Spiderman: Far from home

[Clertar]

Bear in mind there are no MCU crossover movies slated that would need Spidey to interact with any other MCU characters, so I don't think his role in the wider MCU to come is actually necessarily planned for at all.

Sony could not use this Spider-man, they would need to reboot him.

[GloatingSwine]

Sony could not use this Spider-man, they would need to reboot him.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

They might not be able to use any other Marvel characters without some other agreement, but Sony still own the movie rights to Spider-Man, including this version.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

They might not be able to use any other Marvel characters without some other agreement, but Sony still own the movie rights to Spider-Man, including this version.

I took Clertar to mean they couldn't in practice use this version of the character, precisely because he is so steeped in MCU lore. It'd be like the disconnect between latter NetflixMCU and Movie MCU, but on steroids. No, in practice Sony would almost certainly need to completely sever any mentions to MCU, which means an entirely new Spiderman - probably a new actor, too. Might not require a new origin story, but Sony being Sony, that's probably all they'd think of doing.

ETA: I wonder in the MCU could marry Peter and MJ, have him take her surname, so that he's now Peter Jones, and thus not even have to worry about not being able to call him Parker.

Grey Wolf

[GloatingSwine]

I took Clertar to mean they couldn't in practice use this version of the character, precisely because he is so steeped in MCU lore.

He is, but they've literally just ended a movie on the best possible reason to break from everything the character has been presented as to this point.

That might not have been the intent, but it's certainly convenient for them.

They actually can quite easily dump any wider MCU trappings in the next Spider-Man movie, and excuse it because now he's on the run and can't use any of those resources.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

He is, but they've literally just ended a movie on the best possible reason to break from everything the character has been presented as to this point.

That might not have been the intent, but it's certainly convenient for them.

They actually can quite easily dump any wider MCU trappings in the next Spider-Man movie, and excuse it because now he's on the run and can't use any of those resources.

Errr... no? If he's on the run (and that's a big if right there), why wouldn't he run to NuSHIELD, who won't give a damn? Sign the accords, go out in the open like every other superhero in the lore? And most specially, how would SONY explain any of this when they wouldn't be able to mention Stark, Fury, SHIELD, the blink, or any of the other fundamental, crucial backstory elements that have turned this Spiderman into who he is today?

Grey Wolf

[GloatingSwine]

Errr... no? If he's on the run (and that's a big if right there), why wouldn't he run to NuSHIELD, who won't give a damn? Sign the accords, go out in the open like every other superhero in the lore?

Because he's just been exposed as a murderer and terrorist with his real identity, and "NuSHIELD" is a pair of out of their depth Skrulls with about a dozen support staff.

It's super easy to write a story where Peter is explicitly avoiding anyone he has previously interacted with who he thinks might have bought Beck's last illusion, which conveniently includes all the previous MCU characters.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because he's just been exposed as a murderer and terrorist with his real identity, and "NuSHIELD" is a pair of out of their depth Skrulls with about a dozen support staff.

And yet SONY would have no way to indicate any of this to the audience.

It's super easy to write a story where Peter is explicitly avoiding anyone he has previously interacted with who he thinks might have bought Beck's last illusion, which conveniently includes all the previous MCU characters.

No, it is not. Not while keeping him Spiderman.

Grey Wolf

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Or you just don't bother explaining it, and just act like the MCU components don't exist. The bulk of the Spider-Man audience doesn't have a pressing need for the films to retain a tight attention to continuity. Keep the Iron Spider suit, remove references to Tony, don't acknowledge SHIELD or anything, and just build on the excellent established core cast.

At the end of the day, the MCU elements are ancillary.

In some ways, Disney/Marvel is the one in a bind here, what with how they set Peter up as the heir apparent to Tony. I don't think Disney gets more movies with Holland, so...

Or maybe this is all part of Disney playing hardball to get a bigger slice of the profits by exploiting nerdrage against Sony. Not that nerdrage actually did anything for Star Wars, but you never know.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Or you just don't bother explaining it, and just act like the MCU components don't exist. The bulk of the Spider-Man audience doesn't have a pressing need for the films to retain a tight attention to continuity. Keep the Iron Spider suit, remove references to Tony, don't acknowledge SHIELD or anything, and just build on the excellent established core cast.

The cast includes multiple characters SONY doesn't own. Happy, MJ (which is explicitly not Mary Jane), Stark, even when dead, are all crucial to this Peter Parker. I'm not even sure who owns Peter's best friend (whose name escapes me ATM). You can create new spiderman without them, you can even cast Tom in the role. But it would not be this spiderman. It would be, like Clertar said, a reboot.

