>

Disney would milk Spiderman more but the shittiest Spiderman content would still be better than what Sony produces by themselves.
I kinda agree but kinda don't. Sony is not consistent when it comes to movies but I agree that Disney will milk the fuck out of spider-man. The character was supposed to appear in she-hulk but Sony didn't allow it, fortunately. >

The writers of falcon and the winter soldier said they wanted spider-man to make a cameo in the final fight. She hulk writers said the same. Both are two of the worst super hero shows I have ever watched. Thank god Sony didn't allow that. If disney had the rights, every marvel property would become a spider-man cameofest. >

The current offering is very good. No way home was done very well >

Haven’t we like 3 different Spider-Men in the last 15 years? Idk how they could milk that harder. >

I don't think that's milking. They rebooted the first time because Raimi changed his mind and didn't want to do Spider-Man 4. They rebooted the second time because of horrible reviews and bad box office performance. The villain movies they make... yes that can be considered milking. >

It’s hard to think about a more blatant example of milking. Specifically when talking about superhero movies but… k >

I think that you are actually right now. Marvel would milk it more, though. >

Venom is a great movie if you watch it within the mind frame of a romantic comedy between Eddie and Venom >

Yes, the chemistry between Eddie and Venom is very good. >

I love Spiderman as a character, and I think some of the movies have been very good.  My main issue is that they've rebooted the franchise and retold the origin story...three times?...in the last \~20 years.  Or is it four?  It gets tedious, and most moviegoers don't really care why a superhero is the way they are.  Just tell good stories! >

I never thought about this but you're right. >

Thing is Sony horribly uses the IP, their live action movies are really bad. Disney at least had consistent good quality. So no, I dont like Sony owning it cause it feels very wasted. However im not crazy either over the idea of Disney owning it, in fact I would like it better if someone other than the 2 of then owned the IP, maybe even WB, just to try something different and see how it goes. Freshen up the product. >

I don't think Disney had quality lately. WB can't even use their DC properties properly. Though, they have proved that they can make some pretty good standalone movies like the dark night trilogy, the batman and joker. >

My point exactly. I cant say Sony makes good "standalone" movies. >

It would be spiderwokeman >

Best Marvel is Superman, not Spiderman. >

This is a joke right? >

Sorry, it's DC.