Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

[kirk55555]

Am I wrong in remembering that originally he was meant to be one of the bad guys in the last Spider-Man movie and that was originally the tease for setting that up, but then things changed and nothing came of that aspect?

I mean the tease is literally in the last Spider-Man movie (No Way Home), and the scene where a chunk of Venom is left behind happens at the end of the movie. When Eddie/Venom are sent back to their world (as a result of the spell sending the movie villains back, although no one in the movie knows about Eddie/Venom having been brought to the MCU) they leave a chunk of venom behind, which seems to be alive. Since it involves a chunk of the Sony venom symbiote being left in the MCU it can only be teasing a Venom/venom born symbiote in the MCU, presumably in a potential Spider-Man 4

 

[Saul]

Was it always a 'R' movie?

After Deadpool & Wolverine's success it was.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I mean the tease is literally in the last Spider-Man movie (No Way Home), and the scene where a chunk of Venom is left behind happens at the end of the movie. When Eddie/Venom are sent back to their world (as a result of the spell sending the movie villains back, although no one in the movie knows about Eddie/Venom having been brought to the MCU) they leave a chunk of venom behind, which seems to be alive. Since it involves a chunk of the Sony venom symbiote being left in the MCU it can only be teasing a Venom/venom born symbiote in the MCU, presumably in a potential Spider-Man 4

Speaking of biting, the screenwriters say that including Eddie Brock and his alien symbiote Venom in the film’s final battle was “definitely discussed.” The pair confirmed that Watts directed the post-credits tag on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage,” which showed Brock zapped into the MCU. But Brock was ultimately relegated to the “No Way Home” post-credits scene instead. As for how a character who had never met any Peter Parker, let alone Spider-Man, could be pulled into the MCU by a spell specifically drawing people who had to know Peter Parker was Spider-Man? “The idea is that the symbiote has knowledge of other universes. Buried in his brain is some knowledge of that connection,” McKenna said.

I think that was just collateral damage from their original intentions and they came up with the piece of symbiote after because they needed to come up with a reason for it to have all happened.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Is the real issue Sony proactively not allowing Marvel to use SPidey characters, or mor ethat Marvel isn't willing to pay /share profits for others characters?

Spidey himself they knew was worth quite a bit.... but for most villains? Probbaly not. Certainly not Kraven or Rhino

The problem is what turned me off of the AMazing SPiderman series -- Sony wants money with minimal effort/love of the proerty.

Sony just has to decide....what do they want more -- 100% of $100 million, or 25-50 % of $1 Billion?

Also, Isn't Venom 3 subtited The Last Dance? SO i assume Eddie will be out, but Venom in and of itself would still be around?

And will Secret Wars have SOME callbacks to the original mini series?

 

[Tosk]

After Deadpool & Wolverine's success it was.

Kraven was rated R a year ago. Which was (*checks calendar*) a year before Deadpool & Wolverine came out.

 

[JD]

While I get having exclusive characters, if Sonyy were going to block the MCU from using Venom, or a variation of him, why put a whole scene into No Way Home with Eddie Brock that only exists to leave a chunk of the Venom symbiote in the main MCU universe? There is no way that Marvel "went rogue" with that scene, and it was definitely a potential tease for an MCU thing, not a Sonyverse thing.

Maybe they can get around an issues with Sony by having a character other than Eddie end up the MCU's Venom? Or would it not matter who the host is as long it's still Venom?

 

[Christopher]

Maybe they can get around an issues with Sony by having a character other than Eddie end up the MCU's Venom? Or would it not matter who the host is as long it's still Venom?

The latter. Any character based on the concept of Venom would be covered by the same license. What matters legally is the origin of the concept. If you take the basic concept and apply it to a new character, it's still a derivative work from the same origin.

 

[Tosk]

Maybe they can get around an issues with Sony by having a character other than Eddie end up the MCU's Venom? Or would it not matter who the host is as long it's still Venom?

Or theoretically (by which I mean I have no actual idea how it all works), just confine Venom to Spidey movies. Despite being set in the MCU, they are still Sony films.

 

[Mage]

Kraven was rated R a year ago. Which was (*checks calendar*) a year before Deadpool & Wolverine came

Official rating was given just over a week ago.

Kraven the Hunter officially earns an R rating for strong bloody violence and language

Sony's Kraven the Hunter, starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson, targets an R rating for strong bloody violence and language! Let the games begin!

www.joblo.com

 

[Christopher]

Or theoretically (by which I mean I have no actual idea how it all works), just confine Venom to Spidey movies. Despite being set in the MCU, they are still Sony films.

