Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread

[M.A.C.O.]

The Venom movie is officially moving forward.

The announcement comes from Sony alone and not Sony/Marvel. Will it be MCU?

I don't think it will be MCU. Sony still retains the rights for Spidey and Marvel is co-producing Homecoming to get their IP back on track. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both with Civil War and Homecoming, but the Sony execs still have their own plans Spider-Man. Like their animated Spidey film, in the vein of the Lego Movie and Lego Batman movie.

 

[Tosk]

Venom is the hottest thing going in the Spidey universe!

-- Unattributed quote from 1996

 

[WebLurker]

I hope the Venom movie does well (I do like the character), but, yeah, a solo movie never seemed like a good idea. Say what you will about SM3, they at least understood that his reason for existence is revenge on Spider-Man and that you need to do the Black Suit story first (or do Black Suit and Venom as a one-shot story).

 

[Anwar]

This is going to be Steel or Catwoman all over again. Taking a character and separating them entirely from the mythos that spawned them.

 

[Samurai8472]

Venom is the hottest thing going in the Spidey universe!

-- Unattributed quote from 1996

This has become the stuff of legend


http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/avi-arad-wanted-venom-in-spiderman-3/

As he had discussed previously, Raimi added that it was Arad’s idea to add the villain Venom to the mix. “Avi Arad, my partner and the former president of Marvel at the time, said to me, ‘Sam, … you’re not paying attention to the fans enough,'” Raimi said. “‘You need to think about them. You’ve made two movies now with your favorite villains, and now you’re about to make another one with your favorite villains. The fans love Venom. He is the fan favorite. All Spider-Man readers love Venom, and even though you came from ’70s Spider-Man, this is what the kids are thinking about. Please incorporate Venom. Listen to the fans now.’ And so that’s really where I realized, ‘OK, maybe I don’t have the whole Spider-Man universe in my head. I need to learn a little bit more about Spider-Man and maybe incorporate this villain to make some of the real die-hard fans of Spider-Man finally happy.'”

 

[JD]

The Venom movie is officially moving forward.

The announcement comes from Sony alone and not Sony/Marvel. Will it be MCU?

Pretty much everything I've seen about it has seemed to indicate it'll be separate from the MCU.

This is going to be Steel or Catwoman all over again. Taking a character and separating them entirely from the mythos that spawned them.

Yeah, it seems really strange to me to do a Venom movie without Spidey. I know he's found some success as a solo hero, but even then he still seems to be tied pretty strongly back to Spider-Man. One of the last Amazing Spider-Man comics I read seemed like it might have been the start of the set up for Flash Thompson becoming Agent Venom, and the whole was about how Spider-Man influenced Flash. I'd much rather see them introduce Venom in an MCU Spider-Man movie, and then if he's successful, then spin him off into his own movie.

 

[DigificWriter]

Everyone's assuming that there can't be multiple versions of Spider-Man existing simultaneously and that the existence/presence of Spidey in the MCU would preclude him from appearing in/being part of this Venom film even though we'll have already seen two different versions of the Spider-Man character show up on screen by the time this Venom movie is released.

Given that Sony clearly doesn't see any logistics issues with the simultaneous existence of two very different and unconnected "Spider universes", there's no reason they couldn't potentially create a third using Venom and a different version of Spider-Man (or a different variation on the basic Spider-Man character archetype entirely) than either the Peter Parker and Miles Morales versions that will already be in existence by the time the Venom movie comes out.

 

[Tosk]

I almost hope they do go ahead with a non-Spidey Venom movie, and that it tanks. Then maybe it would cement the idea that Sony should listen to Marvel on all things Spidey from then on. But that's wishful thinking, I'm sure. If Venom flopped, they'd just make Carnage next. Or J. Jonah Jameson: The Movie.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Why should Sony listen to a studio to whom THEY are 'leasing' THEIR character license and not attempt to make use of said license for their own purposes independent of working in collaboration with said studio on one very specific aspect of said license?

This argument is about as nonsensical as FOX, to whom DC has leased the Batman license, dictating to DC how to use the characters related to said license just because one particular iteration in which said license has been utilized, Gotham, has proven to be 'more' successful (or more widely accepted) than other uses of said license.

 

[Anwar]

^ Why should Sony listen to a studio to whom THEY are 'leasing' THEIR character license and not attempt to make use of said license for their own purposes independent of working in collaboration with said studio on one very specific aspect of said license?

Because Sony has shown they don't know what they're doing.

 

[Tosk]

^ Why should Sony listen to a studio to whom THEY are 'leasing' THEIR character license and not attempt to make use of said license for their own purposes independent of working in collaboration with said studio on one very specific aspect of said license?

The same reason that they ever reached an agreement with Marvel in the first place.

 

[DigificWriter]

Sony made this specific deal with Marvel because they panicked after TASM 2 didn't perform as well as expected. However, the fact that they structured the deal in the way that they did demonstrates that they still very much intend to utilize their license to Spider-Man on their own as they see fit independently of leasing the character(s) to Marvel and working with them on one specific version of the property.

