In my opinion Sony's venom was written way better then the MCUs spiderman I know it's a hot take but If you're really into Spider-Man you know Tom Holland's Spider-Man is missing so many key things that a spiderman needs I hated iron man mentoring him that stole our chance to see a friendly neighbourhood spiderman.. that had to literally force it into the end of the last movie! I think the first Insomniacs Spider-Man gets the character very well tho not so much the second game.
@@TylerSane5I think Homecoming was alright, and Far From Home was forgettable and mediocre marvel tripe. But No Way Home made his character arc a lot more Spider-Man-esque, and despite all the contrivances they did a pretty good job with that. I don't think it's worse than Venom especially with NWH added to the mix. Let's just hope Madame Web isn't a sign for future things to come...
Sony should have stopped trying to make a Spider-Man-less, Spider-Man universe after the success of the first venom movie and instead focused on making a venom-verse that they could eventually bring spider man into
@@veedubgeezer It's a bit hand-wavy but I think it gels better than making SM3 canon to Venom, but what if it's because he _will_ know Spider-Man instead of does? After all, we saw (the silhouettes of) many villains who know one Spider-Man or another in No Way Home that are theoretically attached to Spider-Mans we don't know.. That or something as dumb as all Venoms are attached to each other via the multi-verse as much as the different Peters were connected to each other and we just so happen to have got that one instead of Topher Grace despite getting more than half of Tobey McGuire's rogues' gallery.
@@veedubgeezer The spell in NWH that was cast made everyone in the entire multiverse who knows Spider-Man, come to that universe. Strange stopped the spell but a few slipped in. Venom was one of them, but that venom doesn't know Spider-Man. How does that work? Well the symbiotes have a multIversal hive mind. So venom recognized Spider-Man from other Venom encounters including Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man.
@InsidiousOne the character has still been a clear success and has outperformed anything Sony has produced outside of the animated version of Spiderman in the last few years.
@lordraiden7397 that's debatable and for individuals to decide, but if you have to go back 20 years, that makes the point that Sony isn't on top of their Spiderman game outside of the animation side.
@garybrown5391 The character outperformed in numbers because of numerous factors like its inclusion in a bigger universe and how it is released in newer times. Superheroes in general were mainstream because of Sony's spiderman. Tobeys spiderman is literally what made people think the superhero media can also be intense. Spreading misinformation is what you like to do.
You skipped from 94 to 99. You forgot about Blade. BLADE was the film that kept Marvel from obscurity, and let the industry know they could sell comic book characters as interesting and entertaining in film. Who's the editor over there at Nerdist?
The best financial move Sony could make, instead of losing money on these awful movies, is just give Marvel back the reigns, take a perminent percentage cut on Spidey related films, and an agreement to produce Spider-man related films at a certain cadence. Sony continues with animation and solo Spidey games. It literally couldn't get better than that.
True... Plus Sony could also negotiate for say... MARVEL to have rights to box office earnings and merchandise while Sony owns rights to DVDs and streaming after theatrical release... But both studios are too greedy at the moment... MARVEL would rather search for an unknown intellectual property and develop that
The Spider-Man issue Sony has is that they have a multi-billion dollar character that they dont know how to use. It's like imagine finding a Green Lantern ring, but you can only sometimes make it work. You're not going to get rid of it or give it away because you keep making mistakes, you're going to keep going until you make it work for you. The best we can hope for is Sony giving Marvel full control OR Marvel just seeing the value and BUYING Spider-Man and his characters back.
I'm pretty sure that Marvel sees the value and have surely made offers to buy the rights back, but up until recently Sony was making too much money from Spider-Man to consider selling him. However after Madame Webb, and we'll see how the next couple of titles like Venom 3 perform, if they keep losing money on their movies they will probably consider selling - but then of course Marvel/Disney needs to decide what they're willing to pay!
Marvel/Disney already make a ton of money from selling Spidey merchandise. If I'm not wrong they make more than a billion every year with the merchandise alone.
Please explain to me how Marvel Studios having full control over the Spider-Man character is "the best we can hope for"? Have you seen anything from MCU Phases 4 and 5? Anything? Critics coined the term "Superhero Fatigue", but that doesn't exist. People are fatigued of badly-written sludge, and after Endgame, that's all we've been getting. Even before Endgame, Captain Marvel, a very disappointing and bland movie with a horrible sense of character, morals or consistency, no real character arc, laughable villains and a plot "twist" that is undermined by the preceding movie, was shoved in between Infinity War and Endgame, so that people would be forced to watch it. Name a single piece of post-Endgame MCU content, be it a movie or a show, that was actually good, and I mean good until the end, not "promising and fresh aside from the last one or two episodes" - WandaVision started out interesting but then dropped the ball fast and hard. Loki could have been good, but completely assassinated its titular character's character AND made him a secondary character to the superior female version. Falcon and Winter Soldier was so focused on real-life, current-year politics that world-saving Avenger Falcon was racially profiled by the police, couldn't get a loan, wasn't taken care of in any way by some Stark/Avengers fund, the government, etc., the "real" first Captain America was black, the terrorists who bombed buildings with innocent people in them and killed the buddy of the new Captain America should not be called "terrorists" and were really the victims, and the solution to massive and unpredictable issues like the housing crisis after the "blip" is to yell at senators to "do better"... The Tom Holland Spider-Man movies, somehow, are the only exception, so since all the recent MCU movies and shows, as well as all SONYster six movies and Madame Web, are crap, but the animated Spider-Verse movies are amazing, and the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies are pretty good to great and very well-received, I have to think that SONY does know what to do with Spidey, just not with his rogues gallery without Spidey. That, or the specific blend of SONY and Marvel Studios having to collaborate is working. So the last thing I'd want is for current(!) Marvel Studios to gain full ownership of the Spider-Man character and all related characters. Once Kevin Feige decides to get his head out of his arse and drop the DEI bullshit to push for a good cinematic superhero universe again, as we've had for over a decade spanning Phases 1-3 (with some less great exceptions, obviously, but I would take an Iron Man 3 over Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, or a Thor: The Dark World over a Thor: Love and Thunder any day), THEN I'll agree with you, that it'd be awesome to have Marvel Studios in full control of all Marvel comics properties.
Spider-Man is one of the biggest superheroes on the planet. Even if the movies bomb you can put they'd price it in the multi-billions, IF they're willing to sell. And if Disney goes for it...ooooh the great Spider-Man milking is gonna be worse than Star Wars lol
I never want to generalize Sony for this sort of stuff. They have shown to have made great Spider-Man movies, and if standalone movies about the villains aren’t received well then it’s not the end of the world.
The joker movie, is Joker, in name only. It's a mental health problem movie...not an origin flick. It has no explanations for how the lead(Arther Fleck) gets his fighting skills in hand to hand combat, military tactics, weaponry use, explosives and/or demolitions abilities, and advanced chemistry/biology knowledge, to become the Joker we all recognize? Plus the characters age, is, appearancewise, already well into middle aged. (Pheonix was 44..Though his character was supposedly in his early 30s)
Give them a movie or two to build a fallen world with several villains and then watch the Batman movie of a psycho killer eliminating these poor mental cases.
Blade was not a juggernaut because it was not a movie you could take your families to see. It was a quality film and is not a family-friendly property to be sure; but, all other things being equal, limited its success in a way Spider-Man didn't have to worry about.
Feel like they butchered mcu spiderman to be honest he was way to all over the place and he was forced into all these big events right away which isn't really Spider-Man at least I see spiderman as a lower level hero who can still hang with the best of them when he has to but for the most part it should be smaller stories like the first mcu spiderman that one is actually good!.
