-
[QUOTE=Ursalink;4532303]I just can't believe it. First Sony said that if "Far From Home" didn't surpass 1000 millions, the deal would be over, and now they come with this.
Seriously, somebody hit some sense into these imbeciles to make a new deal!! They can't remove Spider-Man from the MCU after the mark he has left.[/QUOTE]
[B]Sony[/B] didn’t pull out of the deal. They would’ve [I]loved[/I] to have it had it renewed as is. They were even willing to increase [B]Disney[/B]’s share of the revenue ten fold. It looks like it wasn’t enough for [B]Disney[/B]. But let’s wait to see how it plays out. Maybe they’ll work it out and I’m sure [B]Sony[/B] would love to announce it before their [I]Far From Home[/I] re-release on Friday.
-
[QUOTE=TheDarman;4532335][B]Sony[/B] didn’t pull out of the deal. They would’ve [I]loved[/I] to have it had it renewed as is. They were even willing to increase [B]Disney[/B]’s share of the revenue ten fold. It looks like it wasn’t enough for [B]Disney[/B]. But let’s wait to see how it plays out. Maybe they’ll work it out and I’m sure [B]Sony[/B] would love to announce it before their [I]Far From Home[/I] re-release on Friday.[/QUOTE]
Let's keep of fingers crosses just in case.
-
[QUOTE=Ursalink;4532303]I just can't believe it. First Sony said that if "Far From Home" didn't surpass 1000 millions, the deal would be over, and now they come with this.
Seriously, somebody hit some sense into these imbeciles to make a new deal!! They can't remove Spider-Man from the MCU after the mark he has left.[/QUOTE]
You have to hand it to Disney... they played the better PR game. They've managed to turn the entire Spidey fandom on Sony, despite them having the unreasonable demands (like increasing their share of the B.O. from 5% to 50%) during negotiations.
-
[QUOTE=HypnoHustler;4532556]You have to hand it to Disney... they played the better PR game. They've managed to turn the entire Spidey fandom on Sony, despite them having the unreasonable demands (like increasing their share of the B.O. from 5% to 50%) during negotiations.[/QUOTE]
Its pretty clear Marvel was starting high to get a better outcome when they got to 30 or 25%, Sony just wanted an excuse to walk out like Pascal and Rothman always planned - milk Disney to get the Spider-Man license profitable again and then yank him in their nicely established Venomverse. This is one of the main reasons why many are anti Sony.
Granted Disney were greedy, but they also probably know that Sony is on borrowed time anyway before they will be forced to be bought out and Marvel gets the rights back for free.
-
[QUOTE=Derek Metaltron;4532603]Its pretty clear Marvel was starting high to get a better outcome when they got to 30 or 25%, Sony just wanted an excuse to walk out like Pascal and Rothman always planned - milk Disney to get the Spider-Man license profitable again and then yank him in their nicely established Venomverse. This is one of the main reasons why many are anti Sony.
Granted Disney were greedy, but they also probably know that Sony is on borrowed time anyway before they will be forced to be bought out and Marvel gets the rights back for free.[/QUOTE]
Unless someone else gets the rights.
-
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;4532628]Unless someone else gets the rights.[/QUOTE]
That’s not how the specific contract works. If someone else buys Sony Marvel will get the Spider-Man movie rights back wholesale.
-
Almost everything people have complained about regarding MCU Spider-Man has been done in other Spidey stuff that even I who is not the biggest fan is aware of.
"MCU Spider-Man doesn't treat the secret identity with weight and respect"
In TASM 1 Peter deliberately tells Gwen Stacy that he is Spider-Man, Captain Stacy finds out in the third act and the Lizard finds out. There's pretty much no dramatic tension because of it, except for maybe with Aunt May. Likewise in the Raimi films Aunt May "always knew" and so did MJ. A whole train of citizens takes off Peter's mask instead of respecting his privacy. All of his villains find out pretty easily as well. It is established that the Aunt May in Spider-Verse knew her Peter was Spider-Man. Aunt May in Spider-Man PS4 also knew Peter was Spider-Man. So does MJ.
"MCU Spider-Man isn't shown to be smart or independent and people make stuff for him"
Raimi's Peter Parker freaking grew organic webs from his hands. TASM Peter bought/stole his web fluid from OsCorp. MCU Peter Parker is the only version that has shown us that Peter makes his own web fluid. He like the rest of the other incarnations made his prototype suit. In Spider-Man PS4 Peter's new suit after the Kingpin fight is made with materials from Otto's lab. The suit he used to fight Otto at the end is based on Otto's designs. Spider-Verse's Aunt May also made all of her Peter's alternate suits and gear as far as we know.
