Inspiration for movies comes from many places: plays, songs, true stories—even the occasional app can inspire a screenwriter and motivate a studio. But books remain the most frequently visited well for cinematic inspiration. Of the hundreds of movies based on books, here are the ten best.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Based on: A 1992 novella by Stephen King entitled “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.”

Back cover blurb: Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is convicted of the murder of his wife and her lover. He claims he is innocent. The film follows Andy as he tries to survive cruel Shawshank State Penitentiary. He’s helped and counselled by fellow prisoner, Red, played by Morgan Freeman in an Oscar-nominated performance.

Key difference: Red is an white Irish man in the book, while in the film Freeman’s character jokes that he is Irish.

This will be on the test: The King novella also included the source material for the films Apt Pupil and Stand By Me.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Based on: The book of the same name by J.K. Rowling, the third in her wildly popular Harry Potter series.

Back cover blurb: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) spends his third year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry tracking the mysterious story of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), an ally of He Who Must Not Be Named and a prisoner in Azkaban.

Key difference: The Marauders and their map play a huge role in both the book and the movie, but their backstory and the ways that the map is used differ slightly on-screen.

This will be on the test: After Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first two Harry Potter films, passed away, Ian McKellen was offered the role, but turned it down.

Gone Girl (2014)

Based on: The 2012 beach read classic by Gillian Flynn.

Back cover blurb: Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike), who has a seemingly perfect suburban life and the seemingly perfect childhood—as illustrated in a successful line of books written by her parents—suddenly disappears and all eyes are on her shady husband Nick (Ben Affleck).

Key difference: Though they still author the Amazing Amy books in the film, Amy’s parents play a much smaller role in David Fincher’s film. Nick’s dad, who also plays a big role in the book, is barely seen on-screen.

This will be on the test: Reese Witherspoon produced the film and intended to play Amy, but withdrew from casting contention after chatting with director David Fincher about his vision for the role.

The Color Purple (1985)

Based on: Alice Walker’s searing and seminal 1983 novel.

Back cover blurb: Celie (Whoopi Goldberg) writes letters detailing her often painful life in rural Georgia, her separation from her sister, Nettie (Akosua Busia), her relationships with her husband’s son’s wife, Sofia (Oprah Winfrey), and her husband’s sometimes-mistress, Shug (Margaret Avery).

Key difference: The book delves even deeper into the inner lives of the women in Celie’s life and paints a more complex picture of the relationships they share.

This will be on the test: This was Whoopi Goldberg’s first film and she received her first Oscar nomination for it.

Atonement (2007)

Based on: Ian McEwan’s 2001 metafictional novel.

Back cover blurb: Precocious and imaginative Briony (Saoirse Ronan) stumbles upon her sister (Keira Knightley) and her boyfriend (James McAvoy) in an intimate moment. Briony misinterprets what’s happening, setting in motion a tragic chain of events that affects them all for years.

Key difference: McEwan’s book is deliciously cerebral and interior, giving the characters’ conflicts, questions, and changes vigorous life. Joe Wright’s film must externalize these inner workings and uses a spare, lush cinematic language to do so.

This will be on the test: The book Atonement is based on another book, Henry James’ What Maisie Knew.

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Based on: L. Frank Baum’s 1900 book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

Back cover blurb: Kansas farmgirl Dorothy (Judy Garland) is transported by tornado to a magical land where she immediately murders someone and steals her shoes. She then forms a gang and sets off to storm a city with a list of demands for the local wizard.

Key difference: Dorothy’s iconic ruby red slippers were silver in the book.

This will be on the test: The horses in Emerald City were colored with Jell-O crystals.

A late-summer dessert entry atop Disney’s already hearty year, Christopher Robin is a property throwback in the vein of David Lowery’s Pete’s Dragon, or Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are. Frankly, however, it has little of the former’s heart, and all the showy stylistic trappings of the latter. It feels less like a cherry than a big bowl of oatmeal, really. Bland. Gray. A little sticky. It’s salvageable in spots with lotsa hunny – if you really dig for any noticeable flavor – but even then, it’s still just serviceable. Yes, we’re still talking about Christopher Robin.