AVI ARAD has ruined so far... * Daredevil (2003) * The Punisher (2004) * Elektra (2005) * Fantastic Four (2005) * X-Men: The Last Stand * Spider-Man 3 * Bratz (2007) * Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance * The Amazing Spider-Man 2 * Ghost in the Shell (2017) * Venom: Let There Be Carnage * Uncharted (2022) * Morbius And now he's gonna ruin... * Borderlands * Kraven the Hunter * Venom: The Last Dance * Legend of Zelda * Naruto As long Arad lives, there's no hope
"This isn't Spider-Manchester By The Sea" is a brilliant line and a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with the Amazing's portrayal of Peter and Spidey (no shade on Andrew Garfield, he followed the instruction he was given in terms of character).
Damn i would LOVE a Tombstone movie about a version of him portrayed in TSSM(2008). Something about mafia like The Godfather, maybe featuring Kingpin and the whole fighting for power between different groups like in 70-ish(?) issues of Spider Man where everyone thought he was dead.
Couldn’t they just use a Spider-Gwen or Miles Morales? Seems like they just need a different hero to introduce the villains-could easily slip in some new heroes later…. Spider-Pig VS Morbius 2015, it’s morb-oinking time!!!
Very good job on this video, although I don’t agree with everything you said here but you made a lot of good points and for sure Madame web demonstrates what a really tricky place Sony is in right now because in that movie they gave us the bare minimum of a Spider-man connection by putting in several members of Peter’s family and even showing him as a baby. It’s weird and doesn’t make a lot of sense but it shows just how desperate Sony is right now. I hope they can change tactics soon because I don’t want more incoherent villains movies that barely have any plot and keep hinting at Spider-man but not truly using him. It is certainly a rough time for Spider-man fans and I hope things will turn around soon! This is indeed a great great deep dive into the history of the character rights and the setup for many of the surrounding projects. Keep up the great videos!
Oh, God no. Not with Sony at the helm. The characterization in Into the Spiderverse was bad enough, I can only shudder in the thought of how badly they'd mangle his story.
You don’t think they’ve been wanting to do that for the past 20 years??? Sony won’t play ball. Spider-Man is their cash cow and as long as they keep making a Morbius every couple years, they get to keep him forever
@@cthulhutheendless1587 LOL No. Marvel could EASILY buy back the Spider-Man rights IF they really wanted to. IF they were willing to pay the price, which they can EASILY afford. Disney could buy Sony Pictures as a whole. Spider-Man's rights are peanuts in comparison. Spider-Man is NOT Sony's cash cow. They're BARELY making money with it. AND the only success they have with live-action Spider-Man is in movies that Disney makes FOR Sony. So even Sony's rare successes with Spider-Mans are in name only. Without Disney doing the work for them, Sony is FUCKED. The problem is that Sony Pictures is a failing studio that keeps nearly getting shut down and sold off by Sony, and Spider-Man is one of the only things they have going for them. It's basically their ONLY bargaining chip giving them any sort of power at all. The problem is that Disney CAN buy back the Spider-Man rights, but they just refuse to pay as much as Sony wants for it. Sony wants more than the rights are worth, BECAUSE it's the only real power Sony Pictures has left, even though the rights themselves aren't worth all that much. So Sony keeps making more shitty movies, which makes the Spider-Man rights worth less and less and less and less every time. If/when Sony Pictures shuts down or gets sold off, Disney automatically gets the Spider-Man rights back for free. So Disney is fine with just waiting to see if Sony Pictures collapses or to see them drive the value of the Spider-Man rights completely into the ground. Sony is playing a losing game and are thus far caught in a death spiral. BUT, Sony MAY have finally figured out a path to success moving forward. Maybe. Which means Disney needs to reevaluate their stance on not buying back the Spider-Man rights. Disney's plan of just letting Sony hilariously make a mess and shit all over themselves has been really effective so far, but now it's really time to just bite the bullet and buy back the rights.
@@cthulhutheendless1587 But I think if Venom 3 bombs as badly as Madame Webb and Morbius, there's a chance Sony will come to the table, because at this point they're sinking hundreds of millions into movies just to hold onto the rights, at a certain point the risk will outweigh the rewards. Or the investment won't be worth the profit margins, in other words.
Sony needs to keep Spiderman. Let this current deal finish and just bring Spidey back in his own movie world with miles and others. Do a Spider-Geddon movie. Disney/MCU is falling apart. Keep spidey away from it.
THANK YOU! Sony does NOT have to keep making these villain movies in order to retain the rights. Sony OWNS the rights permanently. Disney is the one who has to keep making Spider-Man movies, or their LICENSE will expire, and then everything will fall back to Sony.
I like how well you explained it all but wish you could talk more about how stupid Sony has been. I’m so sick of them doing all of this and not being punished for it. It’s time we stop seeing these movies made by them.
Spiderman was the 9/11 movie. Anyone alive at the time remembers the reason it did well: the preview was Spiderman catching robbers in a helicopter in a giant spider in between the two towers. Then, right before the movie came out, they came down. There was an article that they needed to reshoot a lot of it because the towers were in the film and they felt it may be emotional for people. When the movie came out, it was the feel good movie people needed. It hit the "zeitgeist" perfectly.
I want Marvel Team-Up. I'm kind of sick of continuity. I'd really like to see Sony use Toby or Andrew in a team-up with some of the anti-heroes or to borrow some of the Marvel characters that aren't going to be used in a movie and make some out-of-continuity team-up movies. Spider-Man/Venom, Spider-Man/Morbius, Spider-Man/Punisher, Spider-Man/Daredevil. All of those would be great. They would have to be competently done, but Sony has done that in the past. Marvel's never going to do live-action Spider-Gwen, Sony could do that or Miles. I just have no interest in Spider-Man movies with no Spider-Man like they've been doing.
Y’know, if Sony wants to make more Spider-Man movies, they could use one of the hundred other spider-based heroes in the multiverse. It worked for Miles Morales and I know I’d watch a solo movie starring Mayday Parker, Miguel O’Hara, Jessica Drew, or heck, Japanese Spidey! LET’S BRING BACK LEOPARDON! Or they could make a Spectacular Spider-Man movie to give that show SOME finality.
Sony unfortunately has no reason to release their death grip on these rights. They will keep making movies so infamously bad that enough people will watch them to laugh at them and get Sony back to even, strictly to stop the rights from reverting back to Disney. The profit from the MCU licensing is far too high for them to let go of it. They'll break even spending 300m to make three shitty movies, and then make 500m easy profit when Disney decides they need another Spidey flick. It's a shitty situation that I wish Sony would just give up on or Disney would pay out, but neither seem willing to do so. That said, I actually do really like Venom Let There Be Carnage. It seems very self aware and as such it's so silly and fast paced that it's never boring, which was Madame Web's biggest sin.
Better idea: prowler movie, that introduces live action miles Morales. So the plot is kinda the movie steel except a little edgier. So he's a weapon developer and engineer, he gets screwed over by his boss, and left for dead. His brother, who was an engineer back in the day too, owns a junk yard and they build a prowler suit out of stuff in the junk yard to fight the big corporate bad guy. Miles is there as sort of a sidekick helping his dad with the junk yard and learns about the plot and wants to help out. Big fight happens, and the prowler wins the day and then in the sequel you introduce miles.
@@robbush6822 i think Venom works as a menacing foil to Spiderman. But trying to make him a stand alone flawed protagonist of a live action trilogy doesnt imho. Especially as a PG13 version. It becomes very campy very quickly. The dude eats brains. I mean come on. Lol.
@@benmalsky9834 no i dont. Morbius and Madam Web were garbage juice. They pushed back Kraven for a reason. They know its going to bomb. They have no idea WTF they are doing
I agree with everything, but after playing Insomniac's game, I have to admit that I'd be interested in seeing a Tombstone horror movie now that I've heard the idea at all.
The problem with Spiderman 3 was the first two films. You setup a bunch of plot tensions that paid off at the end of 2. There was no point to 3. Peter had learned his lesson and got the girl and the city was validating his sacrifice. The only place to go was down. Then they tried to compress waaaaaaay too much development into film crowded with characters. I called the failure before I saw the first preview.
