SONY announces Amazing Spider-Man 3 and Sinister Six release dates

[Gaith]

Sony can't rest the franchise for long, as they would lose the rights. That's why this silliness of a Sinister Six spin off. It would extend their rights to the IP.

Or would it? We aren't familiar with the legal contracts involved. Maybe one requirement to maintain the rights is to have the word "Spider-Man" in the title. I doubt they could have a Spidey swing through the background of any old rom-com and call that a franchise installment... that's taking things to an extreme example, yes, but the point is, why don't know. The only thing we really do know for sure is that making a Spidey movie renews the rights for at least five years, as that's the amount of time between SM3 and ASM1.

Me too. Cause, like, who's the hero they're fighting? A bunch of cops? The CIA? Each other? Or do we root for them?

Yeah, if they were anti-heroes, that would be something, but I don't think they are.

Again, nothing we've heard so far precludes Spidey, with or without live-action Garfield footage or voice work, from being in this movie.

... Between this and the Venom and Black Cat projects, I'll say this at least: the Sony Spidey team may be flailing around like a stinking drunk six-year-old in Tomorrowland at night, but at least all these developments are an entertainment in of themselves. I'll take these weird-ass news items over the dull, plodding certainty of a grimdark 2016 BvS: D'oh! any day.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Sony can't rest the franchise for long, as they would lose the rights. That's why this silliness of a Sinister Six spin off. It would extend their rights to the IP.

Or would it? We aren't familiar with the legal contracts involved. Maybe one requirement to maintain the rights is to have the word "Spider-Man" in the title. I doubt they could have a Spidey swing through the background of any old rom-com and call that a franchise installment... that's taking things to an extreme example, yes, but the point is, why don't know. The only thing we really do know for sure is that making a Spidey movie renews the rights for at least five years, as that's the amount of time between SM3 and ASM1.

It's true, it's an assumption on my part. I'm assuming the idea is that they need to USE the IP with in a certain amount of time or they lose it.

the Sinister Six is a part of the of the IP, so... using it would extend what they have licensed.

I'm not sure about the title. If that would be true--which seems odd-- wouldn't then The Wolverine have to have been called X-Men: The Wolverine? (Of course, Fox could have better lawyers. They did, after all choose a smarter franchise to build than Spider Man.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

2018 seems too long and no one will care by then and I don't get how they make a movie about 6 villians right? doing what exactly? Just sounds boring. I'd rather have a ASM3 in 2017 so they have 3 years to work on it and then rest the franchise in movie form especially as X Men may of found new legs for Sony.

Based on their current timeline and their 'female superhero' announcement, I'm currently guessing that the Sinister Six movie will be the story of Osbourne taking over everywhere (maybe even to the extent of a TDKR kind of story) and going more and more insane. The heroes of the film will be whoever winds up stopping him, my guess is probably Black Cat (as a lead in to her own movie) possibly with help from one or more potential turncoats on the team itself.

Sony can't rest the franchise for long, as they would lose the rights. That's why this silliness of a Sinister Six spin off. It would extend their rights to the IP.

Or would it? We aren't familiar with the legal contracts involved. Maybe one requirement to maintain the rights is to have the word "Spider-Man" in the title. I doubt they could have a Spidey swing through the background of any old rom-com and call that a franchise installment... that's taking things to an extreme example, yes, but the point is, why don't know. The only thing we really do know for sure is that making a Spidey movie renews the rights for at least five years, as that's the amount of time between SM3 and ASM1.

The rights they bought were to all these different characters and storylines, therefore, any movie that centers on these characters and/or storylines must count as exercising their rights. Saying that's not true is basically just as absurd as saying that having Spidey swing through the background of a completely unrelated film would be enough to count as exercising their rights.

It is true, though, that we don't know exactly how often they have to exercise their rights in order to keep from forfeiting them, so maybe its possible that the Sinister six isn't just about the rights.

Me too. Cause, like, who's the hero they're fighting? A bunch of cops? The CIA? Each other? Or do we root for them?

Yeah, if they were anti-heroes, that would be something, but I don't think they are.

Again, nothing we've heard so far precludes Spidey, with or without live-action Garfield footage or voice work, from being in this movie.

