Spider-Man will no longer appear in MCU films and I think this decision won't really matter all that much.

So, news dropped yesterday that Sony will no longer be sharing Spider-Man with Marvel. I wasn't expecting this news, but it makes sense given that Far From Home grossed over a billion dollars and is due to take down Captain Marvel on its re-release (to show four minutes of extra footage) this weekend. I guess they didn't even consider Marvel's offer, which was to pay for 50% of everything going forward, and Sony pretty much just told Disney to stick it where the sun don't shine (maybe a little more polite than that). I think Kevin Feige and others at Marvel made some really great decisions in casting Tom Holland and in crafting the last two Spider-Man films (I feel like the character is on track better than he ever was before), and Sony definitely now has a good blueprint to create a successful Spider-Man film.

I remember the buzz of having Spider-Man join the MCU before Captain America: Civil War. I hadn't read that particular comic book, but a lot of the nerds I talk to and respect told me that Spider-Man was pretty crucial to the storyline. Please note that these are the same nerds who also stood up for Adam Warlock being crucial to the Infinity War storyline (which I had read and was familiar with), yet that character was completely written out of Infinity War and Endgame and no one noticed because the storyline didn't follow the books, yet was still quite good.

So knowing all of this...and then having watched Captain America: Civil War...I'm still not certain that Spider-Man was necessary at all. I don't think he was necessary for Infinity War or Endgame either. Don't get me wrong...I like that character and I think that he was a great inclusion and lightened the mood in several spots, but Spider-Man was never essential to Captain America: Civil War or any of the others he was in. I mean...what did Spider-Man even do? Take away Captain America's shield? Give Iron-Man someone to mentor and miss after the snapture? Help fight Thanos on Titan (which they ended up losing anyway)? All of those things could have happened through another character, easy. The only thing he was really good for was having a teenager to rope other teenagers into wanting to see the film (because they had a character that represented them).

Anyway, I guess my point to all of this is that Spider-Man going back to Sony seems like a good move at this point. It means Tom Holland will probably appear in the next Venom movie and that his appearances in future Avengers films will depend on Disney showing up with a truck load of cash, which they probably won't do because...why? I think I prefer the smaller plotlines anyway...where Spider-Man faces off against one of his rogues' gallery villains and they expand the world just a wee bit by exploring various characters Peter Parker interacts with. I will miss Happy Hogan, but I'm sure they'll have fun with the Aunt May character.

The Cinderella live action movie that came out in 2015 is a true delight. If you haven't seen it yet you should watch it with your family.

I recently (and accidentally) watched the Cinderella live action remake that was in theaters in 2015. When it debuted, I missed it. Now I wish I had gone to see it in the theater because I really do think that it's magical. If you haven't bothered to look it up, you should do yourself a favor and watch it as soon as possible. It's wicked fun, and just a really good story. But here are some reasons that I fell in love with it.

1) The musical score is from composer Patrick Doyle, and it's incredibly lovely. It just kind of sweeps you along in the same kind of feel good tunes that you heard in the early Harry Potter films, and it lends the whole movie a kind of an old timey Bedknobs and Broomsticks kind of feel to it before embracing some truly epic and emotional crescendos. Just listen to this one tune from the soundtrack, and you'll see what I mean.

2) The costumes and set design are exquisite. When Cinderella shows up in a golden coach wearing the most incredible blue dress there ever was in order to attend the ball where the prince is waiting for her...well, it's magical. I know it's supposed to be, but I was captivated by it. The blue dress is fantastic and Helena Bonham Carter as the Fairy Godmother is the best choice ever for this kind of thing. A little "Bippity Boppity Boop" goes a long way.

If only all of us could feel this good when getting dressed in the morning.

3) The chemistry between the two leads is incredibly strong. Of course, I'm probably a little biased because I really like Richard Madden and would watch him in just about anything. But his portrayal of Prince Kit is super worthy of a Prince Charming if ever I saw one. OMG the blue eyes...just sayin'.

4) Cate Blanchett. I'd never seen her play evil until I saw her in Thor: Ragnarok. If I'd seen Cinderella in 2015, I'd have been better prepared to appreciate how evil she can be. She really nails the role of the wicked stepmother.

5) The details are so amazing. There are swan chandeliers. Yes...swan chandeliers. Just stop and go watch it. It's a feel good movie, and if you've been feeling down, it's just the kind of thing to pull you out of that funk and make you believe in magic once again.

Is the House of Mouse the most friendly cartel in North America?

An article on Business Insider recently pointed out that now that Disney owns Marvel, it is actively pursuing the death of franchises not associated with its very lucrative movies. A quote from the article reads as such: "Even as Marvel kept many X-comics on the shelves, comic book writers have dragged the characters through the dirt in the past decade with a decimation of the mutant population, a negative portrayal of the team in a big crossover with the Avengers, the death of Wolverine, and the retconning of two popular characters (Scarlett Witch and Quicksilver) to cut their ties to the X-Men." And as can be expected, more marketing money is allocated to merchandise for characters that Disney owns than the ones that it does not.

My own research shows that there are few mentions of the X-Men on the Marvel.com website (or for that matter The Fantastic Four). Take it from a fan of the X-Men, they used to be HUGE; now not so much. And it's basically confirmed that Disney has forbidden the creation of new X-Men characters. My question to you doesn't necessarily revolve around whether Disney has the right to crush its competition like this, because it obviously does or it wouldn't be doing it. My question to you is whether this kind of conduct breaks any antitrust laws, and whether or not you (like me) are crying out "foul!"

As you may know, United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws which regulate the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. It was used to break up Ma Bell on January 8, 1982 by forcing AT&T Corporation to relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies that provided local telephone service in the United States. "Monopoly" (despite the popularity as a board game) is a dirty word in our capitalist society and for good reason. Monopolies kill competition and the public at large is the one that suffers because of it.

Admittedly, comic books are a far cry from controlling all the phone service in the United States. However, the idea behind antitrust is to prevent collusion that restrains trade. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem fair that a company like Marvel could sell its characters to different film corporations, and then get bought out by a huge film corporation which then demands that it strangle any comic characters that support its competition in the free market that is Hollywood.

Honestly, I love the Marvel movies produced by Disney. But the more I hear of its business practices, the more I'm convinced that the House of Mouse just might be the most friendly cartel in North America.