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

[Tommy R]

I really haven’t been overly enthusiastic for Spider-man since back when they didn’t continue Raimi’s continuity (I sort of enjoyed Marvel’s Spidey stuff but still mourned what could have been with Raimi) but I totally feel for the bigger MCU fans with this recent news. What a mess...

 

[Jake Lipson]

Well, this just got uglier: Jon Watts has no deal to direct the next Spider-Man film, and Kevin Feige is courting him to come direct an MCU movie for Disney instead.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/spider...tor-jon-watts-next-film-courtship-1202702851/

 

[Jake Lipson]

All this nonsense is doing is hurting the audience.

However, to bring this thread back to something positive (at least until the next wrinkle in the divorce arises), I just received the Far From Home soundtrack from Amazon and, wow, it's really good. I knew that from during the movie, but it's also a really exciting standalone listen on the soundtrack. I liked Giacchino's work on Homecoming, too, but I really think he kicked this score up a notch and would welcome a Best Original Score nomination for him for this. (Alan Silvestri should get in, too, for Endgame.) Of course, Black Panther won this award last year. so it's possible two MCU titles could win back to back (although obviously from different composers.)

Surprisingly, it was issued as a MOD CD-R upon order instead of a "real CD" (for lack of a better term.) The booklet is also less elaborate than the one for Homecoming (which was released as a "real CD.") But it still sounds great quality-wise and I'm very happy that I got it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Well, this just got uglier: Jon Watts has no deal to direct the next Spider-Man film, and Kevin Feige is courting him to come direct an MCU movie for Disney instead.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/spider...tor-jon-watts-next-film-courtship-1202702851/

I don’t see this as ugly or anything of the sort. Marvel Studios hired Jon Watts to direct Spider-Man. Marvel has the relationship with Watts. He’s demonstrated that he can bring a big budget film in on time and on budget and succeed with critics and audiences. Of course Marvel would be interested in retaining his services. And I see no reason to see that as “ugly” - Marvel cultivated that relationship, not Sony.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Marvel cultivated that relationship, not Sony.

I think he was hired together, or at least, Amy Pascal had input into his hiring too, although Feige/Marvel was the lead producer on the films. And you're right that it's natural for Marvel to want to continue that relationship. But it also seems kind of mean-spirited to try to poach him while they know that Sony wants to sign him for Spider-Man (which is, as you noted, a job that Marvel hired him for.) Almost like, "Well, if we can't work with the character, then you can't work the director." I think if Watts does end up signing with Marvel over Sony, the likelihood of this rift being mended decreases significantly.

Whatever. Like I said in my above post, the only thing this mess is succeeding in doing is hurting the audience. Marvel will make a lot of money without Spider-Man, and we'll see what Sony manages to do without Marvel. Although I doubt the third could earn a billion without Marvel's involvement, even the much-derided Amazing Spider-Man 2 still made over $700 million worldwide. But the fans are the ones who get burned by this since we don't get to see the natural continuation of Far From Home's very MCU-based cliffhanger and Peter's arc in the cinematic universe where he creatively belongs.

On another note, it feels sort of bizarre to me that Sony announced the extended cut release this week but isn't actually putting it out until next week. Far From Home is still playing on its own dedicated screen 4 times a day at my theater -- in fact, it's still in over 1,000 theaters according to Box Office Mojo. But the news of the extended cut coming next week essentially puts anyone who might have considered going to see it this weekend on notice that they shouldn't do that, because if they just wait one more week, there will be a new scene in it for the same ticket price. So I would imagine the gross this weekend will be relatively low. Of course, it's not in the top ten anymore right now anyway but still...what an odd tactic. I'm sure the new scene is done, so why not just begin running it immediately? It's not like they have to strike new film prints or anything.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

After five appearances in three years, honestly, I’m a little Spidey’d out. I think this version was by far the best we’ve had and I would have seen another film, but I’m feeling strangely agnostic about there being another one. If it happens, it happens, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

It just doesn’t seem absolutely vital to the overall MCU. It’s already about to branch out in more directions than I can follow.

 

[Jake Lipson]

After five appearances in three years, honestly, I’m a little Spidey’d out.

