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

[Arach Knight]

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.

I am not arguing that people are disinterested in Spider-Man. The character remains popular despite three poor films in a row. I am merely arguing that Batman v Superman has the popularity of Batman to draw upon, and as a cinematic figure, Batman is a huge box office draw, as evinced by the box office performance of the Dark Knight Trilogy. Even though Spider-Man earns more licensing revenue, the last two Raimi films and the last two Webb films earned less money than the last two Batman films.

To be clear, trilogy to trilogy, The Raimi trilogy earned roughly the same amount of money as the the Dark Knight trilogy (both films generated just above $2.4 billion). The aborted Webb trilogy was on track to also clock in around $2.1-2.4 billion. But we'll never know for certain since there will be no third ASM. That said, when you look at the top 20 highest grossing films of all time, The Dark Knight Rises and the The Dark Knight are both in the top 20 (#11 and #19 respectively). No Spider-Man film appears on the list until Spider-Man 3, which hits 33rd in terms of all time grossing single films.

The Highest grossing Batman film has earned roughly $1.1 billion, where as the highest grossing Spider-Man film has earned $890 million. Even when adjusting for inflation, Spider-Man 3 has a box office take of $1.014 billion. And that is the best Spider-Man film, in terms of box office earnings. That fact suggests that despite the popularity of the character in terms of licensed goods, said dominance does not immediately transfer to cinematic dominance.

Further more, licensing revenue is a bit more unclear compared to something such as box office performance. The only factors that tinge box office comparisons is the scale of theatrical release (how many theatres and which regions) and whether or not a film was released in 3D, as 3D ticket prices are higher (this is often brought up to show how poor the Marc Webb films stack up against the Raimi trilogy, as both ASM films were released in 3D, where as the Raimi films were not, and even with that boost, the Webb films still fell short of the original trilogy).

However, when we are addressing licensing, comparing such data is not as helpful as one would initially assume. If we know the number of attempted deals, the number of contracted deals and the markets in which said deals have transpired, then the picture would be a bit more clear.

For instance, there has been a Spider-Man video game nearly every year since 2002. Batman didn't start making regular video game appearances until 2009. Prior to that, there were two Batman TAS series games on PS2 and Xbox, one all new Batman game from Kemco and nothing else until Arkham Asylum. So are we counting the fact that Batman didn't appear in as many video games as Spider-Man? Video games are a source of licensing revenue.

What about cartoons? Batman has appeared in four animated shows since 1992; the long running Batman TAS, Batman Beyond, Batman the Brave and the Bold, and The Batman. Conversely, Spider-Man appeared in five animated shows since 1994, including Spider-Man TAS, Spider-Man Unlimited, MTV's Spider-Man, Spectacular Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man. Are we counting the fact that Spider-Man has had more cartoons upon which to base merchandise such a toys and shirts?

I'm not suggesting that such factors totally invalidate the fact that Spider-Man is a higher earning property as a license. Clearly, the character earns nearly three times as much money as Batman, in terms of licensing. But it is still worth noting that we don't know enough about the licensing deals for both characters. Does Spider-Man earn more because of raw popularity or because Warner Bros./DC does not seek out as many monetization options as Disney/Marvel?

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I am so excited for this. Spider-Man needs this so much after the very bad ASM movies.

 

[Flint Marko]

I am not arguing that people are disinterested in Spider-Man. The character remains popular despite three poor films in a row. I am merely arguing that Batman v Superman has the popularity of Batman to draw upon, and as a cinematic figure, Batman is a huge box office draw, as evinced by the box office performance of the Dark Knight Trilogy. Even though Spider-Man earns more licensing revenue, the last two Raimi films and the last two Webb films earned less money than the last two Batman films.

