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

[Arach Knight]

I particularly resent that you accused me of this despite literally quoting the sentence where I made it clear that I was NOT accusing you of this type of thinking.Look, everyone here knows that Miles is also Spider-Man, but Peter Parker is the definitive Spider-Man, and it would take decades for Miles to match his current prominence.

I owe you an apology. Not only had I failed to thoroughly read your previous post, but had I done so, I would have realized that I quoted a segment that exonerated you from my claim. I was mistaken and apologize.

As for Miles, I never said he was more popular than Peter. Simple math and a review of the monthly diamond charts is evidence of that. I even conceded (many times) that Peter Parker is the classic and better known. My issue was never popularity or that Miles should get the MCU role. My point has always been that Miles is a valid version of the Spider-Man character and that his fans have valid reason to consider him Spider-Man. Lord knows I would be annoyed if Barry Allen fans tried to tell me that my favorite Flash (Wally West) doesn't count just because Barry is more popular.

 

[Arach Knight]

Is this crap really necessary?

Everyone else in this thread was talking about Miles as a creative option that would keep Spider-Man in high school without having to retread a third film about Peter Parker at Mid-Town.

When three different posters come in and bring up how Miles is about political correctness, the casting of Michael B. Jordan (irrelvant to this thread) and how Lucius Fox would never be made White, then you use the appropriate term to describe such people.

Race baiter: "One who insinuates that racism or bigotry is a dominant factor with regards to an event that either does not involve race or in which diverse cultures are involved are simply a minor element."

This was an interesting discussion about Spider-Man joining the MCU. All it took was one person bringing up how they'd find Miles a more interesting choice and a slew of posters pop up to complain about racial changes to comicbook characters.

 

[Daedalus]

While it is true that they also make non-white characters white in adaptations, Ra`s is an entirely different matter. Nolan`s "Ra`s Al Ghul" was a title held by Henri Ducard. Ducard was white and caucasian in the comics, and was interpreted as such in the movies. His daughter, Talia, was also changed to caucasian due to her heritage.

If there is something to complain ethnicity-wise about Batman Begins` Ra`s is that his League of Shadows was based on Tibet instead of the Middle East.

As far as the "minuscule readership" of GOTG, Marvel changed the property drastically when adapting it to the big screen, and seems to continue to do so in the sequel (dropping J`Son and his Spartax Empire altogether in favor of a new father to Peter Quill). We should not presume they were concerned with the minuscule readership`s response.

All that being said, I never considered Spider-Man a potential legacy character (even when other people, such as Miles or Otto, took over). Batman is a legacy character: it is about the symbolism of the hood and its relationship to Gotham and Gotham citizens. Spider-Man, on the hand, has been about the life of Peter Parker. The difference can even be seen on the character`s development: Peter has aged over a decade and been through several different phases of his life, while Bruce remained largely the same.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Race baiter: "One who insinuates that racism or bigotry is a dominant factor with regards to an event that either does not involve race or in which diverse cultures are involved are simply a minor element."

I know what it means, thanks. I'm not five years old.

This was an interesting discussion about Spider-Man joining the MCU. All it took was one person bringing up how they'd find Miles a more interesting choice and a slew of posters pop up to complain about racial changes to comicbook characters.

And you've done your part by perpetuating the argument. How about trying to steer the conversation back to topic instead of furthering the irrelevant off topic nonsense?

 

[Arach Knight]

While it is true that they also make non-white characters white in adaptations, Ra`s is an entirely different matter. Nolan`s "Ra`s Al Ghul" was a title held by Henri Ducard. Ducard was white and caucasian in the comics, and was interpreted as such in the movies. His daughter, Talia, was also changed to caucasian due to her heritage.

