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

[Herofan]

You don’t see why? Jeez it’s like 2012-2014 doesn’t exist anymore to some of you. Does nobody remember the state Spider-Man was in and the idiots behind the movies bringing the character down and dragging him through the mud?

I don't think Spider-Man was particularly muddy back then. A lot of fans and general audiences did like Garfield and Stone but also thought that TASM2 was too overstuffed with too many villains (I thought it wasn't, a 2 hour+ film having two villains and two or three cameos isn't overstuffed).

Captain America and gotg were bigger movies than Spider-Man.

Many film series do have diminishing financial returns.

 

[fan4stic]

The opening to Amazing Spider-Man 2 was 8 minutes of them dealing with Peter Parker's parents...who were the focus of the first movie. It took them almost 10 minutes to show Spider-Man or Peter Parker, and they had JUST (re)done his origin the first film. Then, they copied Jim Carrey's Riddler with Jamie Fox's Electro. They then attempted to introduce the Sinister 6. Sony, left to it's own devices is like sending a 5 year old kid into Gamestop with $3000, and expecting them to make wise decisions.

They got Spider-Man 1 and 2 right, they struck absolute GOLD with Spider-Verse, and they got lucky (money-wise) with Venom. Now they think they are the best of the best...

...Venom will fight Spider-Man and Carnage in a sequel, mark my words. Then they will have the Sinister 6 fight Spider-Man in the next movie, and they will figure out a way to trip up any Spider-Verse sequels, and the next thing you know, we'll have gotten 3 BAD to MEDIOCRE Spider-Man films in the span of a year, as opposed to 3 GREAT ONES in the span of a year....

...and the character will be damaged again. It's Sony. It's what they do.

Us getting what I think is disappointing movies doesn't mean I think the character needs to be saved. I haven't gotten an MCU Spider-Man movie I've been crazy about either. Maybe not to the same degree as TASM's, but I don't hold MCU's to a high standard, so I don't see this as a strong loss.

 

[Nicko-Ray]

The opening to Amazing Spider-Man 2 was 8 minutes of them dealing with Peter Parker's parents...who were the focus of the first movie. It took them almost 10 minutes to show Spider-Man or Peter Parker, and they had JUST (re)done his origin the first film. Then, they copied Jim Carrey's Riddler with Jamie Fox's Electro. They then attempted to introduce the Sinister 6. Sony, left to it's own devices is like sending a 5 year old kid into Gamestop with $3000, and expecting them to make wise decisions.

They got Spider-Man 1 and 2 right, they struck absolute GOLD with Spider-Verse, and they got lucky (money-wise) with Venom. Now they think they are the best of the best...

...Venom will fight Spider-Man and Carnage in a sequel, mark my words. Then they will have the Sinister 6 fight Spider-Man in the next movie, and they will figure out a way to trip up any Spider-Verse sequels, and the next thing you know, we'll have gotten 3 BAD to MEDIOCRE Spider-Man films in the span of a year, as opposed to 3 GREAT ONES in the span of a year....

...and the character will be damaged again. It's Sony. It's what they do.

In addition, people keep forgetting that SPIDER-VERSE was SPA. The creative was driven from a different team than the live-action Spider-Man films. Also, Lord and Miller drove SPIDER-VERSE. So no, I don't even count SPIDER-VERSE as one of Sony's true wins. That's like counting SKYFALL.

 

[ironwez20]

I don't think Spider-Man was particularly muddy back then. A lot of fans and general audiences did like Garfield and Stone but also thought that TASM2 was too overstuffed with too many villains (I thought it wasn't, a 2 hour+ film having two villains and two or three cameos isn't overstuffed).



Many film series do have diminishing financial returns.

Well you don’t but he was. The character was in a bad spot and I don’t know anyone who like the Garfield movies. Nothing stood out about them except the suit in asm2.

And yea film series have diminishing returns what point are u trying to make? They expected asm2 to do a billion and gotg and cap (two obscure characters at the time) made more

 

[ironwez20]

Us getting what I think is disappointing movies doesn't mean I think the character needs to be saved. I haven't gotten an MCU Spider-Man movie I've been crazy about either. Maybe not to the same degree as TASM's, but I don't hold MCU's to a high standard, so I don't see this as a strong loss.

