Making Spider-Woman work in the MCU

[tvor03]

I agree with those who say that you can't call her SpiderWoman. I know very little about the character, and I thought at first she had a connection to SpiderMan as well. And I learn about comic characters, most of general public doesn't.

I like the concept design that Artesean came up with. Perhaps the wings don't need to be a permanent thing. Maybe there's a scene where she needs to do a HALO drop and she uses one of those glider suits. That will allude to her traditional costume, while making it more believable. Or perhaps this is always a part of her suit, but she only deploys it when necessary. I also think it would be cool if she was a chemical weapons specialist, using different non-lethal gases and toxins in her weaponary.

Of course denying her all her traditional powers would piss off a lot of diehard comic fanboys, but I don't like them anyways so I don't care.

 

[Shikamaru]

Something like that is needed in order to stay true to the character without there being any ripoff accusations from the average moviegoers.

 

[InternetPeople]

Or you just avoid the problem all together and don't call her Spider Woman. You're causing yourself unnecessary problems by using that name. Avoid the problem and life will be easier.

 

[Shikamaru]

I said doing something like that is needed in order so that you can stay true to all iconic and important aspects of the character (name included) without risking being accused of ripping off Spider-Man. Why shouldn't she be called Spider-Woman?

 

[Destructus86]

No, I agree. Calling her Spider-Woman is just asking for confusion. Then no matter how you advertise the movie the general audience is going to think this is a spiderman spin off film.

I think they can keep the wings, but the suit will need to change. Keep the colors but make it look more high-tech, they can say Hyrda gave the suit to her as one of their operatives before she splits from them.

 

[Mr. Dent]

You're going on the assumption that she'd have her own film, which she most likely will not. Introducing her in an Avengers or Cap film and having her codename be Spider-Woman while calling her Jess most of the time would work perfectly fine.

 

[Destructus86]

You're going on the assumption that she'd have her own film, which she most likely will not. Introducing her in an Avengers or Cap film and having her codename be Spider-Woman while calling her Jess most of the time would work perfectly fine.

It's still confusing. Instantly, you will have the GA think this is somehow apart of the Spider-Man universe because obviously her name is Spider-Woman so it must mean she's like Peter Parkers sister.

 

[InternetPeople]

Why open yourself to the confusion? Just don't do it.

And even acknowledging Spiderman exists in the MCU with a line that he and Spiderwoman are not connected is an acknowledgement that Spiderman exists in the MCU which Marvel shouldn't do for financial and property reasons.

Or go the easy route by not call her Spiderwoman and avoid all of the self-created problems.

 

[Shikamaru]

Even if you don't call her Spider-Woman, she still has some powers similar to Spider-Man's. A superhero character with spider powers in a Marvel film would still remind the general audience of Spider-Man.

Actually, a Spider-Man easter egg in the MCU would not cause any big problems and would not be that shocking either. We know that Sony and Marvel are willing to work together and don't mind having easter eggs of each other's properties in their films - the Oscorp tower that was going to appear in The Avengers, the ESU shirt in Item 47 (ESU is a Spider-Man property so it is owned by Sony), Sony's Oscorp logo from The Amazing Spider-Man being in the Iron Man 3 game, etc. A small reference to Spider-Man causing problems for Marvel because the film rights belong to Sony should no longer an issue at this point.

 

[Mr. Dent]

It really will not "confuse" people. People are not ****ing stupid. Just because her codename is Spider-Woman is not going to give people a brain fart.

 

[InternetPeople]

Even if you don't call her Spider-Woman, she still has some powers similar to Spider-Man's. A superhero character with spider powers in a Marvel film would still remind the general audience of Spider-Man.

Actually, a Spider-Man easter egg in the MCU would not cause any big problems and would not be that shocking either. We know that Sony and Marvel are willing to work together and don't mind having easter eggs of each other's properties in their films - the Oscorp tower that was going to appear in The Avengers, the ESU shirt in Item 47 (ESU is a Spider-Man property so it is owned by Sony), Sony's Oscorp logo from The Amazing Spider-Man being in the Iron Man 3 game, etc. A small reference to Spider-Man causing problems for Marvel because the film rights belong to Sony should no longer an issue at this point.

None of those things are direct references to Spiderman. They reference the world but not him. Calling someone Spiderman acknowledges his existence in the world. That's not good for Marvel because they cannot use Spiderman the way they want to. Marvel would in fact be giving Sony a piece of the MCU for free. That's bad.

