Sequels Why Spiderman's presence in the MCU needs to be established, why SMCU is not enough

[Spooderman]

I beg to differ. Seeing as how all the marvel franchises have upped in popularity post avengers and spiderman is being kept away from all of that, I've got no reason to believe that him being separate from the mcu is one major reason why people are caring about spiderman less.

Batman isn't in the MCU, but his movies made zillions at the box office. Your argument is invalid

Sure, if Spider-Man was a part of the MCU his mediocre movies would make more money just on the account of being part of of a shared universe. However he's already a big name character, and can hold up his own series if the quality of the films are good, as Batman proved.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Batman isn't in the MCU, but his movies made zillions at the box office. Your argument is invalid

Sure, if Spider-Man was a part of the MCU his mediocre movies would make more money just on the account of being part of of a shared universe. However he's already a big name character, and can hold up his own series if the quality of the films are good, as Batman proved.

I don't care if you think my argument is invalid. Nothing, and I repeat nothing, will make me believe otherwise.

In the most recent series of Batman films, BB did good at the box office but did not break any records, as far as I can remember. TDK on the other hand, had HUGE hype behind it thanks to the death of heath. I can definitely say that is one reason why interest in the film skyrocketed. Moreover, several years later DKR broke similar records, but the film itself was way closer to BB in terms of storytelling. So in my opinion, it is safe to say that TDK is what propelled batman into a top tier Hollywood film franchise. The series before did well at the box office but none of those films did as well the spiderman films.

And yeah, obviously spiderman is a big name character, but thanks to avengers, iron man has become an even bigger name character, bigger than he was before avengers, and back then spiderman was still king, of marvel at least.

for all intents and purposes, SM3 is the worst spiderman film ever and also the highest grossing still. so YOUR argument about these movies' popularity declining because of the poor quality of the films is invalid.

as well, I am my own living example and proof that everything in the OP is true. back when I was in high school and IM came out and everyone was gossiping about all these marvel characters being in each others' movies, my immediate first question was "spiderman?" and everybody was like, "uhh, no" and I was like... wtf? How can they be doing this without him?

and then with each following year before 2012 with marvel making their superhero movies I was generally uninterested because of how spiderman was uninvolved. and I KNOW there has to be others who thought and think the same as I do.

btw spooderman... i'm not naming any names but i heard you are a tasm fanboy and an mcu hater, so perhaps i should take wat you say with that in mind

 

[Spooderman]

I don't care if you think my argument is invalid. Nothing, and I repeat nothing, will make me believe otherwise.

So you ignore evidence to justify your viewpoint. Whatever.

In the most recent series of Batman films, BB did good at the box office but did not break any records, as far as I can remember.

BB didn't do so well partially because of the fail that was Batman & Robin, partially because it decided to go the dark & gritty route. It was in a tight spot.

TDK on the other hand, had HUGE hype behind it thanks to the death of heath. I can definitely say that is one reason why interest in the film skyrocketed.

You don't know how much it caused it to skyrocket. People loved his performance in the trailers months before he died.

Moreover, several years later DKR broke similar records, but the film itself was way closer to BB in terms of storytelling. So in my opinion, it is safe to say that TDK is what propelled batman into a top tier Hollywood film franchise. The series before did well at the box office but none of those films did as well the spiderman films.

It just shows that a good Batman film had the potential to make over a billion without being connected to an expanded universe. Spider-Man can do the same.

for all intents and purposes, SM3 is the worst spiderman film ever and also the highest grossing still. so YOUR argument about these movies' popularity declining because of the poor quality of the films is invalid.

TASM2 has the worst reviews. TASM1 isn't much better than SM3, and is much worse than SM1&2. And SM3 probably had some role in people not seeing the reboot series (although the fact that they are poor quality films didn't help).

SM3 followed SM2 which is considered one of the best superhero movies ever, which is one of the reasons why it made a lot more money, and probably would have made a lot more if they didn't have that stupid dance scene.

btw spooderman... i'm not naming any names but i heard you are a tasm fanboy and an mcu hater, so perhaps i should take wat you say with that in mind

Wrong on both accounts. I mean seriously, my first post on this thread was that the TASM films were poor quality, what gave you the idea that I was a TASM fanboy?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

So you ignore evidence to justify your viewpoint. Whatever.

you didn't provide any evidence to me besides your own opinion that the poor quality of the asm series is why it is declining. but i am willing to have a *civil* debate with you as long as you don't start insulting me personally.

