Homecoming The Next Spider-Man - - - - - Part 14

[Dark Raven]

...
No one is dissing him...
Are you so overprotective that when someone claims that you shouldn't trust someone 100% that they are dissing them?

You really should stop pretending people are just hating on reporters. There is a difference between hate and mistrust. Talion doesn't share his sources with all of us because we are not deemed worthy, not because he hates us.

Fixed.

 

[Hellion]

Ok thanks
Spider-man: the new avenger would be pretty good marketing-wise (I know anyone in this forum would accept just plain "Spider-man" or "Marvel's Spider-man" but they obviously can't name it either one of those). The one problem I have is that the name also implies that Avengers were a big plot point and I really don't want that

That sounds better for tie-in material.

I don't mind "Marvel's Spider-Man" though.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

LOL...sorry, Dark Raven...

oh, lol.

Fixed.

 

[Hellion]

oh, lol.

Trying to catch up in the thread, I was just a little confused how Dark Raven's name became a topic of discussion...


my reaction at the time:

 

[harryoscop]

Knowing Sony, I could easily see them going with this type of title.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

why not? netflix daredevil is simply titled daredevil, sometimes referred to marvel's daredvil.

so, why couldn't they just name it spiderman? or marvel's spiderman? the "marvel's" could be interpreted as "marvel cinematic universe presents:"

Mainly because "Spider-man" was the film that kickstarted the modern age of superhero movies and is still one of the most influencial comicbook movies. In a nutshell it was huge and it left a big mark on pop culture. Nobody gave a damn about the Daredevil movie. GA wont get the difference between Spider-man and Marvel's Spider-man since they already saw a Marvel logo in front of every Sony Spider-man movie. And if it was called Marvel's Spider-man, the "Marvel's" part in posters would be small enough that it would be entirely dismissed as an irrelevant production company logo by people and their take-away from it would be just that the movie is called "Spider-man"

 

[Dark Raven]

Trying to catch up in the thread, I was just a little confused how Dark Raven's name became a topic of discussion...


my reaction at the time:

That's what Spidey's confidence will do: He'll waltz right in and take MJ away from Flash Angelica away from Bobby.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Trying to catch up in the thread, I was just a little confused how Dark Raven's name became a topic of discussion...


my reaction at the time:

I think it started as a joke where someone said, what if none of the young actors' auditions/screen tests satisfied marvel, so marvel looked to casting someone here who's funny, and someone namedropped a few and someone else said dark raven is funnier but called him a she, and then he proceeded to explain his username and stuff. I think that's the gist of it.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Mainly because "Spider-man" was the film that kickstarted the modern age of superhero movies and is still one of the most influencial comicbook movies. In a nutshell it was huge and it left a big mark on pop culture. Nobody gave a damn about the Daredevil movie. GA wont get the difference between Spider-man and Marvel's Spider-man since they already saw a Marvel logo in front of every Sony Spider-man movie. And if it was called Marvel's Spider-man, the "Marvel's" part in posters would be small enough that it would be entirely dismissed as an irrelevant production company logo by people and their take-away from it would be just that the movie is called "Spider-man"

about 2002 spiderman being the breakthrough that it is, I'm not doubting that, but naming the reboot that wouldn't be a box office gamble.

and in any case, the general audience's confusion will diffuse or be prevented once they see spiderman in cap3.

and by now they'll start getting the trends anyway because last year there was a quicksilver in an x men movie and it's not only a different actor but just pretty much a different character. which is kinda true.

 

[Pecola1]

I like "Marvels Spider-Man" way more than "The New Avenger". Whatever it becomes, they need to be able to slap subtitles on it without it's name being confused with Spider-Man 1,2 and 3. So they can't just go with Spider-Man. But the New Avenger is a horrible title, might as well name everyones first solo that when they join the team.
At least call it "The Webbed Avenger" or something like that. In all honesty though, the first spidey movie should be as separate from the rest of the MCU event as possible. This is a spidey solo, and it should focus on spidey, not some super-humanr-egistration-act or the forming of the secret avengers or something. Thus "Avengers" should not be int he title of his first solo. No reason for it to be, it wouldn't even make sense.
They could go with Spectacular or Ultimate or something, but then it would be assumed that it would follow those storylines, so probably not unless they do.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ The 2017 film will not be called "Marvel's Spider-Man" because Marvel doesn't own the character. End. Of. Story.

As far as this "New Avenger" thing goes, though, it's BS, just the like the guy who 'scooped' it.

 

[Talion]

Knowing Sony, I could easily see them going with this type of title.

Actually, knowing Marvel, I could definitely seeing them going with this type of title. It's clever, it's a classy way of making a stand that this isn't the old Sony's Spider-Man films and it's rich in comic book history. From all the recent subtitles, if they go with that I feel like this one is the one that I like it the best. Kinda hate the Age of Ultron subtitle, but then again Age of Ultron the movie is so awesome that I don't even think about the awful comic saga that the movie stole the title from.

 

[Katsuro]

^ The 2017 film will not be called "Marvel's Spider-Man" because Marvel doesn't own the character. End. Of. Story.