It’s better to have the character in safe hands then for the character to be destroyed again. Who knows what senile Avi arad is thinking. Remember Norman Osborn head in a jar? Yea that was a thing

 

[shinlyle]

It’s better to have the character in safe hands then for the character to be destroyed again. Who knows what senile Avi arad is thinking. Remember Norman Osborn head in a jar? Yea that was a thing

So was shoe-horning in MJ's introduction into Gwen's farewell movie...instead of maybe giving us another movie with her and ending a trilogy with her dying and MJ maturing...what am I saying? Sony doesn't understand character growth. Don't believe me, watch Spider-Man 3. MJ goes from "leaving a sure thing for her true love" to "I want you to stop pretending like you can relate to me because New York hates you every 3 days and you almost die in the line of duty! MY PLAY FLOPPED! MORE IMPORTANT!!"

How do you go from Spider-Man 2 to...well...everything else?

 

[Herofan]

And yea film series have diminishing returns what point are u trying to make? They expected asm2 to do a billion and gotg and cap (two obscure characters at the time) made more

A 5th movie being outperformed can be disappointing but not embarrassing, let alone indication of a disaster situation (though it was embarrassing for Sony to have such high expectations). Cap wasn't obscure after the recent The Avengers though yes, being outperformed by Guardians did show preferences had shifted and interest in and liking of the Garfield films was too low.

 

[ironwez20]

A 5th movie being outperformed can be disappointing but not embarrassing, let alone indication of a disaster situation (though it was embarrassing for Sony to have such high expectations). Cap wasn't obscure after the recent The Avengers though yes, being outperformed by Guardians did show preferences had shifted and interest in and liking of the Garfield films was too low.

Well I mean this was a reboot and this was caps second movie that released in April and exceeded expectations

 

[Frodo]

Which is possible. But I am not assuming that will happen just by default. I am giving them a chance.

This is basically where i'm at too. Sony may very well run the series back into the ground as they've done twice before , but I'm not gonna judge a film which hasn't been cast, is still being written, hasn't shot a frame of film , and probably won't be out until 2021 or 2022.

I can say what I want about about how I feel about Sony's handling of the franchise in the past, but unless I can travel to 2022 tomorrow and see the film, I'm gonna before I pass judgement on the film itself.

 

[fan4stic]

It’s better to have the character in safe hands then for the character to be destroyed again. Who knows what senile Avi arad is thinking. Remember Norman Osborn head in a jar? Yea that was a thing

Why does this mean that Marvel deserves this more? This character doesn't need to be saved. I don't particularly care for Webb movies, but that doesn't mean I want Disney to have it really.

Sony doesn't understand character growth. Don't believe me, watch Spider-Man 3. MJ goes from "leaving a sure thing for her true love" to "I want you to stop pretending like you can relate to me because New York hates you every 3 days and you almost die in the line of duty! MY PLAY FLOPPED! MORE IMPORTANT!!"

How do you go from Spider-Man 2 to...well...everything else?

You say that like Peter being Spider-Man means he's entitled for MJ to never being angry or frustrated with him, if he doesn't understand how she feels. She doesn't say it's more important, but snaps at him as he's talking about how he triumphs over adversity.

I don't think SM3 is bad. Even arguably TASM1 I wouldn't necessarily say is bad, but not good.

 

[Schlosser85]

.....because Spider-Man is popular and people care about it, you really have to ask that?

 

[Frodo]

I can agree with the idea that Sony execs don't understand Spiderman, the same way I can agree WB execs don't understand Batman, Superman, WW etc, and the way Fox didn't understand they X Men. Those franchises had directors who at times did, but the studios execs don't because they weren't hired to understand characters like Spiderman, MJ, and Green Goblin.

At the end of the day, they're studio execs who weren't hired to be comic book fans. They're studios which make all kinds of films of different genres. The vast majority of those execs and bean counters their aren't gonna be fanboys who slavishly know or are devoted to the characters and the comics. That's just the reality for studios like Sony , WB and every film studio except Marvel.

Fandom really takes for granted how unique Marvel's studio is as a film studio in comparison to the other studios which have produced cbm.

