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.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.
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:an extended cut in theaters
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.Taking Spidey out 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.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.
It is a perfectly valid comparison, it is simply not an apples-to-apples comparison, but it is the best one that we have.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.
Like what?Disney has plenty of weapons in their arsenal to ensure that there is no brand confusion or dilution.
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.Well Marvel could just make a mention in their next MCU movie of how Peter Parker died a horrible death
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.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.