Spiderman 3 had the basic superhero movie flaw -- all too many superhero movies have *too many villains*. It's like the people writing this shit think that a superhero movie does not need to introduce and justify/motivate each major character. The original Batman worked because it had ONLY the Joker. The original Superman worked because it had ONLY Lex Luthor. Once you have more than two -- and even that is a high count -- of villains, your movie is guaranteed to suck. Burton's Batman 2 suffered greatly because it basically had three villains -- Catwoman, Penguin, and whoever the eph Christopher Walken played. The split nature of the Bats/Cats relationship was good. And Devito was spectacularly cast as Penguin. *There was no need at all for Walken to be in this movie.* And the same for the other post-Burton Batmans -- each was already introducing a character -- Robin, then Batgirl -- adding two *more* villains, rather than just one per movie -- was flat out bad, inept, and utterly incompetent writing and storytelling. Your core story should have not more than three to five main characters, and if you're getting up to five, at least a couple should be related in some regards so they have similar/same backstories (e.g., Wanda Maximov and her brother... or members of an army troop, for example.) You can adjust a bit when you have "returning" characters -- you don't need to explain Batman as much in Batman II or III. But you still need character development, so they have to get SOME of the story. This is one of the reasons why the Holland Spiderman movies work so damned well -- each has one freaking villain, or, for No Way Home, a repeat of the previous villains, so not a lot of development was needed. And almost all the other notable major characters were returning... so peeps could be presumed to know who they were. The other is that Holland just played a teenager *_properly._* We're so used to these "professional teenagers" you see all the time in TV & Movies that we forget what teens are *actually like* -- all gawky coltishness, uncertainty, and energy. The only other really great example I can recall was Cameron Diaz as a teen early on in *Something About Mary.* Now contrast those two with any of the "kids" in 90210. P.S., the main good thing that the Garfield Spiderman had going for it, really, was that the FX had improved considerably, so you could have Spidey doing very very "Spidermany" things during fights -- for example, when fighting The Lizard, he shoots a web between Lizard's legs, pulls himself through, and scampers up Lizard's back. Raimi's Spiderman never did anything of the sort... because he couldn't. The issue with Carnage, by the way, is that they did it on the cheap... plus... Hardy. I gather Hardy wanted to direct, so they let him, and, while he might have talent, he did not show any here. Plus, the FX in Venom II were markedly BAD. I mean, I was noting it in the THEATER bad. You could see that they were doing Pacific Rim style "Darken the fuck out of the shot, so the bad FX aren't quite so glaringly obvious!!"... but it was insufficient. I also still do not believe the issue is that they don't have properties they can make interesting -- the main issue is that they keep putting "production talent" that lacks the comprehension and the... yes: Talent -- to actually do a good job. This, of course, is a stab at the idiotic DIE policy so popular throughout Hollywouldn't. I won't argue with the complaint that they want more "diversity" in the talent pool. OK, fine. How to get there from (2016, and Endgame). _"I know, let's wave a wand and declare that THESE people will be the creative talent pool for the next movies!!"_ Yeah, that's not how it works. Magic wands, like sling rings, work in movies, but not in the real world. The *proper* way to develop more diversity is to find promising up and coming "diverse" people, and match them up with your experienced and highly capable and effective talent pool, to help mentor the noobs. This, of course, would take ten years and more ... but it works, and it would not have cost Disney, Sony, et al, a billion or so dollars in return for .... not much.
The other interesting thing feeding into this is Sony can't do the themeparks and rides like Disney can. Go to Avengers campus in Disneyland. It's half Spiderman themed stuff. That all drives continued popularity of that version of the character.
Would Sony be able to get the rights for Silk or Spider-Gwen? I mean that's seems like a half decent approach without banking soley on a Peter Parker but still giving that spidey action people crave.
The character who almost killed the comic back in the 90’s could potentially stand on its own as a character in a new spider man movie featuring Ben Riley without missing out on banking on a mcu Spider-Man deal with Peter Parker. You can make his story arc more interesting and more grittier like what dc has done for the joker.
I don’t know why Sony didn’t just focus on the multiple different Spider heroes they have in their arsenal. They are starting to with Spider-Man Noir. But still. They could’ve done a long term live action spiderverse saga and then they would be able to use Tom Hollands Spider-Man in the multiverse team up movie alongside a live action Miles, SM 2099, Scarlet Spider, any Spider Women, the potential was endless. I don’t where their heads were at.
Exactly. I read somewhere that Madame Web was made specifically to kind of maybe setup a future Peter Parker Spider-Man franchise from Sony, just in case their deal with Marvel went sideways. I think they should sell Peter Parker to Marvel and move forward with Miles Morales as their main Spider-Man while also using the other spider totems. I would go see live-action movies for Spider-Punk, Silk, or even Spider-Man India.
@@richchappell see u get it. They had a silk series in development but cancelled it. But can u imagine Damon idris as spider punk. Xolo mariduena as Spider-Man 2099. Miles brown or Caleb McLaughlin as Miles Morales. Emma Myers as Spider Gwen. Tom Holland could play Peter Parker’s clone Ben Reilly in another reality. They could have Merlin as the overarching villain, going through the multiverse to kill all the spider totems. Which will also allow u to connect madame web and give the film more credibility into actually structuring this universe they are tryna build. To make Madame Web more integral. Make her the connector for everyone like how nick fury was in phase one of the mcu. Have her be the one to travel through the multiverse using the web of life & destiny and recruiting the Team Spider-Man.
Simple answer: their asses. I'd have absolutely paid to watch Silver & Black but they canned it in favour of a Madame Web film that screamed terrible from the get-go and only got worse by watching it (and I'll say I definitely did _not_ pay for that experience).
@@daggern15 I heard they canned the silver and black movie because Disney wanted to use black cat in the upcoming trilogy which will probably be executed better but it still was a let down to not get the movie
@@sinszz2824 I'd actually theorised this myself with the more grounded approach the next film looks like it'll be taking given the ending of NWH. I really hope this turns out to be true. It should be a crime for us to have been getting Spidey films for this long and not a single appearance from Cat.
100 BIGGEST MISTAKE Sony is making with the Spider-Man franchise...... not using THE CHAMELEON. I don't understand how they're missing this!🤷🏾🤷🏾🤷🏾🤷🏾🤷🏾 The character is genius, detective based, low cgi, low-budget but can be the CLEAR Nemesis to Spiderman as he was FROM THE BEGINNING, as Joker is to Batman.
I say Sony should just OWN their Spidey mess and soft-reboot Peter Parker/Spiderman into a detective Noir type bit with "Spiderman Identity Crisis". That's even a part of the comics where he fights the Kingpin like the cartoons. Don't sit on this, Sony!
Had the Copyright Extensions for Mickey Mouse not came into fruition back in the 1990s, the starting works of Spider-Man would of been in The Public Domain right on January 1st of 2019. Said character is 5 years overdue at the moment of this typing to this day.
I think its weird that sony didnt include some backdoor promotion of their own non-man spider hero options into the MCU as part of their spider-man deals... giving spider-gwen or miles morales a cameo in an MCU movie to make the MCU do the legwork of establishing the character, so Sony could use them as a flagship hero seems so obvious....
Yeah, that seems unlikely to happen from Marvel's perspective there's no incentive, it would just be muddying the waters for the benefit of their competitor.
@ieyke keep in mind that the issue is that marvel wants Spider-man... so Sony DID have leverage. Getting spider-man at the cost of a secondary spider (that a lot of d-bags in the community already try to paint as "b-listers") getting some screen time would not be so great a cost.
Sony have done well with other aspects of Spider-Man, the animated movie and games, which have done well for them to not lose the rights completely… maybe the can keep the animated rights and video game rights and sell the rest to marvel studios…
So if they were doing a sinister six with the villains how would they justify them being true villains when in their movies they arent actual villains?