What makes Marvel unique ,is that comic book films are all they make, and that's their stock and trade. Hence, somelike like Feige truly understands the characters and has worked with Marvel for years ,while the head of WB may have never picked up a comic book in their life and has several different non comic book films to be funded, produced, cast etc.

So Feige brings that extra care and knowledge to these films than other head honcho's of studios who have produced some of the best films in the genre, haven't had. So someone like Feige is always gonna get and understand Spiderman more then any studio head you put in at Sony, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

 

[ironwez20]

Why does this mean that Marvel deserves this more? This character doesn't need to be saved. I don't particularly care for Webb movies, but that doesn't mean I want Disney to have it really.You say that like Peter being Spider-Man means he's entitled for MJ to never being angry or frustrated with him, if he doesn't understand how she feels. She doesn't say it's more important, but snaps at him as he's talking about how he triumphs over adversity.

I don't think SM3 is bad. Even arguably TASM1 I wouldn't necessarily say is bad, but not good.

Because Spider-Man is a marvel property? And marvel delivered the 1st billion dollar spidey movie while Sony almost killed the brand. You seriously asking why it needs to be saved? Are people forgetting everything that happened?
Seriously do people remember why the deal was made in the first place? The brand was dying and mcu characters were getting more love than Spider-Man

 

[Spider-Fan]

But Marvel sold his film rights to Sony. When you sell something you're not entitled to it. Spider-Man film rights being at Sony at this time is entirely Marvel's fault. They're entitled to nothing

 

[ironwez20]

But Marvel sold his film rights to Sony. When you sell something you're not entitled to it. Spider-Man film rights being at Sony at this time is entirely Marvel's fault. They're entitled to nothing

Sorry but nah. Spider-Man is a marvel property and always will be. Them selling the film rights doesn’t change that. They were desperate at the time . Iron man was sold to another company to. Is that company entitled to iron man cause it was there’s? Spider-Man was conceived at marvel, he’s a marvel chi.therefore he belongs there

 

[Spider-Fan]

Sorry but nah. Spider-Man is a marvel property and always will be. Them selling the film rights doesn’t change that. They were desperate at the time . Iron man was sold to another company to. Is that company entitled to iron man cause it was there’s? Spider-Man was conceived at marvel, he’s a marvel chi.therefore he belongs there

The difference is the company that owns the Iron Man rights never produced a film. Sony has. The fact that Marvel Studios does not have the rights to make Spider-Man movies is entirely Marvel's fault. Nothing The Fanboys wish changes. No one forced Marvel to sell. They were desperate at the time they sold the rights yes. But they did that of their own free will. With choices comes consequences

 

[Spider-Fan]

Adding to my above post, if I'm desperate for money to pay my rent. Let's say I'm going to get evicted if I don't pay the rent this month. So I sell the most valuable thing I own. Let's say I sell my car. Now later on I can't come back to the person I sold my car to and ask them to basically give it back to me and void the deal or just use the car freely whenever I want. I sold my car. It is no longer my car. The guy who bought it can do whatever he wants. He can drive it, he can scrap it, I am not entitled to anything in regards to the car I sold unless there were conditions at the time of the sale like that he wouldn't scrap it or something like that. Same applies here. As long as Sony is not violating any terms of the agreed-upon license, then they own the license. The only people who can blame themselves for that are the people in Marvel who made the deal. Sony is not doing anything wrong. They're doing exactly what they're entitled to be doing. That doesn't mean fans have to like what they're doing, but they're not doing anything wrong.

 

[Frodo]

Adding to my above post, if I'm desperate for money to pay my rent. Let's say I'm going to get evicted if I don't pay the rent this month. So I sell the most valuable thing I own. Let's say I sell my car. Now later on I can't come back to the person I sold my car to and ask them to basically give it back to me and void the deal or just use the car freely whenever I want. I sold my car. It is no longer my car. The guy who bought it can do whatever he wants. He can drive it, he can scrap it, I am not entitled to anything in regards to the car I sold unless there were conditions at the time of the sale like that he wouldn't scrap it or something like that. Same applies here. As long as Sony is not violating any terms of the agreed-upon license, then they own the license. The only people who can blame themselves for that are the people in Marvel who made the deal. Sony is not doing anything wrong. They're doing exactly what they're entitled to be doing. That doesn't mean fans have to like what they're doing, but they're not doing anything wrong.

