Spider-Man: Far From Home (July 2, 2019) [ENDGAME SPOILERS ALLOWED!] (1 Viewer)

[joshEH]

My Facebook-feed has just been absolutely slammed with dank memes today about this:

 

[joshEH]

https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/marvel-allowed-weekend-and-holiday-visitation-with-tom-holland

 

[Sam Favate]

Variety says a deal could still be worked out, and we all hope it is. Sony's instincts on Spider-Man just aren't very good (see the Amazing Spider-Man films, the second of which Pascal claimed would be a billion dollar picture and set up a huge franchise). I also don't think Pascal has very good intentions. Those leaked Sony emails from several years ago (which got her fired) made her look really bad. That said, yes, Disney should have left well enough alone. It's not enough that they have 4 out of 5 billion dollar pictures this year? They need more? Everyone loses if a deal isn't struck, especially the fans. I would say that they have up until production begins on Spider-Man 3 to work it out. Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Sony's instincts on Spider-Man just aren't very good

Agreed.

However, I would say that Jon Watts' instincts on Spider-Man are pretty good. We know that Kevin Feige is an involved producer, and I don't want to minimize his role. But we shouldn't minimize Watts either. He did direct two highly entertaining and substantial Spider-Man films, and if Sony keeps him, he can probably do it again. I absolutely think it will be better with Feige involved and fully integrated within the MCU as the other tow have been, and they would have to work really hard to sell me on a non-Marvel-produced Tom Holland Spider-Man film. But it's not like Kevin Feige directed either of these movies himself.

 

[Sam Favate]

True about Watts, but they've set up the third film so much in the second film's post-credits scene that it begs for MCU involvement. There were all kinds of rumors floating around that we'd see Oscorp in the third film, or Charlie Cox as Matt Murdoch being Peter's lawyer, or the involvement of the Kingpin (Vincent D'Onofrio) or even the Fantastic Four being a haven for the outed Spider-Man. (Wild rumors, of course, but fun to speculate.) Non-MCU developments will inevitably be a let down.

 

[joshEH]

...Also, this:

https://www.babylonbee.com/news/sony-vows-to-give-every-person-in-nation-chance-to-play-spider-man

 

[Jake Lipson]

True about Watts, but they've set up the third film so much in the second film's post-credits scene that it begs for MCU involvement.

I think some of those fan theories you mention are unrealistic. In particular, we know Marvel can't use the characters they licensed to Netflix for a certain period of time after the cancellation of those shows, so Matt Murdock and Kingpin could never appear in a film Sony is almost certainly targeting for 2021. Oscorp is certainly possible because that is part of the Spider-Man property, so Sony owns that.

However...

The thing about the cliffhanger is I don't know how they can resolve it without referencing the MCU.

Even something as simple as saying Iron Man's name would not be allowed without Disney cooperation, because Iron Man is copyrighted by Disney. So

Spoiler: Far From Home

how did Peter get the Edith tech that he allegedly used to attack London? In Far From Home, Tony willed it to him, but that goes away if Sony can't use Tony's name or likeness. Sony owns Mysterio, but they don't own Stark Industries, so Mysterio's status as a disgruntled ex-employee of Tony Stark is also gone. Not to mention Happy Hogan and any of the other Avengers who could come to Peter's defense.

Watts could probably direct a competent Spider-Man movie without Feige. But what we would lose is how the MCU is brilliantly baked into these films as its core setting, and that informs so much of what distinguishes Holland's version from the other iterations of the character that it would almost certainly not be as good without those elements. And if it's not as good, people will know. They may not know what studio made it, but if the third film is inferior, that could do lasting damage to Sony's prized possession.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

He played almost no role in Endgame aside from the tear jerker moment at the end; he has a bigger part in both Civil War and Infinity War. But to say he was "crucial" to any film outside his own? Nah. He was used in the stories because Marvel had access to him. If they didn't, another character does what he does in each movie.

Tony Stark's whole final arc is built around his relationship with Peter Parker:

• Captain America: Civil War: Tony drafts Spider-Man into his personal feud with Steve Rogers
• Spider-Man: Homecoming: He mentors Peter and emotionally invests in Peter Parker as a person.
• Avengers: Infinity War: He loses Peter to the Snap.
• Avengers: Endgame: He risks everything to bring Peter back. Without his investment in Peter Parker, he's not motivated to invent time travel.