Christopher Robin takes A.A. Milne’s works about a boy and his bear, and simultaneously modernizes and retrogrades the experience. Du jour in visuals, vintage in its studio feel-goodies. You know Pooh, and his predilection for the ‘hunny’. Fewer may know that Christopher Robin Milne was the name of Milne’s son, and the world of Pooh was inspired by real toys. (You’re welcome at your next bar trivia night.) Now Marc Forster (Monster’s Ball, World War Z) has been tasked with styling a new angle on the blonde bear through a modern lens. In the end, it just doesn’t work, and Forster’s sensitive style has nothing to add beyond aesthetics for aesthetics’ sake.

Robin is now the lead. No longer a tot, he’s played by a shockingly unconvincing Ewan McGregor. It would be unfair to say that the Scottish actor isn’t trying, because the material isn’t up to snuff, and he’s perhaps growing weary of having to work off digital partners after years of War in the Stars. McGregor’s Robin is different, a military veteran. Robin fights in WW2, comes home a luggage businessman, and is on the verge of destroying his family. In shorter terms, he’s played with a stick up the ass. Robin must save his staff from layoffs through the power of accounting and charts, but at the cost of alienating his estranged wife Evelyn (Hayley Atwell) and daughter Madeline (Bronte Carmichael). Christopher Robin? A corporate stiff?

Robin needs his groove back, and only Pooh and crew can renew it in poor “Cristofer Robem.” Perhaps the best word for this characterization is “insincere”? McGregor, an amiable lead in general, is stuck with nominal dialogue, flat intonation, and smiles and moments of longing that never feel earned. Think of it as an overlong take on the little tragedies of Andy growing up in Toy Story 3. Forster never really mines the actor or the heavily stitched-together screenplay for more than mannered cliche.

Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, Tigger, Kanga, Roo, and Owl are back and articulated with CGI to look alive. Forget the bright yellow-and-red style of Disney cartoons past; he’s been upgraded to a fully-rendered, photorealistic, handsomely budgeted novelty. Like a marionette with no strings. Winnie the Pooh is still a bear, but he’s button-eyed, texturally faded, and lurches along with limited movements in actual reality, interacting with real trees and real jars of hunny. Owl and Rabbit are straight out of Babe, with flapping lips and wide, cartoonish eyes. Perhaps it’s all computer-animated, but the goal is realism here. The effect is curiously jarring, and even a little droll. Pooh’s design is admittedly a nifty conceit to reinforce the film’s themes of the faded past, and the visual effects are nothing to snooze at. However, Pooh is still voiced by Disney mainstay Jim Cummings, because this movie never wants to go too far into the realm of the new. (And look, for fans, it does admittedly give off a feeling of warm fuzzies.)

Through the powers of a cracked jar of hunny, Pooh and Robin reconnect so that Robin can find his inner child, or some such Tony Robbins bumper sticker slogan. The film is pitched at something approximating magical realism, a layer of sparkle atop organic things, and it sounds like a great pitch. Pooh ambling about in his forest with crackling leaves and endlessly glowing lens flares. But Robin neither commits to nor excels in exploring the value of that blend. “What if Pooh but grittier?” seems to be the logline.

Forster struggles to find a tone. There’s an overt, forceful naturalism at work ­– handheld camera, effusive insert shots straight out of Super Bowl car commercials – that suggests a filmmaker attempting the texture of a short story. It’s bold, if rocky. But it’s at odds with the play and imagination that Milne’s comfort creatures bring. Never could one imagine an explosion in a Pooh film, yet here we get one to enforce the hardening of Robin in war. Halfway through, Forster lands on something staid and feel-good and oh-so-very Disney: a race to rescue Robin from a Very Big Meeting. Still in that crunchy, Earthy style, though.