To be clear, trilogy to trilogy, The Raimi trilogy earned roughly the same amount of money as the the Dark Knight trilogy (both films generated just above $2.4 billion). The aborted Webb trilogy was on track to also clock in around $2.1-2.4 billion. But we'll never know for certain since there will be no third ASM. That said, when you look at the top 20 highest grossing films of all time, The Dark Knight Rises and the The Dark Knight are both in the top 20 (#11 and #19 respectively). No Spider-Man film appears on the list until Spider-Man 3, which hits 33rd in terms of all time grossing single films.

The Highest grossing Batman film has earned roughly $1.1 billion, where as the highest grossing Spider-Man film has earned $890 million. Even when adjusting for inflation, Spider-Man 3 has a box office take of $1.014 billion. And that is the best Spider-Man film, in terms of box office earnings. That fact suggests that despite the popularity of the character in terms of licensed goods, said dominance does not immediately transfer to cinematic dominance.

Further more, licensing revenue is a bit more unclear compared to something such as box office performance. The only factors that tinge box office comparisons is the scale of theatrical release (how many theatres and which regions) and whether or not a film was released in 3D, as 3D ticket prices are higher (this is often brought up to show how poor the Marc Webb films stack up against the Raimi trilogy, as both ASM films were released in 3D, where as the Raimi films were not, and even with that boost, the Webb films still fell short of the original trilogy).

However, when we are addressing licensing, comparing such data is not as helpful as one would initially assume. If we know the number of attempted deals, the number of contracted deals and the markets in which said deals have transpired, then the picture would be a bit more clear.

For instance, there has been a Spider-Man video game nearly every year since 2002. Batman didn't start making regular video game appearances until 2009. Prior to that, there were two Batman TAS series games on PS2 and Xbox, one all new Batman game from Kemco and nothing else until Arkham Asylum. So are we counting the fact that Batman didn't appear in as many video games as Spider-Man? Video games are a source of licensing revenue.

What about cartoons? Batman has appeared in four animated shows since 1992; the long running Batman TAS, Batman Beyond, Batman the Brave and the Bold, and The Batman. Conversely, Spider-Man appeared in five animated shows since 1994, including Spider-Man TAS, Spider-Man Unlimited, MTV's Spider-Man, Spectacular Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man. Are we counting the fact that Spider-Man has had more cartoons upon which to base merchandise such a toys and shirts?

I'm not suggesting that such factors totally invalidate the fact that Spider-Man is a higher earning property as a license. Clearly, the character earns nearly three times as much money as Batman, in terms of licensing. But it is still worth noting that we don't know enough about the licensing deals for both characters. Does Spider-Man earn more because of raw popularity or because Warner Bros./DC does not seek out as many monetization options as Disney/Marvel?

You also need to take into account that none of the Spider-man films have been as good/well received as TDK, which was basically lightning in a bottle. I'd argue the success of that trilogy has just as much, if not more, to do with Nolan's choices and reputation as a film maker than what popularity Batman as a character has accumulated over the years.
The fact that Spider-man regularly sells more merchandise than Batman by a huge margin is more than enough to reasonably say he's the more popular character, but again, drawing such a hard line is not something I'm comfortable with doing. But in this case I think if you look at all the evidence in front of you, merchandise revenue is a much stronger indicator of popularity than you seem to want to give it credit for. Earlier you attributed Batman's popularity to more pages on a google search query, but that doesn't hold a candle to cold hard cash.

 

[Arach Knight]

You also need to take into account that none of the Spider-man films have been as good/well received as TDK, which was basically lightning in a bottle. I'd argue the success of that trilogy has just as much, if not more, to do with Nolan's choices and reputation as a film maker than what popularity Batman as a character has accumulated over the years.
The fact that Spider-man regularly sells more merchandise than Batman by a huge margin is more than enough to reasonably say he's the more popular character, but again, drawing such a hard line is not something I'm comfortable with doing. But in this case I think if you look at all the evidence in front of you, merchandise revenue is a much stronger indicator of popularity than you seem to want to give it credit for. Earlier you attributed Batman's popularity to more pages on a google search query, but that doesn't hold a candle to cold hard cash.

