I have a hard time understanding what Sony's plan is at this point (if there is one at all). If they wanted to build to a Sinister Six-type movie then they've already failed because two of their building blocks are outright disasters. Not only would people not be excited for a crossover featuring this version of Morbius or these Spider-Women, Sony probably won't even be able to get the actors back.
And if the plan is to just make stand-alone movies (based on the recent interviews they seemingly want to pivot away from a shared universe) then making cheap villain-focused movies is not gonna bring in any significant amounts of money.
I've also seen people suggest that the only reason these movies exist is because they help Sony hold onto the Spider-Man rights. Now, what we do know is that in order to hold on to the Spidey rights, Sony must commence production on a new Spider-Man film within three years & nine months and release it within five years & nine months after the release of the preceding film.
What we don't know, however, is whether these villain movies extend this deal or not. And even if they do then Sony putting out three of them in the same year indicates that holding on to the rights is not their only motivation.
You are overthinking it. Sony is making them cause CBM movies were huge and at one point it felt like Marvel could spin any character into a movie and it would print money. They happen to own the most popular Marvel character. But they want a cinematic universe. So they're just pumping out content based on what they have, but the CBM bubbles is bursting now and not only are they late to the party, but their movies are crap. So it's a double edged sword crafting disaster. But make no mistake, this is entirely an attempt to exploit their license and pump out content cause they think we are morons who will watch anything.
You are overthinking it. Sony is making them cause CBM movies were huge and at one point it felt like Marvel could spin any character into a movie and it would print money. They happen to own the most popular Marvel character. But they want a cinematic universe. So they're just pumping out content based on what they have, but the CBM bubbles is bursting now and not only are they late to the party, but their movies are crap. So it's a double edged sword crafting disaster. But make no mistake, this is entirely an attempt to exploit their license and pump out content cause they think we are morons who will watch anything.
I'm sure this is a stupid question. With Sony's Spider-Man Universe....why can't they just have Peter Parker/Spider-Man in one of them?
They have the film rights. Surely if they wanted Tom Holland or any other past or new take on Spider-Man, they could, right? Is anything stopping them? I imagine if you wanted an extra draw, there's one right there.
I'm sure this is a stupid question. With Sony's Spider-Man Universe....why can't they just have Peter Parker/Spider-Man in one of them?
They have the film rights. Surely if they wanted Tom Holland or any other past or new take on Spider-Man, they could, right? Is anything stopping them? I imagine if you wanted an extra draw, there's one right there.
Not a stupid question because we really don't know. When Sony was first planning these spin-offs, I think they were trying to make them with the idea that they are "MCU adjacent". Meaning if there is little to no contradictions with the greater MCU, to the average joe they could very well take place in the same universe. So as a result, it could only be Tom Holland but it they had him pop up, it could potentially lead to questions or issues on how they mesh with the MCU movies. It was reported by a lot of different people at the time that Tom Holland was on set for 2 days on the first Venom and filmed a cameo as Peter (not Spidey). But later on there were reports that Marvel requested that Sony nix it in the final cut.
But that was there intial plans. Once Sony decided to be like, it's multiverse, it can be whatever we want, you'd think they would utilize a version of Spider-Man. It's possible that there is a stipulation in the Sony/Disney deal is that the live action Peter Parker version of Spider-Man can only be utilized for the MCU movies. That kinda makes a little sense, given the Noir tv show in devlopment isn't even about Peter but a new character. But that seems like Sony is giving away too much power to Disney. I could see that being the case for the first deal they made in 2015 when Sony was in desperate situation with the hacks and poor fiscal year. But I can't see Sony agreeing to those terms in 2019 for their second deal after Sony had bounced back.
But honestly from everything I've heard about the production for Morbius and now Mademe Web, it doesn't really seem like they even have a clue. They are just throwing things to the wall and changing things all the time.
I'm sure this is a stupid question. With Sony's Spider-Man Universe....why can't they just have Peter Parker/Spider-Man in one of them?
They have the film rights. Surely if they wanted Tom Holland or any other past or new take on Spider-Man, they could, right? Is anything stopping them? I imagine if you wanted an extra draw, there's one right there.