MY evidence has been the uprising box offices of the lower tier marvel characters pre avengers to post avengers, especially iron man, and spiderman staying there on the side having nothing to do with it.

BB didn't do so well partially because of the fail that was Batman & Robin, partially because it decided to go the dark & gritty route. It was in a tight spot.

You can make any hypothesis really about why BB didn't do great, but I can even argue that at the time people didn't really care much for Batman in film. Not again at least, until TDK.

You don't know how much it caused it to skyrocket. People loved his performance in the trailers months before he died.

that's right I don't but a part of me believes his demise definitely had a lot to do with it. back in 2008, I didn't even think it would beat IM, but it did, and probably ended up being the highest grossing film of that year.

It just shows that a good Batman film had the potential to make over a billion without being connected to an expanded universe. Spider-Man can do the same.

to me, it was because everybody was excited and really anticipating the sequel to the hot film that was TDK. it wasn't exactly the same as BB leading up to TDK, other than the fact of course that everybody wanted to see the joker.

and I, along with probably many others was disappointed to hear that they won't be using bale's batman for DCCU. i'll still go and see BVSDOJ, but not because of the new batman; i don't care for him, but it's just what they are doing next.

TASM2 has the worst reviews. TASM1 isn't much better than SM3, and is much worse than SM1&2. And SM3 probably had some role in people not seeing the reboot series (although the fact that they are poor quality films didn't help).

there's both right and wrong to this... sm3 has a higher RT rating but the user rating is lower compared to asm2.

as far as metacritic though which is more important, sm3 does have a higher score by 6 points so i have to give you credit there. but the amazing spiderman had a way higher RT rating even though its rating there itself wasn't that high, and also had a higher metacritic rating. what that should tell is you is that even though people were divided about it and (at the time) the recent departure of the raimi series, they were still accepting of the new one.

SM3 followed SM2 which is considered one of the best superhero movies ever, which is one of the reasons why it made a lot more money, and probably would have made a lot more if they didn't have that stupid dance scene.

that is something i never understood. i know the general consensus is that SM2 is one of the greatest comic book movies of all time but I personally never bought into it. I always thought the first one in the raimi series was the best. and we don't have to get into the rights and wrongs about SM3 because obviously there was a lot wrong with it.

Wrong on both accounts. I mean seriously, my first post on this thread was that the TASM films were poor quality, what gave you the idea that I was a TASM fanboy?

if you were offended by me saying that then just disregard it. we can move passed it. but to answer the question, I got the idea from what someone else said about you.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I don't care if you think my argument is invalid. Nothing, and I repeat nothing, will make me believe otherwise.

In the most recent series of Batman films, BB did good at the box office but did not break any records, as far as I can remember. TDK on the other hand, had HUGE hype behind it thanks to the death of heath. I can definitely say that is one reason why interest in the film skyrocketed. Moreover, several years later DKR broke similar records, but the film itself was way closer to BB in terms of storytelling. So in my opinion, it is safe to say that TDK is what propelled batman into a top tier Hollywood film franchise. The series before did well at the box office but none of those films did as well the spiderman films.

And yeah, obviously spiderman is a big name character, but thanks to avengers, iron man has become an even bigger name character, bigger than he was before avengers, and back then spiderman was still king, of marvel at least.

for all intents and purposes, SM3 is the worst spiderman film ever and also the highest grossing still. so YOUR argument about these movies' popularity declining because of the poor quality of the films is invalid.

as well, I am my own living example and proof that everything in the OP is true. back when I was in high school and IM came out and everyone was gossiping about all these marvel characters being in each others' movies, my immediate first question was "spiderman?" and everybody was like, "uhh, no" and I was like... wtf? How can they be doing this without him?

and then with each following year before 2012 with marvel making their superhero movies I was generally uninterested because of how spiderman was uninvolved. and I KNOW there has to be others who thought and think the same as I do.

btw spooderman... i'm not naming any names but i heard you are a tasm fanboy and an mcu hater, so perhaps i should take wat you say with that in mind

Batman Begins was coming after Batman and Robin, and that terrible Catwoman movie. Catwoman is a famous Batman character so audiences would be really put off Batman related movies after that. Also there was no decent marketing for Batman Begins.