Which is why Marvel/Disney will ultimately have to buy the Sony Spiderman rights back outright for alot of fanboys to be satisfied. Buying Sony itself isn't a viable option , and from what I understand, Disney legally probably couldn't do it nor would want to do it.

I think Sony might sell the rights someday, if the price is right, but it would definitely cost Disney to get them. After attaining Fox properties, I doubt that Disney wants to lay down that type of money again anytime soon.

So there lies the rub. At the end of the day, it was always gonna be Sony's option, and Spiderman ,as far as the MCU, was concerned was always on loan, not owned.

Unfortunately, alot of fanboys didn't really understand or appreciate what that meant when the deal was announced. Maybe alot of them tried to convince themselves that Sony had less power then they actually did.

But in the end, Sony always had the last word in terms of whether Spiderman stayed in or out of the MCU.

 

[ironwez20]

The difference is the company that owns the Iron Man rights never produced a film. Sony has. The fact that Marvel Studios does not have the rights to make Spider-Man movies is entirely Marvel's fault. Nothing The Fanboys wish changes. No one forced Marvel to sell. They were desperate at the time they sold the rights yes. But they did that of their own free will. With choices comes consequences

What u mean? They were bankrupt and had to save the company. Sony has the movie rights but don’t know how to handle the character. This will always be a marvel property. No matter who bought it. Just like hulk and X-men . X-men is definitely not fox. Just cause they sold the movie rights doesn’t mean Sony knows what they should be doing with the character. They proved that

 

[ironwez20]

Adding to my above post, if I'm desperate for money to pay my rent. Let's say I'm going to get evicted if I don't pay the rent this month. So I sell the most valuable thing I own. Let's say I sell my car. Now later on I can't come back to the person I sold my car to and ask them to basically give it back to me and void the deal or just use the car freely whenever I want. I sold my car. It is no longer my car. The guy who bought it can do whatever he wants. He can drive it, he can scrap it, I am not entitled to anything in regards to the car I sold unless there were conditions at the time of the sale like that he wouldn't scrap it or something like that. Same applies here. As long as Sony is not violating any terms of the agreed-upon license, then they own the license. The only people who can blame themselves for that are the people in Marvel who made the deal. Sony is not doing anything wrong. They're doing exactly what they're entitled to be doing. That doesn't mean fans have to like what they're doing, but they're not doing anything wrong.

Almost killing the brand seems like big wrong to me but ok

 

[Spider-Fan]

What u mean? They were bankrupt and had to save the company. Sony has the movie rights but don’t know how to handle the character. This will always be a marvel property. No matter who bought it. Just like hulk and X-men . X-men is definitely not fox. Just cause they sold the movie rights doesn’t mean Sony knows what they should be doing with the character. They proved that

You keep making this mistake of thinking that knowing the property has anything to do with ownership or entitlement. They absolutely do not. Whether we would prefer Marvel Studios have control over Spider-Man or not, they don't have control of him. Even if that's what I would rather be the case. For better or worse, Marvel made that deal when they had to pay their rent just like I did with my car. And just like with my car, Sony now owns the car. The car is theirs to drive, to ruin, to do whatever they want to it. Whether it's something I like or not. Sony didn't even have to give us the five MCU appearances that we ultimately got. Sony could have told Marvel to go pound sand, but they wisely did not do that. But they had every right to tell Marvel to do that if they wanted to.

 

[ironwez20]

You keep making this mistake of thinking that knowing the property has anything to do with ownership or entitlement. They absolutely do not. Whether we would prefer Marvel Studios have control over Spider-Man or not, they don't have control of him. Even if that's what I would rather be the case. For better or worse, Marvel made that deal when they had to pay their rent just like I did with my car. And just like with my car, Sony now owns the car. The car is theirs to drive, to ruin, to do whatever they want to it. Whether it's something I like or not. Sony didn't even have to give us the five MCU appearances that we ultimately got. Sony could have told Marvel to go pound sand, but they wisely did not do that. But they had every right to tell Marvel to do that if they wanted to.