I dont have access to the contract, so I cannot verify I am right but I strongly think I am:
Sony and Marvel Studios have a deal to co-produce Spider-Man films, so I think Spider-Man appearing in live action would violate that deal because there is probably some kind of non-compete clause. Meaning, Sony probably cannot make their own Peter Parker Spider-Man films while they have the deal with Marvel Studios. Hence why we won't be getting a Tobey or Andrew led Spider-Man film anytime soon
But SF, what about Spiderverse? Animation and live action rights are different, so animation is probably okay.
Sony has been talking about a Miles Morales movie in live action recently, so maybe they're working on something that would allow that. But notice in Madame Web
they never say Peter Parker by name nor May's name when Cassandra asks Ben what is his girlfriend's name and why May isn't at the baby shower, but Ben Parker wasnt in a Marvel Studios movie, so no conflict
Like I said, I cannot prove this but I just know I am right
Not a stupid question because we really don't know. When Sony was first planning these spin-offs, I think they were trying to make them with the idea that they are "MCU adjacent". Meaning if there is little to no contradictions with the greater MCU, to the average joe they could very well take place in the same universe. So as a result, it could only be Tom Holland but it they had him pop up, it could potentially lead to questions or issues on how they mesh with the MCU movies. It was reported by a lot of different people at the time that Tom Holland was on set for 2 days on the first Venom and filmed a cameo as Peter (not Spidey). But later on there were reports that Marvel requested that Sony nix it in the final cut.
But that was there intial plans. Once Sony decided to be like, it's multiverse, it can be whatever we want, you'd think they would utilize a version of Spider-Man. It's possible that there is a stipulation in the Sony/Disney deal is that the live action Peter Parker version of Spider-Man can only be utilized for the MCU movies. That kinda makes a little sense, given the Noir tv show in devlopment isn't even about Peter but a new character. But that seems like Sony is giving away too much power to Disney. I could see that being the case for the first deal they made in 2015 when Sony was in desperate situation with the hacks and poor fiscal year. But I can't see Sony agreeing to those terms in 2019 for their second deal after Sony had bounced back.
Honestly from everything I've heard about the production for Morbius and now Mademe Web, it doesn't really seem like they even have a clue. They are just throwing things to the wall and changing things all the time.
Actually, I think the changes to Madame Web and Morbius suggest Marvel Studios stepped in and said Sony cannot legally do what they're trying to do, and so they made all these clumsy changes as to not be sued.
I dont have access to the contract, so I cannot verify I am right but I strongly think I am:
Sony and Marvel Studios have a deal to co-produce Spider-Man films, so I think Spider-Man appearing in live action would violate that deal because there is probably some kind of non-compete clause. Meaning, Sony probably cannot make their own Peter Parker Spider-Man films while they have the deal with Marvel Studios. Hence why we won't be getting a Tobey or Andrew led Spider-Man film anytime soon
But SF, what about Spiderverse? Animation and live action rights are different, so animation is probably okay.
Sony has been talking about a Miles Morales movie in live action recently, so maybe they're working on something that would allow that. But notice in Madame Web
they never say Peter Parker by name nor May's name when Cassandra asks Ben what is his girlfriend's name and why May isn't at the baby shower, but Ben Parker wasnt in a Marvel Studios movie, so no conflict
Like I said, I cannot prove this but I just know I am right
Actually, I think the changes to Madame Web and Morbius suggest Marvel Studios stepped in and said Sony cannot legally do what they're trying to do, and so they made all these clumsy changes as to not be sued.
Actually yea you bring up a lot of good points. As long as they are continuing to work with each other, Marvel Studios proably still has the power to not allow Peter to show up. So it probably goes back to my point that there's a stipulation in their deal about usage of Peter Parker in live action.
I dont have access to the contract, so I cannot verify I am right but I strongly think I am:
Sony and Marvel Studios have a deal to co-produce Spider-Man films, so I think Spider-Man appearing in live action would violate that deal because there is probably some kind of non-compete clause. Meaning, Sony probably cannot make their own Peter Parker Spider-Man films while they have the deal with Marvel Studios. Hence why we won't be getting a Tobey or Andrew led Spider-Man film anytime soon
But SF, what about Spiderverse? Animation and live action rights are different, so animation is probably okay.
