Age of Ultron Spiderman in the Avengers "world"?

[Iceman]

Why would Marvel want to pay a fee for a character whom some of their audience already goes to see? It's not like Spidey outdraws The Avengers! If it did than you might have an argument.

Does it depend on the size of the fee maybe? And don't these same guys go to see solo Thor, Cap, Hulk & Iron Man films? Would these heroes be worth paying a fair fee for to license if they belonged to Fox instead, but not the more popular Spidey?

You're able to tell from the YouTube comments section who is a member of the GA and who isn't? That's quite the talent.

No but those are the closest indications available on the internet as youtube itself is not primarily a geek site. Do you ever have conversations with non geeks about superhero films? Try. Ask them what they think of Spider-man being in an Avengers film. You know the average guy on the street would love it.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Does it depend on the size of the fee maybe? And don't these same guys go to see solo Thor, Cap, Hulk & Iron Man films? Would these heroes be worth paying a fair fee for to license if they belonged to Fox instead, but not the more popular Spidey?

You're still dodging the question. Why would Marvel want to pay any fee for a character from any studio that does not outdraw The Avengers franchise and doesn't bring people outside of their shared demographic into the fold?

If Cap, Thor, Hulk, or Iron Man were a single franchise at Sony we would still be talking the same thing. Alas they are not. They are all at Disney/Marvel and they're proven money-makers, particularly when they're together in a feature film. The business plan worked.

No but those are the closest indications available on the internet as youtube itself is not primarily a geek site. Do you ever have conversations with non geeks about superhero films? Try. Ask them what they think of Spider-man being in an Avengers film. You knows the average guy on the street would love it.

You keep saying that but it's purely self-serving anecdotal argumentation. Please enlighten me the sample size you're indirectly suggesting you've spoken with. You've also not demonstrated how you're able to tell the difference between non-GA and GA comments other than calling YouTube a non-Geek site. While it's not, it's where most of the comic movie videos are posted to, which are then cross posted to sites like this and CBM.

 

[Iceman]

You're still dodging the question. Why would Marvel want to pay any fee for a character from any studio that does not outdraw The Avengers franchise and doesn't bring people outside of their shared demographic into the fold?

Have you seen many making of featurettes for films? There are many "cool" things that go unnoticed to many viewers that cost a bit of money. What are the point of those exactly? What is the point of any easter eggs if they cost money and don't directly contribute to the box office gross? If the fee to get Spidey for a cameo is too much then don't do it (as with anything that costs too much). (please never forget I said this)

If it's affordable, do it because it's cool and it rewards the audience. The film industry does allow these kind of luxuries. Seriously watch the Game of Thrones, LOTR or Star Wars featurettes and you'll see how much cool stuff that costs money and doesn't yield any direct return is included. Rewarding fans like this keeps them happy and creates long term loyalty.

If Cap, Thor, Hulk, or Iron Man were a single franchise at Sony we would still be talking the same thing. Alas they are not. They are all at Disney/Marvel and they're proven money-makers, particularly when they're together in a feature film. The business plan worked.

So if Thor was with Sony you would say the same thing, that it wouldn't be worth Marvel trying to get him? (just looking to clarify not having a dig)

You keep saying that but it's purely self-serving anecdotal argumentation. Please enlighten me the sample size you're indirectly suggesting you've spoken with. You've also not demonstrated how you're able to tell the difference between non-GA and GA comments other than calling YouTube a non-Geek site. While it's not, it's where most of the comic movie videos are posted to, which are then cross posted to sites like this and CBM.

Lol, we can discount youtube or any other source if it stops you getting flustered dude. I'm trying to help you out here.

I can understand people who are long time Avengers fans not wanting Spider-man distracting from a history of important characters, many of whom haven't even been introduced yet..Ant Man, Wasp for eg. But anyone who tells me they think most regular cinemagoers who don't read comics wouldn't say 'oh cool' or something along those lines when they see Spidey on screen in the Avengers, well I don't believe they really think that. I certainly don't believe you really think that, beyond wanting to argue about it.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Have you seen many making of featurettes for films? There are many "cool" things that go unnoticed to many viewers that cost a bit of money. What are the point of those exactly? What is the point of any easter eggs if they cost money and don't directly contribute to the box office gross? If the fee to get Spidey for a cameo is too much then don't do it (as with anything that costs too much). (please never forget I said this)

Easter eggs vs. full blown roles featuring characters of other studio tentpoles .... you really going to compare those two? You going to tell me the cost of putting Oscorp Tower into the background for a split second would be the same as Andrew Garfield's Spiderman having a major role in the film? Clearly you're unable to make the distinctions.