The fact that it's supposed to be a Sinister Six movie pretty much precludes him from being anything more than a cameo at most. Otherwise, it's a plain old Spiderman film in everything but name.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ They'd need some explanation as to why Spider-man isn't around to stop any plan like you've described. I remember in Supergirl there was a reference at the start of the movie to Superman going to another planet but why would Spidey be offside for a major development like that? It's hard to think of a convincing explanation. Even if Peter was studying in England or something, surely he'd find a reason to come back to protect Aunt May?

 

[Servo]

Venom had his own solo comic, though, so that's not too unusual for me. Sinister Six is the one I'm struggling to get.

Me too. Cause, like, who's the hero they're fighting? A bunch of cops? The CIA? Each other? Or do we root for them?

Yeah, if they were anti-heroes, that would be something, but I don't think they are.

Giving him a solo comic after years of appearances in Spider-Man and other books, read by people who are fully aware of the character and his back-story, is a whole world away from a successful solo movie. Especially when said character hasn't made an appearance, or even been alluded to, in the current Spidey-verse movies (unless I missed a Brock reference somewhere).

I think you underestimate your audience's ability to catch up or, at a minimum, not care. Some may have seen Spider-Man 3 and be familiar that way or the comics and be familiar that way. Or they can find a way to do the origin in the movie. Obviously, many of those options would involve noticeable changes from the comics, but I don't think that's a roadblock. Once that difficulty is overcome, the rest makes at least some sense.

I don't see how they can do a Venom origin without Spidey. The character's origin is intrinsically linked to Spidey, and Brock/Venom's primary motivation is their mutual hatred of Spider-Man. It would make far more sense to introduce the character in a Spidey film first, then give him a solo outing.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

When he's acting as a good guy, I'm not sure his mutual hatred of Spider-Man is all that important of a motivation. Presumably, Carnage is the villain.

I'm not going to say a Spider-Man-less Venom story is the story I'd want, I'm just saying it's not impossible to pull off.

 

[Gaith]

I'm not sure about the title. If that would be true--which seems odd-- wouldn't then The Wolverine have to have been called X-Men: The Wolverine? (Of course, Fox could have better lawyers. They did, after all choose a smarter franchise to build than Spider Man.)

Well, Fox had already renewed the X-Men with First Class in '11 and had DOFP on the way, so there was zero need for TW to renew the license. I do remember some speculation, however, that the term "X-Men", as well as maybe some prequel points and franchise callbacks, were wedged into the title and content of XMO:W so the studio could claim that as a franchise-renewing movie. Gavin Hood has said that movie was extensively re-written on the fly... I wonder if stuff like the Cyke and Xavier appearances were part of those rewrites.

The rights they bought were to all these different characters and storylines, therefore, any movie that centers on these characters and/or storylines must count as exercising their rights. Saying that's not true is basically just as absurd as saying that having Spidey swing through the background of a completely unrelated film would be enough to count as exercising their rights.

You may be right, but, either way, you're guessing. There could very well be a clause of the contract saying "Spider-Man" must be in a movie's title, or the character to appear in at least half its scenes/runtime, to extend the license. If you think that would be "absurd"... you may not be an entertainment IP expert. (Neither am I, of course, but I'm not making sweeping pronouncements here.)



... I wonder if there's any chance the Sinister Six won't pull off their mission/heist/whatever (I'm assuming they'll be assembled for a particular purpose, not just as an amoral hangout squad) in NYC. After all, take away the skycrapers he swings from, and Spidey's not that super a superhero, now, is he?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

^ They'd need some explanation as to why Spider-man isn't around to stop any plan like you've described. I remember in Supergirl there was a reference at the start of the movie to Superman going to another planet but why would Spidey be offside for a major development like that? It's hard to think of a convincing explanation. Even if Peter was studying in England or something, surely he'd find a reason to come back to protect Aunt May?

I'm guessing he won't be absent so much as incapacitated. Maybe a cameo at the beginning of the movie where he gets the living hell beaten out of him. Or the story could just take place somewhere far enough away that Peter wouldn't have any reasonable method of knowing about it, I guess.

You may be right, but, either way, you're guessing. There could very well be a clause of the contract saying "Spider-Man" must be in a movie's title, or the character to appear in at least half its scenes/runtime, to extend the license. If you think that would be "absurd"... you may not be an entertainment IP expert. (Neither am I, of course, but I'm not making sweeping pronouncements here.)