I guess that makes sense for you because as I recall Spider-Man has never been your favorite anyway. He was my entry point into liking comic book movies (via the first Sam Raimi film) so I've always had a particular soft spot for him. That being said, I also agree that Holland's version is the best we've ever had, and I would put Far From Home at the very top of all the Spider-Man movies without hesitation.

It just doesn’t seem absolutely vital to the overall MCU.

I think given the way that Far From Home positioned Peter as a major hero going forward ("I don't think Tony would have done what he did if he didn't know that you were going to be here after he was gone,") plus all the talk about Peter stepping up in the wake of Tony's death), it will be extremely bizarre from a narrative standpoint if he just has to disappear. In a big mega-franchise that has made interconnected storytelling essential to is brand appeal, this is going to be a huge dangling thread.

Also, even if I wanted to watch a Sony-produced film starring Tom Holland without Marvel's input -- which I'm not sure if I do -- so much of what they have done with this character over the course of his last two solo movies is tied directly into the MCU that it's a huge element for them to just have to ignore. I don't even know how you resolve the cliffhanger without referring to MCU elements because

Spoiler

the drones were bequeathed to Peter by Tony, but Tony is a Disney-owned character and trademark, so they won't be able to reference him. So where did Peter get the drones? What exactly was Mysterio's motivation for his whole plot, which presumably would have to come out to exonerate Peter? Sony owns Mysterio, but they don't own Stark Industries, so there goes the backstory of him being a disgruntled Stark employee.

Also, presumably Nick Fury was sent to space in the very end tag because they want to make him available for a cosmic-set Captain Marvel sequel. I'm also prepared to assume that we'll get Talos back in that movie too. The subject of Talos impersonating Fury on Earth is bound to come up, but they're going to have to dance around the circumstances of it because Disney won't be able to mention Peter Parker in their movies, whereas the connection could be exploited more fully if Disney and Sony were still cooperating.

I know you said in one of your previous posts that you can just ignore the cliffhanger scene and consider this version of Peter to be complete. If that works for you, great. But it doesn't work for me. I absolutely feel like it will be a gaping hole if the cliffhanger is not followed through on in the way it was designed to be when the next film could reference the MCU.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t love it.

But if you look at the MCU as a long running series... sometimes people disappear from TV shows before the character’s potential has been fully tapped. Sometimes storylines don’t get resolved. It’s regrettable but sometimes that’s how it goes. I guess I’m just used to it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I love Far From Home exactly as it is -- and I think the mid-credits cliffhanger in particular is one of the best cliffhangers I've ever seen -- however, the decision to end it like that seems very strange now. According to the reporting we've seen on this issue, Disney and Sony have been in negotiations around a deal extension for several months. We also know that

Spoiler

the twist with Jameson revealing Peter's identity was among the last things filmed, because they wanted to prevent a leak about J.K. Simmons returning.

So, if you're Kevin Feige and you obviously know that the negotiations between Disney and Sony are not leaning in a positive direction, then why even include such a cliffhanger in the movie? They could have just as easily ended the film where the credits started and used a throwaway joke as the mid-credits scene. That way, this story could have felt more complete, and what was used as a cliffhanger could have been repurposed into the beginning of a Marvel-backed third film in the event that a deal was reached. Instead of doing that to hedge his bets, Feige chose to proceed with the biggest cliffhanger in MCU history even though he had to know there was a significant chance that he and Marvel Studios would not be around to pay it off. Why?

(And yes, I think the cliffhanger on Far From Home is bigger than Infinity War was, because it was obvious to me that Endgame was going to bring the dusted back somehow; the question was more about how they would do it than whether it would get done. Here, the cliffhanger blows apart the storytelling for Peter in a far more significant way because there is no obvious path forward from this point for this character.)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Why?

I think he’s a stand up guy and was acting in good faith that it would be resolved in a more amiable fashion.

But if you were cynical, you could say it was to back them into a corner by pressuring them into a storyline that would need his help to play out, or to leave them screwed out of spite. Someone with a tinfoil hat is probably suggesting as much on interwebs.com or whatever.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think he’s a stand up guy and was acting in good faith that it would be resolved in a more amiable fashion.

I suspect you are correct, and if so, that's certainly admirable of him from the point of view of a businessperson. However, speaking purely as a creative decision, it currently appears to have backfired on him, and moreso on the fans. If indeed this is the end and not just a public negotiation tactic, Feige will walk away from this and continue to make high-quality successful movies for Disney. But the fans lose out on the resolution more than anyone else.

