The Amazing Spider-Man Sony Pictures bankrupt? Spidey rights back to Marvel?

[Billy the Poet]

Wait, you think Marvel Studios whose film list is extremely impressive will possibly butcher a film because of some other external factor like merchandising but Sony won't? WTF??? Sony already did it with SM3. They tried again with SM4.

The comics and movies are two completely separate entities and Marvel knows that. If your assertion was right then every single movie they have made would have sucked.

Uh, dude, I've already noted it that I do acknowledge that Sony has a goal of making profit as well, just as any other business these days. However, I was arguing about the way the character is treated in each company. If Sony prefers to make films independently focused on Peter's arc, it's a much better way than Marvel that has been exploiting the character as an addition to its other teams. You've got my point now?

 

[ModestMr.Green]

I would not look forward to a Spider-Man movie produced by Marvel Studios. I think Sony has done a fine job with the Spider-Man film series thus far, and the reboot will more than likely be just as good, if not better. MS has clearly demonstrated the direction they intend to take their films. I'd rather see Spider-Man and X-Men continue to be their own thing.

 

[grieven]

I would not look forward to a Spider-Man movie produced by Marvel Studios. I think Sony has done a fine job with the Spider-Man film series thus far, and the reboot will more than likely be just as good, if not better. MS has clearly demonstrated the direction they intend to take their films. I'd rather see Spider-Man and X-Men continue to be their own thing.

I agree. I hope Sony keeps the rights and continues to do well-crafted Spider-Man movies. Not wanting right to revert to Marvel.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing Sony's Webb/Garfield incarcation.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I think that no matter how good/bad this movie will be, Andrew Garfield will definitely be better Peter Parker than Tobey

 

[WildcatNC]

I would not look forward to a Spider-Man movie produced by Marvel Studios. I think Sony has done a fine job with the Spider-Man film series thus far, and the reboot will more than likely be just as good, if not better. MS has clearly demonstrated the direction they intend to take their films. I'd rather see Spider-Man and X-Men continue to be their own thing.

Have they?


They have made these movies leading up to Avengers but they are also developing stuff outside of that.

I think its erroneous to think that any movie they make will tie into Avengers or every hero will join the team. What they have done so far is completely logical. All these movie heroes ARE Avengers.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Have they?


They have made these movies leading up to Avengers but they are also developing stuff outside of that.

I think its erroneous to think that any movie they make will tie into Avengers or every hero will join the team. What they have done so far is completely logical. All these movie heroes ARE Avengers.

Agreed. I think marvel studios could do a truly amazing spidey franchise.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Agreed. I think marvel studios could do a truly amazing spidey franchise.

Agreed

 

[Ajendo]

I think that no matter how good/bad this movie will be, Andrew Garfield will definitely be better Peter Parker than Tobey

That goes without saying.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

That goes without saying.

Yeah... Tobey wasn't terrible at the role, but he had that boring bland facial expression almost all the time and missed the wittiness. Oh, and cried way too much. I really hope that Andrew Garfield is does none of those things

 

[Billy the Poet]

Yeah... Tobey wasn't terrible at the role, but he had that boring bland facial expression almost all the time and missed the wittiness. Oh, and cried way too much. I really hope that Andrew Garfield is does none of those things

Agreed. Tobey is indeed a good atcor, but the way Peter was written showed only one part of the character. It's as if, when examining comics as a source for adaptation, they chose to write in the scripts only certain traits of Peter, leaving others out. Then again, adapting stuff is a really difficult job to do right, even though there have already been several examples of some of the best adaptations, some of which were even superior to their sources.

 

[chaseter]

Uh, dude, I've already noted it that I do acknowledge that Sony has a goal of making profit as well, just as any other business these days. However, I was arguing about the way the character is treated in each company. If Sony prefers to make films independently focused on Peter's arc, it's a much better way than Marvel that has been exploiting the character as an addition to its other teams. You've got my point now?

Sony chooses to do that because they have no choice. They don't own any other characters outside of Spider-Man.

Marvel is still making independent hero movies and Avengers movies. Thor 2 was just announced. Iron Man 3 is happening. Cap 2 will happen. Spider-Man would still get his own movies and possibly be in team movies. What's the big worry? Marvel's track record is almost spotless. Sony, Fox, WB...not so much.

