative years.  They picked a decidedly un-super villain from Parker's rogues gallery, and seem to want to develop in a very un-cartoony direction.  The trailer feels very John Wick to me, with the implication that Kraven is a badass quietly passing the time until someone ruffles his feathers... then it's everyone else's funeral, literally.  It's enough that I'm actually kind of curious to see what direction it's headed in.  It really doesn't look like a comic book movie even though it is one.  I'll probably go see this one when it hits theaters, out of morbid curiosity if nothing else.

(It'd have to struggle quite hard to be worse than Borderlands, and I voluntarily went to see that in theaters.)

[Thom]

1 hour ago, Big s said:

That wasn’t really my point. I was trying to say that there really isn’t a fatigue for a good super hero film, but this looks like more morbin time

Mine was that Deadpool is fun, and that easily overcomes fatigue. Kraven just looks like a retread of all the superhero-tropes, whereas Deadpool literally breaks all the walls along a wild ride that breaks expectations.

Edited August 16 by Thom

[Big s]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

"Good" is subjective

It’s not that subjective. Enjoyable is subjective. People can enjoy a bad movie, but they shouldn’t go as far as to call it good unless they’re in denial. Morbius was a bad movie, but there are people that actually found it enjoyable, but they should never call it good.

[mechaninac]

1 hour ago, Big s said:

It’s not that subjective. Enjoyable is subjective. People can enjoy a bad movie, but they shouldn’t go as far as to call it good unless they’re in denial. Morbius was a bad movie, but there are people that actually found it enjoyable, but they should never call it good.

It always amazes me how many people fail to comprehend this self-evident distinction.  A good movie is objectively good, measured by several different criteria; ditto for a mediocre or bad or downright awful film.  On the subjective end of things, people can dislike good movies or like bad ones as enjoyment is an individual perspective.  The vexing thing, however, are the people who take the dunking on a movie they happen to like, despite its plain-to-see lack of quality -- in part or the whole -- as a personal affront.

Edited August 16 by mechaninac

[pengbuzz]

8 minutes ago, mechaninac said:

It always amazes me how many people fail to comprehend this self-evident distinction.  A good movie is objectively good, measured by several different criteria; ditto for a mediocre or bad or downright awful film.  On the subjective end of things, people can dislike good movies or like a bad ones as enjoyment is an individual perspective.  The vexing thing, however, are the people who take the dunking on a movie they happen to like, despite its plain-to-see lack of quality -- in part or the whole -- as a personal affront.

I liked Down Periscope (minus all the sexual innuendo and cursing).

[mechaninac]

1 minute ago, pengbuzz said:

I liked Down Periscope (minus all the sexual innuendo and cursing).

Down Periscope is a silly hoot

One of my guilty pleasures is the incredibly mediocre, and often quite bad, cinematic mis-adaptation (more like a name recognition slapped on an incongruous story with a few borrowed element to make it seem legit) Wing Commander.  I know it's a mess of a poor excuse for a theatrical release trying to capitalize, way too late, on a popular videogame IP, with incredibly asinine themes an subplot(s), but I enjoy the heck out the capital ship and some of the fighter action, and the overall atmosphere of the universe depicted.

Getting back to Kraven, if it's anything even remotely close to Morbius, it's going to be nigh unwatchable.  I tried to power through Morbius when it finally debuted on FX and it was a stupefying, mind numbing experience I never want to go through again.

[pengbuzz]

On 8/14/2024 at 7:48 PM, Seto Kaiba said:

Wow.  You say he was a B-list villain, but surely with an outfit like that he was surely the kingpin of sartorial crime.  I assume he wasn't always quite this... killy?

This fellow is wearing a green fur-lined vest, leopard print tights, a tiger-print belt with fangs or claws on it, tiger-print arm warmers, green leopard-print exercise bands, and what appear to be either khaki pointe shoes or slipons.  Put about a pound of concealer and eyeshadow on him and he's ready for RuPaul's Drag Race.

I'd call the movie version a substantial glowup.  The movie version of that costume looks like it was nicked from the set of Kevin Sorbo's Hercules: the Legendary Journeys, rather than looking like someone mugged Roy Horn at an Elton John-themed Halloween party.

ROFL!!

5 minutes ago, mechaninac said:

Down Periscope is a silly hoot

One of my guilty pleasures is the incredibly mediocre, and often quite bad, cinematic mis-adaptation (more like a name recognition slapped on an incongruous story with a few borrowed element to make it seem legit) Wing Commander.  I know it's a mess of a poor excuse for a theatrical release trying to capitalize, way too late, on a popular videogame IP, with incredibly asinine themes an subplot(s), but I enjoy the heck out the capital ship and some of the fighter action, and the overall atmosphere of the universe depicted.

Getting back to Kraven, if it's anything even remotely close to Morbius, it's going to be nigh unwatchable.  I tried to power through Morbius when it finally debuted on FX and it was a stupefying, mind numbing experience I never want to go through again.