Speaking as someone who loved the cliffhanger -- I think I actually screamed in the theater the first time I saw it -- that felt to me like an implication that Marvel and Sony would finish the story. Knowing what I know now about the divorce, I kind of wish that the cliffhanger had been saved for the beginning of a hypothetical joint #3. I don't like the divorce at all, and would never have liked it, but it would have been somewhat easier to accept without such a huge story thread dangling at the end of Far From Home, which does more damage to both now-separated franchises than would have been the case if it had just ended with Peter swinging.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Tom Holland appeared at D23 today to promote Pixar's Onward in his first public appearance since news of the Spider-Man situation.

Of course, he was diplomatic in addressing the issue, but I think he did so in just about as classy of a way as he possibly could.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/tom-holland-spider-man-onward-1203313139/

 

[Jake Lipson]

Kevin Feige has commented on the situation and, although I obviously love his work and respect him a great deal, I really don't like his comments because they seem to suggest finality and that he is accepting walking away.

“I’m feeling about Spider-Man gratitude and joy. We got to make five films within the MCU with Spider-Man: two standalone films and three with the Avengers. It was a dream that I never thought would happen. It was never meant to last forever. We knew there was a finite amount of time that we’d be able to do this, and we told the story we wanted to tell, and I’ll always be thankful for that.”

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feige-marvel-studios-spider-man-disney-dispute-1202703690/

I suspect he's just trying to be magnanimous here, but if they knew the deal had a time limit on it, they should not have left Far From Home where they did. If they got to tell the story they wanted to tell, then ending it on such a huge cliffhanger is just rude to the fans.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's classic producer doublespeak. It's part of his job to put the best possible spin on things.

If the upper brass at Disney and Sony do manage to come to an agreement before Sony moves forward with its own live action Spider-Man, he'll shift seamlessly into talking about what a privilege it is to continue on this journey with the character.

If I were Sony, I'd focus on the Into the Spider-Verse sequel and the Spider-Gwen spinoff for the time being. Give the situation some time to get resolved before moving forward the other way.

Unlike Josh being a little Spidey-ed out, one of the things I really enjoyed about this arrangement was the prospect of getting Spider-Man movies every other year or so, and really see Tom Holland grow up with this version of Peter Parker. Because Marvel Studios has so many irons in the fire, it's sometimes several years before you get sequels to the other standalone movies.

 

[Joe Wong]

Unlike Josh being a little Spidey-ed out, one of the things I really enjoyed about this arrangement was the prospect of getting Spider-Man movies every other year or so, and really see Tom Holland grow up with this version of Peter Parker. Because Marvel Studios has so many irons in the fire, it's sometimes several years before you get sequels to the other standalone movies.

Yes, like the MCU's biggest solo film, Black Panther, getting a sequel 4 years later! These days, a super breakout success like BP would have had a sequel within 2 years, if not tied to the MCU.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Nothing god about the future, but my theater put up advance ticket sales for the extended cut of Far From Home, which begins next weekend. In a nice touch, they are returning it to the Cinemark XD premium format screen (which it hasn't been on since before The Lion King came out), but they are not charging the typical XD up-charge. So the ticket price is the same as if you were seeing it in a standard auditorium, but it will be on the premium one. I will definitely be taking advantage of that next week.

When I saw it on opening night, the starting time for the regular screening happened to be better for me than the starting time for the XD screen, so I haven't seen it in the premium format. I would have gone back to see the extended cut anyway, but it will be a nice bonus to get it on the biggest screen and with the best sound system in the complex.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I probably would have gone out to see the extended cut next weekend, but the Sony/Marvel Studios divorce has kind of sapped my enthusiasm. So we'll see.

 

[Jake Lipson]

the Sony/Marvel Studios divorce has kind of sapped my enthusiasm[

I totally get that. It's going to be weird to watch that movie again in light of this new information that we now have, because so much of Peter's arc in it is about him stepping up in the MCU.

However, I am taking the view that it is more important now to support the new cut than it was before. If we still show up to see it in light of the news, it will send a message to Sony about how much we love this version of the character -- and Disney is bound to notice any bump in business it might receive next weekend, too, even though it's not their film.

