Far From Home Spider-Man: Far From Home General Discussion and Speculation - Part 2

[shinlyle]

In regards to the future of the franchise, I completely agree. I don't entirely trust Sony to give us wonderful movies either. But that doesn't diminish the quality of the existing MCU Spider-Man movies. Even if the next one with Tom Holland and no Marvel Studios ends up being subpar. Now, the post-credits scene can be bittersweet if they never do anything with that, but that's really about it for me.

That said, I really do hope no matter what the future holds for Spiderman that we still get good movies. Whether he is in the MCU or not. I do not wish Spiderman failure simply because he can't hang out with the Avengers. But these movies are going to live and die by the merits of their quality.

Same. As I've always said, I'm a Spider-Man fan first and foremost. Barring an outright horrible adaptation where Spider-Man is a kneeling to Satan or does nothing but talk politics for 2 hours (same thing, really), I'll be there.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Why are we operating under the assumption that they can't use the Supporting Cast? I get guys like Happy not being able to come back, but why would that affect anybody else that's a Spider-Man character? Why wouldn't say Ned fall under the same restriction Tom Holland does? No, you do bring up a decent point about Tom Holland maybe being gone after a third and maybe another movie after that, but I do think Sony is going to attempt to make him sign a longer-term deal. If he does then they're in a much better position

I’m talking as if they aren’t signed for a 3rd movie. This Marvel/Sony split could have rubbed them the wrong way and if they're bitter about it, then they could just say the hell with it and not do the 3rd movie. I honestly don't think they'd do that, but it's a possibility.

 

[Frodo]

In regards to the future of the franchise, I completely agree. I don't entirely trust Sony to give us wonderful movies either. But that doesn't diminish the quality of the existing MCU Spider-Man movies. Even if the next one with Tom Holland and no Marvel Studios ends up being subpar. Now, the post-credits scene can be bittersweet if they never do anything with that, but that's really about it for me.

That said, I really do hope no matter what the future holds for Spiderman that we still get good movies. Whether he is in the MCU or not. I do not wish Spiderman failure simply because he can't hang out with the Avengers. But these movies are going to live and die by the merits of their quality.

Totally agree with you. This is my position as well. Its interesting to see how many people who claim to be "Spiderman fans" seem to want the next film to be horrible or fail under Sony . I can understand being mad at Sony for the deal ending, but then wanting the next film to fail , which means Holland's Spiderman ,has a failed film, is pretty wrong.

I suppose there's some assumption fans have that that will cause Sony to come begging back to Disney, but given Sony's history, if the next film is bad or underperforms , I could totally see Sony deciding just to reboot without Holland or Marvel. Failure of 3 , doesn't automatically mean Sony is gonna go back to Disney and bring Spiderman back to the MCU. As a fan, that's a gamble I wouldn't want to make.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I’m talking as if they aren’t signed for a 3rd movie. This Marvel/Sony split could have rubbed them the wrong way and if they're bitter about it, then they could just say the hell with it and not do the 3rd movie. I honestly don't think they'd do that, but it's a possibility.

Well, none of them are big stars, so...I think career wise, most of them would likely return to their roles. And if they don't, well, I'm not particularly attached to these versions of MJ, Flash, or Betty.

 

[Fallen]

 

[Spider-Fan]

Like I said in the other thread, the movie has been out for 2 months and this re-release has very minimal changes. If you're thinking this is going to be some type of message or sign of things to come to Sony, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Web-Head]

Has nothing to do with the deal

 

[Herofan]

WHY does no one get this?! Would you rather have half of a billion dollars, or would you rather have 100% of 300 million? Pretty simple.

All of $600, let alone $750 million, is a lot better though.

Once Spidey is out of the MCU, the tie-ins, cameos, assists, and over-arching plots STOP, and we're left with just Spidey stuff. Now, that's fine, and it CAN be good, but without King Kevin there to pop Sony in the face, we end up with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man 3....again. Rush things, never think it though, and make sure it's spectacle over substance and heart. That's the Sony way.

I don't get the idea that TASM2 was rushed; it's often accused of being just rushing to get to the Sinister Six-it had, in over two hours, two villains and also two or maybe three cameos (two of whom are not part of the Sinister Six and one of whom was very much was not actually a villain in the film and whose role was very brief). The death of Gwen was pretty rushed, or more so squandered, that was a pretty bad idea but at least understandable and at least trying rather than just empty spectacle.

 

[Spider-Fan]

For those of you interested in the Extended Cut,

Spoiler

they basically add the stuff with the passport checklist and the crime family toward the beginning of the movie, and then there's a scene added right before Mysterio arrives in London where he and his crew activates the pulse which then segues into Fury and Hill talking about the pulse spike in London and calling Mysterio

 

[shinlyle]

All of $600, let alone $750 million, is a lot better though.



I don't get the idea that TASM2 was rushed; it's often accused of being just rushing to get to the Sinister Six-it had, in over two hours, two villains and also two or maybe three cameos (two of whom are not part of the Sinister Six and one of whom was very much was not actually a villain in the film and whose role was very brief). The death of Gwen was pretty rushed, or more so squandered, that was a pretty bad idea but at least understandable and at least trying rather than just empty spectacle.

