Moderns that are heating up on ebay! 71 71

[Jaydogrules]

5 minutes ago, MojoComics said:

Do you have an additional source that I'm not privy to, or is my Google-fu failing me, because I'm not seeing where it stipulates that only Peter Parker can be Spider-Man anywhere in the contractual sources that I'm able to find. 

Stan Lee in response to the last time pump and dumpers tried to float the hoax that Miles Morales could ever be "Spider-man" in a live action movie :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/23/stan-lee-spider-man-should-stay-white-and-straight

-J.

[Jimmy Linguini]

8 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Stan Lee in response to the last time pump and dumpers tried to float the hoax that Miles Morales could ever be "Spider-man" in a live action movie :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/23/stan-lee-spider-man-should-stay-white-and-straight

-J.

Did you watch Spider-Man Homecoming?

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, Jimmy Linguini said:

Did you watch Spider-Man Homecoming?

Of course! There was an Easter egg where someone obliquely refers to their "nephew".  And ?

-J.

[Jimmy Linguini]

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

Of course! There was an Easter egg where someone obliquely refers to their "nephew".  And ?

-J.

That character had four lines in the entire movie. Why would one of them be about his nephew if the character isn't in Marvels future plans?

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, Jimmy Linguini said:

That character had four lines in the entire movie. Why would one of them be about his nephew if the character isn't in Marvels future plans?

It was an Easter egg.  Just like I said.  There can certainly be a character named "Miles Morales" in a live action movie but he will never be called "Spider-Man" in one.   It is literally in the licensing agreement, and reiterated repeatedly by Stan the Man   It is what it is.  Sorry.  

-J.

 

[Jimmy Linguini]

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

It was an Easter egg.  Just like I said.  There can certainly be a character named "Miles Morales" in a live action movie but he will never be called "Spider-Man" in one.   It is literally in the licensing agreement, and reiterated repeatedly by Stan the Man   It is what it is.  Sorry.  

-J.

 

Stan has nothing to do with Marvel's characters. He has no say in the characters development and has no say in the movies.

I don't know if Sony will be pushing a Miles Morales lead spider-man film, but I don't see how anyone can say he won't be appearing in one of the two planned Spider-Man Homecoming sequels.

[Jaydogrules]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy Linguini said:

Stan has nothing to do with Marvel's characters. He has no say in the characters development and has no say in the movies.

I don't know if Sony will be pushing a Miles Morales lead spider-man film, but I don't see how anyone can say he won't be appearing in one of the two planned Spider-Man Homecoming sequels.

The licensing agreements were done over what 20, 30 years ago.  And yes, those same ones are in effect.  Don't know what to tell you man. 

And he "might" appear, have a walk on appearance of whatever as Miles Morales, but he can't be "Spider-Man" in a live action  movie, so I hope you like cartoons.

-J

Edited July 16, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[Mapleleafvann]

14 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

The licensing agreements were done over what 20, 30 years ago.  And yes, those same ones are in effect.  Don't know what to tell you man. 

And he "might" appear, have a walk on appearance of whatever as Miles Morales, but he can't be "Spider-Man" in a live action  movie, so I hope you like cartoons.

-J

All of this can be modified by the stroke of a pen.....no sense in arguing about it.  If both parties agree, there certainly can be a MM Spider-Man flick.  It already appears that the relationship is less frigid than it was years ago.  

[Jaydogrules]

3 minutes ago, Mapleleafvann said:

All of this can be modified by the stroke of a pen.....no sense in arguing about it.  If both parties agree, there certainly can be a MM Spider-Man flick.  It already appears that the relationship is less frigid than it was years ago.  

Actually no it can't.  Which is why it hasn't been.  That would require an entirely new licensing agreement since Miles Morales did not exist when the original one was done.  And do you know why there won't be a new agreement made?   Because it would require Marvel agreeing to let Sony keep Peter Parker.   Which they don't want to do.  Which is why they are relegated to just "sharing" him.  

-J.

[Mapleleafvann]

1 minute ago, Jaydogrules said:

Actually no it can't.  Which is why it hasn't been.  That would require an entirely new licensing agreement since Miles Morales did not exist when the original one was done.  And do you know why there won't be a new agreement made?   Because it would require Marvel agreeing to let Sony keep Peter Parker.   Which they don't want to do.  Which is why they are relegated to just "sharing" him.  