The Dark Knight had the most amazing marketing campaign ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpuC7HhCPWA

The whole world was involved in it. Heath Ledger's death is not a big reason why it made a billion. Actors die all the time before movies come out and they don't make a billion lol.

Spider-Man 3 was the sequel to two very popular and successful Spider-Man movies. Audiences thought they were getting another Spider-Man 2 quality movie again. Venom is also a huge a fan favourite villain.

 

[Spooderman]

you didn't provide any evidence to me besides your own opinion that the poor quality of the asm series is why it is declining. but i am willing to have a *civil* debate with you as long as you don't start insulting me personally.

I gave the examples of batman to show that being part of an expanded universe isn't necessary for a franchise to succeed, and the last 3 Spider-Man films have been divisive which would cause audiences to lose interest.

MY evidence has been the uprising box offices of the lower tier marvel characters pre avengers to post avengers, especially iron man, and spiderman staying there on the side having nothing to do with it.

Spider-Man already started out high tier, he doesn't need the MCU to keep that status. If he's losing that status it's not because he's not a part of the MCU, it's because Sony has been putting out sub par films, which they have been doing.

And frankly, I'd rather Spider-Man become more obscure than be in MCU films that are the same quality of TASM1, TASM2, Thor 2, and/or IM2.

that's right I don't but a part of me believes his demise definitely had a lot to do with it. back in 2008, I didn't even think it would beat IM, but it did, and probably ended up being the highest grossing film of that year.

Iron Man was the first film in the franchise, wasn't connected to the expanded universe at the time, and was about a character who wasn't that popular. TDK was about Batman and was a sequel to a critically praised film. the 1B surprised me, but that it made more money than Iron Man didn't.

there's both right and wrong to this... sm3 has a higher RT rating but the user rating is lower compared to asm2.

as far as metacritic though which is more important, sm3 does have a higher score by 6 points so i have to give you credit there. but the amazing spiderman had a way higher RT rating even though its rating there itself wasn't that high, and also had a higher metacritic rating.

TASM1 being not much better than SM3 is primarily my opinion. It definitely did better with critics and audiences, but still far from SM1 or 2.

if you were offended by me saying that then just disregard it. we can move passed it. but to answer the question, I got the idea from what someone else said about you.

I'm not really offended, it's just that it's not true. That person said that because I was against Spider-Man going back to Marvel Studios for a multitude of reasons, but not because I liked the TASM series or hated the MCU.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Batman Begins was coming after Batman and Robin, and that terrible Catwoman movie. Catwoman is a famous Batman character so audiences would be really put off Batman related movies after that. Also there was no decent marketing for Batman Begins.

The Dark Knight had the most amazing marketing campaign ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpuC7HhCPWA

The whole world was involved in it. Heath Ledger's death is not a big reason why it made a billion. Actors die all the time before movies come out and they don't make a billion lol.

Spider-Man 3 was the sequel to two very popular and successful Spider-Man movies. Audiences thought they were getting another Spider-Man 2 quality movie again. Venom is also a huge a fan favourite villain.

still, if batman was an important enough figure at the time I think the film would have grossed higher.

I gave the examples of batman to show that being part of an expanded universe isn't necessary for a franchise to succeed, and the last 3 Spider-Man films have been divisive which would cause audiences to lose interest.

there was no expanded universe at the time for batman to be a part of. the only thing that that can be compared to is present day, and i already said i don't like how they're not using bale's batman for dccu.

marvel, on the other hand, has been doing big things since 2008, and the first culmination of it all was 2012, the same year as spidey's reboot. If people saw a hint of mcu in tasm it would have been more popular, especially more thing tasm 2 since this is the year right before the sequel to avengers. i realluy do not see any getting around this.

Spider-Man already started out high tier, he doesn't need the MCU to keep that status. If he's losing that status it's not because he's not a part of the MCU, it's because Sony has been putting out sub par films, which they have been doing.

he started out high tier but he's not there anymore because he's not part of the bigger picture. the transformers films among other franchises have proven that sub par films and films even below such ratings aren't necessary to be massive box office hits.

this is especially clear to me seeing as how marvel films that used to way LESS at the box office are now making way way MORE, more than even raimi films made, that is the case with at least iron man.