No, I'm not, and no there is no real proof. Still seems highly absurd to me, but I suppose theres no real point to arguing it.

... I wonder if there's any chance the Sinister Six won't pull off their mission/heist/whatever (I'm assuming they'll be assembled for a particular purpose, not just as an amoral hangout squad) in NYC. After all, take away the skycrapers he swings from, and Spidey's not that super a superhero, now, is he?

Well, he is pretty strong, very acrobatic and his webs make pretty great weapons even if he doesn't have buildings to swing on. Not to mention hard to hit (spidey-sense). Also, ASM2 made reference to a sort of super healing - I'm not sure if that's really comic book canon, but it seems to be ASM movie verse canon. But yeah, he's not a huge heavy hitter and six against one has got to be pretty awful odds for him.

 

[Tosk]

Also, ASM2 made reference to a sort of super healing - I'm not sure if that's really comic book canon

Yes, comic Peter does heal very quickly compared to a normal human.

 

[Servo]

When he's acting as a good guy, I'm not sure his mutual hatred of Spider-Man is all that important of a motivation. Presumably, Carnage is the villain.

I'm not going to say a Spider-Man-less Venom story is the story I'd want, I'm just saying it's not impossible to pull off.

Yes, but he didn't start out that way. At his inception he was a villain whose primary motivation was hatred of Spider-Man/Peter Parker. He only became a hero/anti-hero later on, after years of stories lead him there.

But still, even if they did decide to completely disregard his villainous side, and have him be an anti-hero from the start, how are they going to explain him without Spidey? His look is that of a larger, scarier, darker Spider-Man. He has a massive spider logo across his chest. His entire concept is linked to Spider-Man in such a way that I can't honestly see a way of creating the character without Spider-Man's involvement.

I agree, it probably isn't impossible to pull off, but I don't know how they could do it without completely compromising the character. It would make more sense to introduce the character in a Spidey flick first, and then talk about a spin-off after that. Hell, even the Sinister Six (whose solo movie I have even less confidence in) were given a nod in ASM2, so at least there is groundwork there. With Venom, they'd be relying solely on either memories of the Raimi version, or existing comic book fans knowledge of the character, and I don't think that's enough to make the film a success.

I hope I'm wrong, and I hope they slap me across the face with a fantastic film, but I'm not going to be surprised if it falls flat. Especially given how mediocre I thought ASM2 turned out to be.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

What if they don't do an origin story?

 

[Servo]

What if they don't do an origin story?

That's a risky proposition, though. They'd either be banking on everyone knowing his origins already, or be relying on the audiences 7 year old memories of a completely different set of films to remind them of who this guy is. Memories of a character that a lot of people weren't happy with the treatment of then, and who was effectively killed off at the end of that film. And assuming they want this Spidey-verse to be distanced from the Raimi outings, which is exactly what they seem to be doing, why would they want the movie-going audiences only frame of reference for this character to be memories of Spider-Man 3?

And like I said; there's going to be a portion of the audience who aren't familiar with the character, who are going to want to know who this guy is and why he looks like an evil Spider-Man.

Doesn't seem like the kind of risk a studio would be willing to take, especially if this schedule change is because of a lack of faith in the IP.

 

[Professor Zoom]

What if they don't do an origin story?

That's a risky proposition, though. ...

Just to play devil's advocate. Maybe we're TO dependent on origin stories. Or gotten to used to them.

Indiana Jones didn't have an original story. We didn't get one until the third movie.

Now, TRUE, he's not so strange or out there as a comic book character. But...

There's a way to do it, I'm sure. Is it that interesting or worth it? I don't know.

Personally, Venom isn't all that interesting to me. He's basically a darker Spider Man... so...

 

[The Old Mixer]

I don't have much of a dog in this fight since I abstained from ASM2, but...

1) It is possible to do a new superhero film that's not an origin film--See Batman '89...a "Year One" story and a Joker origin story, yes, but the most basic details of Batman's origin were barely touched upon, and in flashback.

2) Is it possible that the Sinister Six film will feature Spider-Man, but not as the POV character? For example, we'd only see what the villains see of him, such as when he shows up to fight them? That could be interesting.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Is it possible that the Sinister Six film will feature Spider-Man, but not as the POV character? For example, we'd only see what the villains see of him, such as when he shows up to fight them? That could be interesting.

That could definitely work. In fact, that sounds like the best way to do it.