The Amazing Spider-Man Would Spider-Man really be better off at Marvel/Disney?

[Picard Sisko]

I've been looking at how Marvel has been treating Spider-Man in the comics and on television.

They killed off Peter Parker in USM just to give us Miles Morales. He never even finished high school. At the time I was mad, and got over it, because it wasn't the mainstream universe. We still had Peter Parker in the 616 universe, and "The Amazing Spider-Man" would continue. Well, not for long, because:

Spoiler

Peter Parker is in Ock's body, and died. Doc Ock is now in Spider-Man's body. This is RUBBISH!

Sony made "The Spectacular Spider-Man" tv series which is considered the best Spider-Man animated series of all time by many fans. It ran for two seasons, but unfortunately the studio sold the television rights back to Marvel/Disney. They decided to cancel it, and make their own series which would be more kid friendly. More rubbish, because SSM was a show that both adults and children could enjoy. "Ultimate Spider-Man" is not at all like that. As an adult, I could not make it past the first 5 minutes of the first episode. Spider-Man is made out to be very stupid and premature, and the show is overly-animated and immature.

I know that the movies would be treated differently from the comic books and animated series, but how do you think Marvel would treat Spider-Man if he was in the MCU?

Sony owns Spider-Man (they also own Ghost Rider, but are we really counting him?) and no other Marvel charcters. Spider-Man is like their baby, and Sony would treat him as their only child. There was one slip-up with Spider-Man 3, but otherwise I think they have done a really good job with Spider-Man.

I think that Sony should keep the rights to Spider-Man, but allow for Disney to "borrow" him for some of their movies. What do you guys think?

 

[Rise_-]

Spider-Man is Sony's Batman. They're not going to give him up.

I think Sony and Disney reached *A* deal... because Oscorp tower was set to appear in the Avengers and Stark tower was going to appear in TASM... but the effects weren't ready in time.

It'd be amazing to see Andrew's Spidey and RDJ's Tony bouncing off each other.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I think at some point there could be a "crossover" of sorts. We'll see. This commercial still amazes me...

[YT]Vi5gyKagSMs[/YT]

 

[SpideyFan866]

Spider-Man is Sony's Batman. They're not going to give him up.

I think Sony and Disney reached *A* deal... because Oscorp tower was set to appear in the Avengers and Stark tower was going to appear in TASM... but the effects weren't ready in time.

It'd be amazing to see Andrew's Spidey and RDJ's Tony bouncing off each other.

Agreed.

Personally, I think Spidey is better off where he is. I just think he would get lost in translation at Marvel.

Marvel is cranking out so many films and with so many different characters and intersecting story lines that it would be hard for them to balance Spidey as well, who has enough characters and stories to do numerous films with and have his own mini universe. There's no denying that Marvel would treat Spidey with love and attention but Bringing him into the Marvel Studios mold would likely take away the much needed attention this films need to be great on their own.

Who knows though, with MS's new policy of keeping the crossover stuff out of the solo films as much as possible, maybe he could work there, but for now, he should stay with Sony.

 

[Lorus]

I typed a much longer post but it got deleted so I'll just keep this brief. Spider-Man is at the mercy of whoever is writing/drawing/directing his story at any given time and he's just as likely to be saddled with an inappropriate creative voice at either company. Also, there is a wealth of difference in how film properties are handled vs comics or television so arguably the comparison is meaningless.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I typed a much longer post but it got deleted so I'll just keep this brief. Spider-Man is at the mercy of whoever is writing/drawing/directing his story at any given time and he's just as likely to be saddled with an inappropriate creative voice at either company. Also, there is a wealth of difference in how film properties are handled vs comics or television so arguably the comparison is meaningless.

While film would be treated differently, the point of this thread is to discuss whether or not Marvel would mistreat the Spider-Man/Peter Parker like they have been in the comics and animated universe.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Undecided
Not sure if it will be for the best

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

If they were doing Spidey movies then someone would get the short end of the stick. Like Ant-Man or GoTG.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I still think that they should be able to "borrow" Spider-Man if they ever wanted to make a Secret Wars movie or something like that.

 

[Jick]

I've been looking at how Marvel has been treating Spider-Man in the comics and on television.

