Sony/Marvel working on new Spider-man deal. Andrew Garfield out?

[Turtletrekker]

Small continuity crossovers such as the same buildings being seen in the Sony and Marvel NYC's...

That ship's already sailed. There were shots in ASM2 that showed the MetLife Building, which has been replaced by Stark Tower in the MCU.

And yet, the MetLife Building can be clearly seen in an episode of Agents of SHIELD (A Fractured House).For the record, the very first shot of the pilot was a shot of the NYC skyline that included Stark/Avengers Tower, so it's not like they hadn't digitized Stark Tower in before.

What's funny is that we should actually be looking right at the spot where the wormhole was generated, if only Stark Tower were there.

 

[Magellan]

Pardon the language, but this entire scenario is horse-shit. It's neither necessary or fair to the people who worked on the TASM films, particularly Garfield.

Well, I think the way they treated Raimi in 3 was unfair. The reason they have Garfield at all is because Sony wants to make a Spidey movie so they can KEEP the movie rights...not because they care about the actors or production staff -- OR the fans.

This reeks of Marvel Studious just wanting to have their way and gaining all the rights to their characters back. Honestly, a quick Spider-Man cameo in Capt America vs Ironman is all they are going to use him for in 2016? Then Spidey will play a role in Avengers 3 Parts 1 and 2; alongside IM, Hulk, Thor, Capt America, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Ant-Man, Dr. Strange and the GOTG cast. Right....


I bet Marvel just wants the rights back and then plans to shelve the series. Given Marvel's current line-up of films, they're booked till 2020. Any new Spider-Man film would have to be scheduled after that date. But by then the big shared universe craze at Marvel will be over. Best for Sony to keep the right and move forward with Sinister 6 and TASM 3.

Post 2020 would have been a fine time for a Raimi reboot...where THAT have made more sense (a 10-15 yeargap) than the Garfield reboot, happening just a COUPLE of years after the last trilogy released its movie.

If I were Sony, and I say this with no idea of the legalities and copyrights and whatnot that are involved, I'd insist Garfield stay on as Spidey, simply to boost sales of the ASM films on home media.

Personally, I very much enjoyed ASM 2, and think it sucks that there won't be a threequel. That a film can make $700million and still be a franchise-killer absolutely boggles the mind.

Even though it makes a lot of money...did the marketing budget soak up a lot of that. Also, will people be THAT excited to see more? ASM2 will be like the opposite of Avengers...where it blew people's expectations, and have them geared up to see sequel in droves..possibly making more than the original. And what Avengers (and the Phase 1 & 2) movies have done is get people MORE excited to buy & watch Avengers (and character) related stuff.

Is ASM driving more people to buy more Spider Man stuff? I would think way less than the previous trilogy.

The trajectory for ASM is going to the point that the money to make a "quality" film and market it as such won't make it "worth" making a profit. Crazy...but that's how Sony has messed it up.

People have to remember also that not all box office dollars are made equal. Sony's thinking here is ASM1 did 260. ASM2 did 200 domestically. If ASM3 pulls in 150 or less(not impossible at all) they've got better places to invest their money. Every dollar earned at the US/UK box office equals about 1.80 in total revenue. A $1 from China winds up being about 15 cents. Worldwide box office is great but the US box office is still critical

 

[Christopher]

And yet, the MetLife Building can be clearly seen in an episode of Agents of SHIELD (A Fractured House).For the record, the very first shot of the pilot was a shot of the NYC skyline that included Stark/Avengers Tower, so it's not like they hadn't digitized Stark Tower in before.

Hopefully they'll fix it for the DVDs.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I have more faith in Marvel choosing and writing a Spider-Man character, even as just a cameo, than anything Sony has or would produce. They actually have a very invested interest in making sure their characters are as awesome as they can muster, whereas Sony is just in it to make a quick buck off the fad for as long as they can.

So sure, Garfield was the best Spider-Man adaptation Sony has ever produced. But that's like saying that this last pile of shit I left in the toliet was the greatest pile of shit I ever left in a toliet. In the end, it's still a heaping pile of shit.

'Course, I feel the same way about the X-Men movies despite the boggling popularity they have, so I recognize my opinion is purely my own.

 

[Turtletrekker]

And yet, the MetLife Building can be clearly seen in an episode of Agents of SHIELD (A Fractured House).For the record, the very first shot of the pilot was a shot of the NYC skyline that included Stark/Avengers Tower, so it's not like they hadn't digitized Stark Tower in before.

Hopefully they'll fix it for the DVDs.

Agreed. Aside from being a rather glaring continuity error, it's a missed opportunity for a really cool Easter Egg. Especially when the very next shot shows Talbot addressing the UN and saying "I was here when the skies opened and the Avengers blah, blah, blah."