There is absolutely no reason they couldn't call it that if they wanted to. Marvel's heavily involved in the production. You think they're gonna work out a huge co-financing deal involving crossovers, but stop at using Marvel in the name? Come on.

That said, I don't think that's the name they'll choose. Marketing-wise, there are better options (including The New Avenger), but it's absolutely something they could do.

 

[Micromind]

^ The 2017 film will not be called "Marvel's Spider-Man" because Marvel doesn't own the character. End. Of. Story.

As far as this "New Avenger" thing goes, though, it's BS, just the like the guy who 'scooped' it.

Yeah, Sony would not agree with a title like that ...as long as they have rights to make solo Spider-man movies.

 

[Wise]

Trying to catch up in the thread, I was just a little confused how Dark Raven's name became a topic of discussion...


my reaction at the time:

In hindsight Bobby shouldn't be too bothered by Peter stealing Angelica

 

[Talion]

In hindsight Bobby shouldn't be too bothered by Peter stealing Angelica

Maybe because he's bothered by Angelica stealing Peter?

 

[DigificWriter]

There is absolutely no reason they couldn't call it that if they wanted to. Marvel's heavily involved in the production. You think they're gonna work out a huge co-financing deal involving crossovers, but stop at using Marvel in the name? Come on.

That said, I don't think that's the name they'll choose. Marketing-wise, there are better options (including The New Avenger), but it's absolutely something they could do.

1) This is not a co-financing deal. Sony is financing the 2017 film themselves and will keep all profits made from it. Conversely, Marvel Studios keeps all profits made from the sale of Spider-Man merchandise and the character's appearance in Civil War and potentially other films.

2) Sony retains full control and ownership of the Spider-Man IP, and is simply leasing the character to Marvel Studios. In exchange, they (Sony) get Kevin Feige's help in relaunching/rejuvenating their IP in live-action, and do not have to pay him a single penny for his services.

 

[MyDudeSpidey]

1) This is not a co-financing deal. Sony is financing the 2017 film themselves and will keep all profits made from it. Conversely, Marvel Studios keeps all profits made from the sale of Spider-Man merchandise and the character's appearance in Civil War and potentially other films.

2) Sony retains full control and ownership of the Spider-Man IP, and is simply leasing the character to Marvel Studios. In exchange, they (Sony) get Kevin Feige's help in relaunching/rejuvenating their IP in live-action, and do not have to pay him a single penny for his services.

And do you think Marvel would agree to that if the creative direction of the character wasn't on their terms?

 

[Lantern Venom]

In hindsight Bobby shouldn't be too bothered by Peter stealing Angelica

Maybe because he's bothered by Angelica stealing Peter?

 

[DigificWriter]

And do you think Marvel would agree to that if the creative direction of the character wasn't on their terms?

Yes, because they wouldn't have gotten what they were after (usage of Spider-Man) if they hadn't.

You may want to believe differently, but Sony did not cede control of their IP - creative or otherwise - to Marvel. What they did is give Marvel the opportunity to lease Spider-Man and use him in the MCU in exchange for Marvel helping them relaunch the live-action Spider-Man film franchise.

Going forward, Spider-Man will be appearing in films produced by two companies - Sony and Marvel Studios - with each company independently overseeing the establishment and perpetuation of a compatible creative narrative that will begin with Civil War.

Although he will likely be paid by Marvel Studios during the course of production on the 2017 film, he will actually be operating independently of MS for the duration of said production and will be carrying out Sony's creative wishes while also molding said creative wishes so as to fit them into the larger tapestry of the already-established MCU.

 

[Comic Book Guy]

Yes, because they wouldn't have gotten what they were after (usage of Spider-Man) if they hadn't.

You may want to believe differently, but Sony did not cede control of their IP - creative or otherwise - to Marvel. What they did is give Marvel the opportunity to lease Spider-Man and use him in the MCU in exchange for Marvel helping them relaunch the live-action Spider-Man film franchise.

Going forward, Spider-Man will be appearing in films produced by two companies - Sony and Marvel Studios - with each company independently overseeing the establishment and perpetuation of a compatible creative narrative that will begin with Civil War.

Although he will likely be paid by Marvel Studios during the course of production on the 2017 film, he will actually be operating independently of MS for the duration of said production and will be carrying out Sony's creative wishes while also molding said creative wishes so as to fit them into the larger tapestry of the already-established MCU.

Jesus christ man. Do you have to take this argument in every thread you post in? At least leave this crap in the general.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ So long as people continue to blatantly misrepresent the situation, I will continue to correct them on it.

 

[Comic Book Guy]

Except you're not correcting anyone, you're just making yourself look silly by doing the same exact thing you claim you're on a crusade against. And actually even worse because you do it literally without knowing what you're talking about and using your own conjecture as fact. smh man, wake up.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Nothing that I have said is in any way factually incorrect.

 

[Comic Book Guy]

Ignoring the fact that's not true, nothing you have said is factually correct either, it's your own conjecture based off of your own interpretation, which according to the only bit of factual evidence we have (the emails) is incorrect.