Would You Rather Sony Lose The Rights To Spider-Man Or Keep Them?

[Venom 1988]

Keep them. We probably wouldn't get a third insomniac game and possible spin-offs if Disney got the rights and we already have Spidey in the MCU

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Sony Pictures =/= Sony Interactive.

Sony Interactive does not own the Spidey IP for video games. They just paid Marvel a hefty bunch of money to have an exclusive Marvel game for Playstation.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The thing is , there always going to change no matter what.
There's always going to be a new actor playing Clark, Bruce, Peter, Sherlock, etc.
Over different years and generations the role is passed on to someone else.

The same way Kirk Alyn didn't play Superman forever, Adam West didn't play Batman forever, and Chris Evans wasn't the first actor to play Captain America, he was the 4th, behind An actor who played him in the 40s, an actor who played him in the 70s, and an actor who played him in the 90s.

These roles change hands over time. They get rebooted.

That's how it's always been and that's how it always will be with alot of these iconic characters.

I don't see that as a negative at all in principle at least.

The question for me is really, when and how it's done, and whether the product is good.

While I agree you shouldn't reboot every time there's a stumble, you shouldn't also stay with weak or bad interpretation for the sake of continuity. If the stories in that continuity have run their course or have just gotten bad, you've got to move on and let someone else run with the ball for the sake of the character if anything else.

Now the frequency of reboots is another issue, i.e rebooting after 2 years or 3 years. That's where things get iffy and problematic.

But the idea that there would be a different actor ,with a different continuity playing Bruce Wayne, in a decade or a couple of decades after a prior actor is inevitable.

The torch is gonna be passed , and Holland isn't gonna play the role forever, and that version of Peter Parker isn't gonna go on forever.

Eventually, they'll be a new Peter Parker who hasn't fought in the Infinity Conflict, and who won't have a best friend named Ned. When that will be , I don't know. But it's gonna happen.

There's a child out there as we speak, watching these films ,who's gonna grow up and end up directing his or her own version and vision of the Peter Parker story, and that's how its supposed to be.

The story is passed on, reinterpreted , etc, and another group will put their own spin on Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Sherlock etc.

I accept that different artists, creators, directors, actors, etc are going to take on these characters and want to tell different stories in different continuities for different generations.

This is a creative medium being adapted by a creative industry , so things are going to change depending on which group is handling a given property.

Now of course they have to be good. I wouldn't want to see mediocrity on and on when these stories are rebooted.

But in terms of the principle of having different versions of these characters, I'm very much for, and we may disagree on that. That's fine.

Now of course, Marvel is gonna do what Marvel is gonna do in terms of their own strategy, and they've done well with their own strategy.

They've clearly done their own thing which is great, and they excelled at it.
That doesn't mean I want everyone to do what Marvel does, since I don't .

But I certainly want studios to strive for the same respect for the characters, high quality of films, and good collection of actors that the MCU has.

I am not against reboots and recast personally. Things like Norton being in TIH bother people about it, but not me. Actors age out of roles or don't want to do it again or whatever. Crap happens. I don't really believe in retiring roles just because actors are not involved anymore. Did we stop Spider-Man comics when. Stan Lee or any other writer or artist left the title? We would be denied great stories had he been. Would never have gotten Casino Royale is we retired Bond after Connery.

I get being attached to 1 version of a character. But it is just 1 vision and take. Other versions can come along and be great or sometimes better. I am happy to grant people those chances. Yeah, ideally in a shared universe you want the same people. But do I never want to see Steve Rogers or Tony Stark in any form ever again because Evans and RDJ left? Maybe not in the MCU, but even the MCU will eventually get some form of reboot. You better believe I want a new Stark or Steve when that happens. But if RDJ had left after AoU when his deal was up, would I have been willing to accept a new Stark? Absolutely I would have

 

[Erzengel]

The issue is that Sony has one main character and supporting characters. How many different iterations are we going to get over the years with this character.

Burton-Schumacher Batman had Batman already starting out to full fledged hero
Nolan Batman had Year One to "retirement"
Snyder's Batman had Batman 20 years into crime fighting
Reeves is doing Year Two

What happens after the Reeves movies?

