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

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm hearing Sony might re-launch Far From Home with an extended cut in theaters to try and get it over the $400 million mark.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm hearing Sony might re-launch Far From Home with an extended cut in theaters to try and get it over the $400 million mark.

That would be interesting because it would be the first time an MCU film has ever been released in an extended cut. Even the Endgame "re-release" did not add anything to the body of the film itself; they just had bonus features at the end.

We do know there are deleted scenes, since many of them are featured in the trailers (Spider-Man talking to the police officers, getting his passport and buying things for the trip; and some extra lines when Fury tranquilizes Ned.

However, I personally don't really think Far From Home needs anything more; it feels very focused and tells the story it needs to tell effectively.

That being said, I would probably go to Far From Home again if they did this just to see what got added. I've seen it three times already and it's one of my favorite movies of the year alongside Endgame.

 

[Jake Lipson]

an extended cut in theaters

Deadline has just confirmed this and indicates that it will be a "new action scene." Also, it will be available in IMAX and select premium locations, which is nice. I didn't see it in the premium format here the first time, so it would be nice if they restored it to the biggest auditorium:

https://deadline.com/2019/08/spider...ction-scene-for-labor-day-weekend-1202672073/

 

[Sam Favate]

It is likely the opening scene in New York with the police that we saw bits of in the trailer. It's said to last 3 1/2 minutes or so.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It looks like the worst possible thing that could happen with this character has happened.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-...nter-soldier-tom-rothman-bob-iger-1202672545/

 

[dpippel]

Good luck with that, Sony.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Franchise dead.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I've suspected that this was going to happen and even discussed it earlier in this thread. The body language from Pascal and Feige during their Homecoming press tour was terrible, and Pascal would say things that Feige would then have to walk back at a later time (like when she said that the Sony produced spinoffs like Venom were part of the MCU). I don't think she's been particularly interested in this partnership from the get-go, and the success of Venom has probably emboldened Sony into believing that they could have the box office numbers from the MCU without being partnered with Marvel.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The problem I see here is that Sony is retaining the right to produce Spider-Man films with Tom Holland without Marvel's participation.

This means a few things:

1) If Tom Holland is fronting the movie, it is effectively set in the MCU because they can't erase the character's previous experience. So most people will assume that Marvel is involved in making it whether they are or not. This presents a terrible risk to Disney's MCU brand, because if Sony makes a Spider-Man movie with Holland that is bad, that will absolutely reflect poorly on public perception of Marvel.

2) If Marvel Studios is not producing the movie for Sony, then Sony will not be able to feature MCU elements and characters in the future films. They'll have to do it all on their own. The film rights to Iron Man and Captain America and Happy Hogan and Nick Fury and Maria Hill are 100% owned by Disney. They appeared in Homecoming and Far From Home because Disney was loaning them to Sony under the terms of their deal. If Marvel is not producing the movie, Sony won't be able to borrow anymore characters. That means, at the very least, Happy will have to disappear from Peter and May's life, which is absolutely in opposition to what that character would do as established in Far From Home. They also won't be able to borrow any of Marvel's superhero characters either, and a large part of the appeal of this version of Peter is his ability to interact with everyone.

And, of course, this also means that Disney won't be able to borrow Peter to appear in future Avengers films or any other MCU films that they are making.

This is bad, bad, bad news all around for everyone involved.

 

[Sean Bryan]

This is crap.

Total crap. I can only hope that things get turned around but I’m not holding my breath.

From what little I’ve heard, Disney, not Sony, has fucked things up. Reportedly Disney wanted to cofinance the movies and split the profits 50/50. Sony wanted to keep the arrangement as is.

As far as I’m concerned, Disney doesn’t need to be asking Sony to give them half the profits of Sony’s top earner. Disney benefits from Marvel Studios being able to guide one of Marvel’s keystone characters and to use that character in big, successful Disney movies like Civil War, Infinity War and Endgame. And Disney/Marvel Studios gets a producing fee and/or a small percent of the profit. Screwing this arrangement up by demanding more of the profit from the Spidey films is a terrible call.

