Would Spider-Man really be better off at Marvel/Disney?

[Juicy J]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

Spider-Man = Worldwide: $821,708,551

Spider-Man 2 = Worldwide: $783,766,341

Spider-Man 3 = Worldwide: $890,871,626

The Amazing Spider-Man = Worldwide: $752,216,557

Adding them up, we get = 3,246 million.

Now, movies from Marvel Studios,

Iron Man - $585,174,222

Iron Man 2 - $623,933,331

The Incredible hulk - $263,427,551

Thor - $449.3 million

Captain America: The First Avenger - $368,608,363

Let's add them, Avengers does not count as it is an ensemble movie, we are comparing solo super-hero movies here, = 2,288 mil.

So, Four Spider-Man movies made almost a billion more than five Marvel studios movies.
So, why should Marvel Studios do a better job than Sony ?

And how much better did The Incredible Hulk did then Ang Lee's Hulk at Marvel Studios ? Not that much (Hulk : $245,360,480 mil worldwide)

We've already established that money is merely icing on the cake. It doesn't prove or disprove a studios handling of a property. Transformers is right behind Spider-man on the overall highest grossing franchise list. Does that mean they're doing a great job with those movies?
Also if we are talking money it makes zero sense to include all 4 spider-man films and only 5 of the 6 Marvel films just because it's an 'ensemble' movie. At that point we're splitting hairs.
If we are talking money, Marvel undoubtedly takes the cake. They have made more off their superhero properties than Sony has. Period. That's the debate. Not to mention that by this time next year they'll have two more movies under the belt, giving them even more money.
Case closed.

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Most of the MCU solo films are crummy.

Iron Man 1 - 94% critical rating, and a 91% user rating on rotten tomatoes
Incredible Hulk - 67% and 75%. Still not great, but still fresh
Iron Man 2 - 75% and 80%. Not as good as the original, but what do you know, still fresh.
Thor - 77% and 80%
Captain America - 79% and 75%
All fresh reviews. All, for the most part, pretty high scores as well. Looks like most film critics and moviegoers wouldn't describe the solo films as crummy.
Yes that is your opinion and I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong, but it looks like you all are definitely in the minority on this one.

Iron Man 2 was definitely the 2 hour trailer for the Avengers.

As I said earlier, SHIELD was in IM2 for all of 9 minutes, and the Avengers was only mentioned in the last scene with Fury, which was a 3 minute scene. Care to explain how it was a two hour trailer again?

Point is, outside of the Avengers and Iron Man 1, Marvel/Disney hasn't proven to be the "best in the business." You cannot prove or disprove that statement as of yet, so let's see what else they have to give us.

No you can't prove or disprove that statement. But you can have an opinion on the matter which you can back up using facts and numbers, which I have been doing and will continue to do.

They have more chances to make more superhero movies simply because they have the rights to more characters. So they will be pumping out movies every year for quite some time. Will they be good, or even "the best?" Well, let's wait and see.

Yes, they will be.
As I said earlier, they have a great track record. If you don't believe me now lets wait a year when they released IM3 and Thor 2 and then have Cap 2 and guardians of the galaxy on the horizon.

Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz

Looks like many agree that Marvel Studios is not exactly the best place to house Spider-Man films and animation, and you guys back it up nicely

I'm not seeing anything that backs that up nicely. At all. The most I've seen is, "well I personally don't really like the Marvel studios movies", an opinion which I have already shown is in the minority because most people do indeed like those movies. That doesn't mean the movies are all perfect, or that my opinion discounts anyone else's opinion just because I agree with the majority. It just means that I think, subjectively, Marvel Studios would make a better Spider-man movie and I honestly have presented a pretty solid argument for that.
Also, let's take this into account: I think SM1 and SM2 are better films than half of Marvel Studios output so far. But you know what? That doesn't really matter, considering the franchise has now been rebooted and is going in a completely different direction.
Looking at Rotten tomatoes again, ASM is at a 73% critical rating. That's lower than 5 of the 6 Marvel Studios movies. Logically if the average rating on marvel's solo films is higher than 73..... See what I'm getting at here?