At the end of the day, the MCU elements are ancillary.

Most. Not all. Too much of Peter's growth has come from Tony to simply never mention any Stark-related theme again.

Grey Wolf

[CarpeGuitarrem]

MJ is absolutely usable by Sony. Either she's covered under the existing rights (as a derivation of Mary Jane Watson) or she's a non-Marvel character (given that there's no "Michelle Jones" in the comics) and therefore usable by Sony. "Ned Leeds" (even though he's basically Ganke) also falls under the Spiderman umbrella pretty cleanly, I'd suspect. That trio of MJ/Ned/Peter drives the movies, and is more than enough to power a standalone Sony movie.

Happy and Stark would go, but that's something you can write around. The major character development for Peter that revolves around Stark has been done, and you can just move forward from there. You don't need a 1-for-1 replacement for everything that drops out of the film, and you can still carry the themes forward. Ease Peter into that tech whiz field that the comics sent him into anyhow, without Stark, and you're doing just fine. Reintroduce Norman Osborne as the Stark proxy if you really need to.

[Raimun]

After I watched this movie, I could finally put my finger on what has been bugging me about MCU-Spiderman-movies, despite that I like them.

MCU-Spiderman-movies are good and entertaining superhero movies. The action is good, dialogue and characters (mostly) work, the villains are interesting and they tie in well to MCU.

Yet, they aren't very good Spider-Man-movies. Or Spider-Man-stories in general. MCU-Spider-Man doesn't feel like Spider-Man if you ask me.

Here's why I think so:

1) They've changed so much: Spider-Man has never had such an easy life in any media and thus his character feels and really is different. It's not enough that he's a teenager and he quips. Peter Parker was a teenager in the 60's and for most of the character's history he's been an adult. Quipping is nice but justifiable angst is more important for the character of Spider-Man/Peter Parker. Raimi-duology (there is no Spider-Man 3!) got that right. Also, Spider-Man should be able to reach greater heights of devotion, dedication and determination... somehow Holland's version is always is always lacking when it comes to this and I don't think he can sell this.
They've also changed the personalities of Spider-Man's supporting cast so much that they are unrecognizable. For example, MJ isn't really a sardonic brainiac with a gallows humor and May Parker isn't a sassy hippie. And Peter Parker doesn't have a best friend named Ned. Ned Leeds is an older work colleague.
2) They've omitted so much. There's no mention of Ben Parker. That's an automatic big minus. His death is the driving force for Spider-Man.
3) While the movies tie well to rest of the MCU, I feel like the stories of other MCU-heroes weren't bended, stretched and moulded as much to fit in to MCU. If you ask me, the whole Iron Man-Spider-Man-connection was too forced and didn't serve the story of Spider-Man. They aren't that close... except this one time when both men were adults and Spider-Man ended up getting a 100% raw deal from Stark. Also, Spider-Man shouldn't have a jetplane at his beck and call when he's on his way towards the ultimate showdown with the supervillain.
4) Not enough time spent amidst the skycrapers of New York. This is where Spider-Man fights. It's like an urban jungle for Spider-Man.
5) Put all of the above together and Spider-Man is almost unrecognizable for me.

It's really weird to like something that you also don't like. I still think MCU-Spider-Man movies are good movies. It's not like they are Green Lantern, Justice League or any of the three Fantastic Four movies. Instead, they are finely crafted movies where pretty much all of the parts work, alone and together. However, these parts aren't what makes the story of Spider-Man.

[Rater202]

In Regard to the Sony thing: Apparently what happened is that the original deal that let Spider-Man be in the MCU expired.

No one broke the deal, they were just negotiating a continuation.

Apparently Disney proposed a "We split the costs on Spider-Man Movies 50/50 and in exhcnage we split the gross profits 50/50" which sounds fair, but apparently, they were expecting Sony to negotiate down.

some sources are saying that Sony has made counteroffers, others are saying that Sony is refusing any deal where they don't' make the full 95% Gross profit they had before, I don't know which is true.

This is Sony trying to put pressure on Disney. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Devonix]

The cast includes multiple characters SONY doesn't own. Happy, MJ (which is explicitly not Mary Jane), Stark, even when dead, are all crucial to this Peter Parker. I'm not even sure who owns Peter's best friend (whose name escapes me ATM). You can create new spiderman without them, you can even cast Tom in the role. But it would not be this spiderman. It would be, like Clertar said, a reboot.



Most. Not all. Too much of Peter's growth has come from Tony to simply never mention any Stark-related theme again.

