The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[FnkyChkn34]

Without having read any of the comics or knowing these characters before they showed up in the movies whatsoever, I can't really complain about any of the casting choices.  Some I think worked better than others, sure, but none were that bad, IMO.  I think they knew what they were doing, especially if any of those "look who could have played..." articles are accurate.  Maybe Sebastian Stan could have been Steve Rogers, but it's not like anyone can actually picture that now; they each absolutely owned their roles.

(FWIW, I loved Taika Waititi as Korg, and I can't bring myself to dislike Jeremy Renner even though it seems that I should... [but who says his ex-wife can be believed?])  I'm looking forward to Hawkeye where they hopefully flesh out his character better.

[Spartan Girl]

One thing I really love about the Ant-Man movies is how Scott, Maggie, and Paxton were able to get past their differences evolved into a blended family for Cassie. They were even totally one his side after the Civil War mess.

[swanpride]

What I loved about Ant-Man was mostly that Maggie wasn't portrayed as an unreasonable shrew and Paxton not like some sort of a-hole, as it is usually the case in this set-up. They had good reasons to be weary about Scott turning up in Cassie's live (and frankly, their concerns were warranted considering that it took only another year for Scott to end up in prison again...and then on probation. Scott tends to have good intentions, but he is really a mess overall). 

And I loved the big-family dynamic in the second part, too. I hope someone was there for Cassie in the five years. Maybe even just Paxton. 

[akg]

5 hours ago, swanpride said:

And I loved the big-family dynamic in the second part, too. I hope someone was there for Cassie in the five years. Maybe even just Paxton. 

I have a list of reasons why I hated that the Avengers/Tony didn't reset things back to 5 years (he could have done that and still willed Morgan into existence, right?) before and Scott missing 5 years of Cassie's childhood and her not having her dad around is pretty high. They were so adorable and he fought so hard to be a part of her life so taking that away from them (and so many other parents/children) was cruel.

On Rhodey, I'm pretty neutral on them in the movies but I much prefer Cheadle in real life. I do love the scene in IM1 when Rhodey finds Tony in the desert though. I thought both of the actors did a fantastic job with how exhausted and worried they'd each been and how relieved they were to be reunited. I could see how long they'd been friends and how important that relationship was.

[Bruinsfan]

10 hours ago, Starfish35 said:

I don’t think Emily VanCamp was a great choice for Sharon Carter.  Or Jeremy Renner for Hawkeye.  Although part of that can be blamed on the writing I suppose.

Yeah, not a big fan of their characters myself but I think that's more the fault of the writers and directors than the actors. VanCamp was good in Winter Soldier before they decided to put her front and center for the world's most awkward make-out session, and Revenge proved that she can do the cloak & dagger stuff capably. And Renner was more like comic book Hawkeye in that Hansel & Gretel, Witch Hunters movie so I think he could have shone in the part if it had been better written.

[Perfect Xero]

3 hours ago, akg said:

I have a list of reasons why I hated that the Avengers/Tony didn't reset things back to 5 years (he could have done that and still willed Morgan into existence, right?) before and Scott missing 5 years of Cassie's childhood and her not having her dad around is pretty high. They were so adorable and he fought so hard to be a part of her life so taking that away from them (and so many other parents/children) was cruel.

Morgan was just the face they put on a huge moral and ethical issue that would have been created by a reset. Willing every child in the universe who was conceived in the last 5 years out of existence is a staggering act that should not be ignored because a reset is more convenient.

[swanpride]

I was more bothered by the five years...why not three years? That would have already been hard enough but five years, that is the point at which people have moved on. 

[Fukui San]

46 minutes ago, swanpride said:

I was more bothered by the five years...why not three years? That would have already been hard enough but five years, that is the point at which people have moved on. 

In all honesty, I'd guess that it was probably made to be 5 years because they wanted to have Tony's daughter be old enough to have a scene with Tony with dialogue and emotional stakes rather than a toddler or younger.

I'm honestly fascinated by the haphazard world building around the MCU blip. It's handwaved away until the writers need it to be the most important thing ever. 

[cambridgeguy]

On 5/13/2021 at 1:13 AM, Danny Franks said:

Marvel have shown a remarkable amount of faith in their casting choices, and created some big stars off the back of it.

