Spidey OUT of MCU

[Reverend]

Almost like they knew this was going to happen, or something...

More likely because negotiations were still ongoing and they can hardly announce anything before the deal was finalised. No doubt the general notion was to slot the third Spider-Man somewhere into phase 4, and wouldn't you know it, there's no movie currently scheduled in the July '20 slot.
Failing that, P4 is only going to last the next two years, so the next logical slot would have been the kick-off slot for phase 5 in February/March 2022. Which would be more in keeping with the usual 2 year turnaround on these things.

Remember that that big fancy graphic is subject to change as indeed the last one was. I mean unless I missed the 'Inhumans' movie coming out last winter?

 

[Relayer1]

we lose Happy

See, it's not all bad...

 

[DEWLine]

And now we have idiots who are trying to boycott Sony and demand that they relinquish the license to Spider-Man.
https://geektyrant.com/news/boycott...event-to-storm-sony-and-bring-back-spider-man

This isn't going to end well for these people.

Yeah, characterizing such protests that way also isn't going to go well.

 

[StCoop]

Yeah, characterizing such protests that way also isn't going to go well.

Instead of "idiots" how about "insane lunatics with no grasp on reality"?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Instead of "idiots" how about "insane lunatics with no grasp on reality"?

A much better definition

Fan culture is just crazy

 

[DEWLine]

StCoop: No. You may be dancing right on the edge of a moderator's notification.

 

[StCoop]

StCoop: No. You may be dancing right on the edge of a moderator's notification.

"Gibbering maniacs dwelling in their parent's basements" ?

 

[DigificWriter]

"Idiots" is the kindest descriptor for these people.

 

[N-121973]

You know Marvel could always try and make another Spider-man film and provoke Sony into a lawsuit ala Star Trek Axanar on the basis that he's a Marvel character. I imagine during any such suit neither party could make anything Spidey related and Sony would probably fair worse than Disney in that scenario because of their relative financial situations.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

The biggest loss here isn't MCU characters in Spider-man films, it's Spidey not being in further MCU films. Sony has been angling towards a, for lack of a better phrase, Spider-verse of their own anyway, with the rumors about a Sinister Six film, Venom, etc.

 

[Campe]

It’s unfortunate news but certainly not the end of the world. OR the MCU.

 

[DEWLine]

No, but it's going to take some of the fun out of it if it's allowed to continue.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

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

Accept third party cookies

 

[ichab]

In other words: to anyone who bought a ticket to Venom despite the crap reviews, this is your fault.

You're welcome. I enjoyed Venom immensely and cant wait to see an MCU less Spiderman again.

 

[DigificWriter]

You're welcome. I enjoyed Venom immensely and cant wait to see an MCU less Spiderman again.

Barring a reboot, a Kevin Feige-less Spider-Man film starring Holland and Co. will still be linked to the MCU, albeit implicitly rather than explicitly.

In other words: to anyone who bought a ticket to Venom despite the crap reviews, this is your fault.

How about "no"?

Disney caused this partnership to dissolve by trying to demand profits from an IP that they don't own, and then didn't counter when Sony said "no".

 

[Masiral]

Disney caused this partnership to dissolve by trying to demand profits from an IP that they don't own, and then didn't counter when Sony said "no".

Disney does own the IP. They don't own the film rights, but they own every other component of the Spider-Man IP.

 

[Noname Given]

In the end it's probably SONY thinking now that they have an actor and setup moviegoers enjoy, they can make more money (and make the development process easier) if they bring everything back in house.

IDK how well they'll do, but my draw to the last two Spiderman films WAS the fact he was in with the MCU and was interacting with all the other characfters in that world. Past the first Sam Rami 'Spiderman' - which I enjoyed, I thought all the other Spiderman films made by SONY (including 'Into The Spiderverse') were crap. I didn't go to the theatre past Sam rami's Spiderman 2 - and slipped all the rest in theartres (saw them on pay channels like HBO and yes, thought they weren't good and also didn't care for Venom either when I saw it on HBO.

Bottom line for me is that taking it out of the MCU means I probably won't bother because I'm sure SONY will go back to ANOTHER 'Green Goblin' story, or some other thing they'll retread out to death.
^^^
But that's me. Personally, I this it will hurt BOTH SONY and the Disney run MCU in the long run, but Disney has more MCU characters to build on while I thinmk SONY will try one or two more big Spiderman films, and at the first dissapointment (Box Office wise) go back to trying yet another reboot. Time will tell.

 

[EnderAKH]

Barring a reboot, a Kevin Feige-less Spider-Man film starring Holland and Co. will still be linked to the MCU, albeit implicitly rather than explicitly.

Just written worse. Again, Sony's track record without Feige does not inspire confidence.

 

[Gaith]

How about "no"?

Disney caused this partnership to dissolve by trying to demand profits from an IP that they don't own, and then didn't counter when Sony said "no".

Your point and my point can both be true.

 

[DigificWriter]

Your point and my point can both be true.

No, because one of those things has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Venom's financial success is completely unconnected to Sony rightly balking at sharing half of the profits from a filmic IP to which they own the licensing rights outright and choosing to walk away from their licensing partnership as a result.