Grey Wolf

Peter's been in 5 movies without mentioning Uncle Ben. I think he can go 2 more movies to finish out his contract without naming Iron Man.

[huttj509]

In Regard to the Sony thing: Apparently what happened is that the original deal that let Spider-Man be in the MCU expired.

No one broke the deal, they were just negotiating a continuation.

Apparently Disney proposed a "We split the costs on Spider-Man Movies 50/50 and in exhcnage we split the gross profits 50/50" which sounds fair, but apparently, they were expecting Sony to negotiate down.

some sources are saying that Sony has made counteroffers, others are saying that Sony is refusing any deal where they don't' make the full 95% Gross profit they had before, I don't know which is true.

This is Sony trying to put pressure on Disney. Nothing more, nothing less.

Note there's apparently day 1 gross, overall gross, and merchandising to be discussed. The merchandising is heavily towards Disney (if not 100%, from what I've seen mentioned).

So...it's more complicated than that.

[Anteros]

Off the top of my head: the next spiderman MCU movie ends with Spiderman losing his powers. Or a leg, as per the comics. Pepper Pots hires him for R&D. He starts using regular iron Man suits, or just builds them for the next spiderman-mold character.

There, lost Spiderman, not lost the character or the "next Iron Man" title.

Heck, Spiderman as the character is already practically dead. Spiderman is an adolescent struggling with responsibility & similar 15-20 yo issues. The movies can't keep him there, and as characterization grows, the further he gets from the "true" spiderman. Tom can transition to a different character.

Grey Wolf

Spider-man hasn't been what you describe for at least 50 years now. He's only an adolescent struggling with responsibility and high school life for like...10 issues in the entire life of his series. It's just that the general public consciousness mostly only knows him from his origin stories because that's what these companies run over and over in movies and shows.

[Devonix]

Note there's apparently day 1 gross, overall gross, and merchandising to be discussed. The merchandising is heavily towards Disney (if not 100%, from what I've seen mentioned).

So...it's more complicated than that.

Sony got box office gross for the Spider-man solo films and that's it, nothing else. Disney got all merchandise revinue all theme park stuff. And Sony doesn't get a dime out of any of Spider-mans appearance in any other films. Oh and Disney doesn't pay anything in making, marketing, or distributing the Spider-man films. They're creative consultants and that's it.

The new deal was offering to split production cost, but that's really just a play to get more direct control on the character for leverage. And Sony would still be getting a raw deal, because not only do they see no merchandise money now they'd be losing half of box office. No one would take a deal that one sided. Hell even offering something like that is insulting.

[Devonix]

Spider-man hasn't been what you describe for at least 50 years now. He's only an adolescent struggling with responsibility and high school life for like...10 issues in the entire life of his series. It's just that the general public consciousness mostly only knows him from his origin stories because that's what these companies run over and over in movies and shows.

It's another reason Sam Rami Spider-man was so good. They got the dumb highschool stuff finished inthe first 15 minutes of the movie and for the rest of it we had adult spider-man.

[Starbuck_II]

2) They've omitted so much. There's no mention of Ben Parker. That's an automatic big minus. His death is the driving force for Spider-Man.

In the current MCU, Tony Stark's death is driving force for Spider-Man now.

[Delicious Taffy]

It's another reason Sam Rami Spider-man was so good. They got the dumb highschool stuff finished inthe first 15 minutes of the movie and for the rest of it we had adult spider-man.

That's a big contributor to why I love the Raimi films so much. Peter is an adult, doing his best to make ends meet, but he's also kind of a giant ass a lot of the time, even if he doesn't mean to be. I do wish he'd been a bit mouthier and had more chances to flaunt his brains, though.

[Psyren]

I don't think it's that easy for Marvel to replace Spider-man. They've lost Iron man, they've lost Cap, and Thor's story seems to be basically over as well.

Er, what? Thor has at least two more movies.

In Regard to the Sony thing: Apparently what happened is that the original deal that let Spider-Man be in the MCU expired.

No one broke the deal, they were just negotiating a continuation.

Apparently Disney proposed a "We split the costs on Spider-Man Movies 50/50 and in exhcnage we split the gross profits 50/50" which sounds fair, but apparently, they were expecting Sony to negotiate down.

some sources are saying that Sony has made counteroffers, others are saying that Sony is refusing any deal where they don't' make the full 95% Gross profit they had before, I don't know which is true.

This is Sony trying to put pressure on Disney. Nothing more, nothing less.

This. I'd be surprised if a deal didn't end up materializing at some point after the media attention on all the saber-rattling dies down.

[Erys]

Er, what? Thor has at least two more movies.

Two?

I had only heard about Lady Thor.

