Spider-Man forced out of the MCU due to failed Sony Deal

[XPac]

Eddie Brock's disbelief in aliens in a 2018 world would not fit in the MCU, when first contact happened in 2012, per the original Avengers movie.

There would be a few minor issues with trying to fold the spiderverse into the MCU, but it's not entire unworkable.

He might think the alien invasion was a hoax, the way many today feel the moon landing was a hoax or the earth is flat. That can be mitigated with a single line of dialogue from someone rolling their eyes over Eddie's having a tin foil hat theory. It's not perfect... but they can probably get away with it.

[Beaddle]

There would be a few minor issues with trying to fold the spiderverse into the MCU, but it's not entire unworkable.

He might think the alien invasion was a hoax, the way many today feel the moon landing was a hoax or the earth is flat. That can be mitigated with a single line of dialogue from someone rolling their eyes over Eddie's having a tin foil hat theory. It's not perfect... but they can probably get away with it.

It does not matter now. Venom will never meet mcu characters and neither would holland's spiderman meet venom.

Geez, DC is on their 3rd batman in 10 years, time for sony to follow suit.

[jetengine]

There would be a few minor issues with trying to fold the spiderverse into the MCU, but it's not entire unworkable.

He might think the alien invasion was a hoax, the way many today feel the moon landing was a hoax or the earth is flat. That can be mitigated with a single line of dialogue from someone rolling their eyes over Eddie's having a tin foil hat theory. It's not perfect... but they can probably get away with it.

Plus his disbelief in Aliens is kind of thrown under the bus when he becomes Venom.

"Aliens aren't real, the Avengers fabricated the Chitauri attack to look good, Ultron was another attempt but Starks tech messed up this time"

"What about Us eddie?"

"Well...besides you friend"

[Killerbee911]

The media pressed Sony into working with Disney it wasn't the three creative failures in a row that did that? People talk about films like there isn't a cost of failure as if companies are infinite pits of money and can keep throwing movies that fail with the general audience. When you stumble failing again hurts property and company. Companies make a film to make a profit, losing money or not earn maximizing potential gets film franchise dropped. There is a reason you have not seen a Green Lantern movie,There is a reason you are not going to see Hellboy movie again. Spiderman, X-men, and Batman get second chances on the strength of the franchise overall. Batman has enough fans that even burnt they will watch a movie again but goodwill isn't infinite. I love when people talk about movies with no sense of the cost of failure. Dark Phoenix loss 170 million for Disney. It means Disney was almost better off eating the 200 million cost of making the movie and not releasing it. There is a cost to failure Batman and Robin was made in 1997 and Batman Begins was released in 2005. There is a cost of failure Dark Phoenix, Stuber, The Kid Who Would be King got all of Fox old slate with Marvel canceled. There is a cost of failure X3 and Wolverine Origins got solos for Magneto, Gambit and Deadpool canceled or put in development hell. There is a cost of failure we haven't seen another Green Lantern movie and we are in 2019 now. There is a cost of failure Justice League bombing killed Deathstroke and Cyborg solo projects as well as Justice League 2.

You can't take anybody seriously when they say yeah Sony should have just dusted themselves off after creatively failing with 3 spiderman movies in a row. The media didn't force anything Spiderman was a toxic property that would have to sit for a couple of years before being used again. And then there was no guarantee when it being used again that they would get it right. Sony crawled to Marvel to save Sony from themselves because they knew Marvel would fix Spiderman. Anyways I am done because the people who don't get it this are people criticizing Marvel who made 23 movies in a row with no box office failures, Every MCU movie has made a profit and they have several movies that made enough profit for the next 4 or 5 movies to be made seamless and with a larger marketing budget. The same people don't understand marketing and making movies to widest range of people possible. People think that putting out unsuccessful films don't have a bigger cost

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The media pressed Sony into working with Disney it wasn't the three creative failures in a row that did that? People talk about films like there isn't a cost of failure as if companies are infinite pits of money and can keep throwing movies that fail with the general audience. When you stumble failing again hurts property and company. Companies make a film to make a profit, losing money or not earn maximizing potential gets film franchise dropped. There is a reason you have not seen a Green Lantern movie,There is a reason you are not going to see Hellboy movie again. Spiderman, X-men, and Batman get second chances on the strength of the franchise overall. Batman has enough fans that even burnt they will watch a movie again but goodwill isn't infinite. I love when people talk about movies with no sense of the cost of failure. Dark Phoenix loss 170 million for Disney. It means Disney was almost better off eating the 200 million cost of making the movie and not releasing it. There is a cost to failure Batman and Robin was made in 1997 and Batman Begins was released in 2005. There is a cost of failure Dark Phoenix, Stuber, The Kid Who Would be King got all of Fox old slate with Marvel canceled. There is a cost of failure X3 and Wolverine Origins got solos for Magneto, Gambit and Deadpool canceled or put in development hell. There is a cost of failure we haven't seen another Green Lantern movie and we are in 2019 now. There is a cost of failure Justice League bombing killed Deathstroke and Cyborg solo projects as well as Justice League 2.

