Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I really do miss when Agents of Shield would show the aftermath of the MCU movies.  I know it was an abusive relationship, but that part about it I really liked.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, I recently binged Agents of Shield from start to this past episode.  Wow, really an amazing show.  I'd seen it here and there in the past, but always put it on the backburner.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Am I a bad person for wanting Natasha/Black Widow to stay dead after her solo movie?  I just would like her sacrifice in Endgame to mean something, and I like the idea that, for the most part, deaths in the MCU have stuck.  And I think they're probably going to try and resurrect the Vision in WandaVision (with potentially effects rolling into Dr. Strange 2 and beyond) so it'd be weird if they kept undoing the Phase 3 deaths.

(Because you know Tony's coming back in one form or another).

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I dunno. It's hard to say because I am completely resigned to superheroes coming back from the dead and it's convinced me that Quinn and Arturo will also come back someday. I feel like Robert Downey Jr. is done with Marvel contractually... but even then, I feel like at some point, we'll get Corey Fogelmanis playing out the teen Tony from the past storyline at some point. Onscreen, Black Widow is defined by the fact that she's played by Scarlet Johannson who is a performer of rare talent and charisma. She's great in WINTER SOLDIER, but she's primarily a chameleonic blank slate.

I did have this joke I was going to make where you, Slider_Quinn21, were grousing about David Mamouz being too short to play Batman and I was going to ask why Batman brings out the worst in you: first your hatred for old people by raging about how Ben Affleck is too old to play the character, now your hatred for short people over Mamouz. But then your wife had that miscarriage and I felt I needed to take it easy on you and also, to say you have ever raged about anything is quite an overstatement.

Black Widow is not the hill I want anyone to die on.

**

People love the first AVENGERS. I thought it sucked when I saw it and the thing I hated most about AVENGERS was the ridiculous ending where destroying the Chitauri mothership inexplicably incapacitates all the foot soldiers, a bizarre and nonsensical design flaw that Joss Whedon apologizes for in the AVENGERS audio commentary, explaining that he was extremely tired.

I also thought CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER was absurd in that Steve is nonsensically determined to commit suicide by piloting the bomb-equipped plane away from its target and never considers bailing out before it blows.

Spoilers for the deleted scenes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gViSJitqG4k








Naturally, I enjoyed some of the ENDGAME deleted scenes released a little while ago. There's one where Rhodey and Steve are reviewing Steve's final WWII mission and Rhodey point-blank asks Steve why he didn't parachute out of the soon-to-explode jet. Steve reacts with a blank stare, grimly realizing that his decades-long hibernation and time-displaced situation are because he got caught up in the moment and missed the obvious.

I also liked the scene where Rocket Raccoon expresses astonishment that the Avengers spent two to three hours fighting the Chitauri, an invading force Rocket describes as "the suckiest army" in the galaxy as everyone knows they're easily beaten by taking out the mothership. Steve explains that the Avengers weren't aware, Rocket laughs in their faces and Tony, who experienced post-traumatic stress after blowing up the mothership, grabs an electric razor and shaves a chunk of fur off Rocket.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

I did have this joke I was going to make where you, Slider_Quinn21, were grousing about David Mamouz being too short to play Batman and I was going to ask why Batman brings out the worst in you: first your hatred for old people by raging about how Ben Affleck is too old to play the character, now your hatred for short people over Mamouz. But then your wife had that miscarriage and I felt I needed to take it easy on you and also, to say you have ever raged about anything is quite an overstatement.

Ha, don't let anything ever stop you from calling me out on anything smile  It's what makes this fun.

I like Batman a lot.  I think he was the gateway drug to my love of superheroes, and I just think that there's something poetic about a guy in a bat costume trying to keep up with a group of literal gods.  Batman's best superpower is unlimited wealth, and while it's sometimes significantly overblown, his true superpower is just his incredible brain.  I think there's something sorta beautiful about a guy who had some tragedy and decided to do everything in his power to stop it.

I also think there's room for different versions of the character.  I think it's sorta great that David Mamouz played Batman because I don't think there's necessarily any reason for Bruce to be 6'3 and ripped.  There's something kinda cool to the idea that he's sorta short and average build and could still kick ass.  I think my main gripe is that sticking with Mamouz sorta ruined my longstanding prediction (from season one) that they'd replace him with another actor when it was time for him to be Batman.  I was sorta right, but I'm glad they didn't do it.

