Is anyone not excited about Spider-man in the MCU?

[Arach Knight]

unlike Guardians it doesn't open up any huge new avenue for the MCU.

Only because Pym seems to no longer be responsible for the creation of Ultron. Altering the story in that regard pretty much screwed an Ant-Man movie out of having greater importance in terms of opening up new avenues. Then there is the fact that they formed the Avengers, again, without Pym.

All of the better angles that make Pym/Ant-Man important have been done in his absence or taken over by a different character. This is likely why Marvel went with Scott instead of Pym. Personally, I never cared for Scott Lang though, so I'll have to see what Marvel's angle is.

 

[NealKenneth]

Batman is still the most popular superhero of all (based on the number of pages available in a Google query) and his draw pretty much trumps anything Marvel has put out with the exception of The Avengers and Iron Man 3.

Don't forget Spider-Man! He's definitely in the same league as Batman, so if they plop him in Civil War next to Iron Man (the posterboy for MCU so far) and Captain America (the dark horse who has never been more popular), that's going to be stiff competition for Batman and Superman. I'd say the popularity of the characters in each film is about equal.

And to be fair, crowd consensus is that TDKR would have beaten out the Avengers if not for the Aurora shooting. So out of 10 Marvel films thus far, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have out grossed eight of those films. The Man of Steel has out grossed half of Marvel's 10 films. And I mean this on an individual bases, not collectively. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have out grossed every Spider-Man film to date.

You made a good point about Batman, but I don't think the Aurora shooting could possibly have hurt numbers THAT badly. We should give The Avengers the box-office victory between the two without disclaimers. It outgrossed DKR by 40%.

Putting both Batman and Superman in the same film will likely result in box office dominance. I am a hardcore Marvel fan (as evinced by my screen name), but the numbers don't lie. Unless BvS turns into a Green Lantern fiasco, I suspect that Warner Bros./DC will be unchallenged when they release Dawn of Justice.

Don't forget that they are insisting this film is the follow-up to Man of Steel. The fan reaction to Man of Steel was mixed, and general audience reaction was mixed at best. If Warner Brothers was saying BvS is going to be a fresh start to launch the DCCU and a soft reboot for Superman, it would be a different story, but they haven't done that, so audiences are going to be associating it with Man of Steel. This is going to hurt their numbers for opening weekend. Furthermore, with the film before that being Superman Returns, his pull right now is based more on nostalgia and hope than actual results.

On the other end of the scale is MCU. Unless they shock us all by allowing Ant-Man and AoU to be average films or worse, Marvel Studios reputation will be stronger than ever in 2016. With my gut telling me that IronMan/CaptainAmerica/Spider-Man is roughly equal in popularity to Batman/Superman, the contest will come down to two things: reputation of the studios (a solid win for Marvel unless they screw it up this summer) and quality of the films themselves. For that, we'll just have to wait and see.

At the very least, I hope you can agree that BvS isn't going to dominate. I foresee a close competition unless one or the other is a really terrible film.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Good point about Man of Steel. It has been outgrossed by 4 of the last 5 MCU films and by every Spider-Man film, even the lackluster ASM ones.

Don't get me wrong, I expect BvS to get a huge audience and it certainly could outgross Civil War. Batman is a huge draw. But it is far from a guarantee. Tony Stark and Peter Parker being on-screen together is a big deal too. Now if Age of Ultron underperforms, that could change my mind, but that's how things stand right now.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm not so sure. Batman vs. Superman, if done right, would have the equivalent effect for DC that the Avengers had for Marvel. Batman is still the most popular superhero of all (based on the number of pages available in a Google query) and his draw pretty much trumps anything Marvel has put out with the exception of The Avengers and Iron Man 3.

Spider-man is the most profitable superhero worldwide by a large margin, he and his merchandise have consistently been raking in way more money than any other superhero and it isn't even close. I think that could very well trump the google query argument and give him the mantle of worlds most popular superhero, but it's certainly up for debate either way.

And to be fair, crowd consensus is that TDKR would have beaten out the Avengers if not for the Aurora shooting.

That is the opposite of the consensus. There's just no way that movie would have grossed close to $400 million more dollars with no 3D. Most people agreed that the impact of the shooting was not an overwhelmingly significant one in terms of the box office. You can argue that point if you want, but there's not a chance the shooting turned away close to $400 million dollars worth of people from the film.

