Sony's Universe Of Marvel Characters

[Mistah K88]

Sony does have a decent track record when it comes to Spider-Man in animation with both Into the Spider-Verse and The Spectacular Spider-Man (animated series), so I feel that they could be trusted to do animated Direct to Video animated movies...

Now I do have questions on what characters they are allowed to use though, as Wilson Fisk was fine and dandy to make use of in ItSV yet they had to upgrade L. Thompson Lincoln into The Big Man in Spectacular as they were not allowed to use Fisk...

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Sony does have a decent track record when it comes to Spider-Man in animation with both Into the Spider-Verse and The Spectacular Spider-Man (animated series), so I feel that they could be trusted to do animated Direct to Video animated movies...

Now I do have questions on what characters they are allowed to use though, as Wilson Fisk was fine and dandy to make use of in ItSV yet they had to upgrade L. Thompson Lincoln into The Big Man in Spectacular as they were not allowed to use Fisk...

Fisk is kind of weird. Marvel allowed the MTV Spider-Man to use Kingpin, specifically Michael Clarke Duncan's version of him in the Daredevil movie for a single episode (one of the few Marvel rogues that show was allowed to use bizarrely enough in that bizarre version of Spider-Man). But they forbade Weisman to use Kingpin and that led to Tombstone (which honestly I think was a good decision, it gave exposure to a character who is underused and who people are cottoning is pretty cool, as is apparent in his scene stealing turn in the PS4 version). And since Tombstone has some superpowers and abilities, he makes more sense as a gangster who can endure a fight with Spidey than Big Willy.

I think Marvel allowed them to use Fisk in ITSV, probably as a f--k you to Netflix who they were in the process of stabbing in the back with Disney Plus.

[Spider-Chan]

It wasn't just Hardy's charisma that sold the movie, but rather his and the director's willingness to be silly and to focus a lot on Venom itself.

To me at least, the clash of tone indicates that they were aiming for a different movie. A more straightforward gritty tone was what they were aiming for, but Hardy just practically took control of it.

Did the director did the good thing by letting him get away with it? Yes. Does that mean that that was his vision of what the movie was gonna end like? I don't think so. There's such a clash in tone within that I really doubt that any exec thought that the parts of Hardy chewing everything were going to become the best of the movie. Fleischer was handed the task of making a gritty sci-fi, and you can see that the template of that still exists.

Much to their fortune, Hardy alone was able to steal everything and made people forget everything else about the movie. And Sony ultimately embraced that, meaning they might now want to get that tone on Morbius. But again, Leto just doesn't have that energy and charisma.

I think Marvel allowed them to use Fisk in ITSV, probably as a f--k you to Netflix who they were in the process of stabbing in the back with Disney Plus.

Oddly enough, is Marvel the one that has the use of Kingpin limited, and Sony can use him as freely as they want.

Marvel is restricted to only use Kingpin in Daredevil related works, meaning they can't use him if he isn't present. Sony is free to use him in any of his Spider-Man related works. Since Fox had the rights to Kingpin, the deal started that as meanwhile Fox had the rights, Sony was not allowed to use him, but once the Daredevil rights expired, he became shared custody with Marvel and Sony, but limited in the first.

(For source look at the link I put on the first page and search for Kingpin.)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

To me at least, the clash of tone indicates that they were aiming for a different movie. A more straightforward gritty tone was what they were aiming for, but Hardy just practically took control of it.

I dunno. To me all the actors seem involved in the joke. Michelle Williams in particular and even Riz Ahmed's take on Carlton Drake. It's not just Hardy though he's a big part of it.

There's such a clash in tone within that I really doubt that any exec thought that the parts of Hardy chewing everything were going to become the best of the movie. Fleischer was handed the task of making a gritty sci-fi, and you can see that the template of that still exists.

My feeling about Venom is that it's a movie "Saved in the edit". In general, it's not true that editors actually save the movie. People say that and so on, but an editor can never make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But on occassion, the editor can get a sense of the real interest in the movie and the tone better than the director could. They read the performances better, the script better and so on. Venom isn't cut like a typical superhero movie, it's cut like a comedy and a tongue-in-cheek one...so it's got someone there looking over that.

Oddly enough, is Marvel the one that has the use of Kingpin limited, and Sony can use him as freely as they want.

Marvel is restricted to only use Kingpin in Daredevil related works, meaning they can't use him if he isn't present. Sony is free to use him in any of his Spider-Man related works. Since Fox had the rights to Kingpin, the deal started that as meanwhile Fox had the rights, Sony was not allowed to use him, but once the Daredevil rights expired, he became shared custody with Marvel and Sony, but limited in the first.

(For source look at the link I put on the first page and search for Kingpin.)

