Recced because I agree...but what are your reasons?

 

For being idiots about this. The whole thing didn't need to happen. Now they'll get some undeserved good PR for unfucking what they fucked up in the first place.

 

At the same time, fuck Disney's continual attempts to monopolize literally every part of the entertainment industry. So I can't exactly be mad at Sony for trying to change that.

 

Sure, I’d cheer for Sony if their movies didn’t fucking suck so bad.

 

Disney might be a soulless media empire....but they make good movies.
--- Post automerged ---

 

Into the Spiderverse says hi.

That movie was the best spiderman movie since Raimi's Spiderman 2. Which is the best superhero movie that has ever been made.

Also am I the only one who was at least a little bit excited to see what Sony could do with Spiderman? Now they know they can make good shit if they have talented people behind it and let them do their thing.
On the other hand, Homecoming and Far From Home were average Spiderman movies. The only memorable thing about them was the Vulture, and that was more because of a talented actor.
Now Spiderman is back in the MCU and he so far, the only time he was interesting was in Civil War. Now he has to be Tony Startk 2.0 and Tom Holland just can't compare.
Also I just realized that the MCU has been surprisingly shit at depicting Spiderman Web Swinging.

Anyway, Still hyped for Into The SpiderVerse

 

Yes.

 

At its base, a Tom Holland without the MCU just makes no sense. The character in the MCU has been entwined with Tony Stark, and so much of his character growth came via Tony. To just ignore Stark (which a Sony only SM would have to do) would be almost stupid. I can easily see that movie bombing at theaters especially with a fan backlash that would likely result. From the beginning it was almost a certainty that a deal would be struck based on all that.

 

If only Sony had had the chance to make their own version on Spiderman at some point.

 

But they d-

....

Clever.

 

Into the Spider-Verse was made by a Sony Animations, not Sony Film Studios. Different Departments. Plus, apparently it flew so much under the radar in it's initial development that it wasn't subject to the usual studio meddling.

Wasn't really a fan of any of the Raimi movies.

Despite that, I am going to say that I actually like the Andrew Garfield movies more than the MCU Spidey Movies.

But, I like the MCU more than the ASM movies and I feel like the ASM movies wouldn't be a good fit for the MCU.

 

On the one hand, I agree with the broad idea that Disney should not control the entertainment industry, and some of their acquisitions are concerning.

On the other hand, it's fucking stupid that Marvel cannot use some of their own characters for the MCU due to awful deals made while nearly bankrupt, and it's infuriating to watch other studios shit out terrible reboots and aborted mini universes just to hold on to the rights.

Every time Disney cuts through one of these barriers is a win in my books.

 

If Marvel hadn't made those deals we wouldn't have an MCU to begin with. It was the original X-Men and Spider-Man movies that started this entire trend in the first place. Serious and faithful adaptations of comic books into movies. Now you begrudge Sony...? If Disney and Sony legitimately did walk away from negotiations that's on both of them. Them both being incapable of reaching a fair compromise.

Now I personally think that Spider-Man's connection to the MCU has actually hurt his story, in more than just one way. This has annoyed me especially since his first appearance in Civil War seemed so promising. So I don't think the MCU has done as well with Spider-Man as they could have, given the resources at their disposal.

I just wish people would stop taking sides. It's stupid; it's stupid because I can't hate the guys that gave me the Raimi trilogy same way I can't hate the guys who gave me the MCU.

 

Holland apparently played a role calling Sony and Disney to make a deal.

https://uproxx.com/movies/sony-disney-spider-man-deal-tom-holland/

Makes sense, but good on him!

 

I read that as Holland (as in the nation) and was so confused for a minute.

 

The dutch can be quite persuasive

 

The Non-Studio meddling could explain why that Movie was so good. So I concede that point.

By the way, what didn't you like about Raimi's Spiderman movies? Specifically the second one, which I consider to be the best comic book movie.

On the other hand, what did you like about Garfield's movies? To me they always felt like they had no.."soul"(for lack of a better term). The only good thing about them was the Web Swinging CGI and the suit.

 

Butting in, but the main thing I liked about the Garfield movies was the chemistry between him and Emma Stone. They lift some average material in the first one, and made the shit show that was the second just about tolerable for the duration, although not so much that I'd want to watch it again - and obviously, had they made a third one, I'd have been much less interested given Stone's absence. I also remember really liking the way they had Spidey moving, certainly in the first one; the way he was scuttling over the Lizard in one confrontation really stood out.

 

Fair enough. The actors did a good job with what they were given. Unfortunately for me, it was just Emma Stone being Emma Stone. There was no discernable difference between Gwen Stacy and her other characters.

However, I'm still surprised that there are people who consider the Raimi movies to be bad(yeah 3 was not great, but that was largely due to studio interference).

What's your take on the Raimi films? To me Spider-man 2 still feels like the perfect spider-man movie, from top to bottom.

 

I still have Raimi's Spider-Man 2 as the finest superhero movie ever made.