Like I said, Iron Man 2 was the only movie that went overboard with the Shield and team stuff. They saw they made a mistake and they fixed it with Thor. Thor focused on Thor. It didn't shove the team crap down our throats. I don't think Cap will either.

 

[Billy the Poet]

Sony chooses to do that because they have no choice. They don't own any other characters outside of Spider-Man.

Marvel is still making independent hero movies and Avengers movies. Thor 2 was just announced. Iron Man 3 is happening. Cap 2 will happen. Spider-Man would still get his own movies and possibly be in team movies. What's the big worry? Marvel's track record is almost spotless. Sony, Fox, WB...not so much.

So which one in the end is better: Marvel, which has a choice and does use it to turn Spider-man into a team player instead on focusing his own arc, or Sony, which lacks the choice, yet does prefer to concentrate on Spider-man as a sole character?

Take the recent IM2 and Thor as examples. IM2 dealt more SHIELD and Avengers than the characters of IM. It did involve Stark and others, but it served as nothing more than a promotional tool for Avengers. Same is basically with Thor. Even in Captain America we already have Stark Sr. in trailers. All of these films serve as an extension of Avengers and only.

Anyways, it depends on one's preference of whether he/she would like to see a superhero having his own independent film focusing on himself or a merge of different superheroes all at once without the actual and complete development.

 

[chaseter]

I am not going to keep repeating myself about Iron Man 2. Thor is no example. Stark being the manufacturer of the tech in the movie isn't going to ruin the movie. Sam Jackson showing up at the end credits doesn't mean the entire movie was a Avengers commercial.

Doctor Strange is mentioned in Spider-Man 2 about a name being already taken so that means that Doctor Strange existed in that world. That didn't make Spider-Man 2 suck.

 

[fearlessmontano]

So which one in the end is better: Marvel, which has a choice and does use it to turn Spider-man into a team player instead on focusing his own arc, or Sony, which lacks the choice, yet does prefer to concentrate on Spider-man as a sole character?

Take the recent IM2 and Thor as examples. IM2 dealt more SHIELD and Avengers than the characters of IM. It did involve Stark and others, but it served as nothing more than a promotional tool for Avengers. Same is basically with Thor. Even in Captain America we already have Stark Sr. in trailers. All of these films serve as an extension of Avengers and only.

Anyways, it depends on one's preference of whether he/she would like to see a superhero having his own independent film focusing on himself or a merge of different superheroes all at once without the actual and complete development.

they didnt use them as a promotional tool, the only thing that they have done is let us know that these characters are in the same world and that they are aware of each other. stanlee created these characters knowing that each other exist and frequently having them meet and seeing each other on poster boards but they did have their own comics. thats all that marvel studios is trying to do with their marvel movies.

be honest, you may have enjoyed the spiderman movie at the time but after you see how comic book movies can be portraid do you feel the same way. i know that the past spiderman movie sucked. peter parker was not supposed to be a geek the entire time he was supposed to grow up after high school, they did not Incorporated his intelligence when he was spiderman, he had webs coming out of his wrist instead of web fluid, marry jane was not model material, and green goblin looked like a robo cop on shrew ms, but like you and other fans we had no other choice but to try to enjoy it...but know we do have choices.

id rather have studios whos sole base is to make marvel comic movies that owned the rights to the spiderman character, rather than a studio whos only reason on continuing to make these movies is because hes there cash cow. other studios arent even trying to match the bar that marvel studios has set.

 

[Billy the Poet]

I do see your point and can't yet disagree with what I think of Marvel's direction for its superheroes. They've just hired a FF2 writer to work on Thor 2, which means quite a lot. I can't wait to read about what they're preparing for Spider-man the day it goesback to them

I still remember Fiege having trouble with Norton regarding the vision of TIH. The former wanted Hulk to appeal to kids for the sake of profit, whereas Norton was seeking creative and faithful approach to Hulk as a character and not just a product.

Tell me the reason why Favreau had control over his first IM, which turned out to be one of the better superhero films of the last decade, and then left it after the sequel, which was heavily influenced by Marvel's executives?

Moreover, take George Lucas as the best example of what may happen when the original creator gets too involved in re-creation of its work.

Sony is also commercial-minded. It's just I prefer their approach over Marvel's and that's my opinion. I am pretty tired of re-stating it over and over in the debate, which has little sense as neither Sony has gone broke yet nor Marvel convinced me in their intentions.