And frankly, I'd rather Spider-Man become more obscure than be in MCU films that are the same quality of TASM1, TASM2, Thor 2, and/or IM2.

we're getting subjective here since you think the asm series is so horrible. i don't think they're that bad and i don't think tasm2 deserves the unnecessary hate it receives. and i disagree, i still don't like how spiderman is in his own universe instead of mcu.

Iron Man was the first film in the franchise, wasn't connected to the expanded universe at the time, and was about a character who wasn't that popular. TDK was about Batman and was a sequel to a critically praised film. the 1B surprised me, but that it made more money than Iron Man didn't.

you're pretty much spot on here but even then, the average comic book movie probably makes more than the average hollywood film, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to think TDK would do as good as IM. even though in reality it was way way more.

TASM1 being not much better than SM3 is primarily my opinion. It definitely did better with critics and audiences, but still far from SM1 or 2.

that might just be because people were un-accepting of a new spiderman series, but again i'll say if there was any hint of an mcu in it, the audience would have liked it more.

I'm not really offended, it's just that it's not true. That person said that because I was against Spider-Man going back to Marvel Studios for a multitude of reasons, but not because I liked the TASM series or hated the MCU.

I see. well it's not really my business, I don't know among how many other members here you have such a reputation.

 

[Spooderman]

there was no expanded universe at the time for batman to be a part of. the only thing that that can be compared to is present day, and i already said i don't like how they're not using bale's batman for dccu.

No expanded universe, and the films still did well.

And after Nolan ****ed up TDKR, there was no way for Bale's Batman to be in the DCCU.

marvel, on the other hand, has been doing big things since 2008, and the first culmination of it all was 2012, the same year as spidey's reboot

I'm not denying that these Spider-man films would be more popular if they were part of the MCU, but they don't need to be part of the shared universe to be popular among audiences.

he started out high tier but he's not there anymore because he's not part of the bigger picture. the transformers films among other franchises have proven that sub par films and films even below such ratings aren't necessary to be massive box office hits.

Transformers and Spider-Man have different demographics and audience expectations. People who watch Transformers want to see a mindless battle of giant robots. People who watch Spider-man want depth and coherency.

this is especially clear to me seeing as how marvel films that used to way LESS at the box office are now making way way MORE, more than even raimi films made, that is the case with at least iron man.

Robert Downey Jr.

we're getting subjective here since you think the asm series is so horrible. i don't think they're that bad and i don't think tasm2 deserves the unnecessary hate it receives. and i disagree, i still don't like how spiderman is in his own universe instead of mcu.

Being a part of the MCU won't inherently make the quality of the films go up.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

No expanded universe, and the films still did well.

And after Nolan ****ed up TDKR, there was no way for Bale's Batman to be in the DCCU.

why do you keep going in circles? I already addressed this, there was no DCCU for batman to BE a part of back then so there was no harm done. it can only be compared to present day, and they could have still used bale's batman if they wanted to. they could have made it work.

I'm not denying that these Spider-man films would be more popular if they were part of the MCU, but they don't need to be part of the shared universe to be popular among audiences.

I think they do, in fact I think it is absolutely necessary judging by how successful the mcu has become, people care way less about spiderman since he's alone in his cinematic universe.

Transformers and Spider-Man have different demographics and audience expectations. People who watch Transformers want to see a mindless battle of giant robots. People who watch Spider-man want depth and coherency.

that's not the point. they're both hollywood blockbuster franchises with several instalments with bad reception. and there are others like them who still end up with huge numbers at the box office.

Robert Downey Jr.

yeah, Iron Man. his numbers didn't shoot up high until post avengers. if you're suggesting he is the reason for IM being a succesful series period then IM 1 and 2 would have performed similar (not as good tho) as IM3.

Being a part of the MCU won't inherently make the quality of the films go up.

that's your opinion. mine is that making spiderman part of the mcu automatically makes the films better. simply because it makes him part of a bigger picture.

 

[Spooderman]

why do you keep going in circles? I already addressed this, there was no DCCU for batman to BE a part of back then so there was no harm done. it can only be compared to present day, and they could have still used bale's batman if they wanted to. they could have made it work.

The MCU already existed, although Avengers came out the same year as TDKR. However I'm willing to bet that even if TDKR came out in 2013, it would probably still make over a billion.

