Homecoming What should they do with the Spidey franchise? - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]487327[/split]

 

[Rorschach2012]

Should they completely reboot it and let Spidey join the MCU?

Should they add The Amazing Spider-Man universe to the MCU?

Should they continue with TASMU and leave it unconnected to the MCU?

 

[SpideyFan866]

Honestly wouldn't take much to bump ASM3 BO significantly with an MCU tie-in. Besides being a good film of course, all you'd need is a SLJ cameo or some mentions of Stark Industries, while including that stuff in the promos and marketing. Make it seem as an event Spidey movie with a much grander scope. Of course Disney probably wouldn't want to throw that bone to Sony, but Sony is in a huge bind now. They need to make something happen sooner rather than later with this franchise. If I were Arad, I would negotiate turning over the franchise back to Marvel so long as I can make another couple Spidey films within some loose context of the MCU. It would build up a lot of hype and excitement, which is what Spidey needs right now. This deal needs to happen before the end of the year or first quarter next year if both parties are serious about it though.

This. Especially about the timing of the deal. It has to happen soon, if it is to happen at all.

 

[W/ Great Power]

Me too! I still have no idea why Sony cut that scene? it even explained how the Goblin suit works.. why would they cut such integral part of the story?

I have no idea, really. But it goes to show you how last minute some of the changes might have been. Just within the few months of those trailers and the actual movie being released, those scenes were literally scrapped.

This might explain the frustration expressed by Andrew and Emma in a couple of interviews, as their initial excitement had been tempered in some of their appearances in April, May, and June.

Why let TASM 3 hang in the balance of the S6 movie? I would have had TASM 3 come out first if they want a sure thing. Finish assembling the six, then have the Sinister 6 movie be Spidey vs. the six.

I agree about not letting TASM3 be contingent upon S6's outing, but I don't think the fight between Spidey and the villains should be in the S6 as well. That just defeats the purpose of the spinoff, which should only tell the stories on the side and dump into the TASM movies, where the main events are happening.

What I would have done is take advantage of the opportunity to really tell the tale of Peter's life in TASM3, then follow it with S6. What happens now after an event of such magnitude just took place? Maybe this could show what Peter went through in the months of his absence shown in TASM2. This could introduce The Daily Bugle more effectively, perhaps Peter's classmates at ESU, etc. Sony's problem has always been shoehorning so many subplots and villains into one film. This would finally give them the chance to delve into depth with one congruent story, and leave the villains for their spinoff.

Yes, this would only work if the movies were successful. However, if so, S6 could then lead into the eventual fight between Spidey and the villains in TASM4, where the series was originally supposed to end. If Spidey were to have a team-up of his own with Black Cat, for example, that could also happen between TASM3 and TASM4, in either a separate spinoff or a reasonable explanation in TASM3 or S6. If it were in my hands though, I would have Black Cat's assistance of Spidey as sort of a surprise, when all hope is lost for against the S6.

Anyways, I went into more detail than I intended to, but that's how I wish things would have worked out.

Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach confirmed it. Kevin Feige confirmed it as well. That said, both noted that a deal was "never close to to happening". Later, it was revealed to be because of time constraints. It never progressed past talks.

Feige would go on to say that a crossover, while cool, probably wouldn't happen anytime soon due to Marvel and Sony having their own plans for their own universes. But obviously...... things have changed for Sony. And Marvel...... they've gone ahead and greenlighted one of the biggest stories to ever feature him.

That's what makes it so hard as a fan, honestly. I've always wanted to see Spidey back in the MCU, but just the recent direction Marvel has gone in has made it twice as difficult to watch. It's like the main event is about to happen, and Spidey will be watching from the sidelines.

The only way I'll support this series working out is if it goes somewhat along the lines of what I stated above.

 

[HanShotFirst]

-snip-

That's what makes it so hard as a fan, honestly. I've always wanted to see Spidey back in the MCU, but just the recent direction Marvel has gone in has made it twice as difficult to watch. It's like the main event is about to happen, and Spidey will be watching from the sidelines.

