• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

You're absolutely right, both would be better executed by television series. I was thinking in terms of what Sony could do to make sure they're making use of the characters they have the rights to in order to retain the film rights.

As @DigificWriter noted, Sony should just bite the bullet and make a non-MCU Spider-Man film with someone other than Tom Holland. While I have no interest in a Maguire/Raimi 4, it's right there, and a fortysomething Spider-Man would be something new and different with the character. Hell, it might even lead Marvel Comics to realize that Spider-Man doesn't have to be a loveless loser in his early 20s anymore.

yup
 
Richard and Mary Parker were field agents for the CIA.

John Jameson, son of J Jonah, was a NASA astronaut, a kind of werewolf, a sword-wielding hero of a magic realm, and chief of security at Ravenwood, among other things.

There's a lot of potential for developing spin-offs for characters that are part of the Spider-Man licence even before one gets to actual superheroes. But also, the characters of Morbius, Kraven and Madame Web could have been developed into good movies. It's not the characters that are the problem.
 
John Jameson, son of J Jonah, was a NASA astronaut, a kind of werewolf, a sword-wielding hero of a magic realm, and chief of security at Ravenwood, among other things.
I'm familiar with the John Jameson, but I had no idea so much crazy stuff had happened to him over the years.
 
Oh, yeah, his "Man-Wolf" form was actually his fantasy realm hero form limited by our dimension. He also was Captain America's personal Quinjet pilot, She-Hulk's husband, and an Agent of Wakanda. Dude's lived a life.
 
2 of the three Spider-Man movies that have been made 'with Kevin Feige's guiding hand' have been shit, so this idea that Sony can't make good Spider-Man movies on their own is ludicrous.


Let me guess, too much of Spidey not being in his own world like no one else exists but him, May actually having more to do than just be "Old Widow with no money" and Peter's friends not being stupid enough to not realize he's Spider-Man?
 
Oh, yeah, his "Man-Wolf" form was actually his fantasy realm hero form limited by our dimension. He also was Captain America's personal Quinjet pilot, She-Hulk's husband, and an Agent of Wakanda. Dude's lived a life.

They never considered him as "Captain America" material?
 
Let me guess, too much of Spidey not being in his own world like no one else exists but him, May actually having more to do than just be "Old Widow with no money" and Peter's friends not being stupid enough to not realize he's Spider-Man?

I don't mind that Spider-Man exists in a Shared Universe; what I despise about Homecoming and Far From Home is that he's relegated to 'second banana' status because of the characters from other Marvel IPs that were brought in and the way that those characters were used, narratively, in relation to him.

Tying MCU Spider-Man so closely to Tony in Civil War and Homecoming put the narrative emphasis on him (Tony), even though he's in like 4 scenes in the latter, as did making Quentin Beck a bitter Stark Industries employee in Far From Home.

Spider-Man: The Animated Series treats Spider-Man as being part of a Shared Universe, but not at the expense of him as an individual protagonist; the MCU doesn't, and that's why I think MCU Spider-Man is a poor version of the character and why his first two "solo" movies are shit.
 
I don't mind that Spider-Man exists in a Shared Universe; what I despise about Homecoming and Far From Home is that he's relegated to 'second banana' status because of the characters from other Marvel IPs that were brought in and the way that those characters were used, narratively, in relation to him.

Tying MCU Spider-Man so closely to Tony in Civil War and Homecoming put the narrative emphasis on him (Tony), even though he's in like 4 scenes in the latter, as did making Quentin Beck a bitter Stark Industries employee in Far From Home.

Spider-Man: The Animated Series treats Spider-Man as being part of a Shared Universe, but not at the expense of him as an individual protagonist; the MCU doesn't, and that's why I think MCU Spider-Man is a poor version of the character and why his first two "solo" movies are shit.
Spider-Man being under Tony during Civil War was from the source material, and if they'd made Beck an OsCorp Employee you wouldn't be complaining.

TAS barely acknowledged the shared universe most of the time.
 
Robooting Venom already? I know Venom 3 wasn't as successful as previous ventures...but they are trying to milk that again????
I don't know the exactitudes of their rights deal but I imagine it's because there's a term in there that they have to keep something in production within a certain amount of time or else the rights revert.

There was also talk of them rebooting the live action stuff again too. Which means my dream of having a Grizzly and Kangaroo team up movie followed by a Legion of Losers one is not entirely dead just yet.
 
I don't know the exactitudes of their rights deal but I imagine it's because there's a term in there that they have to keep something in production within a certain amount of time or else the rights revert.

I think I remember reading somewhere that as long as they can make relatively low budget/under budget movies and still squeeze out a tiny bit of profit then they're good
 
Which is probably why they don't bother putting in the effort to make good movies -- since it's really just about holding onto the lucrative license for the actual Spider-Man movies.
That's what FOX tried to do with Fantastic Four, wasn't it? It's why they made Fant4stic.
 
Which is probably why they don't bother putting in the effort to make good movies -- since it's really just about holding onto the lucrative license for the actual Spider-Man movies.


Ah ha

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Around 2 minutes and 4 seconds is where it starts


Also

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

morbius-made-sony-profit-despite-people-thinking-it-was-a-v0-jk9viphztr6e1.jpeg
 
I'm a little surprised they never tried a Spider-Gwen movie. Let alone a Miles Morales film.

The Spider-Verse animated movies center on both characters, so maybe they don't want to compete with those -- or recognize how hard it would be to measure up to them. Then again, they did spin off Nicolas Cage's Spider-Noir to live action, after a fashion.
 
I don't know the exactitudes of their rights deal but I imagine it's because there's a term in there that they have to keep something in production within a certain amount of time or else the rights revert.

That's how two super cheap, super bad Hellraiser sequels got made, so the studio could keep the rights. Known as ashcan movies. Taken from the term ashcan comic, where the company printed, patented and then threw away a fake comic so they could claim a name or image as being theirs in case they wanted to use it in the future.

Warren Beatty also made a couple really crappy Dick Tracy TV specials just so he could keep the rights, even though he doesn't seem to actually want to make a second movie.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top