I think they do, in fact I think it is absolutely necessary judging by how successful the mcu has become, people care way less about spiderman since he's alone in his cinematic universe.

Or rather, it's because these movies aren't quite as good. X-men DOFP made a lot of money, even though interest in the X-Men films was declining, because it was an epic film. It didn't rely on being in the MCU and made more money than this year's MCU film.

that's not the point. they're both hollywood blockbuster franchises with several instalments with bad reception. and there are others like them who still end up with huge numbers at the box office.

Then what's your point?

yeah, Iron Man. his numbers didn't shoot up high until post avengers. if you're suggesting he is the reason for IM being a succesful series period then IM 1 and 2 would have performed similar (not as good tho) as IM3.

True, but Cap 2 and Thor 2 didn't make quite as much. Although IM was more popular to begin with.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The MCU already existed, although Avengers came out the same year as TDKR. However I'm willing to bet that even if TDKR came out in 2013, it would probably still make over a billion.

the avengers wasn't going to affect how DKR was going to perform at all since it is a DC film. only the spiderman franchise would feel something coming out of the avengers' success which it arguably did.

Or rather, it's because these movies aren't quite as good. X-men DOFP made a lot of money, even though interest in the X-Men films was declining, because it was an epic film. It didn't rely on being in the MCU and made more money than this year's MCU film.

the x men also has a lot more characters to play around with and none of those films were ever as successful as spiderman or most of the films of the mcu. in fact, dofp is the highest grossing x men film of all time, which is definitely an impressive feat, yeah.

Then what's your point?

that WAS my point, I'm literally going to copy paste ---> they're both hollywood blockbuster franchises with several installments with bad reception. and there are others like them who still end up with huge numbers at the box office.

True, but Cap 2 and Thor 2 didn't make quite as much. Although IM was more popular to begin with.

cap 2 and thor 2 both did make substantially way more than their pre avengers, 1st installments did though. IM was more popular yeah, so it's no surprise that his post avengers' movie was the most succesful (albeit by a wide margin)

 

[Spooderman]

the avengers wasn't going to affect how DKR was going to perform at all since it is a DC film. only the spiderman franchise would feel something coming out of the avengers' success which it arguably did.

The GA doesn't care about which character belongs to which company.

the x men also has a lot more characters to play around with and none of those films were ever as successful as spiderman or most of the films of the mcu. in fact, dofp is the highest grossing x men film of all time, which is definitely an impressive feat, yeah.

Exactly. They upped their game with First Class and DoFP and have made a hit. Spider-man can do the same without being in the MCU.

And while they might have more characters to help with an expanded universe, every one of their films had Wolverine as a main character, and the main X-men series had Wolvie, Prof X, Magneto, and Mystique in them. So they're not really doing a shared universe yet.

that WAS my point, I'm literally going to copy paste ---> they're both hollywood blockbuster franchises with several installments with bad reception. and there are others like them who still end up with huge numbers at the box office.

And what does this have to do with Spider-Man films?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The GA doesn't care about which character belongs to which company.

but it is safe to say the GA knows enough to know batman is part of a separate universe than the avengers and spiderman, so they wouldn't expect to see any chemistry there anyways.

Exactly. They upped their game with First Class and DoFP and have made a hit. Spider-man can do the same without being in the MCU.

And while they might have more characters to help with an expanded universe, every one of their films had Wolverine as a main character, and the main X-men series had Wolvie, Prof X, Magneto, and Mystique in them. So they're not really doing a shared universe yet.

first class was great and did good at the box office but still not as good as the spiderman films or the average marvel films. dofp was an incredible feat yeah, i have to admit, but it still isn't garnering the popularity most of the marvel series has been able to attain, and it took them 6 or 7 films to gross higher than $500m

And what does this have to do with Spider-Man films?

are you serious??! the spiderman films, all comic book films basically, at the end of the day, are hollywood. they are part of hollywood.

spiderman IS an example of a hollywood film franchise with several installments with bad reception that still ends up doing higher than average at the box office.

look, i loved asm 2, in my opinion it is the greatest spiderman film ever made, even though there was a lot wrong with it. and i am also not disputing that since these films are generally considered to be poor is one definitive reason that interest in them is declining. i'm saying another very important reason why is because it is not being incorporated into the bigger picture.

