I didn’t see the first Goosebumps because–in hindsight–I don’t believe in horror for children.
By which I mean I grew up in the Seventies and distinctly remembering going to the theater with my brothers and some friends to see Arnold.
I haven’t seen it since but recall it revolving around a dead guy marrying a very live woman (!)–I assume for his money–and how everyone around them was dying by violent means.
I particularly recall a lady likely having her worse day ever due to acid placed in her face cream (why didn’t it burn her hands? That’s a question I’d certainly ask now but as a youngster? It didn’t even occur to me).
Though I also realize that if I were to see it today I’d likely consider it to be very, very tame.
As I left the theater in tears little did I realize that it would be my gateway drug into horror movies.
I also have quite fond memories of The Blood On Satan’s Claw
Would I have felt the same if either movie were geared toward the younger set? Maybe? Maybe not but it was the shock of what I saw that really got my synapses firing and turned barely a spark of interest into a life-long appreciation of a typically under appreciated genre.
It’s been revealed by Kevin Feige, President of Marvel Studios, that the title of the Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel will be Spider-Man: Far From Home.
And I genuinely have a problem with that because one way I interpreted the title of the first movie was as a return of Spider-Man back to where he belongs (never mind that the more obvious meaning was that it literally revolved around the preparation for Peter Parker’s first Homecoming dance).
Now, it’s rumored that the sequel takes place during a class trip to Europe, making ‘Far From Home’ a fitting subtitle.
But let’s look a little deeper. Just as Spider-Man: Homecoming could be interpreted as the return of Spidey to the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) could Spider-Man: Far From Home be read as an end of Spider-Man in the MCU?
The nature of the deal between Marvel Studios and Sony has always been a temporary one, though there has always been a bit of uncertainty around when it ends exactly.
As far as I’m aware, Spider-Man is a part of the MCU through Avengers 4 and the Spider-Man sequel, which makes me wonder if the subtitle of the Spider-Man sequel is a cagey way of Feige saying that Spidey’s tour of duty in the MCU is at an end?
Do you recall the first Venom trailer and how disappointing it was? Apparently Sony picked up on that vibe, so this time they gave us quite a bit more of Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) exhibiting his powers.
And that’s a good thing though for some perhaps it’s a little bit too late.
Though Venom aside, I found this more interesting.
The reason why is because because it’s new, and apparently a sign Marvel Studios wants to separate its productions from those that just happen to use their properties.
Have I mentioned I really hope Ruben Fleicher’s Venom fails?
Why so negative, you might ask? Well, I’ll tell you. Fleisher (Zombieland, Gangster Squad) is a competent director, so my issue isn’t with him.
And it’s certainly not with Tom Hardy, who appears to be an actor that willing to do his best for a role despite apprehensions to the contrary.
No, my problem is Sony, who’s creating their own little offramp of the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) using characters from the Spiderverse (Silver Sable, Black Cat, the Scorpion) though if that weren’t bad enough, they have to exist–as far as I am aware–apart from Spider-Man (who’s currently being managed by Marvel Studios).
That’s right! We’re going to have a series of movies that revolve around characters that were introduced to readers via Spider-Man’s comic, only without Spider-Man.
Yeah, it makes no sense to me either.
With the preeminence of Marvel Studios and to a lesser extent, DC Films, people can perhaps be forgiven for forgetting that Marvel and DC aren’t the only players in town.
There’s Dark Horse (Time Cop) who’s rebooting Hellboy but there’s also Valiant Comics, which have been seemingly preparing to make a movie to feature films for awhile.
Valiant were aligned with Sony, though that was under prior management; now they’re under control of DMG Entertainment and it’s CEO, Dan Mintz.
This is a particularly relevant question, especially considering that Sony seems to be emphasizing Spider-Man (and other Spiderverse characters like Venom, Black Cat and Silver Sable) while they could perhaps be building a cinematic universe of their own, independent of Marvel Studios.
The Slender Man meme (created by Eric Knudsen) is one of the first instances I am aware of of an idea started on a message board not only taking on an uncanny life of its own, but contributing to a very real murder.
So this movie has a lot to live up to. Looking at the trailer–which is way too stylish and cut to within an inch of its life for it’s own good–seems to fall more than a little bit short.
Sony is in a really curious place as far as their licensed Marvel Comics characters go.
Spider-Man himself is currently being very well-managed by Marvel Studios, who’re essentially producing movies gratis for Sony–so they’re building a branch of the SpiderVerse that doesn’t include him.
Which is a bit problematic because the characters that they’re building their franchise on, Venom, Silver Sable and Black Cat, under most conditions exit alongside Spider-Man (and were in fact introduced in his comic).
So if you take him away you’re (mostly) removing the context that they exist in as well.
Like I said, it’s a problem (though truth be told for those of us not well-versed with the comics it’ll be a relatively small one) .
This version of Spider-Man is Miles Morales, and if I recall for a time existed in an alternate Earth or something to that effect.