Author Topic: Spider-Man absorbed by the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Read 4596 times)

Alberon · « **on:** February 10, 2015, 01:16:11 PM »

It's not too much of a surprise this one, but after Amazing Spider-Man 2 was not a big a success as hoped Sony has done a deal with Marvel that will see the jizz-handed superhero making his way to the MCU.

Quote

Under the terms of a deal struck by Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios, a new Spider-Man will debut in a thus-far unspecified movie within the Marvel cinematic universe. After that, Sony will release the next installment in its own Spider-Man series.

Furthermore, Sony's next Spider-Man movie now has an official release date - July 28th 2017.

Lest you be in any doubt that this is an about turn for the screen adventures of Spider-Man, the official press statement declares that "together, [Marvel and Sony] will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger". That sounds to us like the plans that Sony had been working on for its own Spider-Man movie universe have been set aside.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/spider-man/34028/confirmed-spider-man-heading-to-marvel-cinematic-universe

What this suggests is the various Spider-Man spin-off movies (Sinister Six and Venom) have probably been canned, at least in the immediate future.

Replies From View · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2015, 01:21:34 PM »

See, what I'd have done in Sony's shoes is make both 'The Amazing Spider-Man' films good rather than quite weak. It was their call though.

Milverton · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2015, 03:08:46 PM »

That's good news, innit?

We just need the new FF movie be a disaster now. Johnny Storm isn't black. He's either white or shades of red and orange. Whatever next? Thor with tits?

biggytitbo · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:29:20 PM »

Kelvin · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:35:50 PM »

Even that doesn’t hide your bald head.

MuteBanana · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:53:03 PM »

He'll look stupid walking around with the rest of them in that mask.

'I can't take it off because I need to work. Bills don't pay themselves you know.'

Loser.

checkoutgirl · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:54:10 PM »

But Spiderm'n is a Marvel thing. Why is it news that Marvel owns a Marvel thing? Why is this even news? I'll illegally download the film when it comes out and not a minute before.

Spiderman 2 with Alfred Molina remains the only Spiderm'n film I really enjoyed and I can't see that changing in the next million years or so. I think we are given too much information about films these days. Shit like this used to be done behind closed doors and now they announce it to the world. I'm not sick of it or anything but it's a bit tedious.

phantom_power · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:07:16 PM »

Marvel didn't own the film rights to Spiderman so he couldn't appear in any of their films. Same with the X-Men. This has paved the way for Spidey to join the Avengers

Tiny Poster · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:07:47 PM »

The film rights to Spider-Man were owned by a different studio to the one that does the Avengers. Now they can exist in the same shared cinematic universe, due to a deal.

There, not so hard.

phantom_power · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:10:53 PM »

Keep up

Replies From View · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:14:34 PM »

Quote from: checkoutgirl on February 10, 2015, 04:54:10 PM

Spiderman 2 with Alfred Molina remains the only Spiderm'n film I really enjoyed

There was a good one in the 70s where Spider-Man mostly beat up Kung fu Masters, and the main villain was a bloke who hypnotised people with a weird noise that made them go up onto roofs. Peter Parker was about 45 years old in it, and his Spider-Man costume was just some baggy pyjamas. The film ended with Peter Parker saying the line "I believe!" and then grinning and walking off so you could see his arse in his tight trousers for the whole time it took until the credits had ended, which was ages.

I think it wasn't actually a film so much as a double-episode pilot thing, but it still counts. Basically that and the film with Alfred Molina are the best ones so far I reckon.

Edit: here's that 1970s one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uRLgeEepzg

Tiny Poster · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:14:55 PM »

Wonder if it'll be Miles Morales this time?

Spiteface · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:17:19 PM »

Screw that, gimme Takuya Yamashiro!

phantom_power · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:18:01 PM »

I just don't think any of the films have got the essence of the character right. Like or loathe the 'proper' Marvel films, at least the people making them seem to know their characters and the films are based around them, even if they often descend into the same sort of ending

Replies From View · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:18:28 PM »

Quote from: Tiny Poster on February 10, 2015, 05:07:47 PM

The film rights to Spider-Man were owned by a different studio to the one that does the Avengers. Now they can exist in the same shared cinematic universe, due to a deal.

