SPIDER-MAN Sony-Marvel potential deal OFFICIAL THREAD

[Prince Namor]

What someone like Nolan could do with this stuff...

 

Instead of those goons at Sony.

 

Very well put observations, Chuck.

 

 

I think an individual's interpretation of Spider-Man can also come from what stage of his development you appreciate more. Though his foundation of why he is the way he is should be fairly consistent, which you so expertly captured.

 

For me, the ASM 200-300 run is my all-time favorite. At this point, Peter is established, seasoned, and always trying to do right (as usual). But he can't help continuing to have authority problems, generally questioning his own capabilities and value, and operating for the most part as a loner still. But his supporting cast and antagonists were some of the most memorable and influential. And of course, you had him dealing with some of the better Silver and Bronze Age characters like Kraven and Kingpin while also engaging off-and-on with Punisher and Black Cat. And yes, the introduction of Venom, though I was never a tremendous fan of this character.

 

It's no surprise how Spider-Man, if done right at the cinema, can be a tremendous success due to everyday qualities that makes the character believable.

 

I'm a big fan of the Stern and then DeFalco run - both had a great understanding of the character. It wasn't until Marvel farted around with the ending to the Hobgoblin ordeal, did it start to falter. Still... what I consider the last great run.

[Prince Namor]

Thanks Chuck

 

I agree it could be that way, but merchandising could never deal with a dark/tormented Spider-man

 

Well it never hurt Batman's merchandising sales... in fact, when they went full on dark with the Arkham video games, it not only broke sales records, but ended up being considered two of the best selling superhero games ever.

 

The true essence of Spider-man is what made him popular in the first place, it's what will make him popular again...

[BarryAllen]

Thanks Chuck

 

I agree it could be that way, but merchandising could never deal with a dark/tormented Spider-man

 

Well it never hurt Batman's merchandising sales... in fact, when they went full on dark with the Arkham video games, it not only broke sales records, but ended up being considered two of the best selling superhero games ever.

 

The true essence of Spider-man is what made him popular in the first place, it's what will make him popular again...

 

Agree, there are already examples of this regardless. One that comes to mind is Spiderman Noir in the Spiderman: Shattered Dimensions. Dark version of a character in a depressing world (POW great pun) who is very different than the web-slinging, joke-throwing, girlfriend-losing Spidey known to most.

 

While I thoroughly dislike this example, the Walking Dead is another simple illustration of how a very adult theme has been marketed (both inappropriately and successfully at this point) to children. I am not sure it gets a whole lot darker than a zombie apocalypse where people are living in constant fear from the threat of both the remaining humans and the ever present walking dead.

[Mr 9.8]

I am not sure it gets a whole lot darker than a zombie apocalypse where people are living in constant fear from the threat of both the remaining humans and the ever present walking dead.

You've never read the sick twisted works of Garth Ennis, have you?

[rjrjr]

My :

 

How to make a good Spider-Man movie series:

 

1) Peter Parker needs to be an awkward teenager when we start. Uncle Ben dies.

 

2) There needs to be a love interest (Betty Brant, Mary Jane, or Gwen Stacy.)

 

3) Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider. Nobody else was bit, the company did not go on to weaponize radioactive spiders, etc.

 

4) Jonah Jameson, Robbie, etc. are as essential to Spider-Man as is Aunt May.

 

5) Introduce one *compelling* villain whose origin is sympathetic and has nothing to do with our heroes origin per movie. Other "grey" characters like Black Cat can be introduced along the way, but sparingly.

 

6) As the movies progress, Peter Parker becomes less nerdy, his cast of characters grow, he moves in and out of relationships, etc.

 

7) Somewhere down the line, you can have his villains team up ala Sinister Six. No need to rush this.

 

The mistake Fox, Sony, and probably Warner Bros are going to make is not cultivating their superhero universes organically instead of trying to hit a home run with an Avengers style movie. Also, it is okay to have multiple actors play the part. No need to reboot every time a new actor comes along.

 

If the studios concentrate on making good individual movies, the rest will fall into place. Marvel is in danger of falling into this problem. They have with the Agents of SHIELD TV series. That series is so hung up on the "big reveal" the individual episodes are poorly written. If it wasn't for the "big reveal" their would be no reason to watch that show which is not what makes a good TV show or a good movie.

