Only because the book was riding the hype from them killing Ultimate Peter Parker and replacing him with Miles in the first place much like the stunt with SSM.
Race & Spider-Man: Sony Confirms a Glass Ceiling for Miles Morales
- Thread starter Shaka Zulu
- Start date
Only because the book was riding the hype from them killing Ultimate Peter Parker and replacing him with Miles in the first place much like the stunt with SSM.
I was glancing at the 2012 sales calculated on this site and I'm seeing various 616 Spider-Man titles in the top 25 and the Ultimate title in the 30-40 range.
That'd be hilarious if Marvel owned the rights to Miles Morales, so they could put HIM in the Avengers films but not Peter Parker
He would have to have a different code name -- Arachnid, Iron Spider, something that wasn't "Spider-Man." But then it would get tricky, because Sony could argue in court that Marvel was diluting their film rights to an arachnid-powered super-hero.
Arachnid-powered? Here's Marvel's rebuttal — "Sony never argued that The Scorpion King diluted the first Spider-Man."
^Parker Enterprises was established by Doc Ock while crashing in Peter's body. Ock also got a doctorate while in Pete's body, so he is technically now "Dr. Parker."
Mind you that was only created last December...
Considering Ben Reilly it probably is this.
Which doesn't make this a good example.
Didn't Marvel already say they would recast characters when needed, so that doesn't sound like they are planing on legacy characters, especially since by the time they would conceivably do this it will have been awhile since Rhodes and Barnes had their brief stints.
Mind you that was only created last December...
And from some fan speculation is that it's not likely to last too much longer.
^ I think Marvel may have confirmed that they'll recast rather than reboot but there's talk that Sebastian Stan has signed a 6 or 9 pic deal (can't remember which). Which has led to speculation that he'll assume the Captain America mantle for a movie or two.
Considering Ben Reilly it probably is this.
Which doesn't make this a good example.
Didn't Marvel already say they would recast characters when needed, so that doesn't sound like they are planing on legacy characters, especially since by the time they would conceivably do this it will have been awhile since Rhodes and Barnes had their brief stints.
Mind you that was only created last December...
And from some fan speculation is that it's not likely to last too much longer.
But then again, this would be in the movie universe, so there doesn't have to be any real connectivity with the comics books at all other than the use of both characters.
^ Yes, but I imagine that the original point was that film makers are unlikely to feel beholden to a plot point which is short-lived and not particularly successful.
If I recall, the Kingpin character had some special contract issues that allowed his IP to be shared, similar to how both Marvel and FOX are using Quicksilver in their upcoming films. This is due to Kingpin's appearance in multiple media, not just Spider-Man. It's possible that Sony might have access to Kingpin.
EDIT: Did a Google, and it turns out Sony does indeed own Kingpin, and allowed him to appear in FOX's Daredevil as a "loan".
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/avengers/news/?a=80039
Peter Parker should be a CEO about as much as Clark Kent should be a drug dealer, or Bruce Wayne a truck-stop waitress....
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Considering how the new spider man movies are actually underperforming, Sony probably would have done better trying something new.
^ When you take into account the significantly smaller paychecks they're no doubt handing over to the new cast and crew, plus the growing international market, the new series is doing just fine. Yes, there is some domestic fatigue lowering the domestic take, but Raimi's movies didn't have the Marvel Studios competition, and there's no reason to think scrapping Peter Parker would have overcome the negatives.
Besides if Barnes and Rhodes stay in their current identities Marvel could end up with enough characters to do a Secret Avengers movie.
<<When you take into account the significantly smaller paychecks they're no doubt handing over to the new cast and crew, plus the growing international market, the new series is doing just fine. Yes, there is some domestic fatigue lowering the domestic take, but Raimi's movies didn't have the Marvel Studios competition, and there's no reason to think scrapping Peter Parker would have overcome the negatives. >>
Spider-Man Budgets:
SPM1 - 140m. SPM2 - 200m. SPM3 - 258m.
ASM1 - 230m. ASM2 - 250m.
They're just as expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-man_film_series
Spider-Man Budgets:
SPM1 - 140m. SPM2 - 200m. SPM3 - 258m.
ASM1 - 230m. ASM2 - 250m.
They're just as expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-man_film_series
The Sony Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon couldn't use Kingpin and according to the producers, it was because the Spider-man contract that Sony had didn't have the rights to him.
That's television rights though, and may have been covered under a different contract. That show ended before the television rights reverted back to Marvel. I believe Marvel has exclusive television rights to all characters at this point.
This includes live-action, meaning technically Spider-Man could appear on Agents of SHIELD, but Sony still owns the likeness and appearance of Spider-Man, so they'd have to work around that. Marvel's better off leaving it alone.
I posted this a while back
Does Sony even care about Kingpin? Since he still hasn't appeared in a Spiderman movie, I guess not!
Fisk was in the CG Spidey cartoon though, so clearly Sony still had the rights to use him at that point. (Post Daredevil.)
Perhaps when the Daredevil rights reverted to Marvel, Fisk came along with them somehow? Convoluted!