I loved the WC franchise (up until Prophecy messed up everything). And yeah: while the movie wasn't stellar  (yuk yuk), the soundtrack had a couple of songs I liked and there was some good capital ship and starfighter battles. The creator, Chris Roberts, actually directed the film!

Onto Kraven: both that movie and Morbius have one issue:

Spoiler

They both star Jared Leto.

 

[Seto Kaiba]

It never ceases to surprise me how many people don't understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective".  There are a lot of disappointed grade school science teachers out there.

"Objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions".  Objective measurements are quantitative.  Measurable.  Not dependent on individual perception.  An objective statement about a movie is something that can be demonstrated as an irrefutable fact like "It was made in <year>", "it was directed by <person>", "it made "x amount of money" at the box office".

"Subjective" means "based on, or influenced by, personal feelings or opinions".  Subjective measurements are qualitative.  "Good" or "fun" or "enjoyable" are qualitative value judgements based on individual criteria and arbitrary scale and therefore subjective by definition.  There's no unit of "fun" or "good" or "enjoyable" you can measure.  It's based on individual perception and individual value criteria that are not universal or necessarily shared by any other person.

Large numbers of people can come to the same subjective value judgement of a movie - like that Morbius was bad or that The Godfather was good -  but that doesn't make that mass subjective value judgement objective because it's just a consensus opinion based on individual arbitrary criteria not something measurable.  

The closest you can get to an objective measure of "good" in a movie is its profit margin... but the quantifiable extent of its commercial success does not necessarily translate to audience enjoyment or artistic competence.  For a great demonstration of that reality look no further than the Star Wars movies produced under Disney.  Almost all of them made substantial profits, but are nevertheless judged to be bad movies by many fans.  By the same token, people can go to a movie they find "bad" and still have fun with it because it's "bad" in a way they happen to find enjoyable.  That's all subjective.

 

 

Just now, pengbuzz said:

Onto Kraven: both that movie and Morbius have one issue:

  Hide contents

They both star Jared Leto.

 

Now now, don't blame the actor for the crimes of the writer and director.

Even the very finest actors can only do so much if the script is an incoherent mess or the director's creative vision is in dire need of corrective lenses.   Doubly so if they're stuck in the unenviable position of playing a character half a dozen other actors already have, with each director having a separate and distinct vision for them.

 

Looking at the director, J.C. Chandor, he seems to be a relatively green but also relatively celebrated new director.  He's only directed four prior films (Margin Call, All is Lost, A Most Violent Year, and Triple Frontier), but his work does seem to be pretty well received when it comes to film festivals and small-circle sorts of critics awards.  He seems green enough that he's almost an unknown quantity.  

The writers... are less inspiring.  Richard Wenk's filmography boasts writer credits on The Equalizer, The Expendables 2, Vamp, American Renegades, and the remake of The Magnificent Seven.  Art Marcum and Matt Holloway (credited together) aren't particularly inspiring either.  They worked on Iron Man, Punisher: War Zone, Transformers: the Last Knight, Men in Black: International, and Uncharted.  Comic books are clearly not foreign territory to them, but the presence of titles like The Last Knight and Uncharted does not inspire much hope.  

I'd call it a coin flip whether Kraven: the Hunter will be fun or just funny looking.

[Jeff J]

6 hours ago, renegadeleader1 said:

Both of Andrew Garfield's movies were subpar, and he was just an unlikeable D-bag as Peter/Spidey who literally caused his own problems and heartaches.

To quote Honest Trailers, Garfield was an attractive, intelligent, likeable, athletic, well-dressed, teenaged LOSER. 

I think the ASM movies were missing some key elements of the most successful Spidey formula. I think rebooting five years after Tobey was not what the GA wanted, and audiences prefer their Peter to be more of a dweeb than Garfield's portrayal. ASM movies were also far less light-hearted, which likely was part of the charm of Tobey's movies. So they actually made decent money; ASM ranked 6th its year (behind Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Hunger Games, 007, and Twilight) for domestic box office and ASM2 ranked 10th in 2014. They just weren't mega hits. But to Garfield's credit, a lot of fans feel his version was a lot better at incorporating Spidey's wit and trashtalking villains.

[Raikkonen]

6 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

People watched it because it's fun... it's a tongue-in-cheek action comedy that's not afraid to take a few shots across the bow of the excessively serious MCU.

Yeah... tongue-in-cheek that relied on r-rated content, meaning vulgarity and violence. 

Again, without the r-rated content, it would just be the marvel nerds and moms for hugh watching it... 

[pengbuzz]

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

It never ceases to surprise me how many people don't understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective".  There are a lot of disappointed grade school science teachers out there.

"Objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions".  Objective measurements are quantitative.  Measurable.  Not dependent on individual perception.  An objective statement about a movie is something that can be demonstrated as an irrefutable fact like "It was made in <year>", "it was directed by <person>", "it made "x amount of money" at the box office".