All the way through, people scoffed at their choices - 'RDJ is too risky. Evans was already Johnny Storm, and plays douchy fratbros. Who the hell is Chris Hemsworth? Chris Pratt is a chubby TV clown. Bautista is a bloody wrestler!'

Par for the course for superhero casting and instant fan whining aside, casting relative unknowns has many success stories, although who knows what type of idiocy would have come up if the internet existed as it does today.  Chris who as Superman?  Beetlejuice as Batman?  Some Australian theater guy as Wolverine?

[tv echo]

Probably expect announcements (all presentations are virtual)...

Upfronts, Digital NewFronts and Podcast Upfronts Calendar for 2021
Maryann Teller     February 23, 2021
https://www.mediavillage.com/article/upfront-and-digital-newfronts-calendar-for-2021/

Quote

May 18, 04:00 PM
Disney

ETA: Updated May 19, 2021...

ABC Doubles Down on Long-Running Hits During Disney’s Upfront Presentation
Tyler Hersko   May 18, 2021 
https://www.indiewire.com/2021/05/abc-shows-disney-upfront-presentation-1234638646/ 

Quote

While Disney has expanded its reach via its endlessly popular “Star Wars” and Marvel Cinematic Universe films and television shows in recent years, neither of those iconic franchises were featured during the company’s upfront. Disney+ was not highlighted during the House of Mouse event because it is an ad-free streaming service.

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by tv echo

[HunterHunted]

On 5/13/2021 at 12:03 PM, Starfish35 said:

I don’t think Emily VanCamp was a great choice for Sharon Carter.  Or Jeremy Renner for Hawkeye.  Although part of that can be blamed on the writing I suppose.

I wonder what the writing for Hawkeye would have been if they'd been able to get Jensen Ackles for the role. Unfortunately, Ackles, like almost every other young-ish white male actor auditioned for Captain America. Like Sebastian Stan, Ackles didn't get the part. They offered Stan the role of Bucky and Ackles the role of Hawkeye. Ackles refused because he wasn't willing to blow up Supernatural for less than Captain America. I suspect that Hawkeye might have been wildly different if Ackles had said yes.

On 5/13/2021 at 11:44 AM, Bruinsfan said:

Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer

The writing is so bad in Iron Man 2 that it's hard to say that the performance is good or bad. It's also in that period where the antagonists were almost always evil mirror reflections of the hero. MCU Justin Hammer was MCU Tony Stark, but not a smart and fewer morals. I'm sure that Favreau and Theroux leaned into that characterization because Sam Rockwell was on the short list to play Tony Stark.

[tv echo]

Chadwick Boseman won another posthumous award at last night's 2021 MTV Movie & TV Awards. He won Best Performance in a Movie for his performance in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.

Marvel had a big presence at this awards show. Elizabeth Olsen, Kathryn Hahn and Anthony Mackie appeared in person on stage during this show. Scarlett Johansson and Tom Hiddleston appeared virtually (on a big screen). Kat Dennings and Randall Park had cameos in an opening WandaVision parody by host Leslie Jones titled LeslieVision. You can watch this parody at: https://www.mtv.com/movie-and-tv-awards/video-playlists/w54l6n/2021-mtv-movie-tv-awards-best-moments-from-this-year-s-show/mb8x8d

WandaVision had 6 nominations and won 4 awards: Best Show, Best Performance in a Show (Elizabeth Olsen), Best Villain (Kathryn Hahn), and Best Fight (Wanda Vs. Agatha).

The Falcon and the Winter Soldier had 2 nominations and won 2 awards: Best Hero (Anthony Mackie) and Best Duo (Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan). 

Scarlett Johansson won the honorary MTV Generation Award. She also presented a sneak peek video clip from Black Widow.

Tom Hiddleston presented a sneak peek video clip from Loki.

Edited May 17, 2021 by tv echo

[swanpride]

Yeah, the writing of Ironman 2 is just bad, but if I had to cut a villain, I would actually cut vanco, not Hammer. Hammer is at least entertaining. And frankly, I think a bigger focus on Tony hurting himself would have made the movie more interesting. 

[Perfect Xero]

One of the few things I really like about Iron Man 2 is Rockwell's Hammer, a douchy tech CEO who desperately wants people to see him as a Tony Stark style rock star genius, but doesn't have the actual brain power to back it up. He might be the most realistic villain in the entire MCU.