Thanks for the clarification. I personally think Kingpin works better as a Daredevil villain than a Spider-Man one in any case. There was an entire thread about that, not gonna rehash it but look it up. I am glad that Spectacular used Tombstone instead. I didn't think he was especially good or effective in ITSV at least compared to the D'Onofrio version on Netflix (not that D'Onofrio would work as a Spider-Man villain either).

[boots]

this rather... authoritative ...paragraph on how film works is interesting. is this experience gained from being in the trenches?

you seem to suggest editors and directors are two independent forces, where the editor picks up the mess left behind by the director. while that can probably be true (on occasion as you say), on most hollywood films edit assembly usually occurs during the shooting itself. it saves time and it allows for a continuous feedback loop for principal filming to shoot or reshoot things that are missing or don't work. emphasis on continuous and feedback. it's symbiotic (pun not...bleh).

directors and editors often work closely together (from everything i understand, the director was heavily involved with both editors and the editing on venom), obviously in the edit suite, but on rare occasions editors sit in as early as rehearsal stage. the idea that an editor gets an "idea of tone and interest" in the film better than the director is a new one to me, because they are usually working off of the director's notes and the dailies themselves and building a reverse storyboard from that.

as for understanding performances "better", the thing is, on a good production you get several versions of the one take. alot of people tend to imagine a script is a lock and that you do 12 takes of a scene aiming to perfect some locked down interpretation of the writing. more often the actors and director will usually take the dialogue and big print in a few different directions so that you will have varied options. the scene can be played straight drama, then again with some comedy, then again as a "fuck it, just play and go crazy" take. it's reinterpreted on the spot. none are necessarily "better". they're just options.

hemsworth wasn't exaggerating when he said that there were many different versions of thor shot on the day that will never be seen. and that's art, that's entertainment. it's an ever evolving experimentation and improvisation.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

this rather... authoritative ...paragraph on how film works is interesting. is this experience gained from being in the trenches?

Not actual real professional experience. I've done time in some student movie projects and I've worked in advertising doing ad videos and I got to hang out in an actual legit edit room and post-production processes. I worked in advertising and the final post-production process happened in a same place a professional movie shoot happened (some forgotten movie) so during that time, I got to hang out and talk to editors and assistant editors. A big time movie production has a lot of assistant editors and some top talent (like Geraldine Peroni and that lady who cut Tarantino's movies...film editing has historicallty been quite open to women. So I listened to them talk shop. Nothing really specific or concrete. I also read film magazines and behind the scenes stuff.

you seem to suggest editors and directors are two independent forces, where the editor picks up the mess left behind by the director. while that can probably be true (on occasion as you say), on most hollywood films edit assembly usually occurs during the shooting itself. it saves time and it allows for a continuous feedback loop for principal filming to shoot or reshoot things that are missing or don't work. emphasis on continuous and feedback. it's symbiotic (pun not...bleh).

That's how it should happen. IN practice, not so much. Especially when yo have different producers. Also with digital film-making, you have what's called the workflow...and VFX and pre-visualization.

Contractually, directors if they finish a certain portion of the film's production have a right to turn in a "First Cut". That is nobody else can touch the film until after the director can turn in the movie that he/she sees as correct. Then other voices can see it and chip in and so on. Really top directors have "final cut", I'm talking Spielberg. But most hollywood productions have "first cut" and that has the VFX and most of it done. On Justice League for instance, Snyder quit before his time which means he never turned in his "first cut" and that's something many of his fans don't understand when they call for a "Snyder cut". What they are calling for is a movie that doesn't actually exist. And if there ever will be a Snyder cut it will have to be made up of a bunch of scraps and it wouldn't in any way fix the movie's real problems (mostly Steppenwolf which was entirely Zack Snyder's idea and it crippled the movie).

Anyway, that's my gut...Venom is a movie that shouldn't work. It's a movie with a really unique tone. How can I say it? It's like a comedy movie without a laugh-track but you can sense the inaudible laugh track anyway. It's really over-the-top but in a subtle way.

It's not done out of incompetence but out of instinct. I don't know the actual behind-the-scenes stuff of Venom. Haven't seen the directors' other films. It feels like this could have been a movie that became like Trank's Fantastic Four but somehow it became entertaining instead. And I really do think, that it's a very good film. I love the relationship between Symbiote and Eddie, and the fact that the Symbiote is a total loser and he's a ridiculous failure in trying to be a good guy is true to the spirit of Venom. That line where Eddie says, "F--k it, let's go save the world." IT's what Suicide Squad was trying to do but failed big time achieving.

