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

[Jake Lipson]

For me, it's not so much that Holland's character himself loses appeal -- Holland is a great actor and a fantastic match for Peter Parker, and he would continue to be so with or without Marvel -- but the MCU is so intrinsically woven into the backstory of his character that removing it seems, at the very least, idiotic, and at worst impossible. His connection to the MCU is what distinguishes Holland's version from McGuire's version or Garfield's version, and they've already exhausted those versions.

 

[Malcolm R]

Agreed. His connections to the MCU and The Avengers are what made him "Spider-Man" in this version. Before that he was just some nerd from Queens jumping around in a onesie.

Would he also have to lose the Iron-Man enhanced suit with no agreement?

 

[Jake Lipson]

Would he also have to lose the Iron-Man enhanced suit with no agreement?

This is just me guessing -- obviously I haven't seen the contracts -- but I think they could probably keep the suit itself as long as they don't mention who he got it from.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

They might continue to use the old suit out of spite, because the a new suit would mean new merchandising revenues for Disney.

 

[Jake Lipson]

How Far From Home Should Have Ended:

 

[Jake Lipson]

Whoever is in charge of the scheduling at my theater didn't really think logically about the Thursday schedule.

The first showtime for the extended cut of Far From Home is 4:00pm. They appear to be treating it as though it is a "new release," starting with Thursday evening "preview" shows. (4:00pm on the dot is when they start to charge evening prices.) As I said before, it is being screened in the Cinemark XD room, without the premium format upcharge.

However, they ALSO have two screenings of the original cut on one of the smaller screens at 12:35 and 3:40.

Now, I realize that Thursday midday screenings on a workday when lots of kids have already returned to school are not likely to be very crowded anyway. But why would anyone go to an early afternoon show of Far From Home on Thursday when by waiting until 4:00, they can see a longer version of the movie in an auditorium with a bigger screen and better sound system? Worst-case scenario, if people know the extended cut is supposed to start Thursday, they could show up for one of the first two shows thinking they are seeing the extended version and then be upset not to see the new footage.

Going forward into the weekend, starting Friday, the original version will no longer have any showtimes at all and the extended cut is effectively replacing it. However, this just seems poorly managed; if I were a theater owner, I would not schedule the original version and the extended version on the same day at all, even once.

Also, it looks like Marvel stars don't like the idea of Spider-Man leaving the MCU any more than the rest of us do. In other news, water is wet.

https://www.slashfilm.com/marvel-stars-react-to-the-spider-man-deal/

 

[Jake Lipson]

"For the moment, the door is closed."

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/spiderman-mcu-sony-pictures-chief-1203324907/

Also: am I the only one who saw the extended cut last weekend? I liked the new footage but it didn't really do anything to change the movie at all and is proof that you can add four minutes to any movie that already runs over two hours without making any difference. It's essentially the same as what the "Peter's To Do List" feature for the Blu-ray mentioned in the software forum sounds like. This clip Sony posted to YouTube from that "new exclusive short" is straight out of the extended cut (except for the first shot with "pick up passport" written out.)



In the extended cut, we see scenes glimpsed in the trailers of Peter picking up his passport and other supplies, and then the restaurant scene which was also in the trailer. Very little was not glimpsed before, although I appreciated the opportunity to see it in my theater's premium auditorium, where it hadn't been playing since before Lion King came out.

Also, this a cool scene breakdown with Jake Gyllenhaal that I just found, although he certainly dances around some spoilers:

 

[Sam Favate]

It sounds like Sony is determined to go it alone and see if they can replicate the success of FFH without Marvel. If/when they realize they can't (and for the record, I do not believe they can for reasons stated in this thread, MCU connectivity, etc.), they'll reopen the door to Marvel, but what a shame to do this after leaving the last film on such a cliffhanger. That's really a disservice to the audience.

 

[JayJay]

Not sure if this was asked but will Spidey movies make it to D+?

 

[Jason_V]

It sounds like Sony is determined to go it alone and see if they can replicate the success of FFH without Marvel. If/when they realize they can't (and for the record, I do not believe they can for reasons stated in this thread, MCU connectivity, etc.), they'll reopen the door to Marvel, but what a shame to do this after leaving the last film on such a cliffhanger. That's really a disservice to the audience.

