I don't buy it
Some of the things in the video he says does not make any sense.
He claims that Sony changed the names of characters in order to keep Marvel from using those characters if the deal between them ever fell apart. for sample MJ is michelle jones and ganke is ned leeds
but in the case of Aunt may, flash thompson. Betty Brant they all have the same name of their comic book counterparts. It does not matter if they look different they are still named after those characters. So the whole thing about "Hot aunt may" being frozen while Sony can only use old aunt may is ridiculous and I guarantee you that there is nothing in that contract telling them that they now can only cast a 80 year old actress to play aunt may now that the deal with Marvel has ended lol
While i've in no way read the contracts , it actually does sound plausible to me given that the rights are unlikely purely based off of character names alone. They're also dealing with physical characteristics of the characters and a question of which studio owns which character , for lack of a better term.
I'll have to watch the video again, but I thought he was referring to changing of the characteristics of the characters , not the names.
Remember, we're dealing with characters who've been drawn , painted, and animated for decades , so likenesses and descriptions of the characters are in play when you're dealing in this type of legal wrangling. So when it comes to casting the or characterization of Spiderman's supporting cast , their may very well be legal incentive to make sure the designs for the Sony/MCU May, Ned, etc to look quite different from how the character is typically presented in other medium .
The situation may not be so much that they can't cast an 80 year old as Aunt May, but that that 80 who's cast will have to wear a dark hair wig or made to look very different from the likeness of the comics. There's a similar legal situation regarding Bad Robots Star Trek films and CBS/Paramount's Original Star Trek series and films.
Its not as silly as it sounds , because when you're dealing with complex rights issues between two film studios and a vast library of characters , sometimes compromises like this are made in order for everyone to agree on a deal. Their source may be wrong , but I don't think they're making it up.
Spiderman has had film rights issues going back to the 80s, so the idea of there potentially being another hang up wouldn't be that far out of the realm of possibility.