Batman and Spider-Man will always have the most diverse selection of villains that they could do multiple movies without having to rehash one. The issue with Spider-Man is he's in this Sony box that has to be lent out. TASM2 was a blessing because it allowed Spider-Man to be able to interact with the MCU characters. If TASM2 did even remotely better, we'd get another TASM or maybe a Spider-Verse with Black Cat, Silver Sable, Sinister Six. How well that would have done is up for debate but I don't know how you can't disagree that it's a more finite or shallower well to draw from when it's a single character.

 

[ironwez20]

To me personally I think making movies from Spider-Man’s villains gallery is about the dumbest thing ever. Most of the villains don’t work without Spider-Man.

 

[Spider-Fan]

To me personally I think making movies from Spider-Man’s villains gallery is about the dumbest thing ever. Most of the villains don’t work without Spider-Man.

This I do agree with

 

[Drizzle]

To me personally I think making movies from Spider-Man’s villains gallery is about the dumbest thing ever. Most of the villains don’t work without Spider-Man.

It's true. Venom is probably the only one that works because of the character's popularity even without Spider-Man, hence why he got a second movie. I'd be surprised if Morbius and Kraven are anything more than flops. I couldn't give a **** less about Morbius as a character and even less so about Leto playing him but I've been wanting to see Kraven since before the TASM movies so it's really annoying to see him possibly make his big screen debut in a movie without Spidey.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It's true. Venom is probably the only one that works because of the character's popularity even without Spider-Man, hence why he got a second movie. I'd be surprised if Morbius and Kraven are anything more than flops. I couldn't give a **** less about Morbius as a character and even less so about Leto playing him but I've been wanting to see Kraven since before the TASM movies so it's really annoying to see him possibly make his big screen debut in a movie without Spidey.

All the info we have on Kraven suggests Spider-Man will be in it. I expect Spider-Man to be in it. But it is odd to make a Kraven movie with Spider-Man in it as opposed to a Spider-Man movie where Kraven is the villain. But hopefully the movie turns out good. I like Kraven. But yeah, villain solo films are a bad idea

 

[Drizzle]

All the info we have on Kraven suggests Spider-Man will be in it. I expect Spider-Man to be in it. But it is odd to make a Kraven movie with Spider-Man in it as opposed to a Spider-Man movie where Kraven is the villain. But hopefully the movie turns out good. I like Kraven. But yeah, villain solo films are a bad idea

Well that's good-ish news. I didn't know Spider-Man was supposed to be in it. Still going to be weird seeing Aaron Taylor-Johnson playing him but it is what it is.

 

[Bayne]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the concept of a villain solo film. But it is dependent on the villain and the kind of story you use them for, and most of Spidey's villains would not be great candidates for it.

Also, it's just so damn weird that villain movies is the central concept that Sony keeps coming back to over and over and over in their attempts to envision a Spider-Cinematic Universe. Building a reasonably succesful SMU would not be that hard if you just put effort into the Spider-related *heroes* and let them have solo franchises with Spider-verse crossovers. It would never be prolific like the MCU due to the relatively small number of characters, but it could be huge with audiences if done right.

Spider-Gwen, Miles Morales, Silk, Jessica Drew (Ok, we still don't know for sure if Sony can use her) - these are the kinds of characters with major movie potential. Not Kraven, Madame Web and Aunt frickin May.

 

[psylockolussus]

It could be too many Spider-People headlining solo movies for them.

But at least after the Tom Holland/Villains era, they could make a Spider-People Assemble Universe - solo movie for Peter Parker, Miles, Gwen, Jessica, Silk and Miguel first then, it would all lead to a team up movie defeating an evil Spider-Man and Spider-Bots.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The thing is , there always going to change no matter what.
There's always going to be a new actor playing Clark, Bruce, Peter, Sherlock, etc.
Over different years and generations the role is passed on to someone else.

The same way Kirk Alyn didn't play Superman forever, Adam West didn't play Batman forever, and Chris Evans wasn't the first actor to play Captain America, he was the 4th, behind An actor who played him in the 40s, an actor who played him in the 70s, and an actor who played him in the 90s.