I realize that pages available per query is not a wholly scientific measure, but it is a solid barometer as the majority of the pages are derived from fan efforts and not corporate productions. That said, I did concede that even though we don't have sufficient evidence about the nature of how Batman and Spider-Man are licensed, that the sizable disparity in revenue points to the fact that Spider-Man is the more profitable/popular licensed property. I just don't know if we can establish that the gap is as large as stated by raw, uninterpreted data.

As for Nolan and the Dark Knight, Nolan had no real mainstream appeal prior to The Dark Knight films and Inception. Prior to 2005, Nolan was best "known" for Memento, but that film was relatively unknown to mainstream audiences (the film grossed $39 million). Ultimately, Nolan was not yet a brand at that point in his career. To suggest otherwise would be similar to suggesting that Peter Jackson drew people to Lord of the Rings because of his prior work on Meet the Feebles. Though it was Nolan's neo-noir skills that fleshed out a Batman film that was more faithful than any previous incarnation, it was the success of his first two Batman films that made Nolan a household name.

As for Batman's popularity, when adjusted for inflation, Tim Burton's Batman film handily beats out pretty much every superhero film other than Spider-Man 3, Iron Man 3, Avengers and the last two Dark Knight films. It isn't as if Batman suddenly developed popularity after spending a long time as a B lister. Batman isn't Iron Man.

 

[NealKenneth]

You also need to take into account that none of the Spider-man films have been as good/well received as TDK, which was basically lightning in a bottle. I'd argue the success of that trilogy has just as much, if not more, to do with Nolan's choices and reputation as a film maker than what popularity Batman as a character has accumulated over the years.

This is a great point. Batman Begins came out just three years before TDK, yet it made less than half as much at the box office. It's not as though Batman's popularity doubled between 2005 and 2008.

Besides Nolan's superb direction, we also need to take into consideration the massive bump in publicity the film got from Heath Ledger's death. On top of that, Ledger happened to own the character in such a way that it basically steals the show, earning the dude an Academy Award for his performance. We've yet to see a Spider-Man film directed as well, or a villain as compelling. The closest was probably Sandman (but they unfortunately chose to tie him up in Uncle Ben's death in a distracting retcon) or potentially Harry Osborn (but they unfortunately chose to rush this after two films of build-up.)

I think Marc Webb WAS the director that could have done for Spider-Man what Nolan did for Batman, but unfortunately the studio wouldn't get out of the way. Who knows how much money Amazing Spider-Man could have made if they had?

 

[Arach Knight]

On top of that, Ledger happened to own the character in such a way that it basically steals the show, earning the dude an Academy Award for his performance.

I already made that point in a previous response about what made TDK successful and how TDKR rode that wave of success.

 

[kedrell]

I am so excited for this. Spider-Man needs this so much after the very bad ASM movies.

I'd say he needs it after ALL the Sony movies.

 

[kedrell]

This is a great point. Batman Begins came out just three years before TDK, yet it made less than half as much at the box office. It's not as though Batman's popularity doubled between 2005 and 2008.

Besides Nolan's superb direction, we also need to take into consideration the massive bump in publicity the film got from Heath Ledger's death. On top of that, Ledger happened to own the character in such a way that it basically steals the show, earning the dude an Academy Award for his performance. We've yet to see a Spider-Man film directed as well, or a villain as compelling. The closest was probably Sandman (but they unfortunately chose to tie him up in Uncle Ben's death in a distracting retcon) or potentially Harry Osborn (but they unfortunately chose to rush this after two films of build-up.)

I think Marc Webb WAS the director that could have done for Spider-Man what Nolan did for Batman, but unfortunately the studio wouldn't get out of the way. Who knows how much money Amazing Spider-Man could have made if they had?