It took five separate writers (including indie magnate Alex Ross Perry, Tom McCarthy of Spotlight, and Allison Schroeder of Hidden Figures) to come up with that? Maybe that’s partly to blame: so much punch-up that the film ironically removed so much of its feeling and liveliness. Robin must regain the trust of his past pals, revitalize his dusty Hundred-Acre-Wood, fix his family, save his job, and find time to convincingly sell Ewan McGregor smiling at CG creations. Oh, bother, indeed. While it may be inoffensive enough , we’ve seen what adventurous filmmakers can do with old material like Lowery’s Dragon remake, or Jon Favreau’s full-blooded take on The Jungle Book. Kids and parents have to watch these things, too, so make it worthwhile.

Not all is lost, though. Brad Garrett’s Eeyore is pitch-perfect, complete with great zingers in a dour key (“Looks like a disaster. Shame I wasn’t invited.”) Cummings, the man behind both Pooh and Tigger for nearly 30 years, still has it: a sweet inflection and endless amiability. The pleasure of good company is Robin’s occasionally winning quality. Parents will make it through this, but they’ll be left wondering what the point of all this remixing was. Children … well, one surmises the desaturated look and low-key story will leave them puzzled – kids are more receptive than you think. Like oatmeal, you won’t be mad, but it’s not gonna be the best or most exciting meal you’ll have this year. Again. Talking about Christopher Robin.

Tom Cruise will prevail again at North American multiplexes this weekend with “Mission: Impossible — Fallout,” heading for an impressive $32 million second weekend, early estimates showed Friday.

Disney’s live-action “Christopher Robin” is heading for second place with a respectable $28 million at 3,602 screens. Lionsgate’s action-comedy “The Spy Who Dumped Me” will finish third with about $11 million. Fox’s opening of dystopian sci-fier “The Darkest Minds” is launching inauspiciously with about $7 million at 3,127 locations and will battle a trio of holdovers for fourth place — Universal’s third weekend of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again,” Sony’s fourth weekend of “Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation,” and Sony’s third weekend of “The Equalizer 2.”

Dinesh D’Souza’s pro-Donald Trump documentary “Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time?” is performing in line with forecasts of about $3 million at 1,002 locations this weekend for Quality Flix.

“Mission: Impossible — Fallout,” the sixth film in the Paramount franchise, is screening at 4,395 sites and declining less than 50% from its opening weekend of $61.2 million. The action-thriller is also performing better than 2015’s “Mission: Impossible — Rogue Nation,” which won its second weekend over “Fantastic Four” with $28 million. “Fallout” should wind up the weekend with about $122 million in its first 10 days.

“Christopher Robin” took in $1.5 million in Thursday night previews, topping Disney’s “A Wrinkle in Time,” which opened with $1.3 million in Thursday previews and went on to a $33 million opening weekend in March.

“Christoper Robin,” based on the characters from A.A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh books, hopes to draw nostalgia lovers and their children when it opens on 3,602 screens Friday. Ewan McGregor plays a sad adult version of Winnie the Pooh’s old pal Christopher Robin, so Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, and Eeyore come to life to help him regain his imagination. Reviews have been mixed to positive with a 63% score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Lionsgate-Imagine’s “The Spy Who Dumped Me” opens at 3,111 venues and stars Mila Kunis and Kate McKinnon as best friends pursued through Europe by assassins. Susanna Fogel directed and co-wrote with David Iserson, while Justin Theroux, Gillian Anderson, Hasan Minhaj, and Sam Heughan round out the cast. “Spy” carries a 39% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Prospects are downbeat for Fox’s “The Darkest Minds,” which opens on 3,127 screens. The movie, which carries a $34 million price tag, is based on Alexandra Bracken’s novel and set in a dystopian America where a group of teenagers is on the run from the government after mysteriously obtaining superpowers. The film stars Amandla Stenberg, Mandy Moore, and Gwendoline Christie. Reviewers have been underwhelmed with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 15%.

