Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Turtletrekker, Jun 27, 2019.
They’re going to kill the golden goose because they can’t agree on how to share the eggs?
Sony going it alone again without Feige isn't "killing the golden goose" because Spidey's success isn't and has never been predicated on Feige and Marvel Studios' involvement, and continuing the licensing partnership deal certainly isn't worth Sony having to lessen their own profits by having to share said profits with Disney.
That's the short of it.
Wrong again. Raimi had the freedom to explore and adapt the character based on his oft-stated love and details about what made those Silver Age stories work, and why he was bringing that to the screen. To date, Raimi was the only filmmaker who actually understood who Parker/Spider-Man should be, based on the relevant comics.
No, he thought he understood Peter based on the old SA comics and he never bothered with anything after the 70s. He created a romanticized take on what he remembered of SA Spidey but toned him down too much and made him too much of a passive Sadsack.
I mean, I know you're also trapped in the old outdated ways but the rest of us aren't.
Hehe. Yup. Looking back on it now, Toby wasn't playing Peter Parker... he was playing Eli Manning.
I especially loved the big Spider-Verse sequence. Need more of that!
Not inherently, but let's get real: The big reason people were willing to put up with yet another Spider-Man reboot in 2017 was that this one would tie in with the MCU. People wanted to see Spider-Man in the MCU and didn't want him to live in his own continuity anymore.
That doesn't mean that Spider-Man 3 #2 won't be able to do well without MCU elements. Personally, I think Far From Home's stinger created a nice set-up that would allow them to do a "Peter on the run and unable to get help from his friends" story. But the MCU was why people were willing to give Homecoming a chance.
Depends on whether or not Sony is capable of telling a story that entertains people enough to make Spider-Man 3 #2 popular without Feige/Marvel Studios's involvement. Clearly they shat the bed with ASM 1 and 2. But then they produced a goddamn masterpiece without Marvel Studios in Into the Spider-Verse. I'm honestly not sure if they're gonna end up writing a shit sandwich or a masterpiece.
That's another reason it was such a huge benefit for Sony to let Marvel Studios make the last two movies: Marvel Studios rarely creates masterpieces, but they have a solid track record of always creating movies that at least get a solid "B+." That level of creative consistency is really hard to produce, but their brand essentially promises, "Hey, this will be a fun way to spend two hours even if it's not The Godfather." Audiences don't have that kind of trust in Sony's brand.
I've decided that this probably isn't going to be the Spider-pocalypse that so many fans are making of it. I think that in studio terms, the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" means something different than it does to the fans. To the fans, it's the whole expanse of the story telling universe, from the movies, to the network television shows, to the Netflix series to the young adult shows, to the one shots to the web exclusive content. To the studios, the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is defined as "movies produced by Marvel Studios". From the fan definition of the term, the movies will indeed be MCU.
Sony won't be interested in a drastic and confusing change of tone and direction after their first billion-dollar success. They've already confirmed that they're going to pick up from Far From Home's cliffhanger and work through that. The screenwriters are returning, the cast will be returning. director John Watts is being courted by other Studios, including Marvel, but the possibility exists that he could return as well. Watts has mentioned his desire to include Kraven in a movie, so he might be motivated to return.
Feige won't be kept completely in the dark as he has mentioned before that he as always passed along notes on the various Marvel projects in production by other Studios, though studios are free to ignore said notes, just as Paramount generally ignored notes from Gene Roddenberry on Star Trek 2 through 6, but I think at this point, it would be foolish to just ignore Feige's notes and suggestions as out of hand. Indeed, Sony has brought this point up themselves since the split was announced.
We assume that there will be no mention of Stark or The Avengers or the events the previous movies, but we don't know that there won't be some sort of accommodation made for that. Both sides claim the split to be amicable. If Sony wants to mention Tony Stark in a Spider-Man movie, is Marvel really going to yell foul? Hell, we don't even know for certain if the two studios are still willing to share supporting characters or not. They could be. All we know is that Marvel won't be producing the next movie. Maybe Sony could lease Happy Hogan for a movie. Who knows?
We won't know 'til the next movie comes out. If Sony makes a good movie it's all cool. If they screw the pooch again there'll be hell to pay.
This is pretty much what I said from the beginning, assuming the writers are actually returning (I haven't actually seen that officially confirmed). I don't need MCU references in the next film but I do want consistent tone and characterizations and those writers should be able to do that, even if Feige doesn't have any direct influence. My main concern has always been Sony's guidance and whether they've learned from their past mistakes and not to meddle too much with the production. I trust the previous two film writers (and hopefully director), but I don't trust Sony itself.
I just can't see them making this version of Parker a fugitive believably, now that the MCU linkages are in play.
In addition to the Hogan and Fury/Talos wrinkles...Secretary Ross was also at the Stark funeral, which means he knew as well. Too many ways for capital-W Wrath of Whomever to come down on Jonah's head.
A two hour movie consisting of Happy Hogan chastising Stark employees who don't wear their badges?
"Badge. You gotta wear the badge"
"Badge. Read the company news brief"
"Hey you. Badge"
Movie?! Are you kidding, you could build a whole show around that!
Perhaps its says something about the quality of my life, but I'd totally watch that movie.
If you mean because he would have MCU allies, I would disagree; in the comics (of the 70s), Spider-Man had superhero friends/allies (e.g., the Human Torch, Captain America, et al.), at the same time he was wanted for murder, but they did not come to his aid. A Spider-Man movie exploring his being turned into Public Enemy Number One would be a great, refreshing turn from the MCU's version, and allow him to also grow up dealing with more realistic consequences.
I don't really see how it's a turn from the MCU version set it is a plot point set up in an MCU movie, and would probably have still been the focus of the next if the Marvel deal hadn't fallen apart.
It's not like this is some drastic change that couldn't have happened if it was still in the MCU.
I'd watch it!
Separate names with a comma.