They killed off Peter Parker in USM just to give us Miles Morales. He never even finished high school. At the time I was mad, and got over it, because it wasn't the mainstream universe. We still had Peter Parker in the 616 universe, and "The Amazing Spider-Man" would continue.

That's not something I liked and I haven't read any issues with Miles Morales, but I have to say that his death was wonderfully done, imo. Quite sad, too.
Fought till his last breath and won, but died and went in peace.

In other hand, I think that his death in 616 was quite pathetic. He died in the body of an decayed and moribund man, failed at his last mission and a villain took his place.

Both 616 and Ultimate are under the same house. It's the writer (along with his staff) who chose how to do it. So I believe maybe would be the right answer for the question of the thread. It depends, because it can go either way. I'm not unsatisfied with the way Sony is handling it.

Take SM3 and Specatular Spider-Man, for example. One was considered by the big portion as a disappointment, but the other became a favorite and both are under the same house too. Then, Spider-Man's TV rights goes to Marvel and we get the Ultimate cartoon. How many people prefer that over Spectacular?

 

[Smegger56]

With the direction of spidey currently, very happy for Sony to keep hold of it. Before TASM, I would be begging Marvel to get him back. Now with TASM, not a chance. Good turn around Sony

 

[Juicy J]

Even though I like ASM, I have to say: Marvel Studios is the best in the business. That much is basically undeniable.
While I've generally been pretty disappointed with how Spider-man has been handled in both comics and cartoons, I think MS would bring THE definitive version of the character that I'm so desperately wanting to see. They are consistently pumping out grade-A movies, and I have no doubt they'd do the same for Spider-man.
I'm not shedding any tears that Sony has the rights, but in my opinion it isn't ideal.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Even though I like ASM, I have to say: Marvel Studios is the best in the business. That much is basically undeniable.
While I've generally been pretty disappointed with how Spider-man has been handled in both comics and cartoons, I think MS would bring THE definitive version of the character that I'm so desperately wanting to see. They are consistently pumping out grade-A movies, and I have no doubt they'd do the same for Spider-man.
I'm not shedding any tears that Sony has the rights, but in my opinion it isn't ideal.

This is really all opinion, but I disagree with this. Other than The Avengers, and the first Iron Man film, the rest are grade-B movies IMO. Iron Man 2 was terrible, and TIH, Thor and Cap weren't really spectacular either. They haven't made enough movies to really determine whether or not Marvel Studios is "the best in the business."

 

[Juicy J]

This is really all opinion, but I disagree with this. Other than The Avengers, and the first Iron Man film, the rest are grade-B movies IMO. Iron Man 2 was terrible, and TIH, Thor and Cap weren't really spectacular either. They haven't made enough movies to really determine whether or not Marvel Studios is "the best in the business."

Yes this is mostly opinion-based, but consider the facts:
Marvel is the only comic book publisher who produces their own movies. They're the only superhero films to integrate the 'connected universe' that has been a mainstay of comic books for more than half a century.
They're the first movie studio to successfully cross-pollinate their separate franchises into one huge, successful team up extravaganza that is also a mainstay of the comics. They're also the only studio to successfully bring C-list characters to the A-list (the only possible exception being Blade). Few, if anyone, knew of Iron Man or Thor before their big budget film adaptions, and Captain America was known only in name and costume; now they are household names with huge tentpole franchises surrounding them. They had all the cards stacked against them; in 2008 no one wanted to touch Iron Man, but they proved that with the right people behind each project any character can be translated to the screen properly to the point where they are now making a freaking Guardians of the Galaxy movie.
All 6 of their films have been hits both critically and commercially, with the weakest (TIH) still receiving overall good reviews and making a profit and the best (The Avengers) shattering box office records and garnering immense critical acclaim.
You can make the argument that Thor, Cap, and IM2 weren't that spectacular, but in 6 short years Marvel Studios has made their cinematic Universe the fourth highest grossing film franchise of all time. If they aren't the best in the business of making superhero movies, who is?