[spider-neil]

If Spider-Man didn't exist the RT score for ASM (and probably the box office) would be higher and we all know it.

[Juicy J]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

If Spider-Man didn't exist the RT score for ASM (and probably the box office) would be higher and we all know it.

So? It does exist and the RT score is at 73, therefore my point still remains. I don't know why we're talking hypotheticals now.
I mean you are right, people would have enjoyed the new movie a lot more had the previous one's didn't exist since they basically spent the first part of the movie (and much of the last) telling the exact same story. But that doesn't excuse anything, since Sony did that to themselves. That's their handling of the franchise. If anything that just proves my point even further.

[WarriorDreamer]

No, Spider-Man should stay with Sony. He is better off as a Sony product than a Disney one, movie-wise.

[AF3619]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

So? It does exist and the RT score is at 73, therefore my point still remains. I don't know why we're talking hypotheticals now.

It does exist, but some people are so closed minded that they gave a negative review just because it was a reboot, look for example IGN´s review that was a really bad review, not in their opinion but the review was poorly done, some people gave good reasons why they disliked it , but some were just like well this:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

i have problems with the film , but i still have faith that the sequel will get more positive reception

[Juicy J]

Originally Posted by AF3619

It does exist, but some people are so closed minded that they gave a negative review just because it was a reboot, look for example IGN´s review that was a really bad review, not in their opinion but the review was poorly done, some people gave good reasons why they disliked it , but some were just like well this:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

i have problems with the film , but i still have faith that the sequel will get more positive reception

I have no doubt that negatively affected people's views of the film, but that isn't an excuse. You can't just disregard that, because that is how Sony chose to handle the property. And you know what? It was a poor choice. I greatly enjoyed the film, but one of my biggest complaints was the rehashing of the origin. Everyone and their mother knows how he became Spider-man, they shouldn't have spent the first hour retelling it.
And this brings me back to my point: Marvel Studios would have done a better job because they would not have done that. I'm not basing this off of mere conjecture either; look at what they did with the Hulk reboot. They realized his origin had already been on screen, people didn't want to sit through another one with different actors. So they sped through it in the opening credits, which I felt was perfect.
There's no doubt in my mind that they would have gone the opening credit route with their first Spider-man film, so there goes that complaint out the window.

[AF3619]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

I have no doubt that negatively affected people's views of the film, but that isn't an excuse. You can't just disregard that, because that is how Sony chose to handle the property. And you know what? It was a poor choice. I greatly enjoyed the film, but one of my biggest complaints was the rehashing of the origin. Everyone and their mother knows how he became Spider-man, they shouldn't have spent the first hour retelling it.

they didn´t just tell the origin,they opened other plot points for the future movies,like Osborn dying, the parents stuff,even the origin, they did Character develpment and they needed that develpment because this is a NEW Universe, with Different Characters and diffrent origins they technically continued with the Hulk

[Juicy J]

Originally Posted by AF3619

they didn´t just tell the origin,they opened other plot points for the future movies,like Osborn dying, the parents stuff,even the origin, they did Character develpment and they needed that develpment because this is a NEW Universe, with Different Characters and diffrent origins they technically continued with the Hulk

They could have addressed all these plot points without re-showing the spider bite and Uncle Ben dying. There was no need to go back and hit those exact same story beats a second time. They could have shown that in the opening credits, and then continued on with the story from there and they would have had a lot more room for a meatier story addressing his parents, Osborn, etc.
Also, they did not continue with the Hulk. I don't know where people get that notion from because TIH was a completely separate entity from Ang Lee's Hulk, there is zero connection there whatsoever.

[AF3619]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

They could have addressed all these plot points without re-showing the spider bite and Uncle Ben dying. There was no need to go back and hit those exact same story beats a second time. They could have shown that in the opening credits, and then continued on with the story from there and they would have had a lot more room for a meatier story addressing his parents, Osborn, etc.
Also, they did not continue with the Hulk. I don't know where people get that notion from because TIH was a completely separate entity from Ang Lee's Hulk, there is zero connection there whatsoever.

i said technically , i know is not even the same origin but i don´t know the hulk enough

[chaseter]

Sony is 2 for 4 with Spider-Man movies. That's not a good track record. Marvel you can tell are putting a lot of thought into their movieverse. To cite cartoon examples is dumb. Cartoons have nothing to do with the movies. Joss Whedon is like the ultimate nerd and he would do Spider-Man right.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

If Spider-Man didn't exist the RT score for ASM (and probably the box office) would be higher and we all know it.

