Sony's Spider-Man 3 (Out of the MCU, Back In Again, and BEYOND) [Archive]

Autbot_Benz

08-20-2019, 03:09 PM

BREAKING Spider-Man is out of the MCU

Disney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios & Kevin Feige’s Involvement In ‘Spider-Man’

EXCLUSIVE: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige won’t produce any further Spider-Man films because of an inability by Disney and Sony Pictures to reach new terms that would have given the former a co-financing stake going forward. A dispute that has taken place over the past few months at the top of Disney and Sony has essentially nixed Feige, and the future involvement of Marvel from the Spider-Man universe, sources said.

This comes at a moment when the last two films Kevin Feige produced broke all-time records — Disney’s Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film of all time, and Spider-Man: Far From Home this week surpassed the James Bond film Skyfall to become the all time highest grossing film for Sony Pictures.

Sources said there are two more Spider-Man films in the works that are meant to have director Jon Watts and Tom Holland front and center. Unless something dramatic happens, Feige won’t be the lead creative producer of those pictures.

There is a lot of webbing here, but it all comes down to money, and it’s easy to understand why both sides refused to give ground. Disney asked that future Spider-Man films be a 50/50 co-financing arrangement between the studios, and there were discussions that this might extend to other films in the Spider-Man universe. Sony turned that offer down flat, and I don’t believe they even came back to the table to figure out a compromise. Led by Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra, Sony just simply didn’t want to share its biggest franchise. Sony proposed keeping the arrangement going under the current terms where Marvel receives in the range of 5% of first dollar gross, sources said. Disney refused.

Now, it’s easy to say that Feige has enough on his plate, especially after taking control of the X-Men universe in the Fox acquisition, including the Deadpool franchise, along with architecting the next phase of the Marvel superhero universe and building movies and shows for Disney +. But I’m told Feige loves Spider-Man, arguably the biggest superhero character in the Marvel canon. He would have continued if Disney and Sony could have reached new deal terms.

Essentially Sony has made a decision that is similar to saying, thank you, but we think we can win the championship without Michael Jordan. After all, Feige’s first decade at Marvel is largely unblemished and his consistency has been nothing short of historic: even George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson haven’t seen everything turn into a hit, and so maybe only James Cameron has the success record that Feige has achieved. But Feige has done it all in the last 10 years, producing and overseeing 23 superheros, with not a flop in the bunch. They’ve all been number one openers that have collectively grossed $26.8 billion. Feige this year became the producer of the top grossing film ever for two studios — Sony and Disney — and he produced three of the top four highest grossing films this year in Avengers: Endgame, Captain Marvel and Spider-Man: Far From Home. This after scoring the first ever Best Picture Oscar nom for a superhero film last year with Black Panther. I can’t think of a Hollywood producer/executive who has done anything close to this.

And the launch of the new iteration of Spider-Man was done brilliantly with Marvel’s support and help. It has been a boon to both studios. Tom Holland’s character was introduced in the Joe & Anthony Russo-directed 2016 blockbuster Captain America: Civil War, the film that set up the two record breaking Avengers films. Sony’s first rebooted Spidey film, 2017’s Spider-Man: Homecoming, rode that Marvel wave and grossed $880 million worldwide, and then the webslinger was a key character in the two Avengers films, leading to the Spidey sequel that this week became Sony’s top grossing film ever.

Sources said Disney’s top brass for the past several months has sought new terms for Feige and the Marvel cross-pollination to continue. As the Spider-Man relationship grew, Feige and Sony Pictures chief Tom Rothman spoke about the possibility of a wider involvement in the Sony-controlled Spider-man universe, which contains 900 characters. I’m told that Feige lent an unofficial hand with the blockbuster Venom, but I’ve also been told that that film was far from the polished product that grossed $856 million worldwide, until Rothman himself spent a good long time in the editing room helping to get it there.

It is understandable that the fiscally shrewd Rothman would balk at giving up half of Sony’s biggest franchise to Marvel. After all, Marvel already owns the merchandising on Spider-Man. Does the Mouse really need half of the movie universe also? Sony so far has decided that as valuable as Feige is, Disney is asking too high a price.

Sources said that Sony reasoned that they will be fine, without Feige. The creative template has been set on the Spider-Man films, and Watt and Holland are in place along with Amy Pascal, who became producer with Feige after she exited the executive suite after presiding over the previous Spider-man iterations directed by Sam Raimi and Marc Webb as Sony Pictures chief.

The Venom sequel is well underway with Andy Serkis directing Tom Hardey, and there is Morbius with Jared Leto, Kraven The Hunter, and another spinoff with the characters Silver Sable and Black Cat. And a Sinister Six film that got shelved. Sony, which once felt the ticking clock of generating a Spider-Man film every three or so years to prevent a rights reversion to Disney, now has plenty of pictures to make. And the studio also won the Best Animated Feature Oscar for Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse, a smash hit they made on their own.

No comment from Marvel/Disney, Feige or Sony Pictures.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feige-spider-man-franchise-exit-disney-sony-dispute-avengers-endgame-captain-america-winter-soldier-tom-rothman-bob-iger-1202672545/

Andrew NDB

08-20-2019, 03:14 PM

This is Disney playing hardball. Expect them to miraculously reach a new deal in a week or two.

neatoman

08-20-2019, 03:20 PM

What the hell? The movie makes over a billion dollars and they still don't think making another is worth it?

Autbot_Benz

08-20-2019, 03:22 PM

Blame the walking Cancer to movie studios Tom Rothman it reeks of him

CyberCubed

08-20-2019, 03:34 PM

It mostly means Spider-Man won’t be in any future Avengers movies for now, which doesn’t matter much since Avengers is kinda done after Endgame and we see their upcoming movie slate.

Tom Holland is still under contract for 2 more movies with Sony so his movies will continue. You just won’t see Peter whining about Tony Stark anymore which is actually a good thing going forward.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-20-2019, 04:24 PM

Huh. Quite the interesting development!

While the MCU has changed a lot of important things in Spiderman lore to make their movies, they're also the only studio to make me enjoy a Spiderman movie.

However, I also enjoyed the Sony Venom movie.

This could be bad, or good, or both. I kinda lean towards both. :tlol:

oldmanwinters

08-20-2019, 04:29 PM

Well, we'll see what happens, but if Disney/Sony do have their break-up does that mean we'll say farewell to Zendaya's "MJ" and all the other MCU Spider-support characters?

Andrew NDB

08-20-2019, 04:31 PM

Well, we'll see what happens, but if Disney/Sony do have their break-up does that mean we'll say farewell to Zendaya's "MJ" and all the other MCU Spider-support characters?

No, they would 100% be allowed to be in Sony-exclusive Spider-Man movies.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-20-2019, 04:43 PM

Incoming Sinister Six movie in 2020. :tlol:

And a Spiderman / Venom crossover in 2021.

And a Spiderman 3 in 2022.

And a reboot in 2023. :twink:

CyberCubed

08-20-2019, 04:44 PM

All the actors are staying, at least until their contracts are up. All this means is you won't see Spiderman appearing in any future MCU movies, and assumingly Spiderman won't talk about Tony Stark anymore in his movies (which as I said, is actually a good thing because now Peter Parker can stand on his own instead of being Iron Man Jr.). All the actors/actress and new relationships should stay the same.

Honestly if the writing is good this may not turn out so bad. And as I said we now know what most of the next phase of Marvel movies are...I don't think Spiderman had any reason to appear in any of them anyway. I mean, unless you wanted Spidey to appear in Doctor Strange 2 for some reason.

Autbot_Benz

08-20-2019, 04:50 PM

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/spider-man-mcu-sony-disney-agreement-1203308069/

variety thinks a deal still can be reached

Andrew NDB

08-20-2019, 04:53 PM

Shark_Blade

08-20-2019, 04:56 PM

I have to laugh. :tlol:

The Deadman

08-20-2019, 06:55 PM

I jumped on social media and the idiots on Twitter are claiming that since the partnership is dissolved, that means Tom Holland is out as Spider-Man. Like no article has claimed that at all.

Andrew NDB

08-20-2019, 07:02 PM

I jumped on social media and the idiots on Twitter are claiming that since the partnership is dissolved, that means Tom Holland is out as Spider-Man. Like no article has claimed that at all.

Sony would never have signed a deal with Marvel/Disney like that, where that could happen.

TommyT

08-20-2019, 07:04 PM

Sony will lose this battle.

Andrew NDB

08-20-2019, 09:10 PM

Disney/Marvel probably leaked this "current turn" on purpose, to get public pressure behind Sony to take their offer or at least meet them closer to the middle.

I guess that "SM2 must make 1 billion or it reverts to Sony!" thing was totally fake.

Redeemer

08-20-2019, 10:53 PM

Disney wants 50% profit now, up from 5% (the previous deal). That's... a huge increase. They can't expect to get Sony to agree to that, and I doubt they do. They're going to meet in the middle around 10-20% in a few days and that'll be that. This is just typical hardball negotiations, methinks, with Disney/Marvel knowing they have the upper hand.

Where do you see it say that "Disney Wants 50% of the profit"??? (Also Disney does not get 5% profit. They get the first 5% of the gross. Semantics :lol: ) The article I read does not list what Disney wants in terms of revenue breakdown, but indication is that they do not want to continue with the first 5% gross.

Also From the article I have read Disney want Sony to help pay for the production of these movies "50%" instead of Disney having to pay for the entire production themselves.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feige-spider-man-franchise-exit-disney-sony-dispute-avengers-endgame-captain-america-winter-soldier-tom-rothman-bob-iger-1202672545/

Autbot_Benz

08-20-2019, 11:23 PM

Its over for now https://mcucosmic.com/2019/08/20/its-over-for-now-sony-issues-statement-about-spider-man-leaving-the-mcu/

Sony has issued a statement to The Hollywood Reporter:

“Much of today’s news about Spider-Man has mischaracterized recent discussions about Kevin Feige’s involvement in the franchise,” says a Sony spokesperson. “We are disappointed, but respect Disney’s decision not to have him continue as a lead producer of our next live action Spider-Man film.”

“We hope this might change in the future, but understand that the many new responsibilities that Disney has given him – including all their newly added Marvel properties – do not allow time for him to work on IP they do not own,” says the statement. “Kevin is terrific and we are grateful for his help and guidance and appreciate the path he has helped put us on, which we will continue.”

AquaParade

08-21-2019, 10:55 AM

Surprising bit of news to hear yesterday. I'm sure they are still in negotiations, so we will have to wait for the true outcome. Interesting either way.

One thing I'd like to call out is the amount of people doing drive-by replies, all over the internet, to the tune of "get it together SONY!", as if they have any clue. I understand how and why Disney has earned audience respect over Sony, but most of the people don't know the finer details of the negotiation, and therefor are implying that Sony should just take whatever deal is handed them by Disney no mater what. Pretty ridiculous.

I was commenting the other day, in another thread here, that I wouldn't be heartbroken if Spider-Man went back to Sony at this point. I'm basically satiated by the fact that the MCU exists with Spider-Man in it. I had a hard time buying into it before the fact. We've seen what it's like to see Spider-Man team up with the Avengers, and it is glorious. I'd like to see more of it. I'd like to see Spider-Man meet the X-Men. I'd prefer Spider-Man to stay in the MCU. That said, I'm not heartbroken by the possibility of seeing this version of Spider-Man getting to branch out on own a bit at this point. If Sony can transition out of the MCU smoothly, then it would be quite exciting to see them explore potentially edgier stories, now that this Peter of version is growing up. You know Sony has a hankering for Kraven's Last Hunt.
I think maybe we can have our cake and eat it too, in this scenario. If Sony doesn't flub it up. Most people won't trust them, especially after Marvel has been successful with Spider-Man. And again, I'd prefer Spider-Man to stay in the MCU, but I think Sony gets less credit than they deserve. They have done wonderful things with the character on their own.

Maybe it doesn't hurt that I didn't absolutely love Far From Home. I enjoyed it, and I'm anxious to view it again and see if it has grown on me, but I wasn't blown away the way I expected to be. It makes it easier for me to sit here and say "yeah, okay. Switch it up."

Andrew NDB

08-21-2019, 11:06 AM

I was commenting the other day, in another thread here, that I wouldn't be heartbroken if Spider-Man went back to Sony at this point.

I see a lot of this out there and it's strange. It's like people suddenly have gotten amnesia and have forgotten that Sony hasn't made a good Spider-Man movie in approaching 20 years.

I mean, for the MCU itself sure, it matter less so. Yeah, we've already gotten the big team-up movies with Spider-Man and there's not really any more of that on the horizon. I just hate to think that this might push Marvel to (re)bulid things around, I dunno, Captain Marvel as opposed to what it seemed like they were intending to do, which was push Spider-Man to the forefront a bit more.

AquaParade

08-21-2019, 11:19 AM

I see a lot of this out there and it's strange. It's like people suddenly have gotten amnesia and have forgotten that Sony hasn't made a good Spider-Man movie in approaching 20 years.

I mean, for the MCU itself sure, it matter less so. Yeah, we've already gotten the big team-up movies with Spider-Man and there's not really any more of that on the horizon. I just hate to think that this might push Marvel to (re)bulid things around, I dunno, Captain Marvel as opposed to what it seemed like they were intending to do, which was push Spider-Man to the forefront a bit more.

They just last year released Into the Spider-Verse, which is a fan-favorite, and way more entertaining than at least half the MCU films from the last five years.

I look at Sony as a bigger risk, with potential for greater reward. The MCU Spider-Man films will always be very good. A Sony Spider-Man film could be utter trash or something that rises above Disney limitations into something wonderful. Same pattern we saw over at Fox or any other movie studio.

I feel like I should keep saying I'd prefer for Spider-Man to stay in the MCU, even though no one is calling me out on it. I just want it to be clear, but I do have a few positive feelings towards the possibility of Sony taking lead again.

oldmanwinters

08-21-2019, 11:20 AM

I just hate to think that this might push Marvel to (re)bulid things around, I dunno, Captain Marvel as opposed to what it seemed like they were intending to do, which was push Spider-Man to the forefront a bit more.

I wouldn't mind seeing Rogue swipe her powers when the X-Men finally arrive.