 

[Spooderman]

but it is safe to say the GA knows enough to know batman is part of a separate universe than the avengers and spiderman, so they wouldn't expect to see any chemistry there anyways.

Well according to your logic, people would still be losing interest in Batman since he's not a part of a shared universe, which isn't true.

first class was great and did good at the box office but still not as good as the spiderman films or the average marvel films. dofp was an incredible feat yeah, i have to admit, but it still isn't garnering the popularity most of the marvel series has been able to attain, and it took them 6 or 7 films to gross higher than $500m

DOFP made more money than most MCU films. XMFC didn't make too much money because the X-men films haven't been all that popular, and X3 and XMOW were poorly received.

are you serious??! the spiderman films, all comic book films basically, at the end of the day, are hollywood. they are part of hollywood.

spiderman IS an example of a hollywood film franchise with several installments with bad reception that still ends up doing higher than average at the box office.

look, i loved asm 2, in my opinion it is the greatest spiderman film ever made, even though there was a lot wrong with it. and i am also not disputing that since these films are generally considered to be poor is one definitive reason that interest in them is declining. i'm saying another very important reason why is because it is not being incorporated into the bigger picture.

Yeah... he does well at the BO because he's Spider-Man. People are losing interest in those movies because they are less than stellar. If he was in the MCU, than these less than stellar films would be more popular, but Sony could go back to making great Spider-man films and keep audiences engaged.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Well according to your logic, people would still be losing interest in Batman since he's not a part of a shared universe, which isn't true.

I can't believe how many times I have to repeat myself to you. Back then, there was no DCCU for Batman to even be a part of. People just were hotly anticipating the sequel to TDK. The only thing what you're saying can be compared to is present day, with ben affleck being the new batman and I already think that is a mistake but that's a different story.

DOFP made more money than most MCU films. XMFC didn't make too much money because the X-men films haven't been all that popular, and X3 and XMOW were poorly received.

DOFP is an achieved an amazing feat, so I have to give credit where it is due. It's just a classic example of a blockbuster film making or exceeding its expectations, but that's pretty much all I can say about that. It's also the highest grossing X men film ever, and none of those films have ever made it to the $700m mark till now, which all of the spiderman films have done, and several of the marvel films, especially post-avengers, have done that.

Yeah... he does well at the BO because he's Spider-Man. People are losing interest in those movies because they are less than stellar. If he was in the MCU, than these less than stellar films would be more popular, but Sony could go back to making great Spider-man films and keep audiences engaged.

we are going in circles man. I will continue to say that people are less interested in spiderman because he's not part of the bigger picture, the juggernaut that is the mcu. yes, another reason is because these movies are not as highly received as the raimi series, i'm not disputing that, BUT other hollywood film franchises have proven that just because a film is poorly received doesn't mean it won't smash the box office.

 

[Spooderman]

I can't believe how many times I have to repeat myself to you. Back then, there was no DCCU for Batman to even be a part of. People just were hotly anticipating the sequel to TDK. The only thing what you're saying can be compared to is present day, with ben affleck being the new batman and I already think that is a mistake but that's a different story.

And there's no MCU for Spider-Man to be a part of because Sony owns the rights.

DOFP is an achieved an amazing feat, so I have to give credit where it is due. It's just a classic example of a blockbuster film making or exceeding its expectations, but that's pretty much all I can say about that. It's also the highest grossing X men film ever, and none of those films have ever made it to the $700m mark till now, which all of the spiderman films have done, and several of the marvel films, especially post-avengers, have done that.

It just shows that if the audience is losing interest in a franchise, it can recover by making great movies without being a part of a shared universe.

we are going in circles man. I will continue to say that people are less interested in spiderman because he's not part of the bigger picture, the juggernaut that is the mcu. yes, another reason is because these movies are not as highly received as the raimi series, i'm not disputing that, BUT other hollywood film franchises have proven that just because a film is poorly received doesn't mean it won't smash the box office.