If ASM was a better movie then it's RT score and probably the box office would be higher and we all know it.

ASM stands on its own. It had a chance to be better than its predecessor and it wasn't. That's it. That's not Sam Raimi's fault...how dumb.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

The Thanos cliffhanger.

It's a cliffhanger for the next movie...just like the disappearing lightning man at the end of ASM which I would assume you loved.

[Robin91939]

There will be a cross-over with Andrew's Spider-man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at some point. It would be an epic oversight not to do so.

Disney and Sony can surely reach an agreement, especially if The Avengers 2 does about as well as the first film and The Amazing Spider-man 2 surpasses The Amazing Spider-man's success. It would be in both of the studios' best interest to add Spidey to the roster for at least one film.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise will need a breath of fresh air after about 10-12 films and two team films. Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk and maybe Ant-man and Wasp will be A-list characters by then (assuming we're talking The Avengers 3)...Seeing them team up with Spider-man (perhaps the most recognizable and popular superhero of all time, at least the top 3) would be too good to pass up.

From Marvel's standpoint, having Spider-man in their Marvel Cinematic Universe would legitimize it. He's their crown jewel. Building this universe without Spider-man... it would forever feel incomplete. Kevin Feige is a very, very smart man. He knows this. With Disney writing the checks now, they have the ability to split the licensing with Sony for a team film with Spider-man and distribute it through Disney with Sony getting a cut.

For Sony, it's a strong move to piggy-back onto the highly successful The Avengers franchise as a way to take their fresh, new take on Peter Parker to the next level. It will help them reach and eclipse the Rami version in the public. With Avi Arad on the take at Sony, it is a step in the direction of an agreement. Arad has a great relationship with Marvel and is as much a voice for what the fans want (sometimes too much so) as anyone. The fans wanted Venom... Arad made Venom fit into that film. If the fans want Spider-man in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film... Arad will do whatever he can to try and make it happen.

Bottom line is that the Powers That Be know it is wanted. The Powers That Be have already discussed it if the "Oscorp in The Avengers" rumor is true. Andrew Garfield is all for it. Arad has expressed interest. Feige hasn't dismissed the possibility... The pieces are in place.

Example:
Freddy Krueger is owned by New Line Cinemas and Jason Vorhees is owned by Paramount Pictures. They were able to reach an agreement for these two separate franchises and characters to create a spin-off, Freddy vs. Jason.

With this, we are talking about all Marvel characters in the ultimate Marvel movie. These are all people: Feige, Arad, Tolmach, etc who have all worked extensively with one another... This should be easy. This should be amicable.

This is a no-brainer.

-R

[SpiderMarvelite]

Excellent post

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by SpiderMarvelite

Excellent post

I thought you were against it?

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by chaseter

I thought you were against it?

Maybe he's against Spider-man going fully back to Marvel, but not against seeing Spider-man appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe whist still being controlled, ultimately, by Sony. Which -- can and should be done.

-R

[Thundercrack85]

Maybe. Depends. Long as they don't Avenger-ize Spider-man.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

They could have addressed all these plot points without re-showing the spider bite and Uncle Ben dying. There was no need to go back and hit those exact same story beats a second time. They could have shown that in the opening credits, and then continued on with the story from there and they would have had a lot more room for a meatier story addressing his parents, Osborn, etc.
Also, they did not continue with the Hulk. I don't know where people get that notion from because TIH was a completely separate entity from Ang Lee's Hulk, there is zero connection there whatsoever.

The problem with TIH is that it felt like it was the sequel to a movie we never saw. It starts with him in Brazil, and we get introduced to all these characters that we are "supposed" to know. Although I felt like telling the origin in the opening credits was a cool idea, it felt like something was missing.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Robin91939

Maybe he's against Spider-man going fully back to Marvel, but not against seeing Spider-man appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe whist still being controlled, ultimately, by Sony. Which -- can and should be done.