These roles change hands over time. They get rebooted.

That's how it's always been and that's how it always will be with alot of these iconic characters.

I don't see that as a negative at all in principle at least.

The question for me is really, when and how it's done, and whether the product is good.

While I agree you shouldn't reboot every time there's a stumble, you shouldn't also stay with weak or bad interpretation for the sake of continuity. If the stories in that continuity have run their course or have just gotten bad, you've got to move on and let someone else run with the ball for the sake of the character if anything else.

Now the frequency of reboots is another issue, i.e rebooting after 2 years or 3 years. That's where things get iffy and problematic.

But the idea that there would be a different actor ,with a different continuity playing Bruce Wayne, in a decade or a couple of decades after a prior actor is inevitable.

The torch is gonna be passed , and Holland isn't gonna play the role forever, and that version of Peter Parker isn't gonna go on forever.

Eventually, they'll be a new Peter Parker who hasn't fought in the Infinity Conflict, and who won't have a best friend named Ned. When that will be , I don't know. But it's gonna happen.

There's a child out there as we speak, watching these films ,who's gonna grow up and end up directing his or her own version and vision of the Peter Parker story, and that's how its supposed to be.

The story is passed on, reinterpreted , etc, and another group will put their own spin on Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Sherlock etc.

I accept that different artists, creators, directors, actors, etc are going to take on these characters and want to tell different stories in different continuities for different generations.

This is a creative medium being adapted by a creative industry , so things are going to change depending on which group is handling a given property.

Now of course they have to be good. I wouldn't want to see mediocrity on and on when these stories are rebooted.

But in terms of the principle of having different versions of these characters, I'm very much for, and we may disagree on that. That's fine.

Now of course, Marvel is gonna do what Marvel is gonna do in terms of their own strategy, and they've done well with their own strategy.

They've clearly done their own thing which is great, and they excelled at it.
That doesn't mean I want everyone to do what Marvel does, since I don't .

But I certainly want studios to strive for the same respect for the characters, high quality of films, and good collection of actors that the MCU has.

Yes I understand that reboots constantly happen, they've happened in the past and they will continue to happen in the future, but I still don't like it. I just don't want to keep seeing rehashes of stories being told about a new version of Peter Parker every 5-10 years or however long it takes between reboots. I'd rather the film studios stick to one continuity and continue telling the story of "Spider-Man" there instead of starting the story from scratch over and over again.

That's exactly what they did with Iron Man. Factor out the fact that cinematically he's part of a bigger franchise (I know that's hard to factor out considering that franchise is the MCU, but for the sake of my point...), he was played by one actor over 10 years in one continuity and was tastefully killed off. Instead of ever bringing up the idea of a reboot, the character is now retired and the mantle of "Iron Man" is being passed down to a new character, Ironheart. So the story of this "Iron hero" is continuing without the need of a reboot.

That's what I would want with Spider-Man and Batman. Instead of eventually rebooting Spider-Man in a decade or half a decade, tell a compelling story about Peter Parker and then have him pass the mantle down to Miles Morales to continue the story of the "Spider-Man" superhero. At this point in time, although Miles has become more mainstream, his name as a fictional character is still nowhere near as household as Peter Parker's. And the only way to make it so is by focusing him on the spotlight for a longer time while putting Peter Parker more in the background. Doing all of this in the same continuity is a far better approach to portraying this superhero name in cinema rather than trying again and again with the same character.

Besides Miles there are so many other versions of Spider-Man that people barely know about and cinematically we will never ever get to them if the story always starts with Peter Parker and we always only get to that because of reboots. I'm never going to see the brown Spider-Man and as a brown American, things like that are important to me. Representation matters. That's also why I want Miles to be as well known as Peter.

This sort of thing has made me disinterested in Batman. I gotta say I am really hyped for Matt Reeves the Batman, but that is an exception not the rule. The problems with the DCEU is a conversation on its own, but I would have kept Bale on as Batman, have it be the same Batman, continue telling the story of this Batman until the character himself retires and passes the mantle on to his protege or just have another character take his place. There are so many different ways they could do this but they would never take the risk of trying because of how big Batman the character is.

