Spidey in the Avengers?

[Dr. Sid Jawtug]

Captain Rogers: I'm here to talk to you about the Avengers Intiative.

Man in Chair (Andrew Garfield): No thanks.

Captain Rogers: But I haven't told you about our awesome benefits.

AG: No, I just can't Cap. I'm not legall...

Lawyer in background pounds fist into open hand.

AG: I just can't.

Fade to black.

[Ultimatehero]

Something just struck me, why would Sony limit Spider-Man like this? Wouldn't a merger where two companies are behind it become more successful than just one? What would SONY stand to lose from his inclusion? What would SONY have to gain? Sounds like a winning solution. Plus, how many of us thought Nick Fury and the Avengers was a incredibly false rumor when Iron Man hit theaters? Don't recall many of us believing that either or at least not getting our hopes up. Might be the same thing here? Two companies working together (wouldn't be the first time) for the greater good? Avengers dialog pun intended.

[cherokeesam]

Sony would stand to *lose* a lot (in their eyes) of merchandising and licensing, if they have to split the loot with Marvel Studios. But I think that's very blinkered, and doesn't take into consideration the amount of money they stand to *gain* with Spidey as part of the Avengers (and the MCU as a whole).

Plus, I think a quick cameo of Garfield in-suit and out would be positive reinforcement for Sony's own TASM movie. It would be like adding another nail to the coffin of the Raimi-Maguire era, and further establishing Garfield as the real deal.

[OB12]

I thought I read somewhere that Sony had already given the merchandising rights back to Marvel for Spider-Man.

Yep. Disney announced the purchase of Amazing SM merchandising rights in Nov. 2011. Here is quote from Disney:

"To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney."

Emphasis is mine in bold, which I found interesting. Seems like there may be more of a collaborative environment between Sony and Disney now. What that means for The Avengers? Who knows, but I wouldn't be totally shocked see some crossover in the future.

[amazingfantasy15]

There won't be a Spider-man cameo in The Avengers. Why do you think Sony moved so fast on rebooting the franchise, so they retain the rights to the character. They sure as hell aren't going to "loan" him out to Marvel/Disney. Same with the X-Men, X3 and Wolverine were both rushed through production so Fox could keep the rights.

[OB12]

No, I don't expect he will be in The Avengers. That said, Sony Pictures is in trouble financially as evidenced by the purchase of the merchandise rights, without that, Sony would've been in the red. It just sounds like there may be a little back scratching going on here. I wouldn't be suprised to see the ASM world eventually dove-tail into the MCU, maybe not overtly but via subtle references.

[Ultimatehero]

Originally Posted by amazingfantasy15

There won't be a Spider-man cameo in The Avengers. Why do you think Sony moved so fast on rebooting the franchise, so they retain the rights to the character. They sure as hell aren't going to "loan" him out to Marvel/Disney. Same with the X-Men, X3 and Wolverine were both rushed through production so Fox could keep the rights.

Why move fast on the reboot? I'm seeing it being their must lucrative property - one that brings in a lot of money. Why reboot it "fast"? The third one for the vast majority of the population thought it sucked. Thus rebooting it rather than a sequel. Also is it fast? I don't think so, it's the same amount of time between other Spidey films if not longer. Also I have no idea how you can compare it with Fox's decisions - Fox at that time was run by a moron and thus every film that came out under that guy? Was a failure and piece of ****. That's why X-Men: First Class was a surprise hit - it showed an obvious change in management somewhere within the company chain. Sony is not Fox.

Having worked in the industry, believe me when I say - there is no competition between them. At box office? Yes. In the working environment? No. They lend out sets, studios, and costumes to each other all the time. They collaborate creatively on films all the time. Some films, although rare, have about three major studios behind them. THREE. I don't see why it would be any different here. They both have a lot to gain - especially Sony since it would give more awareness to the Spider-Man reboot. Plus tying it in in some way would be a smart business solution - it's the surest way to draw attention.

As said, Fox is - well at that time? Fox is Fox. Fox was run by an idiot. Sony never has been. And despite what people want to think, the studio "competition" is only in the audience's head and when it comes to box office. I'm IN the industry. This is 101, first day, material WITHIN a big major studio with ties to these kinds of properties. And looking at it from a box office stand-point, both would stand to benefit. I'm not saying Spidey is guaranteed, but what I am saying is it is possible that they've agreed on some arrangement that would be beneficial to both parties involved. They both stand to gain more audience members and awareness from it.