ZariusTwo

08-21-2019, 12:29 PM

J50871wzfOY

ZariusTwo

08-21-2019, 03:14 PM

Watts isn't "locked down" for another movie, and is being courted by other studios

https://www.newsarama.com/46616-jon-watts-isn-t-locked-down-for-more-spider-man-films-heavily-courted-by-other-studios-report.html

Coola Yagami

08-21-2019, 03:38 PM

They just last year released Into the Spider-Verse, which is a fan-favorite, and way more entertaining than at least half the MCU films from the last five years.

1- wasn't live action, doesn't count in the garage scheme of things

2- Spidey in the MCU didn't prevent them from making Spider-Verse and they couid even make a sequel if they wanted without messing with the MCU.

AquaParade

08-21-2019, 05:36 PM

1- wasn't live action, doesn't count in the garage scheme of things

2- Spidey in the MCU didn't prevent them from making Spider-Verse and they couid even make a sequel if they wanted without messing with the MCU.

1. Still counts. It was a movie they produced. They aren't the content creators on any of the projects they're producing, even though they sometimes overstep their boundaries, arguably. Their job is to manage the production of the film and get the right people for the job. While animation, as a medium, can be quite different from live action film, the job of the producer is largely the same. It's not the same difference as, say, hiring a writer to direct a film or vis versa.

2. Sure. I agree. But that wasn't my point. My point was that Sony is a studio capable of producing high quality Spider-Man films, just as recently as last year. It wasn't that Sony producing high quality Spider-Man films is not possible with Spider-Man simultaneously in the MCU.

Aside from that, I really feel like there will be negotiations that end with Spider-Man back in the MCU. Ya know, going by the outcry we are seeing online, as well as the fact that it truly seems to benefit both parties.

Candy Kappa

08-21-2019, 06:06 PM

The Monopoly Mouse will win in the end

Cure

08-21-2019, 08:59 PM

Thank God for this. I'm so happy.

Andrew NDB

08-21-2019, 09:37 PM

https://i.ibb.co/7nYPZd6/FB-IMG-1566441131213.jpg

Sumac

08-21-2019, 10:14 PM

So I see Sony hasn't learnt **** from their past.

OK, waiting for another Spider Man reboot, when they will run this series into the ground. Again.

neatoman

08-22-2019, 06:20 AM

https://i.ibb.co/7nYPZd6/FB-IMG-1566441131213.jpg

I don't think they're allowed to have a 47% market share.

ZariusTwo

08-22-2019, 07:22 AM

While we'll never know how Stan would feel about all this, his daughter has spoken out, and it's not in favour of Disney

https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/22/stan-lee-daughter-sony-disney-spiderman-marvel/

oldmanwinters

08-22-2019, 08:53 AM

https://i.ibb.co/7nYPZd6/FB-IMG-1566441131213.jpg

Haha, my thoughts exactly!
https://comicbook.com/movies/2019/08/21/is-disney-buying-sony/

I've written previously about the fact Spider-Man is the most important IP Sony has, so much so that without it Sony's financial situation would be weak. It's also no secret that Sony Pictures is likely to wind up bought by another company at some point in the next couple of years, for all of the reasons the much larger and more successful 20th Century Fox did the math and realized they couldn't compete longterm in a marketplace requiring a larger stable of branded IP, global multimedia footprint, and marketing power than Fox had, relative to more financially successful and IP-laden studios. If and when Sony winds up in a merger with a company like Netflix, Amazon, or Apple, the Spider-Man IP will revert back to Marvel — and it's unlikely anyone currently involved with the IP at Sony will get a dime when that happens.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/08/21/how-the-marvel-sony-spider-man-dispute-will-be-solved-one-way-or-another/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Valerie%2F&fbclid=IwAR1z9KKub7iiPFHnPr6CR7LROTf7HevPuSIdWllGx LMUX0Fb_EE_H_zOfCk#7407add76b50

CyberCubed

08-22-2019, 09:59 AM

So I see Sony hasn't learnt **** from their past.

OK, waiting for another Spider Man reboot, when they will run this series into the ground. Again.

They aren’t rebooting and Tom Holland is still spiderman. All this means is if a deal doesn’t go through you just won’t see Spider-Man teaming up with the other Marvel superheroes anymore. And no more mentions of Tony Stark in Spider-Man movies.

But everything else in the current Spider-Man movies will continue on as usual. I’m pretty sure Tom Holland is signed on for at least 2 more movies either way.

Coola Yagami

08-22-2019, 10:07 AM

They aren’t rebooting and Tom Holland is still spiderman. All this means is if a deal doesn’t go through you just won’t see Spider-Man teaming up with the other Marvel superheroes anymore. And no more mentions of Tony Stark in Spider-Man movies.

But everything else in the current Spider-Man movies will continue on as usual. I’m pretty sure Tom Holland is signed on for at least 2 more movies either way.

I'm pretty sure Sony doesn't give two ***** of what Tom Holland is signed up for. They could literally reboot Spider-Man yet again and have Holland be a random extra in the class if they wanted.

CyberCubed

08-22-2019, 10:42 AM

AquaParade

08-22-2019, 11:30 AM

Why would they do that when Far from home grossed the most amount for a movie they had? Sony has no intention of rebooting, this deal was just about Marvel getting the profits and to keep using him in MCU movies.

Sony has been building up their spiderman universe with Venom and other spinoffs and will continue using Holland as long as possible. If anything they’re probably jumping at the chance to do the Spider-Man Vs Venom movie they wanted now.

Right. There is every reason to believe Sony will want to stick with Tom Holland, as well as any other groundwork laid by Marvel, that is still accessible to them.

Andrew NDB

08-22-2019, 11:32 AM

They aren’t rebooting and Tom Holland is still spiderman. All this means is if a deal doesn’t go through you just won’t see Spider-Man teaming up with the other Marvel superheroes anymore. And no more mentions of Tony Stark in Spider-Man movies.

That's not all it means. It means absolutely 0 quality control from Marvel/Disney... and we saw how that goes with Spider-Man 3, the Spider-Man 4 they tried to rush Raimi into, Amazing Spider-Man, and Amazing Spider-Man 2. As in the Hot Garbage Express™.

If it comes to it, it'll be a bit sad watching Sony destroy a thing that's been built up over the last two movies. Though it wouldn't be the first time they've torn a thing they've had success with in the third movie.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-22-2019, 11:56 AM

AquaParade

08-22-2019, 11:58 AM

That's not all it means. It means absolutely 0 quality control from Marvel/Disney... and we saw how that goes with Spider-Man 3, the Spider-Man 4 they tried to rush Raimi into, Amazing Spider-Man, and Amazing Spider-Man 2. As in the Hot Garbage Express™.

If it comes to it, it'll be a bit sad watching Sony destroy a thing that's been built up over the last two movies. Though it wouldn't be the first time they've torn a thing they've had success with in the third movie.

Right, it also means 0 quality control from Marvel, which is arguably a bigger change than the characters they are able to use, if you want to parcel it out.

And yeah, I totally understand the sentiment that it's a bad thing for Marvel to no longer be involved. It scares me too. But, why do you leave out "Into The Spider-Verse" as proof that Sony can produce good films? I know the animation medium is different, but I don't believe that is reason to discount it as a well made Spider-Man film produced by Sony. The producer's role is largely the same in both instances.

And I'm not saying "all praise Into the Spider-Verse" either. It's not even my favorite Spider-Man movie, but I honestly found it way more entertaining then Captain Marvel, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Ant-man & The Wasp, or Dr. Strange. All which are recent Marvel films, which bored me to tears.

That right there leads me to believe that Marvel is plenty capable of delivering boring films and Sony is capable of delivering great ones.

Marvel is the safe bet. The much safer bet. I hope a deal is worked out. But don't you get a at least a little excited about the possibility of Sony pulling a Fox Studios and bringing in an awesome director to give us a film to the caliber of "Logan" (something I don't think the MCU has been able to do yet, as wonderful as it is)?
Imagine an A-list director coming in, with a slightly smaller budget, slightly less sutido interferrance, and delivering a moody vision of "Kraven's Last Hunt"? That's just one possibility, but there are doors that open, with Marvel stepping aside.

Anyway, I don't mean to nag at your position. I'm just picking your brain a bit.

Andrew NDB

08-22-2019, 12:09 PM

But, why do you leave out "Into The Spider-Verse" as proof that Sony can produce good films?

Because nobody had to work with actors on an actual set and most importantly there was no pressure from Sony to setup 30 other movies in it, as there was with every single one of the last 4 (yes, I'm including the Spider-Man 4 that Sony was trying to bully Raimi into making) live action Spider-Man movies.

Marvel is the safe bet. The much safer bet. I hope a deal is worked out. But don't you get a at least a little excited about the possibility of Sony pulling a Fox Studios and bringing in an awesome director to give us a film to the caliber of "Logan" (something I don't think the MCU has been able to do yet, as wonderful as it is)?

No. There is nothing about Sony Pictures that remotely inspires hope or trust, not for a long time.

AquaParade

08-22-2019, 12:30 PM

Because nobody had to work with actors on an actual set and most importantly there was no pressure from Sony to setup 30 other movies in it, as there was with every single one of the last 4 (yes, I'm including the Spider-Man 4 that Sony was trying to bully Raimi into making) live action Spider-Man movies.

No. There is nothing about Sony Pictures that remotely inspires hope or trust, not for a long time.

I think there was pressure from Sony to setup 30 other movies in Spider-Verse. Just look at the concept, and the television live-action Spider-Verse shows and movie sequels they have already announced. The film is crammed full of spin-off potential and set-up, despite being able to keep it all streamlined into a coherent story. But if your point is that Into the Spider-Verse was better off for not having pressure from Sony to set up 30 movies, than why not give the film it's due credit for that? Why not give Sony their due credit for that? Your point is that they did something good...

Fair enough about Sony not inspiring any faith at all in you though.

What did you think of Spider-Man: FFH?

I think I felt really disappointed by it - the outlandish comedy that involved Peter calling in drones on a classmate, the somewhat sterile action scenes against the Elementals, the lack of tragedy in Peter's life - but I'm hesitant to speak too soon, because I often need to see these films more than once to form a strong opinion. There were things I liked about it, but until I see it again, I'm inclined to think the MCU isn't really doing anything extra special with their version of Spider-Man, at this point, now that we have seen what it's like for him to team up with the Avengers.

Sumac

08-22-2019, 01:46 PM

Why would they do that when Far from home grossed the most amount for a movie they had? Sony has no intention of rebooting, this deal was just about Marvel getting the profits and to keep using him in MCU movies.

Sony has been building up their spiderman universe with Venom and other spinoffs and will continue using Holland as long as possible. If anything they’re probably jumping at the chance to do the Spider-Man Vs Venom movie they wanted now.
What Andrew had said - no quality control from Marvel.
Sony once killed Raimi's Spider-Man, which was their golden goose. There is no way to be sure, that they won't do the same mistake again. And by all accounts, they most likely will.

ZariusTwo

08-22-2019, 01:51 PM

What Andrew had said - no quality control from Marvel

Marvel rarely has "quality control" over itself

AquaParade

08-22-2019, 01:52 PM

What Andrew had said - no quality control from Marvel.
Sony once killed Raimi's Spider-Man, which was their golden goose. There is no way to be sure, that they won't do the same mistake again. And by all accounts, they most likely will.

Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man wasn't really looking like a golden goose after the reception to Spider-Man 3. Tom Holland is still loved by the fan base, younger, still has films left in his contract, and we are in an age where an on-going universe is much more desirable.

Signs point to Sony keeping Tom Holland.

I think Disney still has a lot of incentive to make this deal work, and that is why I am optimistic they will reach an agreement. Disney will want to make sure their most profitable character is not driven into the ground. They also don't want Sony to potentially release a terrible Spider-Man sequel with Tom Holland that casual audiences confused with the MCU. A couple bad Sony Spider-Man movies, that are virtually indistinguishable from the MCU films, to casual audiences, could really stink up the MCU's image.

CyberCubed

08-22-2019, 04:30 PM

The time for Tobey Maguire to make his triumphant return as a middle-age Spiderman is here!

https://media.giphy.com/media/100xP6iBYaTe4E/200w.gif

https://media.tenor.com/images/448871e15f25b85b388192867d5038f6/tenor.gif

https://i.imgur.com/whWBXVf.jpg

It's inevitable, even if its another Spider-verse type movie just in live action.

TigerClaw

08-22-2019, 04:58 PM

https://scontent-mia3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/69629117_365883297643555_5955195597282607104_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQnwAwDrRbGyDeFEQtq1um-chkpqbyiH_kLUur30F9C4I9UpYJhynVq8ODOL_LLEISk&_nc_ht=scontent-mia3-1.xx&oh=632270f272f7b18c0eb070428db0ac70&oe=5E0D1A6A

Vegita-San

08-22-2019, 05:53 PM

why don't they just buy it out right if they are so rich?

no idea why they are playing ball like this.
they got FF and Xmen back after all.

AquaParade

08-22-2019, 06:29 PM

why don't they just buy it out right if they are so rich?

no idea why they are playing ball like this.
they got FF and Xmen back after all.

Well it’s not entirely up to them. Sony has to want to sell.

CyberCubed

08-22-2019, 06:32 PM

why don't they just buy it out right if they are so rich?

no idea why they are playing ball like this.
they got FF and Xmen back after all.

You expect Disney to get away with a hostile takeover?

Coola Yagami

08-22-2019, 09:40 PM

You expect Disney to get away with a hostile takeover?

I mean... it's Disney.

Andrew NDB

08-23-2019, 02:37 AM

I'm not too worried about that. Disney barely was able to acquire only certain Fox assets. If they come back to the table about Sony (remember, we're talking PS4s and sh**) there will be blowback.

Don't have a whole lot of faith that anything would happen to that end, though. More likely is that they will just deal at some point. And am I stupid, or is in none of this actually anything saying that Spider-Man will be forcibly removed from the MCU? I see about Feige being not a part of new solo Spider-Man movies as producer... but nothing saying some kind of handshake still doesn't exist? I mean, I'm reasonably certain Feige having a producer credit on the last two Spider-Man movies (and keep in mind, he even had one on ASM2) has little to do with what universe it is in.

