What a proper song to use.
Michael B. Jordan has apparently done work in like all this director's films. They get along.
What a proper song to use.
Michael B. Jordan has apparently done work in like all this director's films. They get along.
Ryan Coogler, the director of Black Panther, also directed Creed and Fruitvale Station. Both movies I highly recommend, more for Fruitvale Station, because they're both strong movies.
And they both star Michael B. Jordan.
Amy Pascal just confirmed (with Kevin Feige sitting next to her uncomfortably, lol) that the upcoming Venom, Silver and Black, and the rest of the Sonyverse are actually part of the MCU (or "adjunct" to it or whatever).
By the sounds of it the Sony spinoff movies will be like the MCU TV shows - the "main" MCU movies probably won't reference them at all, but the Sony movies will mention events from them plenty. It definitely means Tom Holland's Spider-Man will be showing up in them.
Don't know how definite that answer is(especially given poor Kevin's look), given their contract still ends with the Infinity War movies and the Homecoming sequel. We know they're planning a third solo Spidey movie, meaning they're obviously planning to negotiate. But I guess it comes down to how Marvel wants to play with Sony, the reaction to Homecoming, and whatever the reception to this Venom movie will be.
I really hate Pascal. I'm upset from a fan perspective. I completely understand why they'd want to ride the Spidey train all the way to the bank. It's just frustrating because I see it possibly going this way
-Homecoming does fairly well
-Sony goes exactly back into the mindset they had after Spider-man 2
-Make Venom movie that maybe has a Tom Holland cameo, but is pretty independent.
-Reception wise, it's mixed, but does good for the box office(like Spider-man 3)
-Homecoming 2 does good so they continue to focus on this "sonyverse" of movies
-Sony decides "we're good, thanks for the bump" and cuts Spidey off from Marvel
-Marvel does perfectly fine, confirms Sony continuity isn't relevant to what they're doing
-Sony makes more shit movies.
As far as the actual continuity aspect of the quote, I agree it sounds similar to how they've dealt with the movies. The shows can reference the movies all they want, and pretty much do whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with canon. However, the movies won't actively go out of their way to interact with the characters in the shows. Which I'm honestly fine with. It's a big world, even in comics there are some characters who rarely interact, sometimes not at all, however they are still very important characters with their own villains and stories.
You can watch Furry show up in the helicarrier in Age of Ultron and accept it as him getting shit done, or watch Agents of Shield and get some additional info of Coulson's help in that, which was a big plot of a portion of that season, but obviously the knowledge of that doesn't impact the result of getting that helicarrier there.
You can watch Furry show up in the helicarrier in Age of Ultron and accept it as him getting shit done,
I wonder what kind of animal Nick Furry would be hopefully nothing as cliche as a Lion or something.
I wonder what kind of animal Nick Furry would be hopefully nothing as cliche as a Lion or something.
Nah, he's a bear! http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Nick_Furry_(Earth-8311)
What time is it? ITS DUMB FUCKING IDEA TIME! Sony edition again!
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/06/22/sony-planning-kraven-and-mysterio-spin-offs
Marvel apparently isn't doing much better as the next Spider-Man movie is going to have Peter teaming up with another superhero.
Marvel apparently isn't doing much better as the next Spider-Man movie is going to have Peter teaming up with another superhero.
I bet it's Captain America, but that sounds too obvious.
@Count:
I bet it's Captain America, but that sounds too obvious.
Why not we no it isn't going to be Daredevil, Luke Cage, Wolverine, or Johnny Storm.
Why not we no it isn't going to be Daredevil, Luke Cage, Wolverine, or Johnny Storm.
I don't know. It just seems so obviously gimmicky. Switch him between the two forefront heroes of the MCU. Almost like comic book Civil War lol.
@Count:
I bet it's Captain America, but that sounds too obvious.
Maybe it could be be Doctor Strange. They would bounce each other pretty well I think. Combining the name of Cumberbach with the love for Spiderman. And since Doctor Strange is not that big of a chracter in the MCU you can save some money in paychecks.
Chris Evans has made it pretty clear he reeeeeeally wants to stop being Cap as soon as the contract is up. The workout regime and all.
He's not going to be the guest star unless they deliver some Downey level paycheck… and why would they do that when there's a ton of cheaper B stringers they can organically pair with Spidey instead and have more fun?
