Sony's Spider-Villain Universe Should Just Recast Spider-Man
Sony's
Venom is intended to be the beginning of a Spider-villains universe - but realistically, the studio needs to recast Spider-Man to reach its full potential. In 2015, Marvel Studios and Sony launched an unprecedented deal that saw the latest iteration of Spider-Man, played by Tom Holland, join the MCU. But Sony was still determined to do their own thing with the Spider-Man franchise, and those plans begin with this year's
Venom and the animated
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.
So far, though, the most intense debate has been whether or not the Sony Spider-villain movies are considered part of the wider MCU or not. First reports were that
Venom was a separate, distinct project, but
Spider-Man: Homecoming producer Amy Pascal confused the issue when she described the Sony spinoffs as
"adjuncts" to the MCU. She seemed to be describing the same kind of relationship the TV shows have with the Marvel movies. But her comment was followed by a stream of supposed "clarifications," both from herself and Kevin Feige, all of which essentially served to muddy the water. The latest update seems to be that
Venom is not part of the wider MCU at all;
Avengers: Infinity War director Joe Russo was forthright in claiming that it wasn't, while the most recent sources have described
Venom and the rest of the Spider-villain films as "
a separate world from last year's Spider-Man: Homecoming."
Related: All The Evidence Venom Is Actually In The MCU
A core problem is that it's not easy to see how some of Sony's proposed spinoffs can work without Spider-Man.
Venom's trailers have revealed the tongue-slavering symbiote's rewritten origin, one centered upon a crashed alien spaceship and illegal experiments by the Life Foundation. But while Venom is the star of a comic book franchise in his (their?) own right, some of the other spinoffs feature characters who've only ever really existed in the context of their relationship with Spider-Man. Take Black Cat, for example; barring a couple of crossover miniseries with Wolverine, of all people, she's best known for her flirtatious relationship with the wall-crawler, serving as his version of Catwoman - sometimes ally and even lover, sometimes opponent. Many viewers are skeptical as to whether or not these films can work without Spider-Man.
THE PROBLEM WITH TOM HOLLAND "CAMEOS"
There are persistent rumors that Sony's workaround for this will be a string of Tom Holland cameos, with one believed to happen in
Venom. Sources close to the production told
Screen Rant that one scene in
Venom sees Life Foundation boss Carlton Drake leading a school field trip around the building. That tidbit led us to suggest that perhaps
the Tom Holland cameo will simply be a glimpse of Peter Parker as one of the students, presumably on an extended trip with his school. If that's the case, it would seem that Sony wants viewers to believe their films are at least tangentially connected to the MCU, even if they don't want to make it explicit.
But is that really enough? This would essentially be the same kind of ambiguous relationship the MCU movies have with the TV shows, with cameos only ever working one-way. The Marvel TV shows, such as
Daredevil,
Cloak & Dagger, and
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., reference the movies; but the films never reference the small-screen adventures. Indeed, the very fact characters are consigned to the TV shows precludes them from appearing on the big screen. With Vincent D'Onofrio playing Kingpin in
Daredevil,
the villain is never going to appear facing off against Spider-Man. Luke Cage will never join a team of Avengers, given Mike Colter plays the "
bulletproof black guy" in his own Marvel Netflix series.
In exactly the same way, the Sony Spider-villain movies would only ever have the most subtle nods to the MCU. Tom Hardy's Venom will never make the jump into a Spider-Man film, meaning the much-loved rivalry between Venom and Spidey will never be brought into the MCU. The same is true with Black Cat; there's never going to be a scene in which she attempts to seduce the wall-crawler (in the Ultimate Comics universe, such a flirtatious moment came to a hilarious end when Black Cat realized how young Spider-Man really is). The Tom Holland cameos won't resolve this issue; they'll underscore it, reminding viewers that this Spider-villains film franchise can only ever be loosely connected.
Related: Venom Movie Villains: All The Symbiotes Confirmed So Far
THESE CHARACTERS NEED SPIDER-MAN EVENTUALLY
The problem facing Sony is that each of these characters is originally designed to serve as a foil for Spider-Man. It's true that the web slinger's rogues gallery is one of the best developed in the entire comic book industry, but each of these characters works best in stories that explore their relationship with Spider-Man. Venom is compelling as an antihero precisely because he contrasts so markedly with Spider-Man; even
the classic Venom: Lethal Protector miniseries, inspiration for Sony's
Venom movie, saw Spider-Man pursue his old foe to San Francisco. Black Cat works best as an awkward love interest, challenging Peter Parker's morality. "
Kraven's Last Hunt" is the most memorable story featuring Kraven the Hunter, but that will now never be reproduced accurately on the big screen. Using these characters without Spider-Man will simply leave the Sony Spider-villain universe feeling diminished and impoverished, with anyone familiar with the comics knowing the films could be so much more.