 

[Picard Sisko]

Yes this is mostly opinion-based, but consider this:
Marvel is the only comic book publisher who produces their own movies. They're the only superhero films to integrate the 'connected universe' that has been a mainstay of comic books for more than half a century.
They're the first movie studio to successfully cross-pollinate their separate franchises into one huge, successful team up extravaganza that is also a mainstay of the comics. They're also the only studio to successfully bring C-list characters to the A-list (the only possible exception being Blade). Few, if anyone, knew of Iron Man or Thor before their big budget film adaptions, and Captain America was known only in name and costume; now they are household names with huge tentpole franchises surrounding them. They had all the cards stacked against them; in 2008 no one wanted to touch Iron Man, but they proved that with the right people behind each project any character can be translated to the screen properly to the point where they are now making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie.
All 6 of their films have been hits both critically and commercially, with the weakest (TIH) still receiving overall good reviews and making a profit and the best (The Avengers) shattering box office records and garnering immense critical acclaim.
You can make the argument that Thor, Cap, and IM2 weren't that spectacular, but in 6 short years Marvel Studios has made their cinematic Universe the third highest grossing film franchise of all time. If they aren't the best in the business of making superhero movies, who is?

WB owns DC comics and make their own movies, just fyi.

While I give them credit for making a successful cinematic universe with mostly secondary characters, it still doesn't change the fact that the movies aren't "spectacular." The box office success doesn't prove whether or not the movies are good or bad, just that a lot of people go to see them.

I think Thor and Cap are overrated simply because they were leading up to the Avengers. Otherwise, on their own, they aren't very good. We need to see more movies to determine whether or not Marvel Studios is "the best in the business."

Unfortunately, I feel that the MCU lacks the most important Marvel characters/titles: Spider-man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer/Galactus, and Deadpool. I would really like to see how they would handle these characters, but IDK if they would be done "better" if in the hands of Marvel Studios.

 

[Juicy J]

WB owns DC comics and make their own movies, just fyi.

Yes, but it's apples and oranges. DC has very little control over what happens to their characters on the big screen. The deal they have is more comparable to Sony owning Spider-man; they simply have the rights to the characters. DC is just a part of the WB stable. Marvel, however, has complete control over the MS franchises and commonly uses the creators from the publishing division to do consulting work and concept art on the films. I'm not aware of DC doing anything of that sort.

While I give them credit for making a successful cinematic universe with mostly secondary characters, it still doesn't change the fact that the movies aren't "spectacular." The box office success doesn't prove whether or not the movies are good or bad, just that a lot of people go to see them.

The box office success doesn't mean a ton, I'll concede to that, but it's that coupled with the fact that they have all achieved a pretty fair amount of critical acclaim. Not only are people seeing these movies, a lot of people are enjoying them as well.

I think Thor and Cap are overrated simply because they were leading up to the Avengers. Otherwise, on their own, they aren't very good. We need to see more movies to determine whether or not Marvel Studios is "the best in the business."

Fair enough, to each his own. But honestly I think it's safe to say you're in the minority on that, as a lot of people enjoyed those movies. I personally think they stand on their own just fine, but as I said, to each his own. Can't really argue opinions

Unfortunately, I feel that the MCU lacks the most important Marvel characters/titles: Spider-man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer/Galactus, and Deadpool. I would really like to see how they would handle these characters, but IDK if they would be done "better" if in the hands of Marvel Studios.

I'll agree with this. I do think the MCU is sorely missing some big names, and I hope we can see all these characters one day interact on the big screen. But to me they've already more than proved their mettle and that they can handle the franchises they have.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I don't think that Marvel should have the rights simply because "they would do it better," but merely because I would like to see all of the characters sharing the same universe. That's how it is in the comic books, and that's how it should also be in the movies.

I will really judge the Marvel Cinematic Universe after Phase 2 has been completed, because IMO only 2/6 movies were really good, or "spectacular."

 

[Victarion]

The only film I have seen from Marvel that I really, really liked was Iron-Man. Therefore I would prefer Spidey stay at Sony. Since Spider-Man is their "Batman", I would hope they put more effort into his films than if he were at Marvel Studios.

 

[spider-neil]

Sony
>>
SSM
ASM
SM2

Disney
>>
Ultimate Spider-Man

The defense rests, your honour.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Sony
>>
SSM
ASM
SM2

Disney
>>
Ultimate Spider-Man

The defense rests, your honour.