The next movie, regardless of Marvel's involvement, will make a lot of money regardless of the quality of the picture. It will be riding the coattails of Far From Home. When Spider-Man 4 comes along, or any of their other spin offs, we'll see what's gonna happen. And I agree: I don't think Sony can do this alone. They already screwed up Spider-Man 3 and Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Not sure if this was asked but will Spidey movies make it to D+?

They're Sony titles, so I don't think so.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It sounds like Sony is determined to go it alone and see if they can replicate the success of FFH without Marvel.

Sony wanted to extend the agreement, so I don't think they are "determined to go it alone".

 

[Sam Favate]

Sony wanted to extend the agreement, so I don't think they are "determined to go it alone".

That may be, but with Sony saying this week that "the door is closed for now," it suggests that they want to see how they can do without Marvel.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

That may be, but with Sony saying this week that "the door is closed for now," it suggests that they want to see how they can do without Marvel.

From Vinciquerra's comments, it sounds like Sony is going to try and use the good will engendered by the Tom Holland Spider-Man's MCU-set entries to try and prop up Sony's undercooked non-MCU properties, like Venom. Really disappointing, if true; 1) I don't think it will work; and 2) it will make it that much harder to mend fences with Disney in the future if the two sides come to their senses. Either Marvel would have to stomach making those other Sony Spider-adjacent properties part of the MCU canon, which I don't think will ever happen, or the events of the Sony only Spider-Man movies would have to be ignored by subsequent MCU films featuring Spider-Man. And that would be a definite loss for anybody who's invested in both this fictional universe and this version of Spider-Man.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

From Vinciquerra's comments, it sounds like Sony is going to try and use the good will engendered by the Tom Holland Spider-Man's MCU-set entries to try and prop up Sony's undercooked non-MCU properties, like Venom.

I'm not sure Venom needs propping up. It grossed about the same amount of money as Homecoming.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm not sure Venom needs propping up. It grossed about the same amount of money as Homecoming.

That doesn't mean Sony doesn't think there's more money to be had if they shove Tom Holland in the sequel.

Shoving Venom and Spider-Man into a movie is how Spider-Man 3 happened. Creatively, that worked out so well last time.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm not sure Venom needs propping up. It grossed about the same amount of money as Homecoming.

It's only 31 percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. There's definitely a quality gap at play, even if it didn't hurt it much at the box office.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

That doesn't mean Sony doesn't think there's more money to be had if they shove Tom Holland in the sequel.

If the right people were involved to direct and write the script, I think a Tom Holland/Tom Hardy Spider-Man/Venom movie would be incredible. Again, it would depend on the people involved, but the potential is there for something spectacular.

Shoving Venom and Spider-Man into a movie is how Spider-Man 3 happened. Creatively, that worked out so well last time.

Yeah, that one was bad. I don't think anyone defends that movie. I don't think it was bad because Venom was the villain. It was just poorly executed.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Yeah, that one was bad. I don't think anyone defends that movie. I don't think it was bad because Venom was the villain. It was just poorly executed.

It was bad because Sam Raimi didn't want to use Venom. He has admitted this before. He was interested in the Sandman, and he didn't like Venom very much, but Sony said to him, "You're going to use Venom." The movie suffered because the studio interfered with what Raimi wanted to make, and his disinterest shows in the final product.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It's only 31 percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. There's definitely a quality gap at play, even if it didn't hurt it much at the box office.

I don't think studios care about critics scores. They care about audience scores. Venom and Homecoming have pretty similar audience scores on RT (80% vs. 88%).

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It was bad because Sam Raimi didn't want to use Venom. He has admitted this before. He was interested in the Sandman, and he didn't like Venom very much, but Sony said to him, "You're going to use Venom." The movie suffered because the studio interfered with what Raimi wanted to make, and his disinterest shows.

Yes, that's correct. Avi Arad even admits that was a terrible mistake. I just don't think we can assume that they would interfere like that again after the success of Venom and Spider-Verse. I could be wrong though. If it turns out to be garbage, I'll be happy to trash it.