Come on guys it's clearly going to be Howard the Duck.
It also doesn't say that the person being "Paired" with Spidey in the 2nd movie is gonna be in as much of the movie as RDJ apparently is in Homecoming. Just that they're gonna get someone in there, could be just a cameo to show the shared universe stuff?
Guys it's obviously going to be Deadpool.
But actually I'd guess that it would be someone like Ant-man. Or maybe even Black Panther if they can come up for some reason for that team up.
If only it could be Deadpool…if only.
Young Spiderman and adult Deadpool are not a good mix. No.
How about Iceman?
Young Spdierman and adult Deadpool are not a good mix. No.
You're right. We need a rated R Wolverine team-up.
Young Spiderman and adult Deadpool are not a good mix. No.
Someone didn't tell that to the writers of the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon.
Someone didn't tell that to the writers of the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon.
There's a difference between animated Freakazoid Deadpool and live action sex scenes and violence adult Deadpool.
So apparently, early screenings of Spider-Man: Homecoming have been happening and people agree that it's a very good movie, praising Tom Holland as perfect for the role and putting the movie on equal or even better footing than Spiderman 2. Don't know if those people avoided the spoilery trailers or if the movie is very much enjoyable regardless.
There's a difference between animated Freakazoid Deadpool and live action sex scenes and violence adult Deadpool.
One is voiced by either Nolan North/Will Friedle and the other is played by Van Wilder?
So apparently, early screenings of Spider-Man: Homecoming have been happening and people agree that it's a very good movie, praising Tom Holland as perfect for the role and putting the movie on equal or even better footing than Spiderman 2. Don't know if those people avoided the spoilery trailers or if the movie is very much enjoyable regardless.
Sadly, early screenings don't mean much since that's a pre-selected crowd that gets extra hyped purely from being at an advance screening. Every comic book movie, including Fant4stic, gets good early reviews.
Sadly, early screenings don't mean much since that's a pre-selected crowd that gets extra hyped purely from being at an advance screening. Every comic book movie, including Fan4tastic, gets good early reviews.
Oh, wow, wasn't aware of that. Yeah, even Batman v Superman got positive early screenings reviews. I was wondering why nobody was talking about them, that explains it.
Do we know when the actual review embargo gets lifted?
Cant wait for November for Thor ragnarok to be in theaters…looks awesome from the trailer
Okay, so now Pascal has clarified that those Spider-Man spinoff movies aren't actually part of the MCU after all.
I actually had no problem with them being like the MCU TV shows, which Feige also doesn't seem to have any oversight on, but I guess they don't want anything not under Disney control mucking up the whole production. It does show that Feige and Pascal don't really seem to be speaking the same language.
!
I'm not sure whether or not I even want to know what the context behind these panels is.
I also don't want to know who was the Rembrandt that fucked up Black Cat's face and made Venom so derpy looking.
That's 90's comics for ya!
That might be from Maximum Carnage, but I haven't read that since it was individual issues 20 years ago.
I also don't want to know who was the Rembrandt that fucked up Black Cat's face and made Venom so derpy looking.
It's from Spider-man #35 "MAXIMUM CARNAGE Part 4" Pencils were Tom Lyle, Inking was Scott Hanna. So you can blame one of them.
Guess I got to go get my pitchfork and torch from wherever they are.
Eh. It was the 90's. Basically all comics in that era sucked. Only the people that grew up on them thought they were any good.
I really really hate this Sonyverse bullshit. I understand Pascal, you have the characters rights, you like Spidey and want to use him. But they're literally doing the EXACT same things they were doing before ASM2 came out. They got super cocky it was going to do great, started setting up a whole series of movies, sacrificed parts of TASM2 just to set those things up, and then a million things went wrong. Even aside from setting up Sinister Six, just look at what happened with Garfield. They set up a whole series of movies to revolve around the one superhero they still have who happens to be one of the most recognizable characters of all time, and the second actor to portray him on the big screen gets fired after fighting with Sony.
Like we give shit to DC for trying to hammer out a cinematic universe quickly, but Pascal is looking at Synder saying, "hold my beer".
They're right back on board with wanting to do Sinister Six. They'll do anything to get Venom out, just like in SM3 because they think it's still the 90's and just having the name Venom will sell something. The character just doesn't work without Peter Parker.
