Spidey OUT of MCU
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Because it's the antithesis to the MCU. The MU was built as a shared universe and crossreference and cross appearances were key much like the comics did when a Superhero needed some science advice he'd go to Reed Richards or when it would be about to get ugly you call in the big gun Avengers or the X-Men.
The movies do this and it's one of the things they are so good.. the entire universe, discounting the magic technology and superpowers, feels like a real world and the Superhero community is a group where people just know each other much like any other social group that meets up on a semi regular basis.
Now Spiderman in the MCU is directly connected to Tony Stark because he is his protegé and thus Stark takes an active interest in him. Having Ex Stark employees (formerly part of the biggest tech company in the world.. think Google or Apple) as the villain was a nice touch to glimpse a bit behind the curtain and see that Tony was not infallible.. while his ego got a big correction in Iron Man he still was this brash, charge ahead character who rarely looked back to see how his actions would affect others, much less regular people.
So i don't have a problem and think separating the characters would be the biggest mistake the MCU can do going forward.. it doesn't have to always be that close as Peter/Tony but they need to keep that intact.
The Fantastic Four USED to be one of Marvel's Comics big 'A' list titles back in the day. If they relaunch the FF franchise well; they'll be fine and could build up around that group (like Marvel Comics did originally when Comic Books were in the 10-50 cent range from the 1960ies to the late 1980ies.)
The Fantastic Four were A list as recently as Jonathan Hickman's run. I remember the hype and the lines at the comic book store over the issue that killed off Johnny Storm. The current run by Dan Slott, which I have enjoyed greatly, is doing well enough to support at least two spin-off books, Future Foundation and Invisible Woman. In the right hands, the Fantastic Four always has the potential to be "The World's Greatest Comic Magazine".
Yeah, I read some more after my other post, and realized there was more going on there than I originally thought.
Interesting - I had read that after the success of the Avengers and the MCU - and the way FOX mis-handled the last FF film; Marvel had cancelled the comic book run of "Fantastic Four" and they weren't mentioned much in the Marvel Comics after that.
^^^
They were what got me into comic book collecting back when I was 12 years old or so (a long time ago
), and for the longest time "The Human Torch" was my favorite Marvel character. I really hope Disney does get around to doing their MCU version of the Fantastic Four sooner rather than later. (YMMV) ).
∆That was post Jonathan Hickman. There were I believe two writers after him when that started taking effect. And the Fantastic Four did indeed disappear entirely from the Marvel universe for three years at the end of Hickman's Secret Wars in 2015. The most recent revival is less than a year old. Probably not a coincidence that that materialized right around the time the rumors of Disney buying Fox sprouted up.
I'm actually not sure about Tony Stark, as a lot of people (me included) didn't actually like how big a part Tony played in Homecoming. So, he might have helped profits, but not as much as you might think.
And Fury, that's just ridiculous. Yes, Sony profited from having Fury in Far From Home, but as much as Marvel profited from having Spider-Man in A3&4?! I seem to remember the Spidey parts being very popular with the audience ("Oh, we're using our made-up names. I'm Spider-Man, then.", "Mr. Stark, I don't feel so good...", etc.).
So, again, both parties profited from the previous deal. Sure, it's Disney's right to try to renegotiate the deal with ridiculous conditions, and it's Sony's right to say "Fuck you, Disney!".
I'm actually not disappointed. I have no stake here. I didn't like Homecoming, I liked Far From Home, so Spidey in the MCU can be good or not, and Spidey outside of the MCU can be good or not.
But I have observed Disney's dick moves for some time now, and trying to take Spider-Man from Sony fits right into their MO.
That's pretty much where I am with the MCU.
I would love to see a movie that focused on Spiderman and Venom. I always thought Spiderman 3 would have worked better had the focus been on that and not all the other side plots that were forced in. I loved the Toby Maguire movies and always thought he had the best handle on the character. The Garfield films should have just picked up where they left off instead of doing a reboot. It was too soon. I liked Holland in CW and the Avengers movies, but didn't care for his first outing so haven't bothered with the second one. I'm sure at some point I'll see it. And Into the Spiderverse was just awesome.
The THOR we've all known is with the Guardians of the Galaxy, but with Jane Foster taking up the mantel, what will he be called? The hero formally known as THOR?
I'm also excited for the DC films because they finally figured out that those characters work best on their own and don't need to focus so much on a shared universe. I hated when an MCU film would waste time on a stupid cameo appearance that had no purpose other than to show off another character. Save your crossovers and group moments for The Avenger movies. When you do a crossover in every film it waters down the eventual team up. The first Avenger movie was awesome because it was the first time all those characters had interacted with one another and were teaming up to take down the bad guys. After that we got crossovers in multiple movies ( Captain America 3 was an Avenger movie in all but name.) to the point I no longer cared. So I'm glad that D.C is finally realizing that their strength is to be DIFFERENT from Marvel, instead of trying to copy it.