-R

This is how I feel.

Originally Posted by Robin91939

There will be a cross-over with Andrew's Spider-man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at some point. It would be an epic oversight not to do so.

Disney and Sony can surely reach an agreement, especially if The Avengers 2 does about as well as the first film and The Amazing Spider-man 2 surpasses The Amazing Spider-man's success. It would be in both of the studios' best interest to add Spidey to the roster for at least one film.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise will need a breath of fresh air after about 10-12 films and two team films. Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk and maybe Ant-man and Wasp will be A-list characters by then (assuming we're talking The Avengers 3)...Seeing them team up with Spider-man (perhaps the most recognizable and popular superhero of all time, at least the top 3) would be too good to pass up.

From Marvel's standpoint, having Spider-man in their Marvel Cinematic Universe would legitimize it. He's their crown jewel. Building this universe without Spider-man... it would forever feel incomplete. Kevin Feige is a very, very smart man. He knows this. With Disney writing the checks now, they have the ability to split the licensing with Sony for a team film with Spider-man and distribute it through Disney with Sony getting a cut.

For Sony, it's a strong move to piggy-back onto the highly successful The Avengers franchise as a way to take their fresh, new take on Peter Parker to the next level. It will help them reach and eclipse the Rami version in the public. With Avi Arad on the take at Sony, it is a step in the direction of an agreement. Arad has a great relationship with Marvel and is as much a voice for what the fans want (sometimes too much so) as anyone. The fans wanted Venom... Arad made Venom fit into that film. If the fans want Spider-man in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film... Arad will do whatever he can to try and make it happen.

Bottom line is that the Powers That Be know it is wanted. The Powers That Be have already discussed it if the "Oscorp in The Avengers" rumor is true. Andrew Garfield is all for it. Arad has expressed interest. Feige hasn't dismissed the possibility... The pieces are in place.

Example:
Freddy Krueger is owned by New Line Cinemas and Jason Vorhees is owned by Paramount Pictures. They were able to reach an agreement for these two separate franchises and characters to create a spin-off, Freddy vs. Jason.

With this, we are talking about all Marvel characters in the ultimate Marvel movie. These are all people: Feige, Arad, Tolmach, etc who have all worked extensively with one another... This should be easy. This should be amicable.

This is a no-brainer.

-R

GREAT POST!

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

If Spider-Man didn't exist the RT score for ASM (and probably the box office) would be higher and we all know it.

It would probably be around 85%

Originally Posted by Juicy J

So? It does exist and the RT score is at 73, therefore my point still remains. I don't know why we're talking hypotheticals now.
I mean you are right, people would have enjoyed the new movie a lot more had the previous one's didn't exist since they basically spent the first part of the movie (and much of the last) telling the exact same story. But that doesn't excuse anything, since Sony did that to themselves. That's their handling of the franchise. If anything that just proves my point even further.

You haven't really proven anything to be honest. And why is the RT score being used as if it was the definitive means of determining whether or not a movie is good or bad? Its just an RT score.

Originally Posted by AF3619

It does exist, but some people are so closed minded that they gave a negative review just because it was a reboot, look for example IGN´s review that was a really bad review, not in their opinion but the review was poorly done, some people gave good reasons why they disliked it , but some were just like well this:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

i have problems with the film , but i still have faith that the sequel will get more positive reception

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

Iron Man 1 - 94% critical rating, and a 91% user rating on rotten tomatoes
Incredible Hulk - 67% and 75%. Still not great, but still fresh
Iron Man 2 - 75% and 80%. Not as good as the original, but what do you know, still fresh.
Thor - 77% and 80%
Captain America - 79% and 75%
All fresh reviews. All, for the most part, pretty high scores as well. Looks like most film critics and moviegoers wouldn't describe the solo films as crummy.
Yes that is your opinion and I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you're wrong, but it looks like you all are definitely in the minority on this one.