 

[chaseter]

Once again, you are giving examples of studio meddling when you have to look no further than SM3 and SM4. We don't even know what they did to this movie yet. So right now Sony is batting 2 for 4 for Spider-Man. That's not a very good average. Marvel right now is batting 3 for 4 and with early reviews coming out that Cap is fantastic, probably 4 for 5.

 

[WildcatNC]

Once again, you are giving examples of studio meddling when you have to look no further than SM3 and SM4. We don't even know what they did to this movie yet. So right now Sony is batting 2 for 4 for Spider-Man. That's not a very good average. Marvel right now is batting 3 for 4 and with early reviews coming out that Cap is fantastic, probably 4 for 5.

I would honestly say 5 for 5. We are acting like Iron Man II sucked just because it was the weakest of the bunch. It was still an awesome comic book movie, it just had a few more flaws.


I actually applaud Marvel for having the steel balls to dive right into an Avengers movie. Its never been done. The whole MCU? Never been done. It seems genius now but it was a HUGE risk when they decided to do it. They caught lightening in a bottle with IM and had no guarantees about the other movies in the line.

In a way they HAD to do some setup for each character in whatever solo movies came directly before Avengers. They had hints in TIH but after the financial success of IM, really decided to go all in for IM II and went a little overboard (not as much as many say imo though). They realized it and corrected it. From the scene after TIH they had Tony set up to take a point role in getting the team together so it even makes sense that he would be more tied up in the Shield stuff sooner.

They are breaking new ground and working it out as they go though. There will be mistakes made. I'm actually surprised they've done as well as they have so far.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I think some of the people who hate the Marvel Studios Universe aren't marvel fans in general, which is quite sad. MArvel Studios is very sucessful and they very well deserve it.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Plus, Marvel has shown interest in working on street heroes after Avengers. They've mentioned that they wanted to do Luke Cage, Iron Fist & Punisher so far, I think Spidey would fit in well there especially if Marvel somehow got the DD rights back too.

 

[Billy the Poet]

I think some of the people who hate the Marvel Studios Universe aren't marvel fans in general, which is quite sad. MArvel Studios is very sucessful and they very well deserve it.

I have no hate for them at all. I value Marvel for it has been doing for more than half of a century. Yet, it doesn't mean the current management of Marvel Studios has really accomplished anything extraordinary for the years, especially in terms of its movies. They're too business-minded to be actually about the further development of each of their superheroes nowadays.

 

[akfj]

Once again, you are giving examples of studio meddling when you have to look no further than SM3 and SM4. We don't even know what they did to this movie yet. So right now Sony is batting 2 for 4 for Spider-Man.

Correction - 2 for 3. The Amazing Spider-Man hasn't been released yet and no one has seen it, as far as I know.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I have no hate for them at all. I value Marvel for it has been doing for more than half of a century. Yet, it doesn't mean the current management of Marvel Studios has really accomplished anything extraordinary for the years, especially in terms of its movies. They're too business-minded to be actually about the further development of each of their superheroes nowadays.

What about IM, TIH, and Thor? People make it sound like these films have been cetnered on only the Avengers, which isn't true. only IM 2 was.

 

[Billy the Poet]

What about IM, TIH, and Thor? People make it sound like these films have been cetnered on only the Avengers, which isn't true. only IM 2 was.

None of these impressed me at all and I've already explained why. Besides, all of them were used to promote the Avengers to a relative degree. Besides, I also disregard the way Marvel has been treating its creative talents so far, making Favreau, Howard, Norton and Branagh leave.

I'm not going to force myself to like Marvel movie just becuase it's labeled under Marvel's logo. I want to watch a quality film instead. And if it means that I am not a "true" fan, I do not care.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

None of these impressed me at all and I've already explained why. Besides, all of them were used to promote the Avengers to a relative degree.

Care to explain?

 

[Billy the Poet]

Care to explain?

TIH: cameo of Nick Fury, presence of SHIELD, reference to IM, Captain America scene
IM2: Nick Fury, SHIELD, Thor connection through a crater in Mexico
Thor: SHIELD, Hawkeye

It seems like Marvel spends more time on setting up one film than fully exploring each and every character of its universe.

Needless to say that all the stories are closely linked to the developing plot of the Avengers. I also remember reading Lokki becoming involved in the movie.

It's midnight in my city, so I am off to sleep.