As far as Affleck, I think he did as good a job as anyone could've.  My main problem with Batfleck were 1) (pre-BvS) that I wanted Superman to face a Batman in his prime and didn't want to hamstring Batman even more when he's already significantly outmatched and 2) (post BvS) didn't think that the movie gave enough explanation for why Batman was acting the way he was acting.  He can be an older version and work and he can be a grittier/darker version and work, but I felt like they needed to explain why he was acting the way he was acting.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I finished Agents of Shield season 6.

Some spoilers (stop reading if you don't want to be spoiled), but I wonder if the show would've been better if they'd somehow transitioned the cast to a parallel universe.  I understand the behind-the-scenes issues forcing them to be completely in the dark about both the Snap/Blip and the resulting 5-year time jump, but it's oddly distracting to have such little connection between the show and the movies. 

The Snap/Blip was a universal event.  It's not something that would simply never be discussed, even if every character happened to escape it.  Even if they didn't, the galactic portions of the show would certainly be talking about it.  At least, on Earth, there were witnesses to what really happened.  In other parts of the galaxy, even ones that knew of Thanos, people would've just disappeared (and possibly reappeared) with no explanation.

Then there's the other side.  Whether it be the destruction of the Earth from Season 5 or the invasion of Earth from the end of season 6.  When the Lighthouse is attacked, the Chronicoms talk about getting rid of SHIELD as their primary foes.  No mention of any of the Avengers.  No mention of trying to take over the planet that either just experienced or just fought off an invasion of Thanos.

I know, for all intents and purposes, they already don't take place in the same universe.  But it's odd that we've had tons of connections throughout the life of the show, but now we're just supposed to pretend that none of that happened?

With all the technobabble on the show, I think they should've at least tried to give an explanation.  Gemma tried to get Fitz back and did a thing and now they're in a pocket dimension.  Or they moved across the multiverse.  Or something.

The events of Infinity War and Endgame were too big for SHIELD to ignore.  The happenings that happen on SHIELD are too big for the Avengers to ignore.  So I would've tried to put them on an Earth where there are no Avengers.  Or maybe they all left or all died.  SHIELD is all that's left.  It wouldn't even need to be a big scene.

MACK - "....what just happened?"

SIMMONS - "The Beta Device brought back Fitz.  But it also seems to have separated us from our known reality."

MACK - "English, please."

SIMMONS - "We are on Earth, but I don't think it's our Earth."

**************

PIPER - "We've scoured this Earth's internet, and you're never going to believe this."

MACK - "I already don't."

PIPER - "There's nothing about Tony Stark.  No Iron Man.  No Chitauri invasion.  No history of Steve Rogers or the supersoldier program.  Thor is simply a legend on this Earth.  As far as I can tell, there's no metahuman activity or any reference to any Avengers.  This world doesn't even know aliens exist."

MACK - "What about SHIELD?"

PIPER - "Nothing."

*************

MACK - "I know the last few days have been tough.  But even though FitzSimmons fixed the Beta device, we've decided to stay behind on this Earth.  We all saw what's been happening with those aliens and that mysterious guy that looks like Coulson.  I think we owe it to this place to help them stop it.  Our Earth has the Avengers.  This one doesn't.  It needs us.  It needs SHIELD."

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Man, why do you have to take the joy out of everything by overanalyzing it in terms of canonicity and continuity and event scale and impact? Why do you have to write 6,500 word novellas explaining what happened to Henry the Dog or spend months crafting two lines of dialogue to wrap up Colin's clone storyline? Why can't you just enjoy and be amazed? What happened to you to make you like this?

(Above are all things I feel Slider_Quinn21 should say to me.)

**

I think it would be difficult to transition AGENTS OF SHIELD Season 6 into a parallel Earth and insist that it is just as significant as the Earth of Seasons 1 -5. Surely the team wouldn't want to do anything other than get home. However, Slider_Quinn21 makes the insurmountable argument that an Earth which makes no reference to 50 per cent of all biological life being erased and then brought back five years later is ALREADY a parallel Earth.

I have no good response to that aside from saying that if that is indeed the case, I would be disinclined to draw attention to that.

**

From a behind the scenes standpoint, even if AOS' writing team had known ENDGAME's story, their options to tie in would have been limited. I can't see them changing Season 6 significantly or even at all.

Removing 50 per cent of their contracted and regular cast would be financially unworkable; even if the actors don't appear, they still get paid. Setting Season 6 five years after Season 5 might have been an option, but they could not have done it too overtly. If ABC's airdates shifted, AOS would spoil ENDGAME's endgame.

