Age of Ultron Spiderman in the Avengers "world"?

[Shikamaru]

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.

How?

And really, the only huge emphasis the MCU put on continuity were during Phase 1, where they had every solo film after IM1 and TIH be a 2-hour Avengers promo (and it makes sense they did that to promote the film and establish their universe as shared). Ever since then, we've seen these franchises become more stand-alone in a good way. IM3 and Thor: TDW both focused on Iron Man and Thor's mythos respectively. They didn't bother establishing where SHIELD was or why SHIELD/The Avengers weren't in the UK. Guardians looks like will follow the same route. Cap is a bit of an exception, but having SHIELD there makes sense due to Cap being so tied to the government and such missions.

Plus at the end of the day, Spider-Man is still a street-level superhero; SHIELD and the Avengers are not. We still haven't seen any street level heroes so far (and probably won't outside of the Netflix shows).

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.

That's not the point. The point is no one questioned where Rhodey was during the invasion; they just bought he was busy elsewhere/couldn't make it. Yes, there is a comic explaining his whereabouts during the event, but most of the population hasn't read that comic.

 

[Rock Sexton]

How?

And really, the only huge emphasis the MCU put on continuity were during Phase 1, where they had every solo film after IM1 and TIH be a 2-hour Avengers promo (and it makes sense they did that to promote the film and establish their universe as shared). Ever since then, we've seen these franchises become more stand-alone in a good way. IM3 and Thor: TDW both focused on Iron Man and Thor's mythos respectively. They didn't bother establishing where SHIELD was or why SHIELD/The Avengers weren't in the UK. Guardians looks like will follow the same route. Cap is a bit of an exception, but having SHIELD there makes sense due to Cap being so tied to the government and such missions.

Plus at the end of the day, Spider-Man is still a street-level superhero; SHIELD and the Avengers are not. We still haven't seen any street level heroes so far (and probably won't outside of the Netflix shows).

Do you think the general audience knows what the difference is between a street level hero and a regular superhero? To call Spiderman street level is blasphemy anyways considering his iconic status.

In Agents of Shield, they track street level guys all the time so you're point is moot about what SHIELD does and how Spidey could've gone unnoticed this entire time in the MCU timeline. Regardless of Phase 2, SHIELD was there in Phase 1 in all of those films setting up the interconnective tissue which HASN'T taken place with Spiderman.

That's not the point. The point is no one questioned where Rhodey was during the invasion; they just bought he was busy elsewhere/couldn't make it. Yes, there is a comic explaining his whereabouts during the event, but most of the population hasn't read that comic.

It is the point. You gave me some sorry comparison about the GA not caring about Rhodey when the comparison falls on it's face due to the establishment of Rhodey's involvement in the MCU via the Iron Man franchise.

Spiderman does not have that. There has been no trace of him in the near decade it's been going. That is implausible if he existed.

 

[DrCosmic]

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.

Rhodey not being in TA doesn't create a continuity problem. When films stories don't make sense, the general audience notices. And I didn't say that the GA needs more explanations, I just pointed out how dumb explanations from comics don't go over well with the GA because they don't make sense, while comics fans are more like 'sense? Who cares, that's the way its always been!'

SHIELD, in the Ultimate Universe and MCU tracks superhumans period, not just for Avengers membership. Why are they not a presence in Spidey's films if he's in the MCU? And Spidey appearing in the MCU to fight Thanos is much more than an easter egg or cameo. He's supporting cast at that point. Does the MCU need to draw up a second contract with Andrew Garfield? Does Sony spend one of their contracted appearances for Garfield on putting him in Avengers 3? Does the contract even allow for that.

You're opening up a large can of worms here, I don't think you fully appreciate what you're asking for.

 

[Green Goblin]

Avi Arad is stuck in 2002.

Such a shame that Sony are trying to create their own universe around a franchise only about one character. If Sony want a "bigger universe" why not go with the biggest cinimatic universe there is?

 

[Doc Ock]

Avi Arad

Ugh, that name!

 

[DrCosmic]

Avi Arad is stuck in 2002.

Such a shame that Sony are trying to create their own universe around a franchise only about one character. If Sony want a "bigger universe" why not go with the biggest cinimatic universe there is?

Because they'd have to give (back?) away Spider-Man for free, because the MCU doesn't need him and thus won't pay any money for him.

In addition to all the continuity snarl you create if you say Spidey is in the MCU.

 

[Green Goblin]

Because they'd have to give (back?) away Spider-Man for free, because the MCU doesn't need him and thus won't pay any money for him.

