Disney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios Involvement In ‘Spider-Man'

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That was basically the point of Far From Home, getting Peter to the point of stepping out of Tony’s shadow.

You mean spending two whole movies waiting in line all so he could get to be a character who had flourished for decades in a period where Iron Man was a B-lister with the flat-out worst rogues gallery of any major hero?

Iron Man isn't fit to shine Spider-Man's shoes as a character. He doesn't deserve to be Spider-Man's mentor. There are MCU characters who do (Cap, Banner) but not Stark.

He’s not gonna be the Peter we know from the comics over night,

The Peter from the comics became that character in TASM #1. Ultimate Spider-Man by Issue #13 at the latest. So there should never have been much time needed to do that.

but after the previous movie, he was now in the position of character development to become that.

A single 2 and 30mns comic is equivalent in real estate to about 200 issues or so worth of character development, investment and engagement. You can't waste 2 whole movies on Spider-Man before he becomes Spider-Man.

Plus I’d take a Peter who looks up to his predecessors over hipster Peter or humorless whiny Peter any day.

"Hipster Peter" and "Humorless Whiny Peter" are his predecessors and that's Mr. "Hipster Peter" and Mr. "Humorless Whiny Peter" to you.

[Spencermalley935]

What does that even mean?

Basically it means a Peter Parker who has nothing to do with Tony Stark.

[Jman27]

Basically it means a Peter Parker who has nothing to do with Tony Stark.

I mean if you think about it we had 5 previous spiderman movies without him and 5 with Tony so the logic is another 5 without him

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I mean if you think about it we had 5 previous spiderman movies without him and 5 with Tony so the logic is another 5 without him

Number's 6. ITSV is the sixth Spider-Man movie. And if we consider Spider-Man movies with character in title than it's 8 movies, with 2 in the MCU and guest appearances as Caddy to Mr. Stark in Avengers IW and Endgame, as well as Civil War.

[Electricmastro]

Number's 6. ITSV is the sixth Spider-Man movie. And if we consider Spider-Man movies with character in title than it's 8 movies, with 2 in the MCU and guest appearances as Caddy to Mr. Stark in Avengers IW and Endgame, as well as Civil War.

Does this one count as well?

[Amadeus Arkham]

What does that even mean?

I guess that means a Peter Parker who isn’t “Iron Jr.”. Which is funny since part of the Peter’s arc in Far From Home is Peter learning that he isn’t and never will be the new Iron Man, and that he’s better off stepping out of that shadow to develop his own independent superhero identity. MCU was intentionally setting up this version of Peter arrive at a place closer to what we traditionally recognize in the comics where he is the loner, underdog that’s wildly misunderstood by the pubic at large but they start him off as essentially a Avengers fanboy that idolizes Iron Man. Kind of similar to how Superman’s arc in the DCEU didn’t start off as comic book Superman as they choose to have the character start off more conflicted, and doubtful so he can have an arc that culminates in him becoming the comic character many know and love.

[Jman27]

I guess that means a Peter Parker who isn’t “Iron Jr.”. Which is funny since part of the Peter’s arc in Far From Home is Peter learning that he isn’t and never will be the new Iron Man, and that he’s better off stepping out of that shadow to develop his own independent superhero identity. MCU was intentionally setting up this version of Peter arrive at a place closer to what we traditionally recognize in the comics where he is the loner, underdog that’s wildly misunderstood by the pubic at large but they start him off as essentially a Avengers fanboy that idolizes Iron Man. Kind of similar to how Superman’s arc in the DCEU didn’t start off as comic book Superman as they choose to have the character start off more conflicted, and doubtful so he can have an arc that culminates in him becoming the comic character many know and love.

its basically a lose lose situation dont change him too much or we dont like it. change him a little we still dont like it

[hobo]

Sam Raimi had the choice, that Tim Burton had, of walking away.

Tim Burton made Batman 1989 and Batman Returns and both movies were successful but controversial, especially the second one (which I think is actually a great movie). He then was asked to do a third movie but they wanted a lot of changes, so Burton stepped down and told WB to find a director who could work closer to what they wanted. And that worked out well for him (he went on to other stuff That was what Burton did. He stepped away and moved on to other stuff while WB did Batman Forever (which was commercially successful and critically received decently enough). Raimi did the opposite. If he didn't like Spider-Man 3 and wasn't feeling it and the studio were no longer in synch with his ideas, he should have stepped away.



Hehn...as it is the first movie wasn't all that funny anyhow.



You don't think Venom is Spider-Man's third biggest enemy after Goblin and Doctor Octopus or you don't agree that each movie should have a big scary villain carry it after the first and second one did? Which do you disagree with specifically?

Fact is Sandman could never have carried a movie on his own, nor could Harry Goblin. Venom definitely could have done so.

” Spider man was supposed to be gritty, it has venom. Oh you mean the first movie? Oh it wasn’t funny anyway.” You are all over the place, and seem to be arguing that Raimi failed his first time out, and that Sony had better instincts than he did. You either have... interesting taste or your name is Amy Pascal.

And no, that’s not how logic works, and your asking for specifics on which statement I’m talking about sums it up. One statement does not logically follow from the other, even if you accept both statements are true. I do not accept either statement as true, but that’s just differing opinion. Saying that one logically dictates the other however is not opinion, just completely wrong.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

”Oh you mean the first movie? Oh it wasn’t funny anyway.”

It's true. Spider-Man 1 and 2 have funny moments but they are essentially superhero dramas with elements of comedy in them. And that's pretty faithful to multiple eras of Spider-Man.