CyberCubed

08-23-2019, 07:37 AM

Andrew NDB

08-23-2019, 10:38 AM

Sony is a Japanese company, pretty sure American companies cannot forcibly buyout Sony. Microsoft considered something similar buying Nintendo in the Gamecube/Xbox era way back in 2001 and it was laughed off back then too.

IF anything it would be Disney buying Sony Pictures. It's not like Disney would be allowed to acquire their whole hardware/TV/Playstation empire.

AquaParade

08-23-2019, 11:40 AM

IF anything it would be Disney buying Sony Pictures. It's not like Disney would be allowed to acquire their whole hardware/TV/Playstation empire.

Or to take it further, just the Spider-Man catalog itself. Would be slightly cheaper, less of a headache to acquire, and the cream of the crop. The incentive lingers because of the shadow Spider-Man casts over Marvel, so it seems more likely than any other type of buyout.

Vegita-San

08-23-2019, 11:44 AM

Well it’s not entirely up to them. Sony has to want to sell.

TRUE.

But, pony enough money up and selling would seem like the easier option. especially, one would think, to a japanese company that generally doesn't like headaches...

Andrew NDB

08-23-2019, 11:45 AM

The failure of "Dark Phoenix" may be to blame for this:

https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/08/23/disney-sony-spider-man-split-caused-x-men-dark-phoenix-box-office-failure/?fbclid=IwAR1XauTY0GQFnVpdlgtwWyKfqo-qmjaubdxuSgPFgWWUDTx8kY6G7I-KVWM

AquaParade

08-23-2019, 11:46 AM

TRUE.

But, pony enough money up and selling would seem like the easier option. especially, one would think, to a japanese company that generally doesn't like headaches...

It would appear that way. Disney comes across as filthy rich, even if they did probably just spend an uncomfortable amount on Fox.

And it would definitely seem like less of a headache, right? Not only would it change the game in terms of freedom allowed to MCU Spider-Man films, but they wouldn't have to worry about Sony screwing it all up and destroying Marvels Spider-Man merch sales.

CyberCubed

08-24-2019, 07:12 PM

https://ew.com/movies/2019/08/24/tom-holland-spider-man-future-disney-sony/?utm_term=8822BEF8-C6AF-11E9-A6F3-8D964744363C&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly_ew&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_content=link&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

Tom Holland:

“Basically, we’ve made five great movies,” Holland told EW. “It’s been five amazing years. I’ve had the time of my life. Who knows what the future holds? But all I know is that I’m going to continue playing Spider-Man and having the time of my life. It’s going to be so fun, however we choose to do it. The future for Spider-Man will be different, but it will be equally as awesome and amazing, and we’ll find new ways to make it even cooler.”

Well there you have it, Tom Holland will still be playing Spiderman for the few who had any doubts. Just hope the movies stay good.

sdp

08-24-2019, 09:09 PM

The rules of antitrust laws have changed a lot because of tech giants FAANG, basically the reason why AT&T was able to buy Time Warner and is a much bigger company than it was when it got broken up both times before in history. Disney buying Sony Pictures could be a problem, buying the Playstaiton brand? Maybe not so much. Either way I don't see it happening anytime soon.

This could still be interesting based on Tom Holland's posts, so basically Sony could continue making pseudo MCU movies, not connected but same actor playing what seems to be the same character but now without any Disney control so Venom and the other Sony movies will technically be in continuity, at least more than the pre Disney + Marvel Netflix / TV shows.

Andrew NDB

08-25-2019, 02:02 AM

This could still be interesting based on Tom Holland's posts, so basically Sony could continue making pseudo MCU movies, not connected but same actor playing what seems to be the same character

That was never in question.

CyberCubed

08-25-2019, 10:49 AM

I don't see why people are confused about this. Spiderman 3 (and 4) will be direct sequels to the first two movies, with Tom Holland and assumingly his classmates all reprising their roles. They're all in continuity with each other, you just won't see Spiderman talk about Tony Stark anymore or mention things from the MCU.

Which could actually be a good thing, because they accepted Tony is now gone and now its time for Spiderman to stand on his own as his own hero. If anything it happened at the perfect time.

Nick Fury won't appear in the next movie either but he doesn't have to, they'll resolve whatever storyline they were doing with the Scrawls in some future MCU movie

AquaParade

08-25-2019, 11:29 AM

The only way for the MCU to "shake" the Sony Spider-man universe from appearing to take place in some sort of psued-MCU, would be to attempt a major earthwide upheaval that Sony could not copy. Like the five-year gap they just did.

That seems like it could be a challenge that is more trouble than it's worth, so it should be quite interesting to see how Sony move forward in this world, while avoiding referencing the MCU. I suppose it could be done in a way that works. I essentially just don't want to be thinking about it as I watch the film. That is the challenge. If they can do that, there are a lot of other interesting characters and stories to play with in the Spider-Man universe.

But it's really strange, the idea of them essentially pretending they are in the MCU.

Could definitely be a **** show as well. I'm still holding out hope that negotiations will resume.
If not though, I'm most anxious to hear about the Kraven script that was intended to include Spider-man. I believe the writer mentioned it late last year.

Sumac

08-25-2019, 01:42 PM

I am more interested how they gonna control that the stories in Sony's pseudo-MCU won't contradict stuff in real MCU.

Or is this is impossible at this point?

CyberCubed

08-25-2019, 01:52 PM

The only way for the MCU to "shake" the Sony Spider-man universe from appearing to take place in some sort of psued-MCU, would be to attempt a major earthwide upheaval that Sony could not copy. Like the five-year gap they just did.

That seems like it could be a challenge that is more trouble than it's worth, so it should be quite interesting to see how Sony move forward in this world, while avoiding referencing the MCU. I suppose it could be done in a way that works. I essentially just don't want to be thinking about it as I watch the film. That is the challenge. If they can do that, there are a lot of other interesting characters and stories to play with in the Spider-Man universe.

But it's really strange, the idea of them essentially pretending they are in the MCU.

Why do people think its so hard to make a new Spiderman movie without mentioning stuff in the MCU? Spiderman can stand on his own, he "got over" being the next Tony Stark in this movie.

I find it strange online in other places I keep seeing people say, "It'll be impossible to make a Spiderman movie not mentioning stuff in the MCU" and I'm like...why? Spiderman doesn't have to mention any other characters, just make a Spiderman movie with the next villain and continue from there. Just like Spiderman cartoons/comics don't mention anything about the Avengers when its just his stories.

AquaParade

08-25-2019, 02:04 PM

Why do people think its so hard to make a new Spiderman movie without mentioning stuff in the MCU? Spiderman can stand on his own, he "got over" being the next Tony Stark in this movie.

I find it strange online in other places I keep seeing people say, "It'll be impossible to make a Spiderman movie not mentioning stuff in the MCU" and I'm like...why? Spiderman doesn't have to mention any other characters, just make a Spiderman movie with the next villain and continue from there. Just like Spiderman cartoons/comics don't mention anything about the Avengers when its just his stories.

Well like I said, it's the challenge of a new Sony Spidey film but it's not impossible by any means. It will be natural for people to wonder where the Avengers are if there is a world-endangering threat. And then of course you remember that they don't exist in this universe...anymore. Or something. And it's just a bit awkward.

I don't think anyone believes that there isn't enough material to pull from without the MCU, but it's about creating a world that feels cohesive and doesn't tempt you to question the reality of it. It is the inherent awkwardness of the situation - this is the MCU but it isn't. For me, at least.

Like I said, I think they can avoid any glaring inconsistencies if they are mindful.

I mean, it would have been fun as hell seeing a group of MCU Thunderbolts or small time heroes hunting down Spider-Man, after Far From Home's cliffhanger, but now if they follow up on that, we might be wondering where all the other heroes are at, if Spidey is being hunted down by the government or latest incarnation of Shield or whatever it might be. "Why doesn't Spider-Man go to Nick Fury for help??" Etc
Whether or not these are great examples, they illustrate the type of questions that the audience might run into, leading to general confusion or awkwardness.

Andrew NDB

08-26-2019, 11:37 AM

I am more interested how they gonna control that the stories in Sony's pseudo-MCU won't contradict stuff in real MCU.

Or is this is impossible at this point?

I'm sure there will still be some kind of tepid relationship between Sony and Marvel/Disney. I'm sure both sides will be interested in "playing it safe" in making things "fit" on either side of the fence "just in case" something develops again.

Like, I dunno... when Spider-Man 3 dramatically underperforms and gets critically savaged.

Also, apparently Sony named their price for Spider-Man and Disney said no:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/sony-reportedly-10-billion-spiderman-rights-disney-pay/?fbclid=IwAR0KPKD66e9SizumlDCT4TXCjTETxkAiXKRDjV42 lOn_uv1hohIVL_8cX8g

10 billion. I think that's a reasonable price. Disney should have paid, if this is true.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-26-2019, 12:12 PM

I'm sure there will still be some kind of tepid relationship between Sony and Marvel/Disney. I'm sure both sides will be interested in "playing it safe" in making things "fit" on either side of the fence "just in case" something develops again.

Like, I dunno... when Spider-Man 3 dramatically underperforms and gets critically savaged.

Also, apparently Sony named their price for Spider-Man and Disney said no:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/sony-reportedly-10-billion-spiderman-rights-disney-pay/?fbclid=IwAR0KPKD66e9SizumlDCT4TXCjTETxkAiXKRDjV42 lOn_uv1hohIVL_8cX8g

10 billion. I think that's a reasonable price. Disney should have paid, if this is true.

If the X-Men and Fantastic Four hadn't just reverted to the MCU, I think these negotiations would have played out very differently.

Spiderman isn't as important going forward now that all these other new players are on the board.

AquaParade

08-26-2019, 12:59 PM

If the X-Men and Fantastic Four hadn't just reverted to the MCU, I think these negotiations would have played out very differently.

Spiderman isn't as important going forward now that all these other new players are on the board.

You'd think so, but if I'm not mistaken, Spider-Man merchandise is still Marvel's largest source of revenue. Keeping that character intact should be a high priority.

Andrew NDB

08-26-2019, 01:03 PM

I was looking forward to Avengers Tower becoming the Oscorp Building. I hope that can still happen, somehow.

AquaParade

08-26-2019, 01:05 PM

I was looking forward to Avengers Tower becoming the Oscorp Building. I hope that can still happen, somehow.

With all the rumors of a possible "Dark Avengers" film, I was getting really excited at the idea of Norman Osborn taking the Iron man armor, pretending to be a hero, and making a mockery of the whole thing. Probably too many expectations to have, but yeah, I want Osborn in the MCU.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-26-2019, 01:08 PM

You'd think so, but if I'm not mistaken, Spider-Man merchandise is still Marvel's largest source of revenue. Keeping that character intact should be a high priority.

That's definitely true. But I think Marvel is banking on Sony getting into Spidey trouble again a few years down the road, and then reacquiring the rights.

Why pony up $10 mil when you can wait 8 years and hopefully get them for much cheaper, after Sony screws the pooch with a failed film or two?

It's a risk, of course; Sony could exceed all expectations.

Vegita-San

08-26-2019, 01:14 PM

That's definitely true. But I think Marvel is banking on Sony getting into Spidey trouble again a few years down the road, and then reacquiring the rights.

Why pony up $10 mil when you can wait 8 years and hopefully get them for much cheaper, after Sony screws the pooch with a failed film or two?

It's a risk, of course; Sony could exceed all expectations.

my thought as well. Sony does NOT have the best franchise track record property.

Andrew NDB

08-26-2019, 01:19 PM

It's a risk, of course; Sony could exceed all expectations.

https://media.giphy.com/media/pPhYIDiYzOGSA/giphy.gif

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-26-2019, 01:19 PM

my thought as well. Sony does NOT have the best franchise track record property.

Like AquaParade has been saying, Sony holding the rights again is the biggest risk/reward path. I personally expect the worst... for things to go okay for a film or two, and then crash and burn horribly.

But who knows?

AquaParade

08-26-2019, 01:50 PM

Like AquaParade has been saying, Sony holding the rights again is the biggest risk/reward path. I personally expect the worst... for things to go okay for a film or two, and then crash and burn horribly.

But who knows?

Totally. It's popular to drag Sony Pictures over the rakes for their mistakes, but there's plenty of reason to believe they could knock it out of the park.

The picture you see when you look at the landscape of these comicbook films, mainly produced by Sony, Fox, and Marvel, over the last ten years is of high ups and downs.

From "Wolverine Origins" to "Logan", From "Spider-Man 2" to "Spider-Man 3", from "Avengers" to "Thor: the Dark World" to "Captain America: Winter Soldier". From "Infinity War" to "Ant-Man and the Wasp".

MCU has the most output and is most consistent, but you can see winners and losers all the way down the line, for each studio. Recently Sony had a major fumble on "ASM 2" and then a huge win with fans and critics in "Into the Spider-Verse". Who knows what could happen next?? Studios learn from mistakes, get cocky, have major shifts in leadership, etc.

Anyways, I'm being a broken record, but Sony is definitely a case of higher risk/reward compared to MCU.

Coola Yagami

08-26-2019, 02:55 PM

Anyways, I'm being a broken record, but Sony is definitely a case of higher risk/reward compared to MCU.

No. And again, SPIDER-VERSE DOES. NOT. COUNT. it has Nothing to do with Holland. It only proves that Sony should leave the live action Spider-Man to Marvel and just do animated films instead.

I don't want Sony ****ing up the cliffhanger that FFH ended with .

AquaParade

08-26-2019, 03:03 PM

No. And again, SPIDER-VERSE DOES. NOT. COUNT. it has Nothing to do with Holland. It only proves that Sony should leave the live action Spider-Man to Marvel and just do animated films instead.

I don't want Sony ****ing up the cliffhanger that FFH ended with .

By that logic, ASM 1 + 2 don't count either, because "they have nothing to do with Holland".

It does count, even if you'd like to overestimate the difference in roles between the producer of an animated Spider-Man film and the producer of a live-action Spider-Man film. "Into the Spider-Verse" is a win for Sony. It's a feather in their hat. It counts as a successful film they have produced. There is no way of getting around it.