In addition to all the continuity snarl you create if you say Spidey is in the MCU.

Why would Marvel have to pay? Having Marvel make reference to him and having him appear in one film with a script Sony are fine with shouldn't involve money as everyone wins. Marvel have the top dog in their universe and Sony will increase their box office success aathe MCU is the hottest franchise now. Why would Sony try and compete with Marvel in a game they can't possibly win. If you can't beat em, join em.

That's easy. There is only one film in the franchise so far. Just because Spidey exists doesn't mean another film has to have referenced. There's SW who could alter reality...

Somehow.

 

[Iceman]

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

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.

If it's too expensive it's obvious that it's not practical and I have already agreed with that from a business standpoint. Surely my exaggerated $40 line which you acknowledged last post would have made it clear that I also think that. You keep telling me things we both agree on as if I don't think them. Leads to a strange debate. If you read the lines where I agree as well as the ones where I don't we can save a lot of time.

Now for the area where there is some potential disagreement. A 2 second Spidey cameo in the biggest grossing franchise of the moment (apart from the new Star Wars) would be good marketing for Sony that would actually make some money as opposed to a Superbowl spot that costs millions. You can disagree that it would be good marketing, and that’s fine, would just be a difference of opinion.

The benefits of the costless marketing for Sony that I'm claiming combined with the fact that Marvel don't need Spidey (another thing we do agree on), would mean that the price charged could not be anywhere near as exorbitant as it would be if Marvel did need their character (if it had been Iron Man or another actual Avenger instead). So I don’t think Marvel need Spidey at all, but I do think they would want a cameo if business practicality didn’t get in the way . We disagree that the general audience would also enjoy this scene and that Marvel likely think this but these differences of opinion are the basis of my debate so I doubt we will get much further from here. Do I think Spidey will be in an Avengers film any time soon? Nope. Do I want it? Yes, a cameo one day in the future once all the main Avengers have already been introduced. And do I believe it can happen one day. Yes not impossible, just unlikely and even then a long way off.

I CAN TYPE IN BIG CAPS TOO!

lol

Fair t:


I’ve done that too much in recent posts admittedly. But it is frustrating when you repeatedly argue points that I agree with and it takes quite a few more posts before you can see that I agree and am only disagreeing on certain elements. Not as necessary for you to do to me as I’m reading every line of your posts.

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.

Yes and that’s why I dropped my youtube claim as a result of you contesting its validity as a GA source. In other words agreeing with you and accepting your dismissal of it. Surely this makes sense by now.

I highlighted the only thing that's important here.

This summaries our debate well. You very clearly acknowledge this line here and spend the rest of the next post arguing as if I didn’t say it. Does this not show that I think something being cool does not outweigh business practicality? If I’m saying that if they deem even a ridiculously low (exaggerated obviously) $40 licensing fee to be too expensive that it won’t and shouldn’t happen, do you agree that we are not on a different page here and that you’re beating a dead horse yourself? t:

I hope that clears up where the differences are in our thinking and the areas where we do agree. As all the differences are very opinion based I think this debate is close to running its course.

 

[Iceman]

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?

Read back. We've established long ago that we're not talking about adding to the box office when we say value. I don't even remember this point coming up in other people's debates but whatever, certainly within the Rock Ice discussion there's no 'Spidey cameo will add anything material to the box office' claim. It's just a cameo after all. Value means an 'oh cool' moment, a little bit of satisfaction. Whether or not we agree on whether that would happen as a result of a Spidey cameo (hint: we don't), that's what we're talking about here when we mention value.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Because they'd have to give (back?) away Spider-Man for free, because the MCU doesn't need him and thus won't pay any money for him.

In addition to all the continuity snarl you create if you say Spidey is in the MCU.

Isn't it amazing that people cannot understand this simple concept? I mean talk about dense.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Why would Marvel have to pay? Having Marvel make reference to him and having him appear in one film with a script Sony are fine with shouldn't involve money as everyone wins. Marvel have the top dog in their universe and Sony will increase their box office success aathe MCU is the hottest franchise now. Why would Sony try and compete with Marvel in a game they can't possibly win. If you can't beat em, join em.

That's easy. There is only one film in the franchise so far. Just because Spidey exists doesn't mean another film has to have referenced. There's SW who could alter reality...

Somehow.

Why would Marvel have to pay? Because Spidey is Sony's flagship franchise and they paid good money for him! They're not going to lease his intellectual property out for free, otherwise what was the point in acquiring him in the first place (***cough*** to make money). Marketing doesn't really change as Spidey fans by and large are already Avengers fans. You're not bringing new fans from a new demographic who didn't previously watch. That's when it would be quality marketing and make sense for both sides ..... but that is not happening here.

