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

[Derek Metaltron]

I will elect to be cautiously optimistic that this new rumour about the new deal is true.

[Prof. Warren]

Killing off Stark or Stacy has nothing to do with having balls and everything to do with the actors not wanting to return.

No, it had everything to do with simply following the comics.

The Stacys die in the comics and also died in the movies. Pretty simple. I don't think it took "balls," per say, to do so but it also wasn't about actors not wanting to come back.

Capt Stacy's death was a part of the ASM script before anyone was cast.

[TheDarman]

Sounds like public negotiations to me:

The Hollywood Reporter says Disney wanted at least 30% of the financing and revenue from future Spider-Man films.

Variety says Sony was willing to concede a 25% financing and revenue deal with Disney.

As the days go on, these numbers keep getting closer together. Something tells me the deal didn't fall apart over a difference of 5% in what the revenue take would be. They're still negotiating, just using the fans in a play to get what each side wants.

[Amadeus Arkham]

They’re using the fans alright, I’m not going to lie some of the social media reactions I’ve seen to Spidey possibly leaving have become facepalm inducing and just sad.

People are literally making BS stories about Tom Holland unfollowing a studio that signs his checks on instagram. There’s literally headlines out there out that says “Tom Holland makes his first Instagram post since the split”...and its about him posting about the new car he got. People are really desperately reaching and are acting more than a little irrational with this news.

[Frontier]

Marvel killed off it's most popular and profitable character at the end of Endgame. That is by far having more balls that killing Gwen Stacy, something that was predictable, spoiled by Sony themselves, and came too soon if you ask me. For all the debate that goes around Endgame's execution, a large part of it is because it's a very bold and ambitious movie.

I don't think the problem is that it came too soon unless you think it would've been more effective as a trilogy ender (which may be true), but that they barely developed Peter's life outside of Gwen in those movies.

And they didn't set up Mary Jane when she's such an integral part of the aftermath of Gwen's death.

I don't even hate the TASM movies as much as others do, and yea the overall tone of those movies is more dramatic, but Spider-Man isn't always a dramatic character. I've always seen him more as a healthy mix between Superman's optimism and Batman's brooding. Part of why so many people like MCU Spider-Man is because him being more fun feels like a breath of fresh air. I'm not gonna argue comic book accuracy or anything, just overall execution. The MCU was setting up Peter Parker's life in a way that suddenly thrusting him in bigger, more dramatic and dire situations would have felt earned instead of right out the gate.

I think the thing with Spider-Man is that he's an optimistic character born out of a major tragedy that colors his character and what he does.

I mean, just look at that scene in Into the Spider-Verse where all the Spiders tell Miles about the one person they loved that none of them could save even with their power. Or how the first act of that movie goes into overdrive after Spider-Man is murdered by the Kingpin and how that motivates Miles. The character has a lot of tragic underpinnings.

Part of my issue with MCU Spider-Man is it feels like they just jump him too fast into things, whether it be the relationship with Stark, The Avengers, or his own standing in the MCU. Part of this is, I think, the difficulty of a serialized narrative within a film but I think the execution was also part of it.

In my opinion, if both the Raimi and TASM series continued, they had a very high chance of becoming repetitive.

I think that's a fear for any film that goes beyond it's original trilogy.

No, it had everything to do with simply following the comics.

The Stacys die in the comics and also died in the movies. Pretty simple. I don't think it took "balls," per say, to do so but it also wasn't about actors not wanting to come back.

Capt Stacy's death was a part of the ASM script before anyone was cast.

Yeah, Emma Stone knew way ahead of time her character was eventually going to die.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The TASM movies totally messed up George Stacy. One of the greatest supporting characters in comics whose death is one of the most nuanced tragedies in Spider-Man becomes a typical girlfriend's daddy. That's way more regressive than the character in the comics who was so much more interesting.

As for Emma Stone's Gwen. It's an example of the charisma and star power of the actress carrying through what is essentially an empty role. Marc Webb's previous movie 500 Days of Summer was more or less about women as being these single type characters who exist for male character development and the Gwen in those movies have no shade or personality, which Dunst's Mary Jane had. In no scenario is a Gwen who likes Spider-Man and doesn't blame him for her father's death a good choice for adapting the story of the Stacys. Even Bendis accepted that, and he did a lot of work to evolve Gwen from that. We don't get the high points of Lee-Romita's run, ASM #87, we don't see ASM #91-92, Gwen coming back after the Drug Trilogy.

I am glad they didn't introduce Mary Jane because ultimately whichever actress got cast, and they had Shailene Woodleigh who looks the part certainly and is a performer but you'd have to get the audience on board to accept that Garfield's chemistry with her was better than Emma Stone, which would have been hard. In the comics it worked but with actual actresses it's hard to do. Just look at the Harry Potter movies where Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe had much better chemistry than Rupert Grint and so the audience found the Hermione/Ron thing unacceptable in the movies.

I think the TASM movies were doomed. Marc Webb isn't much of a director. He made one indie hit carried mostly by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and had no chops to do big-budget movies. Garfield is a good actor (he was amazing in Scorsese's Silence) but he was miscast as Peter. Emma Stone would have made as Gerry Conway pointed out, a much better Mary Jane.

[Frontier]

The TASM movies totally messed up George Stacy. One of the greatest supporting characters in comics whose death is one of the most nuanced tragedies in Spider-Man becomes a typical girlfriend's daddy. That's way more regressive than the character in the comics who was so much more interesting.

