SPIDER-MAN 4 Receives Another Promising Update From Sony Pictures Chairman Tom Rothman

@VictorAlonzo - The F4 in Spider-Man 4 would be perfect. Now that's he's basically starting anew in the MCU, he's gonna need new friends. New family. And what better family could he have over the First Family?

@TheHumanSpider2 - Not even Sony would be stupid enough to pull the plug now, after the massive success of NWH and the complete disaster of Morbius.

@TheHumanSpider2 - And yet they are actively talking about Spider-Man 4 with Marvel and Tom Holland. Tey did not announce an end to the partnership with Marvel, like we know they would, because they did so before. And they specifically decided to NOT end NWH with a universe-jump that would have easily explained Spider-Man leaving the MCU. All signs seem to point towards a continued partnership between Marvel and Sony.

Also...

"and Tom Holland is the one who ruined X-Men Origins, and then because of his own stupidity, cancel all the spin-offs people were demanding, including the Deadpool movie."

...I'm sorry what?

@BigPhilbowski @Drace24 - The other Tom, the one in charge of Sony.
Although I like the idea of an evil 10 years old Tom Holland in charge of the X-Men franchise.

They didnt announce a new deal (yet), and rumour is Tom Holland hasnt sign a new contract because Sony is not willing to pay him what he wants (which is an understable ammount, considering his career is ending if he plays the character another 6 years, like he openly stated a few months ago).

The ending of NWH puts Peter in a world where next movies can easily exist outside the MCU; no one know who he is, and his connections to all MCU characters are lost.

Btw, I'm starting to realise him being name-droped in MoM might have been the "Marvel Studios collaboration" that was left in the new deal they signed in 2019.

@TheHumanSpider2 - new contracts can always be signed.

@VictorAlonzo - Sony OWNS the live action rights for Spiderman, they can do porn parodies of him if they wanted to...about Disney buying Sony, no, they already own more than enough.

@originalmrphil - Obviously, but it isnt the case. Yet.

@eagc1995 - Yup, NWH was the solo movie, and Disney can use him in one of their movies...think is, what if the name-drop in MoM counted as that?

@VictorAlonzo - I highly doubt Disney will purchase Sony anytime soon. In contrast to popular belief, Disney is not hijacking all the companies in hostile takeovers. All the companies they bought have either gone bankrupt (Marvel, Pixar) or wanted to sell anyway (LucasFilm, Fox) and would have otherwise disapeared. Sony does not seem anywhere close to that. Sony is MASSIVE. I don't think even Disney can afford to casually purchase a company like Sony just to get their hands on Spider-Man.

@TheHumanSpider2 - ...I'm sorry, what? So you rather believe some rumour over head honcho Kevin Feige outright stating that the movie he is producing is in active development?

"I didnt say the ending of NWH puts him in a different world"

I mean, you literally did actually, but okay. This is shaping up to be one of those conversations.

"all looks like the perfect set-up for a soft reboot"

No, all looks perfect for Spider-Man continuing to exist in the MCU. Because that is what happened in the end.
You need to explain to me why they wouldn't have just used the climax of No Way Home, that literally opened up rifts into different universes, to actually plant him into their Venomverse. Wouldn't that be much... smarter?

Also why would Sony even want to soft-reboot? I mean, they own the franchise. They can freely use MJ and Ned and May. Why writing them out of the story then? All the MCU heroes still remember Spider-Man. So, it's not at all a divorce.


"About the name drop, it doesnt make any sense, but nothing Sony does makes sense".

...How does the name-drop not make much sense? Everyone can name-drop Spider-Man anywhere. That's not what copyright works. Right now you are not making much sense.

"I can see their legal department telling Disney "you know, you mentioned my property in one of your movies, so, we are legally done"."

And I can see Sony NOT going "Hey, Kevin. You know these movies that you make for us and that keep giving us billions? Let's not do that anymore. We're gonna use an objectively nonsensical excuse to weasel our way out of the goldmine!"

"You expect smart moves from a studio that just made THIS?"

I expect them to understand what a billion dollars are and I'm not making stuff up just to convince myself of my own baseless assumptions.

@VictorAlonzo - "I think Disney's ownership of Sony is inevitable..."

Now THIS is the goddamn positivity I like to see!

@Drace24 - actual cameo appearances do not count towards contractual appearance numbers so I would assume with almost concrete certainty that a simple name-drop, being so much less, is a giant nothing burger.

@SauronthePower - When it comes to cameos it really depends on what the contract specifically states. Tony Starks apperance in the after-credits scene of TiH absolutely counted as a contractually obligated apperance in another movie.

But yes, name-drops can never be forbidden. That is nonsense.

@VictorAlonzo - Gee, I dunno. Big Oil, big coal, big pharma, big data, banks, the gun industry, utility companies... [frick]ing Amazon?

No? Mickey Mouse instead? The people who make cartoons and superhero movies are your biggest concern for the world? Not the many much bigger and richer companies that literally destroy the planet, corrupt the government and murder people? Alrighty. You totally have your priorities straight there.

@VictorAlonzo - Sure, buddy. Have fun backpedaling. The capsspeak is what makes it convincing.

@VictorAlonzo - ...What do you think the word backpedaling means?

@VictorAlonzo - Yes, you asked me to give you a solution to the problem of you talking nonsense. I opted to ignore that request due to it being more nonsense.

And now, based on that definition, can you explain how the word backpedaling is an insult?

@TheHumanSpider2 - how in the hell can you say it’s not His call to say if a movies in development? That has got to be the most ridiculous statement. He’s the head of Marvel Studios.

@VictorAlonzo - ...Just what are you even blabbering about, man? Is this really easier than to just say "I guess, you are right. It makes much more sense to be concerned about those companies instead"? Or to atleast say nothing if your ego can't allow you to accept the criticism?

@Schme83 - No she doesn't. Maybe a cameo where Peter looks at her from afar, but as a main character? Nah, that should be over.

Because if it isn't, then it completely negates the ending of NWH.