Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

Wow, never thought I would be this excited to see a Spider-Man movie again! Obviously seeing him in the next Cap movie will be cool as hell, but even the next standalone suddenly seems a much more interesting idea now, given that it'll be overseen by the Marvel people and will fit in with their continuity.

As for Garfield, while I think it's a shame he never got to crossover with the Marvel universe like he clearly wanted, I'd much rather start fresh with another actor than be tied down in anyway to the previous two lackluster movies.

Only thing they really need to carry over is the awesome new Spidey costume they came up with.

 

God, we can only hope.

 

Maybe we can get a Spidey vs. Punisher movie now.

 

I cast my vote for Issac Hempstead-Wright (Bran Stark on GOT) as the next Peter Parker. He'd be a nice fit.

 

I'm glad Garfield is gone. Plans for the Sinister 6 movie should just die as that film was rooted in TASM2, all ties, chopped up burned, ground and ashes spread to the wind. Done.

There is no way that Spider-man will not be Peter Parker. Marvel Studios doesn't bother with the deal to have one of the also ran characters as their Spider-man. It won't be Ben, Miles or Miguel it'll be Peter Parker.

I will be totally 100% fine if in the solo film there is ZERO sequencing of the origin. I honestly do not believe it's necessary for ANY filmgoer, ANY.

My hope/preference is that they will take the approach of it being an adult, mid/late 20s Spider-man. I'd be perfectly fine if he's already married, to Mary Jane of course. Perhaps no Aunt May at all in the first film. I just feel that this approach needs to be diametrically polar opposite to what Sony has given us thus far: 17-20yr old Peter still dating always doting on his Aunt May.

 

Ooooh, what if they cover Peter's MCU origins in a One-Shot? The original story was only 15 pages. If they included it on the Ant-Man Blu-Ray, they would sell a lot more copies.

 

I doubt very much that they would go with somebody that young.
I'm absolutely thrilled to hear this. While I did enjoy the ASMs, it'll be great to see him with the other MCU characters, and I'm more than willing to reboot again to get that. I do agree that they should just skip over the origin though.
I wonder how long it will be before we hear about casting, and will he get to be a full fledged Avenger?

 

That would be really cool, and a great way to get it done without wasting a whole movie on it.

Also, am I the only one who wants adult Peter Parker? I think they should go with at least an early 20s Peter, the ASM covered high school stuff, and I've always liked adult Peter better.

 

I'm sad to hear that Garfield might go. I still think it would have been a better idea to cast Jesse Eisenberg if you were gonna poach from The Social Network, but Garfield delivered two solid performances as Peter Parker, and his chemistry with Emma Stone was amazing (unsurprisingly, given that it apparently led to them becoming a couple). And The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a far better movie than its ridiculous Internet over-reactionaries make it seem.

I also think that superhero crossover films work best when they're building on what's been established in prior films, rather than trying to introduce and develop new elements. Hawkeye was the weakest link in The Avengers even when he wasn't mind-mojoed, because he was so much of a cypher from having only had a cameo in Thor.

I think it would be much smarter for Sony and Marvel Studios to keep Garfield and grandfather The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and then have the Marvel Studios folks write Garfield's next outing. But that would be entirely too sensible.

 

Exactly.

There's nothing in ASM2 that requires a direct continuation. Take as a starting point for MCU Spiderman that everyone knows the origin, Gwen's already dead, Osborne's his enemy (everyone knows why) and there's a load of villains with their hands on some odd tech and you're away.

Recast everyone if you must (why ? I loved Garfield), never refer to ASM 1 & 2 and avoid retreading the origin. That way, if I chose to believe the ASM movies are in continuity, they can be...

 

But, then you get the questions like "Where was Spider-Man during the battle of New York?" "Why hadn't SHIELD tracked down Peter and put him on "The Index?" "If the existence of the Hulk was public knowledge, then why did Pete have to work so hard to convince Captain Stacy that Conners' transformation was possible?"

Besides, as has been brought up before, Garfield was out anyway, Marvel deal or no.

 

Ugh, no thanks. Punisher is a terrible character, violent and joyless. He's little more than a thug with a gun.

 

If Andrew Garfield is on the outs as Spiderman, would there be another Marvel (or a DC) character he might be good as instead?

I'm thinking of how Chris Evans went from being one universe's Human Torch to another's Captain America, or how Brandon Routh has been doing well so far as Ray Palmer over on Arrrow.


And so far as MCU-Spidey goes, would them going with Peter Parker mean that they couldn't also have Miles Morales, or is there an alternate persona they could use for one or the other in order to allow both to appear at once?

 

Personally I'm glad that Garfield is out and that Marvel will basically take over the story aspect of Spidey. Sure Sony will still produce it, but Marvel will have the real power. Since others are suggesting actors for Peter Parker/Spider-Man, I want to put forth Asa Butterfield. I think he would be perfect for both Peter Parker the "teenager" and the wisecracking Spider-Man.

 

Garfield as Rick Jones perhaps? Although fairly important in Marvel's mythology (Well, that of the Hulk and Captain Marvel at least, but he's also hung out with Captain America and the other Avengers), he has no real MCU counterpart.

 

I know people are still wondering about Sinister Six, but if Marvel is essentially taking over, wouldn't they want a clean slate? Even for the solo films?

My understanding of the deal is that Sony would distribute the solo films while retaining creative control, but Marvel would essentially be making them. Which doesn't bother me too much, cause I would think Sony would understand that Marvel has a decent track record and give them some leeway.

My question is, where is Avi in all of this?

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvel-deal-sony-opts-lease-772251



The Hollywood Reporter article confirms that with Matt Tolmach and Avi Arad being downgraded to executive producers, they will have NO say in the creative process.

 

Spiderman has always been a master of stealth. In the comics, he even broke into Shield on occasion.

Though I'm hoping for a clean slate, it wasn't clear what Ross kept secret or how much was covered up (the Hulk news feed could have been a hacked cgi, the destruction of the city was a faulty gas line, and the two hulking brutes were a delusion caused buy the burning fumes). Shield would be able to make the rest of the world believe that the Hulk doesn't exist.

Read "Welcome back Frank". He's not joyless.

 

Well that's a relief. I have no doubt Avi had the best of intentions, but his "vision" was really limiting, I felt.

 

I hope they keep Garfield. I thought he was very good in the role of Parker.