I think SM1 should be in that list, too.

 

[flickchick85]

I'm happy with Spidey being where he's at for the moment.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Yes this is mostly opinion-based, but consider the facts:
Marvel is the only comic book publisher who produces their own movies.

This first rule applies to Todd McFarlane and his creation in Image, Spawn

 

[Spiderdevil]

Even though I like ASM, I have to say: Marvel Studios is the best in the business. That much is basically undeniable.
While I've generally been pretty disappointed with how Spider-man has been handled in both comics and cartoons, I think MS would bring THE definitive version of the character that I'm so desperately wanting to see. They are consistently pumping out grade-A movies, and I have no doubt they'd do the same for Spider-man.
I'm not shedding any tears that Sony has the rights, but in my opinion it isn't ideal.

Thats debatable
Out of the 6 movies they made,I only consider 2(TA and IM) to be top notch,Thor and CapAm to be average and TIH and IM2 to be plain terrible

While Sony has produced 4 Spider-man movies,2 of which have been top notch(SM1 and SM2),1 Average(TASM-Which is still better than Thor and CapAm imo) and one terrible(I still prefer SM3 over IM2 and TIH)

So 2/4 is a better record than 2/6

 

[Spiderdevil]

Yes this is mostly opinion-based, but consider the facts:
Marvel is the only comic book publisher who produces their own movies. They're the only superhero films to integrate the 'connected universe' that has been a mainstay of comic books for more than half a century.
They're the first movie studio to successfully cross-pollinate their separate franchises into one huge, successful team up extravaganza that is also a mainstay of the comics. They're also the only studio to successfully bring C-list characters to the A-list (the only possible exception being Blade). Few, if anyone, knew of Iron Man or Thor before their big budget film adaptions, and Captain America was known only in name and costume; now they are household names with huge tentpole franchises surrounding them. They had all the cards stacked against them; in 2008 no one wanted to touch Iron Man, but they proved that with the right people behind each project any character can be translated to the screen properly to the point where they are now making a freaking Guardians of the Galaxy movie.
All 6 of their films have been hits both critically and commercially, with the weakest (TIH) still receiving overall good reviews and making a profit and the best (The Avengers) shattering box office records and garnering immense critical acclaim.
You can make the argument that Thor, Cap, and IM2 weren't that spectacular, but in 6 short years Marvel Studios has made their cinematic Universe the fourth highest grossing film franchise of all time. If they aren't the best in the business of making superhero movies, who is?

It really comes down to who you love more? Spider-man individually or all the Marvel characters in general?

Would you really tolerate seeing SHEILD hijacking half of the movie like in Thor and IM2?

The average critical reception (RT) for Sony's Spider-man movies is about 80% while that of Marvel's is 81%

Sony has made an adjusted 4 Billion from 4 movies while marvel has made 3.9 Billion from 6 movies

I would still say Sony is better in the business

 

[Oscorp]

With Joss Whedon looking over the films I think Spidey would be at the best of hands. I think a similar tone to what The Avengers had would be perfect for good ol' Spidey. Spectacular and awesome action (even better than those in Raimi's trilogy IMO), a great deal of personality and humour (without being cheesy) mixed in with seriousness, character growth and a really intimidating villain (Loki was awesome!).

The daylight action would be amazing! Spidey would be wisecracking a great deal and have the perfect personality etc.

^That is, of course, if Whedon would direct the film. But I honestly think that if Spidey would be given back to Marvel Studios, they'd have Whedon write and direct it. Because let's face it, Spider-Man would be worth more than all those other heroes combined.

When I watched The Avengers last time, I imagined having Spidey in the mix. It would be so awesome!

About SHIELD. Marvel Studios could let Spidey have his own films in a trilogy or something and then, when Peter is old enough, SHIELD lets him join the team. Before then they could go the "he's too young" route.

Of course Spidey should appear in an Avengers movie before his own trilogy is done with. It could be like SHIELD wouldn't let him join The Avengers because of his age, but when New York is threatened again Spidey helps them out in the final battle anyway.