And the actors totally make it work: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams (who was really underrated in her role and is generally quite an underrated actress), and even Riz Ahmed's Carlton Drake who basically does a more accurate look at Elon Musk (who we now know is a pothead douchebag) than Tony Stark. Carlton Drake just embodies and oozes the scumminess in Silicon Valley, especially the total hatred for the poor which is a major theme in the movie.

[boots]

Not actual real professional experience. I've done time in some student movie projects and I've worked in advertising doing ad videos and I got to hang out in an actual legit edit room and post-production processes. I worked in advertising and the final post-production process happened in a same place a professional movie shoot happened (some forgotten movie) so during that time, I got to hang out and talk to editors and assistant editors. A big time movie production has a lot of assistant editors and some top talent (like Geraldine Peroni and that lady who cut Tarantino's movies...film editing has historicallty been quite open to women. So I listened to them talk shop. Nothing really specific or concrete. I also read film magazines and behind the scenes stuff.

for a client, that sounds like a decent insight. i won't talk on behalf of those editors, but it's also one point of view. a link in a long chain of group collaboration. every level of production will bitch and moan about the others they have to interact with and always see their own contribution in a certain light.

That's how it should happen. IN practice, not so much. Especially when yo have different producers.

maybe i've just been lucky with the productions i've worked then, because that's what happened. just wrapped one for netflix and begin shooting for disney end of this month. will let you know how that plays out.

Also with digital film-making, you have what's called the workflow...and VFX and pre-visualization.

as an ex digital tv editor (avid back in the day), i can verify this. but i'm unsure what the point you're making is?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

for a client, that sounds like a decent insight. i won't talk on behalf of those editors, but it's also one point of view. a link in a long chain of group collaboration. every level of production will bitch and moan about the others they have to interact with and always see their own contribution in a certain light.

You are quite correct.

maybe i've just been lucky with the productions i've worked then, because that's what happened. just wrapped one for netflix and begin shooting for disney end of this month. will let you know how that plays out.

I guess one of the problems with tracking film production is that we only ever get insight into the sausage making when something goes really wrong. So the insight a layman (and I still see myself as that) has on film-making comes from the exceptions and not the rules. My understanding is that a smooth production and so on (which must be most of them otherwise no one would get anything done) rarely offers itself as a model or opens itself to that understanding.

as an ex digital tv editor (avid back in the day), i can verify this. but i'm unsure what the point you're making is?

Just that directors and others have to set down tracks for an incoming train on modern blockbuster stuff. With pre-viz and action and stunt directors already at work in some cases before a director arrives. Marvel in particular has a house team doing that, which became news when that Argentine film-maker talked about turning Marvel down because she wouldn't have a say in how the action looked.

With Venom, this might be less since that movie was made on a small-ish budget and the CGI work there is at best watchable and most of it set at night (good choice). And Sony as a rule don't have as much resources that Disney/Marvel do. My guess is that the more dark and gritty take they wanted to take Venom in faded when they realized the CGI would never be as good as they need it to be for that to work, so they changed the tone and made the film into a kind of B-movie in the old Roger Corman sense, i.e. low(er) budget, limited resources making the most of what you have. Deadpool is similar.

[boots]

I guess one of the problems with tracking film production is that we only ever get insight into the sausage making when something goes really wrong. So the insight a layman (and I still see myself as that) has on film-making comes from the exceptions and not the rules. My understanding is that a smooth production and so on (which must be most of them otherwise no one would get anything done) rarely offers itself as a model or opens itself to that understanding.

i don't know if any production is smooth as such, they simply work or don't work.

it's case by case, from what i've seen. yeah, "smooth" productions tend to put their best foot forward, but so do "rocky" ones (often burying alot of the bts drama). the "smooth" productions often have as many problems, it's just that someone somewhere managed to manage them and put on a confident public face.

Just that directors and others have to set down tracks for an incoming train on modern blockbuster stuff. With pre-viz and action and stunt directors already at work in some cases before a director arrives. Marvel in particular has a house team doing that, which became news when that Argentine film-maker talked about turning Marvel down because she wouldn't have a say in how the action looked.

oh sure, lots of independent moving parts that work to create the whole. which is why the director is so crucial. they have "the vision"

[WebLurker]

My model is more the DCAU animated movies (Mask of the Phantasm, Return of the Joker). I am not too big a fan of DC's recent attempts at making the New 52 happen.