In either case, it was Mark Waid who made that claim. Waid didn't work on those movies and he's not involved in production anyway.

...that Sony had better instincts than he did.

Fact is that the Spider-Man movies were always an act of collaboration. The same producers behind the first two worked on the third. It's not a case that the first two movies were ones where Raimi had a free hand and the third was one where he bit off more than he chew. This isn't Star Wars where the movies were always George Lucas' creation and he had final say. Fact is, film-makers on superhero movies, on any commercial Hollywood movie of any genre will never have the level of freedom you would have if you are doing an independent low-budget film. Unless of course you are Spielberg, or these days Nolan. That was always the case. Raimi is a huge part of why the first two movies are great without question. And he's definitely the best director to make any of these movies but to say that Spider-Man 3 was a movie where he was entirely blameless is not fair and correct. And Raimi himself has said that he's the main person responsible for those movies not working out.

[Prof. Warren]

It's true. Spider-Man 1 and 2 have funny moments but they are essentially superhero dramas with elements of comedy in them. And that's pretty faithful to multiple eras of Spider-Man.

In either case, it was Mark Waid who made that claim. Waid didn't work on those movies and he's not involved in production anyway.



Fact is that the Spider-Man movies were always an act of collaboration. The same producers behind the first two worked on the third. It's not a case that the first two movies were ones where Raimi had a free hand and the third was one where he bit off more than he chew. This isn't Star Wars where the movies were always George Lucas' creation and he had final say. Fact is, film-makers on superhero movies, on any commercial Hollywood movie of any genre will never have the level of freedom you would have if you are doing an independent low-budget film. Unless of course you are Spielberg, or these days Nolan. That was always the case. Raimi is a huge part of why the first two movies are great without question. And he's definitely the best director to make any of these movies but to say that Spider-Man 3 was a movie where he was entirely blameless is not fair and correct. And Raimi himself has said that he's the main person responsible for those movies not working out.

Raimi said that because he's a good, gracious guy who isn't going to throw anyone under the bus. Of course he's going to take a "the buck stops here" attitude.

The truth is, SM 3 was a victim of too many cooks in the kitchen and Raimi having to incorporate ideas he had no feeling for. Had he been allowed to stick to the Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr. issues that inspired him, 3 would have likely been a far better film in line with the first two.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Raimi said that because he's a good, gracious guy who isn't going to throw anyone under the bus. Of course he's going to take a "the buck stops here" attitude.

That movie happens to be the only one on which he has screenwriting credit, which he did not have on the first two movies. So it's kind of hard for the buck to stop anywhere else but there.

The truth is, SM 3 was a victim of too many cooks in the kitchen and Raimi having to incorporate ideas he had no feeling for. Had he been allowed to stick to the Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr. issues that inspired him, 3 would have likely been a far better film in line with the first two.

How is Sandman being Uncle Ben's killer something with any grounding in Lee/Ditko/Romita Sr? That was something Raimi put in. That plot element introduces revenge and negates Peter's culpability in letting the burglar go since that burglar is no longer the same guy who killed his uncle. This idea and concept has more in common with Burton's 1989 concept of Joker being the one who killed Bruce's parents (which was entirely cooked up by Burton late in production and added in near the end, it wasn't in the original script and it has no foreshadowing or setup in the movie except for that awkward "ever dance with a devil" line) than anything.

Spider-Man 3 has a host of problems aside from Venom being a character that Raimi had no interest and passion in. J. K. Simmons not having much to do is another issue. And Harry Goblin's entire character and persona and redemption being triggered by a conversation by a butler is still another one. It was also Raimi who made the decision to make MJ a damsel in distress again in the third movie, a fact that Raimi apologized for on the commentary.

From an producer perspective if you want to do Spider-Man and have him face his three biggest and baddest enemies going from Goblin to Octopus to Venom was a rational expectation on the part of Sony. I mean it's certainly how a lot of fans saw it. Sandman would never have been able to carry a movie on his own. The fact they had to so drastically rewrite his origin proves it.

Raimi should have done what Burton did after Batman Returns, and walked away if he didn't feel he could do Venom right.

[WebLurker]

Wouldn't that mean MCU Spider-Man's story continues, just without the need to throw in other Marvel heroes into his story?

Don't think so; if it's not a MCU movie, it's not canon to that series. It might be a thing where they try to tell their own version of what happens next, but it would be a Star Wars Legends vs. canon thing; Rebels might explain Captain Rex's fate, but that has not relevance to the Legends version and what happened to Legends Rex.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Don't think so; if it's not a MCU movie, it's not canon to that series. It might be a thing where they try to tell their own version of what happens next, but it would be a Star Wars Legends vs. canon thing; Rebels might explain Captain Rex's fate, but that has not relevance to the Legends version and what happened to Legends Rex.

To the actual audience who sees those movies it won't matter. If they see Tom Holland as Spider-Man and the rest of the Midtown cast and Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, and Simmons as Jonah...then they are seeing a sequel to Far From Home.

Logan isn't canon you know to the X-men continuity. But it was seen and accepted as a great X-Men and Wolverine movie.

[H-E-D]

Sandman would never have been able to carry a movie on his own. The fact they had to so drastically rewrite his origin proves it.

Maybe not at the time, but nowadays... the MCU has had more obscure villains as leads for movies.

[Frontier]

Maybe not at the time, but nowadays... the MCU has had more obscure villains as leads for movies.

Yeah, if Vulture and Mysterio can carry their own movies, I would say the same for Sandman.