Can you adjust the story and not have it mention him at all? Sure, but that's no different then if they had Harley and Joker in Suicide Squad and never mentioned Batman. Can you adapt the story and have it not include any connection to Peter though, and have it still work? At that point you've pretty much got an entirely different character. And introducing Carnage as the villain is awful. Carnage was awesome because of the contrast from Venom. Eddie had a grudge against Peter, was grouped with this parasitic thing that just wanted Peter's body and was using Eddie as a means to an end. That's why seeing Carnage be born, and seeing this new enemy fuse with a serial killer is amazing. We saw the antithesis to Spider-man with Venom. This was that ramped up by ten.
On a side note, if they do introduce Venom do you think it will be as an alien? If it was the MCU, that would make total sense. Depending on how Sony goes, idk. I already hated that the suit just happen to be on a meteor that just happened to crash in New York, coincidentally near Peter. I actually rather like the Ultimate Spider-man book's origin to Venom. It was designed by Peter and Eddie's fathers to cure cancer and other disease. Eddie found it and talked to Peter about it. Peter got some on him, realized the suit wanted blood and wasn't worth the advantages. It gave a good connection between the two, because while Peter looked at it as stopping a dangerous tool, Eddie saw it as Peter wrecking the one thing his Dad left him, and really made the two to be counterparts in a way. It was a bit of a better reason for Eddie to indulge in Venom's blood lust than just hating Peter and Spidey.
Spider-Man: Homecoming currently stands at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes (28/29 rated it fresh).
Now at 93% with 53/4 giving it a good/bad rating. Hee hee.
I like what I'm hearing from the reviews, I can't help but to get a little more excited to see this.
I can't really get exited for another semi-reboot spiderman half-hijack by Iron Man. I'll probably wait some reviews from here and youtube to get some idea.
I heard Iron Man is barely in it compared to how the trailers made it seem. In fact, people are saying most of his scenes were already shown in the trailers.
In fact, people are saying most of his scenes were already shown in the trailers.
Cause we basically saw all of the film in the trailers?
A wall-crawler indeed.
I will never be okay with this Michelle/"MJ" crap they're pulling in Homecoming (especially considering how it could make things even worse fore the real Mary Jane in the comics), and it's ruined a huge part of Spider-Man in the MCU going forward… but I still plan to see it. I've been a Spider-Man fan since I was like 5 years old; I can't NOT go see a brand-new Spidey film.
Good thing I have enough Regal Cinemas points saved up for a free ticket.
The good reviews are putting my mind at ease and getting me sufficiently hyped. I've been ignoring most of the stuff released, only watching the first 2 trailers, so I'm still pretty pumped for the movie. I'm seeing a LOT of the reviews praise the acting in the movie, especially Tom Holland's Spider-man, Keaton's Vulture, and Zendaya's character Michelle.
Partially, I'm just kinda really hoping they nail his character. What we got in Civil War was cool, but it was still just a snippet, that movie was not ABOUT Spider-man, so it's easier to make him feel "Right" if you don't have him carrying the movie. If you can just take a quick snapshot of the character and you only have to write a few scenes, so I really hope the characterization sticks for an entire movie where the plot is now on his shoulders. So far, we've gotten a Pretty good Peter Parker who was a So-So Spider-Man, a GREAT Spider-man with a meh Peter… and in Civil War, that brief snippet, it looked like we got a Great Spidey AND Peter, so that plus the good reviews makes me hopeful we might finally get that perfect Spider-man.
Either way, if it truly is good, I'm seeing it a whole bunch... as I think a lot of people need to. Sony is getting all of the money from the stand-alone films with Marvel's take being the merch as well as the ability to use Spidey in their movies which they DO get money from... meaning if this does well, Sony will see a good return on it... We want that. We want to show Sony this was a good idea so they let it keep being a thing. I don't think the folks at Disney/Marvel are stupid, and any contract that was signed here probably guarantees them user of Spider-man through all of the originally agreed upon films. Sony can't just pull the rights at the last second and suddenly Avengers 4 can't have Spidey despite setting him up in Infinity War etc... but if Marvel/Disney wants to KEEP using him beyond whatever the original terms of the agreement are, Sony needs to see it as worthwhile to keep the partnership going, so.... yeah, provided it's good, I plan on seeing this several times.