I think also when talking about TDK, attention needs to be paid to the fact that unlike virtually any other supporting character the Joker has a popularity on par with Batman himself. It's no secret that adjusted for inflation the 2 highest grossing DOM Batman movies both have the Joker in them. So no, Batman didn't double his popularity between 2005-2008 so much as Batman + Joker doubled the popularity of that particular Batman movie. And since it was a big hit with tons of WOM that's what carried over to TDKR(even though it was Joker-less). WB/DC's best decisions have been about the sparing use of the Joker character. He's still pristine and without a bad mark to him in the eyes of most of the public. He's never been tainted. Now that they are going to roll him out more it's going to be riskier moving forward. There was 19 years between his first 2 appearances and now just 8 years for a new version. How this will play out is anybody's guess.

 

[Hmarrs]

Im not excited about this move i was probably one of the few that were grateful that Spider-man and the X-men weren't part of the marvel Universe.
Simply becuase of the over saturation Spider-man and Wolverine tend to have in Comic or any Genre for that matter.
Im Sick of them.Expect to see him everywhere now.
Fro crying out loud he Wolverine over-saturates all the X-men Movies.
There just Wolverine Movies with supporting cast.
While I understand he mat be a strong character it leaves for the underdevelopment of other heroes.
Same thing with Spider-Man.
I believe the way it was having them in separate Universes was actually a God send.

 

[Arach Knight]

Im not excited about this move i was probably one of the few that were grateful that Spider-man and the X-men weren't part of the marvel Universe.
Simply becuase of the over saturation Spider-man and Wolverine tend to have in Comic or any Genre for that matter.
Im Sick of them.Expect to see him everywhere now.
Fro crying out loud he Wolverine over-saturates all the X-men Movies.
There just Wolverine Movies with supporting cast.
While I understand he mat be a strong character it leaves for the underdevelopment of other heroes.
Same thing with Spider-Man.
I believe the way it was having them in separate Universes was actually a God send.

Honestly, I don't know if Marvel Studios would have had the same success they are currently enjoying if they had their two biggest comic properties. Not having access to Spider-Man and the X-Men really forced Marvel to be smart about the way they made their superhero films. It is probably what keeps WB/DC so trapped. They are so overly reliant on Batman and Superman that few other characters will get a chance, or at least as big a push. I seriously doubt most people saw the Constantine movie and associated Constantine with DC. Here is hoping that reintroducing Spider-Man to Marvel will not become a liability, though the negative effects are already cropping up (several phase 3 films being pushed back).

 

[Hmarrs]

Honestly, I don't know if Marvel Studios would have had the same success they are currently enjoying if they had their two biggest comic properties. Not having access to Spider-Man and the X-Men really forced Marvel to be smart about the way they made their superhero films. It is probably what keeps WB/DC so trapped. They are so overly reliant on Batman and Superman that few other characters will get a chance, or at least as big a push. I seriously doubt most people saw the Constantine movie and associated Constantine with DC. Here is hoping that reintroducing Spider-Man to Marvel will not become a liability, though the negative effects are already cropping up (several phase 3 films being pushed back).

EXACTLY MY POINT!!!
How can you move a whole Phase of Movies for one Character.
Although Im sure its to incorporate him.But if you have to postpone the whole Phase that just tells me he will be in all the Films.YUCK!!!!
But what you said about DC was perfect. Because I feel the same thing has happned with the X-men now you cant have a movie without Wolverine.

However I will say I think Marvel dropped the ball big time and may trap themselves with the Avengers.
They had a tremendous opportunity to drop down a bunch of B-line heroes and story lines through Shield and match what DC is doing on TV.
But they didn't.
Having the perfect excuse SHIELD going out and finding Super powered people because its what they do eliminates the headache of having to find a way to introduce a new Hero or Villian every week.
All kinds of things could have been done.
But oh well....

 

[Adversary]

I am indifferent about it. While I am a huge fan of Spider-man and it's exciting to have him back at Marvel I was already satisfied with Marvel taking new characters and developing them in the movies.