If it's affordable, do it because it's cool and it rewards the audience. The film industry does allow these kind of luxuries. Seriously watch the Game of Thrones, LOTR or Star Wars featurettes and you'll see how much cool stuff that costs money and doesn't yield any direct return is included. Rewarding fans like this keeps them happy and creates long term loyalty.

No, you're talking about rewarding fanboys .... that's the only distinction that needs to be made. You keep throwing all of these awful non-translatable examples to this Spidey in Avengers topic. We're not talking about throw-ins. We're talking about Sony's biggest franchise who will come with a price tag and yet at the same time he doesn't even draw more The Avengers and shares a large % of the same demographic. Judging by the Box Office fans appear to be quite happy and loyal as it is.

BTW, if the cost is so cheap and adds long term value to the fans, why didn't Kevin Feige allow Oscorp Tower in The Avengers? After all, it was on the table at one point.

So if Thor was with Sony you would say the same thing, that it wouldn't be worth Marvel trying to get him? (just looking to clarify not having a dig)

My stance would be the exact same.

Lol, we can discount youtube or any other source if it stops you getting flustered dude. I'm trying to help you out here.

OK so as I thought, you are unable to provide me with your magical ways of differentiating between who's a GA or Non-GA commenter on Youtube videos about comic book movies. Got it.

I can understand people who are long time Avengers fans not wanting Spider-man distracting from a history of important characters, many of whom haven't even been introduced yet..Ant Man, Wasp for eg. But anyone who tells me they think most regular cinemagoers who don't read comics wouldn't say 'oh cool' or something along those lines when they see Spidey on screen in the Avengers, well I don't believe they really think that. I certainly don't believe you really think that, beyond wanting to argue about it.

And I certainly don't think you speak for this rumored contingent of non-GA audience members you claim to represent.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Exactly.

Heck, the MCU's expansion to the street-level characters is only more of a reason why Spidey not being there makes the universe feel "empty". Spidey may not be a team player, but he's had a lot of team-ups and has built some strong friendships with the likes of, for example, Daredevil. And with Kingpin presumably showing up in Daredevil, they've also crossed into Spider-Man territory.

So you're saying the MCU feels empty because Spidey isn't there? So I guess all of the world-building and characters that Marvel has introduced thus far in the MCU mean nothing as long as Spider-Man isn't there. It all feels empty regardless, due to his absence.

I get that you are a big Spidey fan, but you aren't giving the MCU the props it deserves just because he isn't there. Makes no sense.

 

[Doc Ock]

I'd love to have Spider-Man in the MCU, even as a simple cameo. I don't care about having him as a member of the Avengers, just want to see him there for at least a minute.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I'd really love it too, but I'm not going to say the universe feels empty just because he isn't there.

We got close when they almost put the Oscorp building in The Avengers, but it didn't happen. Both studios were willing to do it, though. I think that is what counts.

 

[Doc Ock]

I'd really love it too, but I'm not going to say the universe feels empty just because he isn't there.

We got close when they almost put the Oscorp building in The Avengers, but it didn't happen. Both studios were willing to do it, though. I think that is what counts.

Yeah, Sony and Marvel seem to have a good relationship. Or I see it that way, I couldn't see Fox be willing to try any of that stuff.

 

[Iceman]

Easter eggs vs. full blown roles featuring characters of other studio tentpoles .... you really going to compare those two? You going to tell me the cost of putting Oscorp Tower into the background for a split second would be the same as Andrew Garfield's Spiderman having a major role in the film? Clearly you're unable to make the distinctions.

Have you been reading any of my posts? How many times have I said cameo and that I don't want a larger role and that I certainly don't want Spidey or Wolverine joining the team? Go and count just in the last few posts I've made in this and in the main Avengers thread. Either you're dense or you're not reading my posts but I'll say it again CAMEO, not extended role, NOT joining the team!