This isn’t a car this is a marvel property that they made. And they may have every right but they still are terrible at handling the license. Bought or not. The mcu wasn’t perfect but they saved Spider-Man because they understood him. It’s not what we 100% wanted but I rather take them over the brand about to go under today and as a spidey fan that was hard to watch.
So Sony May of bought the license fair and square but they don’t deserve it and I feel it’s not truly there’s

 

[Spider-Fan]

This isn’t a car this is a marvel property that they made. And they may have every right but they still are terrible at handling the license. Bought or not. The mcu wasn’t perfect but they saved Spider-Man because they understood him. It’s not what we 100% wanted but I rather take them over the brand about to go under today and as a spidey fan that was hard to watch.
So Sony May of bought the license fair and square but they don’t deserve it and I feel it’s not truly there’s

I'm sorry dude but whether or not you recognize its there's has no bearing on the fact that legally it is theirs. The license was sold and that's the end of the story. Just like in your hypothetical Iron Man movie, if new line had actually made that movie and lived up to the agreement of their license when they had it, then New Line wouldd have been entitled to keep the Iron Man license indefinitely if that's what the agreement was for. Licensing Agreements are no different than cars. You can buy it forever or lease it. In this case the license for Sony is kind of something in the middle. Where they have it for so many years, but keep it if they keep making new content.

Once again, I know that you want Marvel Studios to have this license. Fans I know wish that was the case. But fantasy and reality are not the same. This is the reality of the situation and we just kind of have to live with it.

 

[ironwez20]

I'm sorry dude but whether or not you recognize its there's has no bearing on the fact that legally it is theirs. The license was sold and that's the end of the story. Just like in your hypothetical Iron Man movie, if new line had actually made that movie and lived up to the agreement of their license when they had it, then New Line wouldd have been entitled to keep the Iron Man license indefinitely if that's what the agreement was for. Licensing Agreements are no different than cars. You can buy it forever or lease it. In this case the license for Sony is kind of something in the middle. Where they have it for so many years, but keep it if they keep making new content.

Once again, I know that you want Marvel Studios to have this license. Fans I know wish that was the case. But fantasy and reality are not the same. This is the reality of the situation and we just kind of have to live with it.

I'm sorry dude but whether or not you recognize its there's has no bearing on the fact that legally it is theirs. The license was sold and that's the end of the story. Just like in your hypothetical Iron Man movie, if new line had actually made that movie and lived up to the agreement of their license when they had it, then New Line wouldd have been entitled to keep the Iron Man license indefinitely if that's what the agreement was for. Licensing Agreements are no different than cars. You can buy it forever or lease it. In this case the license for Sony is kind of something in the middle. Where they have it for so many years, but keep it if they keep making new content.

Once again, I know that you want Marvel Studios to have this license. Fans I know wish that was the case. But fantasy and reality are not the same. This is the reality of the situation and we just kind of have to live with it.

Yes .... I know. What I’m saying is Sony doesn’t deserve the license nor no how to handle license . Whether they bought it or not they are using it poorly. Only marvel knows how to handle these characters from what I e seen. It’s loke universal buying Mickey and screwing it up. Only Disney know how Mickey works.
I don’t care that they bought the license the bottom line is they don’t deserve it after driving it through the mud. So I hope Apple buys or Disney buys them out. Now if the new movies are great then I’ll be wrong.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yes .... I know. What I’m saying is Sony doesn’t deserve the license nor no how to handle license . Whether they bought it or not they are using it poorly. Only marvel knows how to handle these characters from what I e seen. It’s loke universal buying Mickey and screwing it up. Only Disney know how Mickey works.
I don’t care that they bought the license the bottom line is they don’t deserve it after driving it through the mud. So I hope Apple buys or Disney buys them out. Now if the new movies are great then I’ll be wrong.

No one ''deserves'' anything. You either own it or not. That's how ownership and licenses work. Marvel sold their right to the license. They did so willingly. They deserve nothing. I don't care if the hands of the franchise would be better in their hands or not. You sell something, you forfeit your claim. Case closed