 

[psylockolussus]

Chris Evans wasn't the first actor to play Captain America, he was the 4th, behind An actor who played him in the 40s, an actor who played him in the 70s, and an actor who played him in the 90s.

These roles change hands over time. They get rebooted.

Not sure why you need to bring up the previous live action adaptations of Captain America? Pretty sure the first three actors that played Captain America weren't well known for their portrayal.

Pretty sure too that The First Avenger was the first tentpole Captain America film. Its not the same as Spider-Man having 3 portrayals in the big screen.

 

[spidercide89]

Hey guys. Longtime lurker, first time poster

Maybe I'm in the minority but I've hated the Sony/Marvel split since the very beginning. I agree with whoever said that Marvel should have just waited Sony out.

There's a case to be made that Spidey's inclusion in Civil War and Infinity made those films bigger than they would otherwise have been. However, the version of Spider-Man we got in those Marvel films felt like a totally different character than the one I grew up reading in the comics. And don't even get me started on the Watts Sony movies, which I felt were just terrible. I remember watching Homecoming and was in awe of just how bad it was. Far From Home was a slight improvement but not by much. The Maguire films were masterpieces compared to the Sony/Marvel ones. I recently rewatched Amazing Spider-Man 2 for the first time in years and was surprised by how much better even it was in comparison to the Watts movies. The Sony/Marvel movies just seem so off somehow...

Sony was in a bad position back in 2014. It's my opinion that it would have been better to just let Sony make Amazing Spider-Man 3 so they could have watched it bomb miserably. At that point Marvel might have been able to get the entire IP back and we wouldn't be in the position we're in today.

Remember, the general public doesn't know or care about the split deal like we do. Every time a Venom or Morbius or Kraven movie is released, all they see is 'Marvel'. Too many movies dilute the Marvel brand as far as I'm concerned. So yes, I'm firmly in the camp that the entire Spidey IP should be returned exclusively to Marvel before Sony can do further damage.

I know it's unfair but was I the only one hoping that Venom Carnage would bomb this weekend?

 

[Enriquespy]

It's nice seeing Spidey boi next to my fab characters, but besides that the only thing that really changes is which huge company gets some extra cash. It's not like any of them have the absolute moral superiority or the monopoly of good filmmaking.

 

[Frodo]

Yes I understand that reboots constantly happen, they've happened in the past and they will continue to happen in the future, but I still don't like it. I just don't want to keep seeing rehashes of stories being told about a new version of Peter Parker every 5-10 years or however long it takes between reboots. I'd rather the film studios stick to one continuity and continue telling the story of "Spider-Man" there instead of starting the story from scratch over and over again.

That's exactly what they did with Iron Man. Factor out the fact that cinematically he's part of a bigger franchise (I know that's hard to factor out considering that franchise is the MCU, but for the sake of my point...), he was played by one actor over 10 years in one continuity and was tastefully killed off. Instead of ever bringing up the idea of a reboot, the character is now retired and the mantle of "Iron Man" is being passed down to a new character, Ironheart. So the story of this "Iron hero" is continuing without the need of a reboot.

That's what I would want with Spider-Man and Batman. Instead of eventually rebooting Spider-Man in a decade or half a decade, tell a compelling story about Peter Parker and then have him pass the mantle down to Miles Morales to continue the story of the "Spider-Man" superhero. At this point in time, although Miles has become more mainstream, his name as a fictional character is still nowhere near as household as Peter Parker's. And the only way to make it so is by focusing him on the spotlight for a longer time while putting Peter Parker more in the background. Doing all of this in the same continuity is a far better approach to portraying this superhero name in cinema rather than trying again and again with the same character.

Besides Miles there are so many other versions of Spider-Man that people barely know about and cinematically we will never ever get to them if the story always starts with Peter Parker and we always only get to that because of reboots. I'm never going to see the brown Spider-Man and as a brown American, things like that are important to me. Representation matters. That's also why I want Miles to be as well known as Peter.