But I'd love to see animated takes on such stories as:
-- If this be my destiny
-- Spider-Man: Blue mixed with more Spider-Man stories from the Lee-Romita era so that it's not as bad continuity wise, and of course interposing that with Death of Captain Stacy and The Night Gwen Stacy Died at the conclusion.
-- Parallel Lives mixed more closely with bits from Untold Tales #16, ASM #259, and "To Have and to Hold". Basically a movie devoted entirely to the Peter-MJ love story.
-- The Owl/Octopus War which considering the rights issues with a Daredevil villain like the Owl might have to be modified into the Cat/Octopus War which is more correct since Felicia plays a bigger role there than the Owl.
-- The original Hobgoblin Saga and Hobgoblin Lives.
-- Marvel Knights: Spider-Man
-- Revelations/Revenge of the Green Goblin/A Death in the Family/The Pulse
-- The Night Gwen Stacy Died/The First Clone Saga...basically mash these two stories together, and place Gwen's death as what it was originally supposed to be, not this great love lost forever, but the first chapter of Peter and MJ getting together.
-- "The Wedding" and Kraven's Last Hunt (obviously)
-- The Death of Jean DeWolff
-- The Child Within/Best of Enemies
-- "Coming Home"/"The Conversation"/"Doomed Affairs" and #500, basically the entire JMS Story Arc
-- Back in Black and To Have and to Hold, though obviously the big problem is finding an ending for this. My suggestion is to mash in #400 at the end.

Okay. I'd like to see "Kraven's Last Hunt" myself.

[Sectal]

What spider characters could have their own tv series?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

What spider characters could have their own tv series?

The Spider-Man supporting characters with the biggest list of appearances after Peter are Jameson (1336 Appearances) Mary Jane Watson (1,299 Appearances), May Parker (987 Appearances). I'd say you could do a series on Jameson and MJ. But there might not be much action there. MJ headlines those Sean Mckeever books while Jameson can work if you make it a newsroom or media office comedy. Think The Office at the Daily Bugle.

If you want something action centered, then Nick Spencer's Superior Foes of Spider-Man would be great. Minor supervillains in the Spider-Man world, it'll work great. You can have comedy, you can have laughs, and you can have meta-humor and so on. You could do it like a Tarantino movie crossed with something else. And it would work.

Among villains, you can do Norman Osborn's entire life story at Oscorp. You could do it like an anti-hero drama like Breaking Bad, Sopranos and so on. A lot of stuff has been done on his backstory and background and you can deal with his entire past and background and how he sees Spider-Man. And you can have Norman build and create all these villains and so on. Norman starts out as a lame businessman then he has this mid-life crisis and he breaks bad. And adults like those amoral protagonists and so on. Other Spider-Man villains don't have the same heft, and with Norman you have an arc. There was a time in his life where he wasn't a total jerk, he has flirtations with being a family man before he relapses. So you have an arc that can sustain that. Black Cat maybe another but she's so similar to Catwoman that it would be extremely hard to make her work when you have so many iconic screen versions of Selina Kyle in movies and TV.

Unlike Superman and Batman where the supporting cast and villains don't really work without Batman even if some of them are more interesting than the heroes, a good number of Spider-Man's supporting characters and villains have origins and setups independent of Peter. Like Jameson would be Jameson without Peter. Mary Jane's entire past and family history preceded her meeting Peter. Osborn would be Osborn without Peter. And while Peter and Spider-Man ultimately changed their lives completely, he didn't define who they are.

[Sectal]

I would prefer to see more minor characters get the spotlight. Something with spot, massacre, and toxin. I also would like to see the clones, symbiotes, and other minor superheroes like Jackpot and alpha have a shot at some tv projects.

[Cmbmool]

Okay fine, let’s say we trust Sony with Spider-man and his mythos...outside of a few shared characters, then what is the point of the Deal with Disney/Marvel is Sony has all of these plans building off their success ?

I mean Sony tried this trick TWICE and look how that turned out.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Okay fine, let’s say we trust Sony with Spider-man and his mythos...outside of a few shared characters, then what is the point of the Deal with Disney/Marvel is Sony has all of these plans building off their success ?

I mean Sony tried this trick TWICE and look how that turned out.

The point of the deal with Marvel was to stave off Sony Pictures shutting down, a lot of people losing jobs, and getting shareholders to look at them without visibly plotting to gut support.

And just because Sony messed up the TASM movies doesn't mean that they're gonna mess up everything. The deal with Marvel was always a temporary thing. It was three solo films and group films made in-between. Tom Holland's contract is with Sony and not Disney.

And in any case, the main appeal of Spider-Man in the MCU was novelty...seeing that airport rumble in Civil War, and him becoming Iron Robin, and in Infinity War. Once the novelty is gone, what else is there to keep Spider-Man around?

The three Spider-Man movies are all set in high school. Tom Holland's baby fat and features are not conducive to him playing the adult Peter Parker, and it's debatable if he's got leading man chops since in independent movies he plays supporting roles (and this is probably why Feige wasn't all that keen on casting him to start with).