So out of 10 Marvel films thus far, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have out grossed eight of those films. The Man of Steel has out grossed half of Marvel's 10 films. And I mean this on an individual bases, not collectively. The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have out grossed every Spider-Man film to date.
Putting both Batman and Superman in the same film will likely result in box office dominance. I am a hardcore Marvel fan (as evinced by my screen name), but the numbers don't lie. Unless BvS turns into a Green Lantern fiasco, I suspect that Warner Bros./DC will be unchallenged when they release Dawn of Justice.

I could easily see BvS outgrossing any other Marvel film that year, but it will be pretty close. Marvel has earned their reputation while BvS will be mostly relying on the popularity of the two characters. As Nealkenneth mentioned, MoS had a relatively tepid reception that is not exactly going to help the film out. Granted I still think it will be a box office smash, but if it is on the same level of quality as MoS it's legs won't be near as strong as they could be.

Good point about Man of Steel. It has been outgrossed by 4 of the last 5 MCU films and by every Spider-Man film, even the lackluster ASM ones.

Don't get me wrong, I expect BvS to get a huge audience and it certainly could outgross Civil War. Batman is a huge draw. But it is far from a guarantee. Tony Stark and Peter Parker being on-screen together is a big deal too. Now if Age of Ultron underperforms, that could change my mind, but that's how things stand right now.

 

[Arach Knight]

The last two Batman films grossed over a billion dollars each. No Spider-Man film has grossed a billion dollars. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 grossed $700 million. Man of Steel grossed $690 million. Spidey's earning power is still up there but it is no Iron Man, Dark Knight or Avengers. But that is beside the point.

DC knows that Batman is money. Batman is going to be featured prominently in this film and there is the promise of seeing two iconic heroes get into a fight. The film isn't going to get steamrolled by Civil War. That said, with or without Spider-Man, Civil War will make bank. At this point, Spider-Man in the MCU is icing on an already delicious cake.

 

[kedrell]

Getting back to the thread question: I'm starting to get a little annoyed about it, yeah. Not that I don't want him in the MCU but I don't want Spider-man to pull all the focus to his IP in the MCU to the detriment of all the rest. The MCU was built without Spider-man and has achieved success the likes of which Spider-man never knew on his own so I think giving him disproportionate attention withing the MCU would be a mistake, creatively speaking. I mean the whole deal is less than a week old yet the new 2017 Spider-man movie subforum already has nearly as many posts in it as AoU does after 2-3 years time. It's crazy how nuts the Spider-junkies are around here. As someone who's never particularly been much of a Spider-man fan, I don't get it. And I worry about the other properties I do care about getting shafted.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Getting back to the thread question: I'm starting to get a little annoyed about it, yeah. Not that I don't want him in the MCU but I don't want Spider-man to pull all the focus to his IP in the MCU to the detriment of all the rest. The MCU was built without Spider-man and has achieved success the likes of which Spider-man never knew on his own so I think giving him disproportionate attention withing the MCU would be a mistake, creatively speaking. I mean the whole deal is less than a week old yet the new 2017 Spider-man movie subforum already has nearly as many posts in it as AoU does after 2-3 years time. It's crazy how nuts the Spider-junkies are around here. As someone who's never particularly been much of a Spider-man fan, I don't get it. And I worry about the other properties I do care about getting shafted.

 

[Daedalus]

Getting back to the thread question: I'm starting to get a little annoyed about it, yeah. Not that I don't want him in the MCU but I don't want Spider-man to pull all the focus to his IP in the MCU to the detriment of all the rest. The MCU was built without Spider-man and has achieved success the likes of which Spider-man never knew on his own so I think giving him disproportionate attention withing the MCU would be a mistake, creatively speaking. I mean the whole deal is less than a week old yet the new 2017 Spider-man movie subforum already has nearly as many posts in it as AoU does after 2-3 years time. It's crazy how nuts the Spider-junkies are around here. As someone who's never particularly been much of a Spider-man fan, I don't get it. And I worry about the other properties I do care about getting shafted.

You are certainly right that it overshadows other properties. If I were a Black Panther fan, for example, I would certainly worry that his role in CW has been diminished, and his movie pushed back. I`m not a fan of his though, so I couldn`t be happier about this deal.

Also, It`s a testament to his popularity, and the profitability of his potential franchise, that he can create as much excitement as he did this past week. Spider-Man has always been one of the biggest players in the Marvel Universe, and I think that should be translated in the MCU,.

 

[DOBSON10]

Mixed feelings, hate that they booted Andrew Garfield, don't like starting over from scratch, particularly with a much younger actor. I don't care for the teenage superhero angle, I understand that's a big part of Spiderman's mythos but I don't care for it on the big screen. Good young actors are hard to find and most tend to annoy me. I do like most of the MCU's casting choices so that's not a huge concern but it does become more complicated given the age range they might be looking for. Not alot of under 25 actors that I can tolerate. Garfield was phenomenal in the role IMO and I would have loved to see him continue on and interact with the Avengers cast. I understand the several reasons why they are replacing him but I'm still disappointed that he's gone.

