- Feb 15, 2012
- 16,421
- 2,164
Says working with Sony would ruin the MCU....
Loves Guardians of the Galaxy
Like everyone else. Continue to trick yourself into believing that Webb's Spidey touches anything coming out of MCU.
WELCOME TO THE MARVEL MULTIVERSE -*RIP STAN LEE & Boseman* - Agatha All Along new ep every Wednesday
Like everyone else. Continue to trick yourself into believing that Webb's Spidey touches anything coming out of MCU.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 32,830
- 24,897
Why would Marvel want 100% creative control over the spiderman films when they would want him for an appearance for a film(s) which we perceive is Civil War? Marvel gets their franchise character to star in one of their beloved miniseries that he was prominently featured in, Sony gets audiences reinvigorated in the Spiderman they set up and has MCU ties with whatever they want to do with spiderman from that point on. Marvel keeps profit from the film they make that includes spiderman and breaks Sony off a portion (of what will most likely be the highest grossing film in history) Sony makes money when they release the next spiderman film and everyone wants to see it. Everyone wins.
I've seen you **** on Thor 1 and 2 in here a couple of times even though I think those films are amazing. Would you put ASM2 over either one? Trust me I'll know if you're being biased
- Nov 14, 2012
- 36,045
- 12,024
because marvel's end goal is to get spiderman back
sony is a dying company and their movie division is one of the few brightspots, why would marvel want to pay a large amount of money to a dying company when they would get the rights back if sony goes under?
sony NEEDs spiderman to work. marvel is doing just fine without spiderman. it wouldnt make any business sense nor would it sell more movie tickets for marvel to rent out spiderman
sony is a dying company and their movie division is one of the few brightspots, why would marvel want to pay a large amount of money to a dying company when they would get the rights back if sony goes under?
sony NEEDs spiderman to work. marvel is doing just fine without spiderman. it wouldnt make any business sense nor would it sell more movie tickets for marvel to rent out spiderman
- Sep 23, 2012
- 32,830
- 24,897
But Sony isn't their competition at this point, more so their ally. They have the merchandising rights to spiderman which is HUGE business so in theory they already have spiderman back. Him appearing in one of their films would just be icing on a piggy bank. Sony doesn't NEED spiderman to work, they NEED money. Marvel sees this and can have Sony as a partner with their growing movie studio. And Sony needing the money won't oblige to Marvel's request. Why would Marvel want to do extra work in retelling ANOTHER spiderman origin story when Sony has done this twice with the more recent time being a relative success (don't let movie reviewers or NT tell it though
). It's all there for marvel. They're in a great position. They don't need to over complicate things. Just use the ASM costume, story and Garfield and just throw him into the fray. Just tell audiences he didn't want to get involved in the battle of New York because of Gwen's death or him not being spiderman yet. Audiences will eat it up. No one said anything about Mark Ruffalo talking about the battle in Harlem against abomination when that was clearly Ed Norton ...or were audiences on board marvel films yet
- Feb 15, 2012
- 16,421
- 2,164
Why would Marvel want 100% creative control over the spiderman films when they would want him for an appearance for a film(s) which we perceive is Civil War? Marvel gets their franchise character to star in one of their beloved miniseries that he was prominently featured in, Sony gets audiences reinvigorated in the Spiderman they set up and has MCU ties with whatever they want to do with spiderman from that point on. Marvel keeps profit from the film they make that includes spiderman and breaks Sony off a portion (of what will most likely be the highest grossing film in history) Sony makes money when they release the next spiderman film and everyone wants to see it. Everyone wins.
I've seen you **** on Thor 1 and 2 in here a couple of times even though I think those films are amazing. Would you put ASM2 over either one? Trust me I'll know if you're being biased
**** outta here. I said Thor 2 was one of my favorites (5 or 6th) and there are only two marvel flicks I absolutely hate Thor 1 and IM 2. Please quote where I ******* on Thor cuz I usually get my opinions torched for liking that movie. Even IM3 wasn't terrible to me. Not good, just not terrible.
With that said I would put Thor 1 and IM 2 above ASM2.
Last edited:
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- Apr 4, 2006
- 42,963
- 15,346
The fact that there is absolutely nothing in asm1 and asm2 that connects to the mcu is just too much for me to overlook
- Feb 25, 2010
- 24,952
- 23,299
THIS!