From a writing perspective, I realize the decision makes sense. Ducard is a fairly obscure 80s character and therefore isn't as recognizable as R'as whom had a push throughout the 90s thanks to Batman TAS. They kept most of Ducard's characterization and slapped R'as Al Ghul's backstory and motivations on top of him. It was an interesting choice, but the result is still the same: a non-White character was portrayed as White. It is no different than the situation with the Mandarin, another minority character that was replaced with a White lead actor.

 

[Arach Knight]

I know what it means, thanks. I'm not five years old

And you've done your part by perpetuating the argument. How about trying to steer the conversation back to topic instead of furthering the irrelevant off topic nonsense?

1) Your sarcasm is fruitless. Offering clarification for a discussion is not an attempt to condescend. So I don't know what you accomplish by being hostile to someone who is being neutral toward you.

2) I have a right to defend myself from other posters that are ascribing blame to me for arguments I never made. Granted, by offering a rebuttal, I am indeed enabling these people to continue. So you do have a point.

 

[Daedalus]

From a writing perspective, I realize the decision makes sense. Ducard is a fairly obscure 80s character and therefore isn't as recognizable as R'as whom had a push throughout the 90s thanks to Batman TAS. They kept most of Ducard's characterization and slapped R'as Al Ghul's backstory and motivations on top of him. It was an interesting choice, but the result is still the same: a non-White character was portrayed as White. It is no different than the situation with the Mandarin, another minority character that was replaced with a White lead actor.

My point was that there was no Ra`s Al Ghul (the character) in Batman Begins. "Ra`s Al Ghul" was merely a title that Henri Ducard held. You yourself said they kept most of Ducard`s traits. Henri Ducard was White and was portrayed by a White actor.

In Mandarin`s case, Sir Ben Kingsley isn`t White, but he isn`t Chinese either, so they did change his ethnicity (although he really wasn`t the Mandarin). Same with Ken Watanabe`s "Ra`s" in Begins. Watanabe is not White, but he isn`t Arab either. Then again, like Kingsley, he was merely a proxy for the true villain.

Then again, as I said in my previous post, there are a lot of other examples that fit your argument (Goku was a good one). I just don`t think these are applicable.

 

[Kelly]

I responded specifically to Grabe30 about his grievance with people "always" bringing up Miles and how Miles isn't *THE* Spider-Man. I then stated that Miles is Spider-Man in the Ultimate universe, to which Grabe30 modified his objection, asserting that the "Ultimate universe is stupid." His or her response may have been juvenile, but I can't fault then for disliking a comic universe. So I left it alone. Then Flint started arguing with me about "definitive Spider-Man", then Shikamaru chimed in with racebaiting, complaining about how people just want a Black Peter Parker. Shikamaru then accused me of wanting an MCU Miles Morales because I secretly wanted a Black Peter Parker (I never said this). To Shikamaru's credit, they did say they would be okay with a Black Peter Parker, but they still complained about perceiced political correctness.

Then, you throw in your two cents about how Lucius Fox would never be rewritten as White and how "only" White characters get rewritten in comicbook movies (which is false).

So at what point am I picking fights when it is you and several other posters responding to me, lying on me, and insitigating arguments with racebrating?

Chill, you are discussing comics and a movie, not world politics.

 

[Arach Knight]

Chill, you are discussing comics and a movie, not world politics.

Why am I being singled out when I am the one being harassed? Also, several other posters came in complaining about minority recasts of characters and political correctness. I did not instigate the discussion. I am amiable to dropping the on-going argument, but it would be equitable to at least address all involced instead of singling me out.

 

[samsnee]

Anyway, yeah I wish they had saved the Spider-man standalone for phase 3.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Anyway, yeah I wish they had saved the Spider-man standalone for phase 3.

do you mean phase 4?

 

[samsnee]

Yeah phase 4. After Infinity War.

 

[Arach Knight]

Yeah phase 4. After Infinity War.

Spider-Man was part of that story. You wouldn't consider phase 4 a little late in the game?

 

[MadVillainy]

Spider-Man was part of that story. You wouldn't consider phase 4 a little late in the game?