I'll reiterate that it doesn't mean the next film will be as good, but I use it to combat the argument that the only real possibility is that Sony ****s up the next film. It's an overly cynical take, and not realistic. Things could go either way. Obviously.

CyberCubed

08-26-2019, 03:04 PM

People feel cartoons don’t count because it’s just animation and voice acting.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-26-2019, 03:04 PM

No. And again, SPIDER-VERSE DOES. NOT. COUNT. it has Nothing to do with Holland. It only proves that Sony should leave the live action Spider-Man to Marvel and just do animated films instead.

I tend to agree that Into the Spider-Verse doesn't count towards Sony's track record. At least, not in any way that matters for live-action Spidey movies going forward.

AquaParade

08-26-2019, 03:14 PM

People feel cartoons don’t count because it’s just animation and voice acting.

That makes me wonder what people think producers actually do. They don't need to have expertise in the actual creative craft. Their job is to help manage the project, and find the right people for the job, and hopefully stay out of the way at that point.

It's not the same as recruiting a football player for a basketball team, or asking a professional cook to fix your electricity. That is the type of thing people tend to equate it to.

Amy Pascal has been one of the producers on all these Spider-Man films, and they are all to varying degrees of quality. It wasn't a case of her having no experience producing an animated film and coming in and burning the house down, with lack of experience on Into the Spider-Verse. No, it stands to reason that she took her live action Spider-Man experience and applied it here, to great success. It wasn't like she had to play a whole new ball game.

Andrew NDB

08-26-2019, 03:19 PM

AquaParade

08-26-2019, 03:21 PM

I've directed live action movies before. There are a million different turning wheels with live action and it's not remotely the same thing and one has to only think about it for a few seconds to imagine (probably mostly correctly) the reasons why that would be.

That they were able to successfully have an OK script animated by 200 Chinese underpaid modelers overseas tells us less than nothing about Sony's predilection toward meddling with the live action movies to their deficits.

Being a director isn't the same as being a producer.

The script was handled by the creatives - Miller, Lord, their underling team of directors, etc. Amy Pascal did the same job she did on other Spider-Man films - find and hire the right talent (Lord, Miller, team) for the job.

sdp

08-26-2019, 06:40 PM

All of these are just talks and pressure to see who gives in first to the deal or calls the bluff. At the end of the day Sony will see how much more profit it got from the "failure" of ASM movies or the "success" of MCU Spidey, if it got a lot more money from MCU spidey and it'll get more money despite having a bad deal they'll fold, if they see they can make more money making bad spider-man movies then they won't care.

Does Disney have the rights for a Spider-Man live action show? if it does and they really wanted to just stick it to Sony they could do a Disney+ show with Tom Holland, but that would be expensive and done only to spite Sony. More likely we'll just see a "not in continuity" but basically in continuity version of spider-man not controlled by Disneya nd I think it could actually be good. Spider-Man and X-Men have enough characters and lore to make a universe all on their own.

Andrew NDB

08-26-2019, 06:46 PM

Does Disney have the rights for a Spider-Man live action show?

Mmm... I doubt it. I think as long as Sony holds the movie rights, nobody can make any live-action TV shows unless Disney gives the thumbs up. I think?

I say that mostly because you just know Disney would have by now, if they could.

AquaParade

08-27-2019, 07:49 AM

Any type of makeshift workaround to keep some form of Tom Holland Spider-Man in the MCU, without a new MCU contract, will not work.

I've seen it as both a joke and a serious suggestion, but there won't be any Night Monkey, witness protection Peter, or TV series continuing where they left off, despite the deal falling through.

Yes, sometimes you can troubleshoot a contract but this is too big and you can bet they considered these possibilities before signing a deal. Any sneaky attempt that Marvel could make to keep the character in their world would quickly be shot down by one contract stipulation or another. It would be dirty.

It sure is nice to dream though. I might even prefer a Disney+ Spider-Man live action series, over another film, if a new deal does get worked out. It would be more content and a different type of pacing to play with. The budget seems to be there.

TigerClaw

08-27-2019, 04:03 PM

Andrew NDB

08-27-2019, 04:25 PM

CyberCubed

08-27-2019, 05:41 PM

With SpiderMan leaving the MCU. That also means that Spider-Man can't have the Tony Stark suit that he made for him. The one with all the tech inside it. So for Sony's Spider-Man. They will have to undo that and create a new suit that doesn't have any of the tech in it.

Which is a good thing, Spiderman can stand on his own like he always did instead of being Iron Man Jr. Again, why do people think the lack of Tony Stark stuff going forward is a bad thing? It made sense for these first two movies because we were just starting off, but Spiderman has his entire own universe.

You know eventually they're going to re-tread the boring Green Goblin story for the third time, eventually re-do Doctor Octopus in this new continuity, and continue bringing in new villains. We don't need any more Avenger stuff here.

Andrew NDB

08-27-2019, 05:55 PM

Which is a good thing, Spiderman can stand on his own like he always did instead of being Iron Man Jr. Again, why do people think the lack of Tony Stark stuff going forward is a bad thing? It made sense for these first two movies because we were just starting off, but Spiderman has his entire own universe.

You know eventually they're going to re-tread the boring Green Goblin story for the third time, eventually re-do Doctor Octopus in this new continuity, and continue bringing in new villains. We don't need any more Avenger stuff here.

I care more about what Marvel having Spider-Man does for everything else than just seeing Spider-Man show up in other MCU movies, or MCU characters showing up in his.

i.e., Oscorp and Norman Osborne as a MCU threat.

ZariusTwo

08-29-2019, 01:22 PM

Marvel Studios were the ones that put a halt to Holland's cameo in Venom. It had already been filmed but they ordered it be cut out

https://www.newsarama.com/38194-tom-holland-s-spider-man-to-appear-in-sony-s-venom-movie-report.html

Andrew NDB

08-29-2019, 01:23 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-29-2019, 01:26 PM

Makes sense. I remember reading he was spotted on set.

I wonder if Andy Serkis will retool the Venom sequel to bring in Spiderman, or if they'll produce on the course they were already on.

AquaParade

08-29-2019, 01:33 PM

I wonder if Andy Serkis will retool the Venom sequel to bring in Spiderman, or if they'll produce on the course they were already on.

My first instinct is to think that they probably don't know at this point. That a possible negotiation is still on their mind, if not happening as we speak.

But I thought it was interesting that Tom Holland went on to say that he had teamed up with some of the "creatives" and pitched Spider-Man 3 already. I have to imagine that is just some form of him trying to keep the boat steady, but it was deliberate.
Did they truly decide that quickly how they want to proceed without Marvel?? Is it a negotiation tactic planted by Sony? Was this path decided on long ago? A lot of questions.

sdp

08-29-2019, 06:36 PM

Maybe we can get that deleted scene from venom with Holland back and finally see it.

ProphetofGanja

08-30-2019, 12:58 PM

AquaParade

08-30-2019, 01:08 PM

I wonder if others are excited for a Tom Holland - Spider-Man & Tom Hardy - Venom team-up, because the idea doesn't interest me in the slightest. Even more so, when it already feels like more of a marketing stunt than at all story-driven.

I love both actors and both characters, but it doesn't feel like the right direction to take Spider-Man. Feels more like a stunt.

Sumac

08-30-2019, 01:48 PM

What point would it even serve? We’ve already seen that this iteration of Venom’s origin has zero connection to Spider-Man, and I can’t even see any reason for Eddie Brock to have a grudge against Peter Parker.
Sony will figure it out like...mmm...Peter somehow somewhere flirted with Eddie's girlfriend, which led to DEEP psychological trauma in Eddie.

There I got it. :lol:

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-30-2019, 01:55 PM

Sony will figure it out like...mmm...Peter somehow somewhere flirted with Eddie's girlfriend, which led to DEEP psychological trauma in Eddie.

There I got it. :lol:

Dude. Show some creativity, make a little effort. I can double the impact by just changing ONE word of your idea. Behold!

Peter somehow somewhere flirted with Eddie's boyfriend, which led to DEEP psychological trauma in Eddie.

There. You hetero cis-male Russian, you. :trazz:

Shark_Blade

09-01-2019, 01:11 AM

Eddie’s boyfriend for life is Venom so...

AT-Man

09-01-2019, 12:36 PM

wJgSltWs7Tw

Xav

09-01-2019, 06:51 PM

Sony And Disney Meeting Again Next Week To Discuss Spider-Man (https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/sony-marvel-reportedly-meeting-week-discuss-spiderman/)

Autbot_Benz

09-01-2019, 07:40 PM

Sony And Disney Meeting Again Next Week To Discuss Spider-Man (https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/sony-marvel-reportedly-meeting-week-discuss-spiderman/)

Don't use wegotthiscovered they are a huge clickbait site that just makes up articles for clicks.

Autbot_Benz

09-05-2019, 06:14 PM

Door is officially closed on Spider-Man and the MCU for now.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/spiderman-mcu-sony-pictures-chief-1203324907/

More proof Wegotthiscovered is a ******** site and should not be used.

AquaParade

09-05-2019, 06:47 PM

I guess I'm going to try again to like the Venom movie. Wish me luck. I hope they speed past the Venom crossover and do something...groundbreaking (hehe)...with Kraven.

CyberCubed

09-05-2019, 06:51 PM

I watched the Venom movie, it's not very good. It falls apart as it goes on and it just feels weird to watch in general.

AquaParade

09-05-2019, 07:01 PM

I watched the Venom movie, it's not very good. It falls apart as it goes on and it just feels weird to watch in general.

I didn't like it either. I'm mostly joking, because they seem intent on doing a Spider-Man x Venom crossover, which I have about a 1% interest in. I feel like they are capable of doing something great but that isn't it.

There were reports that the Kraven script featured Spider-Man. Branching off of that idea is something that potentially excites me. Maybe the Sony Spider-Man universe could consist of:

A - a mainline series building off of Homecoming, FFH, with returning director, Jon Watts, to keep things cohesive and

B - Solo villain films that may also feature Tom Holland's Spider-Man - Venom 2, Kraven: the Hunter, Morbius 2.

While Sony and Jon Watts will have a closer eye on the mainline series, the "spin-off" films might be lower budget and a bit riskier. You keep them self-contained so that even if they stink things up a bit, the mainline series won't be dependent on them to be relevant.
It also allows Sony to keep the mainline Spider-Man series family friendly, while pleasing older fans with an edgier, character focused, maybe even "R-rated" film like "Kraven's Last Hunt" - this might be something that becomes very appealing if "Joker" is a big hit this Fall.

Just having fun brainstorming here a bit. It may not be the most likely outcome, but it seems plausible, and an idea I could get behind, if we won't be getting Spider-Man back in the MCU, which is what most of us really want, of course.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-05-2019, 07:27 PM

I was surprised that I enjoyed Venom more than I expected, but I'm a pretty big Tom Hardy fanboy.

I'm pretty sure if I were a Spiderman fan, I'd have hated it.

Jester

09-05-2019, 07:46 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-05-2019, 08:34 PM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Sony thinks they can do a Spider-man 3 movie after how much they've leaned into the MCU in the previous 2 films. I've jokingly said in the past that of all the MCU movies, the one to reference previous movies the most seem to be Sony Spider-man films. Iron-man and his characters at the very least (I mean, freakin' Happy Hogan is dating his aunt) are almost inextricable from that universe.

Yeah, it's pretty wild. I get why a lot of Spiderman fans hate the MCU movies... Spidey barely has anything truly his own in those movies.

That's a big plus on Sony's side. I still think things will crash and burn, but at least we won't go three for three on Spiderman villains all having a hate-boner for Tony Stark. :trolleye:

What's worse is, Norman Osborn and Doc Ock could have both EASILY been retrofitted for Tony Stark haters. The Lizard, too, come to think of it... anybody with a tech or business background.

Leo656

09-05-2019, 09:05 PM

Yeah, it's pretty wild. I get why a lot of Spiderman fans hate the MCU movies... Spidey barely has anything truly his own in those movies.

There's also the "These movies have as much in common with actual comic book Spider-Man as my ass does" issue. At least for me. Probably others as well.

As a general rule, if your "comic book movie" has nothing in common with the source material besides a superficial costume resemblance, then I don't care about your comic book movie.

And it's "Spider-Man", f*ck-face. Respect the hyphen.

Andrew NDB

09-05-2019, 09:20 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-06-2019, 09:48 AM

And it's "Spider-Man", f*ck-face. Respect the hyphen.

Yeah, I don't care enough. Including a hyphen seems like a real uber-fan thing to do.

But if you insist. I like Bat-man and Super-man better than Spiderman. :trazz:

Still... even if Feige isn't a producer on 3 and there is no firm contractual agreement between Marvel and Sony, there is nothing that says they can't come to a case-by-case understanding on this or that going forward.

i.e., we want Norman Osborne for these 2 movies. OK, we want Nick Fury and Happy Hogan for SM3. That sort of thing. Piecemeal.

It's really in neither patty's interest to pretend the other side of the fence suddenly doesn't exist anymore... UNLESS Sony screws the pooch on their next movies. In which case Marvel can just pretend they don't exist and ask fans to "only remember the good times," while Sony crawls back to the table.

That's pretty likely, yeah. Piecemeal character trades.

But Sony ain't gonna care enough about frickin' Hogan. Fury, though, that'd be worth giving up Norman Osborn for a movie or two.

neatoman

09-06-2019, 03:30 PM

Including a hyphen seems like a real uber-fan thing to do.

You also spelled "Über" wrong. :lol:

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-06-2019, 03:36 PM

You also spelled "Über" wrong. :lol:

Ain't nobody got time for a damn umlat.

Leo656

09-06-2019, 06:05 PM

You don't get to decide arbitrary punctuation/capitalization on Proper Names and Titles, guy. Those decisions are made way above your pay grade.

raph27

09-06-2019, 07:27 PM

Still... even if Feige isn't a producer on 3 and there is no firm contractual agreement between Marvel and Sony, there is nothing that says they can't come to a case-by-case understanding on this or that going forward.

i.e., we want Norman Osborne for these 2 movies. OK, we want Nick Fury and Happy Hogan for SM3. That sort of thing. Piecemeal.

