Marvel/Sony in negotiations over Spider-Man Rights [Archive]

TurtleTitan97

12-13-2014, 07:43 PM

We previously reported on the potential deal between Marvel and Sony to share the rights to Spider-Man at a 60/40 split, and that deal seems to be the one that will potentially be jump-started if Sony Pictures Entertainment continues to stumble in their handling of the Spider-Man franchise.

Sony is understandably preoccupied with the consequences of a massive hack that includes leaked films, downed intranet services and the leak of documents and e-mails, but should this deal move forward, we've learned some more details about what Spider-Man's potential return to Marvel would entail.

The 60/40 split still looks to be the divide with Sony handling distribution. However, Marvel's not inclined to give Sony creative control over the character, nor planning on honoring the contracts with Sony's Spider-Stars. More poking into the origins of the Aunt May solo film and Female Spider movie rumors revealed that these were actual Sony Picture Entertainment plans that Marvel knew about and severely disliked. Now that Marvel can have the rights to the character back, they plan to wipe the slate with the Amazing Spider-Man universe.

IF the Marvel/Sony deal were to go forward, Andrew Garfield would no longer be Peter Parker and any baggage from existing films, Raimi or Webb, would be non-canonical, Marvel doesn't want any part of those films. The idea is that the Spider-Man romance movie has been played out over five installments, so any new Spider-Man films would focus on the difficulties of being a teenager and a superhero with a romance side-story, not the film's focus. Marvel also thinks that the origin story is well-trodden territory, so any Spider-Man movies under this deal would begin with Peter Parker already leading a dual life. Spider-Man making his debut in Captain America: Civil War is still a distinct possibility and would serve as the character's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But as of now Spider-Man will NOT be in Civil War. I was told that they have a script nailed down.

Marvel's desire to remove Andrew Garfield from the role was a major point of contention with Sony's Amy Pascal, traditionally a stalwart defender of the talent in her films. However, current events leave her positioned slightly weakened.

http://www.latino-review.com/news/marvel-wants-a-fresh-start-with-spider-man-without-andrew-garfield

Cure

12-13-2014, 07:49 PM

Man. I liked both Amazing movies but Marvel getting the rights back would be interesting. But I also like Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man soooo...ambivalence.

TigerClaw

12-13-2014, 07:56 PM

http://www.latino-review.com/news/marvel-wants-a-fresh-start-with-spider-man-without-andrew-garfield
There is so much stuff that came from the Sony Hack, I really hope Sony and Marvel makes some deal to bring Spider-Man to the MCU.

Leo656

12-13-2014, 10:40 PM

I liked the first "Amazing" but haven't seen the second one and it doesn't look too good. Honestly Marvel getting the rights back would be what's best for everyone. Sony doesn't know what they're doing with it. They need to just take the money and let Marvel steer the ship on their own flagship character.

I guess it'll come down to a little bit of pride, and a little bit of "how much work does Sony want to do themselves to get the nose up on this thing?" It's much, much easier to let someone else do all the "hard" work and you simply move the wheels and cash the check, no?

The only snag would be, for it to happen, Sony would more or less be admitting, publicly, "We f*cked up Spider-Man". Anyone can easily see why that's not something they are in any hurry to do. But money talks. We'll see.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-14-2014, 01:43 AM

YESSSS!!!! Oh, this news makes me so happy I could do a happy dance right here at my keyboard. I have been hoping and praying for this to happen for a long time now- basically ever since the first Amazing Spider-Man movie turned out to be such a disappointment as a long-time Spidey fan. I seriously thought Sony dropped the ball on it a long time ago, and now my wish seems to have come true. JOYGASM!!!! :tcool::tgrin::trazz::tlol:

Candy Kappa

12-14-2014, 01:46 AM

Don't like the bit about removing Garfield.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-14-2014, 01:52 AM

I do. He may have had Spidey's snark down, but as Peter? He was too "pretty" and not awkward enough to be convincing. I just didn't like him. Heck, I liked CONNERS better in the first film (never saw the second) and that's saying something. Then again, I liked Toby's take better, anyway. Also- Molina was a perfect Ock. Raimi's trilogy just worked so much better, and had more of the feel of a Spidey story- but he an actual FAN.

Candy Kappa

12-14-2014, 02:31 AM

I think that's more the writing then Garfield, since his character didn't change at all when he got his powers. it would have nice to see him more timid and dorky before he got bitten, instead of a cocky guy who instantly challenges bullies twice his size.

But, I also think it's a minor nitpick, since he is excellent as Spidey, and the charisma and chemistry he have on screen and with Emma Stone.

Shred Head

12-14-2014, 05:31 AM

The idea of Marvel getting the rights back makes me nervous. Marvel as a company the past ten years hasn't had much luck with Spider-Man. The writing in the comics has been some of the worst I ever read in the history of the books and I have been reading since the early 90's so trust me that's pretty damn bad. Less said about Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon the better. I have lost all of my confidence in Marvel when it comes to the franchise they created. Sony sure Spider-Man three was awful Amazing 2 was a huge misstep not terrible but it was a misstep. They have had a lot of success with Spider-Man one and two and Amazing are great films and lets not forget the awesome Spectacular Spider-Man was created by Sony not Marvel. If Fox could pull the X-Men out of the funk they put them in I'm confident Sony can to.

ToTheNines

12-14-2014, 06:15 AM

I'd rather see Sony finish this trilogy and do their spinoffs, then give it back to marvel when that's all said and done in 2018 or whatever.

ZariusTwo

12-14-2014, 06:38 AM

I read up on a plan Sony had to adapt Kraven's Last Hunt and to renew focus on an adult Peter's lifestyle and a more prominent role for MJ. I'd have preffered to have seen that. I've heard Marvel just want to keep Peter youthful and focus less on the romantic hang-ups in potential movie plans

I'm also in agreement with Shred Head. People forget Marvel's own track record with Spidey outright stinks at the moment, you need only look at the state of the regular comics and cartoons to see that. The only decent things Spidey related this last decade have been the Ultimate books (even if Bendis is running on fumes these days), the newspaper comics and the Spectacular cartoon (and that was a Sony product)

Leo656

12-14-2014, 02:56 PM

Well, I ain't read the Spidey comics since the Clone Garbage, but I know that I agree with the studios that "Peter Parker In Love" is played the f*ck out as a movie idea and I'm sick of seeing that be the main focus. Go fight some goddamn super-villains and stop being such a whiner! I mean, seeing the character crammed in between all the Avengers on the big screen might be shallow and short on character development and overly bombastic, but you know what else it'd be? Interesting. Seeing Spidey interact with Thor and Captain America and Iron Man would be, just from a fan's perspective, more interesting than anything they've done in the last three and a half Spidey movies.

So, not going by the comics but simply by the movies, I think they're at the point where the best thing they can do for the character is find a way to bring him and all his cast into the Marvel Film Universe and take it from there. What else are they gonna do? "Peter accidentally creates another nemesis for himself, and in-between wrestles with the question of whether it's fair to his girlfriend that he continues to lead a heroic double-life"? Yeah I kind of don't give a sh*t about that anymore, because they're so f*cking bad at it. Making "swinging around punching stuff" the Main Priority and pushing "moping about his girl problems" to being the minor one is a terrific idea.

They've got the right idea, it'll probably just come down to money. I kind of don't care bout Amazing 3 anymore, but tell me Spidey will be in Civil War and I'll buy a ticket tomorrow, because there' simply nothing they can do in Amazing 3 that could be better or more interesting than that.

ZariusTwo

12-14-2014, 03:46 PM

TigerClaw

12-14-2014, 06:01 PM

CyberCubed

12-14-2014, 08:48 PM

At least Marvel said their Spiderman wouldn't be a reboot, but Spidey would already be doing it for a while.

I don't think I could sit through another Green Goblin movie.

SparkFlash

12-15-2014, 05:15 PM

I love Spiderman, but I am so sick of the same thing done a bit different. I hope they do as mentioned and start a bit later in life and its just a Spiderman story without him being new to it.

I want to see the mid twenties version with a real mary jane. that newlywed stage. Would be fun!

BabyTurtles

12-15-2014, 09:25 PM

Maybe they can do a new Spiderman?

CoughMilesCough.

I mean....I'm kinda tired of Peter Parker.....I want someone new.

Leo656

12-16-2014, 05:42 AM

He's never gonna be the "real" Spider-Man to the general audience, just a stand-in. That'd be a wasted movie.

Like, even Dick Grayson's had altogether a couple solid years as Batman, off and on; they're still never going to make that movie. Batman is Bruce Wayne. Superman is Clark Kent. Spider-Man is Peter Parker. Even when a character achieves "Legacy" status, where other characters have taken up the mantle for as long or longer than the original, they still always revert to the originals for mass media. Case in point: I can't be bothered to look it up right now, but Wally West was The Flash for as long if not longer than Barry Allen, and was a much better character overall. When they did a TV show back in 1989, who was Flash? Barry Allen. When they did ANOTHER show in 2014, who was Flash? Barry Allen. Who is going to be Flash in the upcoming JLA movie? Barry Allen. Because Wally was technically his sidekick and not "really" that character. That's how this stuff works.

Movies and live-action TV shows are supposed to be "iconic" and nobody wants to see "scabs" in the role filling in for the "real" characters.

Jester

12-16-2014, 05:48 AM

Leo656

12-16-2014, 05:55 AM

Cartoons have much looser rules. They did a whole series where Bruce wasn't Batman! You could never do that in a live action movie or TV show, the rules for what's "allowed" and what isn't are totally different.

That said, the JL cartoons hold a special place in my heart for being the only media outside the books to show Wally any love. I think he was in the DC/MK video game, too, but I don't remember if they explicitly stated it was Wally. I think it was, but you had to dig into the menus to find out.

It was weird seeing Wally basically as the first and only Flash in that cartoon universe, though. Like Barry never existed at all. I mean Wally's a better character anyways, but to have Barry completely skipped over in the story is a little weird.

Jester

12-16-2014, 05:56 AM

Cartoons have much looser rules. They did a whole series where Bruce wasn't Batman! You could never do that in a live action movie or TV show, the rules for what's "allowed" and what isn't are totally different.

That said, the JL cartoons hold a special place in my heart for being the only media outside the books to show Wally any love. I think he was in the DC/MK video game, too, but I don't remember if they explicitly stated it was Wally. I think it was, but you had to dig into the menus to find out.
True...but Bruce was at least THERE in Beyond. Gotta give JL(U) props for not just Wally, but John Stewart. I really liked what they did with GL in that series.

Leo656

12-16-2014, 06:07 AM

I don't like John Stewart much. Either Kyle or Guy should have been on the show. Stewart's GL never had anything to do with the Justice League. He's a scab Green Lantern and he's never been a very interesting character on his own, either. They just stuck him in the show because they were afraid of people writing letters. That always bothered me.

Same with how they had Hawkgirl on the team but not Hawkman. Neither of them were ever really that important in the JLA, either, but Hawkgirl existing without Hawkman is a completely useless idea, because her entire basis for creation was "female sidekick". That'd be like if they did a show where Batman wasn't in the JLA, but Batgirl was.

If they needed another woman, and they needed a minority character, they could just as easily have left out Hawkgirl and Stewart, two characters who had Zero importance, historically, to the JLA, and had Vixen, who they eventually added anyway, and filled both roles in spades to satisfy the PC Police. Vixen actually had been a major part of the JLA for several years in the books and was a good character on her own. The fact that they eventually worked her in anyway means that they could have just used her from the start.

It's a great show, I just always had some issues with the casting of the League. I also hated how they couldn't use a lot of DC characters like the JSA due to rights issues. I'd love to see another crack at that show with all of that straightened out. It was like 9/10s perfect, but I think they could do even better now.

ZariusTwo

12-16-2014, 06:15 AM

Cartoons have much looser rules. They did a whole series where Bruce wasn't Batman!

There were occasionally serious talks about doing Beyond as a live-action movie while it was airing, but nothing came of it, probably out of that fear that a movie with no Bruce as Bats would fly.

BabyTurtles

12-16-2014, 12:55 PM

Leo656

12-16-2014, 01:05 PM

BabyTurtles

12-16-2014, 01:12 PM

While we're wishing for stuff that's never gonna happen... I wanna try on the Pope's hat for a day. Just for fun. :tgrin:

Nah they might do an animated thing at some point but that's about it for that character.

I'll take whatever ^_^

I honestly liked Big Hero 6 more than all the live action marvel movies, so I'll gladly take that :D

or....a cartoon series (not just being a guest star on ultimate spiderman)

Sumac

12-16-2014, 01:29 PM

Producers need to think outside of the box and forget about "iconic" statuses and what not and just do what they want to do. Though, sadly it'll take time.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-16-2014, 01:30 PM

Two things- first, Miles was brought in as Peter's REPLACEMENT. After he DIED. That's a BIG factor in that character's place. Basically, to have him be Spidey, they'd have to have Peter killed off early on- and NO ONE would stand for that in a movie. Second, that character only exists in the Marvel Ultimates universe, NOT the main-line 616 one. In ALL other universes, it's been Peter. (I'm not counting 2099, as it's a future time-line where Peter DID exist, but Miguel O'Hara ended up taking up the mantle in that time-line.)

ZariusTwo

12-16-2014, 01:41 PM

Two things- first, Miles was brought in as Peter's REPLACEMENT. After he DIED. That's a BIG factor in that character's place. Basically, to have him be Spidey, they'd have to have Peter killed off early on- and NO ONE would stand for that in a movie.

Peter got better eventually, so if they made an all Morales movie, they could just have him turn up ok at the end and set up a Spider-Men team-up film

MsMarvelDuckie

12-16-2014, 01:51 PM

How does one "get better" after getting killed, exactly? Oh, wait- this is Marvel. No one ever stays dead except Uncle Ben and Gwen..... (Remembers the future Hobgoblin storyline with the reality-hopping Ben....) On second thought, does ANYONE stay dead?

BabyTurtles

12-16-2014, 01:53 PM

Peter got better eventually, so if they made an all Morales movie, they could just have him turn up ok at the end and set up a Spider-Men team-up film

that'd be cool~

also I'm tired of people saying "no one would stand for X character because Y character is too popular"

gosh guys we'll never get anything new with that sort of thinking. :ohwell:

I'm kinda glad I'm not some hardcore comic fan, cause I wouldn't mind a Grayson Batman film....or a Wally West film....or a John Stewart Film....or a film about a Superhero that isn't that well known.

it's boring seeing the same characters over and over and over again...if the writing is good people will enjoy it no matter who the character is. I feel like the only people that would have a problem with new characters are the fanboys. People who aren't into comics, but like action films won't care.

I didn't know ANYTHING about Guardians of the Galaxy and kinda felt Rocket was stupid...but others said it was good and I watched it and it was awesome :) so just make a good movie and it will be good.

Leo656

12-16-2014, 02:07 PM

It's also NOT boring to see the same character over and over again if the writing is good. Goes both ways. And people will always prefer what's familiar over what's "new". You don't have to "sell" what's familiar, you don't have to convince anyone it's worth their time, most of the work is already done.

I get that some people want "new" and "creative", but this is Commercial Art we're talking about, not Art art. These characters are Property. DC's stock jumps up and down every time they can't decide whether Superman wears red trunks or not. You can't just "Do Something New", that makes people nervous.

Charlie Brown has been 7 years old for 150 years (slight exaggeration). Once a commercial character is on Christmas cards and Birthday party kits, you can forget anything New ever happening. And besides that, everything's already been done, anyway. You can't tell "new stories", just old stories with new characters, which isn't all that New. Especially super-heroes. I get so annoyed when people bemoan the predictable, repetitive, serialized nature of super-heroes. That's part of the appeal; they're Comfort Food. That doesn't mean you can't tell great stories, because you absolutely can, but how many different ways can you spin, "Spider-Man cracks joke, punches bad guy", anyway? How many ways can you build up to that specific, necessary moment? Or "Batman drops bad guy off roof, catches him last minute". It's always gonna be the same sh*t! I don't have any problem with that; frankly, I enjoy it.

I love comics. I really do. But when people are like, "It's getting to be all the same sh*t," I'm like, dude, it's super-heroes. How many stories ARE there anyway? All you can do is juggle the characters around; that's as "new" as it gets.

The only way you get anything "fresh" and "new" in comics is when someone does something like The Boys or Preacher and it always offends the weak of heart (and mind). People really don't want "new", it's entirely contrary to human nature. They say they do, but when they get it, they cry about it.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-16-2014, 02:09 PM

Actually, the hard-core fans are probably the ones who'd be LEAST concerned with which character is under the suit, as they know enough to be able to say "Oh, so we're going with this guy instead of his predecessor. Hmm, ok- let's see where it goes." Whereas the casual (sorry for using Cubed's favorite word) fans would be foaming at the mouth and marching on the studio with pitchforks and torches because they don't even KNOW who the "new" guy is! They would go in expecting Peter, and feel cheated because they've never HEARD of Miles or Miguel.

It's the main-stream public's knowledge of the characters that the studios have to appeal to. That's what I meant. And it's true. You can't make a Spider-Man film with Miles and expect the general public (your main audience) to be happy when they realize it's not Peter in the suit. They will feel like it's an imposter, and will avoid the film. And that's when you end up with tanking sales, angry fans, and loss of trust in the franchise. So no, we will NEVER see it happen on the big screen. They already tried that with Indiana Jones in Crystal Skulls (passing the torch) and it didn't work.

BabyTurtles

12-16-2014, 02:22 PM

ugh.....it's no wonder I like superhero cartoons more.

so...how many times are we gonna have to hear "with great power comes great responsibility"

about 20 more times? In about 20 more reboots
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/are-you-done.gif

ZariusTwo

12-16-2014, 02:23 PM

How does one "get better" after getting killed, exactly?

Beats me. Bendis never explained it properly after six months of dragging the story out, then had Peter and MJ drive off to live happily ever after.

Leo656

12-16-2014, 02:36 PM

BabyTurtles

12-16-2014, 02:47 PM

Uhhh, the "power-responsibility" thing is kind of the theme of Spider-Man regardless of who it is. And again, swapping guys under the mask does nothing to change the fact that, essentially, all super-hero stories are the same. There's like six of 'em. That's basically true of all fiction. This stuff's just for fun. I'm not seeing a problem. The stories are the same and the themes are the same whether it's Spider-Man or Batman or Birdman, regardless of who's under what mask. I... don't see why that's a bad thing. And it's not like the cartoons are any different, really. Even when they do something "different" from the books, it's still "the same" as every other type of super-hero story.

There's just only so many ways you can do this stuff. That's not necessarily Bad.

That's the thing....as long as it's Spiderman does it matter if it's Peter Parker??

The problem isn't the "with great responsibility" line it's just when it's in the same scenario.

and cartoons have shows like Young Justice, JLA, and Static Shock which explored NEW characters not just the popular ones.

look I don't want the old characters gone forever, but having a different version of a character(or new hero) is a breathe of fresh air. Then...eventually they can go back to the roots again....just having some elbow room between then wouldn't hurt.

Zulithe

12-16-2014, 02:56 PM

disappointed with the direction they've been going with both ASM 1 & 2... not that they haven't had their strong points as well. One being the Spidey suit in ASM2 which was perfect. Just about everything else about ASM2 though is a disaster :/

Would love to see what marvel studios would do with spidey now that they've had quite a few films to get their groove on. I think they are in the right position to give us the spidey we really need. And I fully agree about toning down the romance... we've seen enough of that and it's really holding back what these films can do since they are always shoving it in there.

I think they should do miles. after two iterations of peter on the big screen in such a short period, let's try another approach. We're introduced to Miles as Peter dies very early in Act 1, if they insist on even showing Peter at all. Then it's all about Miles from there on out. Let's get us a Miles trilogy, after then it'll have been about 10 years and maybe the time will be right to do a new version of Peter at that time.

Leo656

12-16-2014, 02:58 PM

Well, now we're getting into "When Is Change For The Sake Of Change OK?" territory, which is going to be different for each person. Some people think anything goes and others think there needs to be some kind of justification. Some say "Why not?", others say "Why bother?"

From the perspective of the people handling this stuff, the latter is always going to be the safer option. It's easy for someone who's a spectator to say "What's the difference?", but corporations have shareholders to answer to. If something's worked for 50 years without upsetting anyone, there's no good reason why it won't work for another 50 or more. That's been proven.

Again, this isn't "high art", this is Commercial Entertainment. And by and large, they're right. Nobody ever complains when things stay the same, people only ever complain about changes they don't like. It's easy to see why they play it safe.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-16-2014, 03:03 PM

Well, the theme of power and responsibility is basically the ROOT of Spidey's origin. He didn't want to get involved with something because it "wasn't his problem", and it ended up BECOMING his problem and affecting his entire life in a very severe and personal way. That was the point. Take that away, and you've taken away the entire REASON for why he donned the mask.

And no matter who is under it, it would be the same. They have to have a reason to take that responsibility in the first place, or there's no point in them being a hero. It's not like any of those characters just woke up one day and thought "I want to be a superhero." They all have their reasons for what they do. Batman's parents, Spidey's Uncle Ben, or X-Men fighting for mutant rights- it's all the same. Without their original purpose, they are not heroes, just people wearing silly costumes beating up other people in costumes.

What gets me is that while new characters can be interesting, they don't usually have the same impact as those who are established and iconic. Those characters have been around so long because they are memorable and original. Adding "new" characters eventually just ends up being a case of copy/paste of personality/powers/background for something "different", when it's really just a rehash of old characters in a "new" guise. And most of them are hardly memorable or interesting after a few years. It's one of the reasons we don't see movies of Wonder Man, Thor Girl, Puma, or Beak.

Candy Kappa

12-16-2014, 03:26 PM

Angel and Beak dealing with life as young mutant parents, would make a cute short movie.

TurtleTitan97

12-16-2014, 05:18 PM

Captain America: Civil War will be moving on without Spidey: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112513

Redeemer

12-16-2014, 09:35 PM

Captain America: Civil War will be moving on without Spidey: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112513

Damn that sucks. I wonder if they would have reached a deal if Sony had not got hacked :ohwell:

oldmanwinters

12-16-2014, 10:15 PM

I never thought I'd see the day when the Marvel Universe doesn't need Spider-man or the X-Men. But that's a truth almost universally acknowledged these days.

LeotheLateBloomer

12-17-2014, 05:13 AM

Well, I think it would have been better for Marvel to introduce Spider-Man through his own reboot movie. Why do you guys think TASM 2 failed at box office? What were the reasons?

Candy Kappa

12-17-2014, 12:26 PM

. Why do you guys think TASM 2 failed at box office? What were the reasons?

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'd imagine it's because it introduced too many villains that was rather lackluster with screen time and didn't have a proper reason to be in the movie. And Electro's reasons to be a villain is completely asinine. The relationship between Peter and Harry was apparently terribly handled and did not properly potray the as the best friends they where supposed to be.

Redeemer

12-17-2014, 01:05 PM

I still don't understand all the hate with the AMS movie series. I prefer this new series more than the Sam Rami series. I thought Green Goblin was the Green Ranger, I kept waiting for him to call upon the dragon zord.
:lol:

Leo656

12-17-2014, 01:14 PM

I haven't seen it yet either, although I really liked the first one. But it really sounds like they crammed a bunch of stuff in because "This Needs To Happen" to set up all the other movies they were planning to do, like Sinister Six, because "More Characters = More $$$" is the lesson Sony and other studios have taken from the MCU (Note: Studios always take the WRONG message away from anything that is successful, fully 100% of the time).

Now, it sounds like 99% of those plans are scrapped or placed WAY on the back-burner anyway, all because they counted their chickens before they hatched. Less than six months ago, everyone was bemoaning how sad it was that Marvel would likely never get the film rights to their own biggest character because Sony would never let it slip away; now, they've bungled things so badly that it looks like some kind of Sony/Marvel partnership is only a matter of When, not If. Something I read today all but confirms that Garfield has been scrapped from the role for quite a while regardless of future plans (Sony more or less decided months ago when he was blaming the studio for the movie's poor reception that they weren't bringing him back anyway).

Basically, other than Making Money Like Those Other Guys, I just think Sony has no direction on how to do Spider-Man. The first Raimi one was a surprise hit, and they immediately decided that super-heroes were "hot" and as long as there was lots of action and stuff blew up, fans would slurp it down even if the surrounding movie was disappointing. And they were right for a while, but now people have seen so much of the excess that they're coming down from the high and demanding more substance out of their super-hero movies again. Amazing 2 just from descriptions of it reeks of excess on every level and it's no shock it "failed". They just don't know what to do, so they tried to hedge their bets by doing Everything, and it was all too much.

I'm still gonna get it and watch it, but just I'm a huge fan of super-hero movies in general. But I've read a lot about it and it sounds dreadful, so while I thought the first ASM was better than most of the Raimi movies in a lot of ways, it sounds like they wasted no time at all squandering all the goodwill and potential they had from the first one. Shame.

I admit, I was kind of excited about a "Spider-Man Film Universe" for five minutes, but since they're really just throwing sh*t at the wall I say they're gonna let Marvel take over within the next two years (I play conservative).

Candy Kappa

12-17-2014, 01:55 PM

I really liked Amazing Spider-Man, the costume grew on me quickly. I love the chemistry between Garfield and Stone, and I really enjoyed Garfield as Spidey. I thought the Oizard was pretty well made and the Stan Lee cameo was... Amazing. And I definetively prefer ASM over the Raimi movies.

But ASM2 generally sounds a bit iffy, despite Garfield and Stone are incredible together.

Leo656

12-17-2014, 03:27 PM

Going purely from what I've read - which is a lot - it sounds like a case of "Everything they did Right with the first movie, they did Wrong with the second movie."

See also: "Formers, Trans" and "The Caribbean, Pirates of"

DarkFell

12-17-2014, 03:34 PM

I like the Rami movies. I even liked the first ASM movie. I haven't seen the second one yet. Heard they went a bit overboard on the baddies on terms of strength and powers.

NinjaPug

12-17-2014, 06:09 PM

Spidey's costume was awesome in ASM2. Everything else sucked.

sdp

12-18-2014, 09:21 PM

At this point in time I actually think fanboys are more invested in Marvel getting Spider-Man than Disney themselves.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-18-2014, 10:01 PM

And you might be right. That goes double for us fan-GIRLS. Mostly because I'd trust them with their OWN characters before I'd trust anyone ELSE with them. I'd really like to see them get X-Men back, too, if only to nix the ret-con on Wanda and Pietro that Marvel has been talking about. If they took over the X-films, they wouldn't NEED a ret-con. And as a long-time comic reader and (ahem) writer, I HATE ret-cons as a matter of course. They generally CAUSE more problems than they ever SOLVE.

sdp

12-18-2014, 11:17 PM

See, I try to like Marvel but the mentality of Marvel fans makes me dislike the company so much. Fans act like Marvel can do no wrong, but all their movies follow the same cookie cutter formula that worked with Iron Man which is still my favorite Marvel movie to date. The other movies aren't necessarily bad but they follow the same formula and its getting tiring. Marvel has done plenty of terrible decisions in animation/comics/etc so yeah you can't blindly trust the company not to mention they're owned by Disney who has a say on many things now, this isn't even the same Marvel from 5 years ago. That's without even mentioning all the spyreports and leaks that you hear about the mess that politics and shadyness behind the scenes at Marvel.

Marvel doesn't need Spider-Man nor the X-Men they have literally hundreds of heroes to work with and the reason we got the amazing Iron Man movie is because they didn't have their rights to their AAA characters so they decided to use a C-list superhero and show the mainstream how cool the character really is since only comic book nerds knew. When/if they get the other franchises back all the other c-list heroes instead of getting their time to shine will just be put on the backburner. They seem to be doing alright now handling c-list heroes like Guardians of the Galaxy and the upcoming films but they can't release more superhero movies in their already tight schedule without them cannibalizing each other, you can bet that X-Men/Spider-man would not have been two more movies of "Phase III" but instead replaced the Dr. Strange and Black Panther movies. Hell, Spider-Man didn't even join the Avengers until the 2000's, he doesn't belong in that movie. Fanboys were begging for Punisher/Ghostrider to go back to Marvel and they were happy when it finally happened and what did they get? No plans for them in the next 5 years. At least the Punisher movies released were pretty decent, who cares if they weren't part of the convoluted mess that is the MCU. Ghostrider actually had a decent first movie, I would've liked to see what Sony did with another take instead of the character rotting in the Disney vault.

I'm not saying Sony/Fox have been amazing to their franchises, they've had their misses but they've done the heroes justice, hell Marvel would not only be Bankrupt without Sony/Fox but they also started the superhero blockbusters wave that Marvel is currently riding. They literally started what Marvel has improved on, I haven't seen the Amazing Spider-Man movies, but I've heard mixed opinions but it could be salvaged. X-Men movies have been pretty damn good lately. I don't know how the F4 reboot will be but the internet has already doomed it without giving it a chance. Sony/Fox wanting to "build" their own universes a la Marvel is actually great since it'll actually make a more fleshed out Spidey/X-Men world instead of just getting a glimpse of things like we do in all superhero movies today.

I'd really like to see them get X-Men back, too, if only to nix the ret-con on Wanda and Pietro that Marvel has been talking about. If they took over the X-films, they wouldn't NEED a ret-con. And as a long-time comic reader and (ahem) writer, I HATE ret-cons as a matter of course. They generally CAUSE more problems than they ever SOLVE.

So you want them to have X-Men back so they can fix the stupid ass decision they themselves made? That's the company you trust with their characters?

Sumac

12-19-2014, 09:02 AM

I would agree that creating their own "universes" would be great thing for Sony and Fox, except their movies are rather mediocre, IMO. X-Men were boring, except for the First Class, which was awesome. Spider-Man movies were romantic trash (it goes for Raime movies, I haven't watched ASMs, yet).

So, would I agree that Marvel should have this characters back? No doubt. Better formulaic, but enjoyable movies, rather than all-around mediocricity.

Marvel has done plenty of terrible decisions in animation/comics/etc so yeah you can't blindly trust the company not to mention they're owned by Disney who has a say on many things now, this isn't even the same Marvel from 5 years ago. That's without even mentioning all the spyreports and leaks that you hear about the mess that politics and shadyness behind the scenes at Marvel.
For crying out loud...
Do you really think that Marvel is the only one who is guilty of that? :roll:

Any big studio have its fare share of internal shady politics, intrigues and scandals. It's normal. I don't give a rat's ass about this stuff. All I care about - are their movies. And they were pretty good so far. The only movie in MCU, that I didn't found enjoyable was Incredible Hulk. Everything else, was genuinly good or above average, which is a good thing in my book.

Considering what other companies has to offer (borefests, nausating romantic trash, GRIMNOLANREALISTICDARKSHIT) I take Marvel's production over it anyday.
Well, for as long as they deliver good entertaining products.

Leo656

12-19-2014, 09:19 AM

I will say this: Marvel's films are pretty paint-by-numbers and formuaic, but they're better than anybody in the game right now at playing to the masses while still keeping (most) die-hards happy. That's a Win any way you slice it. No, you can't please Everyone, but if you're not at least making the attempt, you're Failing. "Let's make it for the die-hards", or, "Let's hook a new audience," or, "Let's try a brand-new take on it," or, "Let's aim it at the kids"... all those are Wrong. You have to TRY to find something that will appeal to everyone, and maybe not thrill them entirely, but *just enough* to keep them coming back.

Marvel's done that time and time again, even if their stuff is all kind of the same. I'll always take a "safe and predictable" movie done reasonably well over a "fresh take" that sh*ts all over itself, like the new Fantastic Four movie looks like it will.

Besides, as critics keep pointing out: How many ways can you even DO a super-hero movie? Really, the only difference is if your tone is going to be comedy, super-serious, or in the middle. Everything else is The Same. It's a cookie-cutter genre, and Marvel Studios mastered it. I give 'em credit. I completely don't care about their books but I generally like their movies. Even the worst of them that I've seen are good enough or at least entertaining enough to pass a couple hours without making you wish you were somewhere else.

I get that people are burned out on the genre a little bit, but... I also think they're expecting too much, kinda. It's super-heroes. People in armor or circus suits punch or shoot lasers at each other, stuff blows up, hero falls in love, post-credits scene sets up the sequel, The End. Marvel is good at it. What more do people want?

ZariusTwo

12-19-2014, 09:39 AM

all-around mediocricity

That sums up most phase II Marvel movies in a nutshell, Winter Soldier excluded.

Spider-Man movies were romantic trash (it goes for Raime movies, I haven't watched ASMs, yet).

The Webb movies are more guilty of that than Raimi's films (and I think Raimi's films have dated horribly), Raimi still had a little something for everyone (and a little too much for everyone by the time the third one hit)

It's super-heroes. People in armor or circus suits punch or shoot lasers at each other, stuff blows up, hero falls in love, post-credits scene sets up the sequel, The End. Marvel is good at it. What more do people want?

Actually engaging and thought-provoking stories. Which the Marvel comics of yesteryear always managed, and which only a few of their movies actually acheive

Incredible Hulk

...This was one of them. This had a tight, nuanced and cerebral performances and storytelling in addition to popcorn value, and yet Edward Norton was driven from the production and became disillusioned with how Marvel perceived the finished product. Marvel took years to have another film like it (Winter Soldier) and by this point, they seemed more ready to tell that kind of story than they were in 2008 when they were trying to find an audience

Sumac

12-20-2014, 08:47 AM

That sums up most phase II Marvel movies in a nutshell, Winter Soldier excluded.
Opinions.

Actually engaging and thought-provoking stories. Which the Marvel comics of yesteryear always managed, and which only a few of their movies actually acheive
I prefer to keep stories about people in tights entertaining.

TigerClaw

12-20-2014, 09:11 AM

More info on the Sony/Marvel deal, They want Drew Goddard to direct a Spider-Man solo movie.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112646

Leo656

12-20-2014, 01:16 PM

Actually engaging and thought-provoking stories. Which the Marvel comics of yesteryear always managed, and which only a few of their movies actually acheive

...This was one of them. This had a tight, nuanced and cerebral performances and storytelling in addition to popcorn value, and yet Edward Norton was driven from the production and became disillusioned with how Marvel perceived the finished product. Marvel took years to have another film like it (Winter Soldier) and by this point, they seemed more ready to tell that kind of story than they were in 2008 when they were trying to find an audience

I get ya, man. And I thought that was a pretty good flick. But that's a problem with translating it for the medium: You got two hours, most of which HAS to be "bang-bang-pow" or people won't go. Story suffers. That's why TV shows based on comics are always better than the movies. Comics and TV shows tell stories the same way, chapter-by-chapter, just one is paper and one is visual. Movies, you have to cram the best of everything into two hours. There's just no really GOOD way to do it. Some are better than others, but none really do it Perfectly. It's the limitations of the medium.

ZariusTwo

12-20-2014, 02:14 PM

I get ya, man. And I thought that was a pretty good flick. But that's a problem with translating it for the medium: You got two hours, most of which HAS to be "bang-bang-pow" or people won't go. Story suffers. That's why TV shows based on comics are always better than the movies. Comics and TV shows tell stories the same way, chapter-by-chapter, just one is paper and one is visual. Movies, you have to cram the best of everything into two hours. There's just no really GOOD way to do it. Some are better than others, but none really do it Perfectly. It's the limitations of the medium.

Very true. Wish it could be handled better (and there are cases of it working with book series adaptations), but it's a hard nut to crack open given you have to sacrifice so much of the internal continuity and logic to tell a story that will make sense right from the get go. It's that idea of "Every comic can be your first" applied to films, but without much to munch on.

sdp

12-21-2014, 10:21 PM

My point is made when you guys agree that they are formulaic/cookie cutter. We can disagree in that you prefer that and for me its not enough. Now don't get me wrong I enjoy the Marvel movies usually but they are rather forgettable and its hard for me to get excited when they're pumping so many of them out and they're all so similar. If you enjoy them that's fine, I'm all for people liking things but the internet in general has such a boner over these films that its annoying with people treating like Marvel can do no wrong or that DC sucks just because it isn't Marvel? Hell just take a look at the different reaction of DC's and Marvel's announcements for the next 5 years, people said that no one cared for movies so far away and yet they creamed their pants when Marvel did the exact same thing a week later. So yeah I'm fine with Sony keeping Spidey and Fox X-Men which by the way the last two X-men movies have been better than anything Marvel has put out sans Iron Man.

Leo656

12-21-2014, 10:36 PM

Marvel is definitely doing too many movies. I know DC potentially is supposed to be as well, but let's wait and see how BvS goes first before we let anybody jump down their throat.

We already know that Marvel is definitely doing a bunch of "Literally Nobody Cares" movies about sh*t like Ant-Man and Dr. Strange. ANT-MAN, for god's sake. NOBODY ASKED FOR THAT! How can anyone even say the words, "I am excited for ANT-MAN" out loud with a straight face? It's just that they tried their experiment with Guardians, "Can We Literally Put Anything With 'MARVEL' On It In Theaters and Make A Gazillion Dollars", and the answer was a resounding, overwhelming "YES." I haven't seen it yet so I can't speak to its quality, just that it's kind of the biggest "pulling sh*t out of their ass" stunt that they've ever pulled and they blatantly did it just to f*ck with everyone. I mean, it looks fun. I see all the super-hero flicks so I'll see it and probably like it, but I maintain, absolutely Zero people asked for or wanted to see that movie until Marvel started beating everyone over the head with it. Not one person in the entire world ever said, "Y'know, it's great that Hulk and Thor and Captain America all get to be in movies, but you know what would make things *perfect*? If someone did a movie about Rocket Raccoon." They just made that movie to prove that they could get away with it and actually turn it into something.

Now, they've got the green light to do whatever they want, and they are. So I can't blame anyone for being a little weary at this point. Anybody who's arguing that they're cookie cutter and forgettable should probably just give up, it's only gonna get worse from here.

"The Amazing Slapstick", coming Spring/Summer 2020. You heard it here first.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-21-2014, 10:46 PM

Actually, Leo, I disagree with that stance. Ant-Man (aka Hank Pym, aka Yellow-jacket/Giant Man/Ultron's creator) was one of the first Avengers, yet hasn't even been mentioned (except maybe once) and has YET to appear on the team. Since Ultron is one of their main villains for the next phase, it makes sense to have a movie about him, though I suspect it will be more of a joint movie with both him and Wasp(Janet). As for Strange, he is also a major A-lister, and one of Marvel's FEW supernatural/magic-using characters, which they've already dabbled in with Wanda being in the up-coming Avengers movie. Strange is also currently an Avenger in the books, so that one makes a lot of sense too. They DO have a purpose for these characters appearing, even if we haven't seen it yet.

sdp

12-21-2014, 11:19 PM

Well as far as the Ant-Man film apparently it has had a lot of backstage drama and the director left and a "yes" man was put in place so who knows how it'll go. But when written correctly Ant-Man and Wasp are awesome characters so I'm actually curious to see how the movie turns out. Dr. Strange is another movie that could be awesome if done well but my favorite interpretation of the character is a little too similar to the first Iron Man movie so I guess they can't do that one. But that's another reason why its better for Marvel not to have the "big ones" with Spider-Man and X-Men since it forces them to use other cool characters they have, I still remember reading from the NYTimes that the reason Disney bought Marvel was not the iconic heroes but the way Marvel was able to make this unknown hero (Iron Man) and make him into a AAA one.

I can agree with some of the other movies like the Inhumans movie or most of the TV shows they're making. But yeah my lack of Marvel enthusiasm is mostly because of being inundated by their movies and fans going MARVEL CAN DO NO WRONG. At least with DC they offer something different, they learned the lesson about not copying Marvel when Green Lantern failed. Say what you want about MoS but at least it felt different. I hope Marvel keeps being successful but I think superhero movies are on a limited time at least with so many being released so frequently, we'll start seeing most of them bomb and we'll go back to only a few every once in a while. I'd try to predict but I was sure after Avengers / Watchmen people would just be done with superheroes and I was wrong.

MsMarvelDuckie

12-22-2014, 01:02 AM

That's the thing though. Iron Man was NEVER an "unknown" hero- he's been an A-lister from the beginning. So was Thor. These are core members of their PREMIER hero team. And every one of them has had huge fan followings among comic readers. Ant-Man not so much, but he's been a staple of the team almost since the beginning, too. Strange is off-beat, sure, but he's also the biggest "mystical" character in EITHER stable- Marvel OR DC. DC's closest equivalent is Zatana, and she's hardly in the same league.

What I'd really like to see is a Daredevil reboot or sequel (Elektra doesn't count) that does justice to the character. And FYI, I've seen some test footage of the Deadpool movie that's in the works, and trust me- this is ONE movie that will definitely break the "cookie-cutter mold" of superhero movies, if what I saw is anything to go by. Ryan Reynolds is reprising his role, but THIS time, they got it right! (And OMFG, is he funny/nuts/violent!!) :teek::tlol::twink::trazz:

Candy Kappa

12-22-2014, 02:58 AM

I'd say neither Thor or Iron Man is a A-lister outside of hardcore comic book readers. If Marvel had the rights to Wolverine and Spider-Man, we might have not gotten Iron Man movies or Thor movies.

ZariusTwo

12-22-2014, 05:45 AM

I was sure after Avengers / Watchmen people would just be done with superheroes and I was wrong.

At the time I saw those movies more as the rise/inflation of the bubble and not the burst, the burst is the schedule Marvel and DC have put out for everything coming up.

LeotheLateBloomer

12-22-2014, 06:41 AM

The Stryker

12-22-2014, 10:03 AM

At the time I saw those movies more as the rise/inflation of the bubble and not the burst, the burst is the schedule Marvel and DC have put out for everything coming up.

Exactly. I don't think it's going to be any one movie that causes the burst. It's just going to be oversaturation.

Good, Bad or Indifferent. Too much is going to kill it.