Weeelllll...You had Lizard (sorta) in the first movie. You had a very pitiful Electro....let me rephrase that...you had the worst Spidey villain since Topher-Venom, and you shoe-horned in Green Goblin...and not even the correct Goblin. If they wanted a proper Sinister Six, they should have alluded to maybe Spidey taking down villains BETWEEN the films, and showing some of them already imprisoned at Ravencroft. Having Oscorp invent all their tech and introducing it in such a ham-fisted way was silly. Also, if they wanted people to be hyped for a Sinister 6 film, they should have maybe NOT shown the following things in the previews for the film:

1) The Sinister Six easter egg reveal.

Pretty much that.

Sony has a bad tendency of overhyping things, then they drop the ball or don't deliver. See Spider-Man 3 for the best example of "How to Screw Things Up The Sony Way". The easiest possible landing to stick, and they botched it. Now, they may get a NEW Spider-Man 3 right, but it'll be in SPITE of Sony, not because of them. Spider-Verse is a fine example of something succeeding with the Sony name attached.

 

[shinlyle]

For those of you interested in the Extended Cut,

Spoiler

they basically add the stuff with the passport checklist and the crime family toward the beginning of the movie, and then there's a scene added right before Mysterio arrives in London where he and his crew activates the pulse which then segues into Fury and Hill talking about the pulse spike in London and calling Mysterio

Meh. If we don't hit the beach this weekend, I might see it. Just because it'll be another month or 3 before we see the Blu-ray of it...

 

[JOE]

If SONY and Disney had renewed for 10 more years the sales would be the same. They should have included it in the original cut. Poor marketing if you ask me. There isn't that much hype for this movie for people to go back. I've already seen the one scene on Twitter, it's great, but I'm not spending $20 to see it.

 

[Herofan]

Having Oscorp invent all their tech and introducing it in such a ham-fisted way was silly. Also, if they wanted people to be hyped for a Sinister 6 film, they should have maybe NOT shown the following things in the previews for the film:

1) The Sinister Six easter egg reveal.

Pretty much that.

Sony has a bad tendency of overhyping things, then they drop the ball or don't deliver.

I guess that is a real bad studio idea and tendency and yet one I personally don't care about because I often don't watch trailers ...

See Spider-Man 3 for the best example of "How to Screw Things Up The Sony Way". The easiest possible landing to stick, and they botched it.

I also think that wasn't as bad as often claimed and not Sony's fault; Sam himself wanted to do a story about Spider-Man being darker and more vengeful and then forgiving, Sony/Arad said let's have the symbiote/Venom, which does fit with those themes. They definitely should have yes, saved actually having Venom until a fourth film but Sam was the one who wanted to not end the third film on that kind of unresolved cliffhanger.

 

[shinlyle]

I guess that is a real bad studio idea and tendency and yet one I personally don't care about because I often don't watch trailers ...



I also think that wasn't as bad as often claimed and not Sony's fault; Sam himself wanted to do a story about Spider-Man being darker and more vengeful and then forgiving, Sony/Arad said let's have the symbiote/Venom, which does fit with those themes. They definitely should have yes, saved actually having Venom until a fourth film but Sam was the one who wanted to not end the third film on that kind of unresolved cliffhanger.

With Sony, it's a good idea NOT to watch trailers! They tend to give EVERYTHING away! ASM2 actually had Gwen's death, The Sinister 6 reveal, the final scene, the main actin sequence, the villain's origin, Harry as the Goblin, and even additional scenes that were deleted in the trailers. I feel I got more out of the trailers than the film, sometimes. Which SUCKS, because I WANTED to love it.

As for Spider-man 3, forcing the director to include a character he expressly doesn't want to include, especially one with such a thick origin story as Venom, is a bad idea. I've said since it happened, we should have had a film with the black suit, and leave Venom (a proper Venom, not Topher-Venom) for a part 4. Basically, they should have have just done what The Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon did a few months after SM3's release. Still the best black suit/Venom saga.

 

[Ninjablade]

Watched some of the extended cut footage on YouTube. Definitely stuff I can wait for the home release to watch in better quality, but I liked it. The pawn shop stuff really adds to the character, kinda wish they were able to keep some mention of that scene in the movie. The restaurant fight was cool. The OP nature of the Iron Spider suit is a little much for me, but that was some of Spidey’s best on screen quipping.