 

[F. King Daniel]

Small continuity crossovers such as the same buildings being seen in the Sony and Marvel NYC's...

That ship's already sailed. There were shots in ASM2 that showed the MetLife Building, which has been replaced by Stark Tower in the MCU.

I seriously doubt, if something happened and they decided to grandfather the ASM movies into the MCU (purely hypothetically, cos I know it's not happening), that anyone would really care about so minor a discrepancy as that.

 

[Christopher]

^True.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I had a random brainwave today, probably inspired by the reveal of the new Spider-Woman costume.

Yes, it would be interesting to have Spider-Man in the MCU. But! What about Spider-Gwen instead?

 

[ALF]

If I were Sony, and I say this with no idea of the legalities and copyrights and whatnot that are involved, I'd insist Garfield stay on as Spidey, simply to boost sales of the ASM films on home media.

Garfield MAY have gotten himself fired because of his attitude towards Sony, they are NOT going to insist on him staying if they don't want to work with him.

Because he a) dissed the studio's final say in the editing of TASM2 and b) he missed a lunch in Tokyo? Those bigwigs must be mighty fragile.

Retroactively, these two films are going to be pretty worthless if they end with TASM2. Not much of an ending.

 

[Dream]

Retroactively, these two films are going to be pretty worthless if they end with TASM2. Not much of an ending.

You can say the same thing about Spider-Man 3!

But I pretend the third movie doesn't exists nowadays.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Spider-Man 3 had a decent ending. It wasn't a good movie, but it managed to conclude the story. I thought X-Men: The Last Stand was similar in that regard. But it's entirely different to have both a bad ending and a bad movie.

 

[Samurai8472]

Retroactively, these two films are going to be pretty worthless if they end with TASM2. Not much of an ending.

If you ignore the sinister six seeds then it makes a nice ending for Spider-man.

He's back in action and ready to on the next threat

Spider-Man 3 had a decent ending.

With Peter Parker and MJ wondering if they can salvage their relationship?

It didn't even end with a Spider-man swing through the city.

It ended on a downer

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It had Peter team up with Harry to defeat Venom while reaching some kind of understanding with the retconned murderer of his Uncle. In doing that, it came full circle with the first movie. It wasn't a complete ending that could only be rebooted from there (like The Dark Knight Rises), but it did have some kind of resolution.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Harry on a flying showboard a goody Green Goblin.

####.

This is not the Hallmark Channel.

Harry is a drug addict with psychotic rages capable of self harm because he simultaneously thinks that he is his father who hates him and he himself who is being hurt by his father who is still he.

 

[Christopher]

It had Peter team up with Harry to defeat Venom while reaching some kind of understanding with the retconned murderer of his Uncle. In doing that, it came full circle with the first movie. It wasn't a complete ending that could only be rebooted from there (like The Dark Knight Rises), but it did have some kind of resolution.

Yes, indeed. I felt it was a very satisfactory resolution to Harry Osborn's arc through the three films, aside from unfortunate details like the butler suddenly blurting out a secret that he had no reason not to reveal to Harry two movies before.

 

[Tosk]

With Peter Parker and MJ wondering if they can salvage their relationship?

It didn't even end with a Spider-man swing through the city.

It ended on a downer

It ended on Pete and MJ reconciling, a nice little moment between the two main characters. I like that it ended on Pete and MJ instead of a CG Spider-Man swing. The final swing is awesome, but sometimes it's better to end on something a little more intimate. Just as Spider-Man 2 did before it. We had the swing, but then it actually ended on a slightly sombre note after that.

 

[MacLeod]

Amazing Spider-Man 2 made 92 million in its opening weekend and since then has made 202 million lifetime gross... We know it's shit, but most people go to the movies because they are sad, or they have four kids and a spouse that hates them, or they work 80 hours some place shit, and they just need something else colourful to turn their brain off with now that they are in AA.

This is how Transformers has made billions.

Escapism is real.

Real life is so horrible for most people that even bad movies are a good idea.

ASM2 has made almost US$709 lifetime gross at the Box Office.

 

[Guy Gardener]

You're counting all the filthy foreign countries too.

God Bless America!

 

[MacLeod]

You're counting all the filthy foreign countries too.

God Bless America!

I would suggest you don't refer to other countries as filthy, it's not exactly good manners and borders on insulting. Whilst you might mean it in jest as there is no emoticon to indicate a joke or a sarcastic comment it has to be taken on face value.

 

[Ovation]

Clearly you lack experience with Guy Gardener posts. None of them should be taken remotely seriously.

(it's the only way to be sure)