With the top two films combining for about $60 million, overall domestic moviegoing should be up significantly over the same 2017 weekend, which was led by “The Dark Tower” with $19 million in its debut — marking the start of one of the slowest Augusts in more than a decade. Summer domestic box office is up a hefty 10.4% to $3.46 billion as of Aug. 1, according to comScore, and year-to-date domestic box office is also leading last year by 7.6% at $7.4 billion.

As Ethan Hunt, Tom Cruise has scaled the world’s tallest building, held his breath underwater for over six minutes, shattered his ankle in a rooftop chase, and grasped for dear life on the side of the airplane during takeoff. But those are all appetizers for the inevitable main course in the Mission: Impossible film series: [extremely “Pigs In Space” voice] TOM. CRUISE. IN. SPACE.

While promoting the latest M:I installment, the wildly fun Fallout, Cruise revealed that he’s “thought about” traveling to space. “It’s like how do we do it? It’s the mechanics of getting it there,” he said. “How do you build a sequence there and how long can we have that sequence? Because if I went up and just dropped, how do you put that into the structure of a screenplay of a mission?”

Before watching Fallout, I binge-watched all the Mission: Impossible movies, and while doing so, I couldn’t help but wonder: who would win in a fight, the Mission: Impossible crew (Ethan Hunt, Ilsa Faust, Benji, and Luther Stickell) or the Fast and Furious team (Dominic Toretto, Hobbs, Shaw, Letty Ortiz, Roman Pearce, and Tej Parker). Fast and Furious has the numbers and brute strength, but Mission: Impossible has Tom Cruise, so… Anyway, after reading Cruise’s comments, I’m curious about something else: which movie will travel to space first? It’s the new SPACE RACE, but with more Corona and exploding gum.

“Mission: Impossible – Fallout” gave Tom Cruise his best opening in 13 years, but in order to make a profit, the pricey action flick from Paramount will need foreign audiences to turn out in force.

With a $178 million production budget and a promotional and distribution price tag that hovers around $150 million, sources close to the studio and at rival companies estimate that the sixth installment in the spy franchise will need to pull in $560 million in order to get into the black. Some competitors think the figure that “Mission: Impossible” needs to make is even higher, approaching the $650 million range.

These are achievable results given the past track record of films in the series. “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” boasts the biggest haul with $694.7 million globally. Its follow-up, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” fell slightly short of the fourth iteration, generating a nevertheless robust $682.7 million worldwide. If “Fallout” hits either figure, it will be in the clear.

However, there are also a lot of big names that will need to get their share of the spoils. Namely, producer J.J. Abrams and Cruise, both of whom get a sizable percentage of the grosses. Skydance, the film’s financier, will also be cut in on any money the picture makes. All these profit participants will limit Paramount’s taste of the riches. Of the major parties involved in “Mission: Impossible,” only Cruise has gross points, meaning he gets a percentage of the first monies received by the distributor.

Part of the reason that the “Mission: Impossible” films carry a hefty price tag is because they rely on stunts and effects that are filmed “in camera.” It would be cheaper to load up on CGI, but, of course, then audiences would be deprived of seeing Cruise leap across buildings and jump out of a helicopter that’s hovering 2,000 feet above ground. Recounting stories of risking life and limb has become a key selling point for Cruise films.

That does have its drawbacks. One gnarly stunt resulted in the actor fracturing his ankle, causing production to shut down for eight weeks. Insiders say insurance covered that multi-million dollar cost.

“Fallout” does seem off to a promising start. The latest installment launched to a franchise-best $61.5 million in North America and picked up a mighty $92 million overseas. The key to turning a profit will likely be China, where the film opens on Aug. 31. “Rogue Nation,” the previous film in the series, brought in $135 million from the Middle Kingdom. That lofty sum was only dwarfed by the $195 million that “Rogue Nation” took in domestically. If “Fallout” wants to match or surpass “Rogue Nation’s” $682 million global total, it will need to replicate those results in China.

