MCU's SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME (2021?)
7 7

1,664 posts in this topic

14 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

1309652599_ScreenShot2019-10-01at5_30_59PM.thumb.png.d0cec1d4fe79d449b716e2fa57368111.png

its nice to fanboy about it, but I think that it would be.... ambitious to think the two companies are going to mix beyond some minor cross references like in news headlines or throwaway lines from secondary characters.  Obviously if Sony uses Tom Holland at some point (which they should), he would exist in both universes.  But I wouldn't count on seeing Venom or the Sinister Six with anyone else in the MCU Universe or the other way around.  it would just get too messy contractwise, and Sony v Disney already almost ruined spiderman. 

 

I'm not even sure what other MCU movie Spidey would show up in other than Spiderman 3.

For sure NOT - Thor, GOTG, Captain Marvel 2, Eternals, Black Widow

Probably NOT - Black Panther 2

Possibles - Blade (but that's far in the future), Shang Chi (I guess its the most likely?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, revat said:

its nice to fanboy about it, but I think that it would be.... ambitious to think the two companies are going to mix beyond some minor cross references like in news headlines or throwaway lines from secondary characters.  Obviously if Sony uses Tom Holland at some point (which they should), he would exist in both universes.  But I wouldn't count on seeing Venom or the Sinister Six with anyone else in the MCU Universe or the other way around.  it would just get too messy contractwise, and Sony v Disney already almost ruined spiderman. 

 

I'm not even sure what other MCU movie Spidey would show up in other than Spiderman 3.

For sure NOT - Thor, GOTG, Captain Marvel 2, Eternals, Black Widow

Probably NOT - Black Panther 2

Possibles - Blade (but that's far in the future), Shang Chi (I guess its the most likely?)

The article I ripped this post from says that basically, that while MCU only characters won't interact with Venomverse only characters, the presence of each will be acknowledged by the other ie Spiderman referencing Stark Industries in Venom 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

The article I ripped this post from says that basically, that while MCU only characters won't interact with Venomverse only characters, the presence of each will be acknowledged by the other ie Spiderman referencing Stark Industries in Venom 2.

Seems kinda pointless if that’s the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Callaway29 said:

Seems kinda pointless if that’s the case

I'm sure that if movie "x" from Sony can get a $10 to $30 million "bump", by referencing something from movie "y" by Disney, and vice versa, then that is all the studios care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Since I just watched Spider-Man: Far From Home last night, I'll jump in on the conspiracy theory that the whole thing is orchestrated.  Venom 2 needs Spider-Man and they need it to be "not MCU" so they have planned this "breakup" between Spider-Man and the MCU, but then we'll need Spider-Man back in the MCU at some point, so they've already planned to "get back together" after Venom 2... but if the faceless companies are the breaker-uppers and the get-back-togetherers, there's no hero.  Enter:  Tom Holland.  The real world Spider-Man actor is the hero in the real world Spider-Man acting drama.

If they had some holographic drones, this would be pretty cool.  As it is... it's pretty obvious.

The working title should be Venom 2: We Were On A Break (guest star David Schwimmer)

Edited by valiantman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same rumor source is now being quoted more concerning Disney purchasing Spider-Man's film rights from Sony.

Quote

Disney and Marvel Studios' back-and-forth bout with Sony Pictures over Spider-Man has been one of the defining news stories of 2019. The situation looked drastic at the end of summer, as Disney and Sony had a very public falling out, that resulted in the sudden end of Tom Holland's Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Thankfully for fans, cooler heads prevailed, as Marvel's Kevin Feige and Sony's Amy Pascal managed to work out a deal that will allow Spider-Man to properly end his MCU saga. However, now comes a new rumor that states Disney wants to fully own Spider-Man, and is willing to pay Sony $4 - $5 billion in order to make it happen!

 

As reported by Geekosity scooper Mikey Sutton (via Cheat Sheet):

 

“While rumors have circulated before the Sony-Disney dispute of such a purchase, it was mere speculation, especially the erroneous high number that was quoted. What I’m hearing is that Disney is looking to offer in the range of $4 to $5 billion for Spider-Man. But now the questions will be asked.”

 

That report led to YouTube scooper 3 Buck Theater weighing in, with the added information that Disney apparently wants to fully own Spider-Man in order to install him as the leader of The Avengers!