I think more might come out about what has really been going on, and I’m sure both parties contributed their share of stupidity to let a great thing like this fall apart.

Taking Spidey out the MCU after having been integrated to such an extent is just such a bad move. Hopefully negations continue and something reasonable is achieved.

 

[Jason_V]

I just chuckle at this. Sony needs Spider-Man in the MCU (and everything that entails) much more than Disney/Marvel needs Spider-Man. Can't wait to see the next Spider-Man movie that can't connect to anything being done on Marvel side. Sony has a billion dollar earner-congrats. How many of the non-Spider-Man movies has Marvel made which are billion dollar earners?

There's plenty of room to negotiate this, if they decide to do so. If not, we have two really awesome Spider-Man films and some sweet guest star roles in Civil War, Infinity War and Endgame.

When Sony screws up Spider-Man (again), this will be a much different conversation. And they will screw it up. Again.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think it's disappointing but I don't really see it as rising to the level of tragedy or disaster.

I don't blame Disney for wanting profit participation. It's a big ask for them to be making these films for Sony at cost. Even though Sony pays for the expense, that's resources from Disney's production pipelines that's tied up for years at a time, for something that they're ultimately not getting much from. Disney doesn't need Spider-Man for the MCU to work.

I also disagree with the notion that the general public won't understand. You can bet that the Disney branding machine will make it clear that a solo Sony venture is not part of their franchise. I don't think there was widespread mass confusion that Sony's Venom wasn't part of the MCU. And I think it's been pretty clear since the beginning that this was Sony's plan - to relaunch the character successfully and then use that to make more films that are completely under their control.

Again, during the press tour for Homecoming, Pascal had commented more than once that she didn't think there was going to be a need for an additional partnership beyond the one they agreed to (i.e. the one that was apparently forced upon her). The writing has been on the wall for a long, long time, all you had to do was look for it.

We got a great character arc with this version of Spider-Man being mentored by Iron Man; Tony Stark's character was enriched by this relationship, and Phase 3 was enhanced by Spidey's presence. While Far From Home featured a post-credits scene that could be called a cliffhanger, I can just as easily skip that scene and see the story of this version of the character as being complete.

I'm sorry but I'm just not prepared to lose any sleep over this.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Taking Spidey out the MCU

I get what you're saying....but the problem for Disney is that Tom Holland's Spider-Man is firmly situated in the MCU. Even if the net film does not make any reference to any properties that Disney owns, the general public knows that Tom Holland's Spider-Man is in the MCU. So if Sony makes it on their own and it's garbage -- which seems inevitable -- those of us here would know that Marvel didn't produce it. But I don't think the average moviegoer would, which means that a bad Spider-Man film starring Holland will affect Marvel's brand reputation whether they made it or not.

This is why I've said before in this thread that I hope Marvel was smart enough to put a clause in the original deal saying that Sony couldn't use Holland in a non-Marvel-produced film. Obviously, with this news, it looks like they didn't do that, and their brand will take a hit if Sony produces something bad that people think Marvel produced.

I also disagree with the notion that the general public won't understand. You can bet that the Disney branding machine will make it clear that a solo Sony venture is not part of their franchise. I don't think there was widespread mass confusion that Sony's Venom wasn't part of the MCU.

That's not a completely valid comparison because Venom did not feature actors who previously played the same role in a Marvel-backed MCU film following up on cliffhangers from a Marvel-backed MCU film.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Well Marvel could just make a mention in their next MCU movie about how Peter Parker died a horrible death, maybe even show his funeral and a gravestone, and that would be that!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's not a completely valid comparison because Venom did not feature actors who previously played the same role in a Marvel-backed MCU film following up on cliffhangers from a Marvel-backed MCU film.