I just hope the Spider-man solo-movie is very different from the Sony movies.

 

[kedrell]

Postponing stuff 6 months doesn't bother me all that much because it's not like they did this right in the middle of a rollout. All these movies that got pushed aren't even filming yet so it shouldn't effect quality nor should it mean they might get dropped. I can deal with this. Just means Phase 4 starts half a year later than it otherwise would have.

 

[NealKenneth]

All these movies that got pushed aren't even filming yet so it shouldn't effect quality nor should it mean they might get dropped.

Exactly. It just goes to show that announcing them all at the same time was a mistake. I don't care that they claim it was planned ahead of time, to me it came across as Marvel saying "Oh DC, nice slate of films but look how big OUR penis is plans are."

To be honest, if they felt like scrapping some of the films that were announced particularly far ahead of time (2018 or 2019), it wouldn't bother me that much because I know they would be doing it to adjust to changes (availability of Spider-Man/Silver Surfer) and make the best films possible. I don't see any reason they should be announcing films more than two years ahead of time, it just encourages them to stick to a plan when it might be a better idea to change it.

At this point all that press release got them was excited fans (which they had already) who are now disappointed because a few of the films they announced way too far ahead of time are being moved.

 

[Arach Knight]

Postponing stuff 6 months doesn't bother me all that much because it's not like they did this right in the middle of a rollout. All these movies that got pushed aren't even filming yet so it shouldn't effect quality nor should it mean they might get dropped. I can deal with this. Just means Phase 4 starts half a year later than it otherwise would have.

Here is the problem with postpoining these films. Marvel and DC recently had a pissing match over May 2016, between Captain America and Dawn of Justice. Warner had the date on lock, but Marvel wouldn't budge. Rather than hurt its own viewership by having to compete, Warner moved the date up to March 2016. Now that Marvel has announced that they are derailing an entire slate of movies for one character, Warner Bros. can swoop in on old dates and build up an audience. Not that I have a stake in Marvel winning out, nor am I bothered by WB/DC succeeding. I quite enjoy their characters, their comics and their cartoons. But it is just madness that Marvel would go out of their way to introduce a character that everyone has already seen in FIVE films.

The announcement that Spider-Man is coming to the MCU bears good tithing in that we will likely see Spider-Man done right for a change, but pushing aside more promising introductions seems like a mistake. Warner Bros. has already been fast-tracking everything related to their DCCU, now Marvel pretty much opened the door for WB to compete more effectively, by actively surrendering key dates. Just seems unwise, at least for the sake of including Spider-Man. The big push for Phase 3 was supposed to be Boseman as Black Panther and Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange. Now, everyone is obsessing over Spider-Man going back to high school, when instead we had an opportunity to introduce political and magical Marvel to the already established sci-fi/superhero Marvel.

Dr. Strange sets up a number of other characters including Ghost Rider, but now, we have to wait...for Spider-Man and the inevitable use of the Green Goblin and Doc Ock. Spidey is my favorite, but I really appreciate the freshness of the Marvel films dealing with less popular characters. Incidentially, this is why I enjoyed Justice League Unlimited. I loved that they had a number of episodes and arcs that revolved around characters such as The Question, Vixen and Adam Strange. I love that Hawkgirl was suddenly a top tier Justice League member. So when Inhumans, Dr. Strange and Black Panther were announced, it was exciting. And I know these films are still forthcoming, but they are being delayed, not because of production hangups for extra scenes, but to introduce a character that quite honestly doesn't need an introduction any more.

 

[Protar]

The films are still going to be much the same, they're just pushed forwards a few more months. Perhaps you have a point about surrendering up dates to Warner Bros, but I don't think we've seen anything to suggest that Black Panther, Strange, Inhumans or Cpt. Marvel will be getting much less attention as a result of Spiderman.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Here is the problem with postpoining these films. Marvel and DC recently had a pissing match over May 2016, between Captain America and Dawn of Justice. Warner had the date on lock, but Marvel wouldn't budge.

