@Carlos I liked Venom, but can you honestly say it was as good as Homecoming or Far From Home? Look at Sony's last three live-action movies before the deal with Marvel. Spider-Man 3, and The Amazing Spider-Man movies. People still fight over The Amazing Spider-Man movies (They're basically Spider-Man's equivalent to The Last Jedi, only worse since it's two of them). After things fell through with The Amazing Spider-Man movies, Sony didn't even know what they were gonna be doing, if it wasn't for Disney saving their @$$e$ they'd still would probably be clueless
I think the first one was eh... But the next 2 were getting better, and better. It seems like Sony got the knack for it, so when The Amazing Spiderman was released, it was eh, okay. But not as "Eh..." like the first one. I couldn't get over Parker in Spidey 1 & 2. They showed better story progression in the second half of 2, then into 3. Especially when Parker loses the symbiote. He was an @$$hole during the symbiote phase, which kinda gives him character. But once he loses it, he brings back the romantic side of Parker, that Mary Jane instantly loves again. The reason why i don't like the Parker in Spidey 1 through 3 is the portrayal of Parker as this geek. I mean, he was a geek, but for a film...? It was way over the top kind of "geek." Then you got the whole "nice guy" shtick - which makes guys like you and myself look weaker. You need to understand: Films are used as a tool on perceptions of us. So, if a writer wants you to be percieved as a geeky nobody in the basement playing video games all day, that's your brand. I just didn't like Parker then. Which is why I like the new actor playing Parker (Holland). He played the role of Spiderman better than the original Spiderman films. The issue with the new films is that story has holes in it. If you really try to drill down on the plot, you'll realize some dependencies.
I say the same for Smallville. I like the actor, I like the story, but the issue is that it's not really faithful to the story of the comics. Same concept, same idea. In my opinion, Sony had more freedom with Amazing and Far from home films (homecoming, etc). But if you're a comic fan, you'll poke at the plot holes with "why did he do this," and "what just happened?" So, as a casual Spidey fan, I don't realize the issues.
I am not saying that Venom is better than Homecoming and Far from home, but what I am saying is that Sony is doing a good job with those films than the original 3 films. It's because Marvel and Sony were collaborating from time to time, like Marvel gives Sony ideas on where to go with the story of 2 based on 1 (I'm using numbers as hypotheticals). So, if Homecoming has a cliffhanger of sorts, Far from home would have to leave off of that one, unless MCU is right in the middle. I get where Marvel is trying to go with the crossover, but from what I read there, it's more than just money. I mean, it has more to do with money, yes, but at the same time, Sony also realizes that the public's perception of MCU is not good, so Sony shrugs off the partnership and go like "see if I give a ****."
Disney didn't do ****. They just let the partnership go in directions where they may lay. Disney just swoops in and buys Marvel, and expects Spiderman to be in there. They don't even realize Spiderman is a Sony brand now. So, I'm siting here laughing at Disney because they probably bought Marvel with
EVERYTHING included.
EDIT: While I posted this,
@Teal rebutted me, so I'll edit here:
Venom - critical failure but made a little more than 800 million on a 120 million budget.
Far from Home - first Spiderman film in history gross over a billion on a budget of 160 million.
But sure, I'm living under a rock here. You think all those 1.1 billion were grossed because people were enticed by the Sony logo slapped on it or maybe, just maybe, they went there to see the end of an era following the bombastic ending of Endgame?!
Even when Marvel was its own company, they never made money from films in theatres, their money was from the overall franchise. Films on DVD/BD, Shirts, Toys, Books, Games, Mobile Games. List goes on. Disney on the other hand doesn't make money from the films in theatres, either. Because their company is a global media giant. They also make money off franchises - books, films on DVD/BD, Toys, Shirts, Bedsheets, Mobile Games, crappy Video games (YES, CRAPPY), airing their films/shows on TV, and so on and on. The thing is, Disney also has theme parks - that's their entire business. So, yes, they can make money off those films regardless of if they fail at box office. They make money somewhere else. Companies don't worry about losses on films - kinda like the same way Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo doesn't worry about losing money on every console sold. Why? Software.
You need to understand
HOW Marvel operates,
HOW Disney operates to really understand why these companies don't care about losses. The reason why LucasArts was sold, is simple. Lucas doesn't have the manpower to handle all of the business as it was. It was getting too much for him. Star Wars is big, but Lucas doesn't have the manpower to license it out to everyone who wants a piece of the pie. Disney does.
If Sony are adamant to keep the rights, they'll have to never make mention of the MCU and half-ass the rest of the story. They'll lose millions of dollars in tickets from people who aren't interested in that or who will boycott Sony just because they're MCU fanatics.
Nobody will care. I honestly don't care. Even in the MCU, Spidey had a little part in the series. He's just a cameo. Soooo.... That's where Sony is trying to go with this "let's just pull it out of there if they are not going to pay us."
I give this a month or two before the two studios reach an agreement and things are back to normal. Both studios are interested in printing money and this deal wouldn't help their case.
You're right, it's not going to help their case. I agree with you there.