I will never be okay with this Michelle/"MJ" crap they're pulling in Homecoming (especially considering how it could make things even worse fore the real Mary Jane in the comics), and it's ruined a huge part of Spider-Man in the MCU going forward… but I still plan to see it. I've been a Spider-Man fan since I was like 5 years old; I can't NOT go see a brand-new Spidey film.
Good thing I have enough Regal Cinemas points saved up for a free ticket.
.
Ok, I'm sorry, but "Ruined"?….
Gonna spoiler this because I just looked up what he's talking about and this might be considered a spoiler by some:
! So, they pulled a "Robin in the Dark Knight Rises" in this.
! The character Michelle in the movie played by Zendaya is named Michelle, and is called Michelle the entire movie, and apparently RIGHT at the end of the movie there's a scene where she says something akin to "My friends call me MJ" which was their attempt at a cheeky nod to MJ. Her name is NOT "Mary Jane Watson" however so this was (Maybe?) their attempt at quelling all the racism going on with the "MJ HAS TO BE WHITE!!!" folks who freaked out when she was first cast.
! Personally? It's a bit annoying, like TDKR was with "Robin". Considering that was Chris Nolan's final Batman film, he ended it pretty definitively, he should have gone whole-hog and just called the guy Dick Grayson or Tim Drake or something, instead of the closeish name "John Blake", but then again, that was a definitive ending point so he didn't have to worry about later.
! Here they DO have to worry about later, and so… meh I guess? I mean, I think they should have gone one way or the other personally. Either she is 100% Mary Jane Watson, fuck the racists, MJ can be not-white. All that matters is if the actress is good (and every review I've seen that mentions her says she did awesome and even steals a few scenes) or they should have gone completely in the opposite direction and made her a completely original character. This way tho, they can have their cake and eat it to. They get an "MJ" they can put in the movie now, and later if they want, introduce the actual "Mary Jane" and it doesn't hurt anything. Hell, they can even play it off later like MJ Watson having that "nickname" reminds Peter of a childhood friend and that helps endear him to her?
! I've even seen some people online saying this wasn't meant to be truly serious at all and this was just a joke at the expense of all the rumor mongering that happened during production, and that going forward future movies may still call her "Michelle". Which I kinda hope for.
! So yeah, I'm in agreement that the half-measures approach is annoying and I wish they had made a definitive stance one way or the other…. but "Ruined"? Really? This "Ruins" this iteration of Spider-man for you? You don't think that's over-dramatic at all?
! Honestly, the big takeaway I have from this is that I just hope that this doesn't mean there's romance in the movie. Every single Spider-man movie so far has had a romantic subplot. First movie he loved MJ from a distance, second hiding being Spider-man and not letting his feelings be known, and third was staying together in the face of being Spider-man... then they did it all over again with Gwen in ASM movies. To be fair, Garfield and Stone had chemistry so it wasn't bad, honestly the Pete+Gwen stuff was some of the strongest elements of ASM... but I think I'm ready for us to just get at least SOME Spider-man stories out there where the plot is focused on the superheroing instead of love before we introduce that later.
Between MJ, Betty, Gwen, Liz, Felicia, Deb,etc. there's plenty of girls to go around and they didn't have to throw Mary Jane's name onto any given actress. And on absolutely none of them is her race a important character point that could be changed. Spectactular Spiderman changed Liz from a blonde white girl to a Latina and that was perfectly fine for balancing out the cast some. I think MJ and Gwen are fairly iconic in their hair color visuals so probably shouldn't be changed, but whatever?
I had assumed the character in this movie was Michele Gonzales though, and not Mary Jane?
Only one thing ruined Mary Jane, and it was called 'One More Day'. And we still haven't recovered.
About Homecoming, MJ, and Zendaya.
! Michelle is the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Mary Jane Watson; she is. She may not be named that (named Mary Jane, that is), but she is, in fact, taking over the position going forward. There won't be another "MJ".
@The:
About Homecoming, MJ, and Zendaya.
! Michelle is the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Mary Jane Watson; she is. She may not be named that (named Mary Jane, that is), but she is, in fact, taking over the position going forward. There won't be another "MJ".
Why not? They have two Mandarins, apparently, after there was backlash to the first one. Even if we haven't seen the second yet.