Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
  1. #16
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Well it's academic because I don't see MCU getting the rights of Spider-Man from Sony any time soon. Disney can't buy Sony after the Fox purchase, Sony Pictures would never sell the rights of Spider-Man to Disney in any circumstances because it would be suicide for them as a company. It was believed that if a third party bought Sony then rights would revert automatically to Disney but I've heard a lot of contradictory information about the contracts flourishing out there so even that's not a guarantee.
    I'm just saying, using this episode to argue that Feige/Mavvel Studios don't "get" Spider-Man doesn't take into account they still have to work with the restrictions imposed by previous continuity. If future Spider-Man films are in better creative hands with Sony, it's only because Sony can reboot again and the MCU can't (for now).

    I don't see much or any interest for Sony to keep Spider-Man in the MCU after ENDGAME because Iron Man's gone, Chadwick Boseman is dead and there's not much existing attraction to tie Tom Holland Spider-Man with. It'll be a while before FF and X-Men get revived in any form of crossover state, and they obviously don't care for Disney Plus streaming appearances since that gives Disney more leverage.
    I guess we'll see. This Spider-Man sells itself more on the crossover appeal more than Tobey and Andrew's. Yeah, you can still do that at Sony, but not to the same extent. Plus I think it would be bad PR on Sony's part to pull Spidey out of the MCU, for better or worse.

    I suspect the most likely outcome is they'll turn Spider-Man into Spider-Gwen by the end of NWH. He will be living in the Sony verse where his identity is secret but able to cross between universes to the MCU.

  2. #17
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    2,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Well it's academic because I don't see MCU getting the rights of Spider-Man from Sony any time soon. Disney can't buy Sony after the Fox purchase, Sony Pictures would never sell the rights of Spider-Man to Disney in any circumstances because it would be suicide for them as a company. It was believed that if a third party bought Sony then rights would revert automatically to Disney but I've heard a lot of contradictory information about the contracts flourishing out there so even that's not a guarantee.

    I am also quite sure, or at least would be highly surprised if the opposite is the case, that No Way Home will be the last MCU/Sony collaboration. After this, Sony will go its own way. They might do Tom Holland College Spider-Man movies but they will be standalone and not tied to MCU. Tom Holland has a contract with Sony after all, they sign his checks, and they're funding his UNCHARTED movie, so he can't escape the street gang he's currently part of.

    I don't see much or any interest for Sony to keep Spider-Man in the MCU after ENDGAME because Iron Man's gone, Chadwick Boseman is dead and there's not much existing attraction to tie Tom Holland Spider-Man with. It'll be a while before FF and X-Men get revived in any form of crossover state, and they obviously don't care for Disney Plus streaming appearances since that gives Disney more leverage.
    I could see Disney buying Sony just to get the Spider character rights as well as other select properties like Ghostbusters and Men In Black and selling off the rest. It is interesting to note the Sony decided to sign a short term deal with Netflix instead of remaining with Starz or going to HBO Max. That could be a clue to the future of Sony.

  3. #18
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    13,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NC_Yankee View Post
    I could see Disney buying Sony just to get the Spider character rights as well as other select properties like Ghostbusters and Men In Black and selling off the rest. It is interesting to note the Sony decided to sign a short term deal with Netflix instead of remaining with Starz or going to HBO Max. That could be a clue to the future of Sony.
    Sony signed with Netflix and D+. And they're making a Silk series for Amazon Prime.

  4. #19
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Sony signed with Netflix and D+. And they're making a Silk series for Amazon Prime.
    Sony either has the worst business-sense or the best business-sense but giving a share of Spider-Man IP for all three streamers is quite the boss move, at least on paper.

    But anyway who knows what the future holds. I'll believe in the future of the Sony/MCU when I see it.

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Finally watched this. Spider-Man is significantly better in this than in the regular MCU. This version actually has other influences in his life besides Mr. Stark and his personal chauffeur. It's clear that the other MCU characters respect him too. He actually has presence around everyone that he interacts with. People aren't indifferent to him or treat him as Tony's ward or just a kid.

    Where this version still fails is in not dropping the ageist undertones and the caricature nature of MCU Spider-Man. He is still very much a corporate exec's idea of what a teenager is and not a fully believable character. The constant horror movie references being the worst example of this. Overall, this episode only strengthened my conviction that MCU Spider-Man is flawed to his very nucleus, and that it's not a version you can write or cast the problems out of.

