Spider-Man: Homecoming
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Father
Sr Member
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
How far into the MCU does Fox own? They own the rights to F4... but how are the villains broken down since they eventually make their way into other titles?
I agree... that would definitely expand what can be done with GotG.
Baby steps... at least they're moving in the right direction and they really seem to be driven to bring the fans what they want so I would imagine once Fox sees that Sony is going to be cashing in, they will hopefully try to get in on the action as well.
How far into the MCU does Fox own? They own the rights to F4... but how are the villains broken down since they eventually make their way into other titles?
I agree... that would definitely expand what can be done with GotG.
Baby steps... at least they're moving in the right direction and they really seem to be driven to bring the fans what they want so I would imagine once Fox sees that Sony is going to be cashing in, they will hopefully try to get in on the action as well.
third3ye
Sr Member
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Only a lawyer working character rights for either Fox or Marvel Studios would know, this stuff isn't public nor straightforward. Given what we've heard about the use rights for Marvel aliens, there are races like Kree and Skrulls that fall into a gray area between the 2 studios (similar to Quicksilver) and other races like Badoon that Fox may own outright. Normally I would say a character like Silver Surfer or Galactus is mostly definitely part of the FF rights package and the Shi'ar is definitely part of X-Men, but given QS and SW both were in the gray area, the short answer is - who knows?
Only a lawyer working character rights for either Fox or Marvel Studios would know, this stuff isn't public nor straightforward. Given what we've heard about the use rights for Marvel aliens, there are races like Kree and Skrulls that fall into a gray area between the 2 studios (similar to Quicksilver) and other races like Badoon that Fox may own outright. Normally I would say a character like Silver Surfer or Galactus is mostly definitely part of the FF rights package and the Shi'ar is definitely part of X-Men, but given QS and SW both were in the gray area, the short answer is - who knows?
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Hugh Jackman Reacts to the Marvel and Spider-Man Deal
Some tweets from Devin Faraci:
"Before we start trotting out "superhero overload" re: Spider-Man keep in mind there is no new film being announced, just a new direction.
Sony was always going to make another Spidey movie. The only difference is now it'll be good.
Since Marvel doesn't own Spider-Man and has no guarantee they can use him forever, I bet Spidey is NOT central to the MCU.
Which, honestly, he shouldn't be. It's a mistake to make the character as huge in-universe as he is in the real world.
Last Spidey thought before I go back to work: Sony will not announce SINISTER SIX is dead, but don't hold your breath for it.
They'll sit on it until they see how the MCU stuff shakes out. Nothing will happen in the near future, I bet."
Hugh Jackman Reacts to the Marvel and Spider-Man Deal
Some tweets from Devin Faraci:
"Before we start trotting out "superhero overload" re: Spider-Man keep in mind there is no new film being announced, just a new direction.
Sony was always going to make another Spidey movie. The only difference is now it'll be good.
Since Marvel doesn't own Spider-Man and has no guarantee they can use him forever, I bet Spidey is NOT central to the MCU.
Which, honestly, he shouldn't be. It's a mistake to make the character as huge in-universe as he is in the real world.
Last Spidey thought before I go back to work: Sony will not announce SINISTER SIX is dead, but don't hold your breath for it.
They'll sit on it until they see how the MCU stuff shakes out. Nothing will happen in the near future, I bet."
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Though I don't want any of his origins being shown or retold (including the spider bite), there is one aspect of the origin which I think could be highlighted.
Uncle Ben's quote "With great power comes great responsibility" needs to be echoed through Peter at least once in the film.
It irks me that they shortened/changed it entirely in the Amazing Spider-Man movie.
Though I don't want any of his origins being shown or retold (including the spider bite), there is one aspect of the origin which I think could be highlighted.
Uncle Ben's quote "With great power comes great responsibility" needs to be echoed through Peter at least once in the film.
It irks me that they shortened/changed it entirely in the Amazing Spider-Man movie.
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Spider-Man Deal Breakdown at Sony and Marvel | Variety
Not what many expected, still mutually beneficial in the long run.
Spider-Man Deal Breakdown at Sony and Marvel | Variety
Not what many expected, still mutually beneficial in the long run.
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
The funny thing is that, in my case, I'll probably watch Spidey only in the MCU films and still avoid the Sony films (unless there's some story crossover with MCU).
third3ye
Sr Member
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Thanks for posting. Deal is much simpler than I thought, I had expected some exchange of cash as result of backend participations between Marvel Studios and Pascal's production companies, but looks like financially both sides are operating in isolation. Basically each party expects to get paid by increasing the size of the pie through Spider-Man's cross-pollination with the MCU franchises.
Another interesting thing I noticed is the lack of financial incentive for Marvel Studios to hit homeruns for Sony, with respect to the solo film. Certainly Marvel has branding incentive to make a good film for Sony, and Disney has financial incentive in merchandising, but the incentive structure seems a bit weak. I'm sure there'll be performance clauses in the agreement to ensure the final product is worthy of a Marvel Studios flag, just interesting how this deal panned out.
This deal also spells out that Fiege and Marvel Studios will NOT be spending a disproportionate amount of time on the solo Spider-Man film, as they have basically no financial incentive to do so. What we should expect is Marvel will find a way to fit Spider-Man into the MCU in a way that benefits all their wholesale franchises, but certainly won't allow Spidey to overshadow everyone else.
Thanks for posting. Deal is much simpler than I thought, I had expected some exchange of cash as result of backend participations between Marvel Studios and Pascal's production companies, but looks like financially both sides are operating in isolation. Basically each party expects to get paid by increasing the size of the pie through Spider-Man's cross-pollination with the MCU franchises.
Another interesting thing I noticed is the lack of financial incentive for Marvel Studios to hit homeruns for Sony, with respect to the solo film. Certainly Marvel has branding incentive to make a good film for Sony, and Disney has financial incentive in merchandising, but the incentive structure seems a bit weak. I'm sure there'll be performance clauses in the agreement to ensure the final product is worthy of a Marvel Studios flag, just interesting how this deal panned out.
This deal also spells out that Fiege and Marvel Studios will NOT be spending a disproportionate amount of time on the solo Spider-Man film, as they have basically no financial incentive to do so. What we should expect is Marvel will find a way to fit Spider-Man into the MCU in a way that benefits all their wholesale franchises, but certainly won't allow Spidey to overshadow everyone else.
Last edited:
Laspector
Master Member
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Except that in the original comic, Uncle Ben never said that. In fact NO ONE said it-- not even Peter, it was just in the yellow narrative box.
Except that in the original comic, Uncle Ben never said that. In fact NO ONE said it-- not even Peter, it was just in the yellow narrative box.
SciFiMuseum
Sr Member
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Thank God! Now...NO MORE ORIGIN STORIES PLEASE.
Thank God! Now...NO MORE ORIGIN STORIES PLEASE.
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
I'm surprised I'm one of the few who's not very excited about this. It actually brought me down when I heard about it. It was obvious with Andrew Garfield being fired a few months back and with the franchise going nowhere. Here's why I'm not convinced about this:
1. Civil War
When I heard that they were going to do Civil War in the MCU I was like "but they can't do that without Spider-Man! He plays a pivotal role there!" But then I started thinking how that would play out. Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man? Not possible. Specially since the Avengers defeated the Chitauri in NY, plus the universes don't even fit together. New Peter Parker? Not possible, Sony wouldn't allow two different versions of the same character in the cinemas. Miles Morales? Not likely, plus, if you're recasting the role going in a different direction, you can just switch the characters for someone else. And on top of that, Marvel's version is not about the secret identities. The biggest thing that happened in Civil War, specially for the Spidey's fans, was watching him reveal his identity for the first time ever. This story is not about it, it's about superheroes working for the goverment and has nothing to do with identity. The script is written. So now they have to rewrite everything with production almost starting, so they will have to rush things so nothing gets delayed, specially now that they added a Spider-Man movie to their Phase 3.
2. New Spider-Man solo movie
I was really looking forward to see Sony's plans for Spider-Man. Not because I thought they had good plans (althought I didn't really hate TASM2 as much as some people) but because if they were releasing a movie by 2016 or 2017, it was probably going to be terrible. Statistically at least you could see how everything pointed that the next Spidey movie was going to be the lowest grossing movie of them all. People would've gotten sick of the way they were using the character. Sony wouldn't risk producing another Spidey film, letting the character die and the rights to return to Marvel. Most MCU actors contracts would've been expiring by then and both the MCU and the people would've been ready to see a new take of Spider-Man.
3. Avengers Infinity Wars
There are so many superheroes right now in the MCU that they can do something as big as Civil War and they're now introducing a ton more characters (in tv, Netflix and movies). They can either not put them all there, which would be a huge thumbs down for them, or risking having a mega bloated couple of movies, where none of the characters have enough screen time just to have a ton of them, similar to what happens in X-Men, which I know is controlled by Fox and Marvel can do a better job than them any day of the week, but think about it, there are not a ton of very important X-Men other than the main team and Fox can't even do that right, wouldn't it be a similar challenge for Marvel to make all those superheroes work in the same way with just two movies, specially when it took not only a ton of Civil War comics to pull that off, but also every issue of the superheroes' titles at the time to tell that story?
4. Peter Parker?
I think most of us agree that Andrew Garfield is the quintessential Peter Parker. He loves the character so much and you can really tell in his performance. His whole character (personality, movements, costume, etc...) is probably the only reason even hardcore fans kinda liked TASM2, even if nothing else was done properly. Marvel, however, would never use Garfield, specially since they want to distanciate from Sony's universe.Probably the only way they could actually do that is if they use Miles Morales, but that's not going to happen for two reasons: a) Most people would go like "who? That's not Spider-Man! He's not black!". It's one thing to do a Guardians of the Galaxy move, where you take some characters no one knows anything about and tweak them to make an amazing movie and another to take a larger-than-life character and change his whole identity and motivation, presumably with a new origin story; and b) Miles Morales is temporary. As every superhero including his counterpart twice from the main Marvel universe, Peter just got a break so we could see another guy take over the mantle. Why would Marvel use a temporary replacement (which by the way has already ended in the Ultimate comics with Peter's return) for their main, more-profitable cinematic universe? They can't even sell more comics of Miles Morales if they went that way without creating a new series for him!
After thinking all that I was hoping they wouldn't get the rights and Sony would just recast the role with Miles Morales for TASM3, taking attention further away from Peter Parker so Marvel could use him properly. I really want this to work though. Spider-Man is my favorite character and I'd love to see a movie where it's all done properly. I really want this to come and bite me in the butt in a couple of years and go out of the cinema saying "holy crap Marvel's done it again", but right now I just don't see that happening.
Please, feel free to disagree with me. I really want to be wrong on this.
I'm surprised I'm one of the few who's not very excited about this. It actually brought me down when I heard about it. It was obvious with Andrew Garfield being fired a few months back and with the franchise going nowhere. Here's why I'm not convinced about this:
1. Civil War
When I heard that they were going to do Civil War in the MCU I was like "but they can't do that without Spider-Man! He plays a pivotal role there!" But then I started thinking how that would play out. Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man? Not possible. Specially since the Avengers defeated the Chitauri in NY, plus the universes don't even fit together. New Peter Parker? Not possible, Sony wouldn't allow two different versions of the same character in the cinemas. Miles Morales? Not likely, plus, if you're recasting the role going in a different direction, you can just switch the characters for someone else. And on top of that, Marvel's version is not about the secret identities. The biggest thing that happened in Civil War, specially for the Spidey's fans, was watching him reveal his identity for the first time ever. This story is not about it, it's about superheroes working for the goverment and has nothing to do with identity. The script is written. So now they have to rewrite everything with production almost starting, so they will have to rush things so nothing gets delayed, specially now that they added a Spider-Man movie to their Phase 3.
2. New Spider-Man solo movie
I was really looking forward to see Sony's plans for Spider-Man. Not because I thought they had good plans (althought I didn't really hate TASM2 as much as some people) but because if they were releasing a movie by 2016 or 2017, it was probably going to be terrible. Statistically at least you could see how everything pointed that the next Spidey movie was going to be the lowest grossing movie of them all. People would've gotten sick of the way they were using the character. Sony wouldn't risk producing another Spidey film, letting the character die and the rights to return to Marvel. Most MCU actors contracts would've been expiring by then and both the MCU and the people would've been ready to see a new take of Spider-Man.