As to merchandising, as already pointed out, acquired by Disney. Thus it's down to film politics now - in which film politics? We work together.

Once again, not saying it will happen. Just business wise? It would be a wise decision on both parts to firmly establish MARVEL this summer. There's a lot of competition, despite being big properties, especially from DC. TDKR probably looks like a giant right now. This would give them a leg up.

[warhorse78]

Originally Posted by CaptainStacy

Yeah, i was thinking that having Spidey cameo in Avengers could be a great bit of advertising for Sony, because Avengers is no doubt going to be seen by a LOT of people...

This makes sense, and I can definitely see this happening, and from this scenario.

[Axl Z]

Originally Posted by Rongxin

Don't we already have abundant pictures featuring the costume

Yeah I get this but they are just that - pictures.
I don't know why - purely in a business pov - why Sony would want the first public 'in movie' showing of their new Spider-Man costume (which Sony spent money developing) - in a Disney movie.

I'd bet the average Joe in the street doesn't even know Amazing Spider-Man is a reboot so if he turned up with smaller eyes and silver trainers people would be a bit "eh?"
This is what makes me think it's true but just a short cameo from Andrew Garfield with no link to the Spidey character other than a quick nod to the fans (maybe he'll ask a science question to Stark or something?) and perhaps Andrew Garfield had "Spider-Man" on his trailer set door for a laugh..

Originally Posted by Mr. Fixit

Garfield CAN do acting work for another company...in this case he simply wouldn't be in character...however the obvious nod for fans would be evident.

Yep, I liken this to Dan Aykroyds uncredited cameo as Ray Stantz in the Casper movie or Who Framed Roger Rabbits limitless crossovers..
All of these were company's with less in common than Sony & Marvels marketing needs.

[amazingfantasy15]

Originally Posted by Ultimatehero

Why move fast on the reboot? I'm seeing it being their must lucrative property - one that brings in a lot of money. Why reboot it "fast"? The third one for the vast majority of the population thought it sucked. Thus rebooting it rather than a sequel. Also is it fast? I don't think so, it's the same amount of time between other Spidey films if not longer. Also I have no idea how you can compare it with Fox's decisions - Fox at that time was run by a moron and thus every film that came out under that guy? Was a failure and piece of ****. That's why X-Men: First Class was a surprise hit - it showed an obvious change in management somewhere within the company chain. Sony is not Fox.

It's common knowledge that all of Marvel's properties owned by other studios have a time limit on them. If a studio doesn't make a movie with at least some of the primary characters with a certain period of time (like 5 years or something) then the rights revert back to Marvel.

It is fast to rehash the origin story of Spider-man. It was 10 years ago that it was told for the first time on the big screen. It's getting bad buzz right now because it looks like a rehash of the original movie.

Fox's decisions were motivated by the same thing as Sony's, they would have lost the rights to the X-Men franchise if they waited for Bryan Singer to finish Superman Returns, then work on X-Men 3. Wolverine was just another cash grab, X3 worked, got us a lot of money, we want to keep the rights to this franchise since it's basically a printing press, bang out a Wolverine moive quick. I don't know how First Class was actually made decently since it seemed rushed through the system too to protect the rights of the franchise. I guarantee though if First Class 2 isn't ready soon we'll see another crap X-Men movie, just so Fox can retain the rights.

[Spider-Vader]

Originally Posted by Rock Sexton

Spider Man doesn't need the Avengers to advertise it's franchise.

It might. The general reaction to ASM isn't really positive, despite it looking like a good movie. Most people are mad that we aren't see Maguire again. A few of the haters might get interested if they know Iron Man & Spider-Man know each other & whatnot.

[Ultimatehero]

I don't see how it's "too soon" it's been five years since the last Spider-Man. Ok to take this in another direction, to me this reboot isn't the same decision as X-Men AT ALL. It's the same decision as the Batman franchise or Superman. Last one sucked, let's start over. How is it any different? If they were "rushing it" it would have come out last year or two years ago (!) and it would have included the original cast or at least a continuation probably. But FIVE years??? On their top revenue grossing property nonetheless??

The fact that it is a reboot and the time it took tells me they wanted to distance themselves from Spider-Man 3 like Begins wanted to distance itself from Batman & Robin or Man of Steel wanted to distance itself from Superman Returns. This isn't another "X-MEN 3." It's a Batman Begins, Man of Steel, Incredible Hulk type level decision. They lost faith in the previous version and felt it needed to be a 2.0. X-Men is still the 2000 X-Men.

