Of course, as I've seen some people mention online, this doesn't ultimately matter because "the world is on fire." But sometimes it's nice to just talk about things on the internet that don't matter and you can make your post and then forget about it for the rest of the day. I haven't looked it up in Psychology Today but that seems like a healthy way to let off some steam from the frustrations of life and the world.
Of course, I wasn't in the room and I've only read and heard a limited amount of information about this topic before I decided that I needed to form an opinion that everyone on the internet should read...What?!>!
So, it would seem that Disney approached Sony about the Spider-man agreements which led to his involvement in the MCU.
I don't know what the financial deal was for Disney to be allowed to use the character in the MCU but it would seem that they only got a 5% stake in the stand-alone films.
Disney wanted to finance up to 50% of the projects in exchange for 50% of the return.
And Sony said, No!
The internet consensus seems to be that Sony believes that they've made good Spider-Man movies before (probably doesn't matter and I'll explain why later) and they made 800-something-million dollars off of Venom (I didn't see it and I'm not sure who did) so they can make all of their movies with that Spider-Guy and make all of the money.
I think that's a bad idea. Sony is going to go out half-cocked and make some new standalone movie when, if they had kept this deal they could have risked less and continued to make money while eventually making their own spider-man movies eventually.
It's important to note that by being involved in the MCU Sony has access to all of that advertising for their projects and all of that emotional attachment to that Universe which was not an insignificant investment from Disney.
My main point is that Sony had a way to make money, and they are turning it down because they want all of the money.
|We get it, Neil, you're disappointed.|
I don't care if they come back and make a great stand-alone Spider-Man movie because I need a stand-alone Spider-Man movie like I need another gritty batman reboot.
I'm glad the Venom movie did well. As I said, I didn't see it, and I'm not going to because I haven't actually heard anything good about it.
The thing that the MCU is doing right is focusing on the relationships between the characters so, I'd argue that a lot of stand-alone superhero movies that are outside of the MCU are going to seem forced because they haven't managed to lay the groundwork like the MCU has.
People (both the core fanbase and an extended fanbase) love seeing Iron Man and Cap show up on the screen because of the way they were handled in their films. We enjoyed seeing Spider-Man because it was fun to see him interact in the world those characters built.
As far as I understand that, Venom didn't reinvent the character in any, meaningful way. I don't think we're going to see a hundred Venom's trick-or-treating this year.
I haven't seen Venom. So stop asking!
|Shut up, Neil!|
But I'd argue that it did well because people wanted to see an underutilized character on the screen and I'd also bet that 20% of the people going to see that thought that it was an MCU film and walked out disappointed. That's just a guess.
So, I'm really just saying that, much in the same way that the Andrew Garfield movies ended, I don't want to see a non-MCU Spider-Man, mostly because the character has been done to death. Into the Spiderverse did so well because it offered completely different takes on the character. The MCU would have further developed the character in a way that a stand-alone series can't.
That works...that sounds like a conclusion, right.