When Spider-Man 3 came out it was not it…but I gotta say, it has aged like fine wine. I’ve really come to appreciate the story Raimi put together despite not knowing venom. If you can get over how terribly Venom was done in this movie, the story is wrapped up quite well. Honestly I find myself re watching Spider-Man 3 more than the others.
Sony knows they suck. That's why they don't take Spider-Man out of the MCU. They're hoping for a shot in the dark with their garbage Spider-verse, but in the end they know they're making garbage.
They could probably do a Ben Reilly trilogy. 1st Movie: Scarlet Spider: A retelling of Ben being dumped in the smoke stack, 5 lost years, and then meeting Peter as the Scarlet Spider, Kaine is the villain. 2nd: Sensational Spider-man, Peter retires at the beginning to have a normal life with MJ, the Jackal is the villain. 3rd Spectacular Spider-men, Ben is this universe's main Spider-man, and he teams up with and trains this universe's Miles Morales, Hobgoblin is the villain. Or just do Spider-Man 2099, the audience knows who he is now.
Sony has so many Spider-people to use, they can use Miguel, they can use a Spider-Woman they have so many choices for Spider-People to use that's not Peter or Miles, yet they don't use them also Spider-Man's movie rights need to seriously go back to Marvel, that's where he belongs and I want more spider-people in the mcu, like Miles or Spider-Gwen Venom is the only decent but even he should be in the mcu and would be better with Spider-Man, they also didn't do Carnage very well, his movie should've been rated higher considdering how brutal this character can be (also I really hope Sony isn't retconning the Venom symbiote in the mcu) when the 3rd Venom movie is out no one is going to care about Sony's Spider-Man movies without Spider-Man
Spiderman is worth more than the entire marvel universe. Spidey movies will still be pulling in 1+ billion every movie for years to come, whereas the hype for the marvel universe has come and gone.
Sony's worst mistake is the apprehension for not putting spider-men in these villain movies because it's been proven time and again that general audiences don't mind the "confusion" of multiple characters of the same and actually through a mix of nostalgia and other kinds of hype like in No Way Home, it's actually been super successful. I wouldn't want current Sony to chuck Andrew Garfield into Morbius though because that feels like it would just taint the good thing we had going in No Way Home and he would be brought down with that whole baggage of continuity this universe has. Even if they tried, his appearance would most likely feel like an odd arbitrary cameo like Vulture in Morbius or Superman in Black Adam.
So one day I sat down and watched every spiderman movie back to back { before No Way home came out} and the one thing I will give the first Amazing Spiderman over any 3 in the Raimi trilogy is that while watching Raimi's 3 together MJ becoming the damsel in distress got old very fast. Almost eye rolling laughable bad by the third installment. In that regard watching The Amazing Spiderman was a breath of fresh air because Gwen wasn't just a useless hostage. She was actually trying to actively help him in that first movie. I would even argue her death in the second movie still made more use of her than MJ got in the original trilogy. So, lol didn't expect to write so much, in conclusion I would argue if nothing else, The Amazing Spiderman gave us a much more interesting love interest .
Sony should sell Spider-Man to someone else, these venoms movies had promise but they’re kinda a mess now along with morbin morbeus and the madam Webb. Seems like they don’t know what to do with a spiderverse
Joker was a compelling backstory. Instead of going full send into a villain movie, maybe consider... I dunno... creating a compelling backstory for villains in a Spiderverse, so when you _get Spider-Man back_ you can actually go right into a dramatic story focusing on the evil machinations of a villain without having to explain their character motivations. While we're at it, it will be a suggested pre-game study session to actually watch those films.
COMMENTARY: Sony has to, has to quit giving villains their own movie that aren't going to fit the anti-villain role with a big bad villain that is just plain forgettable. They did that with Milo in "Morbius" and that boring. They took away Carnages' menacing chuckle, they compenscated his wisecracks.
I think you mean Spider-Man has a Sony problem
Ooooooh that's a good one😮 😅 hahaha and I guess that's true
I was coming to the comments to say this myself.
I mean, yeah. Touche.
True!!!!
Spiderman doesn't own Sony
Sony: Let's make Spider-Man movies with barely any villains
Also Sony: Let's make Spider-Man villain movies... without Spider-Man!
#IBlameAviArad
In my opinion Sony's venom was written way better then the MCUs spiderman I know it's a hot take but If you're really into Spider-Man you know Tom Holland's Spider-Man is missing so many key things that a spiderman needs I hated iron man mentoring him that stole our chance to see a friendly neighbourhood spiderman.. that had to literally force it into the end of the last movie! I think the first Insomniacs Spider-Man gets the character very well tho not so much the second game.
@@TylerSane5 agreed!❤️
@@TylerSane5 Take hotter than the sun.. Venom is not better than Tom's Spider-Man movies. You CAN'T have Venom without Peter.
@@TylerSane5I think Homecoming was alright, and Far From Home was forgettable and mediocre marvel tripe. But No Way Home made his character arc a lot more Spider-Man-esque, and despite all the contrivances they did a pretty good job with that. I don't think it's worse than Venom especially with NWH added to the mix. Let's just hope Madame Web isn't a sign for future things to come...
Sony is the worst Spider-Man villain of all.
#IBlameAviArad
Nah... that title still belongs to Paul,
😆 Truth!
Sony is up there with the creators of spiderman lotus
That made me do a spit take. You win.
Sony should have stopped trying to make a Spider-Man-less, Spider-Man universe after the success of the first venom movie and instead focused on making a venom-verse that they could eventually bring spider man into
They could have tied Madame Web to Venom but they clearly wanted to set it up for the MCU
Could’ve used Andrew Garfield as their Spider-Man
@@TheJusDon It’s wild that they didn’t use him
@@poeter14Exactly that would have been a way to tie things together and make sense
@@louisineseI don’t think anyone considered that an option until No Way Home
Venom cannot hop between universes whenever he wants to...he moved to (and then left) the MCU due to the spell in Spider-Man: No Way Home.
Why was he transported there? The only way would be if Venom from Spider-man 3 was cannon to the Venom films.
@@veedubgeezer It's a bit hand-wavy but I think it gels better than making SM3 canon to Venom, but what if it's because he _will_ know Spider-Man instead of does? After all, we saw (the silhouettes of) many villains who know one Spider-Man or another in No Way Home that are theoretically attached to Spider-Mans we don't know.. That or something as dumb as all Venoms are attached to each other via the multi-verse as much as the different Peters were connected to each other and we just so happen to have got that one instead of Topher Grace despite getting more than half of Tobey McGuire's rogues' gallery.
It's because the symbiotes hivemind spans the multiverse not just venom
@@veedubgeezer
The spell in NWH that was cast made everyone in the entire multiverse who knows Spider-Man, come to that universe. Strange stopped the spell but a few slipped in.
Venom was one of them, but that venom doesn't know Spider-Man. How does that work? Well the symbiotes have a multIversal hive mind. So venom recognized Spider-Man from other Venom encounters including Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man.
@@mynameisbuho yeah every symbiotes knows everything that other symbiotes in the multiverse does
The best thing Sony did was agree to let Spiderman in the MCU. There is no way they would have made movies as good with the character.
The mcu didn't make better movies than they did 20 years ago
Too bad MCU Spider-Man is barely Spidey
@InsidiousOne the character has still been a clear success and has outperformed anything Sony has produced outside of the animated version of Spiderman in the last few years.
@lordraiden7397 that's debatable and for individuals to decide, but if you have to go back 20 years, that makes the point that Sony isn't on top of their Spiderman game outside of the animation side.
@garybrown5391 The character outperformed in numbers because of numerous factors like its inclusion in a bigger universe and how it is released in newer times. Superheroes in general were mainstream because of Sony's spiderman. Tobeys spiderman is literally what made people think the superhero media can also be intense.