It's really in neither party's interest to pretend the other side of the fence suddenly doesn't exist anymore... UNLESS Sony screws the pooch on their next movies. In which case Marvel can just pretend they don't exist and ask fans to "only remember the good times," while Sony crawls back to the table.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of before. It makes me think of the deal that fell through to put the Oscorp building from TASM into the first Avengers. (Though before Holland officially came in, I liked the theory that the reason there were so many cranes in NYC at the end of TASM was that they were cleaning up after the Chitauri invasion.)

Honestly, the best thing to hope for is that "Sony suits" don't come and bungle things up, even though we all know they will. You would think the lesson would be learned after so much stuff crammed into Raimi 3 and TASM2 that they would have learned, especially since Spiderverse was so good and that was allowed to be independent of all that baggage.

Now that I say that, I hope Sony doesn't force their studio checklist into a Spiderverse sequel.

Autbot_Benz

09-06-2019, 07:36 PM

Simple keep Tom Rothman Amy Pascal Avi Arad the other sony stooges away from the Spider-Man movies.

raph27

09-06-2019, 07:53 PM

Simple keep Tom Rothman Amy Pascal Avi Arad the other sony stooges away from the Spider-Man movies.

Well yeah, but the fact that they have a Morbius movie among like five other spinoffs all planned is proof that they don't have the self-control.

Sumac

09-06-2019, 08:10 PM

All I care is that Aunt May movie!! :P

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-06-2019, 09:09 PM

You don't get to decide arbitrary punctuation/capitalization on Proper Names and Titles, guy. Those decisions are made way above your pay grade.

I'm pretty sure an intern did too much molly at a party the night before and accidentally typed in the hyphen.

Spidey's been stuck with it ever since.

Moral of the story: don't do drugs, kids. It'll ruin your punctuation.

Leo656

09-06-2019, 09:20 PM

"Spider-Man" is a super-hero. "Spiderman" is the perfect last name for one of those hack lawyers you see advertising on TV at 3am, asking if you've suffered a grievous personal injury or been arrested for drugs.

These things matter, pally. Nothing's inconsequential when it comes to punctuation. For example, there's the time you helped your uncle, Jack, off a horse... and that's just for starters.

Put stuff where it goes! Teachers are literally being paid less than jizz-moppers to ensure that stuff like this stays important. Don't disrespect their efforts with your juvenile antics, you ain't got enough time in.

Andrew NDB

09-07-2019, 03:01 AM

All I care is that Aunt May movie!! :P

That's true. People forget that Sony was literally prepping an Aunt May movie during the Garfield movies.

CyberCubed

09-07-2019, 09:56 AM

Back then people assumed it would be a 60+ year old Aunt May. But now that we have Marrissa Tomei as Aunt May I bet people would see the movie. "Hot Aunt May" is a thing, people now go for 50+ year olds.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-07-2019, 04:51 PM

Sumac

09-07-2019, 07:46 PM

CyberCubed

09-07-2019, 08:36 PM

The weird thing is how 50+ year olds can be attractive now. In the 90's if you thought of a 50 year old you'd think of some old woman with short gray hair or something, like most imagine or used to see in shows back then.

Nowadays 50+ year olds can look in their late 30's or early 40's, so it's a huge difference.

Andrew NDB

09-13-2019, 02:05 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-13-2019, 02:12 PM

As predicted, Sony came back (allegedly) to the table and is offering Disney 30%. Less than the 50% Disney wanted but way more than the 5% stake they had before. They'l probably take it.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/sony-offered-disney-deal-30-spiderman/?utm_content=buffera2d1a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=IWGroup&fbclid=IwAR2d2kUX0Pz_qrlqeKiXLnWGGGYHG5zFQsR7GeHMt A1hGDYT92GFGN63wFQ

Part of the deal would be Venom officially in the MCU. Not sure how THAT'S supposed to work.

Like, a Spiderman/Venom movie will probably happen regardless... but that doesn't necessarily mean Venom is part of the wider MCU. I mean, look at Daredevil or Agent Coulson or anything else. You can be "all connected" and yet have zero impact on the Disney-approved / Disney-controlled mainstream.

Andrew NDB

09-13-2019, 02:16 PM

Part of the deal would be Venom officially in the MCU. Not sure how THAT'S supposed to work.

Like, a Spiderman/Venom movie will probably happen regardless... but that doesn't necessarily mean Venom is part of the wider MCU. I mean, look at Daredevil or Agent Coulson or anything else. You can be "all connected" and yet have zero impact on the Disney-approved / Disney-controlled mainstream.

Probably the translation of it is just, "We want to be able to use Venom in the solo Spider-Man movies and/or Spider-Man in our Venom movies, and be able to discuss using other MCU characters in Venom movies," and not, "We want to see Venom in a lot of MCU movies."

oldmanwinters

09-13-2019, 02:40 PM

ZariusTwo

09-13-2019, 02:59 PM

Andrew NDB

09-13-2019, 03:04 PM

How many more times must this be said?

That site isn't reliable

Apparently the original source is "the same ones who told us Marvel was developing a She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel show well before they were officially announced."

*shrug*

Autbot_Benz

09-13-2019, 05:27 PM

How many more times must this be said?

That site isn't reliable

Thank you it blows my mind how people keep reporting stuff from them and actualy believe the ********

Andrew NDB

09-18-2019, 05:18 PM

CyberCubed

09-18-2019, 05:25 PM

If that's true I wonder what will happen to Playstation more than anything. Apple technically has their own videogame line and mostly mobile, I'd hate to see them screw over the Playstation line.

Vegita-San

09-18-2019, 05:32 PM

curious how that would effect ghostbusters.

would it be any better in apple hands than sony?

Apparently CBS is on the list. imagine them owning turtles?

AquaParade

09-18-2019, 06:23 PM

If that's true I wonder what will happen to Playstation more than anything. Apple technically has their own videogame line and mostly mobile, I'd hate to see them screw over the Playstation line.

As someone who has a lot invested in Playstation (I've bought a lot of digital games and movies that are tied to my PS), I don't even feel like it would be that big of a loss.

On one hand, they are funding and bringing to life quality AAA single player titles that I love. I mean, Death Stranding is the one videogame I'm excited about above all else, and it is coming out on a Playstation. They are all about that type of content.
On the other hand, a game like that, with Hideo Kojima behind it, would have been made either way. And, maybe the same can be said for a lot of the other great exclusives they have. I don't know if Sony is doing enough outside of that to please me as a consumer. I've had Playstation 1-4, and grown up on the console, but they are constantly annoying me with their practices. Mostly regarding digital sales and the like. They really aren't very consumer-friendly.

Autbot_Benz

09-18-2019, 06:48 PM

So Apple might buy Sony and if that happens (or if Sony were to be bought by anyone), the rights would revert to Marvel/Disney. For free.

https://cosmicbook.news/spider-man-hold-apple-sony?fbclid=IwAR2NUUcrYzwP_PG2xxYwjBfYnf1gGtFYzLT7 nHLLCOEetG6maJMzBjDpISA

Ah Cosmicbooknews.com the second worse clickbait comic movie site ever

original article about Apple getting a big investment comes from yahoo finance https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-tv-content-174144095.html

ZariusTwo

09-27-2019, 10:29 AM

And the deal is back on

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/sony-marvel-tom-holland-spider-man-1203351489/

oldmanwinters

09-27-2019, 10:50 AM

And the deal is back on

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/sony-marvel-tom-holland-spider-man-1203351489/

tbad22CKlB4

Andrew NDB

09-27-2019, 10:54 AM

And the deal is back on

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/sony-marvel-tom-holland-spider-man-1203351489/

I knew it. And you can bet this is for a similar length as the last deal... i.e., 5 films or so. Pretty exciting as this will extend into when the X-Men and such will start to show up in the MCU for sure.

#hardballnegotiations

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-27-2019, 10:55 AM

Well, that's somewhat unexpected. Interesting.

Please name the third movie as follows:

SPIDER-MAN: MY HOMELIFE SUCKS BECAUSE MOMMY AND DADDY ARE STILL FIGHTING IN THE KITCHEN

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 11:03 AM

Awesome! I'm really glad about this. Yeah, I was tootin' the horn that Sony Live Action Spider-Man can be great, and I still believe that, but this is the best outcome.

And if we are lucky, the deal will open more doors for Sony to experiment with their own live-action Spider-Man in the meantime.

Autbot_Benz

09-27-2019, 11:04 AM

After the post credit scene with JJ they needed a third Marvel Movie

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 11:13 AM

According to reports, the deal allows for Marvel to feature Spider-Man in another future film. I wonder whether that will be Captain Marvel, as reported, or a future Avengers-type film.

I think I really like the idea of seeing Spider-Man in another character's film, because

A. It's more Spider-Man
B. It's great to see different teams of directors, writers, etc take on Spider-Man. I think it helps keep things fresh in a universe that is so connected and tonally similar.

EDIT: WOW, look at this quote from Kevin Feige:

"I am thrilled that Spidey’s journey in the MCU will continue, and I and all of us at Marvel Studios are very excited that we get to keep working on it,” said Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige. “Spider-Man is a powerful icon and hero whose story crosses all ages and audiences around the globe. He also happens to be the only hero with the superpower to cross cinematic universes, so as Sony continues to develop their own Spidey-verse you never know what surprises the future might hold.”

Ha! Part of the deal clearly included - "Kevin we need you to endorse the idea that our universes can cross - OR - at least Spider-Man can cross-over."
Hopefully if they bring Tom Holland into the "Venom-Verse", it will be by means of alternate-dimension or something. I still don't think the MCU will want to "muddy the waters" anymore than they have to.

Andrew NDB

09-27-2019, 11:21 AM

According to reports, the deal allows for Marvel to feature Spider-Man in another future film. I wonder whether that will be Captain Marvel, as reported, or a future Avengers-type film.

I think I really like the idea of seeing Spider-Man in another character's film, because

A. It's more Spider-Man
B. It's great to see different teams of directors, writers, etc take on Spider-Man. I think it helps keep things fresh in a universe that is so connected and tonally similar.

EDIT: WOW, look at this quote from Kevin Feige:

Ha! Part of the deal clearly included - "Kevin we need you to endorse the idea that our universes can cross - OR - at least Spider-Man can cross-over."
Hopefully if they bring Tom Holland into the "Venom-Verse", it will be by means of alternate-dimension or something. I still don't think the MCU will want to "muddy the waters" anymore than they have to.

#1, I'm pretty sure it was for more than just 1 MCU movie. Their last deal was for like 5.

#2, there were a lot of insider stuff about Marvel/Disney allowing some MCU integration with Venom and the like... you might be 100% right about Venom being an alternate universe Spidey visits but from where Sony is sitting that wouldn't be what they'd want.

#3, Spider-Man is the only superhero who can cross universes? Does anyone else find it of note that he seems to be forgetting about Deadpool here? Or is that intentional?

Also... yay... maybe Avengers tower does become the OsCorp building now.

neatoman

09-27-2019, 12:10 PM

25%, huh? I thought it was going to end up closer to 15-20%. The lower end of that spectrum.

Andrew NDB

09-27-2019, 12:12 PM

25%, huh? I thought it was going to end up closer to 15-20%. The lower end of that spectrum.

Where are you seeing that? If true, that's pretty much the perfect compromise. They wanted 50%, ended up with 25%.

oldmanwinters

09-27-2019, 12:20 PM

This randomly came into my head just now:
I-qMBS1frkM

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 12:34 PM

#1, I'm pretty sure it was for more than just 1 MCU movie. Their last deal was for like 5.

#2, there were a lot of insider stuff about Marvel/Disney allowing some MCU integration with Venom and the like... you might be 100% right about Venom being an alternate universe Spidey visits but from where Sony is sitting that wouldn't be what they'd want.

#3, Spider-Man is the only superhero who can cross universes? Does anyone else find it of note that he seems to be forgetting about Deadpool here? Or is that intentional?

Also... yay... maybe Avengers tower does become the OsCorp building now.

#1. Maybe, but I doubt it, because that comes from Variety, who essentially broke the story and are one of the most reliable sources. But to clarify, it means one movie in which Spider-Man is a guest character. Not just one Spider-Man MCU movie.

#2. True that Sony would likely prefer they share a universe. Interesting.

#3. Really good observation regarding how that might affect Deadpool. Hmm.

Andrew NDB

09-27-2019, 12:35 PM

#1. Maybe, but I doubt it, because that comes from Variety, who essentially broke the story and are one of the most reliable sources. But to clarify, it means one movie in which Spider-Man is a guest character. Not just one Spider-Man MCU movie.

*grumble grumble*

If it's just 1, it better not be Captain Marvel 2. There were rumors about that previously.

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 12:52 PM

*grumble grumble*

If it's just 1, it better not be Captain Marvel 2. There were rumors about that previously.

Yeah, I was going to bring that up, but I couldn't remember the source of the rumor. There have been so many false ones flying around lately, from "We got this covered" and "cosmic comic news" or whatever, so it's hard to keep track.

Yeah, Captain Marvel wouldn't be my first choice. Actually, Black Widow was who I really wanted for a long time. Perhaps, if the deal had been finalized sooner, he could have crept into Black Widow's solo film.
I'm not sure if there is room to fit more of Peter's adventures in-between Civil War and Infinity War (Where Black Widow takes place), but it might have been cool to get more of the early days Spider-Man there, as we forge on ahead with a Peter Parker who has experienced an incredible, death-defying life.

Anyways, I'm over it. If he is in Captain Marvel, I'll be more than willing to give it a chance. I'll even be optimistic. But I didn't enjoy Captain Marvel's first film at all.

I think Spider-Man, alongside Kraven, in Wakanda, could be an inspired choice, if the team behind the film is inclined to it, because you'd
have another chance to get Spider-Man out of New York and into a fresh environment, while he "returns to his roots" in "Spider-Man Homecoming 3". As well as Ryan Coogler expressing a fondness for Spider-Man and an interest in using Kraven in his movie. Even so, I wouldn't say this proposal is what would excite me most.

I'm not sure who I would prefer at this point. Spider-Man and Black Widow teaming up excited me because of the differences between the two. It'd be fun to have a young Peter Parker be embarrassingly attracted to Black Widow, while at the same time, being appalled and resentful of the measures she is willing to take to do what she believes is right. Yet, having to wrestle with it at the same time. Yeah, Black Widow just shot that dude in the face, but she saved a family. It's very "coming of age" and appropriate for a young superhero to face these issues. I believe there is a lot of character to play with there.