Marvel had the date first and WB tried to push them off of it. They almost had to stand their ground to prevent that sort of thing happening in the future. If Marvel bent the knee there, what's to prevent WB from trying the same thing again next year?

Now that Marvel has announced that they are derailing an entire slate of movies for one character, Warner Bros. can swoop in on old dates and build up an audience.

The only date that Marvel moved off of was Ragnarok's, to make way for the new Spider-Man film. As a result Ragnarok, Captain Marvel, and Inhumans got pushed back to the next slot. Marvel hasn't abandoned any dates, so there are no old dates for WB to swipe.

So when Inhumans, Dr. Strange, and Black Panther were announced, it was exciting. And I know these films are still forthcoming, but they are being delayed, not because of production hangups for extra scenes, but to introduce a character that quite honestly doesn't need an introduction any more.

Inhumans and Black Panther have only been pushed back one spot on the schedule, a few months. Dr. Strange hasn't been pushed back at all.

 

[MakeMinesMarvel]

Don't you people realize that Spider-Man '17 will feature many MCU characters and will give them a bump as well as Spider-Man himself. This thread will look foolish after Civil War.

 

[Arach Knight]

Inhumans and Black Panther have only been pushed back one spot on the schedule, a few months. Dr. Strange hasn't been pushed back at all.

That bit is quite correct. The slate of delays includes Thor, Inhumans, Black Panther and Captain Marvel. I don't know why I listed Dr. Strange. But the rest of my points still stand. Also, I never said that DC had May 16th first, I said they had it on lock. But once they realized Marvel wasn't budging, they switched dates.

Now Marvel is pushing back its own films (to the benefit of Sony at that) and I see that as a mistake. And yes, the above films had schedule release dates, now those dates are all pushed back. Avengers didn't move, and I am grateful, but having the other films moved is rough. Thank you for pointing out my mistake about Dr. Strange though.

 

[Tymminator]

Movies get postponed or bumped up all the time, without the excuse of introducing a new character in a franchise. As long as a movie still happens, unless I had to wait for something similar to what an Avatar fan must currently face, I can't sweat these delays and I'm still excited to know what's coming ahead.

The public reveal of Phase 3 pumped me up and it shut up all of the loudmouths who swore to me that a Black Panther movie would never be made at all for example.

At the age of 47 soon to be 48, I've seen many movie delays for less of a good or exciting reason than including Spider-man to a franchise.

 

[MakeMinesMarvel]

Spider-Man characters that are not Peter Parker are going to incorporated in these movies why does that not excite you? The possibilities are now endless.

 

[kedrell]

Anyone seen this? 'Kevin Fiege talks about the Spider-man deal'

I predict this could become big like using the Hilter footage from Downfall for various videos:

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Well first off I personally never campaigned for Spidey to come back to Marvel. I have always felt that the Fantastic Four was their missing piece. As another poster said elsewhere the Fantastic Four are "connective tissue" in the Marvel 616 universe. But I feel X-Men and Spider-Man have always been capable of existing as standalone properties.

I just want to see a great Spider-Man movie. It doesn't matter who makes it. The problem is Sony lacks vision for Spider-Man. The ASM series were creative misfires and their studio meddling has been evident since Spider-Man 3. It's clear Spider-Man was in serious trouble. Marvel wasn't going to let that happen to their number one cash cow. I'm just glad Sony had the sense to admit they needed help.

At first I didn't love the announcement. I wanted to but the whole thing about Sony retaining "final creative control" was a total buzzkill. I'll admit I'm worried about this deal but I'm warming up to it and the more I think about it - from Marvel's perspective - it makes perfect sense. Marvel doesn't need the film profits. They already make a killing in merchandising. What they *need* is Spider-Man to succeed. And getting Spider-Man into the MCU strengthens their brand significantly.

