The Avengers Spidey in the Avengers?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yeah, i'm with others I cant see them putting Spidey in this, would love to see it but just cant imagine it.

 

[RaZaTrOn]

I don't want him in The Avengers, there's so much that needs to be told that doesn't involve him. The Avengers roster is rich, these characters need to be given the chance to prove that they can shine without Spidey holding them up. I'm all for him to show up way down the line, but not in the first film, not even the 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th film!

 

[OB12]

This thread is the reason people need to lay off drugs. It's amazing conversations like this even go on as long as it as. The obvious and LOGICAL answer is that lady who mistakenly named Spiderman did so because she's got literally no familiarity with the Avengers. She got the wrong "man". She meant Iron Man.

The fan boy madness needs to stop. Some of you are ready to explode in your pants over something that'll never happen until Marvel Films gets the rights back for the Spiderman franchise. Movie studios do not lend out there properties to other studios. Why on earth would Sony want one of their head liners to appear in a movie with Disney's name stamped all over it? Spiderman is an A-list CBM movie franchise and is etched into the minds of everyone when it comes to popular superheroes. They have no need to advertise him in the Avengers.

I don't think anyone believes that Spider-Man is actually going to cameo in The Avengers, hell both movies are basically in the bag with just editing left. If he did appear it would be the best kept secret in recent memory. All we have to go by is a shaky rumor from a lady who, as you indicated probably got her heroes mixed up.
All of that said, I agree with Ultimatehero about the politics of the situation. I'm again going to point back to the quote from Disney:

"To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney."

Sony purchased participation from Disney in Spider-Man movies. Why would it be phrased that way? We know that Sony already has the rights, so this indicates a seperate transaction took place or an alteration of the previous agreement. Why would they do it? Money. Sony Pictures is hemoraging money, and they need this iteration of Spider-Man to be as big or bigger than the last. That is a tall order considering how beloved the original series still is amongst the GA. One way to do that would be to allow ties to a larger film universe that has proven successful.

On the Disney/Marvel side, I'm guessing they may be getting a slight increase in the percentage they make off of Spider-Man movies from this "2-way transaction". Remember, though Sony owns the rights, Disney/Marvel still make a small percentage off the films. They certainly want Spider-Man films to continue to be made, given he is their most recognizable character. If they got the rights back, it would be difficult for Disney to fit more movies into their current production schedule. Why not leave the property with a studio that wants to make the movies and already has them scheduled? Given that Sony has a history of success with Spider-Man, that situation is probably amenable to Disney.

One final thought. All of this is speculation and I don't particularly see it as a situation where Spider-Man would be loaned out, mostly because I'm skeptical that we would actually see an Avengers movie featuring Spider-Man. At most, he may get a cameo somewhere down the road. My actual belief is what they would be shooting for in this scenario is more a blending of worlds, whereby references to people, places and events from each would become common. This would then allow Disney/Marvel to market Avenger merchandise with Spidey involved at some point. I don't think it is so far-fetched to believe that two movies studios would collaborate in this fashion.

 

[BoredGuy]

No way Spidey'll be in this.
That said, he's at least much more likely to show up than the X-Men.
I could see Sony going for this idea long before Fox.

 

[HUMANIMAL]

she probably got the names wrong during that interview...

 

[DyeLorean]

Hard to imagine, but it would kinda fun to have Spidey swinging in the background in one shot, like a very tiny easter egg for us to find.

 

[KangConquers]

This thread is the reason people need to lay off drugs. It's amazing conversations like this even go on as long as it as. The obvious and LOGICAL answer is that lady who mistakenly named Spiderman did so because she's got literally no familiarity with the Avengers. She got the wrong "man". She meant Iron Man.

The fan boy madness needs to stop. Some of you are ready to explode in your pants over something that'll never happen until Marvel Films gets the rights back for the Spiderman franchise. Movie studios do not lend out there properties to other studios. Why on earth would Sony want one of their head liners to appear in a movie with Disney's name stamped all over it? Spiderman is an A-list CBM movie franchise and is etched into the minds of everyone when it comes to popular superheroes. They have no need to advertise him in the Avengers.

This. 100 times over.

 

[Mr. Fixit]

This thread is the reason people need to lay off drugs. It's amazing conversations like this even go on as long as it as. The obvious and LOGICAL answer is that lady who mistakenly named Spiderman did so because she's got literally no familiarity with the Avengers. She got the wrong "man". She meant Iron Man.