[Danny Franks]

3 minutes ago, Perfect Xero said:

One of the few things I really like about Iron Man 2 is Rockwell's Hammer, a douchy tech CEO who desperately wants people to see him as a Tony Stark style rock star genius, but doesn't have the actual brain power to back it up. He might be the most realistic villain in the entire MCU.

If they'd made him just a little bit less of a dork and more of a frustrated, unappreciated second best to Tony, he would have really worked as a principle villain. I can see why, with Rockwell's performance, they felt they needed a more serious threat, but Vanko was crap.

The character was a big old nothing, and Mickey Rourke is such a self-important dick that he manages to hurt any scene he's in. Terrible accent, terrible look, flat acting. And he had the temerity to whine afterwards that Marvel cut some of the stuff he wanted included.

Ultimately though, the movie ends the same way as the first Iron Man did - Tony fights the bad guy who's wearing a bigger power suit. The difference this time is that he has no sense of betrayal or anguish to overcome, like he did when Stane betrayed him. He's just fighting this Russian dick with terrible hair and leathery skin.

 

[swanpride]

There are just too many ideas crammed in Ironman 2. I actually like them all separately, but not together. Also, the movie was made too early. That was before Marvel was brave enough to try something different for a climax. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 2/16/2021 at 1:24 PM, swanpride said:

Cap refuses to sign the accord because he doesn't want to shift the responsibility. If something goes wrong on HIS watch, he doesn't want a get out of jail free card, he wants to shoulder it. While Tony would like to get rid of it...that is what most of his actions are about, from creating Ultron to signing the accord, to supporting Peter. He is looking for someone who can shoulder the burden for him because he feels inadequate to do so himself.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 4:25 AM, swanpride said:

Lagos is not on Cap or on Wanda. It's on Crossbones. Period. But that doesn't stop either of them to feel guilty about it. Because feelings aren't logical.

I'm a couple of months late, but I really feel the need to respond. At no point does Steve actually take responsibility for what happened in Lagos. Not really, and even if we make a point of noting Crossbones' willingness to die as long as he could take Cap with him, Steve being fixated on Bucky to the point that he loses the plot in the middle of a pitched battle has nothing to do with Rumlow. He kinda-sorta tells Wanda that what happened was on him, but he never has the realization, "I really need to get a handle on myself. If Tony had been that careless, I'd have given him all kinds of hell, and rightly so." It doesn't help that only Wanda was considered the issue, that she saved Captain America's life in addition to however many people in the marketplace that day and was still the only one to get name-checked, but Steve's hardheaded self was still like, "No,  I refuse to consider listening to the people who were hurt, or to do anything but exactly what I want to do, because my judgement is flawless. Except for when I get caught off guard and things starts exploding, but never mind that because I'm totally on top of everything." Whatever, Steve.

[Dandesun]

7 hours ago, Perfect Xero said:

One of the few things I really like about Iron Man 2 is Rockwell's Hammer, a douchy tech CEO who desperately wants people to see him as a Tony Stark style rock star genius, but doesn't have the actual brain power to back it up. He might be the most realistic villain in the entire MCU.

Justin Hammer in the MCU is Mark Beaks in the rebooted Ducktales. Pew! Pew pew!

[tv echo]

Amazon.com is listing a release date of October 19, 2021 - just in time for holiday shopping (but ouch, the price tag!)...

Edited May 19, 2021 by tv echo

[Kel Varnsen]

6 hours ago, tv echo said:

Amazon.com is listing a release date of October 19, 2021 - just in time for holiday shopping (but ouch, the price tag!)...

For that price it better give me super powers.

[FnkyChkn34]

And why is it listed as a "Product Bundle"?  I couldn't figure out that I'd be getting anything other than the boxset of 2 books... That's not a bundle, that's a boxset.    

[tv echo]

Other retailers (like Abrams Books and Barnes&Noble) describe it as a two-volume set, hardcover, with slipcase - and their prices are even higher than Amazon's price! And here is Marvel.com's article about this product... 

The Definitive Story of How Marvel Studios Created the Marvel Cinematic Universe
BY CHRISTINE DINH   May 17, 2021
https://www.marvel.com/articles/movies/marvel-studios-making-of-marvel-cinematic-universe 

Quote

Get your first look at The Story of Marvel Studios: The Making of the Marvel Cinematic Universe from Abrams Books! This must-have collection is the first and only authorized book to give you an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the creation of the MCU, as told by the studio's creatives, and the cast and crew of The Infinity Saga.

