|
Post by James Fabiano on Sept 5, 2019 7:02:12 GMT -5
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,354
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Sept 5, 2019 10:16:37 GMT -5
I think the real question is whether Sony also controls the rights to The Fabulous Frog-man. I mean, his character's backstory is that his father was a Daredevil villain (Leap-Frog) who eventually retired. His son, Eugene, took his supersuit to become a "hero". However, I don't think The Fabulous Frog-man has ever appeared in any comics outside of the various Spidey titles.
Is he a Spidey character or a Daredevil character? I must know as bringing him into the MCU is a license to print money. I mean, that money might be in Vietnamese Dongs as opposed to US dollars, but print enough of them and you can buy yourself a tasty beverage!
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Sept 5, 2019 10:41:48 GMT -5
I think the real question is whether Sony also controls the rights to The Fabulous Frog-man. I mean, his character's backstory is that his father was a Daredevil villain (Leap-Frog) who eventually retired. His son, Eugene, took his supersuit to become a "hero". However, I don't think The Fabulous Frog-man has ever appeared in any comics outside of the various Spidey titles. Is he a Spidey character or a Daredevil character? I must know as bringing him into the MCU is a license to print money. I mean, that money might be in Vietnamese Dongs as opposed to US dollars, but print enough of them and you can buy yourself a tasty beverage! Not really relevant to what we're talking about, but by season three of Netflix Daredevil, I was just really sick of dark, depressing, "everybody dies" Daredevil stories and was really hoping some of his more colorful rogues like Leap-Frog and Matador would show up.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 5, 2019 14:54:40 GMT -5
Just replace him with Grasshopper, played by Tom Holland.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Sept 5, 2019 16:25:43 GMT -5
So for clarity's sake, are we to assume that 616 outright died when Mephisto played with it? No. 616 is 616. Everything since then has been 616. What's happened here is that with this "change," we as readers have been meta-retconned to have not been reading 616 Spider-Man books between the time of the marriage through OMD. Those stories are now considered a divergent earth after the fact. We didn't get to see the 616 reality of those years, where everything happened almost exactly the same but without an actual marriage being in effect. In 616, they were never married. And something to remember - whether or not they ever address the whole thing again, the fact is...Mephisto can NOT alter history. He doesn't have that kind of power. If he did, he would have used it to twist history the way he needed to maximize the intake of souls he desires. It's one of the reasons he's targeted Franklin Richards a few times. Marvel/Disney needs to understand that without Iron Man or Captain America they don't have any of their reliable heavy hitters. It's not like they have the X-Men on stand by prepared to make their debut. If anything this should've pushed them to further include Deadpool into their MCU line-up as a back-up in case Spider-Man ended up being snapped out of the MCU by Sony. Iron Man hadn't been a "heavy hitter" since the '70s when the first MCU movie came out. And they literally have access to EVERY heavy hitter of theirs minus Spidey and Venom. I should've clarified my statements. Heavy hitters I meant as far as cinematics is concerned. Since "Endgame" has come and gone, Spider-Man potentially out of the MCU, I can't see the public rushing to watch these next line-ups of films with the exception of the new Dr. Strange and Thor. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 isn't out until 2022 or 2023 if I am not mistaken, Black Panther II isn't out until 2022, and other than that what's the next big epic? Least with Iron Man and Cap there was the potential of an continuing story that was leading up to the next threat. Unless these next set of Marvel films are going to be stand alone and have no connection to the next coming threat?