"Subjective" means "based on, or influenced by, personal feelings or opinions".  Subjective measurements are qualitative.  "Good" or "fun" or "enjoyable" are qualitative value judgements based on individual criteria and arbitrary scale and therefore subjective by definition.  There's no unit of "fun" or "good" or "enjoyable" you can measure.  It's based on individual perception and individual value criteria that are not universal or necessarily shared by any other person.

Large numbers of people can come to the same subjective value judgement of a movie - like that Morbius was bad or that The Godfather was good -  but that doesn't make that mass subjective value judgement objective because it's just a consensus opinion based on individual arbitrary criteria not something measurable.  

The closest you can get to an objective measure of "good" in a movie is its profit margin... but the quantifiable extent of its commercial success does not necessarily translate to audience enjoyment or artistic competence.  For a great demonstration of that reality look no further than the Star Wars movies produced under Disney.  Almost all of them made substantial profits, but are nevertheless judged to be bad movies by many fans.  By the same token, people can go to a movie they find "bad" and still have fun with it because it's "bad" in a way they happen to find enjoyable.  That's all subjective.

 

 

Now now, don't blame the actor for the crimes of the writer and director.

Even the very finest actors can only do so much if the script is an incoherent mess or the director's creative vision is in dire need of corrective lenses.   Doubly so if they're stuck in the unenviable position of playing a character half a dozen other actors already have, with each director having a separate and distinct vision for them.

 

Looking at the director, J.C. Chandor, he seems to be a relatively green but also relatively celebrated new director.  He's only directed four prior films (Margin Call, All is Lost, A Most Violent Year, and Triple Frontier), but his work does seem to be pretty well received when it comes to film festivals and small-circle sorts of critics awards.  He seems green enough that he's almost an unknown quantity.  

The writers... are less inspiring.  Richard Wenk's filmography boasts writer credits on The Equalizer, The Expendables 2, Vamp, American Renegades, and the remake of The Magnificent Seven.  Art Marcum and Matt Holloway (credited together) aren't particularly inspiring either.  They worked on Iron Man, Punisher: War Zone, Transformers: the Last Knight, Men in Black: International, and Uncharted.  Comic books are clearly not foreign territory to them, but the presence of titles like The Last Knight and Uncharted does not inspire much hope.  

I'd call it a coin flip whether Kraven: the Hunter will be fun or just funny looking.

Well, I don't like Jared Leto to begin with, so there's that.

[Big s]

2 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

Well, I don't like Jared Leto to begin with, so there's that.

I haven’t cared much for movies that he stars in, he’s ok though as a minor character actor and occasionally as an unhinged slightly antagonistic character like in the little things, but not a main bad guy either. He’s a small dose actor

[Raikkonen]

28 minutes ago, Big s said:

I haven’t cared much for movies that he stars in, he’s ok though as a minor character actor and occasionally as an unhinged slightly antagonistic character like in the little things, but not a main bad guy either. He’s a small dose actor

I can't like him. Too many allegations surrounding him. And he's ruining TRON 3. 

[Thom]

Is Leto in Kraven?

[pengbuzz]

29 minutes ago, Thom said:

Is Leto in Kraven?

yup

[Seto Kaiba]

40 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

yup

You sure about that?  He's not on the cast list on IMDB or mentioned as being in the film by any news source I can find.

The only context I can find in which he's even mentioned in connection with Kraven the Hunter is statements by sites like ScreenRant and IGN that Kraven the Hunter is the newest film in what's being called the "Sony Spider-Man Universe" (or "SSU").  That Sony-owned shared universe setting somewhat counterintuitively contains zero Spider-Man films but it does contain the two already-released Venom movies, Morbius, and Madame Web, as well as the soon-to-be-released Venom: the Last Dance, Kraven the Hunter, and an as-of-yet unrevealed Summer 2025 film that may or may not be Spider-Woman or The Sinister Six.  

Leto's own filmography does not list him as being involved in Kraven the Hunter either... the only two projects he's listed on after Morbius are Haunted Mansion and Tron: Ares.

Edited August 16 by Seto Kaiba

[Big s]

2 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

yup

I think it’s the guy that used to play Quick Silver and Kick Ass. Either way, I still don’t care much for Leto

[Big s]

7 hours ago, Raikkonen said:

I can't like him. Too many allegations surrounding him. And he's ruining TRON 3. 

I try not to pay too much attention to allegations since they often times turn out false.

[Focslain]

3 hours ago, Thom said:

Is Leto in Kraven?

Nope, it's Aaron Taylor-Johnson, ie Quicksilver from Age of Ul;tron, plus a decent amount of action movie cred.

[Raikkonen]

54 minutes ago, Big s said:

I try not to pay too much attention to allegations since they often times turn out false.

Like the ones of Ezra?

Where there's smoke, there's fire.