This definitive story is available wherever books are sold on October 19, 2021. You can pre-order it now!
*  *  *
The Story of Marvel Studios is the first-ever, fully authorized, all-access history of Marvel Studios’ creation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as told by the producers, writers, directors, concept artists, VFX artists, cast, and crew who brought it to life. Year-by-year, project-by-project, the studio’s founding and meteoric growth are described through detailed personal stories, anecdotes, and remembrances of noteworthy challenges, breakthrough milestones, and history-making successes.

Together, these stories reveal how each of the films evolved into one ongoing cinematic narrative, as coauthors Tara Bennett and Paul Terry chart the complete production history of The Infinity Saga’s 23 movies (from 2008’s Iron Man all the way up to, and including, 2019’s Avengers: Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home). Bennett and Terry were granted unprecedented access to Marvel Studios, which led to this years-in-the-making tome containing personal stories from more than 200 interviews, including every Marvel Studios producer; MCU writers and directors; the stars of The Infinity Saga; concept artists, costume designers, composers, and the talents behind the MCU’s dazzling visual effects; and more. Featuring previously unpublished behind-the-scenes photography and archival production material, as well as personal photos and memorabilia from cast and crew, The Story of Marvel Studios is the essential, collectible chronicle of how the Marvel Cinematic Universe was brought to life.
*  *  *
Presented as a deluxe, two-volume foil-stamped cloth hardcover set charts the entire history-making story of Marvel Studios—from its inception, through Phases One, Two, and Three, and to the dawn of Phase Four—across 512 pages.

The Story of Marvel Studios features a metallized reinforced slipcase with exclusive wrap-around MCU concept art montage by Ryan Meinerding (Marvel Studios Head of Visual Development), a foreword by Kevin Feige (President of Marvel Studios and Chief Creative Officer of Marvel), and an afterword by Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man). 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by tv echo

[AngieBee1]

Aaron Taylor-Johnson has been cast as Kraven in the Sony-verse.  The film is slated for a 1/13/23 release. 

 

https://deadline.com/2021/05/kraven-the-hunter-aaron-taylor-johnson-spider-man-villain-1234764921/

[Trini]

1 hour ago, AngieBee1 said:

Aaron Taylor-Johnson has been cast as Kraven in the Sony-verse.  The film is slated for a 1/13/23 release. 

 

https://deadline.com/2021/05/kraven-the-hunter-aaron-taylor-johnson-spider-man-villain-1234764921/

So this isn't connected to the MCU?

[Raja]

7 minutes ago, Trini said:

So this isn't connected to the MCU?

Sony would say it is. MCU fans will say its not. Feige walks on eggshells fearing losing access to Spider-Man like Sony is China and doesn't comment 

[FnkyChkn34]

Tom Holland is going to age out of the role soon enough and/or just want to move on. I don't see why anyone needs to walk on eggshells. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Trini said:

So this isn't connected to the MCU?

It’s not. Officially it’s part of the Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters. 

[Raja]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Tom Holland is going to age out of the role soon enough and/or just want to move on. I don't see why anyone needs to walk on eggshells. 

Tom Holland isn't the issue. Feige being able to make stories with Spider-Man, who Sony can pull out of his box of characters and deny the use of at any time is the issue..

[FnkyChkn34]

4 minutes ago, Raja said:

Tom Holland isn't the issue. Feige being able to make stories with Spider-Man, who Sony can pull out of his box of characters and deny the use of at any time is the issue..

So they'd recast him if Tom left but Sony didn't take him back?  I doubt it.  I get the impression that Spider-Man is your favorite character, but I'm sorry - I don't see him lasting much longer into Phase 4 or 5.  He's tied to Tony Stark and the Avengers that are now retired or dead.  It seems to me like the new movies are introducing new characters to keep the stories moving into the future.  

It's most commonly reported that MCU contracts are for 6 movies.  I have no clue about the details of Tom Holland's contract, but he'll be at 6 movies with the release of this third solo movie.  I think if Sony wants to pull Spider-Man back, so be it.  There's a lot to negotiate there with many different parties involved - if just one backs out, it's dead in the water.