    The vlogs he makes would work better if they established that Peter is broadcasting himself to survivors that enjoy it and need those kinds of videos. I can buy Peter acting like that under such circumstances. I've had moments in my life where I was miserable and everything was going wrong, and a video of one of my favorite YouTube entertainers would instantly make me feel better. So I get it. But if he isn't really broadcasting to anyone like that, especially if he is making the vlogs just for himself, then yeah it does come off like he is either extremely callous (and therefore not a believable person) or on drugs. And MCU Spider-Man is too innocent for drugs, so it would only be the former.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 09-13-2021 at 09:05 PM.

  6. #21
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    Finally watched this. Spider-Man is significantly better in this than in the regular MCU. This version actually has other influences in his life besides Mr. Stark and his personal chauffeur. It's clear that the other MCU characters respect him too. He actually has presence around everyone that he interacts with. People aren't indifferent to him or treat him as Tony's ward or just a kid.

    Where this version still fails is in not dropping the ageist undertones and the caricature nature of MCU Spider-Man. He is still very much a corporate exec's idea of what a teenager is and not a fully believable character. The constant horror movie references being the worst example of this. Overall, this episode only strengthened my conviction that MCU Spider-Man is flawed to his very nucleus, and that it's not a version you can write or cast the problems out of.

    The vlogs he makes would work better if they established that Peter is broadcasting himself to survivors that enjoy it and need those kinds of videos. I can buy Peter acting like that under such circumstances. I've had moments in my life where I was miserable and everything was going wrong, and a video of one of my favorite YouTube entertainers would instantly make me feel better. So I get it. But if he isn't really broadcasting to anyone like that, especially if he is making the vlogs just for himself, then yeah it does come off like he is either extremely callous (and therefore not a believable person) or on drugs. And MCU Spider-Man is too innocent for drugs, so it would only be the former.
    Good point, about how to work it if it was done as entertainment or public benefit.

    For all my issues with Slott, his Spider-Island is a good believable take on how Spider-Man would behave in a public health crisis.

  7. #22
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    NC, USA
    Posts
    669

    Default

    I finally caught up and watched the last two What If’s that I missed last night. The Zombie Episode being one of the the two…

    Honestly? The Spider-Man parts were my least favorite parts of the episode. Honestly, annoyed me. I’m gonna rewatch it again tonight with fresh eyes and try to figure out why it did.

  8. #23
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    116,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    Finally watched this. Spider-Man is significantly better in this than in the regular MCU. This version actually has other influences in his life besides Mr. Stark and his personal chauffeur. It's clear that the other MCU characters respect him too. He actually has presence around everyone that he interacts with. People aren't indifferent to him or treat him as Tony's ward or just a kid.

    Where this version still fails is in not dropping the ageist undertones and the caricature nature of MCU Spider-Man. He is still very much a corporate exec's idea of what a teenager is and not a fully believable character. The constant horror movie references being the worst example of this. Overall, this episode only strengthened my conviction that MCU Spider-Man is flawed to his very nucleus, and that it's not a version you can write or cast the problems out of.

    The vlogs he makes would work better if they established that Peter is broadcasting himself to survivors that enjoy it and need those kinds of videos. I can buy Peter acting like that under such circumstances. I've had moments in my life where I was miserable and everything was going wrong, and a video of one of my favorite YouTube entertainers would instantly make me feel better. So I get it. But if he isn't really broadcasting to anyone like that, especially if he is making the vlogs just for himself, then yeah it does come off like he is either extremely callous (and therefore not a believable person) or on drugs. And MCU Spider-Man is too innocent for drugs, so it would only be the former.
    I'm kind of wondering how they'll depict Kamala compared to how they write Peter as a teen hero.

  9. #24
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    2,471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Sony either has the worst business-sense or the best business-sense but giving a share of Spider-Man IP for all three streamers is quite the boss move, at least on paper.

    But anyway who knows what the future holds. I'll believe in the future of the Sony/MCU when I see it.
    When going over the history of Sony do not forget their subsidiary Columbia Pictures rejected Star Wars. That said Actually the answer to the best and worst is Paramount. Bad: Selling Avengers, Iron Man and Cap rights back to Disney for penny’s on the dollar (they did the same with Willie Wonka to Warner Bros and their pre 1950 film library to Universal). However, they also did even better then Disney did by buying Marvel. In fact, I argue they made the best deal in entertainment history. What is it? They bought a company called Desilu ( founded by Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez) and got Star Trek and Mission Impossible).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •