Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yeah, there isn't anything in the current Spider movieverse to disallow them from merging it with the MCU. Hell, it's actually close enough to the comics that it would fit nicely into the MCU's way of doing things.

If Sony were smart, they'd basically let Marvel make the movies (maybe with Sony footing part of the bill) and then take a chunk of the profits as payment. That way everyone's happy. Sony basically acts as an investor in a product that's almost guaranteed to sell well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't want another Spider-Man reboot - 3 different live action continuities within, say, 15 years is only going to contribute to an audience fatigue with either the character or the sub genre as a whole. Or both.

I have my problems with the Amazing series, but is the geek campaign to have Marvel regain the rights simply borne out of a desire to see cross overs? I'd argue that the overarching universe has actually been a detriment to the 2nd wave Iron Man/Captain America films because the Avengers allies aren't banding together to thwart the main threat. Thor 2 and Guardians were mostly off world so that's fine - my point is that it seems a bit late in the day to just try and integrate Spidey, given that he didn't bother showing up when New York was going to hell in The Avengers. It'd be like gaining the X-Men rights and then stating "wow, that anti-mutant movement has become really vocal recently..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't want another Spider-Man reboot - 3 different live action continuities within, say, 15 years is only going to contribute to an audience fatigue with either the character or the sub genre as a whole. Or both.

This is pretty much how I feel abut Batman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't want another Spider-Man reboot - 3 different live action continuities within, say, 15 years is only going to contribute to an audience fatigue with either the character or the sub genre as a whole. Or both.

This is pretty much how I feel abut Batman.

Which is fair, although arguably you had the first continuity which started 25 years ago and ended with no-one wanting to touch Batman as a film franchise. Then, after an 8 year rest, the character gets a very different trilogy. And now a new Batman is being introduced in a film which is being released in 2016, in which he is not the primary focus (albeit one of the major characters).

As I say, it's a fair comment on Batman, but I think Spiderman has exhausted itself far quicker (5 films in 12 years with a reboot halfway through).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Batman has enough varying interpretations that it's possible to never really stop making Batman movies, TV shows, and games so long as they don't use the exact same version every time.

I think Spider-Man's problem is more that the movies themselves haven't been well-made in all the ways they need to be.

...is the geek campaign to have Marvel regain the rights simply borne out of a desire to see cross overs? I'd argue that the overarching universe has actually been a detriment to the 2nd wave Iron Man/Captain America films because the Avengers allies aren't banding together to thwart the main threat. Thor 2 and Guardians were mostly off world so that's fine - my point is that it seems a bit late in the day to just try and integrate Spidey, given that he didn't bother showing up when New York was going to hell in The Avengers. It'd be like gaining the X-Men rights and then stating "wow, that anti-mutant movement has become really vocal recently..."

I agree about the X-men crossover causing problems, but then that's always a problem with X-Men in the Marvel universe. There's a ton of super-powered beings but somehow only the mutants are hated. There's in-universe reasons, of course, but none of them are quite good enough. It's why X-Men usually works best on its own.

But I don't really think that Avengers has caused any real logic holes in the solo films, and it wouldn't be a problem for Spider-Man either. Out of all the Avengers, Thor is really the only one you'd expect to show up randomly whenever he's needed (being a massively powerful god with a teleport bridge and all), but he's been busy in Asgard. Iron Man isn't going to show up all the time, especially since he blew up all his suits in Iron Man 3. But he still did have an influence on Cap 3, what with the repulsors on the helicarriers and Maria hill joining Stark Industries. Hawkeye... honestly, in the MCU, can you imagine anyone going, "We need help... SOMEONE CALL HAWKEYE!"? It woulda been nice if they'd mentioned his whereabouts in Cap 2, but it's hardly a plot hole. Black Widow actually did show up in Cap 2, so there's that. Cap himself is busy with SHIELD. He could have conceivably helped Tony out in Iron Man 3, but they're not exactly friends and Tony seemed to want to handle everything himself. As for why Spider-Man wasn't in the Battle of New York? Well, for one thing, that battle was localized to a single area in the city ("Anything gets more than three blocks out, you turn it back or you turn it to ash!") and didn't last for very long. Maybe Peter was in Queens at the time and didn't get over there; maybe he was grieving for Gwen at the time. Hell, the United States military didn't even show up, nor did anyone from SHIELD.

I'd be really happy if they just had Marvel take over the current Spider-Man movie series. It's been close enough to the comics' storyline anyway that it shouldn't matter. They can just tell new stories at this point and it would all work out fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But I don't really think that Avengers has caused any real logic holes in the solo films, and it wouldn't be a problem for Spider-Man either. Out of all the Avengers, Thor is really the only one you'd expect to show up randomly whenever he's needed (being a massively powerful god with a teleport bridge and all), but he's been busy in Asgard. Iron Man isn't going to show up all the time, especially since he blew up all his suits in Iron Man 3. But he still did have an influence on Cap 3, what with the repulsors on the helicarriers and Maria hill joining Stark Industries. Hawkeye... honestly, in the MCU, can you imagine anyone going, "We need help... SOMEONE CALL HAWKEYE!"? It woulda been nice if they'd mentioned his whereabouts in Cap 2, but it's hardly a plot hole. Black Widow actually did show up in Cap 2, so there's that. Cap himself is busy with SHIELD. He could have conceivably helped Tony out in Iron Man 3, but they're not exactly friends and Tony seemed to want to handle everything himself. As for why Spider-Man wasn't in the Battle of New York? Well, for one thing, that battle was localized to a single area in the city ("Anything gets more than three blocks out, you turn it back or you turn it to ash!") and didn't last for very long. Maybe Peter was in Queens at the time and didn't get over there; maybe he was grieving for Gwen at the time. Hell, the United States military didn't even show up, nor did anyone from SHIELD.

