|
Post by Spidey 1923 on Feb 10, 2015 0:22:45 GMT -5
IT'S HAPPENING!!!! marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-manSony Pictures Entertainment Brings Marvel Studios Into The Amazing World Of Spider-Man! Sony Pictures Entertainment and Marvel Studios announced today that Sony is bringing Marvel into the amazing world of Spider-Man.
Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago. Together, they will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger. Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.
Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films.
The new relationship follows a decade of speculation among fans about whether Spider-Man – who has always been an integral and important part of the larger Marvel Universe in the comic books – could become part of the Marvel Universe on the big screen. Spider-Man has more than 50 years of history in Marvel's world, and with this deal, fans will be able to experience Spider-Man taking his rightful place among other Super Heroes in the MCU.
Bob Iger, Chairman and CEO, The Walt Disney Company said: "Spider-Man is one of Marvel's great characters, beloved around the world. We're thrilled to work with Sony Pictures to bring the iconic web-slinger into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which opens up fantastic new opportunities for storytelling and franchise building."
"We always want to collaborate with the best and most successful filmmakers to grow our franchises and develop our characters. Marvel, Kevin Feige and Amy, who helped orchestrate this deal, are the perfect team to help produce the next chapter of Spider-Man," said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment. "This is the right decision for the franchise, for our business, for Marvel, and for the fans."
"Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios share a love for the characters in the Spider-Man universe and have a long, successful history of working together. This new level of collaboration is the perfect way to take Peter Parker's story into the future," added Doug Belgrad, president, Sony Pictures Entertainment Motion Picture Group.
"I am thrilled to team with my friends at Sony Pictures along with Amy Pascal to produce the next Spider-Man movie," said Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige. "Amy has been deeply involved in the realization on film of one of the world’s most beloved characters. Marvel's involvement will hopefully deliver the creative continuity and authenticity that fans demand from the MCU. I am equally excited for the opportunity to have Spider-Man appear in the MCU, something which both we at Marvel, and fans alike, have been looking forward to for years."
Spider-Man, embraced all over the world, is the most successful franchise in the history of Sony Pictures, with the five films having taken in more than $4 billion worldwide.Garfield is out though... ------------- As a result of the new Spider-Man movie, Thor 3 now comes out 11/3/17, Black Panther 7/6/18, Captain Marvel 11/2/18, Inhumans 7/12/19: www.thewrap.com/marvel-shifts-thor-3-black-panther-release-dates-to-accommodate-spider-man-partnership/
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Feb 10, 2015 0:39:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Feb 10, 2015 11:31:18 GMT -5
Although this is most likely a great result, I hope Spidey's first mission won't be the save the world and 15 other planets, if you know what I'm saying. But considering Sony's treatment of the franchise as of late, I think it's safe to say we're all pretty happy to see that business is progressing this way. Sad to see Garfield go though.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Feb 10, 2015 15:19:45 GMT -5
So true about Garfield. On another note, this has been the opening discussion for every single one of my math classes today. XD
|
|
|
Post by Spidey 1923 on Feb 10, 2015 22:37:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Feb 10, 2015 22:39:40 GMT -5
Go Lerman!
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Feb 11, 2015 19:51:24 GMT -5
So many thoughts, I don't even know where to begin. So...
Back before Andrew was casted, I was pulling for Josh Hutcherson and arguing the merits of Zac Efron even though Efron wasn't my Peter Parker of choice. I know I'm tooting my own horn, but it's nice to see that Efron is starting to have his Channing Tatumesque change of path. Lerman ain't bad though. That said, if Marvel is going to go young, they need to keep in mind that Lerman is already 23, will be 25 in 2017, and that puts them in a very similar position to what Andrew Garfield was in movie 1, not to mention Tobey Maguire. Maguire was actually younger than Garfield in his respective Spidey film, but I'd contend that Garfield did a much better job at portraying a teenager (even if neither was "believable" in terms of looks). Initially I was very upset at the idea that they'd be taking Parker back to high school, but if they can actually use the setting in a way that truly matters (think TSSM) the way they were supposed to with TASM, I'm kind of okay with it. The idea that Spider-man gets to be the MCU's first teenage superhero (sorry X-Men) is what makes the idea salvagable to me. Add to that the fact that Spider-man gets to mix it up with the much older Avengers heroes, and now I'm sold on the necessity of doing what they need to do. Especially because Spidey is going to feature much bigger in Phase 4 (starting 2019), when Marvel actually needs him to.