Even if AOS had known of ENDGAME and set their timeline accordingly, they still would have been able to refer to ENDGAME as much as they did in the end -- which is to say not at all.

However, when watching the show... I continue to feel that AGENTS OF SHIELD is set after ENDGAME and concurrently with the events of FAR FROM HOME (which I have not seen).

I think that the Snap took place during the Season 5 finale after the Zephyr touched down in Tahiti. Everyone vanished: the entire SHIELD team, Deke, everybody. Five years passed. Then the Hulk brought everyone back in ENDGAME. Nobody remembered having been absent. The team bid their farewells to Coulson and May, flew off in search of Fitz -- and then realized in mid-air/mid-holiday that what they perceived as a split-second had been a five year time jump. Everyone went into counselling or shrugged it off, and we picked up with the characters one year after the reversal.

Why wasn't it discussed? We don't see everything. We don't see the characters use the washroom or eat three meals a day. We never even saw how Fitz rescued Simmons from the HYDRA world when the last shot we had on the location showed Fitz losing his grip on her hand. We never saw how Agent Davis escaped Aida. The narrative force of the scene cut is not to be doubted.

Creatively, I feel this was the intention, although the offscreen events covered by the cut are far greater than AOS expected. They expected that they were leapfrogging over a year; instead, their approach is now bounding over five to six years.

Looking back at the last five seasons of SHIELD, perhaps I'm being disingenuous, but the Snap seems like one of SHIELD's lesser situations. In Seasons 1 - 5, SHIELD was exposed as a HYDRA cell, Inhumans were awakened across the globe, HYDRA unleashed HIVE, SHIELD faced a man with a flaming skull, killer robots mounted an AI apocalypse, the team was trapped in a virtual reality where HYDRA won WWII, monoliths sent everyone to the future, and then the team got home and spent half a season walking down one empty hallway after another and fought the lead of Disney's LIV AND MADDIE.

After all that, being erased from reality and then reinstated five years later with no memory of the experience is one of the least important things that has ever happened to these people. They fought Liv & Maddie! Liv & Maddie! This Snap-Blip nonsense that they don't even remember would barely register.

That's what I keep telling myself anyway.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

(Still spoilers)

Yeah, I enjoyed Season 6, and I think the writers did just about as well as they could considering the abuse they took from the movie department.  If the people who made Endgame can be trusted to know the secrets, then the people who made Agents of Shield should've been allowed to as well.

They made fun little references to Thanos in season 5 and whatever chaos they could imagine happening in New York, and I think it was fine.  With *literally nothing* to work off from Endgame, I think they did as much as they could with what they had to work with (nothing).  They wrote a fun story that was isolated to parts of space that haven't been dealt with and mostly isolated parts of Earth.  You're right - the people they interact with either wouldn't be in a position to constantly talk about the Snap/Blip or they're in enough danger that it isn't the focus.

The one mistake they made is to have another apocalypse-level event at the end of their season.  The season 6 finale primarily takes place in the Lighthouse and in some random jungle (I'm sure they said where - let's say South America).  Even if the Avengers knew about it, they wouldn't be able to get there in time.  So I think it was contained.

But with spaceships and colonization and invasion, it doesn't really fit.  It's nice for the team to have stakes and the Chronicom invasion certainly provides stakes.  But when they specifically say that they want to wipe out SHIELD as their primary enemy even though it seems to be common knowledge that Thanos is going to Earth.  So either he already decimated the planet or someone defeated him.  Plus, they know what Fitz and Gemma know (that there is a group of super-powered beings that protect the Earth).

I think the only mistake they made was not keeping the threats covert.  There's no reason for the Avengers to be involved in HIVE or HYDRA.  There's no reason for them to know about the Shrike or Izel.  These are SHIELD-level problems that can be written off as SHIELD's problem.

When the Earth is literally in danger, it's harder to write off the Avengers stuff.  For the most part, they did as great as they could.  It was only at the end that I started worrying about it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I haven't seen FAR FROM HOME, but that puts me in the same position the AGENTS OF SHIELD writers were in when conceiving their Season 6 threat. What about the Avengers Initiative? What's their situation post-ENDGAME? The AOS writers decided not to refer to what they didn't know.

However, even if the Marvel Film and Marvel TV connection were intact via Joss Whedon and even if the actors were willing, available and affordable, AOS could not have brought the Avengers into the Izel storyline.

