Should be discussed here instead, as its big news.Already being discussed in the MCU and Far From Home threads.
So Sony owns the entirety of this version of the character, including the director and cast? They don't, however, own any of the character's backstory though, because he is a major product of the MCU. His entire emotional arc is tied to Tony Stark, so it's not really the same character without that stuff...
It's absolutely the same character.
Anything that requires writers to rely less on backstory for motivation in a script is a good thing. The most engaging and accessible stories contain all the elements, including motivation, necessary for them to work.
BTW, this is a big part of why origin stories - despite occasional whining about "why are they doing this again?!?" - are so often successful and the strongest stories for so many characters: done well, the beginnings of character and motivation are laid out within the framework of the story as it unfolds, rather than shoved in as exposition or inserted into the structure as memories (flashbacks).
Will Zendaya be in the next one? Will the rest of the cast of characters return (we lose Happy, which is a shame. A minor shame)? What's about to happen with Peter losing his secret identity? With J. Jonah Jameson?
Those are the things that I'm asking about the next Spider-Man movie, not "how will the writers evoke the memory of Tony Stark and will Peter get to play with a lot of cool new Stark Industries toys?"
It sounds like it was Feige and Rothman not being able to come to an agreement over $$$, not "the lawyers" who were at fault.
You people are stuck in the past. Self contained movies are done. Yanking a character out of his universe makes the character lose everything. It's not the same character at all because it was never about that character in the first place. A single movie is nothing more than an episode in an arc-based TV series now.
You people are stuck in the past. Self contained movies are done. Yanking a character out of his universe makes the character lose everything. It's not the same character at all because it was never about that character in the first place. A single movie is nothing more than an episode in an arc-based TV series now.
It'll have the same tone and cast. The general audience won't notice when there are no references to Iron Man. No one is gonna go, "I woulda had a great time, but, Happy wasn't in it at all, so, boo."
In other words: to anyone who bought a ticket to Venom despite the crap reviews, this is your fault.if Venom can make 800,000,000 dollars world wide not connected to the MCU, imagine what a former member of the MCU like Spider Man could do?
In other words: to anyone who bought a ticket to Venom despite the crap reviews, this is your fault.![]()
Hopefully. (Although Watts is not signed yet for future films.) My biggest worry if the decisions made higher up, you now have different execs who all want their finger in the pie. Rothman for example, is the guy who insisted that all the subplot stuff be stripped out of Daredevil, and feels that the theatrical cut of the film is stronger than the director's cut. So we now have him making creative decisions on the next Spidey, plus (if I'm not mistaken) Avi Arad is back in the picture.Holland has been great. The director has been great. The writing has been great. As long as those components are in place, I'm good.
The lawyers are just doing their jobs.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.