 

[terry78]

The IMAX near me is showing it this weekend so I may go ahead and do it since I have A-list

 

[Spider-Fan83]

Again it really comes down to what Sony can and cannot do legally in regards to the sequel. If they can use all the plot elements except for MCU specific things like mentions of Tony Stark or happy Hogan or whatever then they can easily get around that no problem. But if it is going to be kind of like a reboot just with Tom Holland in the role, then yes that's going to be a bit of a challenge

I don't think even if they wanted to continue where the story left off it'd be all that difficult, even as a soft reboot, just have him start as a Spidey who had his name revealed, an is now wanted... he goes on the run leaving behind his family an friends (to keep them safe not wanting to involve them) changes his looks/ his name (having him go by Ben as his fake name would be a nice touch) both as a nod to Ben Reilly/Scarlet-Spider an to finally acknowledge uncle Ben in some way

it's not like Spider-Man being labeled a "Criminal" by the Daily Bugle isn't a common theme in the comics (his wouldn't exclusively have to be a reference to the events of the last movie, if there's certain things they can't talk about) but it would still work as a continuation

if they want to tie it into the Venom movie Eddie/Venom now thinking of himself as something of a hero (even if he's more of an anti-hero in reality) have Venom trying to track him down (mean while Carnage is on the loose, an eye-wittiness have mistaking him for Spider-man) so people now think Spider-man is out on a killing spree... Eddie finds Peter hiding out under a new name, and confronts/fights him, Peter claims that he's innocence and has been framed, Eddie doesn't believe him at first, but then Venom has an encounter with Carnage himself and realizes Peter might have been right and they team up to take down Carnage and give Spider-man a chance to at least clear him name of those murders

as for new supporting cast (since most of the old supporting cast was in name only) why couldn't they do the opposite have new characters who look like classic characters from the comics but are never mentioned by name? like being on a run he rents out a room from a nice little old lady (who he tells people is his "Aunt" as part of his cover) living next-door there is a cute redhead named Mary (not referred to as Mary Jane or MJ) that he has a few interacts with as he's coming and going from the house, just to keep up appearance, and not wanting to stand out, but is afraid to get to close too anyone that they might realize who he is (plus he still has a gf waiting for him back home in Michelle, if or when he can clear his name) he could have some run ins with a tall/buff/blond bully type that he sarcastically referees to as "Flash" to himself (as he reminds him of his old HS bully) like mutters under his breath "I just can't get away from the Flash's of the world, no matter where I go"... tries to recruit help from a reporter Edward Leeds (who doesn't go by "Ned") in clearing his name (but in doing so reveals his id to him, possible setting him up as a future antagonist )... things like that just as examples

would it be a seamless transition ? no ... but it could work

 

[Spider-Fan]

I actually kind of like the idea of Peter using the name Ben Reilly as an alias.

 

[Frodo]

The claims that MJ, Ned and the whole supporting cast will be gone, and that Sony will legally have to reboot, is based off of online fan speculation and geek punditry, of what Sony and can or can't do, and based on a contract that they haven't seen.

Bottom line ,is none of the fans or geek pundits know exactly what Sony or Disney can or cannot do as far as the next film goes. In that sense, we're in uncharted terrortory.

What we know for sure is that MCU characters can't appear or referenced to.

As far as the production goes,the one person who seems in question at this point is Jon Watts since he apparently hasn't signed to another film yet.

My guess is that the next film won't be a reboot, it will be more of a shifting of focus. All the MCU stuff happened to this Spiderman and they're not gonna act like it didn't happen. SMHC and SMFFH were produced by Sony , not Disney , so they aren't disavow them. They're also not gonna disavow what they don't produce , CACW, AIW and AE.

At the same time, those films are not gonna be mentioned or referenced to, save the outing of the identity.

They'll assume that the audience already knows his backstory but that the narrative focus is shifting from a MCU to one in which Spiderman is the center of the universe as opposed to be one of several different heroes across the galaxy and cosmos.

 

[MrSpyder]

I went to see it again last night and when the Sony logo came on at the opening I heard someone booing, pretty funny.

 

[X Knight]

so, I know I'm super late in seeing this, but I FINALLY got caught up on Homecoming, Far From Home, Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame, etc.

saw the extended cut of this today with my dad, only like 5 other people in the theater. I liked Homecoming and Far From Home for what they are, and I like Tom as Peter. I had fun watching both films.

But, neither film really excites me as a Spider-Man fan. And that's because outside of Tom as Peter, everything else just feels foreign and different.

His supporting cast is largely unrecognizable. Why not just make Betty look like Betty, or just call her Gwen if you're going to make her look like Gwen. Why can't Flash be the tall, good looking smart jock that all the girls love? Why not include a Harry Osborn or a Randy Robertson?

And why can't MJ actually be Mary Jane instead of some character called Michelle? Why not just leave the character as Michelle and create a new character, which she essentially was? If you insist on calling her MJ, why not just make her Mary Jane Watson and have the character look and act more like the character (which Zendaya is capable of)?

You could have told the same basic storylines in both Homecoming and Far From Home with a supporting cast that was more faithful to the comics. And, as Spectacular Spider-Man show proved, you could have had a fairly diverse cast, too, without really changing much.

the other issue I have with this Spidey is that he's too reliant on tech and fancy suits and all of it comes from Stark. To me, that takes away some of the appeal of Spider-Man ( everyman who has to struggle with real life issues like bills, etc. ).

 

[bubbadoom]

Marvel gotta get that money.

SONY getting all this money...

 

[Jordanstine]

 

[terry78]

Sigh

 

[GwensNeckBrace]

Grace is a clown and not to be trusted