 

I think Marvel getting Spider-Man back would be a mistake. Sure, Spider-Man will bring in money as he teams up with other characters on the screen, but Spider-Man should be a loner, not an Avenger. That is one of Marvel's biggest blunders in the comics and I see them making the same mistake in cinema if they get the character back for movies. The essence of the character dissipates when that character is rubbing elbows with the other big heroes.

[The Madness]

I just want this man back

 

[BarryAllen]

My :

 

How to make a good Spider-Man movie series:

 

1) Peter Parker needs to be an awkward teenager when we start. Uncle Ben dies.

 

2) There needs to be a love interest (Betty Brant, Mary Jane, or Gwen Stacy.)

 

3) Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider. Nobody else was bit, the company did not go on to weaponize radioactive spiders, etc.

 

4) Jonah Jameson, Robbie, etc. are as essential to Spider-Man as is Aunt May.

 

5) Introduce one *compelling* villain whose origin is sympathetic and has nothing to do with our heroes origin per movie. Other "grey" characters like Black Cat can be introduced along the way, but sparingly.

 

6) As the movies progress, Peter Parker becomes less nerdy, his cast of characters grow, he moves in and out of relationships, etc.

 

7) Somewhere down the line, you can have his villains team up ala Sinister Six. No need to rush this.

 

The mistake Fox, Sony, and probably Warner Bros are going to make is not cultivating their superhero universes organically instead of trying to hit a home run with an Avengers style movie. Also, it is okay to have multiple actors play the part. No need to reboot every time a new actor comes along.

 

If the studios concentrate on making good individual movies, the rest will fall into place. Marvel is in danger of falling into this problem. They have with the Agents of SHIELD TV series. That series is so hung up on the "big reveal" the individual episodes are poorly written. If it wasn't for the "big reveal" their would be no reason to watch that show which is not what makes a good TV show or a good movie.

 

I think Marvel getting Spider-Man back would be a mistake. Sure, Spider-Man will bring in money as he teams up with other characters on the screen, but Spider-Man should be a loner, not an Avenger. That is one of Marvel's biggest blunders in the comics and I see them making the same mistake in cinema if they get the character back for movies. The essence of the character dissipates when that character is rubbing elbows with the other big heroes.

 

Not sure how many more times in the near future people will want to flock to see the same character remade. I think your "formula" is fine, but personally I think a 10-15 year gap between ASM 2 and a re-tread would do the franchise some good. In the short term the character has plenty of popularity to still be made into millions of lunch-boxes and other money making crud for the studios to be happy.

 

Not sure Marvel would do any worse than Sony. However, I do agree that forcing additional characters (particularly leading heroes like Spidey) into the already exponentially growing Marvel Movie Universe could have diminishing returns.

[Gem_Mint]

I was also not a big fan of having Spidey as an Avenger (in the comics). So I can't say I'm excited to see that on screen.

 

I would like Marvel to have Spidey back. Just existing in the MCU with lil mentions here and there are enough for me.

[rjrjr]

My :

 

How to make a good Spider-Man movie series:

 

1) Peter Parker needs to be an awkward teenager when we start. Uncle Ben dies.

 

2) There needs to be a love interest (Betty Brant, Mary Jane, or Gwen Stacy.)

 

3) Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider. Nobody else was bit, the company did not go on to weaponize radioactive spiders, etc.

 

4) Jonah Jameson, Robbie, etc. are as essential to Spider-Man as is Aunt May.

 

5) Introduce one *compelling* villain whose origin is sympathetic and has nothing to do with our heroes origin per movie. Other "grey" characters like Black Cat can be introduced along the way, but sparingly.

 

6) As the movies progress, Peter Parker becomes less nerdy, his cast of characters grow, he moves in and out of relationships, etc.

 

7) Somewhere down the line, you can have his villains team up ala Sinister Six. No need to rush this.

 

The mistake Fox, Sony, and probably Warner Bros are going to make is not cultivating their superhero universes organically instead of trying to hit a home run with an Avengers style movie. Also, it is okay to have multiple actors play the part. No need to reboot every time a new actor comes along.

 

If the studios concentrate on making good individual movies, the rest will fall into place. Marvel is in danger of falling into this problem. They have with the Agents of SHIELD TV series. That series is so hung up on the "big reveal" the individual episodes are poorly written. If it wasn't for the "big reveal" their would be no reason to watch that show which is not what makes a good TV show or a good movie.

 

I think Marvel getting Spider-Man back would be a mistake. Sure, Spider-Man will bring in money as he teams up with other characters on the screen, but Spider-Man should be a loner, not an Avenger. That is one of Marvel's biggest blunders in the comics and I see them making the same mistake in cinema if they get the character back for movies. The essence of the character dissipates when that character is rubbing elbows with the other big heroes.

 

Not sure how many more times in the near future people will want to flock to see the same character remade. I think your "formula" is fine, but personally I think a 10-15 year gap between ASM 2 and a re-tread would do the franchise some good. In the short term the character has plenty of popularity to still be made into millions of lunch-boxes and other money making crud for the studios to be happy.

 

Not sure Marvel would do any worse than Sony. However, I do agree that forcing additional characters (particularly leading heroes like Spidey) into the already exponentially growing Marvel Movie Universe could have diminishing returns.

 

Sony cannot afford to wait 10-15 years for Spider-Man movies and it doesn't make good business sense to give this franchise back to Disney so they can continue to get stomped at the theaters by the mouse.

 

Sony painted themselves into a corner with the latest ASM movies. They should never have rebooted the franchise. Now they are going to need a strong director/story on the next outing to correct this ship. IMHO, the best thing for them is to keep the actor, introduce 1 compelling villain, and forget the convoluted background they are building around Peter Parker's parents and villains. Parker's dad should not be tied to Spidey's origin or his rogue gallery. Write a good Spider-Man story (ala the Raimi Spider-Man 2 movie) and the public will quickly forget about the things that have been wrong with the last 2 movies. Seems to me, Peter will be graduating from school and going off to college. He'll need a new love interest. Unfortunately, the Lizard, Rhino, Electro, and Green Goblin are out, but another villain like the Vulture, Mysterio, etc. needs to be introduced. King Pin should start brewing in the background ala Thanos. Maybe Mary Jane is taking acting at college and Mysterio is tied to the department somehow? Introduce the Black Cat, but make it a throwaway scene that can be built on in the next movie.

 

I feel the original Raimi movies had more going for them with regards to future movie development. They didn't kill off the female lead and Parker's friendship with Osborn was interesting. They had it setup to introduce Man-Wolf, Lizard, etc. With the new movies, I feel introducing Gwen first and killing her off was really short term thinking. Mary Jane in a couple of movies, a break and dating Gwen for a couple of movies and killing Gwen, then getting back with Mary Jane would have been more compelling. And they handled Green Goblin like they handled Venom in Spider-Man 3.

 

Let's face it, the reboot of the franchise so soon after the last movie was about the dumbest thing Sony could have done. Now they have no choice but to move forward with what they have and hope the next director/writer cleans up the mess made from the last 2 movies.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Dang it, I want to go to bed.

 

Do you realize the PTSD Peter would have from recognizing that robber?

 

And he NEVER addresses it after it originally happens. He CAN'T get the professional help he needs to deal with it.

 

So he burdens himself, with an unreal task.

 

He was always responsible. Until he got those powers. Those powers made him cocky - let his guard down - and look what happened.

 

NOW... that responsibility carries with it guilt... a heavy burden.

 

One that really, he can never live up to.

 

That burden drags him down...makes it difficult to have regular relationships... here he is stronger than anyone he knows, but he's only confident...with a mask on...when he's NOT Peter Parker...

 

But even that has a negative...JJJ and his constant harassment... twisted villains, who ARE NOT simply the creation of OSCORP, but rather individuals who've gone through a transformation - MUCH LIKE HIS OWN - only THEY'VE given in to the dark side of it... they've let go of any responsibility or ... sanity...

 

His battles with them are as much a battle with himself...

 

sigh

 

What someone like Nolan could do with this stuff...

 

Instead of those goons at Sony.

 

I like your proposal, but it seems like it would work much better in a weekly TV show, and not in a movie every three years.

 

Also I don`t think people could take another Ben getting killed movie. It`s been done to death, similar to how people are sick of Superman vs. Luthor movies.