It is a perfectly valid comparison, it is simply not an apples-to-apples comparison, but it is the best one that we have.

Marvel's Agents Of SHIELD no longer takes place in the MCU. It features actors reprising roles that originated in the MCU. That hasn't ruined the MCU. The Marvel Netflix shows were intended to take place in the MCU when they were launched, but no longer do. Some of those actors play different roles in the MCU. That hasn't ruined the MCU either.

Assuming that this press leak isn't part of a strategy to bring both sides back to the table, and that a final divorce is imminent and unstoppable, Disney has plenty of weapons in their arsenal to ensure that there is no brand confusion or dilution.

The part of the audience that cares about continuity will understand what has changed. The part of the audience that doesn't care will continue to not care.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Disney has plenty of weapons in their arsenal to ensure that there is no brand confusion or dilution.

Like what?

Also, Agents of SHIELD and the Marvel Netflix shows aren't exactly 1-to-1 comparisons either because they have never reached an audience the size of which saw Far From Home.

Well Marvel could just make a mention in their next MCU movie of how Peter Parker died a horrible death

I get that you're joking, but I don't think they can. Peter's film rights are controlled by Sony, so Disney can't reference him in their films without an agreement with Disney.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

On one hand, you have Tom Rothman being Tom Rothman. On the other hand, you have Disney as the 800-lb. gorilla throwing its weight around.

Disney seems like it's more in the wrong here, though. Spider-Man was a crucial part of three of its biggest hits. Both companies were profiting handsomely from the current arrangement. Disney got greedy.

Hopefully this got leaked by Marvel to pressure both sides into a deal. Both sides are going to lose if they don't.

I would be fine with the third Tom Holland movie being a standalone without bringing in Disney-owned MCU characters. But I'd really hate to see the events of the movie ignored/contradicted by the Disney-owned MCU movies.

 

[David Weicker]

I agree with Josh that its an exaggeration to call this a tragedy.

To the general public, they don't know what studio produces the films. If a solo Spider-Man succeeds or fails, it won't matter. The public goes to see a movie. Their memories are very short term. Its only the very small minority of people who inhabit boards like this who know about the interconnectedness.

I bet 90% of the movie-going public have never heard of Kevin Feige, or what he's done.

And if a MCU character isn't mentioned in the next Spider-Man movie, very few will notice. It would probably generate a
"he/she wasn't in this. Oh. I liked him/her in that other film. Well, maybe the next one will have them".

They are probably wondering when Spider-Man will meet Aquaman or Wonder Woman anyway.

 

[Jason_V]

Disney seems like it's more in the wrong here, though. Spider-Man was a crucial part of three of its biggest hits. Both companies were profiting handsomely from the current arrangement. Disney got greedy.

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.

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 ..."

 

[Josh Steinberg]

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. 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.

And I again want to make the point - I don't think it's as simple as "Disney got greedy." Sony paid Disney's expenses for making the solo Spider-Man films, which meant that for Disney, making a Spider-Man movie was a non-profit endeavor that brought more tangible success for Sony than it did for themselves. But Disney is not a non-profit company. Sony wants a Spider-Man movie every two years, whether or not Marvel does. Sony has demonstrated with their Far From Home release that they were willing to spoil an entire film (Endgame) that hadn't been released yet, simply to keep one of their own releases on the calendar at the time they wanted it out. If you're Disney, you probably didn't love that. 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." 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. It is not uncommon for modern studios to have those kinds of arrangements; there are plenty of tentpoles which are co-financed between two studios where one studio gets domestic rights and the other gets international, or they split the profits. So it doesn't sound to me as if Disney was asking for an unprecedented, never-before-imagined type of agreement. It simply seems that it was no longer a tenable situation to be on the hook to use their resources to make a new film every two years that they get nothing in return for. And I'm not sure that the use of the Spider-Man character remained a big enough "get" to make up for what they were giving up.