The fan boy madness needs to stop. Some of you are ready to explode in your pants over something that'll never happen until Marvel Films gets the rights back for the Spiderman franchise. Movie studios do not lend out there properties to other studios. Why on earth would Sony want one of their head liners to appear in a movie with Disney's name stamped all over it? Spiderman is an A-list CBM movie franchise and is etched into the minds of everyone when it comes to popular superheroes. They have no need to advertise him in the Avengers.

LoL....yeah okay - you should probably take a deep breath and chill out.

There isn't a single person in here "ready to explode in their pants" over this rumor. In fact, practically every person here has openly stated they are taking this with a grain of salt.

It's just a discussion.

Actually I've found that as the discussion has evolved it's been pretty interesting.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yeah, a "why we can't have Spidey/FF/etc" thread would be nice, but even the skeptics say 'can't see it' as though it's something that's remotely possible or doesn't have a very definite legal and explicitly described reason why it absolutely cannot happen. Taking it with a grain of salt is almost as silly as believing it.

 

[Mr. Fixit]

I disagree.

As I mentioned earlier they could pull it off if Andrew Garfield did an uncredited part as a guy on the street or something of that nature.

Aside from that, there are about a billion hypothetical threads. This one happens to have been started by a rumor. If Marvel confirms otherwise, that's that. In the meantime it's just a discussion. Feel free to contribute.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I don't think anyone believes that Spider-Man is actually going to cameo in The Avengers, hell both movies are basically in the bag with just editing left. If he did appear it would be the best kept secret in recent memory. All we have to go by is a shaky rumor from a lady who, as you indicated probably got her heroes mixed up.
All of that said, I agree with Ultimatehero about the politics of the situation. I'm again going to point back to the quote from Disney:

"To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney."

Sony purchased participation from Disney in Spider-Man movies. Why would it be phrased that way? We know that Sony already has the rights, so this indicates a seperate transaction took place or an alteration of the previous agreement. Why would they do it? Money. Sony Pictures is hemoraging money, and they need this iteration of Spider-Man to be as big or bigger than the last. That is a tall order considering how beloved the original series still is amongst the GA. One way to do that would be to allow ties to a larger film universe that has proven successful.

On the Disney/Marvel side, I'm guessing they may be getting a slight increase in the percentage they make off of Spider-Man movies from this "2-way transaction". Remember, though Sony owns the rights, Disney/Marvel still make a small percentage off the films. They certainly want Spider-Man films to continue to be made, given he is their most recognizable character. If they got the rights back, it would be difficult for Disney to fit more movies into their current production schedule. Why not leave the property with a studio that wants to make the movies and already has them scheduled? Given that Sony has a history of success with Spider-Man, that situation is probably amenable to Disney.

One final thought. All of this is speculation and I don't particularly see it as a situation where Spider-Man would be loaned out, mostly because I'm skeptical that we would actually see an Avengers movie featuring Spider-Man. At most, he may get a cameo somewhere down the road. My actual belief is what they would be shooting for in this scenario is more a blending of worlds, whereby references to people, places and events from each would become common. This would then allow Disney/Marvel to market Avenger merchandise with Spidey involved at some point. I don't think it is so far-fetched to believe that two movies studios would collaborate in this fashion.

If Marvel/Disney got the rights back tomorrow, they'd find a place for a Spider-man movie that very same day. Why let Sony make the movies and reap those profits, when Marvel/Disney could get the whole profit instead of a very small percentage of it.

 

[Ultimatehero]

There isn't a definite legal no. Once again, there isn't a definite legal no. If SONY and PARAMOUNt both thought that it would be to their advantage - it is very possible. It would draw a lot of attention to both properties as many people a time over have said. Not saying he will or he won't ever. Studios have teamed up time and time again for shared interests, even in cases that don't go public. I know this first hand. It was taught first day at an actual studio behind major comic book franchises. Just legally it's possible. As said, in contrast to everyone here, I've actually worked WITHIN big film studio offices - I know what I'm talking about from a professional rather than fan stand point.

 

[Mr. Fixit]

There isn't a definite legal no. Once again, there isn't a definite legal no. If SONY and PARAMOUNt both thought that it would be to their advantage - it is very possible. It would draw a lot of attention to both properties as many people a time over have said. Not saying he will or he won't ever. Studios have teamed up time and time again for shared interests, even in cases that don't go public. I know this first hand. It was taught first day at an actual studio behind major comic book franchises. Just legally it's possible. As said, in contrast to everyone here, I've actually worked WITHIN big film studio offices - I know what I'm talking about from a professional rather than fan stand point.