The only way I'll support this series working out is if it goes somewhat along the lines of what I stated above.

Exactly! I feel the same way and it's killing me man. IT HURTS!

 

[W/ Great Power]

Exactly! I feel the same way and it's killing me man. IT HURTS!

I even got duped for a few seconds by one of those fan-made trailers where Spidey was teaming up with the Avengers

 

[Mr.M]

It's funny how Arad is the guy who set into motion all the selling of the licenses, and now he ends up being the guy working against Marvel by keeping Spidey locked in his clutches. Guess he doesn't want to be the guy that loses his baby twice.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[BatsDC]

I still believe a deal is in the works with Marvel of some sort. When it'd come into play or be announced, who knows.

 

[spider-neil]

What should they do with the Spidey franchise? I don't really care to be honest.

But I know what they will do. They are likely to go ahead with Sinister Six and they are definitely going ahead with ASM3. If they end up making money in the same way that ASM2 did then they will keep on going with the franchise for as long as they can.

If however they end up being giant box office bombs then they might have second thoughts about continuing. And who knows they may even reboot everything again.

But there is no way they are going to give up this franchise just because of some negative reactions. Sony obviously understands how valuable this character is and they ain't losing him without a fight. So forget about any MCU dreams. It ain't happenin in the next decade.

That's how I see it as well.
Sony aren't like Disney or WB where they have many franchises, they only have a few and Spider-Man and Bond are their biggest earners.

Marvel should blame themselves for making a deal with no expiry date (how stupid is 'that').
The way I see it, you are not going to see Spider-Man in a Marvel unless Sony give permission for this to happen. Unfortunately Sony are Sony, and instead of viewing Spider-Man in a Marvel movie being a boost for Spider-Man i.e. Marvel are doing THEM as favour and they (Sony) make a lot of concessions to simply make it happen, Sony will view Spider-Man a major player and will demand that Spider-Man be given sufficient screen time AND be given some of the backend and Disney/Marvel will never agree to that in a million years.

That is why when people get their panties in twist with regards to Spider-Man appearing in a Marvel movie I can't say I'm bothered as I simply don't see it happening. Marvel don't need Spider-Man at this moment in time and Sony aren't desperate enough to make the deal happen.

People should be hoping for Sony to make an X-Men First Class turnaround (a movie I thought was freaking brilliant and leagues above the overrated DoFP) after Wolverine Origns/X3 rather than hoping for Sinister Six to flop. Even with a flop Sony aren't going to sell Spider-Man. That's not how the movie industry works and before anyone brings up Punisher, Daredevil and Hulk those movies were released because they were never profitable. ASM and ASM2 alone has made 1.4 billion.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[spider-neil]

Agreed. Everyone is jumping the gun with this. Just because they made one bad movie doesn't mean they are going to completely abandon the franchise. And they certainly aren't going to enter a shared agreement that would make them less money than doing their own movies.

You are absolutely right about X-Men. They had two giant turds in a row and not only did they recover but the franchise is in a better position now than it's ever been.

And no one seems to remember that even Marvel had duds with IM2 and at least one Thor movie and possibly more depending on who you ask.

But the one thing ALL of these movies have in common is that they still made money. And ultimately that is all that matters.

See, Puny gets it.

 

[harryoscop]

I liked IM2 and TDW..

 

[Spider-Gnome]

The way I see it, you are not going to see Spider-Man in a Marvel unless Sony give permission for this to happen. Unfortunately Sony are Sony, and instead of viewing Spider-Man in a Marvel movie being a boost for Spider-Man i.e. Marvel are doing THEM as favour and they (Sony) make a lot of concessions to simply make it happen, Sony will view Spider-Man a major player and will demand that Spider-Man be given sufficient screen time AND be given some of the backend and Disney/Marvel will never agree to that in a million years.

