So this is a two movie contract, right? (One spiderman movie and an appearance in some other mcu movie)
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sony, Marvel Make Up: Companies Will Produce Third ‘Spider-Man’ Film
- Thread starter Smokeymicpot
- Start date
Sony has had various different Marvel movies at various different stages of production for many years. I think they just like to have plans in case they ever get the right opportunity to implement them.
They had a director attached to a Sinister Six film in 2014, and Amy Pascal has said that it's still going ahead, as recently as last year.
A Venom standalone movie was initially planned as a spin off from Spider-Man 3 [2007], then in 2014 they said it would spin off from The Amazing Spider-Man 3, and ultimately we got the 2018 version, but it had been in some form of development for over a decade.
Silver & Black was in development from around 2013, but now it's in development as a separate Black Cat and a separate Silver Sable movie.
This pattern is remarkably similar to the DCEU method of having a bunch of stuff in production in order to establish a shared universe, but with no clear idea of how to keep all the pieces in balance or how to tell a meaningful serialised story across multiple films (something that really only Kevin Feige at Marvel and to a lesser extent The Conjuring creative team have ever been able to pull off).
I think they intend to go ahead with these other movies (Morbius is coming out, for example), but the question of whether Spider-Man (Tom Holland or anyone else) will appear in them. These movies would be happening no matter what, but this deal is for custody over Peter Parker.
yep there are endless examples. never see anyone make a fuss of that.
Spider-Man being under the wing of another adult male figure in no way devalues/replaces his relationship and history with Ben Parker.
MCU haters just dislike it being Tony here even though it makes complete sense, Tony Stark is the foundation of the MCU.
Deadline says Disney came back to the table after d23 plus this new deals seems to be letting Sony use Spider-Man in their movies so this seems like more a win-win with Sony having the edge
so far yeah, and hopefully it continues.
With how FFH ended and the recent Disney+ announcement, I hope my dream comes true and She-Hulk partners with Peter in the next movie, and that other MCU movie is Fantastic Four (also with a She-Hulk appearance plz!)
Sounds like it. Maybe the original five picture arrangement was considered too long so now they're going with shorter deals so they can have more control?
He had a complete meltdown. Most likely blocked anybody from resetera. He made pedo accusations about the site as well as ddos threats.
What? Sony can use spider-man whenever they want, They have his movie rights.
I have to imagine that the straw that broke Disney's back was realizing they're giving the Morbius guy the Spiderman gigs
Executive: "What do we have on tap?"
Producer: "It's a movie about Madame Web. She's an old, blind lady who sits in a web and tells Spider-man's fortune."
Executive: "You're fired. Get me on the phone to Disney."
Producer: "It's a movie about Madame Web. She's an old, blind lady who sits in a web and tells Spider-man's fortune."
Executive: "You're fired. Get me on the phone to Disney."
Dr Strange sends Peter to the Venom universe
Spider-Man: A new home
maximum carnage back on the menu
Spider-Man: A new home
maximum carnage back on the menu
I think this is just the contract for Phase 4. However, I fully expect more movies to be added later on. (If Holland continues as Spiderman)
Knew it. Both knew that Spider-Man going back to Sony exclusively was the worst outcome for everyone. They were both just playing chicken to try to get a bigger cut of the pie.
It does feel like Feige always get what he want, lol.
Want out of Ike Perlmutter, got it
Want James Gunn back to gotg3, got it
Want Spider-man in Civil War, got it
Want Spider-man again after break up, got it again
Want to make Star Wars movie, got that too. Lol
ben parker is not mentioned in the movies as far i remember , and the father figure in the movies is stark, where the moral code comes and his inspiration, he's even stark heir in the second movie, so Stark replaced Ben, but relax its ok to like and to not like. One does not make the other right, its taste in the end.
Yepperoni. If this was about public art and not $$$ then Spidey would have been in the public domain ages ago
Well this news is meh since I am lukewarm about any Peter stuff from either Studio (though hopefully it kills the Madame Web pitch, the more I think the more I want one of Sony's non marvel related movies to be Hammerhead/tombstone gang wars) so it's just kind of there.
What so do hope it means is that Sony keeps exclusivity for Spider-Man games. I usually am not a big fan of exclusive stuff especially for major third party IP (and as someone who has no real brand loyalty and shifts their main platform all the time I do feel bad for my Nintendo and Xbox playing people) but considering SM PS4 was First Party and not only the best Spidey game but hands down the best media adaption of Peter outside of comics I want to see more of it, don't fix what's not broken I guess is how I feel.
What so do hope it means is that Sony keeps exclusivity for Spider-Man games. I usually am not a big fan of exclusive stuff especially for major third party IP (and as someone who has no real brand loyalty and shifts their main platform all the time I do feel bad for my Nintendo and Xbox playing people) but considering SM PS4 was First Party and not only the best Spidey game but hands down the best media adaption of Peter outside of comics I want to see more of it, don't fix what's not broken I guess is how I feel.
It was talked about during the Venom movie iirc by the director that Sony couldn't use the Tom Holland Spider-Man while the Sony-MCU Spider-Man contract deal was going on. That's why as soon as the MCU deal was over Sony was saying Tom Holland's Spider-Man will be in their movies.
OP add this please:
Spider-Man Back In Action As Sony Agrees To Disney Co-Fi For New Movie, Return To MCU: How Spidey’s Web Got Untangled
UPDATED with more details: Sony has agreed to the terms that Disney originally proposed for its participation in a third Spider-Man movie, whereby Disney/Marvel would co-finance 25% of a third Homecoming movie for a 25% equity stake. The deal also calls for Spider-Man appearing in one more...deadline.com
The co-fiancing number was reported to be 50%-30% in previous reports.
When you pull off something like Endgame, nobody in their right mind would ever say no to you
I liked most MCU movies including the Spider-man films but they definitely went overboard with the Tony connection and it was the weakest part about FFH.AAAAAAA THE SALT IS ON A ROLL TODAY HOW IVE MISSED THIS MCU STANS NEVER LOSE!!!
You need to learn that criticism isn't anti stanning or salt or whatever.
Why? Lol
I'll never understand why people actively want movies to be bad.
If Disney wants more copies sold they will have it on multiple systems. There is not um 90 million ps5's out there when the next one comes out. There are 90 million other gamers out there though.
He is referred to multiple times in Civil War, Homecoming and Far From Home
I do not trust Sony because unlike MCU and the DC stuff that has people on it who give a fuck, Sony still acts like pre2007.
MCU fandom in a nutshell.AAAAAAA THE SALT IS ON A ROLL TODAY HOW IVE MISSED THIS MCU STANS NEVER LOSE!!!
Initial report were full of misinformation. The original deal was 25%. Sony said no so Disney then raised the co-financing deals up to 50%.
Well, when your track record is shit after shit (for example X-Men movies by Fox) it's more or less understandable. At least from an ironic "let's see how far the shit hole goes" point of view