I really liked Denis Leary as Captain Stacy. I wish they had done more with him...especially compared to "Ghost Dad" in ASM2.

I think the TASM movies were doomed. Marc Webb isn't much of a director. He made one indie hit carried mostly by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and had no chops to do big-budget movies. Garfield is a good actor (he was amazing in Scorsese's Silence) but he was miscast as Peter. Emma Stone would have made as Gerry Conway pointed out, a much better Mary Jane.

He wasn't miscast as Spidey, he just acted too much like Spidey when he was Peter. He had the opposite problem I think Holland has.

[luprki]

Sounds like public negotiations to me:

The Hollywood Reporter says Disney wanted at least 30% of the financing and revenue from future Spider-Man films.

Variety says Sony was willing to concede a 25% financing and revenue deal with Disney.

As the days go on, these numbers keep getting closer together. Something tells me the deal didn't fall apart over a difference of 5% in what the revenue take would be. They're still negotiating, just using the fans in a play to get what each side wants.

That Variety article sounds like neither party is interested in renewing the deal.

[Rosebunse]

That Variety article sounds like neither party is interested in renewing the deal.

Disney has time. If Sony ever wanted to renew the deal, Disney would be "happy" to do it. Sony's issue now is that fans do know, fans are taking sides, and how will that alone effect how well these movies do? Let's remember that the Fox/Disney deal certainly had some effect on how well Dark Phoenix did because fans just didn't care when they knew that the franchise no longer mattered.

[Redem]

Disney has time. If Sony ever wanted to renew the deal, Disney would be "happy" to do it. Sony's issue now is that fans do know, fans are taking sides, and how will that alone effect how well these movies do? Let's remember that the Fox/Disney deal certainly had some effect on how well Dark Phoenix did because fans just didn't care when they knew that the franchise no longer mattered.

Disney didn't even put Spider-Man on the Phase 4 schedule (then again phase 4 is like 2 years, though with all today annoucement who know how long is suppose to last)

[Rosebunse]

Disney didn't even put Spider-Man on the Phase 4 schedule (then again phase 4 is like 2 years, though with all today annoucement who know how long is suppose to last)

Disney has the time, Tom Holland is still relatively young, and Sony has to prove that they can do this.

[comicstar100]

Disney didn't even put Spider-Man on the Phase 4 schedule (then again phase 4 is like 2 years, though with all today annoucement who know how long is suppose to last)

To be fair we didn't see a a lot of properties in the phase 4 line up like Black Panther, Captain Marvel etc.

[jetengine]

Disney didn't even put Spider-Man on the Phase 4 schedule (then again phase 4 is like 2 years, though with all today annoucement who know how long is suppose to last)

Tbf they said they'd do that before the split announcment

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I really liked Denis Leary as Captain Stacy. I wish they had done more with him...especially compared to "Ghost Dad" in ASM2.

Yeah, that sucked.

He wasn't miscast as Spidey, he just acted too much like Spidey when he was Peter. He had the opposite problem I think Holland has.

I'd say that's a fault of writing more than acting. The thing about Garfield is that while he looks conventionally handsome, as an actor he's fairly eccentric and has an edge. He tends to go naturally into extreme pitches of emotion. That's not a criticism, that's an observation. It's just who he is. When Martin Scorsese cast him, he did amazingly because those are the kinds of actors that he likes to works with. Whereas in ASM he's not as good. Even in scenes where Garfield is playing Peter as nice and quirky, he comes off as "too nice" and "too quirky". It's always an extreme, and Peter just doesn't come across as a stable guy in those movies. His obsession and dependency on Gwen is too Scott[=/=]Jean-ish and not in the good way. As Spider-Man he makes jokes and talks and so on

Anyone who plays Peter needs a level of control. Remember that because we have access to Peter's thoughts and feelings, we tend to think of him as a motor-mouth who never shuts up but those are thought bubbles and thought captions. Peter's naturally an introvert who tends to keep his thoughts and ideas to himself. Tobey Maguire captured that well. I wish Raimi's movies did more with voice-over work but it wasn't until Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool that people realized voice-overs could work in superhero movies and be awesome. And I think a Spider-Man movie for it to work needs a voice-over. I have said it elsewhere but I always thought Reynolds would have made an excellent Peter Parker, especially as an adult. He looks like JMS[=/=]JRJR-era Peter. As an actor he's got dramatic and comedic skill, and of course his voice-work is excellent. He's also not obsessed with face-time so we could see a Spider-Man actor who likes to wear his mask.

[WebLurker]

Disney has the time, Tom Holland is still relatively young, and Sony has to prove that they can do this.

Also saw a Forbes op-ed of the opinion that with Sony's financial troubles and the fact that the Spider-Movie IP reverts back to Disney if Sony sells itself to another corporation, there is a good chance Disney could just out-wait Sony on the deal and being Spidey back home for good when Sony is out of options. Would probably screw up the MCU Spider-Man series and that assumes that Sony can't pull themselves out of their hole (I mean, Spider-Man is one of, if not the most, valuable superhero IPs to have and Sony has shown that they can do pretty well by him when they control their worst impulses), and it's not a given that it would fall that way. Still, I think it's safe to say that Disney is in the stronger position; they arguably don't need Sony as much as Sony needs them and aren't hurting as bad financially speaking (not to mention that Sony seems to have been generally being labeled as the bad guys in the breakup).