On a completely different note, but still very relevant (topic wise): Anyone notice how hard Sony is trying to save face? When you really get into the verbage, they say they're bringing Marvel's world into their Spider-man world. Sony explicitly stated in their press release that they still have creative control, final say over casting, etc. What I find discomforting is the fact that they're still going to push forward with their all female lead Spider-man film, Venom, and their Sinister Six movie. With regard to Sinister Six, they're scrapping everything Drew Goddard came up with prior to TASM 2's failure to keep the torch burning, which raises the question of whether Goddard will be staying at all. If Goddard does leave, that could be amazing for Daredevil if he goes back. If he stays, he's essentially have to completely re-envision his Sinister Six movie. That could be a good thing too considering none of the reboot's villains were memorable for the right reasons. As far as the all female lead Spidey film goes, I'd be okay with that if I trusted Sony with Spider-man's ancillary characters. That said, Kevin Feige isn't producing Sony's Spider-man spinoffs, so our beloved rogue's/allies gallery may not benefit from the same creative graces as our favorite hero himself. Considering that Arad and Tolmach are still on board, I wonder if their involvement is higher for these spin offs? It has been said that the role of executive producer is essentially meaningless, but if Feige isn't involved in the Spider-man spin offs, it has to fall back on someone. My concern is that once again, we'll have a fantastic Spider-man/Peter Parker, but the supporting characters we've come to love will get shoddy treatment. Marvel Studios has been criticized for not having very good villains, but their villains have still been a far cry from the worse of Sony's "best" work. Save for "The Mandarin", but even Iron Man 3 felt more put together than TASM 2 and Raimi's Spider-man 3 IMO. So, here's what I'm hoping.
Hopefully, Marvel Studios has merely agreed to let Sony continue to say what they want to say publicly. After all, they still do own the distribution rights, creative control, etc. to Spider-man on film. However, when it comes down to decision making, I'm praying that Sony just takes a back seat to what Marvel has planned. Can Kevin Feige do everything? No, there is a point where he and his team at Disney get stretched too thin and therefore have to delegate work out to different teams. The difference now, I hope, is that Sony knows to just go with what is suggested. If Sony says, "Hey Kevin, we think this would be incredible!" and Kevin says "How about no." then Sony says "We thought it was a terrible idea too." Saying all this now, I can still see myself looking back realizing that Marvel Studios is not infallible. At this point though, the only way this deal means a damn is if every part of Spider-man (including) his villains get that creative security blanket that is the Marvel bullpen.
EDIT: Last thing for now, I have some questions I'm going to leave to all of you. What do you think it's going to take in order for Fox to reach a deal with Marvel? Will do so without a major shift in the current climate? Initially I thought, "If this collaboration is a smashing success it could open the doors for "that" conversation with Fox. It'll be awesome!!!" My bubble burst when I realized that Sony gets nothing from Marvel in terms of box office profits when they loan Spidey out, and vice versa. Marvel made this deal for 3 main reasons: 1) Sony needed it bad 2) It cost Marvel nothing 3) Marvel/Disney get all merchandising profits. The biggest factor here I think is the merchandising. Without that to offer, I don't see a deal happening without a major change in the landscape.
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Feb 11, 2015 22:29:48 GMT -5
All Sony's done with the spin-offs is talk, and honestly, I think that's still the case. Through everything that's been released, it's obvious that they're trying not to cast Sony in a bad light. When you think about it, and feel free to quote me on this, Sony is Marvel's bitch now. Marvel wouldn't have gone through with this deal if they didn't have a good chunk of control.
Plus, place yourselves in Sony's shoes. You have the film rights to arguably the greatest comic book character of all time. A character whose merchandise outsells every other superhero from both DC and Marvel. However, the box office for those films keeps dropping and the last movie you banked on making a million and setting up a new universe isn't well received. You've already rebooted once and got a lot of backlash. Abandoning everything and starting over again isn't going to help you at all. If you're going to save this franchise and make it profitable again, you gotta make sure you won't fail again. Enter Marvel. You just gotta do what they say and you get to keep all the money from your own movies. 'Nuff said.