"MCU Peter Parker doesn't explicitly mention Uncle Ben and he has a father figure in another man"
Spider-Man 2 clearly shows that Peter idolises Otto Octavius. TASM 1 shows Peter looking up to Doctor Connors. Spider-Man PS4 also shows that Peter looks up to Otto and barely mentions Uncle Ben as far as I remember. This is such a common thing for Spidey because it's what makes the character relatable. He's the everyman thrust into the world of billionaire geniuses and great men of science. It happens in the comics, and MCU Spidey doing it with Tony Stark is no different. It's also obvious that Ben Parker is the reason why Peter became a vigilante in the first place as stated in Civil War.
"MCU Spidey's villains don't have their classic origins and all have to do with one other person"
This is the only thing I'd argue the Raimi films got right. Yet TASM Lizard and Electro all got their powers or backstories from OsCorp. The new Rhino armor if I'm not mistaken is from OsCorp and the Sinister Six would have all gotten their gear from OsCorp. Otto from Spider-Man PS4 also worked with Norman or for OsCorp.
Honestly arguing about comic book accuracy is one of the most boring, hypocritical and inconsistent things I've ever seen this fandom do, because all Spidey mediums have their accuracies and inaccuracies. It's why they're called [I]adaptations.[/I]
-
[QUOTE=Blind Wedjat;4532923]Almost everything people have complained about regarding MCU Spider-Man has been done in other Spidey stuff that even I who is not the biggest fan is aware of.
"MCU Spider-Man doesn't treat the secret identity with weight and respect"
In TASM 1 Peter deliberately tells Gwen Stacy that he is Spider-Man, Captain Stacy finds out in the third act and the Lizard finds out. There's pretty much no dramatic tension because of it, except for maybe with Aunt May. Likewise in the Raimi films Aunt May "always knew" and so did MJ. A whole train of citizens takes off Peter's mask instead of respecting his privacy. All of his villains find out pretty easily as well. It is established that the Aunt May in Spider-Verse knew her Peter was Spider-Man. Aunt May in Spider-Man PS4 also knew Peter was Spider-Man. So does MJ.
"MCU Spider-Man isn't shown to be smart or independent and people make stuff for him"
Raimi's Peter Parker freaking grew organic webs from his hands. TASM Peter bought/stole his web fluid from OsCorp. MCU Peter Parker is the only version that has shown us that Peter makes his own web fluid. He like the rest of the other incarnations made his prototype suit. In Spider-Man PS4 Peter's new suit after the Kingpin fight is made with materials from Otto's lab. The suit he used to fight Otto at the end is based on Otto's designs. Spider-Verse's Aunt May also made all of her Peter's alternate suits and gear as far as we know.
"MCU Peter Parker doesn't explicitly mention Uncle Ben and he has a father figure in another man"
Spider-Man 2 clearly shows that Peter idolises Otto Octavius. TASM 1 shows Peter looking up to Doctor Connors. Spider-Man PS4 also shows that Peter looks up to Otto and barely mentions Uncle Ben as far as I remember. This is such a common thing for Spidey because it's what makes the character relatable. He's the everyman thrust into the world of billionaire geniuses and great men of science. It happens in the comics, and MCU Spidey doing it with Tony Stark is no different. It's also obvious that Ben Parker is the reason why Peter became a vigilante in the first place as stated in Civil War.
"MCU Spidey's villains don't have their classic origins and all have to do with one other person"
This is the only thing I'd argue the Raimi films got right. Yet TASM Lizard and Electro all got their powers or backstories from OsCorp. The new Rhino armor if I'm not mistaken is from OsCorp and the Sinister Six would have all gotten their gear from OsCorp. Otto from Spider-Man PS4 also worked with Norman or for OsCorp.