No, you're talking about rewarding fanboys .... that's the only distinction that needs to be made. You keep throwing all of these awful non-translatable examples to this Spidey in Avengers topic. We're not talking about throw-ins. We're talking about Sony's biggest franchise who will come with a price tag and yet at the same time he doesn't even draw more The Avengers and shares a large % of the same demographic. Judging by the Box Office fans appear to be quite happy and loyal as it is.

Rewarding fanboys yes (at the cost of offending others it seems). Rewarding regular GA members also though even if not to the same extent. Schoolyards, common rooms and offices will have people talking about it the day after, no matter how brief it is. It doesn't even need to be Garfield. Any stunt guy in a Spider-man suit swinging away would work, although even that would require compensation to Sony. And it won't add to box office by itself, just be a small extra reward on top of everything else that's in the film.

My stance would be the exact same.

I don't think we're going to get much further on this debate then.

OK so as I thought, you are unable to differentiate between who's a GA or Non-GA commenter on Youtube videos about comic book movies. Got it.

Do you want this discussion to be on the youtube issue instead because you're struggling with anything else? I already tried to help you out by saying we can discount any source like youtube if you wish as there is no "official GA gauge" on the internet that I know of so it's an impossible-to-win point.

And I certainly don't think you speak for this rumored contingent of non-GA audience members you claim to represent.

Ok well this is a matter of opinion that can't really be proven at this point. I assumed I was speaking for all the regular cinemagoers and that everyone including you would be agreeing with me that at least the GA would think it was cool. I didn't even know it was a point for debate until recently so forgive me for speaking out of turn. If you're not lying for the sake of argument and really believe that the regular guys (not yourself and other Avengers fanboys) wouldn't find a Spidey scene cool then I will most certainly be wrong for thinking that. But I guess you're the only one who's ever going to know for sure so it's difficult to continue this debate either.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Yeah, Sony and Marvel seem to have a good relationship. Or I see it that way, I couldn't see Fox be willing to try any of that stuff.

It does seem like a good relationship. I agree about Fox, that just isn't gonna happen. Not even with Rothman gone.

 

[Iceman]

Yeah, Sony and Marvel seem to have a good relationship. Or I see it that way, I couldn't see Fox be willing to try any of that stuff.

It does seem like a good relationship. I agree about Fox, that just isn't gonna happen. Not even with Rothman gone.

I think the X-world would be really difficult to combine anyway. Shame that Reed Richards will never be able to have a super science conference with Stark, Banner & Pym though.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I think the X-world would be really difficult to combine anyway. Shame that Reed Richards will never be able to have a super science conference with Stark, Banner & Pym though.

Oh yeah, no doubt it would be difficult. Even with all of this time travel stuff they're doing, it would still be a challenge. I really hate that moment between Richards, Stark, Banner, T'Challa and Pym won't get to happen, though. Hell, even throw in Parker since he's a genius.

*off-topic* Speaking of geniuses...where the heck is Amadeus Cho? I think he appeared in TIH...

 

[Rock Sexton]

Have you been reading any of my posts? How many times have I said cameo and that I don't want a larger role and that I certainly don't want Spidey or Wolverine joining the team? Go and count just in the last few posts I've made in this and in the main Avengers thread. Either you're dense or you're not reading my posts but I'll say it again CAMEO, not extended role, NOT joining the team!

Cameo's or "non-larger" roles are not easter eggs (picture on the wall, building in the background) .... and once again they come with a price. Why when Oscorp Tower was on the table for appearing in The Avengers, Feige decline and stated the deal was never close? Why is that Ice? Why if it's so affordable, Sony is so eager to market, and Marvel wants to reward fan loyalty?

Rewarding fanboys yes (at the cost of offending others it seems). Rewarding regular GA members also though even if not to the same extent. Schoolyards, common rooms and offices will have people talking about it the day after, no matter how brief it is. It doesn't even need to be Garfield. Any stunt guy in a Spider-man suit swinging away would work, although even that would require compensation to Sony. And it won't add to box office by itself, just be a small extra reward on top of everything else that's in the film.

Schoolyard, common rooms, and offices? LOL

Talk about grand assumptions not based in any kind of fact, rather then someone assigning themselves some kind of self-importance.

I don't think we're going to get much further on this debate then.