It's hard for me to think of a dynamic relationship for Spider-Man, within the MCU that appeals to me as much as that one right now.

neatoman

09-27-2019, 01:01 PM

Where are you seeing that? If true, that's pretty much the perfect compromise. They wanted 50%, ended up with 25%.

Fourth Paragraph of the article:
"The new deal was signed late on Thursday night. Negotiations involved top players from both studios, including Sony Pictures chief Tom Rothman, Feige and Walt Disney Studios co-chairs Alan Horn and Alan Bergman. In exchange for lending Feige’s producing prowess, Marvel and Disney will receive roughly 25% of the profits, according to insiders. Disney will retain its merchandising rights and will put up roughly a quarter of the financing. As part of the arrangement, Spider-Man will also appear in one future Marvel Studios film."

Andrew NDB

09-27-2019, 01:01 PM

Personally I'd love to see the Jon Bernthal Punisher run into him. Or show up in Deadpool 3. Or Spider-Man run afoul of the D'Onofrio Kingpin.

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 01:09 PM

Those sound like the three most unlikely things! :lol: I don't blame you for wanting them though.

For me, I guess the answer is simple: I want to see him in Marvel's next Avengers, or whatever is equivalent. If we are getting him in one more MCU film, it might as well be one where we can see him interact with plenty of other characters and hopefully play a much larger role, than he did in previous Avengers, since he is no longer one of the "rookies".

Sumac

09-27-2019, 01:41 PM

As expected.
Sony just wanted to rise their share.
:lol:

#3, Spider-Man is the only superhero who can cross universes? Does anyone else find it of note that he seems to be forgetting about Deadpool here? Or is that intentional?
Deadpool belongs to Disney though and thorough, though.

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 01:49 PM

As expected.
Sony just wanted to rise their share.
:lol:

Deadpool belongs to Disney though and thorough, though.

That could be it. He could consider Deadpool already a part of the MCU, in his own mind.

All speculation based on parsing words, but interesting nonetheless.

Andrew NDB

09-27-2019, 03:39 PM

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 03:47 PM

Does this mean we should start taking that website more seriously?

I don't think so, personally. Too many red flags and this could have pretty easily been a good guess. Also, it's not 100% accurate, right? Isn't it a 25% split, not 30?

Warhorse

09-27-2019, 04:41 PM

Yeah, I was going to bring that up, but I couldn't remember the source of the rumor. There have been so many false ones flying around lately, from "We got this covered" and "cosmic comic news" or whatever, so it's hard to keep track.

Yeah, Captain Marvel wouldn't be my first choice. Actually, Black Widow was who I really wanted for a long time. Perhaps, if the deal had been finalized sooner, he could have crept into Black Widow's solo film.
I'm not sure if there is room to fit more of Peter's adventures in-between Civil War and Infinity War (Where Black Widow takes place), but it might have been cool to get more of the early days Spider-Man there, as we forge on ahead with a Peter Parker who has experienced an incredible, death-defying life.

Anyways, I'm over it. If he is in Captain Marvel, I'll be more than willing to give it a chance. I'll even be optimistic. But I didn't enjoy Captain Marvel's first film at all.

I think Spider-Man, alongside Kraven, in Wakanda, could be an inspired choice, if the team behind the film is inclined to it, because you'd
have another chance to get Spider-Man out of New York and into a fresh environment, while he "returns to his roots" in "Spider-Man Homecoming 3". As well as Ryan Coogler expressing a fondness for Spider-Man and an interest in using Kraven in his movie. Even so, I wouldn't say this proposal is what would excite me most.

I'm not sure who I would prefer at this point. Spider-Man and Black Widow teaming up excited me because of the differences between the two. It'd be fun to have a young Peter Parker be embarrassingly attracted to Black Widow, while at the same time, being appalled and resentful of the measures she is willing to take to do what she believes is right. Yet, having to wrestle with it at the same time. Yeah, Black Widow just shot that dude in the face, but she saved a family. It's very "coming of age" and appropriate for a young superhero to face these issues. I believe there is a lot of character to play with there.

It's hard for me to think of a dynamic relationship for Spider-Man, within the MCU that appeals to me as much as that one right now.

I'd personally rather see him join Doctor Strange again (since Tom Holland and Benedict Cumberbatch seem to have a pretty good chemistry on set) or GOTG.

Autbot_Benz

09-27-2019, 05:16 PM

Does this mean we should start taking that website more seriously?

No freaking way. WGTC makes up 99% of the **** they report on. They are clickbait incarnate.

Shark_Blade

09-27-2019, 09:51 PM

Spider-Man Can Show up in Venom 2 According to New Sony Marvel Deal

https://comicbook.com/marvel/amp/2019/09/27/spider-man-sony-marvel-new-deal-venom-2-tom-holland/#click=https://t.co/Qpgkqcn1tO

Andrew NDB

09-27-2019, 10:36 PM

Spider-Man Can Show up in Venom 2 According to New Sony Marvel Deal

https://comicbook.com/marvel/amp/2019/09/27/spider-man-sony-marvel-new-deal-venom-2-tom-holland/#click=https://t.co/Qpgkqcn1tO

There was nothing stopping them from having him show up in Venom 1 beyond Marvel "talking them out of it." This isn't like a new thing.

ranger_scout

09-27-2019, 10:58 PM

Thank god they came to an agreement. It would've been such a shame to have been left on that cliffhanger during the mid-credits.

Now Jon Watts is in final talks to return as director for the third movie.

https://deadline.com/2019/09/jon-watts-in-final-talks-to-return-as-director-of-third-spider-man-homecoming-movie-1202746782/

Also, here's how the deal eventually happened.

https://deadline.com/2019/09/sony-walt-disneys-marvel-team-on-third-spider-man-homecoming-title-with-superhero-to-appear-in-future-marvel-pics-1202746497/

AquaParade

09-27-2019, 11:27 PM

There was nothing stopping them from having him show up in Venom 1 beyond Marvel "talking them out of it." This isn't like a new thing.

Yeah, but that did stop them from putting him in it. The fact, if true, that they no longer will would be new.

Andrew NDB

09-28-2019, 12:42 AM

AquaParade

09-28-2019, 09:49 AM

More details:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/more-details-of-new-spider-man-deal/

Seems like maybe the only thing new with this deal vs. the last deal is that the Sony Spider-verse movies are now allowed to reference MCU stuff in some way. Previously Sony could only have Spider-Man show up in their other movies like Venom (they elected not to, but they could've).

And release date for third movie: July 16th 2021.

Seems like they will get the same poopy-hall pass that the Netflix shows were given. Fine with me. A loose connection can be fruitful as long as no one steps on any toes. MCU has, understandably, had trouble managing their timeline in the past and this could add to the difficulty.

If anything, I really like the idea of the MCU potentially having more access to Spider-Man characters. I'd like to see Marvel's take on the goblin, even though Sony has overdone it already.

neatoman

09-28-2019, 05:46 PM

Probably for the best if Venom, Spider-Verse and their respective upcoming spin-offs are kept seperate from the MCU. I think I'd rather see two separate movie incarnations of Venom at the same time, the idea of Venom actually being set in the MCU opens up a few too many questions.

Xav

09-28-2019, 06:47 PM

Kevin Feige Reportedly Writing Spider-Man Out of the MCU (https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/09/28/kevin-feige-writing-out-spider-man-giving-sony-full-control/)

AquaParade

09-28-2019, 09:30 PM

I'd love to see a Disney+ series for Spider-Man if the deal continues. I'm imagining a "Mystery of the Hobgoblin" 6-parter or something.

At the end of the day, you maybe have to spread the budget, just a tad, and you get nearly triple the content. I think Peter, with his high school setting playing a big part could easily get away with this, while the budget goes to awesome aerial battle scenes.

Andrew NDB

09-28-2019, 10:57 PM

What's the deal with Spider-Man on TV, anyway? Marvel doesn't own the TV rights (or do they?), but still have to sign off on anything done with Spider-Man on TV or something?

Redeemer

09-28-2019, 11:05 PM

What's the deal with Spider-Man on TV, anyway? Marvel doesn't own the TV rights (or do they?), but still have to sign off on anything done with Spider-Man on TV or something?

Marvel owns the rights to spider-man tv series. Sony use to have the rights, but lost them some how. Thats how and why Spectacular Spiderman was cancelled. Ultimate Spiderman is from Marvel.

Andrew NDB

09-28-2019, 11:09 PM

No Marvel owns the rights to spider-man tv series. Sony use to have the rights, but lost them some how. Thats how and why Spectacular Spiderman was cancelled. Ultimate Spiderman is from Marvel.

Huh. So let's say Sony and Marvel's deal ends again... Marvel can just make a bunch of Spider-Man live action Disney+ stuff?

Galactus

09-29-2019, 11:06 PM

Huh. So let's say Sony and Marvel's deal ends again... Marvel can just make a bunch of Spider-Man live action Disney+ stuff?

Now there's an idea...and the Mouse has the balls to do it if it came down to it too.

AquaParade

09-30-2019, 07:08 AM

Huh. So let's say Sony and Marvel's deal ends again... Marvel can just make a bunch of Spider-Man live action Disney+ stuff?

I think that's the question- can they do live action, without Sony's approval? I have to think not. Otherwise, what would stop them from making Tom Holland Spider-Man "TV series" for Disney+?

Too big of a loophole to have left open in the contract phase, I'd think. Sony probably retains all live action Spider-Man rights.

I'm not set on any of this, just spitballing. I'm starting to wonder if neither of them can make a live action show, without each other.

Andrew NDB

09-30-2019, 09:51 AM

I think that's the question- can they do live action, without Sony's approval? I have to think not. Otherwise, what would stop them from making Tom Holland Spider-Man "TV series" for Disney+?

Too big of a loophole to have left open in the contract phase, I'd think. Sony probably retains all live action Spider-Man rights.

I'm not set on any of this, just spitballing. I'm starting to wonder if neither of them can make a live action show, without each other.

I think Sony fits into it somehow, on TV. Could be that Disney/Marvel's original deal with Sony for Spider-Man movies and MCU movies was such that it blocked Disney/Marvel from doing Spider-Man TV shows for X number of years... but that doesn't explain why Disney/Marvel didn't do one like at the onset of the MCU. Like, why open with Agents of SHIELD or Inhumans when they could've done Spider-Man?

Coola Yagami

09-30-2019, 10:34 AM

Honestly the only movie I care about in the MCU going forward is the third Spider-Holland movie. So this is good news.

Like wtf were they thinking after that cliffhanger? I'm glad it all worked out.

Andrew NDB

09-30-2019, 11:03 AM

Like wtf were they thinking after that cliffhanger?

It's a very strange choice, if it's to be taken as legit. Like, we barely got to see Peter Parker's regular life in the first one and not at all in the second... so let's take it away entirely in part 3? Strange.

Andrew NDB

10-02-2019, 04:54 PM

Tom Holland saved the deal:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/tom-holland-saved-the-spider-man-deal/

CyberCubed

10-02-2019, 07:07 PM

He probably wants to be Spiderman forever. I'd like to see a 30-40 year old Spiderman.

neatoman

10-02-2019, 07:18 PM

Kind of brings up the question of how long the current MCU will last. There might be plans to have it going until at least 2023 (which assuming those plans aren't cut short, would result in a 15 year run) but beyond that? It's not like the MCU itself doesn't contain reboots, it's Spider-Man is the third theatrical version out four after all.

Andrew NDB

10-02-2019, 07:37 PM

neatoman

10-02-2019, 08:34 PM

lol.. so no sequels to the Eternals or anything? No Black Panther 3? Drop everything in 2023 just because?

There is no end remotely in sight.

Well i'm not saying that, just that current explicitly laid out plans go up to 2023. They probably have ideas well beyond that, it's just that it would be madness to confirm what they are when nobody knows how they might change. For example, they did have plans to make Inhumans and Runaways but those ended up being TV shows instead.

MikeandRaph87

10-10-2019, 08:15 AM

oldmanwinters

10-10-2019, 08:32 AM

CyberCubed

10-10-2019, 10:25 AM

If I were Sony I’d negotiate for 100 BILLION dollars. Take Disney for all their worth.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-10-2019, 11:09 AM

The latest buzz has the character rights of the single character of Spider-Man are attempting to be bought by Disney out right from Sony for 4.5 billion dollars. A bit steep and ots a rumor even if from a credible leaker.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/mcu-leak-disney-plans-to-buy-spider-man-from-sony.html/

If Disney COULD get that, it'd pretty much be the death of Sony's Spider Universe. They'd be back to talking out of their @ss about how they're going to make Morbius, and Black Cat / Silver Sable, and Aunt May Secret Agent, and Uncle Ben No I Don't Make Rice, and Silk, and Sinister Six Well Maybe Only Three or Four Before We Bomb Again and Lose Our Viewers, and Venom 2: It's Woody Harrellson in a Terrible Red Wig.

Andrew NDB

10-10-2019, 11:39 AM

Venom 2: It's Woody Harrellson in a Terrible Red Wig.

It really is. And while he's aging pretty well he's kind of too old for the part.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-10-2019, 11:51 AM

It really is. And while he's aging pretty well he's kind of too old for the part.

Looked more like Ronald McDonald out of clown makeup.

MikeandRaph87

10-10-2019, 05:53 PM

If Disney COULD get that, it'd pretty much be the death of Sony's Spider Universe. They'd be back to talking out of their @ss about how they're going to make Morbius, and Black Cat / Silver Sable, and Aunt May Secret Agent, and Uncle Ben No I Don't Make Rice, and Silk, and Sinister Six Well Maybe Only Three or Four Before We Bomb Again and Lose Our Viewers, and Venom 2: It's Woody Harrellson in a Terrible Red Wig.

I had a rough day at work and I sw this at lunch. It made me laugh when I needed it. Thanks. Sounded like Honest Trailer's take on the matter.

Andrew NDB

10-10-2019, 06:03 PM

Looked more like Ronald McDonald out of clown makeup.