Exactly. How it works is very simple: It's Sony's decision. They have the movie rights to the Spidey characters, so the only way any Spidey character gets used in an MCU movie is if Sony either makes the movie themselves (as with the Spidey movies) or sublicenses the rights to the character back to Marvel Studios (as with Civil War and the Avengers films). There's no way to "get around" Sony's legal rights, no way to sneak a character out the back door without them noticing. Marvel would just ask permission, work with Sony rather than trying to work against them, and either they'd get it or they wouldn't.

 

[Tosk]

Official rating was given just over a week ago.

But it was always planned as a rated R film. The trailer from a year ago was a "red band" trailer.

 

[Mage]

But it was always planned as a rated R film. The trailer from a year ago was a "red band" trailer.

Ah, I stand corrected then.

 

[Tosk]

Your point stands as far as officially being rated though.

 

[JD]

Exactly. How it works is very simple: It's Sony's decision. They have the movie rights to the Spidey characters, so the only way any Spidey character gets used in an MCU movie is if Sony either makes the movie themselves (as with the Spidey movies) or sublicenses the rights to the character back to Marvel Studios (as with Civil War and the Avengers films). There's no way to "get around" Sony's legal rights, no way to sneak a character out the back door without them noticing. Marvel would just ask permission, work with Sony rather than trying to work against them, and either they'd get it or they wouldn't.

I understand that Sony has the rights, but it I was wondering if there were any extra rules about the characters appearing in their movies. I know with these kind of deals, it's still not unusual for there to be extra limitations placed on things.

 

[Christopher]

I understand that Sony has the rights, but it I was wondering if there were any extra rules about the characters appearing in their movies. I know with these kind of deals, it's still not unusual for there to be extra limitations placed on things.

Whatever the rules are, there's presumably room for negotiation, as I said. Marvel managed to make a deal with Sony to let them incorporate Spider-Man into the MCU, which shows that it's negotiable.

Still, I can understand Sony's thinking if they don't want the MCU to have competing versions of the characters they're currently featuring in movies. Granted, some of their movies have flopped, but the Venom ones are apparently doing well, so they have an incentive to maintain their exclusivity over the character. Well, unless they could use an MCU appearance as a way to promote their own Venom films; that's basically what the post-credits scene in No Way Home was for, although of course that was a Sony/Columbia-made film.

 

[Morpheus 02]

I understand that Sony has the rights, but it I was wondering if there were any extra rules about the characters appearing in their movies. I know with these kind of deals, it's still not unusual for there to be extra limitations placed on things.

I forget where (maybe the SOny leak?) which gave this crazy detailed list of what the SPidey rights did and did NOt cover.

Sony, as we see with ASM, is all about the money. They will hold onto characters the way speculators in the city of Chicago will hold onto empty lots until they think they can make a lot of money. But those people far more often then people who have the land and have a good understanding and love of the community.

 

[Tosk]

I forget where (maybe the SOny leak?) which gave this crazy detailed list of what the SPidey rights did and did NOt cover.

Was that not the "things that Sony are allowed to do to Peter Parker/Spider-Man" list? Like, even though Sony currently owned the universe, there were still multiple stipulations on how they could twist the character.

 

[Christopher]

Like, even though Sony currently owned the universe, there were still multiple stipulations on how they could twist the character.

They don't own the universe, just the license to make movies about it. It's like how I don't own my apartment, I just pay for the exclusive right to live in it.

 

[Tosk]

I meant owns as in short for "owns the rights to". But I'm pretty sure you knew that's what I meant.

 

[The Scrooge Doctor]

Well, shit. We might not get Beyond the Spider-Verse until 2027:

Following trade reporting last night that Sony was going ahead with a fourth Tom Holland Spider-Man movie—and had tapped Shang-Chi director Destin Daniel Cretton to helm it—a new report from industry insider Jeff Sneider alleged that forward momentum on the live-action side of the Spider-Verse may have a drastic impact on the animated side, contributing to, among other factors, a potential delay on the third Spider-Verse film into as late as 2027.​

​

According to Sneider, Sony had allegedly recently majorly pivoted on Beyond the Spider-Verse, scrapping “most” of the work on the film thus far for “creative reasons,” which would necessitate extensive new animation. That, combined with the apparent focus on Spider-Man 4—which is reportedly set to start shooting in early 2025—could see Beyond not hit theaters until either 2026, or 2027 to avoid two Spider-Man movies releasing in the same calendar year.​

​

That said, both executive producer Chris Miller and composer Daniel Pemberton have pushed back on this report.

I don't follow industry insiders so I have no idea if Sneider has a good track record or not. Scheduling is one thing but the part that I find alarming is Sony supposedly scraping most of the work of Beyond for "creative reasons."