3. Avengers Infinity Wars
There are so many superheroes right now in the MCU that they can do something as big as Civil War and they're now introducing a ton more characters (in tv, Netflix and movies). They can either not put them all there, which would be a huge thumbs down for them, or risking having a mega bloated couple of movies, where none of the characters have enough screen time just to have a ton of them, similar to what happens in X-Men, which I know is controlled by Fox and Marvel can do a better job than them any day of the week, but think about it, there are not a ton of very important X-Men other than the main team and Fox can't even do that right, wouldn't it be a similar challenge for Marvel to make all those superheroes work in the same way with just two movies, specially when it took not only a ton of Civil War comics to pull that off, but also every issue of the superheroes' titles at the time to tell that story?
4. Peter Parker?
I think most of us agree that Andrew Garfield is the quintessential Peter Parker. He loves the character so much and you can really tell in his performance. His whole character (personality, movements, costume, etc...) is probably the only reason even hardcore fans kinda liked TASM2, even if nothing else was done properly. Marvel, however, would never use Garfield, specially since they want to distanciate from Sony's universe.Probably the only way they could actually do that is if they use Miles Morales, but that's not going to happen for two reasons: a) Most people would go like "who? That's not Spider-Man! He's not black!". It's one thing to do a Guardians of the Galaxy move, where you take some characters no one knows anything about and tweak them to make an amazing movie and another to take a larger-than-life character and change his whole identity and motivation, presumably with a new origin story; and b) Miles Morales is temporary. As every superhero including his counterpart twice from the main Marvel universe, Peter just got a break so we could see another guy take over the mantle. Why would Marvel use a temporary replacement (which by the way has already ended in the Ultimate comics with Peter's return) for their main, more-profitable cinematic universe? They can't even sell more comics of Miles Morales if they went that way without creating a new series for him!
After thinking all that I was hoping they wouldn't get the rights and Sony would just recast the role with Miles Morales for TASM3, taking attention further away from Peter Parker so Marvel could use him properly. I really want this to work though. Spider-Man is my favorite character and I'd love to see a movie where it's all done properly. I really want this to come and bite me in the butt in a couple of years and go out of the cinema saying "holy crap Marvel's done it again", but right now I just don't see that happening.
Please, feel free to disagree with me. I really want to be wrong on this.
Last edited:
seelsa73
Sr Member
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
These kinds of statements get me shaking my head every time I hear them. The fact that the name "Peter Parker" isn't mentioned in no way whatsoever implies that he isn't a part of the deal. When you're talking about Spider-Man in this type of context, it goes without saying that you mean him and his alter ego. If he wasn't included, they'd have outright said so.
These kinds of statements get me shaking my head every time I hear them. The fact that the name "Peter Parker" isn't mentioned in no way whatsoever implies that he isn't a part of the deal. When you're talking about Spider-Man in this type of context, it goes without saying that you mean him and his alter ego. If he wasn't included, they'd have outright said so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Web Head
Active Member
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
I agree about Garfield. But look at the rumored choices you have...
http://kiwibomb.com/will-new-spider-manpeter-parker-2017/
I agree about Garfield. But look at the rumored choices you have...
http://kiwibomb.com/will-new-spider-manpeter-parker-2017/
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
None of them are going to be Spider-Man, Logan Lerman is the only one who was seriously in the running during the previous casting.
Yes not in Amazing Fantasy #15, but as the comic series continued the quote did eventually get attributed to Uncle Ben as something he would lecture Peter with during other stories and flashbacks.
Those are not rumored choices, they are mere suggestions more so fan casting list put together by various people online. And the same names keeps getting circulated.
None of them are going to be Spider-Man, Logan Lerman is the only one who was seriously in the running during the previous casting.
Last edited:
Re: New Spider-Man Movie in MCU (July 28, 2017)
Yeah they've always talked about Peter, plus, as long as executive producer Avi Arad is in the decisions he has stated that spiderman will ALWAYS be Peter Parker.