 

The speculation is that Marvel Studios wants Holland's Spider-Man to lead a team of younger Avengers that rise up to take the place of the former team. Meanwhile, Brie Larson's Captain Marvel - who has been rumored to be a major focus of MCU Phase 4 - will reportedly be positioned as the leader of A-Force, the all-female Avengers team fist teased in Avengers: Endgame's climatic battle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Disney and Marvel Studios' back-and-forth bout with Sony Pictures over Spider-Man has been one of the defining news stories of 2019. The situation looked drastic at the end of summer, as Disney and Sony had a very public falling out, that resulted in the sudden end of Tom Holland's Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Thankfully for fans, cooler heads prevailed, as Marvel's Kevin Feige and Sony's Amy Pascal managed to work out a deal that will allow Spider-Man to properly end his MCU saga. However, now comes a new rumor that states Disney wants to fully own Spider-Man, and is willing to pay Sony $4 - $5 billion in order to make it happen!

As reported by Geekosity scooper Mikey Sutton (via Cheat Sheet):

“While rumors have circulated before the Sony-Disney dispute of such a purchase, it was mere speculation, especially the erroneous high number that was quoted. What I’m hearing is that Disney is looking to offer in the range of $4 to $5 billion for Spider-Man. But now the questions will be asked.”

That report led to YouTube scooper 3 Buck Theater weighing in, with the added information that Disney apparently wants to fully own Spider-Man in order to install him as the leader of The Avengers!

 

19 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

The speculation is that Marvel Studios wants Holland's Spider-Man to lead a team of younger Avengers that rise up to take the place of the former team. Meanwhile, Brie Larson's Captain Marvel - who has been rumored to be a major focus of MCU

Phase 4 - will reportedly be positioned as the leader of A-Force, the all-female Avengers team fist teased in Avengers: Endgame's climatic battle.

Fake news. First of all, I think we can all agree that, with the exception of cat videos and a few how-to vids, YouTube is a sea of garbage. Second, as a rule of thumb, any YouTube channel that demonstratively attacked the Captain Marvel movie before it even came out can also be dismissed as trash. Three Buck Theater is one of those YouTube channels.

Even if Disney gets the full rights to Spider-Man somehow, he will not be the leader of the Avengers. In the comics, he's barely been a regular member, much less a leader, of Earth's mightiest heroes. Spider-Man works best as his own man in his own adventures, and as a team-up with other Marvel characters. In the MCU, the Avengers are going to go cosmic, and that's not really Peter Parker's world. Carol Danvers will lead that group. And if there's a more Earth-based Avengers group as well, Sam Wilson will lead that group. Spider-Man is a loner and works best that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to burst your bubble, but YouTube is not the only place "reporting" this.

Marvel sure likes a sure thing - like a consensus adored character. Not a divisive one.

You sure like to post a lot of things as though they're fact without any factual information to support those statements... Usually a recipe for disaster RE: anyone being able to take what you post seriously. Just some food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Second, as a rule of thumb, any YouTube channel that demonstratively attacked the Captain Marvel movie before it even came out can also be dismissed as trash.

Yup. My bar for a truthful source as well.

emotion01.gif.95b4a8e9e510bf670b7a45704a457a6f.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but YouTube is not the only place "reporting" this.

Marvel sure likes a sure thing - like a consensus adored character. Not a divisive one.

You sure like to post a lot of things as though they're fact without any factual information to support those statements... Usually a recipe for disaster RE: anyone being able to take what you post seriously. Just some food for thought.

Multiple internet news sites all reporting on the same original fake news story doesn't count, either.

So Marvel like a sure thing. Is that why the first Marvel Studios movie was Iron Man? Is that why Marvel Studios threw millions of dollars at a Guardians of the Galaxy movie featuring those beloved characters Star-Lord and Groot who we all grew up with (sarcasm)? Is that why Marvel Studios made an Ant-Man movie? Yes. Spider-Man, in the right hands, is a sure thing (because ASM2 was not good). But nowadays, anything made by Marvel Studios is a sure thing. The MCU is the sure thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

Multiple internet news sites all reporting on the same original fake news story doesn't count, either.

So Marvel like a sure thing. Is that why the first Marvel Studios movie was Iron Man? Is that why Marvel Studios threw millions of dollars at a Guardians of the Galaxy movie featuring those beloved characters Star-Lord and Groot who we all grew up with (sarcasm)? Is that why Marvel Studios made an Ant-Man movie? Yes. Spider-Man, in the right hands, is a sure thing (because ASM2 was not good). But nowadays, anything made by Marvel Studios is a sure thing. The MCU is the sure thing.