Thanks for filling us in Ultimatehero. I actually meant to refer back to your post on this matter so I'm glad you came back.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It's all cool. It's just many people, and I did too, used to believe that all these companies were for their own individual interests (an "us" vs "them" viewpoint). It was one of the first questions asked to high powered execs and the VP on orientation. What that "dynamic" was like. What they cleared up was they're always helping each other and supporting each other - the big companies - when it'll be advantageous to both parties. The only time 'conflict' comes into play is the box office and wanting your movie to succeed. The more support you have behind a film? The easier it is to make and the easier it is to be successful. It's like the whole DC vs. MARVEL debates - "in house" it's just wanting your property to succeed, but that doesn't mean they are against each other. They've collaborated numerous times already throughout the years and they're colleagues. Same thing.

 

[Rock Sexton]

LoL....yeah okay - you should probably take a deep breath and chill out.

There isn't a single person in here "ready to explode in their pants" over this rumor. In fact, practically every person here has openly stated they are taking this with a grain of salt.

It's just a discussion.

Actually I've found that as the discussion has evolved it's been pretty interesting.

Ya right. Go back and re-read the thread. There are guys who actually think this is possible or in the works.

There isn't a definite legal no. Once again, there isn't a definite legal no. If SONY and PARAMOUNt both thought that it would be to their advantage - it is very possible. It would draw a lot of attention to both properties as many people a time over have said. Not saying he will or he won't ever. Studios have teamed up time and time again for shared interests, even in cases that don't go public. I know this first hand. It was taught first day at an actual studio behind major comic book franchises. Just legally it's possible. As said, in contrast to everyone here, I've actually worked WITHIN big film studio offices - I know what I'm talking about from a professional rather than fan stand point.

Me too man ... I'm a big movie producer.

Spiderman has need need for the "attention" from an Avengers movie. Spiderman is the bigger movie franchise and the bigger comic franchise. If any of your guys' delusional dreams came true it would be the reverse.

 

[John Locke]

It is possible just not probable. It would be a good way for Sony to promote the movie. I mean just last week I was talking to people about how the new Spider-man was going to be horrible and how I hate that they're rebooting Spider-man. Then I heard this rumor so I watched the teaser again and now I've warmed up to the idea and think it could be a good movie. Imagine what would happen if Spidey was actually in the movie. Now I agree with everything people have said, probably a mistake by the woman, it's most likely not going to happen. But until we have confirmation from the studio I don't think we should dismiss it so quickly.

 

[Rock Sexton]

It is possible just not probable. It would be a good way for Sony to promote the movie. I mean just last week I was talking to people about how the new Spider-man was going to be horrible and how I hate that they're rebooting Spider-man. Then I heard this rumor so I watched the teaser again and now I've warmed up to the idea and think it could be a good movie. Imagine what would happen if Spidey was actually in the movie. Now I agree with everything people have said, probably a mistake by the woman, it's most likely not going to happen. But until we have confirmation from the studio I don't think we should dismiss it so quickly.

Gonna ask again ....

Please enlighten me how the Spiderman franchise .... which is far more recognizable and A-list compared to The Avengers ..... would need "exposure" from a a franchise currently beneath it? A ridiculous little cameo will not open the floodgates to people wanting to pile into a Spiderman movie.

 

[John Locke]

Gonna ask again ....

Please enlighten me how the Spiderman franchise .... which is far more recognizable and A-list compared to The Avengers ..... would need "exposure" from a a franchise currently beneath it? A ridiculous little cameo will not open the floodgates to people wanting to pile into a Spiderman movie.

Because this is it's greatest weakness. Spider-man already had a complete franchise that the general audience loved. This isn't like Batman who had a franchise filled with different lead actors this is a franchise with a beginning, middle and end. I don't think that many people would want to start again so close to the end of the first trilogy. And with a cameo people will want to see it because that means there is a possibly that he could appear in Avengers 2 so they'd need to know this one's story. Even though we all know it's never going to happen, the general audience doesn't. I still have questions on why Batman won't appear.

 

[bullets]

I've told some friends of mine who don't follow what movies are coming about the reboot. A lot of them had negative reactions. I'm still hyped and remember walking out of The Incredible Hulk and overhearing a Dad tell his son Spider-Man , Hulk , Iron-Man , etc, would all be in the Avengers . I thought it was kind of funny. Now I see there might be a possibility, it's a long shot , but it benefits both studios.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Because this is it's greatest weakness. Spider-man already had a complete franchise that the general audience loved. This isn't like Batman who had a franchise filled with different lead actors this is a franchise with a beginning, middle and end. I don't think that many people would want to start again so close to the end of the first trilogy. And with a cameo people will want to see it because that means there is a possibly that he could appear in Avengers 2 so they'd need to know this one's story. Even though we all know it's never going to happen, the general audience doesn't. I still have questions on why Batman won't appear.