It was the end of a contract and Disney wanted to renegotiate. Sony said they didn't want to. So Disney has every right to walk away, just like Sony does to say no. But who gets hurts here? The fans, possibly. But this is a blip on the radar now that X-Men and Fantastic Four are on the drawing board. Everyone will be saying "Spider-Man was nice...but holy cow! Wolverine and Mr. Fantastic and Thor and ..."

Spider-Man is Marvel's Mickey Mouse. While there's no question that Marvel has a lot of great stories to tell without Spider-Man, he matters more than any of the newly acquired 20th Century Fox-owned characters even though they have the potential to generate a lot more money for Marvel Studios in the long term.

Again, Pascal has been dropping hints since the deal was first signed that Sony wasn't interested in the deal continuing beyond its original terms, which was for two solo Spider-Man films. She said right during the Homecoming press tour in 2017 that she didn't think that they'd be renewing the deal.

With all due respect to Amy Pascal, she became irrelevant to those negotiations when she ceased to be chairman of the studio. Yes, whatever Spider-Man movies come down the pike will have her fingerprints on them, the decision on whether to renew the deal or not is above the pay grades of both Pascal and Feige.

This was reported on at the time. It does not seem to me that this was a snap decision when they've been laying the groundwork to walk away from it pretty much since it began.

I think it's easy to say "Disney got greedy," but I think a more nuanced view might be, "Disney realized what a tremendous strain it was to dedicate their resources to making more Spider-Man films on a timetable that's not necessarily of their own choosing, with all of the associated drains on resources and talent that entails, with very little to show for it in return."

I'm definitely not discounting that Feige is wearing a lot of hats when it comes to Marvel, and Disney might want to keep him focused on the Disney-owned hats.

That being said, I would bet that if it were up to Feige he'd make a deal happen. Spider-Man is a color he wants to keep on his pallet.

From what's been reported, Disney isn't asking Sony to simply fork over money; Disney is asking to participate in financing the movies so that they can reap some of the rewards.

They're essentially asking Sony to fork over 50 percent ownership of Sony's single most valuable franchise. That is objectively unreasonable.

That said, yes, Disney should have left well enough alone. It's not enough that they have 4 out of 5 billion dollar pictures this year? They need more? Everyone loses if a deal isn't struck

Exactly.

However, I would say that Jon Watts' instincts on Spider-Man are pretty good. We know that Kevin Feige is an involved producer, and I don't want to minimize his role. But we shouldn't minimize Watts either. He did direct two highly entertaining and substantial Spider-Man films, and if Sony keeps him, he can probably do it again.

If Sony really does move forward with more Holland Spider-Man movies in continuity with Homecoming and Far From Home, but without Marvel Studios's participation, it will be an interesting experiment in just how essential Feige's contributions are.

I think some of those fan theories you mention are unrealistic. In particular, we know Marvel can't use the characters they licensed to Netflix for a certain period of time after the cancellation of those shows, so Matt Murdock and Kingpin could never appear in a film Sony is almost certainly targeting for 2021.

Do we really know that, though? Kingpin appeared prominently in Into the Spider-Verse, after all. It's pretty clear that they couldn't use the Charlie Cox Netflix version of Daredevil or the Vincent D'Onofrio version of Kingpin. But they might be able to use their own live action versions of those characters, since their deal with Marvel gives them joint ownership of those characters, and they weren't party to Marvel's deal with Netflix.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Do we really know that, though? Kingpin appeared prominently in Into the Spider-Verse, after all. It's pretty clear that they couldn't use the Charlie Cox Netflix version of Daredevil or the Vincent D'Onofrio version of Kingpin. But they might be able to use their own live action versions of those characters, since their deal with Marvel gives them joint ownership of those characters, and they weren't party to Marvel's deal with Netflix.