The Incredible Hulk is actually a PRIME example here. That's a UNIVERSAL film. Avengers is PARAMOUNT. Incredible Hulk remained UNIVERSAL, despite being connected - having PARAMOUNT'S Tony Stark - due to that being the original company (Ang Lee) prior to the Avenger Initiative. UNIVERSAL (original property owners) teamed with PARAMOUNT for the Avengers' Hulk. It was also from Marvel's EARLY YEARS - just ONE YEAR PRIOR to the original Spider-Man. Actually I'll bolden that point.

The guy who was behind somewhere at fox? I don't think anyone can say that guy was smart. He tarnished the company image for years. And got fired. That is why X-Men First Class was a miracle, it signaled a change soon followed by Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

I'm not saying Spider-Man will be in it. All I'm saying is politically there is a chance. Hell, it already happened with the Hulk which I just remembered. Unless they wrote up a completely separate contract in-between that one year time span, which knowing the development of these films INSIDE a major film studio that deals with these properties - I highly doubt. ANY form of support? We take it. And this would definitely be support.

[Spider-Vader]

Hey, I'm all for the reboot. The general audience is not. The trailer for it played before Captain America when I saw it, my audience's reaction was 'Wtf?'. & even today, Marvel.com posted an article about the movie on their Facebook & it received alot of negative feedback.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Originally Posted by Ultimatehero

I don't see how it's "too soon" it's been five years since the last Spider-Man. Ok to take this in another direction, to me this reboot isn't the same decision as X-Men AT ALL. It's the same decision as the Batman franchise or Superman. Last one sucked, let's start over. How is it any different? If they were "rushing it" it would have come out last year or two years ago (!) and it would have included the original cast or at least a continuation probably. But FIVE years??? On their most revenue grossing property nonetheless?? The fact that it is a reboot and the time it took tells me they wanted to distance themselves from Spider-Man 3 like Begins wanted to distance itself from Batman & Robin or Man of Steel to Superman Returns.

Well said.

Be shocked if it happens. Would be great publicity though. Just look at the buzz this rumor has created on the net. Imagine if Sony and Disney actually confirmed it.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Originally Posted by Spider-Vader

Hey, I'm all for the reboot. The general audience is not. The trailer for it played before Captain America when I saw it, my audience's reaction was 'Wtf?'. & even today, Marvel.com posted an article about the movie on their Facebook & it received alot of negative feedback.

And how many of those will be there to see it on the first weekend. I hear what your saying, but who knew Tobey had so much influence.

[Ultimatehero]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

Well said.

Be shocked if it happens. Would be great publicity though. Just look at the buzz this rumor has created on the net. Imagine if Sony and Disney actually confirmed it.

As I said, I don't know. Politically? Knowing and having actually CONVERSED with a high-powered VP at one of these studios (not meaning to brag, he's kinda a mentor too) taught me/showed me the importance of studios supporting each other. Financially, it just allows you to do more especially when there's a common interest involved. Which, here, there definitely is. So it is possible and Paramount has already done it with the Hulk. And there's no doubt in my mind Universal is behind 'The Avengers' in some way too unless they sold back the rights fairly recently which I don't think they have. Thus it is very possible politically.

But, I doubt they'll confirm it. As said - how many believed Nick Fury would show up in Iron Man? From what I recall, we all thought that was an elaborate hoax back then too. Which is what made me change my original opinion that it was highly unlikely. Hell, I remember being in theaters at midnight with people asking "is this actually gonna happen? Is it?" And then it did. This may very well be the same.

[MedinasWorks]

Don't know if we can find something here...we have 2 scenes of New York from both Avengers and Spidey's trailers...IF Spidey is in the same MCU, there would be the Stark Tower in New York too. Don't know, I don't live in New York, and I can't know if it's the same spot there... anyway, just leave it here.

[Ultimatehero]

Unfortunately I don't think those screengrabs will show anything. Usually buildings become something other than what they are. I've been to "the Daily Bugle" and climbed across the rooftops of "Oscorp's Mansion" for example.

[Juicy J]

As much as I'd love an Avengers/Spider-man crossover at some point, it definitely won't happen anytime soon.
Not to mention the fact that the Avengers comes out in May and ASM comes out in July...they're not going to throw Spider-man in the Avengers two months before his movie comes out. Granted it'd be a good PR move but nothing more, it wouldn't do anything to serve either of the films or the characters.