That doesnt matter.

 

[Spiderine]

Anyway, yeah I wish they had saved the Spider-man standalone for phase 3.

Sony doesn't want to wait for phase 4 to release a Spidey film. They want it ASAP. Phase 4 is in 2019.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Sony doesn't want to wait for phase 4 to release a Spidey film. They want it ASAP. Phase 4 is in 2019.

who else wants to wait an even prolonged period of time for another spiderman movie?

I want it asap too.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Sony doesn't want to wait for phase 4 to release a Spidey film. They want it ASAP. Phase 4 is in 2019.

While Marvel is likely to have significant creative say, the solo films still belong to Sony. Sony isn't Marvel. They don't have a whole legion of other superhero films they can make. They need these films coming out on a regular basis, and they are unlikely to be very flexible on that. Marvel's influence on the release dates is probably limited to negotiating one in which it doesn't conflict with their own films.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

While Marvel is likely to have significant creative say, the solo films still belong to Sony. Sony isn't Marvel. They don't have a whole legion of other superhero films they can make. They need these films coming out on a regular basis, and they are unlikely to be very flexible on that. Marvel's influence on the release dates is probably limited to negotiating one in which it doesn't conflict with their own films.

this is true, but I don't think they'll have trouble with that. unless marvel starts releasing 3 films every year instead of 2. asm2 last year didn't conflict with any other superhero film if I recall

 

[OcStat]

Well, if you think bout Cap the month before setting the bar as high as it did, and X-Men coming out not soon after...regardless of ASM2's quality, I think it could be claimed that being sandwiched between two other very huge films did affect Spider-Man's domestic gross. Not that I'm Mr. BoxOfficeMojo or anything...

Actually it happened with the first one too. The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.

But Marvel has spaced their films out pretty evenly, and now those MCU movies aren't exactly competition.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

this is true, but I don't think they'll have trouble with that. unless marvel starts releasing 3 films every year instead of 2. asm2 last year didn't conflict with any other superhero film if I recall

The new film conflicted with Ragnarok, which is why it and the subsequent films (other than Infinity War) have been pushed back. Marvel was parting the sea for Sony. Marvel wouldn't move their films for no reason, since they don't get any profit directly from the Spider-Man solo. It had to have been a part of the agreement they reached.

Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel are probably set barring production difficulties, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Inhumans gets bumped to November 2019 to make way for the Spider-Man sequel.

Marvel is set to release three films in 2018, so it was the plan before the deal to release three a year. That was supposed to start in 2017, but the Spider-Man deal changed things.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The new film conflicted with Ragnarok, which is why it and the subsequent films (other than Infinity War) have been pushed back. Marvel was parting the sea for Sony. Marvel wouldn't move their films for no reason, since they don't get any profit directly from the Spider-Man solo. It had to have been a part of the agreement they reached.

Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel are probably set barring production difficulties, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Inhumans gets bumped to November 2019 to make way for the Spider-Man sequel.

Marvel is set to release three films in 2018, so it was the plan before the deal to release three a year. That was supposed to start in 2017, but the Spider-Man deal changed things.

if this is the beginning of a very long partnership between the two conglomerates, they probably will be in close contact with ever subsequent solo spidey film in terms of the film itself and its release dates in consideration with disney's planned marvel film release dates.

 

[PyroChamber]

I just hope this whole deal doesn't take too much attention away from everything else they have in the works like Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange, etc.

Because I mentioned in another thread that this may have made people completely forget about Ant-Man.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

forget what?

 

[Fincher]

Ant-Man sure is a funny way of spelling Spider-Man.

 

[OcStat]

Today's culture moves at a ridiculously fast pace. The announcement was this week, the movie is years away. Ant-Man will be here in a few months. Soon as it has another headline somewhere it will pop on people's radars again. Everything marketing wise nowadays seems to be a flash in the virtual pan, fighting for that 15 seconds of attention until whatever product it is can speak for itself.