Honestly arguing about comic book accuracy is one of the most boring, hypocritical and inconsistent things I've ever seen this fandom do, because all Spidey mediums have their accuracies and inaccuracies. It's why they're called [I]adaptations.[/I][/QUOTE]
You are right there hasn't been any adaptation of any comic book character that was one for one. I really wish I was around this community during the Webb films and Raimi films because I highly doubt they would have been so critical then as they are now
-
[QUOTE=Derek Metaltron;4532603]Its pretty clear Marvel was starting high to get a better outcome when they got to 30 or 25%, Sony just wanted an excuse to walk out like Pascal and Rothman always planned - milk Disney to get the Spider-Man license profitable again and then yank him in their nicely established Venomverse. This is one of the main reasons why many are anti Sony.[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact that [B]Sony[/B] would've allowed for them to get a 75/25 split and financing deal. [B]Sony[/B] would've really liked for the deal to just be renewed at the current terms of the agreement. [B]Disney[/B], however, wouldn't accept that. I think it is really unfair to assume that [B]Sony[/B] was always planning on doing this or using this as an excuse. They were offered a deal that no studio would ever accept for an IP they own. They offered up to 25% of the revenue that their character generates off their films, without asking for merchandising cuts or cuts of movies with their character in it. Now, I have no doubt that [B]Sony[/B] will happily use this opportunity to tie their Venomverse more directly into a Spider-Man character that has clearly been established as being a part of the MCU. And I think [B]Disney[/B] really overplayed their hand, thinking that they would be hurt less than [B]Sony[/B] by this. At this point, Holland's Spider-Man is synonymous with the MCU's Spider-Man. And they can use that to vindicate their own properties that they are making. I'm sure [B]Sony[/B] will happily rub it in their face while they simultaneously hope that things change in the future so that their Spider-Man can, once again, get a ticket to [I]Avengers 5[/I]. Their public statement even makes that much clear.
[QUOTE]Granted Disney were greedy, but they also probably know that Sony is on borrowed time anyway before they will be forced to be bought out and Marvel gets the rights back for free.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. While [B]Sony Pictures[/B] has struggled recently, they have been performing a lot better as of late. Additionally, if the rights are held by [B]Sony Pictures[/B] (and not [B]Sony[/B] as a parent company), then the rights will transfer with the company, regardless of the ownership of said company. So, if [B]Apple[/B] buys just [B]Sony Pictures[/B], all rights and licenses that [B]Sony Pictures[/B] owns will go with [B]Apple[/B]. Frankly, the only saving grace their might be is if [B]Sony[/B] just sells off their film-making studios and the rights to Spider-Man are actually directly owed to [B]Sony[/B], as a whole. Then, the rights revert. But, otherwise, if all rights to any property reverted with purchases, there would be no purpose in making buy-outs. And I guarantee that other companies won't think [B]Sony Pictures[/B] is a lucrative investment if it means they lose their biggest franchise.
-
[QUOTE=Jman27;4532984]You are right there hasn't been any adaptation of any comic book character that was one for one. I really wish I was around this community during the Webb films and Raimi films because I highly doubt they would have been so critical then as they are now[/QUOTE]
The Webb films were despised. I remember that I was one of the few that actually liked the interpretation of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy's relationship with him. Of course, [I]The Amazing Spider-Man 2[/I] suffered from bad villains--and the promise was that, in the future, we'd get more villains (which we weren't in love with) and less of what we liked (Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield as a couple).
-
[QUOTE=AlexCampy89;4532129]Yeah, but at least make sure you let the audience understand why those characters chose to become heroes. While Uncle Ben or Thomas Wayne don't need to be shot for the third time in less than 20 years, they deserve at least a mention.[/QUOTE]
Yah I agree. All three of those characters (Batman, Superman and Spider-Man) are defined by their origins. Spider-Man is defined by "with great power comes great responsibility" and Disney decided to instead define him as a Stark wannabe.
Oddly enough, Snyder's Superman was more similar to the real Spider-Man
As to ASM and the Webb films - I really have no idea what he was doing with the parents and Peter stalking Gwen, and him not really caring to seek justice for Uncle Ben's death. Generally around here people liked the first one and roundly hated the second one
-
I have to admit the fact that Holland cannot be asked about the situation due to ‘contract discussions’ is interesting, perhaps Marvel and Sony are still in private talks after all, or at least setting out an exit that suits both to some degree.
-
[QUOTE=Derek Metaltron;4533531]I have to admit the fact that Holland cannot be asked about the situation due to ‘contract discussions’ is interesting, perhaps Marvel and Sony are still in private talks after all, or at least setting out an exit that suits both to some degree.[/QUOTE]
As is, the definitely need to set up something solid because where they’ve left Spider-Man off is harmful to both sides considering it creates the furthest thing from a smooth transition after the cliffhanger in the last movie. The fact that Holland is still attached only further complicates matters. They could not have done this at a worse time. At least had they finished what the original agreement was for, they could have retired the character in a way that they could pick up again later if possible or act as a book ends if that were to be the end. Seriously, someone in corporate has gotta have the sense to realize how mutually damaging this is to both.