As for this opening doors with Fox, we got to remember that Sony and Marvel/Disney already had a pretty good relationship. It's because of that that many like myself thought the Amazing Spider-Man series was secretly a part of the MCU and that it could lead to Garfield's Spidey teaming up with the Avengers, joining Civil War, etc. Even the Marvel logo in the opening credits had a box around it like the other MCU films do. Their relationship with Fox however is poor. For starters, Fox added Quicksilver to DOFP pretty much after he was cast for Age of Ultron; remember, Juggernaut was originally considered for the Magneto breakout scene. Then you have Marvel allegedly hurting the X-Men and FF lines, starting by killing Wolverine and Deadpool, as well as cancelling FF. You could argue that it's all for story reasons, but there's always that question. It's why I'm kind of worried what their status will be once the new universe is set after Secret Wars. Also take into account that you don't see and X-Men or FF characters in Marvel's promotional material or why there's no new X-Men cartoon.
There's also the fact that Sony was in deep shit. They had a failure they didn't see coming and it threw all their plans into disarray. If it hadn't been for the hack, who knows what would have happened; but based on the possible plans they had solo, it was clear a deal with Marvel was their only salvation. Fox, however, is doing just fine. DOFP was the second highest grossing and best reviewed comic book movie after Guardians. And they're also releasing 3 X-related movies in 2016. After a slight derailment, Fox has their shit together with X-Men. I'm fine with that though. The X-Men have a rich lore that can sustain a film franchise. Marvel at last has the Inhumans to fall back on.
Fantastic Four though? Yeah, they're screwed. Marvel's pretty much all but got the rights back.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Feb 11, 2015 22:44:28 GMT -5
My cynicism with Sony is at an all time high. Three months ago I'd have given them the benefit of the doubt that they would simply let Marvel make them money, being that it's the common sense thing for them to do. As you put it, to be "Marvel's bitch". Considering all that has transpired and the hubris these executives have shown in these leaked e-mails that none of us were ever intended to read, I still have my worries. Perhaps they have been humbled now, I hope so. With them pressing forward with their Spidey spin offs that almost no one is interested in any more, I just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Feb 11, 2015 23:34:56 GMT -5
Addressing your question about Fox: As cool as it is to have one unified universe, I feel it's safer for us viewers to have different studios take care of different franchises to the extent that if Marvel starts producing crappy film after crappy film or if the audience gets tired of their movies, at least other franchises might keep doing well. One failed universe wouldn't imply the failure of all universes. Don't get me wrong, I have faith in Marvel Studios, but one fire can burn down a whole town whereas it cannot several villages...if that makes any sense.
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Feb 12, 2015 19:35:49 GMT -5
It makes a lot of sense. That raises the question though, if Spider-man becomes the weak link in the MCU's chain, does it start a fire in the MCU? Or, does it just keep the fire burning in the small village that is Sony's Spider-man? If it's the latter, then Fox striking a similar deal with Marvel potentially wouldn't hurt a thing right? If Fox's X-Men started to stink again, using this line of reasoning, we might assume that it would just hurt Fox and not the MCU. That said, if Spider-man doesn't turn out good and people do recognize him as a part of the MCU, it's unlikely that it wouldn't negatively impact the whole operation.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more BIB's comments relieve me though. Does it make sense for Sony to pursue their spin offs? Surprisingly, it kind of does. They need the money, and since they get to keep all of the box office proceeds they're probably willing to gamble that Spider-man will finally become that billion dollar *per movie* property that allows them to have a couple misfires. So if the spin offs suck, at least Spider-man is back on track and they keep trucking along. If the spin-offs are good, then the gamble pays off. There's really no losing for them now, so long as they don't get in Marvel's way.