Maybe this is grasping at straws and it won't really do that much, but the continued success of the current movie can only help. Although when news first broke, some people were quick to start the hashtag #BoycottSony, I don't see how doing that will achieve anything. A resounding uptick in business next weekend might at least make them think twice for a second, and that's not nothing.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Tom Holland has diplomatically indicated he intends to stay with the role.

“Basically, we’ve made five great movies. It’s been five amazing years. I’ve had the time of my life. Who knows what the future holds? But all I know is that I’m going to continue playing Spider-Man and having the time of my life. It’s going to be so fun, however we choose to do it. The future for Spider-Man will be different, but it will be equally as awesome and amazing, and we’ll find new ways to make it even cooler."

I think the best thing for the character is for everyone involved to try to stay the course as much as possible for right now. Which is what it seems Sony is planning to do with the next film. They are continuing the story told in Far From Home, Holland is staying, and the writers from Far From Home (Chris McKenna and Eric Sommers) are returning.

Obviously there are concerns about Sony steering the ship with their hit and miss history with Spider-Man movies. They CAN do great Spidey movies (Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2 and Into the Spiderverse). Spiderverse is probably my favorite Spidey movie ever. But of course they can completely cock things up too. That’s the big worry.

It’s too bad that they will have to avoid or dance around the MCU references. I’d bet that what Kevin Feige had in mind for following up on that Far From Home cliffhanger involves other MCU elements. But they can do it without that stuff.

I feel that if Spidey was owned by Marvel just like all the other characters the MCU references in Homecoming and Far From Home would have been more subtle anyway. They were really out front with them because Sony probably had that as a part of the deal. The 5 movie arc Peter Parker had with Tony Stark was great. Really great. But even if the deal was/is renewed I’d prefer that they tone down the MCU references in Spidey solo movies and focus on Spidey, his foes, his supporting cast, and his world. You don’t need constant MCU references to tell a great Spidey story. Spidey in NYC, on his own (with Spidey supporting characters), dealing with shit is all you really need. And even though it seems like the cliffhanger at the end of FFH demands MCU elements to move forward, Peter also finally seems to be at a place where he has come into his own and can fly solo.

Obviously Sony is also going to want to do their other “Spidey character movies” and now they can directly connect them to Holland’s Spidey, which connects them to the MCU (because Holland Spidey is MCU), so that has lots of potential for disaster. My hope is that they don’t do anything too bad or something that wouldn’t mesh with the MCU. Because even if a new deal doesn’t happen soon hopefully it can still happen later. And Holland’s Peter Parker IS MCU Peter Parker.

Hopefully something will be worked out. If they don’t renew the deal hopefully they can keep a civil, cooperative relationship with Feige and the MCU so that he would still give notes on the story/scripts (like he has for other Spidey movies before he came to the MCU), and maybe Marvel could still pay a fee to use Spidey in a future MCU event movie.

With the MCU delivering two MASSIVE event films two years in a row, I think it will probably be at least 4 years (maybe longer) before another Avengers type film. So there’s time for new arrangements to be made, even if talks end for a few years. As long as Sony doesn’t screw-up things with Holland-Spidey, he can always be “re-integrated” later.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Tom Holland has diplomatically indicated he intends to stay with the role.

Even if he didn't want to, I don't think he has a choice. Sony holds his contract and he knows it.

It’s too bad that they will have to avoid or dance around the MCU references. I’d bet that what Kevin Feige had in mind for following up on that Far From Home cliffhanger involves other MCU elements. But they can do it without that stuff.

How?

Spoiler

Disney owns Tony Stark. They won't be able to mention his name. So, where did Peter get the drones he is accused of using to attack London and kill Mysterio?

Mysterio can't be a former Stark Industries employee because Disney owns Stark Industries. So what, exactly, are the motivations for his actions, which would presumably have to come out in order to exonerate Peter?

Plus, Happy went halfway around the world to pick up Peter in a tulip field because he was in a jam. But suddenly he won't be returning Peter's calls or speaking to his girlfriend, because he is an Iron Man-based character whose film rights are owned by Disney.

I'm really scratching my head about how they write themselves out of this in a way that feels effective without being able to talk about the MCU.