[AngieBee1]

Sony should not have blinked and should have went ahead with their plan to pull Spider-Man from Disney's use.  Sony definitely needed Disney's hand to relaunch Spidey. I was on the Sony lot maybe a year before it was announced they were casting again for the role and the only branding they had in their lobby was a large "Ghost Rider" replica.   They really didn't have anything to hang their hat on after the fizzling out of their Spider-Man films.   With a leg up by having Tom Holland in the MCU films, it made audiences excited about the Spider-Man films again. I don't see how having Spider-Man in future Phases work when now that Sony is building up his own rogues' gallery franchise.

[FnkyChkn34]

I saw this meme earlier today actually - I didn't realize it was so timely.  LOL

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

Tom Holland isn't the issue. Feige being able to make stories with Spider-Man, who Sony can pull out of his box of characters and deny the use of at any time is the issue..

Spider-Man is clearly a plus but I don’t understand why anyone things Feige or Marvel needs him that badly. The idea that Feige is walking on eggshells to avoid losing one character in light of everything he has built is bizarre to me. 

1 hour ago, AngieBee1 said:

Sony should not have blinked and should have went ahead with their plan to pull Spider-Man from Disney's use.  Sony definitely needed Disney's hand to relaunch Spidey. I was on the Sony lot maybe a year before it was announced they were casting again for the role and the only branding they had in their lobby was a large "Ghost Rider" replica.   They really didn't have anything to hang their hat on after the fizzling out of their Spider-Man films.   With a leg up by having Tom Holland in the MCU films, it made audiences excited about the Spider-Man films again. I don't see how having Spider-Man in future Phases work when now that Sony is building up his own rogues' gallery franchise.

One big thing is that it gives them guaranteed blockbusters while they build up their on cinematic universe. Plus there is a lot more pressure on a Spider-Man movie than Venom or Morbius. 

[Morrigan2575]

4 hours ago, Dani said:

Spider-Man is clearly a plus but I don’t understand why anyone things Feige or Marvel needs him that badly. The idea that Feige is walking on eggshells to avoid losing one character in light of everything he has built is bizarre to me. 

Marvel doesn't need him, Marvel wants him. I think that's the key, Fiege has wanted all of the Marvel characters back for years this is the closest they got with Spider-Man. 

 

[Kel Varnsen]

31 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Marvel doesn't need him, Marvel wants him. I think that's the key, Fiege has wanted all of the Marvel characters back for years this is the closest they got with Spider-Man. 

 

Marvel might not need him I guess, but Spider man is easily their most recognizable character a household name at the same level as Batman or Superman. Plus Spiderman movies make a ton of money. The first Tobey Maguire movie was I think the highest grossing super hero movie until The Dark Knight came out, and only a handful of solo character Marvel movies have made more than it. So Marvel might not need the character, but I imagine in the movie business bosses probably would prefer that you don't walk away from a ton of money.

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Marvel might not need him I guess, but Spider man is easily their most recognizable character a household name at the same level as Batman or Superman. Plus Spiderman movies make a ton of money

Oh absolutely, there's no doubt that Spider-Man is/was their most recognizable character for decades. However, one of the amazing things about the MCU is that it turned C/D list characters into A Listers. 

I'm a comics fan, I think my first introduction to Marvel (in any form) was Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends (Iceman and Firestar - X-Men Characters). For me the Civil War teaser that showed Spider-Man was monumental. Spidey is finally home where he belongs!

I'm still over here begging MCU to give me MY X-Men not that shit FOX turned out for years.

Now as much as I want Spider-Man and X-Men in the MCU, the MCU doesn't need them. The MCU is putting out extremely profitable movies now, without the need for Spidey or X-Men or F4.  The MCU has built up a following that people will go see movies even with lesser known/liked characters because it's Marvel, not because Spidey or Logan or The Hulk are in them.

MCU might have needed Spider-Man 10+ years ago, when Iron Man and a shared universe was a dream. However, now I just don't think MCU is in any danger of collapsing without Spider-Man..

[tv echo]

The MCU is kinda like the Arrowverse - once you're in, you're in for life...