And that just seems wrong-headed (I don't mean you, spider-neil, I mean on Sony's part). Ideally, I'd like Spider-Man to go back to Marvel Studios, and note I say this instead of Disney. I don't see Sony necessarily losing the rights. Work out a deal, like was done for Universal or Paramount, where Sony still owns the distribution rights, but Marvel Studios makes the films. You can still have Goddard make the films, there's that Whedon connection. Just reboot it and have him in the MCU. Sony gets the boost of better movies (Marvel Studios have proven they know how to handle their properties) and the hype of being a Marvel movie (just look at Guardians of the Galaxy!) and Disney gets to add Spidey in their cross over movies as well as increasing merchandizing on more successful Spidey solo films!

People should be hoping for Sony to make an X-Men First Class turnaround (a movie I thought was freaking brilliant and leagues above the overrated DoFP) after Wolverine Origns/X3 rather than hoping for Sinister Six to flop. Even with a flop Sony aren't going to sell Spider-Man. That's not how the movie industry works and before anyone brings up Punisher, Daredevil and Hulk those movies were released because they were never profitable. ASM and ASM2 alone has made 1.4 billion.

I think X-Men is a special case. The original X-Men films didn't have an origin film. They started out as an established team. First Class gave us an origin that was set in the 60's, like when the comic came out and was able to recast roles with younger actors. They essentially did what Star Trek did with JJ Abrams. And they also shared something else, having time travel to work as a soft reboot.

This doesn't work with ASM movies. We have his origin, and the death of Gwen, and origins for Harry, Norman, & Goblin. And time travel doesn't really work for Spidey like it does the other franchises. Time travel seems inherent in the other films. In a street level ASM, it would be a cheap gimmick.

Just reboot with Goddard in the MCU and let Sony & Disney make some sort of deal like I mentioned where everyone wins (particularly the fans t!

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Agreed. Everyone is jumping the gun with this. Just because they made one bad movie doesn't mean they are going to completely abandon the franchise. And they certainly aren't going to enter a shared agreement that would make them less money than doing their own movies.

You are absolutely right about X-Men. They had two giant turds in a row and not only did they recover but the franchise is in a better position now than it's ever been.

And no one seems to remember that even Marvel had duds with IM2 and at least one Thor movie and possibly more depending on who you ask.

But the one thing ALL of these movies have in common is that they still made money. And ultimately that is all that matters.

Sony has a chance to right the ship. S6 being a tremendous success will definitely get things going down the right path and if they were to be smart about it and continue that success with ASM3, the franchise will be in a much better place than it is now. By success, I am talking about the critical and more importantly, audience response--because the movie has real merit due to the quality of the film.

And you say they've only had one bad movie, by that I am assuming you are referring to ASM2. But that also depends on who you ask. For some or even many, Sony has had three bad movies in a row, starting with SM3 of course.

And that just seems wrong-headed (I don't mean you, spider-neil, I mean on Sony's part). Ideally, I'd like Spider-Man to go back to Marvel Studios, and note I say this instead of Disney. I don't see Sony necessarily losing the rights. Work out a deal, like was done for Universal or Paramount, where Sony still owns the distribution rights, but Marvel Studios makes the films. You can still have Goddard make the films, there's that Whedon connection. Just reboot it and have him in the MCU. Sony gets the boost of better movies (Marvel Studios have proven they know how to handle their properties) and the hype of being a Marvel movie (just look at Guardians of the Galaxy!) and Disney gets to add Spidey in their cross over movies as well as increasing merchandizing on more successful Spidey solo films!

I'm not saying Sony can't turn things around but this idea is really good.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

Sony has a chance to right the ship. S6 being a tremendous success will definitely get things going down the right path and if they were to be smart about it and continue that success with ASM3, the franchise will be in a much better place than it is now. By success, I am talking about the critical and more importantly, audience response--because the movie has real merit due to the quality of the film.