You're right. You still haven't been able to establish why Marvel needs Spidey in any capacity other than some self-serving anecdotal evidence because your mother's college roommate's ex-fiance's ex-landlord thinks Spidey is cool.

Do you want this discussion to be on the youtube issue instead because you're struggling with anything else? I already tried to help you out by saying we can discount any source like youtube if you wish as there is no "official GA gauge" on the internet that I know of so it's an impossible-to-win point.

I'm not discounting YouTube. That was never the argument. You claimed that by the comments section we know that an overwhelming amount of those comments are by the GA. How you arrive at that analysis is a complete mystery .... especially when those videos are posted there are cross-posted by CBM sites.

Ok well this is a matter of opinion that can't really be proven at this point. I assumed I was speaking for all the regular cinemagoers and that everyone including you would be agreeing with me that at least the GA would think it was cool. I didn't even know it was a point for debate until recently so forgive me for speaking out of turn. If you're not lying for the sake of argument and really believe that the regular guys (not yourself and other Avengers fanboys) wouldn't find a Spidey scene cool then I will most certainly be wrong for thinking that. But I guess you're the only one who's ever going to know for sure so it's difficult to continue this debate either.

Speak for yourself. You have some bizarre argument going on all based on whether something is "cool" or not, which you believe you believe usurps the business aspect of this entire subject and somehow adds value to fans (as if they couldn't be any more happy/loyal at this rate).

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

edit

 

[Shikamaru]

So you're saying the MCU feels empty because Spidey isn't there? So I guess all of the world-building and characters that Marvel has introduced thus far in the MCU mean nothing as long as Spider-Man isn't there. It all feels empty regardless, due to his absence.

I get that you are a big Spidey fan, but you aren't giving the MCU the props it deserves just because he isn't there. Makes no sense.

Not physically empty, but empty in the sense that their most iconic character is missing. It's as if having a hole in something and while everything around the hole is growing and expanding, the whole itself is still there. It may get smaller and smaller in terms of percentage depending on the growth/expansion of the universe, but it's still there nonetheless. I guess a better word would be "complete" instead of "empty".

I'm not saying the MCU can't be good without Spidey. It definitely is. But without him, it doesn't feel complete.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Not physically empty, but empty in the sense that their most iconic character is missing. It's as if having a hole in something and while everything around the hole is growing and expanding, the whole itself is still there. It may get smaller and smaller in terms of percentage depending on the growth/expansion of the universe, but it's still there nonetheless. I guess a better word would be "complete" instead of "empty".

I'm not saying the MCU can't be good without Spidey. It definitely is. But without him, it doesn't feel complete. Same goes for other characters like the FF.

Okay, I now understand what you're saying and I do agree.

 

[Iceman]

Cameo's or "non-larger" roles are not easter eggs .... and once again they come with a price. Why when Oscorp Tower was on the table for appearing in The Avengers, Feige decline and stated the deal was never close? Why is that Ice? Why if it's so affordable and Sony is so eager to market?

How the hell would anyone know unless they were there, or they were Feige? Rock? Lets put it this way, if it was free it would be done. That it's not done is an issue of price. And I know cameos or smaller roles are not easter eggs. I want a cameo, not just an easter egg like the Oscorp Tower. Spider-man actually on screen in costume for a couple of seconds. Doesn't even need to have a line although that would be great, and in that case I would prefer Garfield delivered the line.

Schoolyard, common rooms, and offices? LOL

Talk about grand assumptions not based in any kind of fact, rather then someone assigning themselves some kind of self-importance.

Yes they're assumptions. It can't be based on fact because it hasn't happened yet lol. Isn't it obvious that I'm talking about what I think here? Just happens that it was something I thought most people would also have thought but looks like that's not the case.

You're right. You still haven't been able to establish why Marvel needs Spidey in any capacity other than some self-serving anecdotal evidence because your mother's college roommate's ex-fiance's ex-landlord think Spidey is cool.

Eh what? I don't think Marvel NEEDS Spidey. They already made $1.5B without him. It would be a nice bonus, that's all, as any cameo is. This one would just happen to be the king of cameos outside of Superman/Batman appearing in a different DC film.

I'm not discounting YouTube. That was never the argument. You claimed that by the comments section we know that an overwhelming amount of those comments are by the GA. How you arrive at that analysis is a complete mystery .... especially when those videos are posted there by CBM sites.