@Sam Favate's post I quoted was referring specifically to the Netflix versions of those characters, who are (I suppose) still technically considered part of the MCU continuity. If Sony does split off from Marvel on Spider-Man, they probably could use their own live-action versions that wouldn't be connected to the MCU if it's a character that they have rights to use.

However, Kingpin was not part of the live-action stable of characters that Marvel bought from Sony. We know this because he was licensed to Fox for the 2003 version of Daredevil. (Of course, Disney reacquired those rights from Fox when they stopped making Daredevil movies, which led to the Netflix series; I just mean that because we know Kingpin was in Fox's deal originally, he couldn't also have been in Sony's original deal.)

When I saw Spider-Verse, I expected that Sony asked Disney to let them use Kingpin in Spider-Verse, and Disney acquiesced to that because of the Sony/Marvel deal on the Holland films, and because they knew they couldn't use Kingpin in a non-Netflix project anyway. But that's just a guess. Obviously, it's all conjecture unless one of us has access to the specific legalese in Sony and Marvel's various contracts.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Sony has just issued a public statement to The Hollywood Reporter. Unsurprisingly, they are blaming Disney.

“Much of today’s news about Spider-Man has mischaracterized recent discussions about Kevin Feige’s involvement in the franchise. We are disappointed, but respect Disney’s decision not to have him continue as a lead producer of our next live action Spider-Man films. We hope this might change in the future, but understand that the many new responsibilities that Disney has given him – including all their newly added Marvel properties – do not allow time for him to work on IP they do not own. Kevin is terrific and we are grateful for his help and guidance and appreciate the path he has helped put us on, which we will continue.”

More reporting at the link.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...k-at-marvel-spider-man-movie-divorce-1233490/

 

[Josh Steinberg]

They're essentially asking Sony to fork over 50 percent ownership of Sony's single most valuable franchise. That is objectively unreasonable.

I really don’t see it that way. They’re just asking to pay for 50% of the MCU-Holland series and split the earnings. Sony would still get all the profits from Venom movies and animated Spider-Man movies and any other Spider-Man thing they did. I still think Disney paying for 50% of the movie and doing 100% of the work is a great deal. I bet any other studio would jump at that offer.

But I’m kinda thinking it wouldn’t matter what percentage Disney wanted. I think this has been the Sony strategy from the start. Use the association with Marvel Studios to revitalize the brand, and then split off as soon as allowable.

 

[Jake Lipson]

the decision on whether to renew the deal or not is above the pay grades of both Pascal and Feige. I'm definitely not discounting that Feige is wearing a lot of hats when it comes to Marvel, and Disney might want to keep him focused on the Disney-owned hats. That being said, I would bet that if it were up to Feige he'd make a deal happen. Spider-Man is a color he wants to keep on his pallet.

Absolutely. This is one of those rare case where Disney's interests and Feige's interests differ. We saw this last year too with the decision to fire James Gunn, which was similarly above his pay grade. There is no way he would have done that if he had been allowed to make the call, because there was never any question that James Gunn was the right creative person to be handling the Guardians. This is the same basic thing in terms of having real-world outside factors cause issues on the creative side of things, although the factors themselves are very different.

Creatively, there is no question that films on the Disney side and the Sony side benefits from Spider-Man being exactly where he has been since Civil War, firmly ensconced in the MCU. Financially, Bob Iger/Alan Horn and Tom Rothman need to stop comparing sizes and sit down and make a deal that makes sense for both companies, because this is a publicity nightmare for both of them. When Feige shows up at D23 this weekend to promote new MCU projects he's producing for Disney, this mess is going to be front and center in people's minds. He probably won't mention it, but it's going to be there whether he says anything or not. Meanwhile, Sony is prepping a theatrical re-expansion for Far From Home and, soon, the Blu-ray release, and this mess is going to be all over the media coverage of that. Alan Horn said in an interview earlier this year that there are certain things Disney just can't do because they'd "get letters." Well, they're going to get letters about this, too, for sure.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

However, Kingpin was not part of the live-action stable of characters that Marvel bought from Sony. We know this because he was licensed to Fox for the 2003 version of Daredevil. (Of course, Disney reacquired those rights from Fox when they stopped making Daredevil movies, which led to the Netflix series; I just mean that because we know Kingpin was in Fox's deal originally, he couldn't also have been in Sony's original deal.)