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Feb 12, 2015 19:46:02 GMT -5
So let's talk about the villain for the solo movie. We've seen Spidey fight crazy people with powers enough times. It's time we try something a little low level. That's why I think it should be Mysterio, specifically the Ultimate version. This version of Mysterio killed the Kingpin in a powergrab for his criminal empire. For this movie version of Mysterio, they could make him an up and coming crime boss at war with Kingpin, which would tie-in with Daredevil. A gang war in a Spider-Man movie could bring about what we've talked about before about depicting Spider-Man dealing with something of a normal threat to the general public. At the same time though, we have this villain who appears to be crazy powerful, but shown to just be a fraud by the end. At least it'd be different from the godlike reptilian or electric villains wanting to take over the city. On another note, I personally think the title of the film should be "Marvel's Spider-Man." It's short, simple, and two things people love: Marvel and Spider-Man. On a third note, there's a rumor that during Spidey's cameo in Civil War, he'll get the Iron Spider suit, which he'll wear in the solo movie. I would actually love that. It's different from past movie suits and it shows continuity between films. I would only hope he goes back to the classic suit by the end. An additional rumor is that a sequel would be released in 2019 after Infinity War, which makes sense. Based on Marvel's current release pattern, November 2019 would be the best bet, and possibly kick off Phase Four.
|
|
|
Post by Webber3000 on Feb 12, 2015 21:53:35 GMT -5
It makes a lot of sense. That raises the question though, if Spider-man becomes the weak link in the MCU's chain, does it start a fire in the MCU? Or, does it just keep the fire burning in the small village that is Sony's Spider-man? There's the mystery! All I can say is that if Spider-Man starts a fire, it's more likely to spread to the MCU than if he hadn't joined their universe. Fox is certainly watching very attentively. To be honest, they're in the safest position right know; all they have to do is watch. They have the benefit of making decisions after witnessing quasi-identical issues. So let's talk about the villain for the solo movie. We've seen Spidey fight crazy people with powers enough times. It's time we try something a little low level. That's why I think it should be Mysterio, specifically the Ultimate version. This version of Mysterio killed the Kingpin in a powergrab for his criminal empire. For this movie version of Mysterio, they could make him an up and coming crime boss at war with Kingpin, which would tie-in with Daredevil. A gang war in a Spider-Man movie could bring about what we've talked about before about depicting Spider-Man dealing with something of a normal threat to the general public. At the same time though, we have this villain who appears to be crazy powerful, but shown to just be a fraud by the end. At least it'd be different from the godlike reptilian or electric villains wanting to take over the city. On another note, I personally think the title of the film should be "Marvel's Spider-Man." It's short, simple, and two things people love: Marvel and Spider-Man. I like the Mysterio idea, could be a cool way to show off sweet visual effects without going overkill with the scope of what's at stake. I also approve of your title idea, I think it's brilliant given the circumstances!
|
|
|
Post by mr. excellent on Feb 13, 2015 1:54:19 GMT -5
The inclusion of Spider-man into the MCU kind of raises the question of what's going to happen to Civil War. Is it really too late to put Spider-man in a central role? Should Marvel do so if they already have a great script with Black Panther? Did they do what WB is doing with Wonder Woman and have multiple scripts written simultaneously to keep their options open? Black Panther and Captain Marvel have been pushed back to make room for the solo Spider-man movie, but that may be the extent of the changes for the time being. Questions, questions, questions you know? For what it's worth, I'd rather Spidey not get the Iron Spider suit. Not even if Spider-man was a central figure in the movie. Tony is unpredictable, but I think by that point he'd have to grow past that type of poor decision making. Hell, this Ultron fiasco is going to fall on him. So after that, why not give this kid whose super powers sometimes act as a metaphor for puberty, a powered suit that will take his already super powered body to the next level.* Nah. If Civil War is going to be any good, we have to be able to see Tony's side of things, even if we side with Cap. If Tony's handing out super suits to teenagers, it's going to undermine his entire point of view.
*Whoa, mad run on sentences in here.
|
|
|
Post by BackinBlack on Feb 13, 2015 6:37:27 GMT -5
During all the leaks, it was said Marvel had two scripts. One with Spidey, one without him. But now I'm hearing it may just be a cameo, but it could still be important, like Nick Fury in Iron Man 2. He was onscreen, what, 20 minutes? Could be a similar circumstance.
|
|