This sort of thing has made me disinterested in Batman. I gotta say I am really hyped for Matt Reeves the Batman, but that is an exception not the rule. The problems with the DCEU is a conversation on its own, but I would have kept Bale on as Batman, have it be the same Batman, continue telling the story of this Batman until the character himself retires and passes the mantle on to his protege or just have another character take his place. There are so many different ways they could do this but they would never take the risk of trying because of how big Batman the character is.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then since I see the rebooting thing very differently than you do, though I'm with you about Miles getting his moment in the sun.

I think it will happen regardless of what my own desires are about rebooting Peter.

 

[Frodo]

Not sure why you need to bring up the previous live action adaptations of Captain America? Pretty sure the first three actors that played Captain America weren't well known for their portrayal.

Pretty sure too that The First Avenger was the first tentpole Captain America film. Its not the same as Spider-Man having 3 portrayals in the big screen.

It's pretty self explanatory to the point of the rest of the post and the discussion that Xtremelybaneful and I were having. Captain America was actually a theatrical serial in the 40s and The 1990 version was a film.

But if the big screen is what youre talking about then Keaton, Bale, Affleck and Pattinson for Batman and Reeve and Cavill for Superman are analogous.

Either way, the point of our conversation still remains .

 

[psylockolussus]

No one complained when Chris Evans was cast as Captain America and said "not another Captain America"... If Sony cast a different actor for Peter Parker in the movies, for the 4th and 5th time in more or less 10 years; you'd have people complaining.

 

[Frodo]

No one complained when Chris Evans was cast as Captain America and said "not another Captain America"... If Sony cast a different actor for Peter Parker in the movies, for the 4th and 5th time in more or less 10 years; you'd have people complaining.

My point still remains that regardless of the time frame, these roles are passed from one actor to another, and that's what I was referring to.

The reality is we don't when the role will be recast .

There's alot we don't know , and for the purposes of this thread ,I'm not gaming out what will or will not happen in terms of when reboots will occur and which fans will or won't like a recast , where or when.

Reactions to castings and time frame of casting is a separate subject all together and not the issue, as it relates to our preferences .

My conversation with Xtremelybaneful is about our own preferences .

We have different preferences much like others in the thread do.

That's all there is to it really.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then since I see the rebooting thing very differently than you do, though I'm with you about Miles getting his moment in the sun.

I think it will happen regardless of what my own desires are about rebooting Peter.

I suppose then you see rebooting the same way as the general audience does, since they're used to seeing a reboot after a certain period of time with any IP. But with Iron Man for example and the bigger picture with the MCU, there is no reboot in sight. Just one ongoing story, one continuity, passing the mantle.

and if you do agree with me about Miles, do you also agree with having this character be the focus cinematically as well? that would also mean no new Peter Parker reboot series too. not while one Miles character is getting developed in live action.

 

[NotNickFury]

That isn't true. Even if Disney have the rights for Spider-Man, that doesn't mean Sony wouldn't want to make Spider-Man games which are console sellers to them. Disney could easily go to other game studios if they want to, which they are already doing with Lucasfilm and Marvel.

Sony is making a Wolverine game and they don't even have film rights for The Wolverine.

The only thing that people are going to miss out on are Into the Spider-Verse movies and seriously how many follow ups can they do for that? Into the Spider-Verse didn't even gross over 400 million pre pandemic.

Yet it was critically acclaimed, made well over its budget, beat out a Pixar film for an Oscar, and it's still getting a sequel. Money has never been the sole determining factor in a film getting a follow-up or eventual series expansion.

 

[Frodo]

I suppose then you see rebooting the same way as the general audience does, since they're used to seeing a reboot after a certain period of time with any IP. But with Iron Man for example and the bigger picture with the MCU, there is no reboot in sight. Just one ongoing story, one continuity, passing the mantle.

and if you do agree with me about Miles, do you also agree with having this character be the focus cinematically as well? that would also mean no new Peter Parker reboot series too. not while one Miles character is getting developed in live action.

I grew up in a time before cinematic universes when these types of films were stand alone franchises, hence, when they would be rebooted such as Zorro, Holmes, or when there would be new versions, it's just a natural consequence of time .

I know there are a generation of fans who only know cinematic universes, and they tend to think that's the only way to do it, but I'm from a time before the MCU and the emphasis on everything being connected and particular versions going on and on.