It's possible Sony is attempting to fill this gap with the character of
Silk. In contrast to the other properties Sony is developing, Silk is no villain; she's a hero who was created by writer Dan Slott back in 2014, bitten by the same radioactive spider as Peter Parker. Many of Cindy Moon's powers are analogous to Spider-Man's, although she has natural webbing. But, again, simply introducing a Spider-Man-esque character will serve to highlight Peter Parker's absence.
WHY RECASTING SPIDER-MAN IS A GOOD IDEA
There's one way Sony can fill this Spider-Man-sized hole in their shared cinematic universe, and that's dropping all pretense that these spinoffs are part of the MCU and recast Spider-Man. Sony could perhaps go for an older, even slightly darker, iteration of the wall-crawler; perhaps one similar to Andrew Garfield's. That would suitably differentiate their version of Spider-Man from the MCU's. Where Tom Holland's Spider-Man would interact with MCU heroes like Iron Man and Doctor Strange, Sony's iteration would romance the Black Cat, clash with Venom, and struggle to survive the threat of Kraven the Hunter.
It's not like Sony are unaware of this potential. This year's animated movie,
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, even sets the precedent; it establishes the idea that
Spider-Men exist in countless realities, and introduces different versions of Peter Parker. Viewers don't seem to mind one bit.
Related: Into The Spider-Verse: Other Crazy Spider-Men That Can Appear
Warner Bros. is taking a similar approach with the Joker. There are no less than
six different Joker-centric films in various stages of production, with both Jared Leto and Joaquin Phoenix tapped to play the Clown Prince of Crime. The studio clearly believes that, so long as the different iterations of the Joker are distinctive enough, viewers will be fine with seeing multiple portrayals of the same character on the big screen. The same is true of the Flash; although Warner Bros. initially worried about the possibility of brand dilution, pulling
Harley Quinn from
Arrow after they decided to push ahead with
Suicide Squad, the studio seems to have relaxed a lot. Ezra Miller's portrayal of Flash is very different to Grant Gustin's TV version, and the average viewer isn't even bothering to compare them.
In just the same way, if Sony cast the right actor as Peter Parker, they should be able to generate the same kind of positive buzz and push ahead with a far stronger franchise.
IS SONY ALLOWED TO RECAST SPIDER-MAN?
But there's one snag; it's entirely possible that Sony isn't allowed to recast the role of Spider-Man. It all depends upon the
studio's deal with Marvel Studios. If Marvel Studios is making solo Spider-Man films, is Sony prohibited from direct use of Peter Parker? Would they be able to cast a Spider-Man who serves as a secondary character, rather than the star of a film? Naturally, the full status of the deal is a closely-guarded secret, so there's no way to know for sure. But even if the contract is silent on this matter, that doesn't mean Sony will want to take the risk and damage the goodwill.
More: Venom Theory: Riot Will Turn Into Carnage
It's also very possible that Sony actually
wants their spinoffs to be loosely set in the wider MCU. By that reading, they're hoping their films will profit from the overarching Marvel brand, and that cameos and subtle nods will be enough to satisfy general viewers. There's certainly precedent for this idea; after all, the Marvel TV shows remain successful in spite of the fact their tie-ins will only ever be subtle and one-way. Every loose connection is celebrated by viewers with real delight. If Sony does intend to take this approach - and the ambiguous and confusing comments to date definitely leave that possibility open to the studio - then recasting Spidey is out of the question.
Right now, Sony's approach appears to be to hint that their spinoffs are set in the wider MCU, without making it explicit. It's an understandable approach, as it hopefully allows the studio to benefit from the hugely successful shared universe. But, in the long run, it's a self-defeating one; it impoverishes the characters and concepts Sony hopes to explore, removing some of their best character dynamics and most compelling arcs. Sony would be wise to ditch the MCU, and to bring in their own version of
Spider-Man to serve as a foil for this world of Spider-Man villains.
How does it make it stupid? 
