Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread

[Turtletrekker]

So, this thread is for a general discussion about the upcoming re-(re-)boot of the the Spider-Man franchise set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

When the news broke in the Marvel spoilers thread, the conversation exploded, but there were several notable posters who I expected to chime in and didn't. I realized that not everyone wants to go into the spoiler thread, and so they missed the conversation. This thread will be unencumbered from the other spoilery stuff that occurs in the other thread. So code any future genuine spoilers.

The movie will be released on July 27, 2017 and be set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He will first appear in some form in Captain America: Civil War, which begins shooting soon.

This opens up all kinds of doors for the Spider-Man franchise
and the MCU both. Spider-Man, despite being a "loner" for most of his career, has also been the most teamed-up hero Marvel has ever had. How would you like to see Spidey's introduction into the MCU be handled? What direction would you like to see the movie series go?

There were rumors the other day that Drew Goddard had been signed to direct and write the next movie, but they were quickly de-bunked. However, it seems that he may still be a candidate. It would make a lot of sense. He was already going to direct Sinister Six for Sony, and before that he was attached to Marvel's Daredevil show.

There should be word on director and star before too much longer, as the movie needs to start development soon if it's going to make it's release date.

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

I've also heard rumors of the Russo Brothers directing the film as well.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The thing about the "spoiler-heavier speculation" thread is that it wasn't meant for spoiler discussion of upcoming projects (which usually get their own threads for that)...it was meant for crossover discussion of released productions. The need for it became apparent when people were trying to discuss crossover story points between AoS and TWS last year and were courting trouble for discussing one production in the thread of the other.

Maybe it ought to be renamed the "MCU Crossover Discussion" thread or somesuch, but I'm not the OP (though I had some input in the thread's creation, including the oft-misunderstood title, IIRC), so I don't think I'd be the one to request it of a mod, if it's even possible.

(Paging bbjeg, paging bbjeg....)

 

[Turtletrekker]

Spider-Man is already the most lucrative super-hero in the world as far as merchandising goes, selling more than Batman and the Avengers combined. Yet, the mere announcement that Spidey was joining the MCU has already caused a spike in Spider-sales.

In fact, sales for products themed around the web slinger picked up again following the announcement of Marvel's new relationship with Sony. The character generated another $1 billion in global retails sales last year, NPD Group said.
"It's ignited the marketplace with what's to come with Spider-Man in the future," Gitter said of the new deal with Sony. "The retail community is rallying behind Spider-Man in a pretty significant way."

As they ask in the article, can you image what will happen when we see the first hint of Spidey in the Civil War trailer?

 

[Relayer1]

After the excitement of Spidey joining the MCU wore off I started to become concerned. First Garfield was out (I really liked him in the part - certainly more than Maguire) and then Amazing 1 & 2 were canned in favour of a pointless reboot. They deserved better - 2 wasn't great, but 1 was, and the previous trilogy wasn't all good either.

The origin and Gwen stories were out of the way and they could have gone straight into new territory and Mary Jane Watson in the MCU. Now it's not even certain that it will be the Peter Parker Spidey and it looks like being a 'back to school' scenario.

I'm not optimistic.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I've been wanting Spider-Man teamed up with the Avengers since Avengers first came out or maybe even earlier. The thing that bothers me though is both trilogies never really told a finished story. The Sam Rami films told an almost complete story, still left us hanging. Then the Webb films were in the middle of telling a complete story, but now had the rug pulled out from under them. Part of this is Sony's fault for rebooting the series yet again, but part of it falls with Web. Take for example Batman. Christopher Nolan didn't make Batman Begins believing that a sequel was inevitable. Yes he left us with somewhat of a cliffhanger, but he didn't have to follow it up with TDK. Marc Web pretty much assumed there would be a sequel and had a basic outline for the next two or three sequels. Now, those sequels have been scrapped. Could Web had foreseen that, probably not, but it doesn't excuse the lack of vision for a self contained story. This is the problem in general for movies these days. Everything has to have a sequel or be part of a trilogy. The MCU works as an ongoing story, but eventually they are going to run into a road block. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of Spider-Man in the MCU, but I dont like the idea of rebooting Spider-Man yet again and I remain skeptical for now.

 

[Turtletrekker]

While I really liked Andrew Garfield in the role, the sad truth is, his movies did not live up to expectations. ASM2 may not have lost money, but it didn't make nearly the box-office Sony was aiming for. Sony is cutting its losses and abandoning ship. They would never even have had talks with Marvel if their then-current direction for the franchise held any promise. Spider-Man in the MCU is already getting more buzz than the Webb/Garfield movies. And remember, Andrew Garfield essentially got himself fired before the Marvel deal.