In the wake of “Fallout’s” No. 1 opening and rapturous critical reviews, as well as the earlier success of “A Quiet Place,” some were quick to say that the film was a signal that Paramount had regained its stride after years spent in the box office doldrums. That may be the case. However, “Fallout” still has several key markets left to open before the studio can pop champagne.

It should also be said that “A Quiet Place,” filmed for a measly $17 million, and with a box office haul of $332 million, will likely prove far more profitable than “Fallout.” Plus, no one broke an ankle during shooting.

Villagers can be very helpful in Minecraft as they’re passive and can be traded with. They’ll be wearing one of six colored outfits, which depend on their profession, but their state can be changed if they’re attacked by some of the game’s many creatures. If a villager gets attacked by a zombie, they’ll turn into a zombie villager, which means they’ll try to attack you and you will not be able to trade with them. However, if this happens in your world, you’ll be happy to hear that you are able to cure a zombie villager, and here’s how you can do so.

First of all, you need to make sure that you have all the items you need. You’ll need one golden apple and one splash potion of weakness. Once you have everything ready and have found a zombie villager (in a safe place that preferably has a low barrier between you and the zombie), you’ll need to use the splash potion of weakness. You need to aim at the zombie villager and throw the item at it by pressing the right trigger on console, or the right click if you’re on PC. Grey swirls will emanate from the zombie if it’s working.

You then need to do the same thing with the golden apple, making sure that the one you’re throwing doesn’t have a purple glow of any kind. Once you’ve thrown it, some colored swirls will emanate from the zombie. It will take a few minutes, but the zombie villager will eventually turn back to their normal color and be cured. If you leave the zombie villager for five minutes, you should be fine.

That’s all you need to know about how to cure a zombie villager in Minecraft. For more on the game, be sure to search for Twinfinite.

One of Shazam!’s Easter eggs lays the blame on Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) for the alien invasion in Justice League! Director David F. Sandberg’s superhero fantasy will continue the more fun and hopeful DC Universe that began when Justice League pivoted away from the darker tone established by Zack Snyder. Now, it seems the in-universe scapegoat for Steppenwolf’s invasion is the DCU’s number one Big Bad, Lex Luthor himself.

Seemingly crazed when imprisoned in Arkham and shaved bald at the end of Batman v Superman, Luthor warned Batman (Ben Affleck) that “the bell cannot be unrung… he’s coming!” As it turned out the ‘he’ who did arrive was Steppenwolf (not Darkseid), who sought to collect the three Mother Boxes and terraform the Earth into another version of his homeworld Apokalips. The Justice League resurrected Superman (Henry Cavill) and stopped Steppenwolf’s invasion in an unnamed Russian town, but the super team was unaware that the bald billionaire staged an escape from Arkham. In Justice League’s post-credits scene, Luthor recruits Deathstroke (Joe Manganiello) and revealed his plans to build “a league of our own.”

Shazam! is full of references to Justice League and all of the DC movies that precede it. In fact, Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Grazer), the foster brother of Billy Batson (Asher Angel) – who can become Shazam (Zachary Levi) when he says the magic word – is a superhero fanboy who has his own collection of Justice League merch. One of Freddy’s prized possessions is a framed copy of the Daily Planet boasting the headline “SUPERMAN IS BACK”. It’s a very compelling Easter egg because his “Weekend Edition” of the Planet is a composite of articles describing the events of Zack Snyder’s films.

However, the text is the really fascinating part! In the sidebar, underneath “Alien Attack on the World” and “Russia Cleans Up”, it reads: “The Top Suspect: As a worldwide search begins for those responsible, specialists say early signs point to Lex Luthor and his associates.”