-J.

There are all sorts of revenue sharing models out there.  Not every contract or business deal is an "all or nothing" thing.  Contracts/agreements/MOUs get changed all of the time.  Whether or not it will get changed....or whether those possible changes take place sooner or later is anyone's guess.  

[Jaydogrules]

5 minutes ago, Mapleleafvann said:

There are all sorts of revenue sharing models out there.  Not every contract or business deal is an "all or nothing" thing.  Contracts/agreements/MOUs get changed all of the time.  Whether or not it will get changed....or whether those possible changes take place sooner or later is anyone's guess.  

They are still operating under their original agreement.  It hasn't changed because it can't be materially changed without creating a new one.  That's how contracts work. Do I even need to take the time to explain how putting an entirely different character called "Spider-Man" in a live action big screen movie would be a material change?   All of Marvel's licensing agreements are character and name based as well as concept.  They cant just pick and choose whatever they want to satisfy the comic book pump and dumpers and the wishful thinkers. 

-J.

[the authority]

59 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Stan Lee in response to the last time pump and dumpers tried to float the hoax that Miles Morales could ever be "Spider-man" in a live action movie :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/23/stan-lee-spider-man-should-stay-white-and-straight

-J.

"The rule that says Peter Parker, Spidey’s alter ego, should always be white doesn’t bother Lee, according to an interview he gave to entertainment site Newsarama."

 

This doesn't say anything about a different Spider-man, only Peter Parker. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on MM showing up because they keep pushing his character. Maybe there is more to the article/interview but that line wouldn't disqualify Miles imo.

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, the authority said:

"The rule that says Peter Parker, Spidey’s alter ego, should always be white doesn’t bother Lee, according to an interview he gave to entertainment site Newsarama."

 

This doesn't say anything about a different Spider-man, only Peter Parker. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on MM showing up because they keep pushing his character. Maybe there is more to the article/interview but that line wouldn't disqualify Miles imo.

Miles will never be Spider-man in a live action movie.  I know people have books to sell but it is never going to happen.  The original link I posted was, as mentioned, in direct response to Miles possibly being Spider-Man in live action.  It was the more complete interview.  

And it's also why Miles is being burned off in a cartoon.  Sony knows they can't use him in live action.  And they won't.  So enjoy what you can get.

-J.

[ygogolak]

58 minutes ago, Jimmy Linguini said:

That character had four lines in the entire movie. Why would one of them be about his nephew if the character isn't in Marvels future plans?

Because it was a nod to Glover voicing Miles in the animated version. He's too old to play him in live action but there have been plenty of fans voicing their opinion to that. It was the studios was of acknowledging that.

My opinion.

Edited July 16, 2017 by ygogolak

[Mapleleafvann]

8 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

They are still operating under their original agreement.  It hasn't changed because it can't be materially changed without creating a new one.  That's how contracts work. Do I even need to take the time to explain how putting an entirely different character called "Spider-Man" in a live action big screen movie would be a material change?   All of Marvel's licensing agreements are character and name based as well as concept.  They cant just pick and choose whatever they want to satisfy the comic book pump and dumpers and the wishful thinkers. 

-J.

Wow!  When you say it like that, you're right!  Everything is set in stone and can never, ever be changed.  

These things are good to know.

[MojoComics]

59 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

They are still operating under their original agreement.  It hasn't changed because it can't be materially changed without creating a new one.  That's how contracts work. Do I even need to take the time to explain how putting an entirely different character called "Spider-Man" in a live action big screen movie would be a material change?   All of Marvel's licensing agreements are character and name based as well as concept.  They cant just pick and choose whatever they want to satisfy the comic book pump and dumpers and the wishful thinkers. 

-J.

Again, if you look at the original contract, Schedule 3 names Miles Morales BY NAME, Schedule IV states that Spider-Man/Miles Morales can be used as an alternate named Spider-Man costume, and Schedule VI names Spider-Man III (Miles Morales) as a 'Named Character' that SPE is authorized to use in their production.  I don't know how much more cut-and-dry that can be. 

Now, whether that's a good idea, whether it happens or not, or whether it should, all that is irrelevant.  I actually don't think it'll happen, and I don't think it'll be successful if it does.  However, the contract is what matters, and it's there in black-and-white that by the terms of the original agreement, SPE is contractually allowed to. 