I thought you wanted me to discount youtube because it wasn't good evidence of the GA's beliefs, which I then did? In other words trying to accept your point? I only brought it up at all because it's a closer guide to GA than the SHH Avengers thread will ever be and it was the 1st place that popped into my head where Avengers would be discussed, but not JUST by geeks. I've been trying to agree with you on this point for a while now but you still seem to want to make it a continuing thing. I agree there will be tonnes of geeks on superhero videos posted on youtube along with GA members so lets discount the pro-Spidey comments sections as I thought you wanted.

Speak for yourself. You have some bizarre argument going on all based on whether something is "cool" or not, which you believe you believe usurps the business aspect of this entire subject and somehow adds value to fans (as if they couldn't be any more happy/loyal at this rate).

Look I think a lot of your replies to me are supposed to be for other posters who you've been discussing this topic with and who have presented arguments to you that you now think I agree with (when I don't always).

- I don't want anything more than a cameo.
- I don't think anything usurps the business side. If a Spidey cameo costs $40 and they deem that too expensive, then it's too expensive, no matter how cool.
- I do think the cameo would add value though to many, an opinion obviously that we disagree on.

I think we're clear now right? Got to go anyway but will reply tomorrow if I see anything.

 

[OB12]

Cameo's or "non-larger" roles are not easter eggs (picture on the wall, building in the background) .... and once again they come with a price. Why when Oscorp Tower was on the table for appearing in The Avengers, Feige decline and stated the deal was never close? Why is that Ice? Why if it's so affordable, Sony is so eager to market, and Marvel wants to reward fan loyalty?

Schoolyard, common rooms, and offices? LOL

Talk about grand assumptions not based in any kind of fact, rather then someone assigning themselves some kind of self-importance.

You're right. You still haven't been able to establish why Marvel needs Spidey in any capacity other than some self-serving anecdotal evidence because your mother's college roommate's ex-fiance's ex-landlord thinks Spidey is cool.

I'm not discounting YouTube. That was never the argument. You claimed that by the comments section we know that an overwhelming amount of those comments are by the GA. How you arrive at that analysis is a complete mystery .... especially when those videos are posted there are cross-posted by CBM sites.

Speak for yourself. You have some bizarre argument going on all based on whether something is "cool" or not, which you believe you believe usurps the business aspect of this entire subject and somehow adds value to fans (as if they couldn't be any more happy/loyal at this rate).

Since when is a cameo or reference not considered and easter egg?!?! Here is the thing that gets me about this whole debate, folks like yourself are soooo sure about how this is going to play out that I could've sworn you were in on the conference calls between Marvel and Sony. Which btw, have obviously taken place since Marc Webb admitted as much.

The only thing that myself and others are really saying is that it would be great if something like this happened and that the door is not as closed as you seem to "know". Oh, I don't believe I have seen too many people say that they want to see Tony Stark hand Spidey an Avengers id card, but rather references to the events that happen in each and maybe at most a small cameo with Spidey down the road.

 

[DrCosmic]

The Money Problem

Why would Marvel give Sony one red cent for use of the Spidey universe? Sony is already paying THEM, so they would give Sony back money... for what? They don't need him. He doesn't help them. The only people it helps are fans, and if Marvel were in the habit of paying money just to make some fans happier, then they'd just start mailing money to fans.

The Continuity Problem

If Spidey is in the MCU, why in the world doesn't he help against Thanos? Why is SHIELD not all over him like they were in the Ultimate Universe? Why is the only continuity between these people who would naturally come into contact an easter egg?

Fans don't care much about continuity. They're used to nonsensical stuff, and are quite satisfied with "he just couldn't answer the phone off screen." Movie audiences are used to a bit more solid continuity, as they well should for stories with only 10-20 episodes. There's no reason or need for shoddy continuity in the MCU. Bringing Spidey into the MCU does that, and that can work to the detriment of a movie universe that has actively thrown out comic book contrivances on a regular basis.

So while fans may be happy for a moment at Spidey being off screen in the MCU, it would quickly be replaced by anticipation of seeing him onscreen, and naturally so, because it only makes sense at that point. So they're going to be more and more disappointed. Not to mention fans, both comic and from the GA who actually like continuity, they're going to be disappointed. Then you have people who actually like the classic Avengers, and dislike the Bendis-era Avengers. Also disappointed.