If AOS had been in the ENDGAME and FAR FROM HOME loop, I can only see the references being made by having Daisy declare that they can't call in the Avengers because if Izel possessed Hulk or Dr. Strange or Captain Marvel or even Ant Man, she'd kill all of SHIELD in a second.

The AOS writers have said that the uncertainty of whether Season 6 would air before or after ENDGAME was also an issue, in which case such a scene might have been filmed twice: once with specific Avengers named, once without specific names, and both times establishing the same effect: The anti-possession devices are ultimately devices. They're breakable and possessing a human is bad enough. SHIELD cannot call in any more superhumans. Yoyo is already a liability.

That's the only Avengers tie-in I see being possible. Season 6, whether by accident or design, created a villain who made it unwise to bring in any Avengers.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Agreed on Izel.  The issue I have is with (spoilers).  But it would've also been an issue for season 5.  When the Earth was destroyed, did all the Avengers die?  What happened with Thor and Captain Marvel and Hulk (who were all off world) in the decades that happened?

When SHIELD was fighting covert battles, I think they could easily explore their little section of the universe without tying in with the movies.  When they expand into situations where the Earth is in danger from something that the Avengers would have a) obvious visibility to and b) the ability to respond to, it makes it more complicated.

The Avengers wouldn't show up to fight Grant Ward or Izel.  But if the Earth is destroyed or invaded, the lack of superheroes becomes a problem.  That's all I'm saying.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It'd be interesting to contemplate what Marvel TV shows would be like if Joss Whedon had stayed with Marvel after AGE OF ULTRON and continued to be the bridge between the film division and the TV branch.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Spider-Man allegedly out of the MCU.  Sony and Disney couldn't come to a deal.

First off, it's a bummer for the fans.  Tom Holland is great as Spider-Man, and I think his appearances have been amazing.  Two pretty great solo films and three other appearances.

Second, I understand that it's a business.  Sony wanted to keep the original deal (Disney gets 5%), and Disney wanted more.  Disney did all the work and wanted more of the profit.  Sony wanted to maintain the money role in their biggest property and didn't want to hand over about half their lunch money to the biggest kid on the block.  I understand.

Third, narratively, it's kinda in a clean place to make a break.  Far From Home essentially ends the Tony/Peter storyline that had been built since Peter first showed up in Civil War.  He's too young to be "friends" with any of the other Avengers, and without Tony, there's not as much of a reason for him to tag along.  The villain most connected to Stark is Mysterio and he's dead.  Even if he's not, his main problem is with Peter now, not Tony.  You could bring back Vulture without any connections to Stark or the Chitauri.

Of course, assuming Holland's contract isn't somehow connected to Marvel Studios (I don't think it is), it simply means that they'll move Holland over to the Venom universe.  They'll probably keep the "Peter is enemy #1" storyline from his movies and intersect him with the Carnage storyline from Venom.  They'll have a team-up movie and then do solo movies at Sony, I imagine.

It sucks, but I think it's probably the best for both studios.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The Sony/Marvel agreement was more a consultancy than anything else. Marvel provided creative stewardship, but Sony kept most of the money and allowed Spider-Man to feature in Marvel's AVENGERS films. Sony also continued developing its Spider-Man-adjacent properties with BLACK CAT, SILVER SABLE, MORBIUS, SINISTER SIX, INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE and VENOM and did so separately from Marvel. It was evident that Sony didn't see the Marvel Cinematic Universe as their universe; they wanted a Sony-based Spider-Man Cinematic Universe.

VENOM is unfathomable to me, but for some strange reason, it was ridiculously successful. I'd argue that it was a fluke that's unlikely to be repeated. VENOM, creatively, indicates that without Spider-Man himself, all of these Spider-Man rights are fairly useless. INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, however, indicated that Spider-Man could indeed start a franchise separate from Spider-Man through using other Spider-themed heroes from Miles Morales to Spider-Gwen. INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE made a strong creative case for Sony ending their dependency on Marvel.

My personal opinion is... mixed. I do think Spider-Man benefits from being part of a shared universe with the Avengers. But I also personally prefer that Spider-Man, in film and TV, exist in his own universe. The Tom Holland version of Spider-Man, to me, is a diluted version of what I find appealing about Spider-Man. His connection to the Avengers and his tutelege under Tony Stark and his going on space missions and having a high tech suit -- none of that is Spider-Man to me. To me, Spider-Man is more like the characters of SLIDERS. The sliders have no official status, no authority, no support system and are perpetually faking and blustering their way through their heroics. Spider-Man, to me, is a blue collar, working class hero. The Spider-Man of the MCU is a rich kid; this version of Spidey has been tailored for the Avengers.