This is not a safe deal. It is full of risk. Sony is the risk. The hack revealed their utter incompetence. They could totally screw everything up for Marvel. But at this stage Marvel would be cutting its nose to spite its face to let Sony Pictures run the franchise into the ground amidst its death throes. This move may actually help save Sony Pictures. Meanwhile Marvel saves its cash cow. If Sony gets full of themselves and wants to make another ASM 2 (As has been revealed - Marvel told Sony saw the script for ASM 2 and told them it was crap but Sony didn't listen) then Marvel simply yanks the Marvel Studios fanfare. Fans will flock to see the "real" Spider-Man that is actually part of the MCU. And as long as Marvel has a strong enough agreement with Sony that prevents them from yanking the character later on and destroying the continuity of the MCU then I can't see anything wrong with this deal. (It would have been beyond stupid if Disney and Marvel left themselves vulnerable for something like that. It would be like the 90's all over again. I have to believe they are not that stupid.)

From a fan's perspective this deal is potentially full of win. With Sony and Marvel working together Marvel Studios' resources aren't stretched as thin. With Sony still in possession of Spider-Man, Marvel will be far less likely to enter the rut of featuring Spider-Man in everything they do like they have done in the comics. Marvel will want to strengthen the Spider-Man brand of course but they will simultaneously need to continue to develop and strengthen the characters they own in house. What that means is that we can expect them to continue developing film properties about more obscure characters like Guardians of the Galaxy and the Inhumans, etc. With both Spider-Man and Marvel able to play in a larger creative sandbox there's less risk of Spider-Man stories getting stale or Sony foisting stories on audiences that no one really cares about just to retain the rights. Instead we can all hope that Sony will be reinvigorated to get back to telling great Spider-Man storeis. This is all great for fans.

I'm inclined to think that Feige's involvement on the first MCU Spider-Man standalone is a "prove it" type deal. Marvel has done everything they have so far with the cast off characters no other studios wanted. This will be their first time handling one of their premier characters. It will be very telling to see how well they handle this. After films like Avengers, Winter Solder and Guardians of the Galaxy I think they have the potential to knock it out of the park. I certainly hope so. And if it's as big of a success as it should be then I would hope that Feige would continue to oversee Spider-Man's films.

The one thing I'm looking forward to the most is that this means we can finally get a Spider-Man who is actually FUNNY! That's the one thing neither Toby or Garfield have been able to nail. Honestly to me Garfield just came across as a sarcastic jerk when he donned the costume. Whereas Marvel clearly knows their comedy.

And how awesome will it be to have characters like J. Jonah Jameson and Norman Osborn in the MCU? Ben Urich can now actually work for the Daily Bugle instead of some stupid substitution like the Daily Buzz or whatever. You know Jameson is going to have a thing or two to say about the Avengers and this whole Civil War. And **AT LAST** with the Marvel cosmic elements firmly in place in this film universe we can finally get a decent explanation for Spider-Man's symbiote suit.

I think what people are worried about is the risk. But what people need to open their eyes to the possibilities. The MCU suddenly got a whole lot bigger and it now sure as hell feels a whole lot more "Marvel".

(Now if only Dr. Doom could home. Alas.)

 

[Arach Knight]

This is not a safe deal. It is full of risk. Sony is the risk. The hack revealed their utter incompetence. They could totally screw everything up for Marvel.

It isn't as if Sony has power over Marvel Studios or any films put out by Marvel Studios. This is a character sharing deal and within that sharing, there must be mutual agreement about the direction in which the stories go. It isn't as if Marvel would allow Captain America to show up in a Spider-Man film doing something contradictory to other films involving Captain America.

Even though I don't agree with your reason, I do agree with the general sentiment that the deal is not safe. Marvel recovered the rights to Punisher, Daredevil, The Hulk and Ghost Rider because the studios that held said rights were unable to effectively monetize the properties (sometimes after several attempts). Sony was digging themselves a ditch, and not just in the film world. It is common knowledge at this point that Sony has been experiencing financial trouble that is so stiff that they have publicly announced their reliance upon the Playstation brand and the Spider-Man film franchise.