Conclusion

So, even a cameo does NOTHING for Marvel Studios, it doesn't make them any more money and it doesn't make their fans any happier.

Aww, that's adorable. But I really think you know what I meant.

Or maybe I should have written AVENGERS in giant bold letters just in case someone came along with contrariness on their mind.

I understood what you meant, my point was that all those people who said that were out of touch with the reality of ten years ago.

Those other crossovers are not really the same situation at all. As to Spidey in the Avengers, you are assuming that it has to be a win/lose situation and that there is no way that it can be a win/win situation on some level. We don't know what is in the art of the possible. I for one would love to see it happen, if only to acknowledge that the events of TASM are happening within the MCU.

Not assuming. I've illustrated how they already have a win/win situation, and changing it would cause one company to lose something.

If Spidey is in Avengers 3, they have to answer questions like: How much of the profits from A3 should Marvel share with Sony for their character who doesn't bring any fans who don't watch Avengers already?

 

[Rock Sexton]

How the hell would anyone know unless they were there, or they were Feige? Rock? Lets put it this way, if it was free it would be done. That it's not done is an issue of price. And I know cameos or smaller roles are not easter eggs. I want a cameo, not just an easter egg like the Oscorp Tower. Spider-man actually on screen in costume for a couple of seconds. Doesn't even need to have a line although that would be great, and in that case I would prefer Garfield delivered the line.

But we're not talking about "free". I'm explaining to you that what you desire is not practical from a business perspective.

You do not understand how intellectual properties work. A reference to Spiderman is far different than having the character (whether Peter or Spidey in full garb) showing up in the movie. Sony will want royalties or payment since he is their flagship franchise. If Marvel Studios was a struggling film company and Sony's Spidey was the big draw then you might have a point if Marvel Studios needed exposure for The Avengers ..... but they don't.

Yes they're assumptions. It can't be based on fact because it hasn't happened yet lol. Isn't it obvious that I'm talking about what I think here? Just happens that it was something I thought most people would also have thought but looks like that's not the case.

What you think is not practical though. I keep trying to explain it to you from a business negotiation perspective.

Eh what? I don't think Marvel NEEDS Spidey. They already made $1.5B without him. It would be a nice bonus, that's all, as any cameo is. This one would just happen to be the king of cameos outside of Superman/Batman appearing in a different DC film.

I CAN TYPE IN BIG CAPS TOO! lol

Something as gratuitous as Spiderman having a cameo costs money. Whether that's a % from the film's BO or a fee for borrowing his likeness. What you keep failing to establish is why Marvel would want to spend on that when they don't need it.

I thought you wanted me to discount youtube because it wasn't good evidence of the GA's beliefs, which I then did? In other words trying to accept your point? I only brought it up at all because it's a closer guide to GA than the SHH Avengers thread will ever be and it was the 1st place that popped into my head where Avengers would be discussed, but not JUST by geeks. I've been trying to agree with you on this point for a while now but you still seem to want to make it a continuing thing. I agree there will be tonnes of geeks on superhero videos posted on youtube along with GA members so lets discount the pro-Spidey comments sections as I thought you wanted.

You forget your own arguments. You started bringing up how you've determined the GA thinks it's a great idea ("cool") for Spidey to turn up in the Avengers. You tried to substantiate your point by referring to YouTube comments. I refuted it because you have no way of determining if the comments are from the GA or comic book fans.

Look I think a lot of your replies to me are supposed to be for other posters who you've been discussing this topic with and who have presented arguments to you that you now think I agree with (when I don't always).

- I don't want anything more than a cameo.
- I don't think anything usurps the business side. If a Spidey cameo costs $40 and they deem that too expensive, then it's too expensive, no matter how cool.
- I do think the cameo would add value though to many, an opinion obviously that we disagree on.

I think we're clear now right? Got to go anyway but will reply tomorrow if I see anything.

I highlighted the only thing that's important here.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Since when is a cameo or reference not considered and easter egg?!?! Here is the thing that gets me about this whole debate, folks like yourself are soooo sure about how this is going to play out that I could've sworn you were in on the conference calls between Marvel and Sony. Which btw, have obviously taken place since Marc Webb admitted as much.

