My dude!
My dude!
"While Kathleen Kennedy worked wonders relaunching this property from the abyss of the Lucas prequel trilogy and turning it into a bigger than ever all-devouring cultural force, there has to be more than some thought that it's time for new blood at the helm. The talk out there is of a September changing of the guards. We'll see."
Yes. Which is crazy to me. Those characters weren't around when that wacky deal was made.
I wonder how many excellent villians are tied to thatYes. Which is crazy to me. Those characters weren't around when that wacky deal was made.
it's really weird then that Marvel is setting up this Spider-Man to be a major player in the next phase of movies when they barely have a hold of him.
But isn't that similar to why Marvel stopped doing a lot with X-Men comics? Anything done in that IP was contracted away.Yes. Which is crazy to me. Those characters weren't around when that wacky deal was made.
So is this guy is full of shit.The source on this is The Ankler, who was the same guy who said Kathleen Kennedy would be FIRED right before she signed a three year contract extension:
When you sell the rights to the Spider-Man IP, that includes subsequent additions (and in the case of Gwen, especially, she already existed anyway, just not as a superhero). That's not unusual, contractually — same with, e.g., A Song of Ice and Fire.Yes. Which is crazy to me. Those characters weren't around when that wacky deal was made.
Sadly yes.
One interesting bit about that, concerning the creation of Gwendolyn Poole aka Gwenpool:Yes. Which is crazy to me. Those characters weren't around when that wacky deal was made.
"The last thing we ever expected was for [the variant] to go viral," reflected Antos in an exclusive interview with CBR at the 2019 Emerald City Comic-Con. "Within weeks of that cover being released, there was fan art, there was cosplay. That didn't happen with any of the other covers. [But] Fox owned Deadpool and Sony owns Gwen Stacy. That's why she was Gwendolyn Poole. That's why she actually debuted in Howard the Duck. She had her debut in an issue that was a Marvel property."
Never underestimate the ego of Hollywood execs.Why would Sony ever want to get full creative control back when they can just let Marvel make actual well made movies that bring in way more money for Sony?
Each individual one in the MCU makes more money but Marvel can't/wouldn't want like 2 or 3 spider-man movies per year or something. They need room for others. Sony would, and combined that could make more even if mediocre.Why would Sony ever want to get full creative control back when they can just let Marvel make actual well made movies that bring in way more money for Sony?
He doesn't necessarily need a multi-film deal; they can always do deals on a film-by-film basis. But the studio/s will be keen to get him onto a longer deal because a rolling deal gives the actor a lot of pull in terms of negotiating money. I believe that's what RDJ was doing for his last few, which is why he was on such ridiculous money.So Holland has one more movie, and then he either renegotiates, or Holland-Spidey is out of the MCU? Am I reading that correctly?
The list isn't publicly known but it's basically anyone predominantly associated with Spider-Man, and since those characters have already been in Sony-produced movies (live action or animated), it's a safe bet.
The source on this is The Ankler, who was the same guy who said Kathleen Kennedy would be FIRED right before she signed a three year contract extension:
The source on this is The Ankler, who was the same guy who said Kathleen Kennedy would be FIRED right before she signed a three year contract extension:
Yeah it doesn't make sense to me, not when they have stuff like Spider-Verse and Venom which they can make in the years that there isn't a MCU Spider-Man.Why would Sony ever want to get full creative control back when they can just let Marvel make actual well made movies that bring in way more money for Sony?