Can you prove that it's "fake"? Or it your typical, "I disagree with it - so it's wrong"?

Asking for a friend.

Don't bother with the revisionist history. Marvel knows what makes them money today. I would've thought that might click for you. Stay on your toes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:
10 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Multiple internet news sites all reporting on the same original fake news story doesn't count, either.

So Marvel like a sure thing. Is that why the first Marvel Studios movie was Iron Man? Is that why Marvel Studios threw millions of dollars at a Guardians of the Galaxy movie featuring those beloved characters Star-Lord and Groot who we all grew up with (sarcasm)? Is that why Marvel Studios made an Ant-Man movie? Yes. Spider-Man, in the right hands, is a sure thing (because ASM2 was not good). But nowadays, anything made by Marvel Studios is a sure thing. The MCU is the sure thing.

Can you prove that it's "fake"? Or it your typical, "I disagree with it - so it's wrong"?

Asking for a friend.

Don't bother with the revisionist history. Marvel knows what makes them money today. I would've thought that might click for you. Stay on your toes.

I don't know what's what, BUT logically I would have a tough time believing that Marvel would be willing to use spiderman as their tentpole with complete immersion with their other properties, since they don't completely own all the rights, and they just got put in a very public corner.  Similarly, if I was Sony, I'd be hesitant to let Spiderman be used as a tentpole for Marvel if I eventually hope to integrate him with the 'Spiderverse' or 'Venomverse of Sony.  It just seems like the potential for oversaturation that would end up writing both companies into potentially uncomfortable corners.

Additionally, I would say that the very early reporting in instances like this can often be right and not right at the same time.  There's often MULTIPLE scripts that are being pushed and/or considered by MULTIPLE people potentially involved with the movie, AND that sometimes people involved leak things for all types of reasons to all types of potential sources (some more reputable than others).  So I would take most of the early rumors with some salted egg chips (is that the expression? it should be). 

Or you guys can keep arguing about it, which is fine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Multiple internet news sites all reporting on the same original fake news story doesn't count, either.

So Marvel like a sure thing. Is that why the first Marvel Studios movie was Iron Man? Is that why Marvel Studios threw millions of dollars at a Guardians of the Galaxy movie featuring those beloved characters Star-Lord and Groot who we all grew up with (sarcasm)? Is that why Marvel Studios made an Ant-Man movie? Yes. Spider-Man, in the right hands, is a sure thing (because ASM2 was not good). But nowadays, anything made by Marvel Studios is a sure thing. The MCU is the sure thing.

But you've had no problem quoting them when it boosts MCU/Disney, and detracts from Sony.

On 8/22/2019 at 10:28 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

1127008843_ScreenShot2019-08-22at10_27_39AM.thumb.png.c96e82a4690ccdab3e29c275ee2e159c.png

Jeremy Conrad has been one of the bigger MCU trolls doing all he could to make it look like 'evil Sony' purposely disrupted the Spider-Man use in MCU films. Could he be a little biased (MCU Cosmic being his 'reporting site')?

Jeremy_Conrad.jpg.642e79814f936e88aa4a2881f29f7b38.jpg

hm

image.gif

Edited by Bosco685
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, revat said:

I don't know what's what, BUT logically I would have a tough time believing that Marvel would be willing to use spiderman as their tentpole with complete immersion with their other properties, since they don't completely own all the rights, and they just got put in a very public corner.  Similarly, if I was Sony, I'd be hesitant to let Spiderman be used as a tentpole for Marvel if I eventually hope to integrate him with the 'Spiderverse' or 'Venomverse of Sony.  It just seems like the potential for oversaturation that would end up writing both companies into potentially uncomfortable corners.

Additionally, I would say that the very early reporting in instances like this can often be right and not right at the same time.  There's often MULTIPLE scripts that are being pushed and/or considered by MULTIPLE people potentially involved with the movie, AND that sometimes people involved leak things for all types of reasons to all types of potential sources (some more reputable than others).  So I would take most of the early rumors with some salted egg chips (is that the expression? it should be). 

Or you guys can keep arguing about it, which is fine too.

I think the premise is based off of Marvel Studios (or Disney) outright buying Spider-Man from Sony.

Spider-Man is undeniably Marvel Comics' greatest/most-popular character. It makes sense that the MCU would want him to replace Iron Man as the face of the franchise. They've been hinting at that by way of the Stark-Parker relationship, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
7 7