The point they were making is that there have been five Spider-man movies before, between the Raimi trilogy and the two ASMs. Spider-man is well-trodden ground, so it makes sense to spice it up a bit. Lean more heavily on what the MCU can offer.
Black Panther and Ant Man were already new to audiences.
I got the point, I just don't agree. If anything, it comes off as a crutch, spider-man has plenty of material to draw from without having to be entrenched in the MCU factor to the point where they rid of meaningful characters like Uncle Ben. And its two films, Homecoming it made sense -I'll give you that. But the second film just eh... I understand the correlation between the ending of the Avengers film leading up to Far from Home and the emotional toll, etc.
Honestly, it comes down to my bias towards how characterization and storytelling is told in these films to the benefit of the Universe tie-in factor and having to be invested in the MCU, whereas with Raimi spidey films, he just told good stories without all that (And a great one with Spider-man 2).
It's like, I have now wait for the potential set-up of a Spider-man film some time down the line that is as impactful to me as Spider-man 2? Hey, no qualms with folks who are good with how they approach MCU stuff. For me, its all just a detriment to keeping it in the MCU family when its been proven -established character or not, that you can have a solo film without the MCU formula going overboard.
I guess that's why I thought the recent Into the Spiderverse film was an amazing and genuine experience because it's so divorced of the MCU formula. It's a Marvel film that actually gambled and took chances which paid off.