‘WandaVision’ Head Writer Jac Schaeffer Sets Overall Deal With Marvel Studios, 20th Television
By Joe Otterson    May 26, 2021
https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/wandavision-jac-schaeffer-overall-deal-marvel-studios-20th-television-1234982240/ 

Quote

“WandaVision” head writer Jac Schaeffer has signed a three-year overall deal TV deal with Marvel Studios and 20th Television.

Under the deal, Schaeffer will develop projects for both Marvel Studios and 20th Television. Projects for Marvel Studios will go to Disney Plus, while projects for 20th TV will be developed for all platforms.

Schaeffer created “WandaVision” for television and also served as head writer and executive producer. She is also known for writing, directing, and producing the feature “TiMER” and also wrote the animated short “Olaf’s Frozen Adventure” and the feature “The Hustle” starring Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson. She also worked on the story for the upcoming Marvel feature “Black Widow,” which will be released in theaters and on Disney Plus on July 7.

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by tv echo

[FnkyChkn34]

28 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

MCU might have needed Spider-Man 10+ years ago, when Iron Man and a shared universe was a dream. However, now I just don't think MCU is in any danger of collapsing without Spider-Man..

I totally agree with this.  The MCU is so big now that they made Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor into household names.  Spider-Man is just one of many.

[Kel Varnsen]

9 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I totally agree with this.  The MCU is so big now that they made Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor into household names.  Spider-Man is just one of many.

From a movie goer point if view sure they don't need Spiderman and can get along just fine without him. But the Spider man movies are ridiculously successful, more than just about any other franchise. Spiderman 3, while terrible made more cash than the first 2 Iron Man or Captain America movies movies, and more than either Guardians of the Galaxy movie and more than any Thor movie. I can see for Marvel from a corporate standpoint how they might not want to walk away from even a portion of that all that money.

[Bruinsfan]

Also, Feige seems to consider the spirit of the source material important, and Spider-Man was Stan Lee's favorite character. He's pretty much the iconic heart of the brand, and not having him at the company's disposal is always going to irritate no matter how much money they can earn putting out movies about Demolition Man or Captain Ultra with the Marvel logo.

[FnkyChkn34]

27 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

From a movie goer point if view sure they don't need Spiderman and can get along just fine without him. But the Spider man movies are ridiculously successful, more than just about any other franchise. Spiderman 3, while terrible made more cash than the first 2 Iron Man or Captain America movies movies, and more than either Guardians of the Galaxy movie and more than any Thor movie. I can see for Marvel from a corporate standpoint how they might not want to walk away from even a portion of that all that money.

Sure, it would still make them money, but the MCU has at least 9 of the 30 highest grossing movies, and when two of them are Black Panther and Captain Marvel, I think their future looks just fine. 

I guess my only point is that the MCU is looking to the future, and Spiderman might be in their past.  Especially if it'll be too difficult or costly to keep the rights to him - just let him go.  

[cambridgeguy]

2 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Sure, it would still make them money, but the MCU has at least 9 of the 30 highest grossing movies, and when two of them are Black Panther and Captain Marvel, I think their future looks just fine. 

I guess my only point is that the MCU is looking to the future, and Spiderman might be in their past.  Especially if it'll be too difficult or costly to keep the rights to him - just let him go.  

They'll want to hedge their bets.  Sure, right now anything with Marvel associated with it turns into box office gold but sooner or later that bubble will burst.  Spiderman (Miles Morales version if they don't want to recast Peter) could easily be the future and is a much surer bet than another obscure character, especially if they're coming off a loss.

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But the Spider man movies are ridiculously successful, more than just about any other franchise. Spiderman 3, while terrible made more cash than the first 2 Iron Man or Captain America movies movies, and more than either Guardians of the Galaxy movie and more than any Thor movie. I can see for Marvel from a corporate standpoint how they might not want to walk away from even a portion of that all that money.

I don't believe Marvel/Disney makes any money off the Spider-Man Movies. Unless the deal has changed, Sony fronts the production/marketing cost and Marvel does the work. Sony gets all the $$ from the movies run, Marvel gets the marchandising money.

[Kel Varnsen]

21 minutes ago, cambridgeguy said:

They'll want to hedge their bets.  Sure, right now anything with Marvel associated with it turns into box office gold but sooner or later that bubble will burst.  Spiderman (Miles Morales version if they don't want to recast Peter) could easily be the future and is a much surer bet than another obscure character, especially if they're coming off a loss.