LOL @ the "SW could alter reality" comment. Fanboy imagination running wild in order to shoehorn in Spidey.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Now for the area where there is some potential disagreement. A 2 second Spidey cameo in the biggest grossing franchise of the moment (apart from the new Star Wars) would be good marketing for Sony that would actually make some money as opposed to a Superbowl spot that costs millions. You can disagree that it would be good marketing, and that’s fine, would just be a difference of opinion.

Why would it be good marketing? Sony is not having problems marketing Spidey so the bump in exposure doesn't mean anything given that it would be in a film that already shares a large portion of the same demographic. How do you not understand this? It's not product placement into "new" venues to create "new" exposure. So what "new" money would be coming Sony's way?

 

[DrCosmic]

Why would Marvel have to pay? Having Marvel make reference to him and having him appear in one film with a script Sony are fine with shouldn't involve money as everyone wins. Marvel have the top dog in their universe and Sony will increase their box office success aathe MCU is the hottest franchise now. Why would Sony try and compete with Marvel in a game they can't possibly win. If you can't beat em, join em.

That's easy. There is only one film in the franchise so far. Just because Spidey exists doesn't mean another film has to have referenced. There's SW who could alter reality...

Somehow.

What does Marvel 'win' exactly? They don't win any additional money, and so if they're not paying, Sony will let Marvel reference their top dog Spidey for free? And if it helps Sony and not Marvel, wouldn't Marvel charge them money then, since it's free publicity?

And having SW fix continuity issues is weak. If Spidey is in the MCU, SHIELD should be in the ASM franchise, and its not. It's a bad idea.

Read back. We've established long ago that we're not talking about adding to the box office when we say value. I don't even remember this point coming up in other people's debates but whatever, certainly within the Rock Ice discussion there's no 'Spidey cameo will add anything material to the box office' claim. It's just a cameo after all. Value means an 'oh cool' moment, a little bit of satisfaction. Whether or not we agree on whether that would happen as a result of a Spidey cameo (hint: we don't), that's what we're talking about here when we mention value.

Read back. I explained in detail why this adding value provides no benefit to Marvel Studios. Other companies, one way or another, get more money out of adding value, but that would not be the case here.

Would it be an 'oh cool' moment? Yeah. You disagree!? There are other oh cool moments that don't involve money changing hands or continuity snarls. It would be wiser of Marvel Studios to go with some of those. In fact, other 'oh cool' moments that promote MCU properties come back to marvel in increased returns on solo films. So why waste an oh cool moment on Spider-Man when you can promote Thor a bit more and possibly improve the returns on Thor 3?

Isn't it amazing that people cannot understand this simple concept? I mean talk about dense.

Heh, it is.

I feel like people are just desperate to have their ideal imaginary off screen universe where Spider-Man and Daredevil have coffee on Thursdays or something, and aren't willing to embrace what they want and why, because it sounds silly.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Plus at the end of the day, Spider-Man is still a street-level superhero; SHIELD and the Avengers are not. We still haven't seen any street level heroes so far (and probably won't outside of the Netflix shows).

I want Street-Level MCU movies

To call Spiderman street level is blasphemy anyways considering his iconic status

I'd say it's blasphemy to imply that street-level is somehow lesser.

Marvel have the top dog in their universe and Sony will increase their box office success aathe MCU is the hottest franchise now.

Spidey doesn't need the boost, people will see his movies regardless if he's connected to another franchise

Why would Sony try and compete with Marvel in a game they can't possibly win.

They've been winning the marvel solo superhero movie "battle" for over a decade.

 

[Iceman]

Why would it be good marketing? Sony is not having problems marketing Spidey so the bump in exposure doesn't mean anything given that it would be in a film that already shares a large portion of the same demographic. How do you not understand this? It's not product placement into "new" venues to create "new" exposure. So what "new" money would be coming Sony's way?

No new money is coming Sony's way but direct revenue generation is not the only goal of marketing. Even the companies with the strongest brands spend further millions every year marketing their products to people who already know about them. It's called brand reinforcement. Advertising and marketing is not just about going to new areas or companies like McDonalds would never be advertised any more in the western world. They could save themselves a massive chunk of their budget if they saw it your way but every company does it. Creating awareness is the 1st step when a company/product is new but no company ever stops even when they have reached what seems like saturation point.