This. I'd be surprised if a deal didn't end up materializing at some point after the media attention on all the saber-rattling dies down.

I heard a rumor that Disney wants nine movies out of this character. The MCU made Sony bank, they know this. They know they will never make near the same revenue should they reclaim Spiderman.

Guaranteed there will be a deal struck, there are too many zeroes at stake.

[Devonix]

Two?

I had only heard about Lady Thor.




I heard a rumor that Disney wants nine movies out of this character. The MCU made Sony bank, they know this. They know they will never make near the same revenue should they reclaim Spiderman.

Guaranteed there will be a deal struck, there are too many zeroes at stake.

Hemsworth is still signed on for two more mcu films. The next one is obviously Thor 4, the one after that will either be Thor 5 or a crossover.

[Psyren]

Hemsworth is still signed on for two more mcu films. The next one is obviously Thor 4, the one after that will either be Thor 5 or a crossover.

Most likely Guardians 3.

I heard a rumor that Disney wants nine movies out of this character. The MCU made Sony bank, they know this. They know they will never make near the same revenue should they reclaim Spiderman.

Guaranteed there will be a deal struck, there are too many zeroes at stake.

Yeah this is just a negotiating tactic. Pressure will be put on Marvel to back off from a 50/50 split, pressure will be put on Sony to come down from 95/5. Either way, Tom Holland is set for life!

[Erys]

Hemsworth is still signed on for two more mcu films. The next one is obviously Thor 4, the one after that will either be Thor 5 or a crossover.

Ah, nice!

Either way, Tom Holland is set for life!

Man, so true.

[Reddish Mage]

Sony got box office gross for the Spider-man solo films and that's it, nothing else. Disney got all merchandise revinue all theme park stuff. And Sony doesn't get a dime out of any of Spider-mans appearance in any other films. Oh and Disney doesn't pay anything in making, marketing, or distributing the Spider-man films. They're creative consultants and that's it.

The new deal was offering to split production cost, but that's really just a play to get more direct control on the character for leverage. And Sony would still be getting a raw deal, because not only do they see no merchandise money now they'd be losing half of box office. No one would take a deal that one sided. Hell even offering something like that is insulting.

From what I see the financial sites are pretty clear that it is a raw deal for Sony, who owns the character's movie rights. That's a pretty big deal.

On the other hand, Disney has ushered in the new Spiderman and the last movie was their best ever. However, Sony hasn't done bad for itself with Into the Spiderverse and Venom lately.

Now Sony will be free to bring Spiderman into their own SUMC (Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters) if they remain cable of thinking in those grandiose terms.

Guaranteed there will be a deal struck, there are too many zeroes at stake.

Actually, I think the Forbes analysis above makes sense. Sony probably thinks they'll give up like 20% of the revenue. That's not worth 50% of the take.

Disney, on the other hand, may not see the benefit of giving their efforts to promote movies that a rival is taking over 90% of the profits on. Even if Disney has the marketing rights, they could just make a movie with another MCU character, or even bring in a brand new one, and get 100% of the profits.

It may not make sense for Disney to come down from 50%. Although I think that might be a mistake on Disney's part because I think Spider-Man benefits the entire MCU, which needs continued interconnectivity and high profile appeal to continue in the popular mind as a must-watch franchise (rather than every movie for itself) as we go past Endgame into whatever the new thing is.

There's also risks for Sony, who could alienate fans, and who might not go to the next solo Spiderman.

Most likely Guardians 3.

There's been no indications of such other than the "Asgardians of the Galaxy" joke. I've been looking for any indications Thor will cross over because it would be perfect. Especially if we get to keep "Fat Thor."

Yeah this is just a negotiating tactic. Pressure will be put on Marvel to back off from a 50/50 split, pressure will be put on Sony to come down from 95/5. Either way, Tom Holland is set for life!

Actually, I'm worried about Tom Holland. Sony has wanted Tom Holland to cameo in Venom and upcoming SUMC movies, but Disney has been a hard no on the idea. Disney has made it clear they consider Tom Holland appearing in any movie in the role of Spider-Man, even for an instant, would be an unforgivable suggestion that the movie takes place in the MCU. Sony right to make movies that take place in the MCU may be contractually limited to the joint-project Spiderman movies, not to mention Disney's willingness to attack any MCU locale reference on copyright grounds.

So if Sony wants to continue to use Tom Holland as Spider-Man they may need to prepare for a lawsuit and better distance him from the MCU version as far as possible to avoid that lawsuit succeeding. If they cast a new Spider-Man they won't have that problem and can do a fresh reboot without audience confusion.