Sony has been talking about a Miles Morales movie in live action recently, so maybe they're working on something that would allow that. But notice in Madame Web
they never say Peter Parker by name nor May's name when Cassandra asks Ben what is his girlfriend's name and why May isn't at the baby shower, but Ben Parker wasnt in a Marvel Studios movie, so no conflict
Like I said, I cannot prove this but I just know I am right
Actually yea you bring up a lot of good points. As long as they are continuing to work with each other, Marvel Studios proably still has the power to not allow Peter to show up. So it probably goes back to my point that there's a stipulation in their deal about usage of Peter Parker in live action.
Yep, and I also think the agreement is why Freshman Year ended up becoming not proper MCU or Tom Holland and why What If Spider-Man looks like off brand Tom Holland. Sony probably vetoed it cause of the changes they had to make to Morbius and such. Remember, the writer of Kraven years ago said Spider-Man was in the script he was writing and early Madame Web rumors were about defending Mary Parker and her baby, not 3 Spider-Women. Would also explain why Ezekiel looks like a dubbed Godzilla movie actor in this movie
"I haven't actually seen the movie [Laughs]," Johnson reveals in the video below. "I probably won't...I don't know when I'll see it. Someday." That's probably not the best admission to make while trying to sell people on a Marvel movie once meant to launch a new standalone franchise and potential spin-offs.
She can barely conceal her contempt for the movie within the movie itself. The emotional climax to her arc (terms used loosely) is absolutely hysterical in how profoundly she does not give a single ****.
She can barely conceal her contempt for the movie within the movie itself. The emotional climax to her arc (terms used loosely) is absolutely hysterical in how profoundly she does not give a single ****.
Yep, and I also think the agreement is why Freshman Year ended up becoming not proper MCU or Tom Holland and why What If Spider-Man looks like off brand Tom Holland. Sony probably vetoed it cause of the changes they had to make to Morbius and such. Remember, the writer of Kraven years ago said Spider-Man was in the script he was writing and early Madame Web rumors were about defending Mary Parker and her baby, not 3 Spider-Women. Would also explain why Ezekiel looks like a dubbed Godzilla movie actor in this movie
Her mom died in the Amazon, researching spiders, you see. Dakota Johnson returns to learn of her origins, dropping in that she thought her mother hated her (which like... I feel like was introduced literally in this scene like 80 minutes in, but maybe I missed it while laughing). Why would she come to the Amazon to find the super special spider that makes you strong when pregnant? It must be she hated me. Oh wait no vision where she's with the doctor, being told her baby will have an incurable neuromuscular disorder, and Dakota Johnson, looking completely spaced out mumbling "But I'm not sick."
"I haven't actually seen the movie [Laughs]," Johnson reveals in the video below. "I probably won't...I don't know when I'll see it. Someday." That's probably not the best admission to make while trying to sell people on a Marvel movie once meant to launch a new standalone franchise and potential spin-offs.
Probably. In her defense, a lot of actors skip out watching their movies at a premier. They just do the red carpet then bounce when the movie is about to start. But in this particular situation, coupled with how she has been on the press tour, it just adds to it lol.
Probably. In her defense, a lot of actors skip out watching their movies at a premier. They just do the red carpet then bounce when the movie is about to start. But in this particular situation, coupled with how she has been on the press tour, it just adds to it lol.
I'm not an actor so who know how I'd feel if I was one but not seeing your own movie even once is so weird to me. You hate watching yourself so much that you also skip out on seeing what everyone else working on the film accomplished.
A lot of actors are just jumping on the bandwagon of superhero movies without actually knowing much about them. Some of them a little too late I might add.
The fact that they thought they were joining the MCU and she doesn't even know Tom Holland's Spider-Man movies says a lot. Is just a bigger paycheck for them and promises of franchise money. I don't blame them but, come on, put a little effort into what you're getting into. Just looking at Sony's previous outings should give you some kind of clue.
I'm not an actor so who know how I'd feel if I was one but not seeing your own movie even once is so weird to me. You hate watching yourself so much that you also skip out on seeing what everyone else working on the film accomplished.
Some actors just don't want to watch their own performances. Not as uncommon as you would think, but other times since they lived that movie for months or a year, they're just over it
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