I don't see that changing if Spider-Man remains the Tom Holland incarnation but with no further references to the Avengers, but I also don't really understand HOW this character could function without the Avengers because he was created specifically to be on their team unlike Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield. And this split is more business oriented than creatively oriented; Sony hit it big with VENOM and INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE and doesn't need the Avengers. Tom Holland's Spider-Man might, but they're not looking at it that way.

My other concern is Sony head Tom Rothman who was responsible for X-MEN THE LAST STAND and X-MEN ORIGINS WOLVERINE (actual title) and micromanaging the poor directors to the point of having sets repainted without their knowledge and slashing budgets relentlessly. Rothman delayed the DEADPOOL movie for years because he didn't believe in comedic superheroes while being firmly behind the unintentional comedy of X-MEN ORIGINS WOLVERINE (actual title). I don't think his creative instincts are strong and he was lucky to have Feige... although Rothman is also behind the brilliance of SPIDER-VERSE, so many he's changed. I mean, Robert Greenblatt cancelled SLIDERS, but he saved CHUCK. Sci-Fi betrayed SLIDERS at every turn, but they saved WYNONNA EARP. Transmodiar gave various people in this community PTSD, but he cured mine. People change.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Looking back, it’s apparent that Feige was hedging his bets - he knew this could happen.  From a pure story perspective, the divorce damage to the two studios’ plans could be mitigated with some skill and care.

The ones I feel sorry for are the actors, writers and director with the MCU’s Spider-man.  They’re caught between a rock and a hard place here; and Disney could dish out retribution on them if they help Sony succeed.  Disney and Marvel both have shown that kind of spite in the past.

This could see a new era of hardball as Disney tries to choke Sony into giving Spider-man up.  They were already trying it with Fox by killing the merchandise and even comics related to Fantastic Four and X-men.  What happens when Sony makes their big Spidey movie with no merchandising to back it up?  Look what happened with X-men and Fantastic Four.

615

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

TemporalFlux wrote:

Looking back, it’s apparent that Feige was hedging his bets - he knew this could happen.  From a pure story perspective, the divorce damage to the two studios’ plans could be mitigated with some skill and care.

The Sony/Disney split is unfortunate for the fans, but because Tony Stark is dead, it might work creatively. You could have Sam Wilson's Captain America in an MCU movie remark that recruiting high school students to fight crime was Tony's thing and that Sam will not be putting children in the line of fire.

You could have Peter in his Sony movie comment that he's no longer getting support from "the adults" ever since his "boss" passed away and that "they" just want Peter to get into college and leave superheroics behind.

TemporalFlux wrote:

The ones I feel sorry for are the actors, writers and director with the MCU’s Spider-man.  They’re caught between a rock and a hard place here; and Disney could dish out retribution on them if they help Sony succeed.  Disney and Marvel both have shown that kind of spite in the past. This could see a new era of hardball as Disney tries to choke Sony into giving Spider-man up.  They were already trying it with Fox by killing the merchandise and even comics related to Fantastic Four and X-men.  What happens when Sony makes their big Spidey movie with no merchandising to back it up?  Look what happened with X-men and Fantastic Four.

Perhaps I've misread my superhero history and TF would educate me in his inimitable TF fashion, but it doesn't seem to me that X-MEN and FANTASTIC FOUR suffered under FOX due to Marvel's lack of support. Marvel's antagonism seemed, at least to me, ineffective and symbolic. FOX crashed X-MEN and FF all by themselves.

Marvel indeed sought a partnership with FOX to produce those film properties and share the profits. FOX refused. Marvel retaliated by cancelling FANTASTIC FOUR (with a big series finale and a crossover event) and blocking any further merchandise (trading cards, original art, etc.). X-MEN sold too well to justify being cancelled, but Marvel adjusted their comic book universe to have INHUMANS replace X-MEN's mutants in their mythos and de-emphasized X-MEN in their output. However, FOX wouldn't have earned much from the mechandising for X-MEN and FANTASTIC FOUR anyway and I can't see them relying on Marvel Publishing to promote a feature film. FOX had its own marketing department for that.