Spreading misinformation is what you like to do.
You skipped from 94 to 99. You forgot about Blade. BLADE was the film that kept Marvel from obscurity, and let the industry know they could sell comic book characters as interesting and entertaining in film. Who's the editor over there at Nerdist?
The best financial move Sony could make, instead of losing money on these awful movies, is just give Marvel back the reigns, take a perminent percentage cut on Spidey related films, and an agreement to produce Spider-man related films at a certain cadence. Sony continues with animation and solo Spidey games. It literally couldn't get better than that.
True... Plus Sony could also negotiate for say... MARVEL to have rights to box office earnings and merchandise while Sony owns rights to DVDs and streaming after theatrical release...
But both studios are too greedy at the moment... MARVEL would rather search for an unknown intellectual property and develop that
Hey, even if they make critically panned movies, I don’t mind. If you don’t like them, that’s in you.
i hope its not in me 😳@benmalsky9834
I don’t want Disney to own Spider-Man ..
@@TheJusDon I do
The Spider-Man issue Sony has is that they have a multi-billion dollar character that they dont know how to use. It's like imagine finding a Green Lantern ring, but you can only sometimes make it work. You're not going to get rid of it or give it away because you keep making mistakes, you're going to keep going until you make it work for you. The best we can hope for is Sony giving Marvel full control OR Marvel just seeing the value and BUYING Spider-Man and his characters back.
I'm pretty sure that Marvel sees the value and have surely made offers to buy the rights back, but up until recently Sony was making too much money from Spider-Man to consider selling him. However after Madame Webb, and we'll see how the next couple of titles like Venom 3 perform, if they keep losing money on their movies they will probably consider selling - but then of course Marvel/Disney needs to decide what they're willing to pay!
Marvel/Disney already make a ton of money from selling Spidey merchandise. If I'm not wrong they make more than a billion every year with the merchandise alone.
Please explain to me how Marvel Studios having full control over the Spider-Man character is "the best we can hope for"? Have you seen anything from MCU Phases 4 and 5? Anything?
Critics coined the term "Superhero Fatigue", but that doesn't exist. People are fatigued of badly-written sludge, and after Endgame, that's all we've been getting. Even before Endgame, Captain Marvel, a very disappointing and bland movie with a horrible sense of character, morals or consistency, no real character arc, laughable villains and a plot "twist" that is undermined by the preceding movie, was shoved in between Infinity War and Endgame, so that people would be forced to watch it. Name a single piece of post-Endgame MCU content, be it a movie or a show, that was actually good, and I mean good until the end, not "promising and fresh aside from the last one or two episodes" - WandaVision started out interesting but then dropped the ball fast and hard. Loki could have been good, but completely assassinated its titular character's character AND made him a secondary character to the superior female version. Falcon and Winter Soldier was so focused on real-life, current-year politics that world-saving Avenger Falcon was racially profiled by the police, couldn't get a loan, wasn't taken care of in any way by some Stark/Avengers fund, the government, etc., the "real" first Captain America was black, the terrorists who bombed buildings with innocent people in them and killed the buddy of the new Captain America should not be called "terrorists" and were really the victims, and the solution to massive and unpredictable issues like the housing crisis after the "blip" is to yell at senators to "do better"...
The Tom Holland Spider-Man movies, somehow, are the only exception, so since all the recent MCU movies and shows, as well as all SONYster six movies and Madame Web, are crap, but the animated Spider-Verse movies are amazing, and the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies are pretty good to great and very well-received, I have to think that SONY does know what to do with Spidey, just not with his rogues gallery without Spidey. That, or the specific blend of SONY and Marvel Studios having to collaborate is working. So the last thing I'd want is for current(!) Marvel Studios to gain full ownership of the Spider-Man character and all related characters.
Once Kevin Feige decides to get his head out of his arse and drop the DEI bullshit to push for a good cinematic superhero universe again, as we've had for over a decade spanning Phases 1-3 (with some less great exceptions, obviously, but I would take an Iron Man 3 over Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, or a Thor: The Dark World over a Thor: Love and Thunder any day), THEN I'll agree with you, that it'd be awesome to have Marvel Studios in full control of all Marvel comics properties.
Giving marvel full control would be the worst scenario with how they drove all their characters into the ground
Spider-Man is one of the biggest superheroes on the planet. Even if the movies bomb you can put they'd price it in the multi-billions, IF they're willing to sell. And if Disney goes for it...ooooh the great Spider-Man milking is gonna be worse than Star Wars lol
They should have trusted Raimi with his choices for SM3.
They could have set things up for Venom in the next trilogy of films with Raimi et al.
I never want to generalize Sony for this sort of stuff. They have shown to have made great Spider-Man movies, and if standalone movies about the villains aren’t received well then it’s not the end of the world.
The joker movie, is Joker, in name only.
It's a mental health problem movie...not an origin flick.
It has no explanations for how the lead(Arther Fleck) gets his fighting skills in hand to hand combat, military tactics, weaponry use, explosives and/or demolitions abilities, and advanced chemistry/biology knowledge, to become the Joker we all recognize?
Plus the characters age, is, appearancewise, already well into middle aged.
(Pheonix was 44..Though his character was supposedly in his early 30s)
💯 Yup. He wasn't a brilliant psycho at all. Just a psycho.
People like Movie Thanos despite the fact his dumb actions would kill easy 80% of life in the universe.
Give them a movie or two to build a fallen world with several villains and then watch the Batman movie of a psycho killer eliminating these poor mental cases.
@@Subject_Keter50% ❤
There’s also the cult of personality built up around a mentally ill person at the end of Joker. That can’t be weaponized, right?
Blade was not a juggernaut because it was not a movie you could take your families to see. It was a quality film and is not a family-friendly property to be sure; but, all other things being equal, limited its success in a way Spider-Man didn't have to worry about.
Quality...except that weird CG blood that was rough looking even for the time, haha
I don’t care what anyone says about the Amazing Spider-man movies, I’m glad history turned out the way it did.
No matter how much anyone calls it a “mess”, I love Spider-Man 3 just the way it is.
If you need a Spider-Man and you don't want to confuse with the marvel cinematic universe just do a live-action Miles Morales problem solved.
Feel like they butchered mcu spiderman to be honest he was way to all over the place and he was forced into all these big events right away which isn't really Spider-Man at least I see spiderman as a lower level hero who can still hang with the best of them when he has to but for the most part it should be smaller stories like the first mcu spiderman that one is actually good!.
@@TylerSane5 The only real spiderman i see is the mcu. Why do you think that is.
AVI ARAD has ruined so far...
* Daredevil (2003)
* The Punisher (2004)
* Elektra (2005)
* Fantastic Four (2005)
* X-Men: The Last Stand
* Spider-Man 3
* Bratz (2007)
* Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
* The Amazing Spider-Man 2
* Ghost in the Shell (2017)
* Venom: Let There Be Carnage
* Uncharted (2022)
* Morbius
And now he's gonna ruin...
* Borderlands
* Kraven the Hunter
* Venom: The Last Dance
* Legend of Zelda
* Naruto
As long Arad lives, there's no hope
Are you going to keep doing this for the rest of your life?
@@jonny.prime.the.collectorIs Arad going to continue to do this for the rest of his life?
@@anustart989fg Because it felt quite cheap
Like something made in the early 90s
It was always my head cannon that Hardys Venom dealt with Garfields Peter Parker
"This isn't Spider-Manchester By The Sea" is a brilliant line and a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with the Amazing's portrayal of Peter and Spidey (no shade on Andrew Garfield, he followed the instruction he was given in terms of character).
5:22 venom was created in the 80s not 90s
TASM2 Electro looks almost EXACTLY like Electro from the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon
Side note: Venom was an 80s character, not a 90s character. First appeared in '88.
Nerdist: you seem to be pulling back on the videos. We want more!!
I just want more Spider-Man. I don't care about any of the reasons why we can't have more Spider-Man.