 

[Tosk]

Which is why my post was about wishing ill on their Venom movie so that they become more panicked and decide to rely on Marvel to make all Spidey decisions.

 

[Reverend]

Not sure I agree with the notion that putting Venom in Spider-Man 3 was *the* problem with that movie. It was *a* problem sure, but only so far as it was forced on a filmmaker who was more interested in other things.
If one were to edit out all of the Venom scenes in that move (which you can do since it really was that tacked on) then you still end up with a tired and lacklustre script, a half-arsed attempt at a sympathetic villain, a less than half-baked scorned brother/revenge plot and a female lead with nothing to do for the third time running.

That said, I have no faith in Sony to do anything interesting with the movie.

 

[Venardhi]

...Miles Morales versions that will already be in existence...

This is new to me. What now?

 

[Tosk]

This is new to me. What now?

Animated movie.

 

[Christopher]

Given that Sony clearly doesn't see any logistics issues with the simultaneous existence of two very different and unconnected "Spider universes", there's no reason they couldn't potentially create a third using Venom and a different version of Spider-Man (or a different variation on the basic Spider-Man character archetype entirely) than either the Peter Parker and Miles Morales versions that will already be in existence by the time the Venom movie comes out.

I'd be fine with it being a third movie in the Andrew Garfield Spider-verse. While ASM2 had enormous flaws, it got Spider-Man more right than any other live-action production I've ever seen, including Civil War.

This argument is about as nonsensical as FOX, to whom DC has leased the Batman license, dictating to DC how to use the characters related to said license just because one particular iteration in which said license has been utilized, Gotham, has proven to be 'more' successful (or more widely accepted) than other uses of said license.

Fox does not have the Batman license. Warner Bros. does. Gotham is aired on the FOX television network, but they are only the broadcasters. The "license" refers to the right to make fictional works based on the characters and concepts, not simply to air them. The show is produced by DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television and distributed by Warner Bros. Television Distribution. Ditto for other shows on non-WB-owned networks, such as FOX's Lucifer, NBC's Constantine and Powerless, and Syfy's upcoming Krypton. Regardless of where they air, they're all Warner Bros. shows, as you can see by the corporate logos at the end. WBTV even does specialized versions of the logo for each DC show. Here are the original 2015 versions, though they've updated them since then.

The problem these days is that so many networks and studios are owned by the same conglomerates and given the same names, and frequently shows made by a given conglomerate's studio are aired on that conglomerate's network as "corporate synergy," so there's a tendency to assume they're the same entity. But they aren't. Studios supply the product and networks buy it. It's actually illegal for a studio to offer its product only to the network it shares ownership with, because that denies other networks their right to compete for the product. So despite the trend, there are still cases where the studio and the network have different owners.

 

[DigificWriter]

Which is why my post was about wishing ill on their Venom movie so that they become more panicked and decide to rely on Marvel to make all Spidey decisions.

Even if this Venom project fails, Sony would be extremely foolish to just detach themselves from doing anything with the property without help from Marvel because it would be "sticking all of their eggs in one basket" and Marvel, contrary to fan belief, is just as fallible as Sony in the creativity department.

 

[kirk55555]

Even if this Venom project fails, Sony would be extremely foolish to just detach themselves from doing anything with the property without help from Marvel because it would be "sticking all of their eggs in one basket" and Marvel, contrary to fan belief, is just as fallible as Sony in the creativity department.

How are they as fallible as Sony? The "worst" things they've ever done are still pretty decent movies, and their track record is much, much better then Sony's.

 

[WebLurker]

Not sure I agree with the notion that putting Venom in Spider-Man 3 was *the* problem with that movie. It was *a* problem sure, but only so far as it was forced on a filmmaker who was more interested in other things.
If one were to edit out all of the Venom scenes in that move (which you can do since it really was that tacked on) then you still end up with a tired and lacklustre script, a half-arsed attempt at a sympathetic villain, a less than half-baked scorned brother/revenge plot and a female lead with nothing to do for the third time running.

I'm not so sure Venom was tacked on; the symbiote and Eddie Brock had been set up and and causing problems since the first act. IMHO, Sandman worked just fine until the final act, where much of the motivation and decision-making was glossed over to create the final act. I will concede that the New Goblin storyline didn't work as well as I would've liked, but it did build off of the previous two movies and could've been a lot worse. This may be unpopular, but I'd argue that Mary Jane actually did have plenty to do, with her own subplot of dealing with being fired and her positive and negative reactions to the troubles in the movie. She may not have been an exact analogue to her comics counterpart, but she also was arguably a better developed character that most love interest supporting roles in movies of this genre are.

I'd be fine with it being a third movie in the Andrew Garfield Spider-verse. While ASM2 had enormous flaws, it got Spider-Man more right than any other live-action production I've ever seen, including Civil War.

Why do you think that is? (I've personally found the the Mark Webb ASM movies were a really awful interpretation of the mythos in terms of the characters and the storytelling, so I'd be curious to hear reasons why it could be considered good.)