At the same time, I appreciate that regardless of my own views about reboots that Hollywood is a creative industry and if they have a valueable IP, they're going to exploit it, and if it ain't broke, they won't fix it.

If it is broke or hasn't been exploited a while, they'll reboot it. That's just how it is, and that's not going to change.

So , while I accept a reboot like the GA does, I also think about it on a deeper level then the average filmgoer does. That doesn't mean I like every reboot, but it's a reality .

Iron man is part of a bigger MCU of course, but that's because the studio constructs it that way, and since Marvel Disney own Iron Man.

That isn't the same with Spiderman. That is a Sony property leased out to Disney , and for the time being, they are telling the same story and working together.

That may not always be the case , so the idea of an ongoing Spiderman forever, that isn't rebooted, isn't written in the stars. The reality is, Disney doesn't own Spiderman. Sony does.

So the same rules that apply to Ironman don't apply to Spiderman with regards to Sony's wishes about rebooting IPs.

Whether they will reboot or not is a separate issue, but Spiderman isn't bound to the same constraints as Ironman.

At the same time, Miles being a central cinematic character doesn't then mean not Peter Parker reboot as well. That rests on the assumption that Disney and Marvel continue with their agreement.

Again, it would depend on what Sony would want to do and whether or not they continued with Disney.

Sony owns Peter Parker and Miles Morales, and its at their discretion whether Miles has his own film and Peter has his own. Remember, they've established their own Spiderman multiverse, for good or ill, so they aren't bound to just one universe and continuity.

They've made that clear, and they're not giving that up for the sake of a single continuity.

Now, whether that's good or not is a matter of opinion , but a Morales Sony Spiderman doesn't necessarily preclude a Peter Spiderman reboot if Sony isn't leasing the character to Marvel. So I wouldn't share your assumption on the Miles thing if Sony decides to do their own thing without Marvel.

The bottom line is, there will always be a version of Peter Parker on screen at some point like there will always be a version of Bruce Wayne on screen.

So the idea that Sony would retire Peter's Spiderman on screen so that Miles is the only Spiderman on screen, is just not gonna happen if Sony has their druthers.

Now, if Marvel owns Spiderman, then I think your assumption is correct.

 

[psylockolussus]

Yet it was critically acclaimed, made well over its budget, beat out a Pixar film for an Oscar, and it's still getting a sequel. Money has never been the sole determining factor in a film getting a follow-up or eventual series expansion.

Yeah well I'm sure Into the Verse 2, 3, 4 and 5 would be as critically acclaimed.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I grew up in a time before cinematic universes when these types of films were stand alone franchises, hence, when they would be rebooted such as Zorro, Holmes, or when there would be new versions, it's just a natural consequence of time .

I know there are a generation of fans who only know cinematic universes, and they tend to think that's the only way to do it, but I'm from a time before the MCU and the emphasis on everything being connected and particular versions going on and on.

At the same time, I appreciate that regardless of my own views about reboots that Hollywood is a creative industry and if they have a valueable IP, they're going to exploit it, and if it ain't broke, they won't fix it.

If it is broke or hasn't been exploited a while, they'll reboot it. That's just how it is, and that's not going to change.

So , while I accept a reboot like the GA does, I also think about it on a deeper level then the average filmgoer does. That doesn't mean I like every reboot, but it's a reality .

Iron man is part of a bigger MCU of course, but that's because the studio constructs it that way, and since Marvel Disney own Iron Man.

That isn't the same with Spiderman. That is a Sony property leased out to Disney , and for the time being, they are telling the same story and working together.

That may not always be the case , so the idea of an ongoing Spiderman forever, that isn't rebooted, isn't written in the stars. The reality is, Disney doesn't own Spiderman. Sony does.

So the same rules that apply to Ironman don't apply to Spiderman with regards to Sony's wishes about rebooting IPs.

Whether they will reboot or not is a separate issue, but Spiderman isn't bound to the same constraints as Ironman.

At the same time, Miles being a central cinematic character doesn't then mean not Peter Parker reboot as well. That rests on the assumption that Disney and Marvel continue with their agreement.