The reason some poor films still become smashes at the BO, while poor Spider-Man films don't become smashes is because people have different expectations for Spider-Man than they do for Transformers.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I really don't think a passing reference to the Avengers would help the Spider-man franchise. It's totally the quality of the movies. Thor: The Dark World has a lowest box office of the Marvel Phase 2 movies. It also has the lowest RT rating. Iron Man is and was a juggernaut before the Avengers, his movies will always make money, while IM 2 and 3 weren't as good a 1, they're still very enjoyable. Captain America probably had the biggest jump in it's box office, it also had the biggest jump in quality too. People are losing interest in Spider-man because the movies he's in aren't that good, he's had 3 movies of questionable quality. Having a random quote referencing the Avengers or having Oscorp Tower in in an Avengers movie wouldn't help the quality of the movies. I actually think it'd make the quality worse because Sony would look desperate. Plus the biggest complaint about ASM2 (and many Marvel movies for that matter) was there was too much world building, too many wink wink references. It doesn't help a movie. What's the biggest complaint about Iron Man 2, too much Avengers foreshadowing, there's a solid reason not to do that.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

And there's no MCU for Spider-Man to be a part of because Sony owns the rights.

you know what i'm talking about. you know what this is. it's the going phenomena among fans campaigning to either have sony collaborate with disney (what i'd prefer to happen) or have sony give spiderman back to disney.

it's possible, it's definitely possible and having easter eggs is the first step. and that was possibly going to happen in the avengers. so yes, there is an MCU for spiderman to be a part of even if someone other than disney owns the rights.

It just shows that if the audience is losing interest in a franchise, it can recover by making great movies without being a part of a shared universe.

look i'm not saying that not being a part of the mcu is the entire reason why spiderman is flopping. i've said that like 3 or 4 times now. there is considerably more controversy with spiderman being left out of the mcu than there is the x men, probably due to the fact that the x men themselves have a whole catalogue of characters to play around with,

and spiderman was (once) marvel's flagship character, and having him be separate from the bigger picture makes that universe seem empty, and raises eyebrows.

The reason some poor films still become smashes at the BO, while poor Spider-Man films don't become smashes is because people have different expectations for Spider-Man than they do for Transformers.

dude that was 1 example. i said there were others. twilight is another. and so is pirates of the caribbean. i'm not going to and shouldn't have to keep explaining this. if you don't agree, then we should agree to disagree. if you think spiderman being a part of the mcu wouldn't help the franchise at all then fine, that's what you think, but i'm never going to agree with that.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I really don't think a passing reference to the Avengers would help the Spider-man franchise. It's totally the quality of the movies. Thor: The Dark World has a lowest box office of the Marvel Phase 2 movies. It also has the lowest RT rating. Iron Man is and was a juggernaut before the Avengers, his movies will always make money, while IM 2 and 3 weren't as good a 1, they're still very enjoyable. Captain America probably had the biggest jump in it's box office, it also had the biggest jump in quality too. People are losing interest in Spider-man because the movies he's in aren't that good, he's had 3 movies of questionable quality. Having a random quote referencing the Avengers or having Oscorp Tower in in an Avengers movie wouldn't help the quality of the movies. I actually think it'd make the quality worse because Sony would look desperate. Plus the biggest complaint about ASM2 (and many Marvel movies for that matter) was there was too much world building, too many wink wink references. It doesn't help a movie. What's the biggest complaint about Iron Man 2, too much Avengers foreshadowing, there's a solid reason not to do that.

that is a sound argument but I will always strongly believe that incorporating spiderman into the mcu will help the franchise no matter what. it was marvel's once flagship character and having him not present in the mcu makes it feel empty and incomplete.

 

[Erzengel]

I think at this current stage of the game, Spider-Man needs the MCU more than the MCU needs Spider-Man.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I think at this current stage of the game, Spider-Man needs the MCU more than the MCU needs Spider-Man.

precisely.

 

[jihado86]

I personnally think if Marvel gets back the rights for Spider-Man they will reboot the whole franchise.

by the way, I found this in Trivia section for The Avengers IMDB page:
"The filmmakers secured the rights from Columbia Pictures to feature OsCorp Tower from The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in New York. Unfortunately, by then digital rendering of the skyline was already complete and it could not appear."

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah I refuse to believe that unless Kevin Feige or someone else actually acknowledges it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm not sure why this is even a thread. We all know Spidey would be better off in the MCU. It doesn't matter. Marvel doesn't have the rights and Sony isn't about to give them up. End of story.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I personnally think if Marvel gets back the rights for Spider-Man they will reboot the whole franchise.

Agreed. That's one reason why they should get it back.