Sadly that was about my exact thought at the time.

sdp

10-10-2019, 06:09 PM

Disney only paid like 4 billion for all of Marvel, they can afford it and it's in their interest but no way they pay the same for the rights of a movie of a character they already bought for 4 billion including man others.

AquaParade

10-10-2019, 06:28 PM

Looked more like Ronald McDonald out of clown makeup.

I heard it looked bad, but I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it! Why would you leave that in?? I'm sure they assmed it would look better on camera, but wow-wee. Must have been too late to go back and re-shoot with a bald look instead. Between the red hair and him uttering the line "Carnage" they must felt a strong need to remind casual audiences exactly what they were teasing. It couldn't have been clunkier.

Now I'll say something nice about the film: I wasn't into the idea of the symbiote being so personified, but they nearly sold me on the idea. The banter between Eddie and the symbiote was actually pretty enjoyable.

It didn't look as bad as Superman's lip in Justice League though. I just can't get over the fact that they left that on screen.

Andrew NDB

10-10-2019, 06:31 PM

Between the red hair and him uttering the line "Carnage" they must felt a strong need to remind casual audiences just when they are teasing.

I hate patronizing stuff like that. Like Karai in the 2007 TMNT movie. "Someone from your PAST may return!" or whatever she said. Like gee, I wonder who that could be.

AquaParade

10-10-2019, 06:40 PM

I hate patronizing stuff like that. Like Karai in the 2007 TMNT movie. "Someone from your PAST may return!" or whatever she said. Like gee, I wonder who that could be.

It's probably better left as one of those things that "if you know, you know".

The way they did it, casual audiences are still going to walk out asking who the hell the goofy dude with red hair is.

I think anyone who cares will get the idea when they see a piece of the symbiote slithering under the bunker door within a mental hospital. It's little more exciting when you get to use even the slightest bit of brain power to say "oh, I know what that means."

Andrew NDB

12-05-2019, 11:30 AM

Tom Holland was drunk and crying when he talked to Iger and saved the deal:

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2019/12/tom-holland-was-drunk-and-crying-when-he-called-disney-ceo-to-save-spider-man-from-mcu-exit?fbclid=IwAR0NaDOUmKybSPUQaTPMs6gT1mz_fjDWPjXq FUedwwRXM0TUtqKzKEnbHaw

AquaParade

12-05-2019, 11:32 AM

Sumac

12-06-2019, 05:35 AM

It's like pottery, it rhymes!!

No seriously, you can't make this **** up.

Andrew NDB

02-19-2020, 04:05 PM

IMJ

02-19-2020, 04:46 PM

Sony wants the deal with Disney to remain in place for the foreseeable future:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/spider-man/spider-man-sony-boss-hopes-deal-with-disney-to-share-the-web-slinger-will-continue-for-years-to-come-a173336

I'm just very curious as to how they are going to explain the "universe melding". From all of the rumors so far, it points to Tom Holland's Spidey, Morbius, Venom now suddenly all occupying the same Universe because of the Spidey poster in Morbius and the appearance of Keaton's Vulture as well.

So basically the easiest thing to do would be to simply say that both Venom I and Morbius took place in the MCU without us knowing it.

AquaParade

02-19-2020, 04:46 PM

Sort of gives me the warm & fuzzies. And I didn't even love FFH.

I really dug Spider-Man's role in Infinity War though. What John Watts did with Homecoming was fantastic, but I'd like to see someone else take a shot at directing now.

Andrew NDB

02-19-2020, 04:50 PM

I'm just very curious as to how they are going to explain the "universe melding". From all of the rumors so far, it points to Tom Holland's Spidey, Morbius, Venom now suddenly all occupying the same Universe because of the Spidey poster in Morbius and the appearance of Keaton's Vulture as well.

So basically the easiest thing to do would be to simply say that both Venom I and Morbius took place in the MCU without us knowing it.

Yeah, that's exactly how I've always assumed they'd be going about it the whole while.

ranger_scout

06-22-2020, 03:59 PM

Spider-Man might be staying in the MCU, but does this news mean that Vulture and the Sinister Six won’t be appearing in the third movie? It’s possible that Michael Keaton could still do both and one of his parts in both franchises could be smaller than the other.

https://deadline.com/2020/06/michael-keaton-returning-to-play-batman-the-flash-early-talks-1202966393/

AquaParade

06-22-2020, 04:01 PM

Spider-Man might be staying in the MCU, but does this news mean that Vulture and the Sinister Six won?t be appearing in the third movie? It?s possible that Michael Keaton could still do both and his one of his parts in both franchises could be smaller than the other.

https://deadline.com/2020/06/michael-keaton-returning-to-play-batman-the-flash-early-talks-1202966393/

He can do both. Pretty sure the exclusivity contracts were debunked. You also have James Gunn directing for both companies now, which ensures the gates remain open even more.

ZariusTwo

06-23-2020, 06:24 AM

JK Simmons was Commissioner Gordon in Justice League, and came back as Jameson for Far From Home

Andrew NDB

06-26-2020, 04:30 AM

JK Simmons was Commissioner Gordon in Justice League, and came back as Jameson for Far From Home

Though that may or may not have happened because he was already recast in The Batman.

I don't feel like he made a good Gordon, though. I like the guy, but his range isn't that character.

AquaParade

06-26-2020, 09:16 AM

Though that may or may not have happened because he was already recast in The Batman.

I don't feel like he made a good Gordon, though. I like the guy, but his range isn't that character.

I agree and felt that was super odd casting. He stuck out like a sore thumb to me.Not that they gave him anything to do.

ZariusTwo

10-01-2020, 02:36 PM

Jamie Foxx returning as Electro

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-3-jolt-jamie-foxx-returning-as-electro-exclusive

AquaParade

10-01-2020, 03:05 PM

I have nothing to add but need to express my confusion.

Edit: I'll just say that Hollywood Reporter are highly reliable in situations like this.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-01-2020, 03:12 PM

Jamie Foxx returning as Electro

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/spider-man-3-jolt-jamie-foxx-returning-as-electro-exclusive

What. :teek:

The. :teek::teek:

FVCK. :teek::teek::teek:

I have nothing to add but need to express my confusion.

I'll add something.

1. How credible is this? Because I say bull$hit until someone convinces me it's legit.

2. If it's legit, I guess we can chalk it up to more multiverse weirdness. Because multiverse stories are never not brought up out of desperation and lack of better ideas. :tlol:

Sumac

10-01-2020, 03:19 PM

ZariusTwo

10-01-2020, 03:29 PM

1. How credible is this? Because I say bull$hit until someone convinces me it's legit.:

HR is reputable

One of the next movies after Black Widow is Doctor Strange 2, which deals with the multiverse, logic dictates they'll be more of that fall out in the Spidey movie afterwards, which referenced a multiverse in the previous movie and even had J.K Simmons back as Jameson.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-01-2020, 03:38 PM

I have a feeling that MCU is ****ed.

Endgame was a truly Endgame for the series.
First, they've removed few characters who were a foundation of it and were "faces" of the franchise.
Second, it would be truly hard to match build up and conclusion of the Thanos arc.
Third, weird moves, like making TV series as opposed to movies as legit continuation of the MCU. And it feels like they don't have a solid strategy moving forward.
Fourth, COVID.

All those weird ideas is just attempts to feel their way to the new profitable strategy, which in my opinion is daring, but stupid, since they've already had a winning formula on their hands.

I wouldn't say the MCU is fvcked, but it's definitely not going to hold as much interest. We nerds (and it's difficult to tell how much of an audience there will be going forward without nerds) would be the most excited for Fantastic Four and X-Men news, done by Marvel proper and not Fox.

But instead, we're getting a suuuuuuuuuuper late Black Widow (which still hasn't happened now, thanks COVID) and Iron Man and Captain America are both gone for good. And also, Black Panther fvcking DIED. They've still got Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, of course, but... it definitely doesn't hold as much interest for me.

WandaVision looks too experimental and weird for my taste. And relegating Falcon, Winter Soldier, and She-Hulk all to TV instead of film feels like a downer. Honestly, I'm not convinced putting all those heavy hitters on TV and building a film roster around fvcking Shang-Chi and the Eternals is a good idea.

But it's Marvel, so I suppose it will all make money. Provided 2021 doesn't start off with an asteroid strike or whatever.

sdp

10-01-2020, 03:44 PM

Endgame is indeed the end of the MCU for many people, you'll see decreasing interest over the next few years with each film. The story arc that took a decade finished and people are ready to move on. Die hard fans and nerds will stay but all those girls who were into the MCU? Not likely, many loved actors are leaving and so is their interest. The MCU will continue and will do big bucks, but it wont' be able to be the same pop culture hit it was.

Galactus

10-01-2020, 03:50 PM

I have a feeling that MCU is ****ed.

Well let's see...

Endgame was a truly Endgame for the series.

No more than the

First, they've removed few characters who were a foundation of it and were "faces" of the franchise.

Most of those faces were previously B and C list heroes that they turned into A Listers and the foundation of Marvel. They made a star out of friggin' Ant-Man...let me repeat that for emphasis Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy a property even comic nerds largely didn't know who they were. What makes you think they can't do the same to characters like Shang Chi or the Eternals?

They've got Spider-Man 2, Doctor Strange 2, Captain Marvel 2, Thor 3 and Guardians 3 which are all practically guaranteed hits and further down the road they've Fantastic Four and the entire X-Men line to play with. A slate so fool proof you'd have to be WB to mess it up.

Second, it would be truly hard to match build up and conclusion of the Thanos arc.

They'll build up to something new. A few new things even, Wanda going crazy, Secret Invasion possibly Dark Avengers. Kang is rumoured.

Third, weird moves, like making TV series as opposed to movies as legit continuation of the MCU. And it feels like they don't have a solid strategy moving forward.

What weird movies?

Wandavision sets up Doctor Strange 2. I'm sure watching the series will help but the movie will still stand on it's own.

Likewise Nick Fury is going to set up Captain Marvel 2 but I doubt they'll make it that you can't understand one the movie unless you've watched the series.

Falcon & Winter Soldier will likely set up a movie too. Possibly another Avengers project.

Fourth, COVID.

That will affect the entire industry not just Marvel.

All those weird ideas is just attempts to feel their way to the new profitable strategy, which in my opinion is daring, but stupid, since they've already had a winning formula on their hands.

What weird ideas? What is different about their strategy now?

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-01-2020, 03:58 PM

I don't see Disney or Marvel losing money, but I'm gonna need something to hang my expectations on.

Infinity War / Endgame has been the goal since the end of Avengers 1 (which was the previous goal), and after that... what? Galactus? Kang? Magneto? Can we get something definite?

Yes, they're kicking off new heroes and new sagas, but at the moment, I'm much more invested in seeing closure*. I want Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and Black Widow (RIP, Natasha), and Scarlet Witch to finally be a badass.

The rest, well... it'll make money, but it won't necessarily be MY money.

*Until said big bad / big bad storyline gets namedropped. Then we'll see.

raph27

10-01-2020, 04:47 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-01-2020, 05:22 PM

I would assume this will be a new version of Electro yet played by a recurring actor, similar to J.K. Simmons with JJJ? With the reception that TASM2 got, it would be shocking (hehe) to bring back that specific character through some multiverse mumbo-jumbo.

I dunno... JK Simmons as JJJ was a favorite of the original Spiderman movies.

Did anyone care about Jamie Foxx's Electro? Foxx is a great actor, make no mistake, but he played a $hitty Electro because a $hitty Electro is what was written for him.

A cynical part of me says that this was brought on after all the buzz of Keaton coming to the Flash movie...

:tlol: Not cynical at all, man. I mean, how ELSE does it happen?

Galactus

10-01-2020, 05:57 PM

I dunno... JK Simmons as JJJ was a favorite of the original Spiderman movies.

Did anyone care about Jamie Foxx's Electro? Foxx is a great actor, make no mistake, but he played a $hitty Electro because a $hitty Electro is what was written for him.

:tlol: Not cynical at all, man. I mean, how ELSE does it happen?

Difference is Keaton is playing his actual '89 Batman. Simmons is now playing a different JJJ.

No one really cares about Jamie Fox's Electro to bring him back. He could play a new version of Electro but then his cool mask aside I've never much cared for the character but then they did make Vulture more interesting in movie form so I'd keep an open.

Personally I think the rumours of them getting Tom Cruise and John Krasinski to cameo as alternate universe versions of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers is more of a response to Michael Keaton's return. Since the DCEU doesn't have any previous incarnations of most of their heroes but they have well known actors that were almost their heroes. Plus if they could rope in Tobey Maguire for a cameo too that'd be awesome.

AquaParade

10-01-2020, 06:24 PM

Yeah, this could be one of those "Dark Knight Returns/Watchmen" scenarios where something good leads to a bunch of copycats that don't get the point.

We are in for "return of the duds" when it comes to comic book movies. How long until we see Hallie Barry's Black Cat? Juggernaut from X-Men 3 seems like an obvious shoe-in.

Honestly though, I trust Kevin F. has a good reason for bringing him back.

sdp

10-01-2020, 08:15 PM

After Batman V Superman was a thing shortly after we were getting the whole Captain America v Iron Man, they definitely play on each other for good or bad. Green Lantern became an MCU type movie as well

Andrew NDB

10-01-2020, 08:22 PM

Yeah, I'm not buying this Jamie Foxx story. You'd be hard pressed to find 5 people on the planet who even liked him in the role, let alone that awful movie itself.

Leo656

10-01-2020, 08:36 PM

I thought ASM2 was over-stuffed and over-cooked - definitely a ton of "Setting up for the sequel" going on - but I was definitely captivated by all the Peter and Gwen stuff. Given that I expect all the sequel set-up stuff in comic book movies anymore, none of that bothered me TOO much. No single issue of a comic book tells a self-contained story anymore, thus I always expect movies to follow suit and have tons of seeds for The Next One. BvS, same thing. Stuff like that never bothers me and I think people cry about it too much. Altogether, ASM2 is definitely not a great movie but I think it's a little bit better than its reputation. There are good things IN there, they just don't come together very well.

That said, Foxx's Electro was HORRIBLE. I pretty much liked everything in ASM that WASN'T about HIM. Unfortunately, he had a ton of real estate in a story that, let's be honest, should have been strictly about Peter and Gwen and Harry. And probably about Peter tracking down Ben's killer; y'know, the guy who totally got away in the first one and was never mentioned again? Ooof.