Again, it would depend on what Sony would want to do and whether or not they continued with Disney.

Sony owns Peter Parker and Miles Morales, and its at their discretion whether Miles has his own film and Peter has his own. Remember, they've established their own Spiderman multiverse, for good or ill, so they aren't bound to just one universe and continuity.

They've made that clear, and they're not giving that up for the sake of a single continuity.

Now, whether that's good or not is a matter of opinion , but a Morales Sony Spiderman doesn't necessarily preclude a Peter Spiderman reboot if Sony isn't leasing the character to Marvel. So I wouldn't share your assumption on the Miles thing if Sony decides to do their own thing without Marvel.

The bottom line is, there will always be a version of Peter Parker on screen at some point like there will always be a version of Bruce Wayne on screen.

So the idea that Sony would retire Peter's Spiderman on screen so that Miles is the only Spiderman on screen, is just not gonna happen if Sony has their druthers.

Now, if Marvel owns Spiderman, then I think your assumption is correct.

I don't think you and I are that far apart in age because I also grew up in a time without a shared cinematic universe. I was still in high school when Iron Man 1 came out.

The situation with Spider-Man specifically and his telling or retelling rather on screen is one of Hollywood politics since there is this deal between Sony and Disney. But the Spider-Man film series we have now is the most successful one we have ever had to date, so it is in Sony's best interest to keep this current continuity going.

I made a thread about this in the Spider-Man forum actually in which I kept saying how Sony was going to try and continue the Tom Holland series without Disney and there was an uproar from fans, imagine the uproar if they say Tom Holland's incarnation will be left behind in favor of another reboot.

But Batman's situation is similar to Iron Man's, seeing as how the film studio that makes Batman films also owns DC comics. It was WB's move to reboot Batman but if they wanted to, they could have continued Bale's story just like Disney had RDJ in the center of the MCU.

 

[Detective Conan]

But Batman's situation is similar to Iron Man's, seeing as how the film studio that makes Batman films also owns DC comics. It was WB's move to reboot Batman but if they wanted to, they could have continued Bale's story just like Disney had RDJ in the center of the MCU.

WB did actually approach Bale about continuing but Bale refused out of respect for Nolan’s wishes.

“When they came [to us after ‘Batman Begins’] and said, ‘You want to go make another?’ It was fantastic, but we still said, ‘This is it. We will not get another opportunity,'” Bale said. “Then they came and they said, ‘OK, let’s do the third one.’ Chris had always said to me that if we were fortunate to be able to make three we would stop. ‘Let’s walk away after that,’ he said. Then when they inevitably came to us and said, ‘How about a No. 4?’ I said, ‘No. We have to stick to Chris’ dream, which was always to, hopefully, do a trilogy. Let’s not stretch too far and become overindulgent and go for a fourth.'”
- Christian Bale.

Granted, Bale here is saying they asked him about returning to the role for a potential fourth installment instead of returning for the role long-term for a shared universe, but one can easily imagine his answer would be the exact same if they asked him to return in the role in a similar MCU Iron Man fashion. Nolan views his version of Batman as a stand-alone take with a definitive beginning, middle, and end, told in three movies so Bale wants to honor those wishes. Unless Nolan somehow gives the stamp of approval(which is very unlikely), I don’t see Bale willingly returning to the role under any circumstances; no matter how much money WB offered him. So even the option to continue with Bale in the role after TDKR — be it a fourth film, or for a cinematic universe wasn’t available for WB like you’re making it out to be. Leaving rebooting the character with a new actor as the only possible option for them.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I suppose then you see rebooting the same way as the general audience does, since they're used to seeing a reboot after a certain period of time with any IP. But with Iron Man for example and the bigger picture with the MCU, there is no reboot in sight. Just one ongoing story, one continuity, passing the mantle.

and if you do agree with me about Miles, do you also agree with having this character be the focus cinematically as well? that would also mean no new Peter Parker reboot series too. not while one Miles character is getting developed in live action.

Iron Man is gonna be rebooted eventually. Whether it be new continuity or finding some way to pluck someone out of the multiverse or whatever, there will be a new Iron Man at some point. All these characters will get a reboot at some point. The popular ones at least