Yea there aren't too many sure bets in the movie business, but looking at the box office numbers that Spiderman 3 and the Amazing Spiderman movies did makes me think it is as pretty close to a sure bet as you can get.

8 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I don't believe Marvel/Disney makes any money off the Spider-Man Movies. Unless the deal has changed, Sony fronts the production/marketing cost and Marvel does the work. Sony gets all the $$ from the movies run, Marvel gets the marchandising money.

I thought Marvel got a cut or a fee or something, plus they get script control and the ability to use the character in other MCU movies.

[Morrigan2575]

19 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I thought Marvel got a cut or a fee or something, plus they get script control and the ability to use the character in other MCU movies.

Looks like Marvel got 5% of the box office in the original deal.

OK found it, the new deal Marvel gets 25% but has to put up 25% of the production budget. They also only get 2 movies (No Way Home and a Mystery Marvel Movie). Sony gets more access to Spider-Man in the Villains Verse.

https://screenrant.com/spiderman-sony-marvel-deal-explained/

I did just find that Disney signed a deal with Sony this year to broadcast Spider-Man movies (along with a few other titles) on Disney+ (after they spend a year on Netflix). It covered Theatrical movies from 2022-2026.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/disney-signs-deal-to-stream-spider-man-other-sony-films-.html

Which makes me wonder if they knew Sony wouldn't renew the deal again and went for streaming access instead?

Edited May 27, 2021 by Morrigan2575

[Raja]

29 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Looks like Marvel got 5% of the box office in the original deal.

OK found it, the new deal Marvel gets 25% but has to put up 25% of the production budget. They also only get 2 movies (No Way Home and a Mystery Marvel Movie). Sony gets more access to Spider-Man in the Villains Verse.

https://screenrant.com/spiderman-sony-marvel-deal-explained/

I did just find that Disney signed a deal with Sony this year to broadcast Spider-Man movies (along with a few other titles) on Disney+ (after they spend a year on Netflix). It covered Theatrical movies from 2022-2026.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/21/disney-signs-deal-to-stream-spider-man-other-sony-films-.html

Which makes me wonder if they knew Sony wouldn't renew the deal again and went for streaming access instead?

I think that the Mouse wants the entire Infinity Saga on plus. Just Hulk's movie, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D , if you count them remain outside. AoS should come back after Netflix international refuses a renewal price.

[akg]

On the connections between the MCU's Spider-Man and Sony's villains, Sony released the trailer for Morbius today and it has 2 direct Spider-Man references: some graffiti about poor Peter being a murderer and the return of 

Spoiler

 Vulture (Michael Keaton)

So there is a chance of Tom Holland making an appearance in Venom 2 or Kraven.

And on Kraven, I really wish the writers would base movie Kraven on the version in the latest run of Squirrel Girl comics. I loved that and I think it would make for a fun movie.

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, Raja said:

I think that the Mouse wants the entire Infinity Saga on plus. Just Hulk's movie, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D , if you count them remain outside. AoS should come back after Netflix international refuses a renewal price.

Sounds like they're getting all Spider-Man movies, including Venom and maybe other Spider Villain movies?

 The arrangement means Disney will be able to offer new Sony movies, including any new installments in Marvel’s “Spider-Man” and “Venom” series, starting in 2023. First, they will play in theaters and be offered on DVD and video-on-demand. Next, they will head to Netflix for an exclusive 18-month period before going to Disney+ or other Disney platforms.

[BetterButter]

Black Panther’s Danai Gurira Reportedly Returning In Marvel Disney+ Show

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Sounds like they're getting all Spider-Man movies, including Venom and maybe other Spider Villain movies?

Eventually. It could be years before many of them end up in Disney streaming due to pre-existing deals. Morbius will be the first Sony Marvel movie that Disney will have access to unless one of the older Spider-Man movies isn’t streaming somewhere else. 

[Morrigan2575]

25 minutes ago, Dani said:

Eventually. It could be years before many of them end up in Disney streaming due to pre-existing deals. Morbius will be the first Sony Marvel movie that Disney will have access to unless one of the older Spider-Man movies isn’t streaming somewhere else. 

It does seem like a odd deal. I'm rather curious about it. I know it's not just Spider-Man on Disney+ the deal covered other movies that would start streaming on Hulu.