But yeah, leave it to These Guys to bring back the absolute worst part of the "worst" Spider-Man movie. :roll:

(("Worst" in quotes because I haven't seen either of the MCU Spider-Man movies, and probably won't. I've seen enough to know that they're going to annoy the piss out of me for a million reasons great and small. So ASM2 is probably not as well-made, but knowing myself as I do I'd probably still enjoy it more than the MCU ones.))

AquaParade

10-01-2020, 08:56 PM

I agree that parts of ASM 2 were cool. The visuals, the soundtrack.
However, the story was a complete mess and the villains all fell flat. I don't think the complaints of the film being overstuffed with sequel bait are out of line. There is a balance to be had between crafting a satisfying story and setting up for the future, which they totally butchered.

Voltron

10-01-2020, 09:38 PM

There has to be some thought to the future with Spider-Man. Long term consequences of his decisions are kind of his thing.

I feel one big problem is that no one really ever sits down and decides to introduce supporting characters early enough in the story. When they do, it rarely seems to pan out.

ASM just dropped Harry in there and expected audiences to be fine with it. The thing is that the whole story was based upon Peter's youth being traumatic, so it'd make sense to mention his best friend being sent away. It'd fit with the themes they were building. But Harry just suddenly pops up and. . .well, there it is.

I was actually looking forward to ASM 3 because Gwen's death is a big event in the comics and I'd like to see how the films would deal with that. I doubt we'll get something like that out of the current run.

ZariusTwo

10-02-2020, 02:38 AM

Yeah, I'm not buying this Jamie Foxx story

Why? We know there's a multiverse movie on the way with Doctor Strange, that the Hollywood Reporter is a credible site, the multiverse was already mentioned in Far From Home, Wandavision is all about altering reality and will likely bleed into this, JK Simmons already came back, what suddenly makes this fake news? I don't like it myself, but Amazing Spider-Man 2 actually does have it's fans, especially the Peter/Gwen stans (like brother Rox) who loved Andrew and Emma's chemistry together.

Slap-Happy

10-02-2020, 04:46 AM

Yeah, I'm not buying this Jamie Foxx story. You'd be hard pressed to find 5 people on the planet who even liked him in the role, let alone that awful movie itself.
I mean, Feige himself loved Electro based on his e-mails in the Sony hack.

I'm putting money on it being multi-verse weirdness, possibly with Tobey and Andrew involved?

Andrew NDB

10-02-2020, 04:50 AM

I mean, Feige himself loved Electro based on his e-mails in the Sony hack.

I'm putting money on it being multi-verse weirdness, possibly with Tobey and Andrew involved?

If that's the case, then maybe. Though are they really going to be keen to do more multiverse stuff so soon beyond what they're talking about with Doctor Strange 2?

Slap-Happy

10-02-2020, 05:12 AM

Who knows, they always have the air of having everything planned out years in advance, and we don't know exactly how quickly these things get developed or changed.

It's also a question of how much Sony's influence is there? Kind of difficult to see where Marvel Studios ends and Sony begins on these new Spidey movies, especially with how they desperately want a Venom crossover and such.

Foxx is back for a reason, soon I guess we'll know what exactly that reason is.

Andrew NDB

10-02-2020, 06:25 AM

It's also a question of how much Sony's influence is there?

It really isn't. Sony can do whatever the hell they want with Spider-Man and Tom Holland and Spider-Man's legally accepted cast of characters in whatever movie(s) they want to do. Whether or not that makes Disney/Marvel not want to f*** with them if they do it, that's separate. Though I have to believe they are talking to each other in the midst of all of this.

Slap-Happy

10-02-2020, 06:34 AM

It really isn't. Sony can do whatever the hell they want with Spider-Man and Tom Holland and Spider-Man's legally accepted cast of characters in whatever movie(s) they want to do. Whether or not that makes Disney/Marvel not want to f*** with them if they do it, that's separate. Though I have to believe they are talking to each other in the midst of all of this.
It's a given that they can do what they want, but they seem to know it's in their best interest to play nicely and be a little more hands off with Marvel. Just how hands off they are isn't really known!

neatoman

10-02-2020, 09:52 AM

Foxx is back for a reason, soon I guess we'll know what exactly that reason is.

My best guess is that Foxx had some clause in his contract that said they couldn't recast him without his approval or something. Either that or someone at Sony really wants Foxx as Electro and he's technically still under a contract.

ZariusTwo

10-02-2020, 09:53 AM

My best guess is that Foxx had some clause in his contract that said they couldn't recast him without his approval or something. Either that or someone at Sony really wants Foxx as Electro and he's technically still under a contract.

Fiege liked Foxx as Electro. Simple as.

sdp

10-02-2020, 10:18 AM

The Amazing spiderman movies were fine (https://miscrave.com/articles/amazing-spider-man-duology/), just a little safe, they do nothing exciting but they weren't particularly bad. Little memorable about them so I can't even remember the things I liked, just that it was a missed opportunity but they weren't horrible movies.

Sumac

10-02-2020, 12:03 PM

First ASM was fun, second was dumb as ****, but fan as well.

I don't like this version of Electro, he felt like a throw away villain.

Andrew Garfield was the best Spider-Man, FIGHT ME! :P

AquaParade

10-02-2020, 12:05 PM

I think Sally Fields, who played Aunt May, described her experience with ASM 2 something like "you can't shove ten pounds of **** in a 5 pound bag." Great visuals and music though.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-02-2020, 12:11 PM

Andrew Garfield was the best Spider-Man, FIGHT ME! :P

He came off as a complete a$$hole douchebag to me, so yeah, fight's on, I guess.

I don't really care about Spiderman in general, but Garfield's take felt like he'd fit right in with us a$$hole 'Dromers. :tlol:

Leo656

10-02-2020, 04:05 PM

Andrew Garfield was the best Spider-Man, FIGHT ME! :P

Full agreement. He did better with the quips, the action poses, and he actually felt like a "boy genius" compared to his predecessor. Like, they kept SAYING that Tobey's Peter was a science nerd but we rarely got to see him do much that was science-y. Hanging out with Ock was a bit of lip service but Tobey's Peter never felt like much of a scientist. Just a generic, mopey geek.

Andrew bears a strong facial resemblance to the Ditko Peter Parker, which I enjoy. And even though he's well-meaning Peter in his younger days often had a chip on his shoulder, which I liked as well in Garfield's portrayal. I get that Peter is generally regarded as a "sad sack", but Tobey over-played it, I felt. He looked like he was constantly one inconvenience away from bursting into tears. I really couldn't stand it.

Like, I don't hate the first two movies (and parts of 3 are okay) but I don't get to watch them very often because my wife just refuses. She barely cares about Spider-Man in the first place but she absolutely HATES Tobey in the role. "He's such a crybaby! Who could ever root for this guy? He's got no balls." She admits that the movies are overall put together better - and I appreciate how much more closely they leaned into the comics compared to ASM - but if we had a genie's lamp we'd swap Garfield for Tobey. He did a MUCH better job overall.

There's a ton of things in both ASM movies that annoy the crap out of me, but Garfield was perfectly cast and deserved much better, more comics-accurate movies to be in.

And I'd definitely take him over the New Guy who looks like he's gonna be 12 years old for the rest of his life. :lol:

Sumac

10-02-2020, 04:14 PM

I know, that "mopey failure Parker" maybe is the canon for some people, but I liked Garfield's confidence.

I couldn't watch Raimi's trilogy due to my personal dislike of Tobey's Parker.

AquaParade

10-02-2020, 04:19 PM

They're all three pretty good, imo.

Tobey was a sad sack, but scene upon scene we were seeing his life go through the trash compactor. It made sense that he was becoming nearly desensitized, and all the more cathartic when he was allowed to rise above it all as Spider-Man.

Garfield's Spider-Man had a fire inside and was a smart aleck in a way that made the chatacter really "pop" and come to life, reminiscent of the comics. He definitely deserved a better film to show off his passion and his chops. He dated Emma Stone though so we don't need to shed any tears.

Holland also deserves a film that will allow him to show off his range. I think Homecoming is a fantastic Spider-Man movie and a ton of fun, but he hasn't been pushed to the limit.

Leo656

10-02-2020, 05:42 PM

I mean, maybe if Tobey actually looked the part, I could tolerate it more. Truth is, I haven't liked him in much that I've seen. I'm sure he's a nice guy in real life but something about him just irritates me when I see him in movies. I'm inclined to believe that it was less the scripting of the trilogy that bothered me - although having him be a bit more of an actual science nerd would have been welcome - and more just the way he played it as such a blubbering simp. Every scene of him not in costume is a total chore for me upon re-watching them. I know Peter's a dork but he over-played it. It didn't bother me as much the first few times I saw them, but in recent years it's annoying to the point where I almost have no desire to watch the movies.

Fact is, I've honestly not seen Jake Gyllenhaal in very much at all. But I recently watched "Donnie Darko" for the very first time (Director's Cut is better btw), and I'm aware that when they were making Raimi's trilogy it came down to Tobey and Jake for the role, and that Jake was pretty much hired on for the sequel after Tobey held the studio up for more mon-... err, I mean, "Suffered a back injury, yeah, that's the ticket".

Back in the day when all this was happening, I was indifferent to it because I didn't know or care about Gyllenhaal. Having seen Darko, which was made shortly before "Spider-Man", I have to state wholeheartedly that Raimi made a HUGE mistake. He cast the wrong guy. Seeing Jake in Darko makes me believe that he would have nailed the "maladjusted outsider with a higher purpose" role way more sincerely and convincingly than Tobey did. Darko was a misfit without being a crybaby. And again, like Garfield, he actually looks like comic book Peter, which neither Tobey nor whatsisname in the new ones can manage.

If you kept everything about the first two Spider-Man movies exactly the same and swap Tobey out for Gyllenhaal and you pretty much have it all perfect. Not much could have saved the third one, except for removing Venom completely and making Part 4 solely about him. But Raimi hated Venom so that was never gonna turn out well regardless.

Anyways. Garfield's my pick of the ones we got and I feel like he got gypped. But somewhere in the Multiverse, Jake Gyllenhaal got the gig back in 2002 and they're still making movies in that series.

Galactus

10-02-2020, 07:07 PM

If I'm being honest none of the Spider-Man movies have ever gotten the character 100% right for me. Tobey's Peter Parker overplayed the socially awkward thing and his Spider-Man was way too stiff with none of the trademark wit he's known for.

They over corrected this with the Amazing series were he was a bit too cool as Peter Parker and way to snarky in and out of costume. Also I wasn't a huge fan of the world they put the character in.

For me Holland is the best version of the character in movie form. Much more what I imagine a modern version of high school Peter to be and excellent as Spider-Man. I wise he was in a more traditional Spider-Man type stories but well people cried out for something different and Marvel gave it to them.

Leo656

10-02-2020, 07:28 PM

He needs to be allowed to get out of high school and stay out.

Seriously, move past Year One already. Why does everyone automatically equate Spider-Man with being a high school kid when his printed adventures saw him graduate very early on and 99.999999% of his adventures were post-graduation?

He's been a grown-ass man with a wife for way, WAY longer than he was ever a geeky, awkward high school kid. The movies' constant insistence on focusing on the figurative "first five minutes" of the characters' career is supremely irritating.

It tells me that outside of being "The High School Super-Hero", the people making the movies have exactly Zero ideas on how to make the character feel fresh or unique. They could in theory focus more on the fact that his life generally kinda sucks, like SM2 and 3 sort of did. But even then they only let him move like two inches past high school and never let him become a full adult. They could do lots of things. But all they ever do is focus on goddamn high school.

It's annoying. I've seen it all before and until they actually start setting the stories in his mid-20s I've pretty much seen all that I need to see of the character in live action.

It's sort of a problem in Batman movies as well with everything being Year One or Year Two but Batman's an altogether better and more interesting character than Spider-Man, anyway. And at least you occasionally get a "Dark Knight Rises" or BvS in the mix to showcase an older and world-weary Batman. With Spider-Man it's like they have neither the interest nor the ability to actually tell stories outside of the one setting with him at a very specific age.

Annoying.

Galactus

10-02-2020, 07:36 PM

I agree but since they are set on the high school version of the character I'd say Holland pulled it off the best. How he'd pull off an adult Peter I'm not sure since Holland kinda looks permanently twelve and probably will until he reaches his thirties.

Leo656

10-02-2020, 07:50 PM

There's no reason to be so fixated on his high school career. ALL of his most interesting stories except for the origin happened after he was an adult. Two if you count The Lizard. But that's it. Everything people really remember about the character's adventures happened way, way later on. So they're stupid for being so fixated on him being in high school.

Oh, wait, I forgot. The idiots who make MCU movies don't read comics, so they wouldn't know that. When "doing research" for their characters they go on Wikipedia and stop reading after the first paragraph.

Galactus

10-02-2020, 09:01 PM

I don't think I'd go as far as to say that all the interesting stories happened after Peter graduated high school almost all his best known villains and came from the high school era and all had solid debuts. Almost all his supporting cast was from high school era too even arguably Mary Jane even if we never saw her face.

I think a lot of it comes down to the next des we are less accepting of adults making the kind of mistakes Peter does as a kid. Personally I call shenanigans on MCU Peter handing over control of a deadly weapon to someone he barely knew in Far From Home but I can kinda buy it because he's still a kid that is insecure about his place in the super hero community and eager to trust his new big bro/daddy figure. Had he been an adult I'd be far less understanding.

There is also the idea that it's easier to set up social interactions in a high school or college setting. I think this is one of the reasons why writers struggle with the marriage as in if he's not fighting crime or at work they feel he should be at home with MJ not hanging out with his friends and peers. It also robs him if romantic tension (who will he pick to take to the dance Gwen or MJ? He saves the day but stands up Betty for a date etc)

There is also the fact that the Raimi movies while starting off in high school breezed through it as did the Amazing movies. Neither dwelled too much on his college life so I can see why the MCU movies when striving to do something different with the character they though keeping him in high school for longer was the way to go. It also makes him stand out among all the other MCU franchises.