As for Stan Lee's interview, while I always like hearing his thoughts about Marvel's processes, is an opinion piece at best, and as one of the co-creators it's obvious that he'd want the character to remain as true to his original vision as possible.

[Jaydogrules]

6 minutes ago, MojoComics said:

Again, if you look at the original contract, Schedule 3 names Miles Morales BY NAME, Schedule IV states that Spider-Man/Miles Morales can be used as an alternate named Spider-Man costume, and Schedule VI names Spider-Man III (Miles Morales) as a 'Named Character' that SPE is authorized to use in their production.  I don't know how much more cut-and-dry that can be. 

Now, whether that's a good idea, whether it happens or not, or whether it should, all that is irrelevant.  I actually don't think it'll happen, and I don't think it'll be successful if it does.  However, the contract is what matters, and it's there in black-and-white that by the terms of the original agreement, SPE is contractually allowed to. 

As for Stan Lee's interview, while I always like hearing his thoughts about Marvel's processes, is an opinion piece at best, and as one of the co-creators it's obvious that he'd want the character to remain as true to his original vision as possible.

I don't know what document you're looking at, but the one that licensed Spider-Man to Sony was executed looooong before 2011 when Miles Morales was first conceived.  It was Stan Lee who insisted on the Peter Parker proviso in the actual licensing agreement, which is precisely why he is always reiterating it publicly and why no one has EVER publicly contradicted him and why no one has EVER even hinted at a Miles Morales live action "Spider-man" movie, and why you only see him in cartoons.  

-J.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[MojoComics]

2 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I don't know what document you're looking at, but the one that licensed Spider-Man to Sony was executed looooong before 2011 when Miles Morales was first conceived.  It was Stan Lee who insisted on the Peter Parker proviso in the actual licensing agreement, which is precisely why he is always reiterating it publicly and why no one has EVER publicly contradicted him and why no one has EVER even hinted at a Miles Morales live action "Spider-man" movie, and why you're will only see him as such in cartoons.  

-J.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/07/junderwood/1 Corp Dev/Spiderman/Executive Summary of All Deal Points/Executive Summary (Creative).pdf

 

Edit:  I guess my post was incorrect as far as stating the 'original' contract, as this is, at least according to the Wikileaks source that started this whole thing, the summary of the most current addendum.

Edited July 16, 2017 by MojoComics
Clarification

[darkstar]

2 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Stan Lee in response to the last time pump and dumpers tried to float the hoax that Miles Morales could ever be "Spider-man" in a live action movie :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/23/stan-lee-spider-man-should-stay-white-and-straight

-J.

That doesn't address the post you quoted in which you were asked to corroborate where it definitely states that a white Peter Parker as Spider-Man is the only iteration of Spider-Man that will ever be depicted in a major motion picture. You responded to that questioning with an article that simply stated Lee's opinion of current creators modifying the original Spider-Man/Peter Park character. It has nothing to do with what the studios are allowed to put on film. A total misdirection on your part.

Please stop pretending that via some email leak from years ago that you are at all able to speak definitively on what does or does not go on in meetings behind closed doors regarding Marvel characters appearing in movies. That you have any clue about what agreements or contracts were made or when and whether they've been changed or updated since then or who has what power to do what. This is beyond absurd and an incredibly dumb hill to die on.

[the authority]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

Miles will never be Spider-man in a live action movie.  I know people have books to sell but it is never going to happen.  The original link I posted was, as mentioned, in direct response to Miles possibly being Spider-Man in live action.  It was the more complete interview.  

And it's also why Miles is being burned off in a cartoon.  Sony knows they can't use him in live action.  And they won't.  So enjoy what you can get.

-J.

Read the whole article. So here is what the Newsarama link states. 

"recent leaked Sony documents show that Marvel Comics’ licensing agreement with Sony Pictures for the Spider-Man movies mandate that Spidey should be male, not smoke tobacco nor abuse alcohol, and not be a homosexual “(unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as a homosexual).” This caused Gawker to conclude, somehow, that “Spider-Man is a f---ing dork.” That same documents show that Peter Parker, though not necessarily any alternative Spider-Man character, is Caucasian and heterosexual" 

So what part of this means only Peter Parker can be Spider-man ? Does Miles have any of the habits or lifestyle that would exclude him as a potential Spider-man ?