And you say they've only had one bad movie, by that I am assuming you are referring to ASM2. But that also depends on who you ask. For some or even many, Sony has had three bad movies in a row, starting with SM3 of course.

Agree. Let Marvel Studios take over now.

I'm not saying Sony can't turn things around but this idea is really good.

Thanks. I think it's basically a license to print money for both studios!

 

[Dark Raven]

Sony should reboot Spider-Man again with yet another origin and see if audiences will have the patience to sit through that again. Maybe third time will be a charm.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

I'd reboot like Spectacular where Pete is already Spidey but has not yet faced a super villain yet. You can do the origin in the opening credits ala The Incredible Hulk, or flashback ala Batman (1989).

 

[Spider-Gnome]

If rebooting him is an option for both marvel and Sony then a tv series would be a wise choice to expand the character and the mythos to dwell in deeper and finally making it more true to the mythos

A Netflix series done by Marvel Studios would be my preferred option, with movies for the bigger events, and crossovers in the MCU.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

No, no rebooting spiderman. All I want is for TASM universe to crossover into the MCU. the series is like some person being abused by everyone around him and meeds to prove himself that he can shape up. the film cannot be remembered as poor in the future. there were alot of stuff that would make the past 2 films great from everything we found out. The series needs better material and garfield is a great fit for Peter and spiderman. and if they do reboot it no more spiderman movies. Just make a live action tv series. The mythos is massive for that. I don't care if the budget would be difficult both films had problems with the pacing and the supporting characters even the growth of the character is a really long one as well as his relationships. Having all of that crammed in for another 2 1/2 hour movie is a poor idea.

I don't care for TASM Webbverse. They ruined Goblin to me and that is a BIG part of the Spider-Man mythos. There is too much wrong, in my opinion, and the series moving forward should not be handcuffed by that continuity.

Also tobey was never a good Peter. The only thing he had going for him is his protagonist looking face. That's it.

In your opinion. I thought Toby was much more like Pete. Garfield only looked more like Pete.

 

[Dark Raven]

Avengers Hulk may be connected to Ed Norton Hulk, but Marvel seem to play it down very much. Ruffalo's Hulk practically appeared out of nowhere without an origin story again. It wasn't that long after The Incredible Hulk either.

Maybe MCU Spider-Man could appear in an Avengers film in the same way. He just shows up, and they fill in the blanks later on. You are then allowed to make what you will of the Webb series, whether it actually is in continuity or not, but nothing could be explicitly said by Marvel.

There's no major reference by Ruffalo Hulk to the Norton Hulk film. Even the scene in Avengers where Ruffalo mentions trying to kill himself but the Hulk wouldn't allow it, well that was in a deleted scene in TIH which hasn't been seen by many. And he could be referring to something similar but not the exact same thing anyway, as they've left it ambiguous deliberately.

So I think Spidey could come into the MCU with a new actor but they leave it open-ended as to whether he's the same Spidey as Garfield.

I actually think Maguire's continuity might fit better into the MCU than Garfield's though, leaving aside any acting or characterisation for the moment.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

How does he capture peter? Yeah he learns with great power comes great responsibility and had some stories similar to Peter but he never acts like peter at all nor does he even act much like a person. He's always the same pre spider bite version but with less angst with the exception of the wrestling scene. Garfield at least has some traits of Peter Parker like his personality, humanity, and intelligence for TASM 1 and he also has most traits as his ultimate version like his personality, his history, his homelife, etc. he's also a much better actor as well

It bugs me that neither Raimi nor Webb could just let Pete being a self-centered dick be the catalyst for Ben's murder. Both times they had to make sure someone was there (wrestling promoter, convenience store Hurley) to screw him over so his failing to stop the robber would be partially justifiable.

We've all had our dick moments. Everyone could empathize with that, and they didn't need to rob that event of most of it's impact just to make sure everyone was still on Pete's side.