Laying the blame for Steppenwolf’s invasion on Luthor and “his associates” sheds light on some of Justice League’s aftermath. Luthor’s escape was naturally news; he was also very vocal about aliens coming when he was incarcerated so it makes sense he is linked to the invasion. Citing Luthor’s “associates” indicates that recruiting for the Legion of Doom is further along than just Deathstroke (and these are matters Batman and possibly Cyborg must be tracking – they are likely the “specialists” noted).

Pointing the finger at Luthor and never naming Steppenwolf also illustrates certain decisions that were made regarding what aspects of the truth the League wanted publicly known; Lois Lane and Clark Kent would have known everything that happened in Russia, yet the truth is skewed. Choosing to omit Steppenwolf and his Parademons’s names may be a choice made for security reasons: it protects the secrets of Themyscira and Atlantis. To acknowledge the Mother Boxes means revealing the history of Steppenwolf’s first invasion thousands of years ago, and that two of the alien power sources were hidden by the Amazons and the Atlanteans – hidden civilizations the world doesn’t even know exists (yet).

Finally, while it may seem unfair to blame Luthor for the invasion when he had no actual hand in it (that fans know of), this could also be strategy on the part of the League: it puts the evil billionaire and his malevolent allies on notice that the heroes are onto them.

–

All this said, it’s worth noting that all of this is gleaned from a Shazam! prop that will likely not see more than a few seconds of screen time; and that other excerpts of the newspaper use old and repeated copy (the main stories use the same text about the events of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice). Ultimately, Freddy’s Daily Planet is merely a cool background detail, but it does hint at some potential direction for the wider DCEU. Fans won’t really know what will truly count as canon until Luthor and the Legion of Doom emerge in Justice League 2 – but at least the groundwork for that sequel is clearly being established.

Claudia Kim’s character in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald has been included in all marketing material and trailers for the movie so far, and yet her character is only billed as Maledictus. The lack of a name when everybody else has a full title could either be because she’s only known as that, or some form of misdirection. Given that Maledictus has greater meaning in the Wizarding World, the latter seems more likely.

A Maledictus witch, such as the one Kim is playing, is a witch whose blood was cursed, meaning she will eventually turn into a beast of some kind; like an Animagus except without the free will. That hints at some form of transformation, and a snake seems the most likely outcome: Kim’s character works in a circus, and the first trailer for The Crimes of Grindelwald has a “snake girl” on their billing; not only that, but Kim was also wearing snakeskin leggings in first look images for the movie.

It’s not difficult to suggest that Kim’s Maledictus is a snake girl, and there’s one history-lite snake that Rowling has yet to deal with. While it’s still firmly in the realm of speculation, evidence it starting towards Kim playing Nagini (especially given the additional presence of Potter-linked characters Flamel and Leta Lestrange.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald may explain the backstory to Voldemort’s snake, Nagini. The prequel film series is ostensibly focused on Grindelwald’s rise to power, and the terror he inflicted upon the wizarding communities across Europe during the 1930s and 40s. However, it seems as though J.K. Rowling is also working on weaving in many elements from Harry Potter into the Fantastic Beasts story, so that eventually the whole arc of 13 movies, from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II, will exist as a complete whole.

We know Grindelwald’s reign of terror came to an end in the infamous duel between him and his former lover, Albus Dumbledore, in 1945, when Dumbledore emerged triumphant and took ownership of the Elder Wand. From there, Voldemort eventually rose to power as the darkest wizard of all, until a baby boy named Harry Potter almost destroyed him in 1981. Rowling has always been a master at laying strong foundations and backstories to all of her work, and that’s becoming ever more evident in Fantastic Beasts. In the lastest trailer for The Crimes of Grindelwald, we meet Nicolas Flamel, immortal alchemist and creator of the Sorcerer’s Stone, which was the first artifact that Voldemort sought to help him regain strength. But there’s another connection to Voldemort lurking in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, and it’s something (or someone) that goes on to hold great significance throughout all of Harry Potter.