I missed the part where thats my problem
If you have Sydney Sweeny and her... assets, in your movie and you can't draw a crowd, you did something really, really wrong.
Damn i would LOVE a Tombstone movie about a version of him portrayed in TSSM(2008). Something about mafia like The Godfather, maybe featuring Kingpin and the whole fighting for power between different groups like in 70-ish(?) issues of Spider Man where everyone thought he was dead.
THE SONY SPIDER MAN UNIVERSE IS A MESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Couldn’t they just use a Spider-Gwen or Miles Morales? Seems like they just need a different hero to introduce the villains-could easily slip in some new heroes later…. Spider-Pig VS Morbius 2015, it’s morb-oinking time!!!
Loving the unexpected Doctor Who mention. Are you a Whovian also?
Very good job on this video, although I don’t agree with everything you said here but you made a lot of good points and for sure Madame web demonstrates what a really tricky place Sony is in right now because in that movie they gave us the bare minimum of a Spider-man connection by putting in several members of Peter’s family and even showing him as a baby. It’s weird and doesn’t make a lot of sense but it shows just how desperate Sony is right now. I hope they can change tactics soon because I don’t want more incoherent villains movies that barely have any plot and keep hinting at Spider-man but not truly using him. It is certainly a rough time for Spider-man fans and I hope things will turn around soon! This is indeed a great great deep dive into the history of the character rights and the setup for many of the surrounding projects. Keep up the great videos!
They should just make Spider Man 2099
Oh, God no. Not with Sony at the helm. The characterization in Into the Spiderverse was bad enough, I can only shudder in the thought of how badly they'd mangle his story.
The only way to solve this is for Disney to just fork over the money to get the Spider-Man rights back. And that needs to happen ASAP.
You don’t think they’ve been wanting to do that for the past 20 years???
Sony won’t play ball. Spider-Man is their cash cow and as long as they keep making a Morbius every couple years, they get to keep him forever
@@cthulhutheendless1587 LOL
No.
Marvel could EASILY buy back the Spider-Man rights IF they really wanted to. IF they were willing to pay the price, which they can EASILY afford.
Disney could buy Sony Pictures as a whole. Spider-Man's rights are peanuts in comparison.
Spider-Man is NOT Sony's cash cow. They're BARELY making money with it.
AND the only success they have with live-action Spider-Man is in movies that Disney makes FOR Sony.
So even Sony's rare successes with Spider-Mans are in name only. Without Disney doing the work for them, Sony is FUCKED.
The problem is that Sony Pictures is a failing studio that keeps nearly getting shut down and sold off by Sony, and Spider-Man is one of the only things they have going for them.
It's basically their ONLY bargaining chip giving them any sort of power at all.
The problem is that Disney CAN buy back the Spider-Man rights, but they just refuse to pay as much as Sony wants for it.
Sony wants more than the rights are worth, BECAUSE it's the only real power Sony Pictures has left, even though the rights themselves aren't worth all that much.
So Sony keeps making more shitty movies, which makes the Spider-Man rights worth less and less and less and less every time.
If/when Sony Pictures shuts down or gets sold off, Disney automatically gets the Spider-Man rights back for free.
So Disney is fine with just waiting to see if Sony Pictures collapses or to see them drive the value of the Spider-Man rights completely into the ground.
Sony is playing a losing game and are thus far caught in a death spiral.
BUT, Sony MAY have finally figured out a path to success moving forward.
Maybe.
Which means Disney needs to reevaluate their stance on not buying back the Spider-Man rights.
Disney's plan of just letting Sony hilariously make a mess and shit all over themselves has been really effective so far, but now it's really time to just bite the bullet and buy back the rights.
@@cthulhutheendless1587 But I think if Venom 3 bombs as badly as Madame Webb and Morbius, there's a chance Sony will come to the table, because at this point they're sinking hundreds of millions into movies just to hold onto the rights, at a certain point the risk will outweigh the rewards. Or the investment won't be worth the profit margins, in other words.
Sony needs to keep Spiderman. Let this current deal finish and just bring Spidey back in his own movie world with miles and others. Do a Spider-Geddon movie. Disney/MCU is falling apart. Keep spidey away from it.
@@NP31330 Every word you said is wrong.
Completely and embarrassingly wrong.
Sony should just stick to Spider-Verse movies
A Tombstone mobster movie could work if done right... There are some great issues to work off of.
The Raimi Movies are the best and i love the 80s Supergirl Movie.
Disney has a Sony problem. They are going to force feed us Spidey movies to keep the contract alive until the public absolutely hates Spider-Man.
#IBlameAviArad
THANK YOU!
Sony does NOT have to keep making these villain movies in order to retain the rights. Sony OWNS the rights permanently.
Disney is the one who has to keep making Spider-Man movies, or their LICENSE will expire, and then everything will fall back to Sony.
I‘m happy Sony owns Spider-Man - The Spiderverse Movies with Miles Morales are extremely good. I wouldn’t want to miss them.
That’s not true. Just because these spin-off movies get panned doesn’t mean people don’t like Spider-Man.
@@evilsohnIndeed
Sony rereleased Morbius in cinemas to make money and it bombed worse than the first time. Also Sony's in talks about making Morbius 2.
#IBlameAviArad
I get roasted to hell and back every time I say this, but I liked Morbius.
I like how well you explained it all but wish you could talk more about how stupid Sony has been. I’m so sick of them doing all of this and not being punished for it. It’s time we stop seeing these movies made by them.
Spider-man has a Disney problem
Spiderman was the 9/11 movie. Anyone alive at the time remembers the reason it did well: the preview was Spiderman catching robbers in a helicopter in a giant spider in between the two towers. Then, right before the movie came out, they came down. There was an article that they needed to reshoot a lot of it because the towers were in the film and they felt it may be emotional for people. When the movie came out, it was the feel good movie people needed. It hit the "zeitgeist" perfectly.
Venom first appeared in 1988. Do better.
I want Marvel Team-Up. I'm kind of sick of continuity. I'd really like to see Sony use Toby or Andrew in a team-up with some of the anti-heroes or to borrow some of the Marvel characters that aren't going to be used in a movie and make some out-of-continuity team-up movies. Spider-Man/Venom, Spider-Man/Morbius, Spider-Man/Punisher, Spider-Man/Daredevil. All of those would be great. They would have to be competently done, but Sony has done that in the past. Marvel's never going to do live-action Spider-Gwen, Sony could do that or Miles. I just have no interest in Spider-Man movies with no Spider-Man like they've been doing.
AFAIK three villains never worked. Two would’ve allowed more story for sandman and Harry.
That was an excellent video essay.
Y’know, if Sony wants to make more Spider-Man movies, they could use one of the hundred other spider-based heroes in the multiverse. It worked for Miles Morales and I know I’d watch a solo movie starring Mayday Parker, Miguel O’Hara, Jessica Drew, or heck, Japanese Spidey! LET’S BRING BACK LEOPARDON!
Or they could make a Spectacular Spider-Man movie to give that show SOME finality.
Probably the best review of the problems with Sony and their Spider-Verse.
Thank you. 10/10.
can we get a video on how we can get the rights to go back to Marvel?
Disney would have to buy the movie rights back permanently for upwards of 2 BILLION(!) dollars.
Sony unfortunately has no reason to release their death grip on these rights. They will keep making movies so infamously bad that enough people will watch them to laugh at them and get Sony back to even, strictly to stop the rights from reverting back to Disney. The profit from the MCU licensing is far too high for them to let go of it. They'll break even spending 300m to make three shitty movies, and then make 500m easy profit when Disney decides they need another Spidey flick. It's a shitty situation that I wish Sony would just give up on or Disney would pay out, but neither seem willing to do so.
That said, I actually do really like Venom Let There Be Carnage. It seems very self aware and as such it's so silly and fast paced that it's never boring, which was Madame Web's biggest sin.