Sony can very well screw up that roll out, but if Spiderman makes even half of what they just made that might be just fine with Sony, if not the fans who want to see more Tom Holland.

[Starbuck_II]

From what I see the financial sites are pretty clear that it is a raw deal for Sony, who owns the character's movie rights. That's a pretty big deal.

On the other hand, Disney has ushered in the new Spiderman and the last movie was their best ever. However, Sony hasn't done bad for itself with Into the Spiderverse and Venom lately.

Now Sony will be free to bring Spiderman into their own SUMC (Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters) if they remain cable of thinking in those grandiose terms.




Actually, I think the Forbes analysis above makes sense. Sony probably thinks they'll give up like 20% of the revenue. That's not worth 50% of the take.

Disney, on the other hand, may not see the benefit of giving their efforts to promote movies that a rival is taking over 90% of the profits on. Even if Disney has the marketing rights, they could just make a movie with another MCU character, or even bring in a brand new one, and get 100% of the profits.

It may not make sense for Disney to come down from 50%. Although I think that might be a mistake on Disney's part because I think Spider-Man benefits the entire MCU, which needs continued interconnectivity and high profile appeal to continue in the popular mind as a must-watch franchise (rather than every movie for itself) as we go past Endgame into whatever the new thing is.

There's also risks for Sony, who could alienate fans, and who might not go to the next solo Spiderman.



There's been no indications of such other than the "Asgardians of the Galaxy" joke. I've been looking for any indications Thor will cross over because it would be perfect. Especially if we get to keep "Fat Thor."



Actually, I'm worried about Tom Holland. Sony has wanted Tom Holland to cameo in Venom and upcoming SUMC movies, but Disney has been a hard no on the idea. Disney has made it clear they consider Tom Holland appearing in any movie in the role of Spider-Man, even for an instant, would be an unforgivable suggestion that the movie takes place in the MCU. Sony right to make movies that take place in the MCU may be contractually limited to the joint-project Spiderman movies, not to mention Disney's willingness to attack any MCU locale reference on copyright grounds.

So if Sony wants to continue to use Tom Holland as Spider-Man they may need to prepare for a lawsuit and better distance him from the MCU version as far as possible to avoid that lawsuit succeeding. If they cast a new Spider-Man they won't have that problem and can do a fresh reboot without audience confusion.

Sony can very well screw up that roll out, but if Spiderman makes even half of what they just made that might be just fine with Sony, if not the fans who want to see more Tom Holland.

Could keep Venom alternate reality and have Miles or one of the old Spider-man appear (Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield)?

[Rodin]

Actually, I'm worried about Tom Holland. Sony has wanted Tom Holland to cameo in Venom and upcoming SUMC movies, but Disney has been a hard no on the idea. Disney has made it clear they consider Tom Holland appearing in any movie in the role of Spider-Man, even for an instant, would be an unforgivable suggestion that the movie takes place in the MCU. Sony right to make movies that take place in the MCU may be contractually limited to the joint-project Spiderman movies, not to mention Disney's willingness to attack any MCU locale reference on copyright grounds.

So if Sony wants to continue to use Tom Holland as Spider-Man they may need to prepare for a lawsuit and better distance him from the MCU version as far as possible to avoid that lawsuit succeeding. If they cast a new Spider-Man they won't have that problem and can do a fresh reboot without audience confusion.

Sony can very well screw up that roll out, but if Spiderman makes even half of what they just made that might be just fine with Sony, if not the fans who want to see more Tom Holland.

The solution is simple - you just take Thanos's big helicopter blade and split Tom Holland right down the middle. Everybody's happy!*


*Except Tom Holland.

[Reddish Mage]

Could keep Venom alternate reality and have Miles or one of the old Spider-man appear (Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield)?

They could, but both of those actors are older now and can’t play a teenager.

Are you talking about a brief cameo type appearance...does Sony really want to do that with their big grandiose shared-universe?

They will almost certainly want to portray Spider-Man as an adolescent. If One More Day proved anything its that Marvel doesn’t think that mature adult Spider-Man is mass marketable. As far as I know Sony could totally do adult Peter Parker (the Toby Maguire version could be married to MJ), but that’d be one heck of a risk, not to mention Marvel would try to fight that move too.

[Cen]

The solution is simple - you just take Thanos's big helicopter blade and split Tom Holland right down the middle. Everybody's happy!*


*Except Tom Holland.

It's Thanoscopter blade.

Just gogle.it.

[Magic_Hat]

I heard a rumor that Spidey is out of the MCU - something with Sony taking him back. Not that I care all that much, but can someone confirm?