Homecoming Spider-Man Homecoming (2017) General Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 105

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]524483[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]523539[/split]

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

So let me get this straight they don't have a director for this or a cast and they are supposed to have an out next year in October. Directors have to prep movies.

 

[Neno_Kos]

So let me get this straight they don't have a director for this or a cast and they are supposed to have an out next year in October. Directors have to prep movies.

Sony gonna Sony

 

[harryoscop]

Yeah & wasn't there talk of Zylka being considered for Agent Venom? It was clearly going to be connected to Spidey. In TASM's Sinister Six-- Spidey was going to have a supporting role in that movie too. Sony aren't stupid, they know they need him

 

[Flint Marko]

Sony gonna Sony

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Sony gonna Sony

I am baffled.

 

[Arachnerd]

I am thoroughly convinced Sony wants to commit financial suicide.

There's no way a studio can screw up this bad too many times and still not make an attempt to learn from their mistakes.

 

[Spidey_62]

I want Venom to fight Carnage inside the internet, that's a really good story they can take inspiration from.

 

[Arachnerd]

I want Venom to fight Carnage inside the internet, that's a really good story they can take inspiration from.

Only if Aunt Carnage cameos and her goal is to feed people wheat cakes to death.

 

[PeterBenParker]

here's something to consider

do you guys truly believe that Marvel would allow Sony to cast another live action spider-man without taking legal recourse?

Yes, because the rights are with Sony first and foremost. Second, Sony was the one who agreed to the deal who only agreed because they knew it'd save face from embarrassment of their previous mistakes. They are largely in the brunt of things. Sony would be well within their rights of using their character if/when they see necessary.

I'm not too brushed up on the details of the agreement, but I feel like that is something that Marvel would be vehemently against before agreeing to a deal. Like Marvel would say to sony "We are not agreeing to a deal where you can cast another live action spider-man in a separate universe only to cause further confusion"

A Spider-Man that could very well be minor in the role of the Venom film? Yeah, I highly doubt that'd have people up in arms. The Quicksilver case is a perfect example of coexisting between the same property. Sure, you can argue Quicksilver and Spider-Man aren't the same on the basis of popularity but on the basis of two existing characters? That argument applies. If this was truly such an issue, the Miles film would also be in jeopardy for reasons of 'confusion of multiple Spider-Men'.

Also, who's to say we have Peter in this as a definite? It could easily just be a Spider-Man who serves a purpose of creating Venom and nothing more. Could be much more. Who really knows? Bottom line: If Sony deems Spider-Man necessary to Venom (and he is), he'll be in.

 

[harryoscop]

Yes, because the rights are with Sony first and foremost. Second, Sony was the one who agreed to the deal who only agreed because they knew it'd save face from embarrassment of their previous mistakes. They are largely in the brunt of things. Sony would be well within their rights of using their character if/when they see necessary.



A Spider-Man that could very well be minor in the role of the Venom film? Yeah, I highly doubt that'd have people up in arms. The Quicksilver case is a perfect example of coexisting between the same property. Sure, you can argue Quicksilver and Spider-Man aren't the same on the basis of popularity but on the basis of two existing characters? That argument applies. If this was truly such an issue, the Miles film would also be in jeopardy for reasons of 'confusion of multiple Spider-Men'.

Also, who's to say we have Peter in this as a definite? It could easily just be a Spider-Man who serves a purpose of creating Venom and nothing more. Could be much more. Who really knows? Bottom line: If Sony deems Spider-Man necessary to Venom (and he is), he'll be in.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

in response to R_Hythlodeus, I'm saying that I don't think Marvel would have agreed to a deal with Sony if they knew sony might eventually cast another live action spider-man in a separate universe.

 

[Spidey_62]

Only if Aunt Carnage cameos and her goal is to feed people wheat cakes to death.

And if Sony is even thinking about getting more current hit pop songs into the Venom movie I definitely want his Rad Eddie persona to be acknowledged on the big screen with another skateboarding sequence.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I don't think spider-man is going to be in this movie. I'm just telling you why I don't think it would work, and providing specific reasons for it.

And going through another casting process just for this new spider-man to be a side character? That just isn't going to happen. Sony has to know that it could also harm its other investment in the form of MCU Spider-Man.

 

[The Joker]

So let me get this straight they don't have a director for this or a cast and they are supposed to have an out next year in October. Directors have to prep movies.

Sony gonna Sony

I am thoroughly convinced Sony wants to commit financial suicide.

They've been on that road for years now.

 

[zipzip]

Well Marvel really can't sue them since they don't own the rights but I would expect they have rules placed like Peter Parker not showing up in standalone spin offs

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Well Marvel really can't sue them since they don't own the rights but I would expect they have rules placed like Peter Parker not showing up in standalone spin offs

that is exactly the point I've been trying to stress in my previous posts

 

[samsnee]

I'm guessing they see what R-rated movies like Deadpool and Logan have done and and trying to cash in. Just like after the first Avengers, they thought they could create their own cinematic universe.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

in response to R_Hythlodeus, I'm saying that I don't think Marvel would have agreed to a deal with Sony if they knew sony might eventually cast another live action spider-man in a separate universe.

Everyone who knew Sony knew that was going to happen. And then Rothman came on board and it was a certainty

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I did not know that

and I'm willing to bet that no one else here or just about anywhere else did either.

 

[PeterBenParker]

 

[harryoscop]

Well Marvel really can't sue them since they don't own the rights but I would expect they have rules placed like Peter Parker not showing up in standalone spin offs

And why would Sony want to put a severe hamper on box-office potential for their own spinoffs by excluding Spider-Man? I remember when the deal was announced, Pascal still planned on doing the spinoffs without Feige's involvement

 

[Arachnerd]

And why would Sony want to put a severe hamper on box-office potential for their own spinoffs by excluding Spider-Man? I remember when the deal was announced, Pascal still planned on doing the spinoffs without Feige's involvement

Doesn't mean Spider-Man will be in the spin-offs.

As far as I've heard, Kevin Feige didn't Arad involved with Spidey, that assuming he might not be featured in any "potential" spin-off Sony makes. And given they're pushing for Venom way before Infinity War is concluded, there'd be no way to properly introduce the symbiote storyline without rushing it. Not to mention, Venom is supposed to come out before Infinity War Part 2 premieres, so it wouldn't make sense timeline wise in the MCU.

Better to keep the universes separate.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

ok, lets settle it.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=526023