[Aztec]

It's not happening guys as cool as it would be. We all know that Marvel would have put Spidey in here if they could but they can't due to Sony. Besides if he was in it don't you think they would promote the hell out of it? Talk about turning the volume up to 11!

[Moridin]

Originally Posted by Ultimatehero

The Incredible Hulk is actually a PRIME example here. That's a UNIVERSAL film. Avengers is PARAMOUNT. Incredible Hulk remained UNIVERSAL, despite being connected - having PARAMOUNT'S Tony Stark - due to that being the original company (Ang Lee) prior to the Avenger Initiative. UNIVERSAL (original property owners) teamed with PARAMOUNT for the Avengers' Hulk. It was also from Marvel's EARLY YEARS - just ONE YEAR PRIOR to the original Spider-Man. Actually I'll bolden that point.

You're getting your wires crossed dude.
Hulk '03 is Universal owned & distributed.

TIH '08 is not a Universal film, it's a Marvel Studios film distributed by Universal.

Iron Man is not a Paramount film, it's a Marvel Studios film distributed by Paramount.

So it wasn't Paramounts Tony Stark showing up in Universals TIH - It was Marvel Studios Tony Stark showing up in Marvel Studios TIH.

The Avengers is MS & Disney, Paramount are out of the picture now aside from having their logo appear on Avengers material.

The guy who was behind somewhere at fox? I don't think anyone can say that guy was smart. He tarnished the company image for years. And got fired. That is why X-Men First Class was a miracle, it signaled a change soon followed by Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

I believe you're talking about Tom Rothman? Amazingly enough, he's actually still in charge. It seems he had a recent revelation that in order to make the best films possible you need a good script first. XMFC was still rushed through production, it's a f***ing miracle it turned out so good.

Originally Posted by Ultimatehero

And there's no doubt in my mind Universal is behind 'The Avengers' in some way too unless they sold back the rights fairly recently which I don't think they have. Thus it is very possible politically.

Marvel re-acquired the rights after '03 Hulk flopped.

As said - how many believed Nick Fury would show up in Iron Man? From what I recall, we all thought that was an elaborate hoax back then too. Which is what made me change my original opinion that it was highly unlikely. Hell, I remember being in theaters at midnight with people asking "is this actually gonna happen? Is it?" And then it did. This may very well be the same.

Nick Fury was not owned by a different studio, Spider-man is. That's the difference, and that's why Spidey won't be in the Avengers, cameo or otherwise.

[Spider-ManHero12]

I'm still doubting a Spider-Man cameo being in the film.

[Ultimatehero]

Originally Posted by Aztec

It's not happening guys as cool as it would be. We all know that Marvel would have put Spidey in here if they could but they can't due to Sony. Besides if he was in it don't you think they would promote the hell out of it? Talk about turning the volume up to 11!

Unless it's one of their "loaded guns" - it's going to be a really competitive summer. As we can all see - they are all relying on that marketing approach.

Two months apart would be the reason to do it. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a reason other than fanboys.

And alright, I got the company ideas/notions wrong in that one example. But as I said before and IS a fact - studios have joined forces behind a film before. It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last time studios have teamed up together. It happens all the time.

Also that's why I said someone somewhere in FOX was fired. Unsure who. But, I don't see fox being double dip DVD nuts anymore too. Also it wasn't just First Class that showed an improvement in overall Fox quality.

Once again, not saying it IS going to happen - but delving into politics, from what a VP has told me (and yes, I am going to ACTUAL in-studio film experience and knowledge than speculation on that) it would make sense. Whether or not they went forward with it is unknown. I, and as others have stated, can see both getting something out of it - and the atmosphere would lend itself to wanting any support one can get.

[Rock Sexton]

This thread is the reason people need to lay off drugs. It's amazing conversations like this even go on as long as it as. The obvious and LOGICAL answer is that lady who mistakenly named Spiderman did so because she's got literally no familiarity with the Avengers. She got the wrong "man". She meant Iron Man.

The fan boy madness needs to stop. Some of you are ready to explode in your pants over something that'll never happen until Marvel Films gets the rights back for the Spiderman franchise. Movie studios do not lend out there properties to other studios. Why on earth would Sony want one of their head liners to appear in a movie with Disney's name stamped all over it? Spiderman is an A-list CBM movie franchise and is etched into the minds of everyone when it comes to popular superheroes. They have no need to advertise him in the Avengers.

[bullets]

This would be great cross promotion. Freed advertising for Sony to hype people about the upcoming Spider-man film. I wouldn't be surprised if they worked out a deal.