Leo656

12-22-2014, 10:16 AM

Sometime after Disney purchased Marvel, they somehow bought the rights of the Iron Man films, Thor, and Captain America from Viacom and Paramount Pictures. How were they able to do that but unable to get the rights of Spider-Man, X-Men, and Fantastic Four back from Sony and Fox? Are those the only 3 Marvel properties they do not have the rights to? How does this all work?

Spider-Man, X-Men and Fantastic Four movies all made lots of money, even the bad ones. None of the companies who had been sitting on the rights to Iron Man, Captain America, etc. had ever even gotten past the script stage and were nowhere near close to ever getting a movie made, and in the long run the development was going to cost more than they would have made back. Basically, if they were ever going to do anything with those characters, they already would have. They didn't know how to proceed, Marvel offered them a bunch of money to take the characters off their hands, and it was win/win for everyone involved.

Marvel buying them back was actually doing those other companies a huge favor; they were never going to do anything with them anyway, and if they did, it probably would've been bad, just going by how long they had them and how little they had to show for it. It shows they had no real plans and those movies would've just been thrown together to keep the rights, nothing more. It's tougher with Spidey, etc. because even the sh*t movies make money. Marvel absolutely could - and possibly will - be able to buy them back at some point, but right now it it would cost them too much to be worth it.

I see Marvel getting F4 back inside of a decade after the new one bombs, but nobody cares about F4 anyway, that's a dumb franchise. They'll probably also get Spider-Man back sooner rather than later since it's proving to be nothing but headaches for Sony. It will be just like with the other characters, Marvel will be doing them a "favor", but Sony will have to put out a couple more bad movies that under-perform at the box office, first, to make it worthwhile for Marvel. It's too expensive right now because it's still a "hot" franchise, although the cracks are showing.

Only one I can't see them ever getting back is X-Men. Barring a huge disaster, like a series of "Superman IV"-level Epic Failures, that one will never happen. That franchise has proven itself to be bullet-proof; I can't see it ever becoming devalued to the point Marvel would spend the fortune it would cost to get it back. I'm almost positive now that they WILL get F4 and Spidey one day, but not X-Men. Not unless something really bad happens.

Sumac

12-22-2014, 11:51 AM

But yeah my lack of Marvel enthusiasm is mostly because of being inundated by their movies and fans going MARVEL CAN DO NO WRONG. At least with DC they offer something different, they learned the lesson about not copying Marvel when Green Lantern failed.
Sounds like you have problems with fans of Marvel rather than Marvel movies themselves. I advice not waste attention on anyone and just enjoy movies you like. Fans of whatever can just say and do whatever they want to do. Their actions shouldn't affect you.

Green Lantern had failed because it was a bad movie, not because it was too "marvel"ous.

How were they able to do that but unable to get the rights of Spider-Man, X-Men, and Fantastic Four back from Sony and Fox? Are those the only 3 Marvel properties they do not have the rights to? How does this all work?
Sony's Spider-Man has started in 2001 and it was incredibly popular back then, so naturally, Marvel was unable to acquire rights to it. The same goes for X-Men, which started in 2000. I guess, Fox didn't want to sell F4, because they were under impression that they can turn it into profitable series, like X-Men.

As far as I know, the only other Marvel comic book IP, that doesn't belong to Marvel Studios is a Namor, who for whatever reason, owned by Paramount, if I am not mistaking.

TurtleTitan97

01-14-2015, 02:56 PM

Sounds like the deal has (possibly) gone through! Warning, some spoilers relating to Infinity Wars part 1: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/markcassidycbm/news/?a=113625

TheSkeletonMan939

01-14-2015, 03:11 PM

Oh man. That sounds way too detailed to be true.

But I don't care if everything else in that article is false - I just hope the bit about Spidey being the MCU is true.

MrTMNT2012

01-14-2015, 03:29 PM

Could it be...could I finally be able to watch my favourite superhero in a GOOD Movie again?! :)

NinjaPug

01-14-2015, 04:33 PM

Don't trust the original source (Da7e from LR) of that rumor at all.

Can Avi Arad be removed from the Spider-Man movie property? I don't know the legal options that Sony/Marvel has but there is no way Marvel would work with Arad.

TurtleTitan97

01-14-2015, 08:51 PM

Well this is disappointing. The rumor was false :( http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=113663

ScrewtheMirageTMNT

01-14-2015, 09:53 PM

There isn't going to be a bubble burst, hollywood will keep pumping out comic book movies and people with continue to see them wether they are hot or not. People act like hollywood will stop making comic book movies once they are no longer hot, only when the earth is erased will comic book movies stop being made, comic book fans seem to give the general audience too much credit. They aren't that smart. Comic book fans act like the general audience knows more than they do when it comes to comic book movies. Much of the general audience who were never comic book fans to begin with couldn't be bothered to read issues and/or do research on a comic book character or characters in a comic book movie that they are interested in before it's released. If they don't find out one way or another by a person about the comic book movie they are interested in then they'll just take it at face value and believe it to be true when it comes to comics that they are based on. My brother actually asked me if green lantern is a marvel comics character. He used to be into comics but that was a long time ago, he should know that green lantern is a dc comics character given that he saw the green lantern movie. He's 33 years old.

BabyTurtles

01-15-2015, 01:10 AM

There isn't going to be a bubble burst, hollywood will keep pumping out comic book movies and people with continue to see them wether they are hot or not. People act like hollywood will stop making comic book movies once they are no longer hot, only when the earth is erased will comic book movies stop being made, comic book fans seem to give the general audience too much credit. They aren't that smart. Comic book fans act like the general audience knows more than they do when it comes to comic book movies. Much of the general audience who were never comic book fans to begin with couldn't be bothered to read issues and/or do research on a comic book character or characters in a comic book movie that they are interested in before it's released. If they don't find out one way or another by a person about the comic book movie they are interested in then they'll just take some comic book movie at face value and believe it to be true when it comes to comics that they are based on. My brother actually asked me if green lantern is a marvel comics chracter. He used to be into comics but that was along time ago, he should know that green lantern is a dc comics character given that he saw the green lantern movie. He's 33 years old.

I know I didn't mind Catwomen (with Halle Berry) when I was younger

but I knew nothing about Catwomen before so I didn't notice all the changes to the character and story.