You can't take anybody seriously when they say yeah Sony should have just dusted themselves off after creatively failing with 3 spiderman movies in a row. The media didn't force anything Spiderman was a toxic property that would have to sit for a couple of years before being used again. And then there was no guarantee when it being used again that they would get it right. Sony crawled to Marvel to save Sony from themselves because they knew Marvel would fix Spiderman. Anyways I am done because the people who don't get it this are people criticizing Marvel who made 23 movies in a row with no box office failures, Every MCU movie has made a profit and they have several movies that made enough profit for the next 4 or 5 movies to be made seamless and with a larger marketing budget. The same people don't understand marketing and making movies to widest range of people possible. People think that putting out unsuccessful films don't have a bigger cost

Every Spider-Man film they made had a huge profit margin. You are confusing critical reception with profit. Spider-Man 3 made the most of any Spider-Man film ever and was a top 10 film of all time upon release. Can’t say that was financial issue. ASM made 750 million off a 200 million budget. Both of those got at worst mixed to slightly positive reviews.

The absolute worst of the bunch was ASM 2. That film god outright horrible reviews. However it made 709 million off a somewhere between 250 and 290 million budget. Meaning it’s extremely hard to envision a scenario where it didn’t make a profit.

There’s no metric where you can spin it that they weren’t financial successes even if the quality was sub standard.

[Theleviathan]

Every Spider-Man film they made had a huge profit margin. You are confusing critical reception with profit. Spider-Man 3 made the most of any Spider-Man film ever and was a top 10 film of all time upon release. Can’t say that was financial issue. ASM made 750 million off a 200 million budget. Both of those got at worst mixed to slightly positive reviews.

The absolute worst of the bunch was ASM 2. That film god outright horrible reviews. However it made 709 million off a somewhere between 250 and 290 million budget. Meaning it’s extremely hard to envision a scenario where it didn’t make a profit.

There’s no metric where you can spin it that they weren’t financial successes even if the quality was sub standard.

RT's scores on ASM2 are in line with Spiderman 3. The percentages are nearly identical, just flipped.

I don't want to re-hash things, honestly, but this is only mostly true. You're right to point out that all of the creative failures were financially successful. They absolutely were. The concern for Sony was that the quality of those films in the public's eye might impact future financial success. I think those fears were mostly justified.

[Killerbee911]

Every Spider-Man film they made had a huge profit margin. You are confusing critical reception with profit. Spider-Man 3 made the most of any Spider-Man film ever and was a top 10 film of all time upon release. Can’t say that was financial issue. ASM made 750 million off a 200 million budget. Both of those got at worst mixed to slightly positive reviews.

The absolute worst of the bunch was ASM 2. That film god outright horrible reviews. However it made 709 million off a somewhere between 250 and 290 million budget. Meaning it’s extremely hard to envision a scenario where it didn’t make a profit.

There’s no metric where you can spin it that they weren’t financial successes even if the quality was sub standard.

To quote myself

The media pressed Sony into working with Disney it wasn't the three creative failures in a row that did that?

You can't take anybody seriously when they say yeah Sony should have just dusted themselves off after creatively failing with 3 spiderman movies in a row

Where did I call spiderman a financial failure? But if you need a relevant quote to discuss

Companies make a film to make a profit, losing money or not maximizing potential earning gets film franchise dropped.

Guess which one Spiderman franchise at the time falls under? Which direction was the franchise heading? 890, 757, 709. Is Spiderman judged on the same scale as Thor or Captian America? Or is there higher expectation that a company would have maybe the biggest second biggest character in comics behind have Batman? Not hitting billions with Superman, Batman or Spiderman is considered a financial failure and everyone understands why. These are globals recognized iconic character/brands who are supposed to have higher earning potential than every other comic character. Just hitting the nominal success with them is a failure in the eyes of the companies.

[XPac]

RT's scores on ASM2 are in line with Spiderman 3. The percentages are nearly identical, just flipped.

I don't want to re-hash things, honestly, but this is only mostly true. You're right to point out that all of the creative failures were financially successful. They absolutely were. The concern for Sony was that the quality of those films in the public's eye might impact future financial success. I think those fears were mostly justified.

I think there's somewhat of a stigma that a lot of marvels peers (Fox, DCEU, Sony) can't do 2 or so comic book movies in a row without the next one sucking. Fox and Sony almost paralleled each other with the X-Men and Spider-Man franchise when their second installment was off the charts good while the third stunk up the joint. Which isn't to say that X3 and Spider-Man 3 didn't make money... they were in fact the more sucessful movies in the franchise box office wise, but in a lot of ways I think you can translate that more to the quality of the previous movie than audience love of the actual movie. They bought a ticket... but they didn't necessarily like what they saw.

