Search results

Amazon is listing a December 18 release date for Venom on Blu-ray. That's 67 days after the theatrical release date on October 5. How is this a thing, when theater chains except a 90-day window?

You're right about that. But (generally speaking) Kevin Feige runs a tight ship over there, and the quality is mostly consistent. It's still an image problem they don't want to have if people associate a bad Sony movie featuring Spider-Man with the MCU. The ironic thing, though, is that I'm...

Contractually, sure. But since Holland's Spider-Man exists in the world alongside Iron Man and Captain America and these other superheroes, and they suddenly disappear because the deal isn't renewed, he's not suddenly in a different world. He would still be the same version of himself...

Point taken. But: Try explaining that distinction to the average moviegoer who goes to the movies a few times a year and doesn't follow the industry news like we do here. They won't get it. The public perception will be that if Holland is in it, it's in the MCU, and if Sony produces a bad...

I'm not sure I understand your question. It is another version of Spider-Man on film. Good question. And if Sony does "break up" with Marvel, what happens to Tom Holland's version of the character? Now we're back to my earlier point that, because Tom Holland as Spider-Man exists in the MCU...

Yeah. We'll see how that goes. I would've thought this was crazy a few months ago,but if audiences will accept Spider-Verse and Holland simultaneously, I don't think it would be too much of a leap to accept Holland in the MCU and another actor outside the MCU, especially if the other actor...

I get what you're saying, but the answer is: to protect the integrity of the MCU. Allowing Sony to make projects featuring Holland without Marvel oversight is too big a risk for Marvel's brand. I also agree that it's highly unlikely. But it would be a way to allow Spider-Man to appear in the...

Josh is absolutely correct about the reason they rushed out Amazing Spider-Man so quickly to prevent Disney from having the rights revert to them. However, I actually think I read something somewhere at the time that Homecoming was released saying that when they entered into the co-production...

Whether we like a film is entirely subjective. That's what makes discussion and debate about them on forums like thee interesting. It's not possible for a critic to have a wrong opinion. It is just their opinion. If a movie becomes a box office success in spite of negative reviews, that...

Is this a joke? First of all, Disney doesn't distribute Homecoming and Far From Home, and never have. They are distributed by Sony via their Colombia Pictures banner. That's why the Sony and Colombia logos play at the start of the film. Conversely, Sony has no claim to the Avengers films at...

The thing is that it IS the MCU if Holland's in it. Because he is firmly entrenched into that world, there's no way to have him play that character and have it be out of continuity. So, if Marvel is not supervising his films after Far From Home and they're produced by Sony and they are bad...

I hope Marvel was smart enough to put something in their deal with Sony prohibiting them from using the MCU version of the character in a movie that Marvel is not supervising. If Sony were to do that and it was bad, it would taint the MCU. Whether Marvel produces it or not, Tom Holland's...

Amazon is running a promotion for $5 off tickets for anybody who uses Atom Tickets: https://www.amazon.com/adlp/venommovie?pf_rd_p=8aaf47b2-032e-4f51-af3a-2b389cf9a0cc&pf_rd_r=4AP9N8BR25T8MGDXNMMB

Well, obviously they want to confuse moviegoers into thinking that this is part of the MCU and that Tom Holland or Robert Downy Jr. may appear in future installments. And then they want to get Marvel to loan them characters, which really WOULD retroactively make it part of the MCU. Which ain't...

They've made this mistake before. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was so loaded with setup for a shared universe that they forgot to actually focus on making that movie good, and it wasn't. Here they go again.

I'm just going to leave this here. https://variety.com/2018/film/news/whats-next-for-the-spider-man-universe-after-venom-exclusive-1202900203/

Absolutely nothing whatsoever at all in that trailer did anything to convince me that this movie is a good idea. But again, notice the "in association with" wording prior to Marvel's name. They're trying to convince people this is in the MCU when it's not. I will not be seeing this film at all.

Well, the next Spider-Man-less Spider-Man spinoff after Venom, Silver & Black, has just been removed from the release schedule pending redevelopment and a rewrite. https://deadline.com/2018/06/silver-black-heads-back-into-development-sony-to-find-new-release-date-1202401902/ Here's an idea...

For the record, I've quoted this post over in the Avengers spoilers thread so that we may continue this discussion over there insomuch as it relates to Infinity War and future plan for Holland without derailing this thread.

I think Venom looks terrible. I feel kind of bad rooting for a movie to do poorly, since I know people work really hard on these things. But I'm sort of hoping that Venom does poorly so that Sony will realize it's not as easy as doing a fake ripoff MCU and getting rewarded with tons of money...

I believed I was being vague and that spoiler tags were not needed because the reference was not specific. My intention was to refer to it in such a way as those who have seen Infinity War know what I mean without explaining it for those who have not by referring to the point in the story...

I worded my above post carefully to not include plot specifics...

The quid pro quo is Disney gets to borrow Spider-Man for Avengers movies and Sony gets to borrow Avengers for Spider-Man movies being overseen by Marvel (like Tony Stark appearing in Homecoming even though Disney controls Iron Mn's film rights.) There will be another Avengers character in...

Earlier tonight, in the course of discussing Infinity War with a friend who goes to all the Marvel movies and likes them but isn't really informed about the business side of things, I found myself explaining to her Marvel and Sony's agreement to share Spider-Man, of which she was completely...

I suspect that this is part of why Sony was okay with a "shared custody" agreement on Spider-Man with Marvel/Disney. Something like, they'll let Marvel borrow him, but they're keeping other characters back for themselves (i.e. Venom) in hopes of confusing fans into thinking that these knockoffs...

I'm guessing here, but they're probably thinking that the average general moviegoing audience don't read comics and therefore won't know or care. Maybe some people remember Venom from Spider-Man 3, but otherwise he is not a character that has permeated pop culture outside of the core fan base...

"In Association With Marvel." That's new wording. It's technically not wrong, since it is based on a Marvel character, but I still think they're trying to confuse people into thinking this is a Marvel Studios production with MCU ties, and Marvel Studios proper should be very concerned about that.

100%. Marketplace confusion actually helps Sony and Amy Pascal in this particular, and very specific, case, because if audiences think it is part of the MCU, they are much more likely to turn out for it and assume the quality will be good. Even though Sony maintains the character rights, there...

The thing is that because Tom Holland's Spider-Man has been firmly established as part of the MCU, if Holland is in it, that automatically means that the film exists within the MCU. I assume Marvel must have a provision in their deal to preclude Holland's Spider-Man from appearing in a film...

I'm not sure why Sony thinks a Spider-Man-less Venom movie, not in the MCU and not under Marvel's supervisison, is a good idea, when they got their mojo back on Spider-Man specifically by integrating him into the MCU. They do have an impressive cast lined up. I'll give them that much. But I...