It`s going to be tough for Spidey,as he is headed into that old character territory like Tarzan. People know the story of Spider-Man, and some want something new with their characters.

[Prince Namor]

Dang it, I want to go to bed.

 

Do you realize the PTSD Peter would have from recognizing that robber?

 

And he NEVER addresses it after it originally happens. He CAN'T get the professional help he needs to deal with it.

 

So he burdens himself, with an unreal task.

 

He was always responsible. Until he got those powers. Those powers made him cocky - let his guard down - and look what happened.

 

NOW... that responsibility carries with it guilt... a heavy burden.

 

One that really, he can never live up to.

 

That burden drags him down...makes it difficult to have regular relationships... here he is stronger than anyone he knows, but he's only confident...with a mask on...when he's NOT Peter Parker...

 

But even that has a negative...JJJ and his constant harassment... twisted villains, who ARE NOT simply the creation of OSCORP, but rather individuals who've gone through a transformation - MUCH LIKE HIS OWN - only THEY'VE given in to the dark side of it... they've let go of any responsibility or ... sanity...

 

His battles with them are as much a battle with himself...

 

sigh

 

What someone like Nolan could do with this stuff...

 

Instead of those goons at Sony.

 

I like your proposal, but it seems like it would work much better in a weekly TV show, and not in a movie every three years.

 

Also I don`t think people could take another Ben getting killed movie. It`s been done to death, similar to how people are sick of Superman vs. Luthor movies.

It`s going to be tough for Spidey,as he is headed into that old character territory like Tarzan. People know the story of Spider-Man, and some want something new with their characters.

 

Batman's 20+ years older than Spider-manand isn't headed for Tarzan territory yet.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I do think your take on Spidey is a bit darker than audiences would appreciate. I'm not saying I don't agree with your points and I enjoy dark Spidey stories. However, I also enjoy the fun, lighter toned stories.

 

What makes the character so appealing is how he appeals to everyone. We can relate to him and his experiences. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it difficult to relate to Batman. I don't read Batman for Bruce Wayne, but I do indeed read Spider-Man for Peter Parker.

 

I also really enjoy the Nolan Bat films, but I don't feel like they are outstanding Super Hero films. They are just good flicks. That is an entirely different point.

 

Your take on Spider-Man is interesting though. I sort of posted mine earlier.

[Prince Namor]

I do think your take on Spidey is a bit darker than audiences would appreciate. I'm not saying I don't agree with your points and I enjoy dark Spidey stories. However, I also enjoy the fun, lighter toned stories.

 

What makes the character so appealing is how he appeals to everyone. We can relate to him and his experiences. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it difficult to relate to Batman. I don't read Batman for Bruce Wayne, but I do indeed read Spider-Man for Peter Parker.

 

I also really enjoy the Nolan Bat films, but I don't feel like they are outstanding Super Hero films. They are just good flicks. That is an entirely different point.

 

Your take on Spider-Man is interesting though. I sort of posted mine earlier.

 

My take on it, isn't really a take on it. It's an understanding of the character before you build a movie.

Spider-man isn't dark on the surface. You have to look closely to see it and understand it.

 

But make no mistake... it gives the character substance, and it does NOT turn away audiences.

 

It does't matter how either of us FEEL about the Batman movies/comic/games, the numbers don't lie:

 

Batman is the highest print run consistent monthly comic of the last ten years.

 

And it's darker now than it's ever been.

 

Not even sure what #2 would be.

 

Of the last 20 years, Batman is the highest print run consistent monthly comic.

 

Batman Arkham City is the biggest selling and one of the highest rated superhero games of all time. Of ALL time.

Ever play it? Even darker than the comic.

Doesn't matter if we like or not. Best selling superhero game of all time.

 

The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises are the two highest grossing SOLO Superhero movies ever made.

EVER.

And they're pretty grim movies.

Like it? Doesn't matter. Highest grossing SOLO Superhero movies EVER. (And #2 and #3 only to the Avengers)

 

Make no mistake... a dark story isn't a hinderance to popularity. Some of the oldest and most well known stories of all time have some darkness to them.

 

Spider-man, on the other hand, isn't darkness on the SURFACE. It's a very understated way of presenting the character. In fact, on the surface he should be the happy go lucky Spider-man - the character is Parker's release and freedom of his own personality....

