spiderman news

http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man

Thoughts?

Also, we are in the next phase of the otcars so vote here http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/otcars-voting-thread-31829278/

I'm happy Sony and Marvel came to an agreement on this. Bringing more Superheroes into the MCU fold is a good thing, and Spidey is a character who is different enough to bring yet another new dynamic to mix.

I see this as a sign that Sony needed Marvel's help more than anything. With ASM2 being the lowest grossing film in the series, Andrew Garfield publicly denouncing the movie, and no other bankable franchises for the time being, they need something to keep afloat, and they can't afford to do a third reboot this time around.

Let see how it goes.

I hope Marvel not pick again weak and lame villain like in other Marvel movies. Usually Marvel movies has only 1 main fight against main villain and this usually happens at very end of movie. I want origin story for villains, not just "oh i was born as bad guy. i wanna kill everyone"

Considering Sony as a hole is still losing money, they can't afford another mistake on Spider-Man failure and this is just showing that Sony is in desperate needing help from Marvel on this one. That said, well see how this turns out.

Finally! Spidey is back where he belongs. Looking forward to seeing this Sony-Marvel collaboration in action.

Figured this news was coming considering how much of the early negotiations were leaked. Glad that he'll get a place in the current MCU. Interested in who they'll cast, doubt Garfield will be back.

Although I'm happy, I'd be more happy if Sony would just relinquish full rights to Marvel.

@JustPlainLucas: Spider-Man is the only viable franchise they have left--they can't afford to give that up. But they also know they can't afford to start from scratch a third time, either. It's benifitial for them to have Marvel take the reigns for a while and appear in their films for a bit and hope that the magic Marvel has rubs off on them.

Spot on.....I'm curious to see what will happen.

Shame they announced this publicly, would have made for one hell of a post credits tease after 'Age of Ultron'.

Am I alone in wishing they go with Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker--again?

My current stand point is Keith Stanfield as Morales or bust. Morales just makes so much sense. Gives the MCU the diversity it has needed ( especially with 'Black Panther' pushed back) - and it will give the franchise the creative freshness it needs. We do not need more Parker.

Oh, I understand that they won't let it go. However, I'm not happy with what they're doing with the IP by themselves. I would love to see Sony's film division go bankrupt just so they have to sell the rights. I know that's selfish of me, but god dammit, I want a superior Spider-Man movie! (c wut I did thar?)

Eh, I've never been a fan of diversity for the sake of diversity. You'll never find a Batman movie with someone playing an alter ego that isn't Bruce Wayne. Same with Superman and Clark Kent.

I do not mean for this to sound racist, but keep the ethnicity of the character the same. I would much rather not see a white character turned black just as much as I would not want to see Seth Rogen playing Shaft.

Huh? Miles Morales IS Spider-Man. In the same way Hal Jordan and John Stewart are the Green Lantern.

Amen.

I know I'm in the minority here, but as someone who actually enjoyed the ASM movies more than the original trilogy I'm ok with almost everything they do with the movie as long as they don't try to bring Spider-Maguire back...

It would be nice if they could get X-Men back too but I'll take the bone they threw with Spider-Man on it.

@JustPlainLucas: I don't think Marvel changed Spider-Man alter ego form Parker to Morales just for the sake of changing his ethnicity--race is a non-issue for me, anyway...they're fictional characters after all. I think they did it to bring a new, differect persective to the character. A lot of people responded positively to the change from last I've seen (haven't been keeping up with the titles lately), and if Sony plans to overhaul their film universe, this is probably the best way to do it. There has been five films and over 50 years worth of comics with Peter Parker as Spider-Man and the quality ranges from good to just horrible (you can decide which are which.) Maybe change is needed. That's even IF they decide to do it. Maybe they'll keep things the same.

This makes a whole lot of sense, especially from a financial standpoint. Sony is set to make far more money working within the MCU then separate from it.

Huh... I keep swearing that I'm posting in this thread, but none of my replies are going through. So, how did Miles Morales come about then? Did Peter pass the torch to him?

After Paker's death in 'Ultimate Spider-Man' the "mantle" was passed to Miles Morales. So this isn't diversity for the sake of diversity. It isn't a black person in the place of a role originally written as a white person - it is a completely different character. Considering we've had 5 films with Parker...including two origin stories...Morales only makes sense.

Morales would make sense and could work. Wonder if sony would want to go down that road. Though I wonder what would happen with Parker in the mcu and how morales takes on that role. Seems like a bit of set up is needed for morales taking over for Parker.

Sony really just needs to give up the IP. They haven't done anything good with it since 2004.

I agree. Not sure why the ASM get so much hate.

Here's an idea. Do Venom and do him fucking properly. That's all people have been begging for since the first movie.

There's talk that Toby Maguire will be in amazing spider man 3 and 4

?? There are no more ASM films planned after this deal.

We don't need Miles Morales yet. We need Peter Parker to be in the Civil War and to be part of the Avengers, then they can kill off Peter Parker and replaced him with Miles Morales.

So just like with Captain America did right?

No, Rogers didn't die, he aged and so passed the mantle to Falcon (Sam Wilson) who - unlike Morales - was a character that was already well established and partners/friends with Captain America.

Awesome news, as long as they get away from the ASM stuff and Andrew Garfield.

I thought Captain Rogers died after the Civil War and then Bucky took over as Captain America, These comic time-line are so confusing.

He did, I thought he was referring to the more recent change.

Thanks for the answers. That's what I was asking all along.

I heard that when Marvel gained Spider-Man back that they would make a reboot with Peter already as Spidey. So no more retelling of the spider bite and Uncle Ben shooting. I'm looking forward to where they're going to start! There are a lot of possibilities on where they could start. If Peter already has his powers and has been fighting for a while, they can probably instantly start with Venom and introduce Carnage a lot sooner than Sony could.

Actually, Marvel still doesn't own the film rights--Sony does. And although Marvel will have some influence, at the end of the day, Sony still has creative control and final say on how Spidey is used.

Would be okay with Parker being in Civil War as an established hero for whatever number of years and having the spider man movie be about the transition to morales

I'm not too impressed with either actor they are considering....

Sorry but I'm confuse here, is Sony not going for Amazing Spider-Man 3? What I'm trying to say is, has Sony cancel the Sinister 6? So has the Sinister 6 been scrap?

No ASM 3, but I hear Sinister Six is still in development...just don't expect it until after the first Marvel-Sony Spider-Man stand alone film which is scheduled for 2017.

I've heard Dylan O'Brien and Logan Lerman were in the mix. Not a fan of either of them, but if it did come down to this two - O'Brien at least is naturally funny/sarcastic (from interviews I've seen) and so could nail that aspect of the character.

Good news.

I don't find Marvel movies particularly good, but they are enjoyable. On the other hand Spiderman ones have been failures for years. The ones with that moron Garfield especially.

@hallenbeck77: Goddamned sneaky bastards...

@-paranorman-: It's not so much as Sony being sneaky, it's they're not stupid in giving up the one still bankable movie franchise they got left in their catalog. The potential to make insane money from it again is still there--they just need help from a studio who's track record at the box office has been stellar--at least, so far, anyway.