DC to their credit I think has started to get out of that hole they dug themselves it. Fox not so much. But Sony I think just took an easy route by having marvel do their movie since marvel never got in the hole in the first place ... and not shockingly it worked out pretty well.

[Killerbee911]

On topic, I think Sony has made a mistake by pulling out negotiations right now. They have let Marvel off the hook this is transition stage for Marvel where they can easily write out Spiderman. If they extended Spiderman deal two more films and 2 more apperances. Marvel would have been screwed the fans would revolt against them not coming to deal with Spiderman in movies past Infinity saga. Spiderman would have been the biggest hero and possible show up in New Avengers or Young Avengers.

Sony was right not to take that deal but the big picture is Spiderman would have become more valuable post Cap and Iron Man being gone and pre Wolverine and Netflix gang returning. I think Marvel would have integrated Spiderman to much to remove if Sony gave them two more films. Sony would have way more power in negotiations with a Spiderman that Marvel doesn't want to get rid of than now instead of a world where he really just interact with Iron Man who is dead and Spiderman does have any greater connection MCU than that.

[XPac]

On topic, I think Sony has made a mistake by pulling out negotiations right now. They have let Marvel off the hook this is transition stage for Marvel where they can easily write out Spiderman. If they extended Spiderman deal two more films and 2 more apperances. Marvel would have been screwed the fans would revolt against them not coming to deal with Spiderman in movies past Infinity saga. Spiderman would have been the biggest hero and possible show up in New Avengers or Young Avengers.

Sony was right not to take that deal but the big picture is Spiderman would have become more valuable post Cap and Iron Man beginning gone and pre Wolverine and Netflix gang returning. I think Marvel would have integrated Spiderman to much to remove if Sony gave them two more films. Sony would have way more power in negotiations with a Spiderman that Marvel doesn't want to get rid of.

If the rumors about Sony wanting Venom to be incorporated into the MCU are true (and they obviously could be 100% false), it could be a negotiating tactic to get marvel to do another one of their movies for them.

Though even outside of that, I can see Sonys point if marvel is asking for more money. Both sides honestly have a fairly understandable perspective in this unique situation.

[Killerbee911]

If the rumors about Sony wanting Venom to be incorporated into the MCU are true (and they obviously could be 100% false), it could be a negotiating tactic to get marvel to do another one of their movies for them.

Though even outside of that, I can see Sonys point if marvel is asking for more money. Both sides honestly have a fairly understandable perspective in this unique situation.

I don't blame Sony for that watching Venom dancing around being Marvel was painful. I think both sides would benefit for symbiotes being in the MCU. I think Sony is sitting at the best of both worlds if they do it right. I think Sony can let Marvel guide Peter Parker spiderman. And Sony can pull out live-action Miles or Gwen to anchor their extended Spiderman movies. I think Sony can extend their property if they get the right language in the deal. I think Sony is being shorted sighted if the thinking that Peter is the goal alone. Miles, Gwen, Venom could easily anchor the franchise while they let Marvel make money for them.

[PraiseBeFeige]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SPIDER-MAN, VENOM, AND ALL THAT CRAP!

I would just post it here but unfortunately it exceeds the word limit by a little over a thousand words so i opted to just link it.
hope it's informative and if anyone has questions or knows of any information I should add to the article, let me know.

I'm an aspiring writer, and I am practicing so that someday in the near future I can apply to write for mcuexchange.com. Great website for MCU news.

Enjoy, and thanks!

[Midvillian1322]

RT's scores on ASM2 are in line with Spiderman 3. The percentages are nearly identical, just flipped.

I don't want to re-hash things, honestly, but this is only mostly true. You're right to point out that all of the creative failures were financially successful. They absolutely were. The concern for Sony was that the quality of those films in the public's eye might impact future financial success. I think those fears were mostly justified.

TAS 2 was considered a failure because apparently they spent a ridiculous amount on Marketing. That movie wasnt financially successful. Which is crazy given it made over 700m. But yea that movie was expensive af apparently.

[Ascended]

when you stumble, go back to pick yourself up. don't follow a hype that has no staying impact. Holland's spiderman should never even have happened. it was the media and disney that pressured sony to ask for marvel's help. they never needed it. shame it got to this level for sony to find confidence in themselves.

When you're responsible for millions of dollars worth of investment, you better do a damn site better than just picking yourself up.

[Immortal Weapon]

when you stumble, go back to pick yourself up. don't follow a hype that has no staying impact. Holland's spiderman should never even have happened. it was the media and disney that pressured sony to ask for marvel's help. they never needed it. shame it got to this level for sony to find confidence in themselves.

Garfield was publicly fired as Spider-Man for speaking against Sony on more than one occasion and it was Sony Pictures parent company in Japan that told them to work with Marvel.