 

[Shikamaru]

It really will not "confuse" people. People are not ****ing stupid. Just because her codename is Spider-Woman is not going to give people a brain fart.

I didn't say it would confuse people. Just that people would label her as a Spider-Man knockoff/ripoff.

None of those things are direct references to Spiderman. They reference the world but not him. Calling someone Spiderman acknowledges his existence in the world. That's not good for Marvel because they cannot use Spiderman the way they want to. Marvel would in fact be giving Sony a piece of the MCU for free. That's bad.

If Marvel can show things from the Spider-Man mythos in their films, I don't see how referencing him, even if not by his direct name, would somehow cause problems between them and Sony. On top of that, such reference wouldn't even allude to Sony's Spider-Man existing in the MCU, just a Spider-Man existing in the MCU.

 

[InternetPeople]

If Marvel can show things from the Spider-Man mythos in their films, I don't see how referencing him, even if not by his direct name, would somehow cause problems between them and Sony. On top of that, such reference wouldn't even allude to Sony's Spider-Man existing in the MCU, just a Spider-Man existing in the MCU.

Who exactly are you referencing if you are not talking about the Spiderman?

 

[Shikamaru]

It is referencing the Spider-Man. But there would be nothing in that reference to suggest that it is the Spider-Man from Sony's current franchise or a new version of Peter Parker/Spider-Man that exists within the MCU.

 

[Mr. Dent]

I didn't say it would confuse people. Just that people would label her as a Spider-Man knockoff/ripoff.

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[InternetPeople]

It really will not "confuse" people. People are not ****ing stupid. Just because her codename is Spider-Woman is not going to give people a brain fart.

You don't have to be stupid to be mislead by a name. I am not a comic book reader and I was confused when I first heard the name.

 

[InternetPeople]

It is referencing the Spider-Man. But there would be nothing in that reference to suggest that it is the Spider-Man from Sony's current franchise or a new version of Peter Parker/Spider-Man that exists within the MCU.

There is only one Spiderman. Creating another Spiderman that is not the Spiderman is not only against the contract agreement between Marvel and Sony but absolutely would be confusing.

The funniest part about this thread is that we aren't even talking about the viability of the character but rather the potential confusion of the name and it's perceived connection to another character.

What's in a comic book hero's name? Everything.

 

[Artistsean]

Spider-Woman isn't like Batgirl or She-Hulk, or Supergirl, or something. She is her own character who has a similar costume and name. Things that would be altered for the movie, because besides some similatiries she isn't all that similar. She can't shoot webbing, has no spider-sense. She does have super strength but so does Thor and Captain America, and she does have wall crawling powers (which might have to be altered), she also has some pheromone powers, and she also has electric bolts she shoots out. Something Black Widow had in the movie so maybe her powers become more down to earth SHIELD/Hydra weapons like that rather than her having actual powers.

Or maybe they just take away her wall crawling powers. Leaving her with a genetically altered superhuman with increased strength and pheromones. Maybe stingers are same weapon as Black Widows, and her climbing walls is more like a trained parkour skill and less like Spider-Man.

Her costume would also be altered like I showed above, making her look more in line with Black Widow, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, Maria Hill, and other SHIELD/Hydra agents.
Her name like Hawkeye would hardly be used and would be more like a code name than a superhero name. Which is why I suggested Arachnia, an alias, but mostly she would just be called Agent Jessica Drew.

And I still love the concept of her being the next stage in SHIELD/Hydra espionage, using super humans instead of making them Avengers or using human assassins like Black Widow or Hawkeye.
Without changing much they could get Agent Drew to the point where she isn't too similar to Spider-Man and they wouldn't have to reference him at all. But without changing her they would have to reference him to point out that she isn't him or his sidekick. Like the Avengers did when Luke Cage asked about her name and Spider-Man's name. She said something like he didn't own the trademark or he said something like he gave her permission to use it. But I don't see it being a huge problem for them to get passed to make the movie.


Also her glider wings could be a SHIELD invention, Fury used one in a Marvel comic recently. And they make them in real life. And Flacon will use a similar idea in Captain America 2, so maybe they could use some similar idea for her:

Just less occupying her whole body. More like the wings under her arms.