I get it though, starting out with a young actor explains why he wasn't around in the previous MCU movies, gives them an actor to grow into the role and eventually become the face of the MCU when Downey Jr., Evans and/or others drop out for whatever reasons. And simply, they want to pick their own guy. So I get it.

I'm also alittle worried about his characterization veering too far off into the comedy realm, given the character's pension for mouthing off and being nerdy in High School. I think they went too far with Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 with the comedy, hampered both of those movies for me (among other things).

But overall I expect them to do a good job and I am interested in him being added to the MCU. Him not being there was a pretty huge hole for me, Spiderman is pretty much in a 3-way tie for my favorite Marvel superhero with Wolverine and Iron Man. Adding him to the mix increases my interest in the MCU a great deal.

As for the implications for the MCU schedule/other characters, well, I really couldn't care less about Black Panther, Inhumans, Ant-Man or Captain Marvel to be honest. Adding Spiderman trumps all of those characters and the Guardians of the Galaxy (which I liked but still don't really care that much about the characters) combined for me.

 

[kedrell]

Of the 3 live action actors we've had play Peter Parker(yes, I'm counting Nicholas Hammond too) I'd take Garfield's any day of the week but I don't think he's irreplaceable and I'm fine with a new actor coming on board. I've never been in love with ANY Spider-man iteration in live action but I think I prefer TASM1 marginally over any of the others. Here's hoping they can achieve what Nolan did with Batman Begins(or Donner with STM for that matter...also works for CA:TFA in the MCU and Thor1 as well) and get me to love a movie based on a character that I otherwise never cared much for or about.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Getting back to the thread question: I'm starting to get a little annoyed about it, yeah. Not that I don't want him in the MCU but I don't want Spider-man to pull all the focus to his IP in the MCU to the detriment of all the rest. The MCU was built without Spider-man and has achieved success the likes of which Spider-man never knew on his own so I think giving him disproportionate attention withing the MCU would be a mistake, creatively speaking. I mean the whole deal is less than a week old yet the new 2017 Spider-man movie subforum already has nearly as many posts in it as AoU does after 2-3 years time. It's crazy how nuts the Spider-junkies are around here. As someone who's never particularly been much of a Spider-man fan, I don't get it. And I worry about the other properties I do care about getting shafted.

that is one trippy avy

 

[kedrell]

I thought so too.

 

[CaptainWagner]

While I'm disappointed about Garfield leaving and the other movies getting pushed back, I can't not be thrilled about this. Spiderman has always been my favorite hero, and the MCU is my favorite comic book movie franchise. I just can't be anything but excited.

 

[Daedalus]

Of the 3 live action actors we've had play Peter Parker(yes, I'm counting Nicholas Hammond too) I'd take Garfield's any day of the week but I don't think he's irreplaceable and I'm fine with a new actor coming on board. I've never been in love with ANY Spider-man iteration in live action but I think I prefer TASM1 marginally over any of the others. Here's hoping they can achieve what Nolan did with Batman Begins(or Donner with STM for that matter...also works for CA:TFA in the MCU and Thor1 as well) and get me to love a movie based on a character that I otherwise never cared much for or about.

Completely agree on the live-action iterations. I`d take Garfield over Maguire anyday, and I do like Webb`s Peter more than Raimi`s one, but I am still waiting for a "definitive" interpretation. If we`re counting animated ones, I really like Peter from the TSSM show.

 

[kedrell]

Oh of course TSSM is THE best iteration(so far) of Spider-man outside of comics, IMO.

 

[Typhoon22]

I wish Marvel had TOTAL control.
I hope Spidy is being thought of as a supporting role and not shoved as THE guy like Iron Man. I don't mind them being there just hoping they'll let the next wave of heroes like Strange, Panther, Captain Marvel have their spotlight like they had theirs.

 

[kedrell]

Honestly if I had my drothers, Spider-man would get a high-budget 13-episode series over at Netflix after the Defenders comes out. So he'd be season 1 while DD, Cage, IF and JJ are starting their 2nd seasons(which I hope they'll get if they have more stories to tell with those characters).

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I wish Marvel had TOTAL control.

I do too. But I will take what we can get. The current situation is an improvement over what we had a week ago.