As for the unfinished storylines? Peter's parents? Sinister Six? Unfortunate, but it would hardly be the first time a movie left threads that were left forever dangling. It's not the end of the world, certainly not worth Sony's money to gamble on a third entry in a failing franchise. The Incredible Hulk introduced a dangling sub-plot with Sam Sterns/The Leader that has been abandoned except for a brief segment of a tie-in comic. The best part of Green Lantern was the Sinsetro bit at the end that will never be followed up on.

As for recasting again-- again unfortunate, but isn't it always? James Bond? Doctor Who? They've both gone through as many or more leads in as little time or less, and they always survive. And finally, if they are going to introduce him into the MCU and they were going to recast anyway, I'd actually rather see an altogether new Spider-continuity. The Webb movies weren't really up to MCU standards anyway.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

While I really liked Andrew Garfield in the role, the sad truth is, his movies did not live up to expectations. ASM2 may not have lost money, but it didn't make nearly the box-office Sony was aiming for. Sony is cutting its losses and abandoning ship. They would never even have had talks with Marvel if their then-current direction for the franchise held any promise. Spider-Man in the MCU is already getting more buzz than the Webb/Garfield movies. And remember, Andrew Garfield essentially got himself fired before the Marvel deal.

As for the unfinished storylines? Peter's parents? Sinister Six? Unfortunate, but it would hardly be the first time a movie left threads that were left forever dangling. It's not the end of the world, certainly not worth Sony's money to gamble on a third entry in a failing franchise. The Incredible Hulk introduced a dangling sub-plot with Sam Sterns/The Leader that has been abandoned except for a brief segment of a tie-in comic. The best part of Green Lantern was the Sinsetro bit at the end that will never be followed up on.

As for recasting again-- again unfortunate, but isn't it always? James Bond? Doctor Who? They've both gone through as many or more leads in as little time or less, and they always survive. And finally, if they are going to introduce him into the MCU and they were going to recast anyway, I'd actually rather see an altogether new Spider-continuity. The Webb movies weren't really up to MCU standards anyway.

I pretty much agree, I just want to see a finished Spider-Mansory without interuptio or reboot. I agree that the Garfield movies weren't up to snuff, but they were good and I like Garfield as Spider-Man. I don't know how many more reboots I can take before I just don't care?

 

[Relayer1]

I don't know how many more reboots I can take before I just don't care?

I'd like to think just the one more, into the MCU, but I'm starting to think it may have been the last one into the Garfield version...

 

[Hartzilla2007]

So, what exactly do Sony and Marvel have access to after this deal?

Does Sony get get access to stuff Like Kingpin, Daredevil, and ect.?

Does Marvel get to use Spider-man related stuff in their movies other than Spider-Man like Daily Bugle papers in an MCU movie?

 

[Enterprise1701]

Can the title of this thread to edited to "etc."? Seems to me that this thread will be around for a long time, and that spelling error is going to annoy a fair share of people.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

While I really liked Andrew Garfield in the role, the sad truth is, his movies did not live up to expectations. ASM2 may not have lost money, but it didn't make nearly the box-office Sony was aiming for. Sony is cutting its losses and abandoning ship. They would never even have had talks with Marvel if their then-current direction for the franchise held any promise. Spider-Man in the MCU is already getting more buzz than the Webb/Garfield movies. And remember, Andrew Garfield essentially got himself fired before the Marvel deal.

As for the unfinished storylines? Peter's parents? Sinister Six? Unfortunate, but it would hardly be the first time a movie left threads that were left forever dangling. It's not the end of the world, certainly not worth Sony's money to gamble on a third entry in a failing franchise. The Incredible Hulk introduced a dangling sub-plot with Sam Sterns/The Leader that has been abandoned except for a brief segment of a tie-in comic. The best part of Green Lantern was the Sinsetro bit at the end that will never be followed up on.

As for recasting again-- again unfortunate, but isn't it always? James Bond? Doctor Who? They've both gone through as many or more leads in as little time or less, and they always survive. And finally, if they are going to introduce him into the MCU and they were going to recast anyway, I'd actually rather see an altogether new Spider-continuity. The Webb movies weren't really up to MCU standards anyway.