Bryan Singer's degeneration has been well-documented and he turned in the mess that was APOCALYPSE. Josh Trank was unprofessional and unreliable on FANTASTIC FOUR and that was a mess as well. FOX did nothing to help matters with cutting action sequences and budgets shortly before filming. I haven't seen DARK PHOENIX, but APOCALYPSE had made the McAvoy/Fassbender team unwatchable for me and I wasn't inspired to see DARK PHOENIX no matter how pleasant and likable Simon Kinberg seems in public.

If APOCALYPSE, FANTASTIC FOUR and DARK PHOENIX had earned the same acclaim and success as DOFP and LOGAN, I don't know that Marvel's recalcitrance would have meant anything? All Marvel really did, in the end, was refuse to publish comic books or create merchandise that would promote FOX properties and that promotion was fairly meaningless whether it existed or not. Marvel lost that money, not FOX... unless I'm wrong? At this point, Isaac Perlmutter, the Marvel executive who led the charge against X-MEN and FF has been demoted to overseeing Marvel TV and Marvel Publishing specifically for such retaliatory behaviour.

Marvel Film is under Kevin Feige and while merchandising is technically under Perlmutter's purview, I can't see Disney withholding control of merchandising from Feige if he wanted it for a Marvel Studios project. I don't know how vindictive Feige might be towards Sony; there had to be a relationship there for the original 5 per cent of gross and all merchandising profits to exist. I'm not sure Perlmutter have a role in this fight now that he's been diminished at Marvel, ousted from Disney and left to TV and comics.

While Marvel owns the Spider-Man character, they sold the film rights to Sony (for far less than they should have) and did so in perpetuity so long as Sony puts out a product within a contractual window. Sony has every right to use what they bought to earn as much as they can. I would hope that Feige would respect that and aim for peaceful co-existence and declare that Sony and Marvel are both in the superhero business and their success is Marvel's success.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:

I don't see that changing if Spider-Man remains the Tom Holland incarnation but with no further references to the Avengers, but I also don't really understand HOW this character could function without the Avengers because he was created specifically to be on their team unlike Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield.

I agree that he was brought in with a desire and a "need" to be in the Avengers, but I think the end result of his arc (ending with Far From Home) was to show that he'd grown passed that.  That he's become his own hero who can handle things on his own.  I think he was humbled a bit by the events of Infinity War and Endgame, especially to the point where he was physically overwhelmed by Thanos' army, even with the "instant kill" mode on.

Enough has changed that, by Far From Home, he doesn't even want to respond when Nick Fury wants him.  I don't think he's done being Spider-Man because he's still patrolling the neighborhood up until his trip to Europe, but he's not interested in fighting another Avengers-level threat.  His confidence is back up by the end of the movie, and I think he's grown beyond a need to be in the Avengers.  I kinda see him like any of the other main Avengers - ready to accept the call if they need him but happy to be his own hero in the mean time.

So on the Spider-Man side, I think the solution is easy.  Peter's never going to get another call from the Avengers, and he's never going to be in a position where he thinks he needs help (like with the rest of the MCU heroes on their solo adventures).  The biggest hole to fill in his life is the fact that he's good friends with Happy Hogan and funded almost entirely by Stark.  I think there's a couple ways to fix this without outright saying it - I think they could simply write into the narrative something like:

NED - What do you mean you can't afford your rent?  Aren't you best friends with a billionaire?
PETER - I can't call him for everything.  I just want to make it on my own.

It's also possible to just swap out the money that Peter gets from being friends with Tony to money he gets from being friends with Harry or Norman Osborn.  Maybe Norman fills the mentor role of Tony, and they could walk around it without saying it (which is easily enough to do - just hire the Netflix Marvel series.  They were experts in dancing around continuity).

On the MCU side, I think it's even easier.  No one was really "friends" with Peter except for Tony.  There's absolutely no reason for Dr. Strange to need Peter's help, and I don't even know if Dr. Strange would consider asking for it.  There's a huge age gap between Peter and the rest of the Avengers, and I don't think any of them would reach out to him for help.  I don't think anyone dislikes Peter and they're happy to fight alongside him, but he's a kid.  Tony had no problem including Peter, but even that had a limit for him.  The rest wouldn't consider putting Peter in extra harm.

If they really want to stick it to Sony, they could say something like:

WAR MACHINE - We need all hands on deck.
SAM/CAP - What about the kid?
WAR MACHINE - Let him be a kid.  We need the rest of the hands on deck, though.