 

[Shikamaru]

Oh no. There is no doubt that the general audience would think of Sony's Spider-Man if they think of that reference, and I do want them to use Sony's Spider-Man if they plan to use Spidey in Avengers at all, but what I am saying is that a reference like that would by no means automatically hurt Marvel or Sony.

 

[InternetPeople]

It would hurt Marvel because they are giving away the property of Spiderman in the MCU. I can't believe Marvel would simply give away Spiderman's role in the MCU. Any mention of Spiderman is an acknowledgment of his existence. It's not worth it to Marvel to mention him unless there is something in the works between the two studios, which would involve Sony paying Marvel for that piece of the pie, which I have serious doubts about.

Acknowledging Spiderman in the MCU does not help Marvel in any way. Calling her Spiderwoman and giving her some forgettable lines about how she isn't associated with Spiderman will bog down a film in things it shouldn't have to deal with. Spiderwoman does not have to have a connection to Spiderman for the audience to associate the two. The name makes that connection very easily. Avoid the issue, call her Arachnia and be done with it.

With that said, I like the character that Artistsean has created. Pheromones, strength, stingers and athleticism works well for a spy. I think these abilities are almost too similar to Black Widow, unfortunately. The double agent stuff could, however, set her apart from Widow. Not like my opinion matters much, but I like the concept.

(Note: Any confusion about the characters name would detract from the character and film, unless the film was about this character. A side character should not need some elaborate story to explain something that shouldn't even be an issue in the first place.)

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

There are several characters I wouldn't mind Marvel/Disney sidestepping for the MCU including:

Spider-Woman
Hercules
She-Hulk
Scarlet Witch/Quicksilver
Tigra
Red Hulk

That's not to say I'm entirely opposed if they wanted to make a solid effort at adapting them... I just hope they focus on a few more obviously integral ones and do those well:

Black Panther
Doctor Strange
Ms Marvel
Vision
Namor
Luke Cage

 

[KangConquers]

There are several characters I wouldn't mind Marvel/Disney sidestepping for the MCU including:

Spider-Woman
Hercules
She-Hulk
Scarlet Witch/Quicksilver
Tigra
Red Hulk

That's not to say I'm entirely opposed if they wanted to make a solid effort at adapting them... I just hope they focus on a few more obviously integral ones and do those well:

Black Panther
Doctor Strange
Ms Marvel
Vision
Namor
Luke Cage

How are Ms. Marvel and Luke Cage more integral than the Scarlet Witch? Scarlet Witch has been a major player in the Marvel Universe for 40 years. Ms. Marvel and Luke Cage were only made relevant in the last decade.


Other than that, I agree with you.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

How are Ms. Marvel and Luke Cage more integral than the Scarlet Witch? Scarlet Witch has been a major player in the Marvel Universe for 40 years. Ms. Marvel and Luke Cage were only made relevant in the last decade.


Other than that, I agree with you.

Sorta knew I'd get some hate for that. /sigh. don't really want to get into not liking the character so I'll just say its a personal opinion.

integral may have been the wrong choice of words.

 

[Shikamaru]

It would hurt Marvel because they are giving away the property of Spiderman in the MCU. I can't believe Marvel would simply give away Spiderman's role in the MCU. Any mention of Spiderman is an acknowledgment of his existence. It's not worth it to Marvel to mention him unless there is something in the works between the two studios, which would involve Sony paying Marvel for that piece of the pie, which I have serious doubts about.

Acknowledging Spiderman in the MCU does not help Marvel in any way. Calling her Spiderwoman and giving her some forgettable lines about how she isn't associated with Spiderman will bog down a film in things it shouldn't have to deal with. Spiderwoman does not have to have a connection to Spiderman for the audience to associate the two. The name makes that connection very easily. Avoid the issue, call her Arachnia and be done with it.

With that said, I like the character that Artistsean has created. Pheromones, strength, stingers and athleticism works well for a spy. I think these abilities are almost too similar to Black Widow, unfortunately. The double agent stuff could, however, set her apart from Widow. Not like my opinion matters much, but I like the concept.

(Note: Any confusion about the characters name would detract from the character and film, unless the film was about this character. A side character should not need some elaborate story to explain something that shouldn't even be an issue in the first place.)

It looks like that is becoming more and more likely each day. Both Marvel and Sony don't seem to have a problem with working together.

 

[InternetPeople]

That's proven by what? Has something happened? I'm not trying to be combative but until something happens, nothing has happened.