 

[JOE]

Agreed.

The death scenes would have been 10x more powerful. In a way, you sympathize with the character more than anything. The clerk and promoter were both major a**holes. You get a lot of people thinking, "I would have done the same thing." Opposed to, "Man, what a jerk. I never would have done that!"

 

[Frodo]

How does he capture peter? Yeah he learns with great power comes great responsibility and had some stories similar to Peter but he never acts like peter at all nor does he even act much like a person. He's always the same pre spider bite version but with less angst with the exception of the wrestling scene. Garfield at least has some traits of Peter Parker like his personality, humanity, and intelligence for TASM 1 and he also has most traits as his ultimate version like his personality, his history, his homelife, etc. he's also a much better actor as well

They were both playing different aspects of Peter Parker. Maguire's Parker emphasized the more dorky nerdy side yet was able to truly capture the tortured element of Peter's psyche and certainly the guilt. He was the everyman regular joe quality of the Peter Parker character an much closer to Stan Lee's original idea of the character. He didn't automatically get the hot girlfriend. He had a dead end job. He struggled to pay his bills. He was an A student getting F's and he was basically lieing to his the ones he cared about. He was great for what that version of the character called for and the guy was a great actor and he connected with audiences even though fanboys may not like to admit it.

That said , Garfield captured more the outsider and snarky Peter Parker Spiderman. He had more of Peter Parker confidence of the Romita era. He got the pretty girl right away. Yeah, he always had a thing for her but once they met they got together pretty quickly. That was alot closer to the Romita era in which he changed from being a lanky kid to a handsome more heroic looking guy. He also was more of Peter Parker the creator and genius from the early comics while at the same time being much more willing to stand up to people. He also had the sensitivity and quirkness which was a counter to his confidence. For what was written, Garfield odviously did a great job even though there are fanboys who may not like to admit that.

They're both Peter Parker, just different aspects and versions of him, and both versions were valid . The problem is, fans like to reduce these actors performances to one thing or the other as a means of dismissing them, and furthering their own arguments. Half the fans say Maguire was a bad Peter Parker who was always a goodie good, and the other half say Garfield was just a hipster . They're both freaking good and talented actors and both captured Peter Parker well , so its nonsense for fans to argue that either them was lacking or one note.

 

[degraves93]

They were both playing different aspects of Peter Parker. Maguire's Parker emphasized the more dorky nerdy side yet was able to truly capture the tortured element of Peter's psyche and certainly the guilt. He was the everyman regular joe quality of the Peter Parker character an much closer to Stan Lee's original idea of the character. He didn't automatically get the hot girlfriend. He had a dead end job. He struggled to pay his bills. He was an A student getting F's and he was basically lieing to his the ones he cared about. He was great for what that version of the character called for and the guy was a great actor and he connected with audiences even though fanboys may not like to admit it.

That said , Garfield captured more the outsider and snarky Peter Parker Spiderman. He had more of Peter Parker confidence of the Romita era. He got the pretty girl right away. Yeah, he always had a thing for her but once they met they got together pretty quickly. That was alot closer to the Romita era in which he changed from being a lanky kid to a handsome more heroic looking guy. He also was more of Peter Parker the creator and genius from the early comics while at the same time being much more willing to stand up to people. He also had the sensitivity and quirkness which was a counter to his confidence. For what was written, Garfield odviously did a great job even though there are fanboys who may not like to admit that.

They're both Peter Parker, just different aspects and versions of him, and both versions were valid . The problem is, fans like to reduce these actors performances to one thing or the other as a means of dismissing them, and furthering their own arguments. Half the fans say Maguire was a bad Peter Parker who was always a goodie good, and the other half say Garfield was just a hipster . They're both freaking good and talented actors and both captured Peter Parker well , so its nonsense for fans to argue that either them was lacking or one note.

This. All of this. I prefer Garfield to Maguire for sure, but both did a great job.