Andy Serkis is directing? Dammit.. Now i'm interestedAndy Serkis is directing? Niiiiice.
I'm surprised with how many is not in favor of Spiderman school trips.and hopefully Sony doesn't ever get the idea of sticking Iron Lad into their universe.
I guess she is the film's secondary antagonist.
You must be registered for see mediasA case for why Venom doesn't need Spiderman.
Carnage might have some new tricks.
Andy Serkis is directing? Dammit.. Now i'm interested
Not in favor of Spider-Man being a Spider-Boy still in high schoolI'm surprised with how many is not in favor of Spiderman school trips.
Power move: Morbius does well enough on its own that Sony can negotiate for Blade, and they start making Blade solo films. Crossover between Blade and Morbius optional, but those Wesley Snipes films did pretty well on their own (except for Trinity, we don't talk about that one).Yep, Venom doesn't need Spiderman, but i kinda want Morbius there.
I'm gonna break ranks and say Spiderman should pop up. He's the most popular character Sony has access to and most of the other characters they can use are built around him. So Sony using Spiderman later makes sense. I don't think it has to be the Tom Holland take on Peter Parker or even Peter Parker.
The Marvel Universe has many Spider-People and that's not even getting into the multiverse. So each sub-franchise could have their own Spider-person as antagonist/mentor/sidekick etc.
It's probably more ambitious than what Sony is gonna end up doing but that's my pitch.
Not in favor of Spider-Man being a Spider-Boy still in high school
Not in favor of Peter crying over Tony like he was actual family and more important than Uncle Ben, even though Tony was acting like the villain in a teenage-oriented romcom the entire time (blackmails Peter and sends him to another country, bribes with fancy gifts to shut him up and call favors with him later, tries to get with Aunt May while also acting behind her back, keeps tabs on Peter while also not talking to him, etc)
Not in favor of Yet Another Enemy of Spider-Man being a product of Tony's negligence, making them his enemy, not Peter's. Next thing we know, Norman Osborne is going to be mad that Tony cheated him out of a deal back in the day and somehow Peter will get himself embroiled into it.
Not in favor of Peter being basically Tony's sugar baby sidekick who somehow keeps being gifted lethal tech for no reason, especially lethal tech that proves Tony didn't learn a damn thing after Age of Ultron (just like he destroyed all his suits in IM3 and then made the Iron Legion anyway) because some dumb writer in this universe thinks involving him in continuous Patriot-Act-parallel behaviors is a good look.
Not in favor of MCU's refusal to let Peter grow up, that they told Tom Holland to drop the "manly swagger" he got from filming the Uncharted movie. Tom is in his mid-20s. Let him act like it instead of this tired Dawson Casting.
Anyone in favor of that doesn't actually care about comic book accuracy and honoring the characters, because Peter has punched Tony in the face for being his usual self, and isn't attached to his hip. Making Tony the Central Character of the MCU and a parallel to effing Thanos was a mistake.
They should've just cast Ty Simpkins (the kid from Iron Man 3) in solo Iron Lad films or given him a backdoor pilot in Iron Man 4 just to give RDJ something to do, and left Spider-Man alone. What does Peter gain from having his rogues gallery turned into "They all got screwed by Stark and hate him, and Peter is just a proxy!", exactly?
Power move: Morbius does well enough on its own that Sony can negotiate for Blade, and they start making Blade solo films. Crossover between Blade and Morbius optional, but those Wesley Snipes films did pretty well on their own (except for Trinity, we don't talk about that one).
So which part's turned you off the MCU,I gotta say, Spiderman in MCU have involved in 'avengers level threat', would've been a downgrade if he finally enters his neighborhood that has nothing to do with the MCU, and maybe that's also what the upper guys think. Not that I care about MCU Spiderman, or MCU.
@absolitude I just figured the MCU producers don't really care about the Sony films beyond who they want to use for themselves.
To follow @Morgan 's suggestion, they might give Sony limited use of Blade if they can use Venom in a future Spiderman film.
Sony and Disney worked out a co-ownership of Spiderman's film rights.
Man, how are you so on point?So which part's turned you off the MCU,
the movies being advertisements for further movies?
the ensemble movies distilling the characters into stereotypes as if all development and nuance goes to die?
the reliance on lesser known directors to toe the company line with the expectation that they don't have full creative control over the work (see: Edgar Wright)?
the forgettable soundtrack that not even the people that watched these movies can hum a theme from off the top of their head? (Avengers doesn't count)
the overreliance on bathos?
the lack of immediate and lasting stakes until the plot calls for it? (It took until Civil War to address anything starting from the Battle of New York onward, and somehow only 74 people died in an alien invasion to which the first response from the World Security Council was to nuke an entire city to fix, and the Accords violate any type of constitutional law and skip every bit of due process to do it. What mouth-breather thought that that was a stable backdrop to carry CW?)
I mean, it could be all of these things combined, and I can see the point.
Kinda hard to sell that Spider-Man is "fighting for the little guy" when he's backed by a billionaire, magic-kicked Thanos a bunch, and fought an army of Outriders. They should just give him a hook-up to Captain Universe's powers and let him go Cosmic.
How were schools affording field trips after the Snap given how dire everything was made to look in TFatWS?
Meanwhile, Sony can keep making Spiderverse and Venom-related movies just to provide variety and so Disney doesn't own Absolutely Everything. Example: who owns the rights to use Mr. Negative/Martin Li's character? They could introduce him in the next Venom movie (if not this one) and create the Anti-Venom symbiote to fix that "weakness to sound" issue. Or they could do Agent Venom with an original, non-Flash-Thompson character to get into a different genre. Whatever works.
You're not wrong, but you could've just linked to the specific villains you were thinking of. That's a whole gallery of someone else's pet project turning miscellaneous characters into Spider-Man-centric ones hooked completely to him, including Kingpin's lackeys, which has a firmer association with Daredevil with the TV series and previous movie making those two enemies.Sony may not need Spiderman but they definitely should use his villians. Specifically the obscure ones. He's been around for 60 odd years, he has plenty he could spare.
Revamping these C/D list villians is a good way to bolster the heroes Sony could use. Plus its less likely the MCU would care to use some of the more obscure ones.