 

[BarryAllen]

The last two Batman films grossed over a billion dollars each. No Spider-Man film has grossed a billion dollars. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 grossed $700 million. Man of Steel grossed $690 million. Spidey's earning power is still up there but it is no Iron Man, Dark Knight or Avengers.

But it isn't just movie sales. Merchandising plays a big role too. And guess what? Spidey sells more merchandise than Batman, Superman and the Avengers COMBINED. Spider-man is far more loved internationally than Batman.

 

[kedrell]

MoS is at $668m. Where did $690m come from?

 

[Arach Knight]

But it isn't just movie sales. Merchandising plays a big role too. And guess what? Spidey sells more merchandise than Batman, Superman and the Avengers COMBINED. Spider-man is far more loved internationally than Batman.

We are discussing the films though, so merchandising is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, even though your point is true. Spider-Man draws $1.3 billion of licensing revenue per year where as Batman draws in $450 million per year. That fact does not change the reality that The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises have outgrossed every solo Spider-Man film to date. So even if Spider-Man is king of merchandising, he still isn't king of the box office, though it is worth noting that both Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man outgrossed Batman Begins, which had an average performance at the box office.

MoS is at $668m. Where did $690m come from?

I rechecked the numbers and I am absolutely uncertain as to where I got that estimate. I was incorrect. Man of Steel did indeed gross $668 million after checking Box Office Mojo.

 

[Loki882]

Batman Begins was coming off of a legendary awful previous movie, and it was the first Batman movie in almost a decade. Plus the marketing campaign was surprisingly understated, so those numbers aren't all that surprising. Notice what happened with it's two sequels though. They were both MASSIVELY successful.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

We are discussing the films though, so merchandising is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, even though your point is true. Spider-Man draws $1.3 billion of licensing revenue per year where as Batman draws in $450 million per year. That fact does not change the reality that The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises have outgrossed every solo Spider-Man film to date. So even if Spider-Man is king of merchandising, he still isn't king of the box office, though it is worth noting that both Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man outgrossed Batman Begins, which had an average performance at the box office.

What the merchandise sales show is that there is still significant interest in Spider-Man as a character and strongly suggests the reason TASM2 did relatively poorly is the same reason Batman & Robin did relatively poorly. It was a bad movie.

As for TDK and TDKR outgrossing the Raimi Trilogy, inflation and an expanded foreign market played a large role in that.

We'll throw out the foreign audience since it has changed so much since the Raimi films were released that it isn't a fair comparison.

These are the numbers of the domestic take on the Raimi Trilogy and the TDKT, adjusted for inflation.

Batman Begins $265,889,700
The Dark Knight $616,432,900
The Dark Knight Rises $478,091,800

Spider-Man $576,723,400
Spider-Man 2 $499,317,600
Spider-Man 3 $405,988,600

I would say that the two characters are comparable in terms of popularity with no big edge to either one.

 

[Arach Knight]

Batman Begins was coming off of a legendary awful previous movie, and it was the first Batman movie in almost a decade. Plus the marketing campaign was surprisingly understated, so those numbers aren't all that surprising. Notice what happened with it's two sequels though. They were both MASSIVELY successful.

The Dark Knight had hype from the Joker and Heath Ledger's untimely passing. The Dark Knight Rises was able to ride that wave of success from its predecessor. It is true that Batman Begins had to follow the very poorly received Batman and Robin, but let us avoid making too many excuses. The Amazing Spider-Man had to follow the very awful Spider-Man 3, and did so with a shorter gap of time (Spider-Man 3 was still fresh in the mind of the public), yet The Amazing Spider-Man still passed $700 million.

To be fair, the average superhero film between 1998 (Blade) and 2005 (Batman Begins) tended to average between $150-300 million at the box office. Blade made $141 million, X-Men made $296 million, Fantastic Four made $330 million, Daredevil made $179 million. Spider-Mas the anomaly at the time, earning $800 million. Every other superhero film at that time just didn't draw in the kind of money we are used to seeing superhero films pull in today. So in that regard, Batman Begins, with its gross of $376 million, could be considered a high achieving reboot.

But in terms of overall performance relative to now, Batman Begins had rather average ticket sales. Just three years later, Iron Man would go on to gross $585 million. Granted, that same year, The Dark Knight pulled in $1 billion, but I am not so ready to try to spin the box office performance of Batman Begins just because its successors were also successful. This is why I have largely avoided mentioning Batman Begins in my previous posts. Batman Begins wasn't a failure, but it wasn't a smash hit.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I just want to add that I would give BvS the significant edge if it had Christian Bale. That it doesn't, makes it somewhat less appealing to the general audience. It won't be a huge impact (it's still Batman), but it will likely have some.