If we use a little bit of logic from the "Loki" movie. Previously they would have been variants that would have been taken out by the TVA, but with the ending of LOKI.... probably just another alternate timeline is created.-b: ...create a separate timeline: a timeline branches out. in the original one osborne accidentally impales himself. in the other he doesn't.
Charlie Cox's Daredevil is definitely part of the MCU now, as is Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin (via Hawkeye on Disney+). But are they the same versions of the characters that we watched on Netflix? Maybe.I know nothing is set in stone and lawers and money and egos and all that but I can't see them having Charlie Cox and Tom Hardy cameos without having some reasonably well drawn up plan about how they will be used.
Especially with the Matt Murdock brick catching bit. If they just wanted a bit of fan service he would have just shown up as a straight lawyer. Those in the know would still have gotten their kicks and the rest would have been none the wiser. Now the non netflix crowd will be expecting something too as that's how the MCU works. Teaser first then reveal.
And thus begins the MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS!!!up front: loved the movie
-we didn't know aunt may enough
-the typical 'marvel movie must be funny' tho they balanced it well I think
-what the heck were the avengers doing not backing peter ?
but one big question: when everyone who knows peter is spiderman was sent back to their respective universes, some of them came from the same timeline but from different moments in that timeline, namely the deceased supervillains and their respective spider-men. when for example osborne goes back to his own timeline, does he...
-a: ...overwrite that timeline: he has been 'cured' and can prevent himselves from dying (somehow). this way everything changes and nothing makes sense. example: why does doc oc say osborne died a few years back
-b: ...create a separate timeline: a timeline branches out. in the original one osborne accidentally impales himself. in the other he doesn't.
-c: ...die: he was so close to being killed that this sort of difference won't keep him from dying. everything has always been exactly that way. in the previous spiderman movies, everything we saw in no way home actually happened but it was just an unnoticeable blip. this would be very grim and defeat one of the main plot points.
what do you think? did the writers just not consider this? which option (or a completely different one) is the most likely? is there even a point to asking this question?
Can even still be Eddie Brock, as Spider-Man showed, alternate reality versions don’t look the same as the originalYes, so it would appear that Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock is staying put as part of the SSU but Venom can now be part of the MCU, perhaps with a new human(oid) host.
Actually, we could even get a Tom Hardy Eddie Brock in the MCU . . . . we got a JK Simmons JJ Jameson, a different JJJ than portrayed in the Sam Raimi films (plus, he's done JJJ's voice in a number of different animated Marvel shows over the years).Can even still be Eddie Brock, as Spider-Man showed, alternate reality versions don’t look the same as the original
As "No Way Home" was opening, the future of the MCU Spiderman was in doubt, but Tom Holland did recently sign up for another 3 films.@DeciousQuail: My understanding is that there’s already a fourth Tom Holland Spider-Man film in the works, and the studios are also talking about giving Garfield another Spider-Man film as well. (Obviously the opening of the multiverse means you can have multiple actors playing the same character.)