And also Avengers made a hell of a lot more than Spider-man internationally. Not everyone who watches Avengers goes to see Spider-man at the moment but they are obviously good candidates to so if they're prepared to suspend disbelief enough to watch a team superhero film. Plus marketing in front of an audience that large is something others would kill for.

In my local cinemas I often see trailers for comic films ahead of other comic films, more so than ahead of a serious drama for eg. That would be a waste wouldn't it if marketing was supposed to concentrate on new venues only. Do you see different in yours?

 

[Iceman]

Read back. I explained in detail why this adding value provides no benefit to Marvel Studios. Other companies, one way or another, get more money out of adding value, but that would not be the case here.

Would it be an 'oh cool' moment? Yeah. You disagree!? There are other oh cool moments that don't involve money changing hands or continuity snarls. It would be wiser of Marvel Studios to go with some of those. In fact, other 'oh cool' moments that promote MCU properties come back to marvel in increased returns on solo films. So why waste an oh cool moment on Spider-Man when you can promote Thor a bit more and possibly improve the returns on Thor 3?

I don't need to read back because I wasn't commenting on any of your discussions. You joined the Rock Ice discussion thinking I meant box office gross when I said value (nothing wrong with you thinking that). I told you different as had been covered earlier in our discussion. Done.

 

[Rock Sexton]

No new money is coming Sony's way but direct revenue generation is not the only goal of marketing. Even the companies with the strongest brands spend further millions every year marketing their products to people who already know about them. It's called brand reinforcement. Advertising and marketing is not just about going to new areas or companies like McDonalds would never be advertised any more in the western world. They could save themselves a massive chunk of their budget if they saw it your way but every company does it. Creating awareness is the 1st step when a company/product is new but no company ever stops even when they have reached what seems like saturation point.

I never suggested they stop creating awareness. You're suggesting they need other avenues they haven't already taken. You have not shown why they need to go out of there way to strike some kind of deal with Marvel/Disney to get their flagship franchise featured in The Avengers. That is something a studio struggling to get their franchise awareness would do.

Btw the brand is Marvel. That's why it's featured before every movie, no matter Sony nor Disney.

And also Avengers made a hell of a lot more than Spider-man internationally. Not everyone who watches Avengers goes to see Spider-man at the moment but they are obviously good candidates to so if they're prepared to suspend disbelief enough to watch a team superhero film. Plus marketing in front of an audience that large is something others would kill for.

I never said everyone who goes to see Avengers also sees Spidey. Clearly that's not the case by the BO #'s. However, "marketing in front of an audience that large" is irrelevant. It's the same audience at its core. If they see something completely innocuous like him in the background of Avengers for a split second and he has no relevance to the plot or interconnectivity they're suddenly going to go "Hmmmm I think I need to go watch Spidey?" Why? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Ohhhh wait because it's "cool" LOL.

In my local cinemas I often see trailers for comic films ahead of other comic films, more so than ahead of a serious drama for eg. That would be a waste wouldn't it if marketing was supposed to concentrate on new venues only. Do you see different in yours?

I never said new venues only. You have a serious problem with mincing my positions in order to support your arguments. You also keep using yourself as the litmus test and I'm trying to understand why.

 

[Shikamaru]

Do you think the general audience knows what the difference is between a street level hero and a regular superhero? To call Spiderman street level is blasphemy anyways considering his iconic status.

Is this a joke? Do you know what "street level" means? It has nothing to do with how heroic or strong a superhero is. New York City is Spider-Man's playground. Batman is street level too.

In Agents of Shield, they track street level guys all the time so you're point is moot about what SHIELD does and how Spidey could've gone unnoticed this entire time in the MCU timeline. Regardless of Phase 2, SHIELD was there in Phase 1 in all of those films setting up the interconnective tissue which HASN'T taken place with Spiderman.

Yes, they do, which could potentially be a big problem for Spidey. I'll admit that. Though to be fair, Peter at least has a secret identity, which we haven't seen in the MCU so far. We'll see how they handle the likes of Daredevil and Iron Fist.

And of course Spider-Man wasn't there during Phase 1. If TASM ever took place in that universe, it was a bit after TA.

It is the point. You gave me some sorry comparison about the GA not caring about Rhodey when the comparison falls on it's face due to the establishment of Rhodey's involvement in the MCU via the Iron Man franchise.

Spiderman does not have that. There has been no trace of him in the near decade it's been going. That is implausible if he existed.

It's not the point. You couldn't be any more off-base.

I'll walk you through it step by step:
1) The MCU establishes War Machine exists in this universe prior to Avengers.
2) We never see him in The Avengers.
3) No MCU film gives an explanation to why he wasn't there during the events of The Avengers.
4) The majority of the population has no problem with this (including me).