It would have been wise for Marvel/Disney to allow Sony to continue to make critical missteps with the property so that an eventual sell back to Marvel would have been Sony's only profitable maneuver. Now that Marvel is helping Sony steer the character in the correct direction, that puts the full return of Spider-Man back into the category of "indefinite." The original deal that Marvel made when licensing their characters for film, were highly unfavorable to Marvel. At the time, Marvel was experiencing bankruptcy and needed cash infusions to stay afloat. Toy Biz couldn't save them, and they weren't owned by a major studio as they are today. So when they gave up those rights, they more or less allowed the licensee to keep the rights into perpetuity, so long as they continue to make films. If the films continue to make money, there is no reason for the studios to return the rights. For that reason, Marvel helping Sony was a rather dumb move.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

It isn't as if Sony has power over Marvel Studios or any films put out by Marvel Studios. This is a character sharing deal and within that sharing, there must be mutual agreement about the direction in which the stories go. It isn't as if Marvel would allow Captain America to show up in a Spider-Man film doing something contradictory to other films involving Captain America.

Even though I don't agree with your reason, I do agree with the general sentiment that the deal is not safe. Marvel recovered the rights to Punisher, Daredevil, The Hulk and Ghost Rider because the studios that held said rights were unable to effectively monetize the properties (sometimes after several attempts). Sony was digging themselves a ditch, and not just in the film world. It is common knowledge at this point that Sony has been experiencing financial trouble that is so stiff that they have publicly announced their reliance upon the Playstation brand and the Spider-Man film franchise.

It would have been wise for Marvel/Disney to allow Sony to continue to make critical missteps with the property so that an eventual sell back to Marvel would have been Sony's only profitable maneuver. Now that Marvel is helping Sony steer the character in the correct direction, that puts the full return of Spider-Man back into the category of "indefinite." The original deal that Marvel made when licensing their characters for film, were highly unfavorable to Marvel. At the time, Marvel was experiencing bankruptcy and needed cash infusions to stay afloat. Toy Biz couldn't save them, and they weren't owned by a major studio as they are today. So when they gave up those rights, they more or less allowed the licensee to keep the rights into perpetuity, so long as they continue to make films. If the films continue to make money, there is no reason for the studios to return the rights. For that reason, Marvel helping Sony was a rather dumb move.

I would agree that it was a dumb move if it wasn't for the merchandising. Whoever negotiated those merchandising rights back from Sony in exchange for full film revenue was a genius. Film revenue is peanuts by comparison. They make more money off of Spider-Man merchandise than they do off of their own Marvel films. If Marvel can control Spider-Man's creative direction, enrich their own movie universe and strengthen its overall brand they'll rake in even more money. The fact that Sony benefits from this with film revenue allowing them to continue functioning as a studio is now irrelevant. As long as Sony doesn't poison the water (and as you've brought out - that seems very unlikely), then the relationship is completely symbiotic. It would have been far, far worse if Marvel allowed Sony to bleed the character dry of all value. They struck while the iron was hot.

By contrast look at what's happening with characters like the Punisher and Ghost Rider. Nothing. And it's because they were bled dry by their previous caretakers. They need to be shelved a while. More marquee characters like Hulk and Daredevil are being rejuvenated with care. Neither are starring in their own feature films at the moment. They tried that with Hulk and it was Marvel's lowest grossing film. Marvel wants people to be hungry for these characters before they bring them to big screen again.

Spider-Man is their crown jewel. You don't let that brand become toxic. Even though the ASM films were bad they still made a lot of money. He's still immensely popular. But the window is closing. Each Spider-Man film makes less than the last. But Spider-Man has not reached rock bottom. Yet. If you're Marvel you don't let that happen. Spider-Man is the face of Marvel. You don't leave your number one character out to die.