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Sept 5, 2019 16:26:29 GMT -5
I think the real question is whether Sony also controls the rights to The Fabulous Frog-man. I mean, his character's backstory is that his father was a Daredevil villain (Leap-Frog) who eventually retired. His son, Eugene, took his supersuit to become a "hero". However, I don't think The Fabulous Frog-man has ever appeared in any comics outside of the various Spidey titles. Is he a Spidey character or a Daredevil character? I must know as bringing him into the MCU is a license to print money. I mean, that money might be in Vietnamese Dongs as opposed to US dollars, but print enough of them and you can buy yourself a tasty beverage! Some characters are "joint custody", for lack of a better term. They're characters which have valid claim of belonging to more than one property. For example, Kingpin. Marvel can use him for Daredevil, but Sony can use him for Spider-Man as well. Same for Quicksilver back when Fox had the X-Men. He could legitimately be considered both an X-Men character and an Avengers character, and we ended up getting 2 Quicksilvers simultaneously. Anywho, that's most likely the grey zone Frog-Man resides in.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Sept 5, 2019 18:49:38 GMT -5
I wanna remain optimistic but Sony’s definitely taking the bigger risk here. At least..Sony’s spider cinematic universe will have it’s Spider. Gon’ be a hell of a transition.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Sept 5, 2019 20:51:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tenshigure on Sept 5, 2019 20:56:45 GMT -5
Translation: they want to see if the billions they earned off of Homecoming and Far From Home are tied to their relationship with the MCU or if it's just the Spider-Man property itself. If they barely muster a couple hundred million, they'll be "back in talks" before you know it.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Sept 5, 2019 21:06:58 GMT -5
Translation: they want to see if the billions they earned off of Homecoming and Far From Home are tied to their relationship with the MCU or if it's just the Spider-Man property itself. If they barely muster a couple hundred million, they'll be "back in talks" before you know it. Which itself is an valid question. How much of a boost did Iron Man give Homecoming? How much did Far From Home benefit from being the direct follow-up to Endgame? Also, even if the next Spidey movie does make billions, how much of that profit be lost to the "five or six" TV series that they're throwing at the wall in the hope that something sticks? And I'm also somewhat confused by Sony's ongoing narrative that Feige somehow basically did nothing on the previous Spidey movies, yet is somehow too busy to do basically nothing on the next one?
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Sept 5, 2019 21:55:13 GMT -5
Just replace him with Grasshopper, played by Tom Holland. A grasshopper, you say?
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Sept 6, 2019 0:14:05 GMT -5
Honestly? I'm not mad at this. Is it stupid on Sony's part? Maybe. Probably. However, they also just dropped not one but two really fun and enjoyable Spider-Man related films in the same year.
I've actually been on a Spidey kick lately after finishing the PS4 game (way late to that party), so I watched the Sam Raimi trilogy and the two Marc Webb films, and you know what? I liked all five of them better than Homecoming and Far From Home for no other reason than Spider-Man feeling like the center of his universe rather than half a dozen other superheroes.
I don't mind a world where Spidey sometimes interacts with other heroes, that's been happening in his books forever. At the same time, I do find him most enjoyable when he's in the heart of Manhattan dealing with local stuff. "Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man", you know? It's just so much more loose and fun when he doesn't constantly have the shadow of Tony Stark looming over him.
|
|
the2ndevil
Grimlock
Super Seducer Survivor
Where Is Your Santa, Now?
Posts: 13,629
|
Post by the2ndevil on Sept 6, 2019 7:22:10 GMT -5
Translation: they want to see if the billions they earned off of Homecoming and Far From Home are tied to their relationship with the MCU or if it's just the Spider-Man property itself. If they barely muster a couple hundred million, they'll be "back in talks" before you know it. The Academy Award winning Into The Spiderverse has already answered this. Same with Venom, if you count that as a Spider-Man movie. Renegade Cut released an amazing video on this recently and made a point that is just full of irony. Had Disney not screwed with the Copyright Laws in the late ‘90s, Spider-Man would have entered the Public Domain on January 1st 2019, meaning they could make as many Spider-Man movies as they want
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Sept 6, 2019 7:47:31 GMT -5
Honestly? I'm not mad at this. Is it stupid on Sony's part? Maybe. Probably. However, they also just dropped not one but two really fun and enjoyable Spider-Man related films in the same year. I've actually been on a Spidey kick lately after finishing the PS4 game (way late to that party), so I watched the Sam Raimi trilogy and the two Marc Webb films, and you know what? I liked all five of them better than Homecoming and Far From Home for no other reason than Spider-Man feeling like the center of his universe rather than half a dozen other superheroes. I don't mind a world where Spidey sometimes interacts with other heroes, that's been happening in his books forever. At the same time, I do find him most enjoyable when he's in the heart of Manhattan dealing with local stuff. "Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man", you know? It's just so much more loose and fun when he doesn't constantly have the shadow of Tony Stark looming over him. I’m just mostly disappointed in that it’s yet another Spider-Man story that probably won’t be continued at all. Poor guy seems to have a problem with unresolved cliffhangers.
|
|
|
Post by mrtuesday on Sept 6, 2019 9:17:07 GMT -5
I just don't trust Sony to make a decent live-action Spider-Man movie on their own.
Venom was successful in spite of itself.
Spiderverse was successful because Sony didn't really care to interfere.
But now.