When I saw Spider-Verse, I expected that Sony asked Disney to let them use Kingpin in Spider-Verse, and Disney acquiesced to that because of the Sony/Marvel deal on the Holland films, and because they knew they couldn't use Kingpin in a non-Netflix project anyway. But that's just a guess. Obviously, it's all conjecture unless one of us has access to the specific legalese in Sony and Marvel's various contracts.

I was wrong in my previous post to lump Daredevil (now a Disney-owned character) in with Kingpin. Daredevil would definitely be bound by the Netflix deal.

But Disney didn't "let" Sony use Kingpin for Spider-Verse. Kingpin falls into that same gray area that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch used to; Disney and Sony both have a claim to the character and can use him in their own works as they see fit.

I really don’t see it that way. They’re just asking to pay for 50% of the MCU-Holland series and split the earnings. Sony would still get all the profits from Venom movies and animated Spider-Man movies and any other Spider-Man thing they did. I still think Disney paying for 50% of the movie and doing 100% of the work is a great deal. I bet any other studio would jump at that offer.

The problem is that in exchange for fronting 50 percent of the cost, Disney gets 50 percent of the take home. Spider-Man for Disney would be one viable franchise among many. Spider-Man for Sony is a much more important asset. And I'm not so sure that Disney can be said to have done 100 percent of the work on Homecoming or Far From Home.

Tom Rothman is notoriously cheap, and I'm sure that fact played a role in the decision. But I honestly don't think any other studio with the resources to make the movie without co-financing would agree to Disney's terms.

Alan Horn said in an interview earlier this year that there are certain things Disney just can't do because they'd "get letters." Well, they're going to get letters about this, too, for sure.

The question is who audiences (at least the slice of audiences that actually care about this kind of thing) are going to blame. Disney has a much better record of spin than Sony does.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Right, if I have to place a bet, Disney is a much better spin doctor than Sony has ever been.

 

[Sam Favate]

Regarding the Netflix characters, word is that Marvel can't use them for 2 years after the end of their shows. Daredevil ended in 2018. Marvel would be free to use Daredevil/Kingpin (Cox/D'Onofrio) in 2020 and beyond, just in time for Spider-Man 3.

Sony's statement today seems to leave the door open. Like I said, my guess is that they have until production begins to get Feige back. We'll see.

 

[Jason_V]

Tony Stark's whole final arc is built around his relationship with Peter Parker:

• Captain America: Civil War: Tony drafts Spider-Man into his personal feud with Steve Rogers
• Spider-Man: Homecoming: He mentors Peter and emotionally invests in Peter Parker as a person.
• Avengers: Infinity War: He loses Peter to the Snap.
• Avengers: Endgame: He risks everything to bring Peter back. Without his investment in Peter Parker, he's not motivated to invent time travel.

Maybe. But if Marvel never had the rights to use Spidey, there's no doubt they would have done the same basic stories with changes to account for who was available. Instead of it being Peter, the stories would have relied more on Pepper and the daughter.

Spider-Man is Marvel's Mickey Mouse. While there's no question that Marvel has a lot of great stories to tell without Spider-Man, he matters more than any of the newly acquired 20th Century Fox-owned characters even though they have the potential to generate a lot more money for Marvel Studios in the long term.

I won't argue his importance to Marvel, but the MCU was built on characters Marvel had access to. It was not built in any way on Peter or Spider-Man. He has not been a lynch pin in their plans in the past. He is the side story to the main event, the crossover comic that has only something tangential to do in the grand scheme of things. Not that important. Marvel's done just fine without him for a number of years. It's Sony that keeps messing him up. And they will do it again. And then they'll start talking to Marvel/Disney again.

 

[joshEH]

The Internet has zero chill, LOL:

 

[Jake Lipson]

 

[Mike2001]

Rumor or fact?:


Source of above video:

https://cosmicbook.news/tom-holland-spider-man-deal-robert-downey-jr

 

[TonyD]

It sounded legit until he said that Peter Parker was going to move into an appartment with Firestar and IceMan and get a dog and name it Miss Lion.