Seriously your post is so nonsensical (especially referring to Spiderman in Avengers 2) that I don't even know how to respond.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I've told some friends of mine who don't follow what movies are coming about the reboot. A lot of them had negative reactions. I'm still hyped and remember walking out of The Incredible Hulk and overhearing a Dad tell his son Spider-Man , Hulk , Iron-Man , etc, would all be in the Avengers . I thought it was kind of funny. Now I see there might be a possibility, it's a long shot , but it benefits both studios.

It's not a long shot ... it's a NO shot.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Me too man ... I'm a big movie producer.

Dude, the VP at one of these top companies WITH a high profile super hero that I can't name, is my mentor. I know how this can come off to some. It's not me bragging. It's the truth. It's like me posting on a plumbing board and giving advice if I was a plumber. It's no big deal to me. It's just business.

If both studios agree that it will be beneficial to them mutually. Which Amazing Spider-Man unfortunately isn't a set in stone success due to Spider-Man 3. Like how Batman and Robin hurt Batman Begins and the idea of a reboot. Not to mention this summer's box office atmosphere. It may be seen as beneficial. And in that case they would decide to work together. The Dark Knight Rises is going to be a box office juggernaut that same month.

So far I have yet to see you pull anything out of your head other than "won't happen." If you say SONY owns the rights, then you're back to the whole legal issues I brought up from actual first-hand experience. As said prior, not saying definite one way or another. Just legally and from a business-stand point in this deal they'd both stand to gain. Whether they'll do it or not - now or ever - remains to be seen.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Dude, the VP at one of these top companies WITH a high profile super hero that I can't name, is my mentor. I know how this can come off to some. It's not me bragging. It's the truth. It's like me posting on a plumbing board and giving advice if I was a plumber. It's no big deal to me. It's just business.

If both studios agree that it will be beneficial to them mutually. Which Amazing Spider-Man unfortunately isn't a set in stone success due to Spider-Man 3. Like how Batman and Robin hurt Batman Begins and the idea of a reboot. Not to mention this summer's box office atmosphere. It may be seen as beneficial. And in that case they would decide to work together. The Dark Knight Rises is going to be a box office juggernaut that same month.

So far I have yet to see you pull anything out of your head other than "won't happen." If you say SONY owns the rights, then you're back to the whole legal issues I brought up from actual first-hand experience. As said prior, not saying definite one way or another. Just legally and from a business-stand point in this deal they'd both stand to gain. Whether they'll do it or not - now or ever - remains to be seen.

What legal issues are you babbling about?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Who owns what rights to what. Legally, it is possible for Spider-Man to appear in the Avengers now or at some point. Just like DC heroes in MARVEL books and vice-versa. If both companies with said rights believe they can get ahead mutually by doing it they will. There is nothing holding them back from making said deal if both agree to it without losing property rights in the process. Once again, refer to the relations between DC and MARVEL. There is no SONY vs. MARVEL/DISNEY/PARAMOUNT. Film studios, regardless to what people think, do not fight like that. That'd be professional suicide.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Who owns what rights to what. Legally, it is possible for Spider-Man to appear in the Avengers now or at some point. Just like DC heroes in MARVEL books and vice-versa. If both companies with said rights believe they can get ahead mutually by doing it they will. There is nothing holding them back from making said deal if both agree to it without losing property rights in the process. Once again, refer to the relations between DC and MARVEL. There is no SONY vs. MARVEL/DISNEY/PARAMOUNT. Film studios, regardless to what people think, do not fight like that. That'd be professional suicide.

You're referring to do very different mediums .... one being print and the other being film.

Regardless, the motivations listed for featuring Spiderman in an Avengers movie are laughable given that Spiderman is an A-list franchise. No extra exposure is needed. The name sells itself. You're talking supposed "legalities" but you're not discussing the logic. We're talking about two studios that will have to come together to reach an agreement both fiscally and over treatment of their characters. It would be chaotic. That is twice as many suits to get to come to an agreement ..... and for what? What do they stand to gain having to split box office proceeds? They can easily make a movie of their own and keep it all to themselves.

As I've stated before, Sony purchased the rights to Spiderman as a headlining franchise. Why would they want to ****e the franchise out just so that Disney's can slap it's name on it? Especially for a stupid cameo! Sony wants to be known for Spiderman movies. They could care less about other film studios in this regard. That's the reason these properties were sold off individually.