Okay, hear me out: Prowler solo movie where the Hobie Brown Prowler fights the Aaron Davis Prowler.
Yeah. I got nothing.
Better idea: prowler movie, that introduces live action miles Morales. So the plot is kinda the movie steel except a little edgier. So he's a weapon developer and engineer, he gets screwed over by his boss, and left for dead. His brother, who was an engineer back in the day too, owns a junk yard and they build a prowler suit out of stuff in the junk yard to fight the big corporate bad guy. Miles is there as sort of a sidekick helping his dad with the junk yard and learns about the plot and wants to help out. Big fight happens, and the prowler wins the day and then in the sequel you introduce miles.
Spider-Man has a sony problem
#IBlameAviArad
@@Zombiesnyder13Don’t
@@Zombiesnyder13Don’t blame ANYONE!
Please everyone stop paying to see Spider man spin off movies. This will force Sony to sell the rights back to Marvel and this nightmare wil be over.
I haven't seen a single one. I hate Venom as a character.
@@robbush6822 i think Venom works as a menacing foil to Spiderman. But trying to make him a stand alone flawed protagonist of a live action trilogy doesnt imho. Especially as a PG13 version. It becomes very campy very quickly. The dude eats brains. I mean come on. Lol.
You don’t have to see them if you don’t want to, but you have to respect their existence.
@@benmalsky9834 no i dont. Morbius and Madam Web were garbage juice. They pushed back Kraven for a reason. They know its going to bomb. They have no idea WTF they are doing
@@benmalsky9834 Respect their existence? Why?
Fantastic video!
I agree with everything, but after playing Insomniac's game, I have to admit that I'd be interested in seeing a Tombstone horror movie now that I've heard the idea at all.
The problem with Spiderman 3 was the first two films. You setup a bunch of plot tensions that paid off at the end of 2. There was no point to 3. Peter had learned his lesson and got the girl and the city was validating his sacrifice. The only place to go was down. Then they tried to compress waaaaaaay too much development into film crowded with characters. I called the failure before I saw the first preview.
Who was the creator of the Daleks?
A) Terry Nation
B) Raymond Cusick
C) Davros
Spiderman 3 had the basic superhero movie flaw -- all too many superhero movies have *too many villains*. It's like the people writing this shit think that a superhero movie does not need to introduce and justify/motivate each major character.
The original Batman worked because it had ONLY the Joker. The original Superman worked because it had ONLY Lex Luthor.
Once you have more than two -- and even that is a high count -- of villains, your movie is guaranteed to suck.
Burton's Batman 2 suffered greatly because it basically had three villains -- Catwoman, Penguin, and whoever the eph Christopher Walken played. The split nature of the Bats/Cats relationship was good. And Devito was spectacularly cast as Penguin. *There was no need at all for Walken to be in this movie.* And the same for the other post-Burton Batmans -- each was already introducing a character -- Robin, then Batgirl -- adding two *more* villains, rather than just one per movie -- was flat out bad, inept, and utterly incompetent writing and storytelling.
Your core story should have not more than three to five main characters, and if you're getting up to five, at least a couple should be related in some regards so they have similar/same backstories (e.g., Wanda Maximov and her brother... or members of an army troop, for example.) You can adjust a bit when you have "returning" characters -- you don't need to explain Batman as much in Batman II or III. But you still need character development, so they have to get SOME of the story.
This is one of the reasons why the Holland Spiderman movies work so damned well -- each has one freaking villain, or, for No Way Home, a repeat of the previous villains, so not a lot of development was needed. And almost all the other notable major characters were returning... so peeps could be presumed to know who they were.
The other is that Holland just played a teenager *_properly._* We're so used to these "professional teenagers" you see all the time in TV & Movies that we forget what teens are *actually like* -- all gawky coltishness, uncertainty, and energy. The only other really great example I can recall was Cameron Diaz as a teen early on in *Something About Mary.* Now contrast those two with any of the "kids" in 90210.
P.S., the main good thing that the Garfield Spiderman had going for it, really, was that the FX had improved considerably, so you could have Spidey doing very very "Spidermany" things during fights -- for example, when fighting The Lizard, he shoots a web between Lizard's legs, pulls himself through, and scampers up Lizard's back. Raimi's Spiderman never did anything of the sort... because he couldn't.
The issue with Carnage, by the way, is that they did it on the cheap... plus... Hardy. I gather Hardy wanted to direct, so they let him, and, while he might have talent, he did not show any here. Plus, the FX in Venom II were markedly BAD. I mean, I was noting it in the THEATER bad. You could see that they were doing Pacific Rim style "Darken the fuck out of the shot, so the bad FX aren't quite so glaringly obvious!!"... but it was insufficient.
I also still do not believe the issue is that they don't have properties they can make interesting -- the main issue is that they keep putting "production talent" that lacks the comprehension and the... yes: Talent -- to actually do a good job. This, of course, is a stab at the idiotic DIE policy so popular throughout Hollywouldn't. I won't argue with the complaint that they want more "diversity" in the talent pool. OK, fine. How to get there from (2016, and Endgame). _"I know, let's wave a wand and declare that THESE people will be the creative talent pool for the next movies!!"_ Yeah, that's not how it works. Magic wands, like sling rings, work in movies, but not in the real world. The *proper* way to develop more diversity is to find promising up and coming "diverse" people, and match them up with your experienced and highly capable and effective talent pool, to help mentor the noobs. This, of course, would take ten years and more ... but it works, and it would not have cost Disney, Sony, et al, a billion or so dollars in return for .... not much.
The other interesting thing feeding into this is Sony can't do the themeparks and rides like Disney can. Go to Avengers campus in Disneyland. It's half Spiderman themed stuff. That all drives continued popularity of that version of the character.
Would Sony be able to get the rights for Silk or Spider-Gwen? I mean that's seems like a half decent approach without banking soley on a Peter Parker but still giving that spidey action people crave.
I completely forgot Joey Diaz was in Spider-Man 2
From a money perspective, sonys best move would be not to license out rights to spiderman for secret wars but only offer to sell the entire franchise
What's next a movie about The Wall?
The Wall? Or the The Wall Universe?!😂
@@LowellLucasJr. The Wall as in the Spiderman villain.
@@thomasbennett0 I know I was saying it as a joke. I was going with the gag. 😂
Wall level
The character who almost killed the comic back in the 90’s could potentially stand on its own as a character in a new spider man movie featuring Ben Riley without missing out on banking on a mcu Spider-Man deal with Peter Parker. You can make his story arc more interesting and more grittier like what dc has done for the joker.
Joker was just Taxi Driver in Clown makeup
L Train? No, that’s a R train going to Bay Ridge.
I forgot Joey Diaz is in Spider-Man 2😭😭😭
I don’t know why Sony didn’t just focus on the multiple different Spider heroes they have in their arsenal. They are starting to with Spider-Man Noir. But still. They could’ve done a long term live action spiderverse saga and then they would be able to use Tom Hollands Spider-Man in the multiverse team up movie alongside a live action Miles, SM 2099, Scarlet Spider, any Spider Women, the potential was endless. I don’t where their heads were at.
Exactly. I read somewhere that Madame Web was made specifically to kind of maybe setup a future Peter Parker Spider-Man franchise from Sony, just in case their deal with Marvel went sideways. I think they should sell Peter Parker to Marvel and move forward with Miles Morales as their main Spider-Man while also using the other spider totems. I would go see live-action movies for Spider-Punk, Silk, or even Spider-Man India.
@@richchappell see u get it. They had a silk series in development but cancelled it. But can u imagine Damon idris as spider punk. Xolo mariduena as Spider-Man 2099. Miles brown or Caleb McLaughlin as Miles Morales. Emma Myers as Spider Gwen. Tom Holland could play Peter Parker’s clone Ben Reilly in another reality. They could have Merlin as the overarching villain, going through the multiverse to kill all the spider totems. Which will also allow u to connect madame web and give the film more credibility into actually structuring this universe they are tryna build. To make Madame Web more integral. Make her the connector for everyone like how nick fury was in phase one of the mcu. Have her be the one to travel through the multiverse using the web of life & destiny and recruiting the Team Spider-Man.