-
[QUOTE=HypnoHustler;4532556]You have to hand it to Disney... they played the better PR game. They've managed to turn the entire Spidey fandom on Sony, despite them having the unreasonable demands (like increasing their share of the B.O. from 5% to 50%) during negotiations.[/QUOTE]
It was 30% in return for shouldering a similar amount of the budget. It might not have been nice of them to want more money they didn't need given what a sweet deal they already, but it was hardly as one-sided as its been reported. We want there to be a bad guy (whether that be Disney bullying Sony over a deal or Sony slaughtering the golden Spider-Goose for a [I]third[/I] time in history) but I don't think there is one. Even if the next movie fails and "proves" that the deal should've stayed, it was just a disagreement over a business arrangement.
[QUOTE=Blind Wedjat;4532923]Almost everything people have complained about regarding MCU Spider-Man has been done in other Spidey stuff that even I who is not the biggest fan is aware of.
"MCU Spider-Man doesn't treat the secret identity with weight and respect"
In TASM 1 Peter deliberately tells Gwen Stacy that he is Spider-Man, Captain Stacy finds out in the third act and the Lizard finds out. There's pretty much no dramatic tension because of it, except for maybe with Aunt May. Likewise in the Raimi films Aunt May "always knew" and so did MJ. A whole train of citizens takes off Peter's mask instead of respecting his privacy. All of his villains find out pretty easily as well. It is established that the Aunt May in Spider-Verse knew her Peter was Spider-Man. Aunt May in Spider-Man PS4 also knew Peter was Spider-Man. So does MJ.
"MCU Spider-Man isn't shown to be smart or independent and people make stuff for him"
Raimi's Peter Parker freaking grew organic webs from his hands. TASM Peter bought/stole his web fluid from OsCorp. MCU Peter Parker is the only version that has shown us that Peter makes his own web fluid. He like the rest of the other incarnations made his prototype suit. In Spider-Man PS4 Peter's new suit after the Kingpin fight is made with materials from Otto's lab. The suit he used to fight Otto at the end is based on Otto's designs. Spider-Verse's Aunt May also made all of her Peter's alternate suits and gear as far as we know.
"MCU Peter Parker doesn't explicitly mention Uncle Ben and he has a father figure in another man"
Spider-Man 2 clearly shows that Peter idolises Otto Octavius. TASM 1 shows Peter looking up to Doctor Connors. Spider-Man PS4 also shows that Peter looks up to Otto and barely mentions Uncle Ben as far as I remember. This is such a common thing for Spidey because it's what makes the character relatable. He's the everyman thrust into the world of billionaire geniuses and great men of science. It happens in the comics, and MCU Spidey doing it with Tony Stark is no different. It's also obvious that Ben Parker is the reason why Peter became a vigilante in the first place as stated in Civil War.
"MCU Spidey's villains don't have their classic origins and all have to do with one other person"
This is the only thing I'd argue the Raimi films got right. Yet TASM Lizard and Electro all got their powers or backstories from OsCorp. The new Rhino armor if I'm not mistaken is from OsCorp and the Sinister Six would have all gotten their gear from OsCorp. Otto from Spider-Man PS4 also worked with Norman or for OsCorp.
Honestly arguing about comic book accuracy is one of the most boring, hypocritical and inconsistent things I've ever seen this fandom do, because all Spidey mediums have their accuracies and inaccuracies. It's why they're called [I]adaptations.[/I][/QUOTE]
Thank you for laying that out. (Seriously, half the MCU Spidey complaints are over stuff that was already codified into the franchise.)
[QUOTE=Kurolegacy;4533604]As is, the definitely need to set up something solid because where they’ve left Spider-Man off is harmful to both sides considering it creates the furthest thing from a smooth transition after the cliffhanger in the last movie. The fact that Holland is still attached only further complicates matters. They could not have done this at a worse time. At least had they finished what the original agreement was for, they could have retired the character in a way that they could pick up again later if possible or act as a book ends if that were to be the end. Seriously, someone in corporate has gotta have the sense to realize how mutually damaging this is to both.[/QUOTE]
Wonder if there would be as much rancor if the doxxing cliffhanger hadn't been left in the final cut?
-
I dont get why so many people are vocally hating the peter and stark relationship so much. Spiderman came about during the civil war and a lot of the same things happened in the movies that happened in the comics. Peter looked up to tony and wanted his approval, this relationship made him unmask in front of the world against his better judgment and better knowledge.