Spiderverse 2 will have more eyes on it from the brass because of that Oscar. I see tons of interference coming.
The next solo Spider-Man will likely have interference. They want that MCU-level money, but won't understand how Marvel Studios was able to do it.
Venom 2.... Well at least that has Andy Serkis. So the mocap for Venom will be good.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Sept 6, 2019 9:24:47 GMT -5
Sony made an okay-at-best Venom movie.
If anyone thinks that the people who have power paid a bit of attention to Spiderverse while it was being made, they're kidding themselves.
This company sucks, they give their big projects to people who are okay, then interfere until the product sucks anyway.
Marvel heated up their property again. They're stupid though, so they'll ruin it and everyone saying, "No way, Sony's gonna do it right this time" is going to pretend like they never said that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Sept 6, 2019 20:40:03 GMT -5
I just don't trust Sony to make a decent live-action Spider-Man movie on their own. Venom was successful in spite of itself. Spiderverse was successful because Sony didn't really care to interfere. But now. Spiderverse 2 will have more eyes on it from the brass because of that Oscar. I see tons of interference coming. The next solo Spider-Man will likely have interference. They want that MCU-level money, but won't understand how Marvel Studios was able to do it. Venom 2.... Well at least that has Andy Serkis. So the mocap for Venom will be good. I guarantee MCU films have WAY more "interference" than the Sony ones.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Sept 6, 2019 22:01:40 GMT -5
I just don't trust Sony to make a decent live-action Spider-Man movie on their own. Venom was successful in spite of itself. Spiderverse was successful because Sony didn't really care to interfere. But now. Spiderverse 2 will have more eyes on it from the brass because of that Oscar. I see tons of interference coming. The next solo Spider-Man will likely have interference. They want that MCU-level money, but won't understand how Marvel Studios was able to do it. Venom 2.... Well at least that has Andy Serkis. So the mocap for Venom will be good. I guarantee MCU films have WAY more "interference" than the Sony ones. Definitely. It's lead to things like Patty Jenkins being fired from Thor 2 over no wrong doing on her part, Joss Whedon having a meltdown and not even doing press for Avengers 2, and of course Jon Favreau stepping back into just an acting role after they drove him nuts during the production of Iron Man 2. As for Sony, I really can't see them screwing with the Spider-Verse sequel much at all. I've never seen an animated best picture winner or nominee get a sequel that goes off the rails. Toy Story, Lego Movie, Shrek, all maintained the same creative integrity. I know those aren't Sony, but I think as long as it's not "too dark" for kids, studios couldn't care less. And truthfully, studio interference isn't always bad. In fact it probably saved the superhero careers of Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa. You just don't want interference from lame duck producers who are obviously wannabe directors without the creative vision. Your Jon Peters and Amy Pascal's of the world. And yeah, I think Pascal is still around, but Sony has her on a short leash after that big leak a few years ago exposed some really stupid business on her part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 22:19:27 GMT -5
I've never seen an animated best picture winner or nominee get a sequel that goes off the rails. Toy Story, Lego Movie, Shrek, all maintained the same creative integrity. Admittedly it didn't win, because for some baffling reason Brave did, but Wreck-It Ralph was nominated and the sequel basically just turned Disney blowing themselves while missing the point of everyone's characterization. Though I really think the bigger threat to Spider-Verse is them going so insane with sequel hooks and spinoff bait that the property just becomes toxic, pretty much like happened with the Amazing movies.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Sept 6, 2019 22:58:48 GMT -5
Sony made an okay-at-best Venom movie. If anyone thinks that the people who have power paid a bit of attention to Spiderverse while it was being made, they're kidding themselves. This company sucks, they give their big projects to people who are okay, then interfere until the product sucks anyway. Marvel heated up their property again. They're stupid though, so they'll ruin it and everyone saying, "No way, Sony's gonna do it right this time" is going to pretend like they never said that. Oh, I’m absolutely wary. Sony more than likely will eff this up. I do not see a Jared Leto morbius flick doing well, with or without, Tom Holland. But in a way I am kind of excited at the uncertainty of it all. It’ll be a risk without a doubt. I found Homecoming and FFM okay at best, but both were huge hits. And I’m fairly certain it wasn’t the director who was drawing that audience or perhaps even spider-man the character itself, but rather the fact it was an MCU movie. So there’s the risk. Can they handle Spidey. If I was a betting man I’d say no, but the premise of Spidey without the MCU still kinda excites me.
|
|