Simple answer: their asses.
I'd have absolutely paid to watch Silver & Black but they canned it in favour of a Madame Web film that screamed terrible from the get-go and only got worse by watching it (and I'll say I definitely did _not_ pay for that experience).
@@daggern15 I heard they canned the silver and black movie because Disney wanted to use black cat in the upcoming trilogy which will probably be executed better but it still was a let down to not get the movie
@@sinszz2824 I'd actually theorised this myself with the more grounded approach the next film looks like it'll be taking given the ending of NWH. I really hope this turns out to be true. It should be a crime for us to have been getting Spidey films for this long and not a single appearance from Cat.
I wonder if you change your channel logo to fit Christmas season . And all other holidays.
Excellent breakdown. Thanks for this
100 BIGGEST MISTAKE Sony is making with the Spider-Man franchise...... not using THE CHAMELEON. I don't understand how they're missing this!🤷🏾🤷🏾🤷🏾🤷🏾🤷🏾 The character is genius, detective based, low cgi, low-budget but can be the CLEAR Nemesis to Spiderman as he was FROM THE BEGINNING, as Joker is to Batman.
I say Sony should just OWN their Spidey mess and soft-reboot Peter Parker/Spiderman into a detective Noir type bit with "Spiderman Identity Crisis". That's even a part of the comics where he fights the Kingpin like the cartoons. Don't sit on this, Sony!
Had the Copyright Extensions for Mickey Mouse not came into fruition back in the 1990s, the starting works of Spider-Man would of been in The Public Domain right on January 1st of 2019.
Said character is 5 years overdue at the moment of this typing to this day.
Why do such incompetent people have jobs in such high positions???
I think its weird that sony didnt include some backdoor promotion of their own non-man spider hero options into the MCU as part of their spider-man deals... giving spider-gwen or miles morales a cameo in an MCU movie to make the MCU do the legwork of establishing the character, so Sony could use them as a flagship hero seems so obvious....
No way in hell Kevin Feige ever lets them do that.
Yeah, that seems unlikely to happen from Marvel's perspective there's no incentive, it would just be muddying the waters for the benefit of their competitor.
@ieyke keep in mind that the issue is that marvel wants Spider-man... so Sony DID have leverage. Getting spider-man at the cost of a secondary spider (that a lot of d-bags in the community already try to paint as "b-listers") getting some screen time would not be so great a cost.
is this a reup? this feels like its several years old
Sony have done well with other aspects of Spider-Man, the animated movie and games, which have done well for them to not lose the rights completely… maybe the can keep the animated rights and video game rights and sell the rest to marvel studios…
So if they were doing a sinister six with the villains how would they justify them being true villains when in their movies they arent actual villains?
When Spider-Man 3 came out it was not it…but I gotta say, it has aged like fine wine. I’ve really come to appreciate the story Raimi put together despite not knowing venom. If you can get over how terribly Venom was done in this movie, the story is wrapped up quite well.
Honestly I find myself re watching Spider-Man 3 more than the others.
Sony knows they suck. That's why they don't take Spider-Man out of the MCU. They're hoping for a shot in the dark with their garbage Spider-verse, but in the end they know they're making garbage.
They could probably do a Ben Reilly trilogy. 1st Movie: Scarlet Spider: A retelling of Ben being dumped in the smoke stack, 5 lost years, and then meeting Peter as the Scarlet Spider, Kaine is the villain. 2nd: Sensational Spider-man, Peter retires at the beginning to have a normal life with MJ, the Jackal is the villain. 3rd Spectacular Spider-men, Ben is this universe's main Spider-man, and he teams up with and trains this universe's Miles Morales, Hobgoblin is the villain.
Or just do Spider-Man 2099, the audience knows who he is now.
THEY DEFINITELY HAVE A SPIDER MAN PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sony needs to sell to Disney and get it over with.
No blade. No spiderman.
I think Marvel is going to let the other movies flop hard and then sue saying that it's damaging the MCU brand to get the rights back.
Sony has so many Spider-people to use, they can use Miguel, they can use a Spider-Woman
they have so many choices for Spider-People to use that's not Peter or Miles, yet they don't use them
also Spider-Man's movie rights need to seriously go back to Marvel, that's where he belongs and I want more spider-people in the mcu, like Miles or Spider-Gwen
Venom is the only decent but even he should be in the mcu and would be better with Spider-Man, they also didn't do Carnage very well, his movie should've been rated higher considdering how brutal this character can be (also I really hope Sony isn't retconning the Venom symbiote in the mcu)
when the 3rd Venom movie is out no one is going to care about Sony's Spider-Man movies without Spider-Man
Spiderman is worth more than the entire marvel universe. Spidey movies will still be pulling in 1+ billion every movie for years to come, whereas the hype for the marvel universe has come and gone.
Sony has a Spidey Problem:
*Uses thumbnail of Marvel's Spiderman...
Had a 2/3 chance of getting it right....
And im gone...
"Spider-Manchester By The Sea" : )
Actually they symbiote suit was 1984 and Venom was 1988. Not the 90's.
Sony's worst mistake is the apprehension for not putting spider-men in these villain movies because it's been proven time and again that general audiences don't mind the "confusion" of multiple characters of the same and actually through a mix of nostalgia and other kinds of hype like in No Way Home, it's actually been super successful.
I wouldn't want current Sony to chuck Andrew Garfield into Morbius though because that feels like it would just taint the good thing we had going in No Way Home and he would be brought down with that whole baggage of continuity this universe has. Even if they tried, his appearance would most likely feel like an odd arbitrary cameo like Vulture in Morbius or Superman in Black Adam.
ACTUALLY. this electronics based on the ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN version.
So one day I sat down and watched every spiderman movie back to back { before No Way home came out} and the one thing I will give the first Amazing Spiderman over any 3 in the Raimi trilogy is that while watching Raimi's 3 together MJ becoming the damsel in distress got old very fast. Almost eye rolling laughable bad by the third installment. In that regard watching The Amazing Spiderman was a breath of fresh air because Gwen wasn't just a useless hostage. She was actually trying to actively help him in that first movie. I would even argue her death in the second movie still made more use of her than MJ got in the original trilogy.
So, lol didn't expect to write so much,
in conclusion I would argue if nothing else, The Amazing Spiderman gave us a much more interesting love interest .
Here’s an idea: make a new hero that nots spyderman that can fight venom, morbious, and the others
We don't talk about what Sony did to carnage. They Murdered my Boy!
Sony should sell Spider-Man to someone else, these venoms movies had promise but they’re kinda a mess now along with morbin morbeus and the madam Webb. Seems like they don’t know what to do with a spiderverse
Disney definitely needs to buyout and end the contract.
Joker was a compelling backstory. Instead of going full send into a villain movie, maybe consider... I dunno... creating a compelling backstory for villains in a Spiderverse, so when you _get Spider-Man back_ you can actually go right into a dramatic story focusing on the evil machinations of a villain without having to explain their character motivations. While we're at it, it will be a suggested pre-game study session to actually watch those films.
Any reason why Marvel just can’t buy Spider-Man from Sony?
Gwen Stacy in spider man 3 had that gyat 😂
Can't they just make a Miles movie?
That sounds like an excellent idea. Fans *LOVE* Miles! So "No." The Sony execs won't go for it.
COMMENTARY: Sony has to, has to quit giving villains their own movie that aren't going to fit the anti-villain role with a big bad villain that is just plain forgettable. They did that with Milo in "Morbius" and that boring. They took away Carnages' menacing chuckle, they compenscated his wisecracks.