The Fantastic Four as a comic concept worked best in the era it was created in--they are truly the most Silver Age / Cold War heroes of any comic, which is why every film adaptation completely wrecked the kind of material, feel and purpose of characters of that kind. If Marvel's Black Widow (like Captain Marvel) takes place in the past, there's no reason they cannot do the same with the fourth stab at a movie FF, where (in universe) it would stand out as a unique event in the world, rather than just another gang of superheroes moved in down the block.
The past as the setting certainly worked in spectacular fashion in Wonder Woman and Captain America: The First Avenger.
As an article that I think was linked uptopic has indicated, Disney is motivated to try to keep their hand in on the Spidey movies somehow since they've invested so much in building him up in recent MCU movies - now a bad Spidey movie will be seen by most moviegoers, who have no fucking idea how these movies are made, as "a bad Marvel movie."
In the comics, when Jane was Thor he was Odinson, so I'm pretty sure that's probably what they'll call him in the movie, if he loses his Thor abilities, which I'm not sure about since he has Stormbreaker now and still has his powers.That's pretty much where I am with the MCU.
I would love to see a movie that focused on Spiderman and Venom. I always thought Spiderman 3 would have worked better had the focus been on that and not all the other side plots that were forced in. I loved the Toby Maguire movies and always thought he had the best handle on the character. The Garfield films should have just picked up where they left off instead of doing a reboot. It was too soon. I liked Holland in CW and the Avengers movies, but didn't care for his first outing so haven't bothered with the second one. I'm sure at some point I'll see it. And Into the Spiderverse was just awesome.
The THOR we've all known is with the Guardians of the Galaxy, but with Jane Foster taking up the mantel, what will he be called? The hero formally known as THOR?
How so? I don't have of experience with them, but everything I have seen/read with them has been set in the modern day and they seemed to work fine.
It generally didn't, however, have characters becoming apprentice and mentor to the other, with Spider-Man it was very much part of Stan Lee's intention that he be young and yet very much not a sidekick.
And yet for some reason Spider-Man remained a committed follower of him.
That's a load of crap - they evolved with the times over the years and mirrored society in their stories (Sue became a stronger independent character, She and Reed divorced, and also dealt with Franklin's situation, etc.) Stan Lee and Co. kept the stories relevant over the years.
Venom was the character who was forced into Raimi's Spider-Man 3.
it is Dinsey fault.. they are asking too much. That said, on a base level, they don't have the time.. more they should they feel the need.. to produce someone else's film .
the real issue is that they are wanting to not only get 50% of opening box office (which is ten time more than they agreed to in the first version of the deal) but they are also asking to co-finance the films. Most fans would be like "yay, Disney is going help Sony pay for the films and that way every one is happy" but what they miss is that if Sony allows Disney to finance the films than Disney would have partial control of the character.. and that is something that Sony doesn't want to give up under any circumstances. The real problem I gather now comes in the fact that in order to keep the rights to the character, Sony has to produce a film every five years. Disney might have wanted out, (and therefore made an offer that they knew would not be accepted) so they can continue to make MCU films without feeling the timecrunch that Sony has.. when it's not even their films
the real issue is that they are wanting to not only get 50% of opening box office (which is ten time more than they agreed to in the first version of the deal) but they are also asking to co-finance the films. Most fans would be like "yay, Disney is going help Sony pay for the films and that way every one is happy" but what they miss is that if Sony allows Disney to finance the films than Disney would have partial control of the character.. and that is something that Sony doesn't want to give up under any circumstances. The real problem I gather now comes in the fact that in order to keep the rights to the character, Sony has to produce a film every five years. Disney might have wanted out, (and therefore made an offer that they knew would not be accepted) so they can continue to make MCU films without feeling the timecrunch that Sony has.. when it's not even their films
I think Disney made the offer knowing they wouldn't .. I think they don't want the pressure of making Sony's films (and then having those films make a billion, which Marvel gets a fraction of) so I think they wanted out. Plus, I'm Kevin FFeige's age..I run two errands an I'm tired as hell, he doesn't NEED to produce anymore films he has too much to do every day as it iis
Without Stark and Fury, Homecoming and Far From Home have to be rewritten from page one. Without Spidey, the audience would have just focused on some of the 250,000 other crowd-pleasing moments from A3&4. "Mr. Stark, I don't feel so good..." could easily have been switched to Bucky dusting in Cap's arms, with much the same fan reaction. Sony's on their third since the turn of the century; Marvel just had the highest grossing film of all time. Sony needs the MCU much more than the MCU needs Spider-Man.
What exactly do you think Kevin Feige is doing on these movies? It's not like he's on set every day. It's mostly a desk job. This idea that he doesn't have the time or energy to produce a Spider-Man movie is ridiculous, considering he's already done it twice before while also overseeing the biggest crossover in movie history.