There, not so hard.

Okay so I presume the Avengers are really brilliant and well worth having in a film, great.

How will all of this make the next Spider-Man film better than when the seeds for some Sinister Six stuff was being hurried through the plot of The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

One way or another it always seems like the priority is to shove in loads of super villains or super comrades rather than simply get the knack of making a decent standalone Spider-Man film or three.

Also it seems that the release date for the next Spider-Man film is mid 2017, yet aren't they planning to shit out an MCU film featuring Spider-Man before that? I'm confused.

phantom_power · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:28:41 PM »

I imagine he will be a small part of a MCU film before the new Spiderman film. If Marvel are making the new film it means they might have a better grasp of the character. If not it may not make much difference

Replies From View · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:30:43 PM »

I hope the Spider-Man 2017 film is a new origin story. That would be brilliant.

Quote from: phantom_power on February 10, 2015, 05:28:41 PM

If Marvel are making the new film it means they might have a better grasp of the character. If not it may not make much difference

Apparently Sony will be making it after Marvel have done their MCU one. I'd hope Marvel have an active part in Spider-Man 2017, though, and they're not merely giving Sony a better springboard than the Sinister Six stuff would have been.

biggytitbo · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:31:53 PM »

Hopefully recasting Andrew Garfield will finally give Nicholas Lyndhurst the opportunity to play the role he was born for.

Tiny Poster · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:34:31 PM »

Rumour is that he'll appear in the next Captain America film, and then have his own solo film.

Sony are still going ahead with that Sinister Six thing, apparently, but they're getting rid of Garfield. So I'm not sure if the Amazing films will be junked in favour of a reboot; I'd be surprised if Marvel bothered to do another entire film devoted to his origin (unless they do Morales instead).

Replies From View · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:35:57 PM »

Oh yeah because Garfield was definitely the problem with the Amazing Spider-Man films. Well done Sony.

Tiny Poster · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:37:14 PM »

Quote from: Spiteface on February 10, 2015, 05:17:19 PM

Screw that, gimme Takuya Yamashiro!

He's recently appeared in the comics, along with pretty much every other version of Spidey conceived:

phantom_power · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:42:24 PM »

Quote from: Replies From View on February 10, 2015, 05:35:57 PM

Oh yeah because Garfield was definitely the problem with the Amazing Spider-Man films. Well done Sony.

Yeah. I think Garfield was the best part of the new ones, and a much better fit for the character than Maguire

Mango Chimes · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:48:48 PM »

Leopard On? Leo Pardon?

Spiteface · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:51:53 PM »

Leopardon. All one word.

phantom_power · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:54:56 PM »

Le opar don, boss of the french opar gang

Replies From View · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2015, 05:58:10 PM »

Quote from: phantom_power on February 10, 2015, 05:54:56 PM

Le opar don, boss of the french opar gang

Not as good as the Italian gang of it.

Tiny Poster · « **Reply #26 on:** February 10, 2015, 06:04:43 PM »

Quote from: Replies From View on February 10, 2015, 05:35:57 PM

Oh yeah because Garfield was definitely the problem with the Amazing Spider-Man films. Well done Sony.

I'm assuming it's partly because Marvel will want a teenage superhero in their line-up (the rest of them are all 20-50 something), and good as Garfield was, he can't really play a high-schooler while he's in his mid-30s.

The high-school thing is pretty vital to the character's arc, too.

phantom_power · « **Reply #27 on:** February 10, 2015, 06:22:10 PM »

Good point

biggytitbo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2015, 06:36:45 PM »

Quote from: Tiny Poster on February 10, 2015, 05:34:31 PM

Rumour is that he'll appear in the next Captain America film, and then have his own solo film.

What, Nicholas Lyndhurst?

Replies From View · « **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2015, 07:07:58 PM »

Nicholas Lyndhurst looked like a pensioner when he was 8 years old, and has continued to look like that. Marvel-Sony have made the terrible mistake of thinking that his unaging visage must be an indication that he appears youthful and would therefore befit the high-school Peter Parker, but he does not and would not that.

They will never get Spider-Man right, the flaming idiots.

News:

Author Topic: Spider-Man absorbed by the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Read 4596 times)