Spider-Man - 89% and 65%
Spider-Man 2 - 93% and 81%
Spider-Man 3 - 63% and 54%
The Amazing Spider-Man - 73% and 81%

The Spider-Man movies all have fresh reviews, too (with the exception of SM3's audience rating). SM1 has a low audience score, but look at how many ratings it has: over 32 million from over the past 10 years. Its critic score was 91% a few years ago as well, but went down as time went on. Spider-Man 3 was so hyped up, and faced huge disappointment, so I'd imagine the score would be higher if it weren't for that.

TASM would also be much higher, but many of the negative reviews are really cheap, which refer to it as the same movie as SM1, or being a reboot that was too soon. If it was the first Spider-Man movie, the score would probably be much higher.

As I said earlier, SHIELD was in IM2 for all of 9 minutes, and the Avengers was only mentioned in the last scene with Fury, which was a 3 minute scene. Care to explain how it was a two hour trailer again?

The movie just didn't carry itself. SHIELD had about 9 minutes of screen time, according to you, but its presence felt much bigger in the film. They helped Iron Man create a new element to save him, Black Widow was introduced and had more screen time than she needed, Captain America's shield made an appearance, and it was just full of more easter eggs that reference the MCU. Everything that happened in the movie was so bland, from the villain, to fight scenes (or lack there of fight scenes), dialogue, etc. I don't understand how it has a higher rating than The Amazing Spider-Man.

No you can't prove or disprove that statement. But you can have an opinion on the matter which you can back up using facts and numbers, which I have been doing and will continue to do.

So you are using RT scores as facts?

Yes, they will be.
As I said earlier, they have a great track record. If you don't believe me now lets wait a year when they released IM3 and Thor 2 and then have Cap 2 and guardians of the galaxy on the horizon.

Outside of the Avengers and the Iron Man movies, they have a good track record. Not a GREAT one. IM2 made as much as it did due to the success of the first film.

Looking at Rotten tomatoes again, ASM is at a 73% critical rating. That's lower than 5 of the 6 Marvel Studios movies. Logically if the average rating on marvel's solo films is higher than 73..... See what I'm getting at here?

So what? The RT score determines the quality of the movies? A lot of the solo movies, IMO, got a lot of attention because of they hype they were building up for the Avengers.

[Spider-Aziz]

Originally Posted by Juicy J

I'm not seeing anything that backs that up nicely. At all. The most I've seen is, "well I personally don't really like the Marvel studios movies", an opinion which I have already shown is in the minority because most people do indeed like those movies.

I tapped their backs after seeing statistics given, even if the figures are wrong and to plenty don't give enough confident, it's something quite solid

[Oscorp]

I don't think Marvel even cares about Peter Parker anymore. They kill him off and replace him in both Amazing and Ultimate (two of their major series) and show huge disrespect for the character in the Ultimate cartoon. They've erased his history and threw away his awesome relationship with MJ, they made him the chosen one by some weird spider gods and messed up with his origin, they gave him new, weird powers etc.

I can see Marvel **** up Spidey in a film series as well by going all "Hey we already had Peter Parker in two trilogies already! This Spidey will be Miles Morales instead, because we don't want Parker anymore."

It's almost as if they treat Peter like crap just because they want him to become less popular than those heroes Marvel Studios has the rights to, such as Iron Man.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Oscorp

I don't think Marvel even cares about Peter Parker anymore. They kill him off and replace him in both Amazing and Ultimate (two of their major series) and show huge disrespect for the character in the Ultimate cartoon. They've erased his history and threw away his awesome relationship with MJ, they made him the chosen one by some weird spider gods and messed up with his origin, they gave him new, weird powers etc.

I can see Marvel **** up Spidey in a film series as well by going all "Hey we already had Peter Parker in two trilogies already! This Spidey will be Miles Morales instead, because we don't want Parker anymore."

It's almost as if they treat Peter like crap just because they want him to become less popular than those heroes Marvel Studios has the rights to, such as Iron Man.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. That's why I think Sony should keep the film rights, and do a deal with Marvel to have Spider-Man appear in some of their movies.

[Picard Sisko]

I think of it this way. Marvel Studios is good for giving lesser known characters a chance to make it on the big screen. Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Ant-Man, etc.

Let Sony keep Spider-Man, and Fox have X-Men & Fantastic Four... I just wish the studios could work together so they could somehow connect their movies with each other.