The unknown character played by Claudia Kim has no name billed other than Maledictus; in the Wizarding World, someone who will at some point turn into a beast. She resides in the circus that Credence joins, and all things point to her eventually turning into a snake named Nagini.

Nagini was a large, female snake who was always by Voldemort’s side. In part, this was because she was one of his Horcruxes, and so, as Dumbledore suspected, Voldemort kept her close by in order to preserve the life fragment within. She was eventually killed by Neville Longbottom during the Battle of Hogwarts.

Nagini’s origins, though, have always been unclear. It’s not even known if Voldemort owned the snake before his downfall at the hands of Harry Potter in 1981, or if he came by her when he was hiding in the forests of Albania. However, what we do know is that Voldemort used Nagini’s venom (obtained by Peter Pettigrew) to sustain him in a temporary form until he could regain his body. She was turned into a Horcrux after Voldemort murdered Bertha Jorkins in 1994.

The lack of backstory for Nagini is curious; Rowling is meticulous in making sure all major characters and creatures in her stories have them, and for Nagini’s to be so vague would point towards Rowling planning on telling it at some point. Certainly, Nagini will have a complete backstory, even if it’s only Rowling who knows about it for now. Could that all change with Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald?

In an interview with ComicBook.com, Venom director Ruben Fleischer confirms that his film will lay the groundwork for sequels down the road, depending on the success of the feature:

We’ve definitely laid some groundwork for different directions that the franchise could go, but obviously it all hinges on people’s excitement about this film. I hope people will stay and see what seeds have been planted.

That last sentence appears to be a clue that sequels will be teased during the post-credits scene, rather than peppered throughout the story – hopefully. We all remember the overloaded insanity of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which packed Rhino, Green Goblin, and Electro inside an already bloated story, and indicated that Vulture and Doctor Octopus were on their way, eventually.

In Venom, the titular Venom will be facing off against “Riot,” a lesser-known villain and fellow symbiote who is extremely similar to Venom himself, at least, in the comics. It is believed that Woody Harrelson, who will eventually play fan-favorite Carnage, might be making a small cameo in the film, though this hasn’t been officially confirmed.

If I had to guess, I’d say that we’re going to watch Tom Hardy “become” Venom by fighting Riot, and then get treated to a post-credits scene of Woody Harrelson in a jail cell, being infected by a red-tinged symbiote.

This begs the question, why wait? We’ve been watching cinematic universes form and quickly die for years now, and I think the audience is getting pretty sick of origin stories which serve as little more than a lengthy trailer for a more interesting narrative, usually involving popular villains facing off against now-established characters. Post-credits scenes have become a promise: “next time we’ll give you what you came for. Just wait.”

Why should we? We all know who Venom is, and if we don’t, it’s really not difficult to catch up – the idea isn’t exactly complicated. I’d love to see a comic-book character introduced in the first five minutes of a film, instead of dragging out yet another origin. And watching Venom face off against his big-name nemesis Carnage, a visually distinct and vicious psychopath that makes the morally ambiguous Venom look like a saint, would be much more exciting than watching Venom fight “Diet-Venom.”

Even Marvel failed when they tried to do something similar with The Incredible Hulk, by setting Hulk up to fight Abomination. Watching the two green giants duke it out wasn’t an interesting situation at all, and just served as a stall for a real challenge somewhere down the line.

Of course, the real problem here is that Spider-Man isn’t around to team up with Venom to take down Carnage – “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is always an interesting narrative for a superhero flick, and it’s doubtful that we’re ever going to see it in the oddly-titled “Spider-Verse.”

And to be fair, there’s nothing Sony can do about that; the MCU obviously doesn’t want to merge. But I do think they should have set Venom up with an interesting antagonist, if they want to establish sequels. Carnage can always be defeated, and return for a sequel, even if he dies.

Just tease his resurrection in the post-credits sequence.