LogFAQs > #926590030

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Valley of The Geeks
ParanoidObsessive 08/26/19 10:37:43 PM #120:	Korruptor posted... Don't give a **** about it at this point, but it would be interesting to see if Rey was some sleeper Palpatine clone that becomes aware, Kylo goes good and kills him err... her... err... whatever. Rey as the villain is about the only way I could be made to care about the film at all. But they will never, ever do that, because it would undercut her as the "empowered female" they're pushing her as. It also wouldn't help that the only way they could go with that is to have her be a clone who redeems herself (which is cliched and boring), Kylo would have to turn good to oppose her (which would cause a major shitstorm because he's got too much baggage now), or Finn would have to become the central hero who defeats her (which would be stupid, because they've basically played him as idiot comic relief for two films now). Not to mention the fact that having her be a female clone of a previous male villain opens a number of doors that a lot of people will complain endlessly about. I half feel like whatever hints they're laying down about her potentially going Sith, it's going to turn out to be the usual trailer BS where it's actually from a dream sequence, where she fears her own potential to fall, or something like Luke's vision in the evil tree on Dagobah, or something even lamer, like she's just pretending to be evil to trick someone, or she's never even remotely evil but lost her lightsaber and just stole one that happened to be red. Broken_Zeus posted... Meaning that you don't think it'd get a sequel? Because we have yet to see a Spidey film not get a sequel. Hell, Venom was kinda lousy and even that's getting a sequel. More that they'd focus on the differences for one film, then likely either completely panic and soft reboot, or just casually ignore the implications entirely so it becomes functionally meaningless. Like with Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Aunt May was certainly IN the film, but her relationship to Peter was almost immaterial to the plot, and Ben's death hardly mattered much at all. The few mentions feel more like obligation and expectation than any meaningful application. Functionally, you could go the entire movie and never mention either of them and it would be more or less the exact same movie. Arguably, you could almost say the same for Far From Home - Aunt May isn't really all that important to the plot and the MCU has always de-emphasized Ben to some degree (in favor of putting Tony Stark into a father-figure role). Broken_Zeus posted... So even the actors' contracts are with Sony rather than Disney? Oo Damn, so I guess they could just continue shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDvEPS9b4Q" data-time=" Basically, the way the deal worked, the two Spider-Man films (and their casts, setting details, etc) are entirely under Sony's control, with Kevin Feige as an advisory producer loaned out from Disney, which also allowed the Sony films to use a few MCU characters (mainly Tony Stark and Happy) while the MCU films could use Spider-Man (and Aunt May). But in spite of being part of the MCU, they were still entirely separate in terms of corporate ownership. Disney doesn't own Homecoming or Far From Home in any way. It's way more complicated in the details - because Disney took a minor share of profits and was paid for Feige's role, but then later renegotiated to reacquire merch rights in favor of giving up profit-sharing - and there's a ton of Hollywood book-keeping and contract insanity involved, but the upshot of which is that Sony still has access to all of the same actors, director, screenwriters, characters, setting, and so on. All they really lose is Kevin Feige, and the ability to reference the MCU or have guest cameos. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:926590030] in Valley of ... [t:77923465]...</cite> <quote><cite>Korruptor posted...</cite> <quote>Don't give a **** about it at this point, but it would be interesting to see if Rey was some sleeper Palpatine clone that becomes aware, Kylo goes good and kills him err... her... err... whatever.</quote> Rey as the villain is about the only way I could be made to care about the film at all. But they will never, ever do that, because it would undercut her as the "empowered female" they're pushing her as. It also wouldn't help that the only way they could go with that is to have her be a clone who redeems herself (which is cliched and boring), Kylo would have to turn good to oppose her (which would cause a major shitstorm because he's got too much baggage now), or Finn would have to become the central hero who defeats her (which would be stupid, because they've basically played him as idiot comic relief for two films now). Not to mention the fact that having her be a female clone of a previous male villain opens a number of doors that a lot of people will complain endlessly about. I half feel like whatever hints they're laying down about her potentially going Sith, it's going to turn out to be the usual trailer BS where it's actually from a dream sequence, where she fears her own potential to fall, or something like Luke's vision in the evil tree on Dagobah, or something even lamer, like she's just pretending to be evil to trick someone, or she's never even remotely evil but lost her lightsaber and just stole one that happened to be red. <cite>Broken_Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Meaning that you don't think it'd get a sequel? Because we have yet to see a Spidey film not get a sequel. Hell, Venom was kinda lousy and even that's getting a sequel.</quote> More that they'd focus on the differences for one film, then likely either completely panic and soft reboot, or just casually ignore the implications entirely so it becomes functionally meaningless. Like with Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Aunt May was certainly IN the film, but her relationship to Peter was almost immaterial to the plot, and Ben's death hardly mattered much at all. The few mentions feel more like obligation and expectation than any meaningful application. Functionally, you could go the entire movie and never mention either of them and it would be more or less the exact same movie. Arguably, you could almost say the same for Far From Home - Aunt May isn't really all that important to the plot and the MCU has always de-emphasized Ben to some degree (in favor of putting Tony Stark into a father-figure role). <cite>Broken_Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>So even the actors' contracts are with Sony rather than Disney? Oo Damn, so I guess they could just continue shit.</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDvEPS9b4Q" data-time=" Basically, the way the deal worked, the two Spider-Man films (and their casts, setting details, etc) are entirely under Sony's control, with Kevin Feige as an advisory producer loaned out from Disney, which also allowed the Sony films to use a few MCU characters (mainly Tony Stark and Happy) while the MCU films could use Spider-Man (and Aunt May). But in spite of being part of the MCU, they were still entirely separate in terms of corporate ownership. Disney doesn't own Homecoming or Far From Home in any way. It's way more complicated in the details - because Disney took a minor share of profits and was paid for Feige's role, but then later renegotiated to reacquire merch rights in favor of giving up profit-sharing - and there's a ton of Hollywood book-keeping and contract insanity involved, but the upshot of which is that Sony still has access to all of the same actors, director, screenwriters, characters, setting, and so on. All they really lose is Kevin Feige, and the ability to reference the MCU or have guest cameos. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1