IIRC, Iron Man 3's finale would have involved the televised public execution of the US President, whilst the Captan America: Winter Soldier involved a major S.H.I.E.L.D. security breach/catastrofuck which would involve hellicarriers raining down death on multiple targets. Only Stark and Rhodey dealt with the former, whilst only the featured cast of Cap 2 dealt with the latter. Why the hell does Steve Rogers not show up when the US President nearly put to death? Where's the Hulk when S.H.I.EL.D., whom he distrusts, is threatening the lives of countless citizens? And whilst I get the Hawkeye point re: popularity, he did show in Avengers that he can still do a job.

My point is that once you have an over-arching universe, these questions get raised. I'm sure the same is true of the comics, but if there is some kind of rampaging force destroying New York which is all over the news (say, the climax of The Incredible Hulk or The Avengers) why doesn't Spider-Man or Daredevil show up if they are supposed heroes? Bruce Banner made it back to The Avengers climax on a scooter. Now I get why Spidey wasn't (different studio) or Daredevil (yet to be developed/rights yet to return) but I still don't know why Tony Stark didn't have any back-up that wasn't the Iron Man-specific sidekick in Rhodey (and why wasn't he in Avengers for that matter?). I get that a linear story needs to be told, and that you can't get every actor back for every Marvel film. That being said, I need an explanation in the dialogue as to why the established characters aren't present if the MCU are going to bang the drum about how integrated their films are - they can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, Iron Man 3's finale would have involved the televised public execution of the US President, whilst the Captan America: Winter Soldier involved a major S.H.I.E.L.D. security breach/catastrofuck which would involve hellicarriers raining down death on multiple targets. Only Stark and Rhodey dealt with the former, whilst only the featured cast of Cap 2 dealt with the latter. Why the hell does Steve Rogers not show up when the US President nearly put to death? Where's the Hulk when S.H.I.EL.D., whom he distrusts, is threatening the lives of countless citizens? And whilst I get the Hawkeye point re: popularity, he did show in Avengers that he can still do a job.

My point is that once you have an over-arching universe, these questions get raised. I'm sure the same is true of the comics, but if there is some kind of rampaging force destroying New York which is all over the news (say, the climax of The Incredible Hulk or The Avengers) why doesn't Spider-Man or Daredevil show up if they are supposed heroes? Bruce Banner made it back to The Avengers climax on a scooter. Now I get why Spidey wasn't (different studio) or Daredevil (yet to be developed/rights yet to return) but I still don't know why Tony Stark didn't have any back-up that wasn't the Iron Man-specific sidekick in Rhodey (and why wasn't he in Avengers for that matter?). I get that a linear story needs to be told, and that you can't get every actor back for every Marvel film. That being said, I need an explanation in the dialogue as to why the established characters aren't present if the MCU are going to bang the drum about how integrated their films are - they can't have it both ways.

I could go and give counter-points to all of that, but I feel like at this point we're basically playing tennis and no one is winning. I guess my point is that if you're going to look for plot holes, it's only fair to apply the same amount of thinking into figuring out why those holes might not be holes in the first place. There's actually an argument to be made that if they spent time explaining other characters' absences—Rhodey is in Afghanistan; Cap is busy with SHIELD on the West Coast; Hulk is busy trying not to have a breakdown in an alley somewhere; Hawkeye is busy writing his book, "I MATTER TOO"—that might be a disservice to the films themselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely holes, but then Hulk is unreliable, so it's not like unless Banner was directly underneath the helicarrier situation that he would think his alter ego would be any use, or even be able to distinguish between Shield and Hydra. Your main ones are no Avengers in Iron Man 3, which is kinda wrong, I'd have at least cameoed Cap although it's possible that Stark simply got there faster than any other response team. No Iron Man in Thor 2 seems reasonable since even Iron Man can't teleport to London in time to stop a 20 minute fight without some serious advance warning. No Iron Man in Cap 3 I don't know about. My main explanation would be him watching Shield implode and possibly not being in range since again, the battle happens in under an hour. Maybe you could argue Hawkeye should be involved thematically but he'll more than likely be off on missions a lot.

There's viable explainations for most of these. IM3 is the most doubtful, but the others are just short battles that are over before anyone can travel there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Honestly, at this point there's no way Katee Sackhoff headlines a $100M tentpole movie. She would be great, but she's not the kind of star the studio would want. Blunt is a fairly hot commodity right now and it makes sense that Marvel/Disney would be after her.

She would also be really, really good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.