The only thing that myself and others are really saying is that it would be great if something like this happened and that the door is not as closed as you seem to "know". Oh, I don't believe I have seen too many people say that they want to see Tony Stark hand Spidey an Avengers id card, but rather references to the events that happen in each and maybe at most a small cameo with Spidey down the road.

I don't have to be on the phone calls or in the meetings. All it takes a general understanding of the cost of intellectual properties ...... and in a situation where one studio is already at the top of the game and would simply be throwing money away to use a character who shares the same audience demo.

Cameos and easter eggs are not the same thing. EE's are generally a blink and you missed it situation which "alludes" to a character or event. A cameo actually features the character.

 

[Shikamaru]

If Spidey is in the MCU, why in the world doesn't he help against Thanos? Why is SHIELD not all over him like they were in the Ultimate Universe? Why is the only continuity between these people who would naturally come into contact an easter egg?

My theory is that Avengers 3 (with Thanos) will be more of a Marvel Superheroes film than an Avengers film, meaning it will basically be all the superheroes they've set up over the course of the decade (2008 - 2018) vs. Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet. That doesn't mean everyone will be an Avenger; just that, much like in the comic event itself, the Avengers will need all the help they can get. IF Spider-Man is ever bound to appear in the MCU (keep in mind the "if"), I think that is when he has the most likely chances of appearing. As for SHIELD, the reason they were all over him in the Ultimate Universe was to recruit him for the Ultimates. Fury told Peter he would join the team at 18 because he's an "illegal genetic mutation", and later recruited him anyways and had him trained by Cap/Tony. In the MCU though, the Avengers broke off from SHIELD at the end of the film. SHIELD no longer has control over who does and doesn't join the team.

Also, I disagree that the general audience needs explanations more than comic book fans do. They don't really care overall or think about these things too much as much as just seeing characters together. Most people weren't bothered by Rhodey not being in TA.

 

[DrCosmic]

- I don't want anything more than a cameo.
- I don't think anything usurps the business side. If a Spidey cameo costs $40 and they deem that too expensive, then it's too expensive, no matter how cool.
- I do think the cameo would add value though to many, an opinion obviously that we disagree on.

I think we're clear now right? Got to go anyway but will reply tomorrow if I see anything.

Add value? Perhaps, but it wouldn't come out to create any more money. Who saw Amazing Spider-Man that didn't also go see Avengers? Avengers pulls in twice as many people, and it pulls them from the same exact demographics as Amazing Spider-Man. Do you know anyone, anyone at all who is gung ho about Amazing Spider-Man and is like 'meh' on Avengers? Marvel Studios already has ASM's entire audience.

What they do in other business models, if adding value doesn't increase their customer base, they upcharge for the added value. That's not what happens in the film industry, outside of 3D/IMAX ticket prices.

So Marvel has no way to profit off of adding value, but it does cost them money. What do you think they'll do?

 

[Rock Sexton]

IF Spider-Man is ever bound to appear in the MCU (keep in mind the "if"), I think that is when he has the most likely chances of appearing.

Then you're shoe-horning him and completely breaking continuity of what has transpired for a decade in the MCU and for three years in Sony's Spiderman universe. It doesn't make any sense considering the priority the MCU has placed on that continuity and interconnective tissue.

Also, I disagree that the general audience needs explanations more than comic book fans do. They don't really care overall or think about these things too much as much as just seeing characters together. Most people weren't bothered by Rhodey not being in TA.

Rhodey was teamed up with Iron Man in two films now. Even though he wasn't in The Avengers, they still know he exists within the film universe. Can't say the same for Spidey.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Add value? Perhaps, but it wouldn't come out to create any more money. Who saw Amazing Spider-Man that didn't also go see Avengers? Avengers pulls in twice as many people, and it pulls them from the same exact demographics as Amazing Spider-Man. Do you know anyone, anyone at all who is gung ho about Amazing Spider-Man and is like 'meh' on Avengers? Marvel Studios already has ASM's entire audience.

What they do in other business models, if adding value doesn't increase their customer base, they upcharge for the added value. That's not what happens in the film industry, outside of 3D/IMAX ticket prices.

So Marvel has no way to profit off of adding value, but it does cost them money. What do you think they'll do?

Thank you.