 

Spider-man was my favorite comic growing up... I can't even stomach it now.

I look at what Quesada did for Daredevil during his time there (a character he admits to loving) and then I look at what he did to Spider-man and I seriously think he sabotaged the character to make DD look better. (not really, but... dang, it sure seems like it. That One More Day nonsense was the worst piece of garbage.)

I look at what they've done with Batman's supporting cast and rogues gallery of villains and I think... man, did Marvel really screw up Spidey or what? HE had a supporting cast to rival Batman and a Rogue's Gallery to rival Batman's and where is it all now?

No one even likes or knows the real Spider-man anymore.

If it isn't all about Miles Morales, you have to turn Doc Ock into Spider-man or open up the Spider-Verse and create a Spider-Gwen character just to get people to read the freaking thing.

It's a big mess.

[jsilverjanet]

I contend that the batman/bruce Wayne character is one of the better characters made in comics

 

The origin is one of the best

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I contend that the batman/bruce Wayne character is one of the better characters made in comics

 

The origin is one of the best

 

I wasn't saying he was a bad character- just not relatable like Peter.

 

I was born and bred a Spidey reader. Right now, I spend more a month on Batman books than I do Spider-Man books.

[bababooey]

I contend that the batman/bruce Wayne character is one of the better characters made in comics

 

The origin is one of the best

 

I wasn't saying he was a bad character- just not relatable like Peter.

 

I was born and bread a Spidey reader. Right now, I spend more a month on Batman books than I do Spider-Man books.

* bred

[jsilverjanet]

He's back!

[bababooey]

He's back!

[Bosco685]

What timing!

 

Sam Raimi Admits SPIDER-MAN 3 Was "Awful!"

 

----------------

While chatting with Chris Hardwick, Jonah Ray and Matt Mira during the latest Nerdist podcast (click here to listen), director Sam Raimi ("Army Of Darkness") reflected on some of his past mistakes. Most notable, 2007's Spider-Man 3, which tried to stuff Venom (Thomas Haden Church), Sandman (Topher Grace) and James Franco's Green Goblin all into one movie in an ill-fated attempt to top much beloved Spider-Man 2.

 

It’s a movie that just didn’t work very well. I tried to make it work, but I didn’t really believe in all the characters, so that couldn’t be hidden from people who loved Spider-Man. If the director doesn’t love something, it’s wrong of them to make it when so many other people love it. I think [raising the stakes after Spider-Man 2] was the thinking going into it, and I think that’s what doomed us. I should’ve just stuck with the characters and the relationships and progressed them to the next step and not tried to top the bar …

 

Raimi: [but] directors don’t like to talk about their bad films.

 

Hardwick: I don’t think that ‘bad’ is the right word.

 

Raimi: Awful!

----------------

 

The full interview and podcast is located here.

 

Nerdist Podcast: Sam Raimi

[Bosco685]

Wow! Sony is worse off than I realized previously.

 

FORBES: What Happened? The Tangled Web Of Sony And Spider-Man

 

-------------------

In 2013, Sony’s largest single investor was a hedge fund called Third Point. Its manager Daniel Loeb wrote a critical letter to SPE’s parent company about splitting the movie division off to free up the Sony Electronics stock. It caused quite an uproar over the summer last year, leading to Pascal having to deny the sale of Spider-Man. Loeb’s anger over 2013’s box office performance of White House Down and After Earth compounded and lead to Third Point selling off its shares in October this year (pre-hack but still in the middle of more creative floundering from Sony Pictures Entertainment). Loeb’s exit included a statement that Sony had been profitable for Third Point, but the company was moving on. It’s unclear how much of this can be attributed to Sony’s refusal to handle the SPE film division the way Third Point wanted, but it seems in line with Loeb’s statements last year that he feels the electronics division has the potential for billion-dollar profits, not superheroes with shared intellectual property rights. Having Amazing Spider-Man 2 make money on paper was fine but rendering a franchise inert in the process was still a bad move.

-------------------

 

Third Point owned 7 percent of the company’s stock before the sale, and had been helping Sony's CEO right-size its financials before departing.

 

Daniel Loeb, Third Point Sell Sony Stake After 20-Percent Profit

 

Disney/Marvel's deal may be looking better to Sony than previously realized.