Rhodey being established in IM1/IM2 is completely irrelevant to my point. That doesn't change the fact that there is no explanation given as to why he wasn't there during the Battle of New York, yet the general audience and fans don't have a problem with it. So why would Spider-Man not being there during the events of The Avengers be a problem?

 

[Rock Sexton]

Straight from Avi Arad's mouth .....

In a recent interview with TotalFilm Avi Arad and Matthew Tolmach discuss the difficulties and possibilities of there being a Spider-Man and Avengers crossover one day. "I for one don't see the value for us in it," Arad told Total Film. "I think we're doing such a good job with the Spider-Man Universe. Spider-Man is arguably the number one character in the world. He shouldn't make a cameo." Arad then goes to hint that if there was "a natural alliance for some reason...I cannot talk for Sony." But don't get your hopes too high yet, after saying that, producer Matthew Tolmach intervenes and comments that "The practical side of it is, look, how many movies have we just talked about? It's all we can do to build that universe. We're not going beyond that."

 

[Shikamaru]

Rhodey not being in TA doesn't create a continuity problem. When films stories don't make sense, the general audience notices. And I didn't say that the GA needs more explanations, I just pointed out how dumb explanations from comics don't go over well with the GA because they don't make sense, while comics fans are more like 'sense? Who cares, that's the way its always been!'

Never said it created a continuity problem. Just stated that, going by the same logic of Spider-Man not being there being a continuity problem, so would Rhodey be. Especially since Rhodey has actual connections to an Avenger while Spidey has none.

SHIELD, in the Ultimate Universe and MCU tracks superhumans period, not just for Avengers membership. Why are they not a presence in Spidey's films if he's in the MCU? And Spidey appearing in the MCU to fight Thanos is much more than an easter egg or cameo. He's supporting cast at that point. Does the MCU need to draw up a second contract with Andrew Garfield? Does Sony spend one of their contracted appearances for Garfield on putting him in Avengers 3? Does the contract even allow for that.

You're opening up a large can of worms here, I don't think you fully appreciate what you're asking for.

If everyone else is a supporting cast by that point (going by the "Avengers 3 = Marvel Superheroes film" case), that wouldn't be a problem for me. It would be kinda cool.

As for SHIELD, I already addressed that in my response to Rock Sexton. I also admitted that's a fair and good point.

Also to make something clear, I don't need Spider-Man in Avengers films or the MCU. I'm not asking for it to happen. I just think it would be cool. But if it doesn't happen, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Is this a joke? Do you know what "street level" means? It has nothing to do with how heroic or strong a superhero is. New York City is Spider-Man's playground. Batman is street level too.

Street level refers to their powers and abilities, not simply just location.

Yes, they do, which could potentially be a big problem for Spidey. I'll admit that. Though to be fair, Peter at least has a secret identity, which we haven't seen in the MCU so far. We'll see how they handle the likes of Daredevil and Iron Fist.

And of course Spider-Man wasn't there during Phase 1. If TASM ever took place in that universe, it was a bit after TA.

Secret identity is corny. Ya, SHIELD is not going to be able to track a high school kid .... but they can keep tabs on Bruce Banner everywhere in the world. OK, makes complete sense.

It's not the point. You couldn't be any more off-base.

I'll walk you through it step by step:
1) The MCU establishes War Machine exists in this universe prior to Avengers.
2) We never see him in The Avengers.
3) No MCU film gives an explanation to why he wasn't there during the events of The Avengers.
4) The majority of the population has no problem with this (including me).

Rhodey being established in IM1/IM2 is completely irrelevant to my point. That doesn't change the fact that there is no explanation given as to why he wasn't there during the Battle of New York, yet the general audience and fans don't have a problem with it. So why would Spider-Man not being there during the events of The Avengers be a problem?

It's not irrelevant .... and when you say "majority had no problem" where do you arrive at this conclusion? Because you felt that way so that means the majority does?

Again my point of distinction between Rhodey and Spiderman is that even though Rhodey was not there for the Battle of NYC, audiences know he's part of the universe so when he does pop up (like in A:AOU) it won't be out of place. They do not know that about Spidey. He's been off the grid and it's complete nonsense as to why he would be.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

My soul dies every time someone spells Spider-Man as one word.

 

[C. Lee]

My soul dies every time someone spells Spider-Man as one word.

Life must be very rough for you......

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

Life must be very rough for you......

I'm actually medically and legally dead.

 

[C. Lee]

I'm actually medically and legally dead.

So you're now a zombie....or just ghost writing?