I disagree-I think that the Webb movies were up to snuff, and (in some ways) better then the Ramini movies (no stupid natural spider web, no second movie where Spider-Man's/Peter Parker's fate's butt monkey) and a lot of good things (mechanical web shooters, lack of the Daily Bugle/J. Jonah Jerkoff, showing his parents and how they died, Spidey making quips and jokes)-all of these made for a great two movies, and I will miss them. Even more great about the 2nd film is the plot with Gwen, and how Gwen (unlike MJ in the previous movies) actually is smart, helps the hero, accepts that the hero-her boyfriend-has to do this, and-guess I'll have to say it again-helps the hero. Her speech telling the graduating class of her high school to make life count is one for the ages in all of movies last year or any other, and Emma Stone pulled it off amazingly.

Those that hate these movies and just want them to die have no heart, IMHO-this Spider-Man trilogy's a great part of the MCU, and stands heads and shoulders with the other ones. As well, earning 800 million at the box office is a failure? If so, then it's a 'failure' I'd love to see more often.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Can the title of this thread to edited to "etc."? Seems to me that this thread will be around for a long time, and that spelling error is going to annoy a fair share of people.

Sure, MODS, if you have the time. Tpyo's aer anonying.

 

[Enterprise1701]

http://comicbook.com/2015/04/11/new-spider-man-confirmed-as-peter-parker-in-high-school/

Well there goes it for originality.

 

[Relayer1]

Well, I can't say I'm happy about the school thing (who the hell wants a juvenile Spidey ?) but at leadt it's Parker...

 

[kirk55555]

I don't know why they keep putting him in High School. In the real world, I'm pretty sure he was out of high school but about the late 60s, and was only made a High Schooler again for Ultimate Spider-Man, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep connecting Peter Parker to High School. I really wish they weren't afraid to do adult Spidey. He can have all the generic Spidey Problems as a guy in his 20s as he can with a teenager. Heck, he can have more generic Spidey Problems as an adult, like needing rent money (I'm not trying to be mean, I love Spider-Man, but a lot of his stories like repeatedly giving him the same personal problems over and over). Still, unless they hire a literal wooden block they really can't get a worse actor than Andrew Garfield, so Spider-Man could still be really good. I just wish they weren't repeating the high school thing, especially since Amazing Spider-Man just did it.

 

[Kelthaz]

Yes, a high school student isn't my preference either, but you've gotta look at the big picture here.

Spider-Man 1-2 - High school student
Spider-Man 3-4 - College Student
Spider-Man 5-6 - Adult
Avengers 6 - Kill off Parker
Spider-Man 7 - Introduce Miles Morales

Instead of jumping right into Parker as an adult or Miles Morales as Spider-Man we can naturally progress through each stage. That's pretty cool in my book.

 

[Mike Farley]

I feel like the problem with a high school age Peter is that in a film series you're pretty much never going to be able to really explore the potential story lines of that era. By the time you make the next movie 3 years or so will have passed and he'll end up young adult Spidey anyway.

If you're making a TV show or cartoon then young Peter makes some sense. You have potentially years to explore his journey from adolescent to hero. . For the movies you might as well make him a generic 20-something and stick with that.

And I say this as a fan of teenage Spider-Man. Those early Stan Lee/Steve Ditko issues are by far my favorite Spidey.

 

[kirk55555]

Yes, a high school student isn't my preference either, but you've gotta look at the big picture here.

Spider-Man 1-2 - High school student
Spider-Man 3-4 - College Student
Spider-Man 5-6 - Adult
Avengers 6 - Kill off Parker
Spider-Man 7 - Introduce Miles Morales

Instead of jumping right into Parker as an adult or Miles Morales as Spider-Man we can naturally progress through each stage. That's pretty cool in my book.

Well, I hope you're wrong about that. Ignoring my bias as someone who thinks Morales sucks, I don't think Marvel will necessarily kill off the characters when actors want to leave, or after some predetermined amount of time. Didn't they already say they'd at least be willing to pull a James Bond and just replace the actor without a reboot or replacement character, like they already did with Norton/Ruffalo? Now, I say that while thinking its at least possible that Steve Rogers will die in Civil War and possibly have Bucky or Falcon take up his Shield, but I still don't think we'll be seeing Morales in the MCU, at least not as a replacement for Peter Parker.

 

[Kelthaz]

Ah, but you didn't let me finish. Then, in Spider-Man 9, it's revealed that the Parker who died was actually the Parker introduced in the alternate timeline in Dr. Strange 3 and that the real Parker has been working undercover as a double agent within Hydra. He costars in Spider-Man 9 with Miles and then takes over the franchise again in Spider-Man 10 while Miles leads his own spinoff.

*cough* anyway, my point is simply that starting off with a high school aged Peter Parker leaves more options available for the writers to evolve his character and future movies. If they start with Peter as an adult or jump right in with Miles they're limiting themselves for no reason.