- Sep 23, 2012
- 32,830
- 24,897
Yeah you're being biased
But why would their have to be? Everyone knows Spiderman and knows he IS Marvel. I wouldn't think audiences would have to get every detail such as "where was Peter Parker when this happened?" Where was James Rhodes when Avengers was happening? No one asked that
And we've yet to see what A2 holds for us. Maybe spiderman might be mentioned...
- Aug 23, 2004
- 14,106
- 6,328
Yeah you're being biased
But why would their have to be? Everyone knows Spiderman and knows he IS Marvel. I wouldn't think audiences would have to get every detail such as "where was Peter Parker when this happened?" Where was James Rhodes when Avengers was happening? No one asked that
And we've yet to see what A2 holds for us. Maybe spiderman might be mentioned...
Sooooo many people asked this that they made a comic detailing where he was during the Avengers
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/conte...-avengers-movie-iron-man-3-prelude-comic-book
View media item 1226697
Why they could say that in the movie... who knows
Last edited:
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- Apr 4, 2006
- 42,963
- 15,346
James Rhodes not being in the Avengers is not the same as Peter Parker not being in the Avengers. Because at least he was in an Iron Man Movie.
There is nothing that connects Asm1 and 2 to anything. It's so obvious that the ASM movies don't take place in the same universe.
There is nothing that connects Asm1 and 2 to anything. It's so obvious that the ASM movies don't take place in the same universe.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 32,830
- 24,897
I wasn't aware of this prelude for IM3 explaining Rhodey's whereabouts but they could simply do the same for Spiderman. A scenario simple as Tony getting ready to recruit for superhuman registration and him talking about him watching this kid who's been fighting fighting villains that keep emerging from a company stark industries sends products to (oscorp). Tony wants to speak with spiderman. I don't see how it wouldn't work
Rhodey being in a iron man film should've made it all that more confusing to audiences as to why Tony Stark's best friend and someone with his technology wasn't by his side during what could have been the apocalypse. Again ASM came out after Avengers so they could explain that he wasn't even spiderman yet when all that was going down honestly Marvel doesn't have to explain anything. Maybe a wink and a nod like Garfield being in the civil war and someone asking where he was during the battle of New York and someone else cutting them off saying it doesn't matter or something of the sort. All I know is that. Garfield + the ASM2 suit is the perfect spiderman all the way around. As much hate as that film gets I don't think anybody had a problem with either. Marvel has the perfect spiderman presented to them on a platter.
Last edited:
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- Apr 4, 2006
- 42,963
- 15,346
Lol. James Rhodes not being in the Avengers can easily be explained.
Being best friends doesn't have anything to do with anything.
You're being incredibly biased if you think it's easier to explain the disconnect between the ASM movies and the mcu and then Spiderman just suddenly being in NY the whole time than it is to explain Rhodes not being in the Avengers.
You're being infinitely more biased if you think they don't have to explain anything at all and that would just fly with audiences lol
Being best friends doesn't have anything to do with anything.
You're being incredibly biased if you think it's easier to explain the disconnect between the ASM movies and the mcu and then Spiderman just suddenly being in NY the whole time than it is to explain Rhodes not being in the Avengers.
You're being infinitely more biased if you think they don't have to explain anything at all and that would just fly with audiences lol
Last edited:
- Dec 13, 2004
- 74,873
- 62,799
Any particular reason Marvel is bringing back a bunch of they arcs back in the comics? Civil War, Armor Wars, Secret Wars and now Infinity Gauntlets?
Or are these "teasers" just means they are re-publishing the old ones? I am somewhat confused what is going on?
Or are these "teasers" just means they are re-publishing the old ones? I am somewhat confused what is going on?
- Dec 3, 2009
- 39,332
- 19,784
I just gotta say Hulk is such a bad ***, I think his 10 mins total screen time in Avengers >>>>>>>
Watching dude go ham is amazing
Watching dude go ham is amazing
- Feb 16, 2011
- 8,424
- 8,164
- Nov 20, 2007
- 87,880
- 50,394
@ trying to compare Rhodey's absence to Spidey's. Feige isn't stupid. No way he's going to pretend Spidey was in his MCU the entire time. Don't waste your time with lamella reaching to make this stuff work.Marvel will hopefully opt for a new Spidey altogether. All this talk of SONY being an ally is bull ****. What use is an ally that can't pull their own weight? They're being used plain and simple, otherwise they'd be useless.
Nobody really knows yet but they're most likely new stories about those events for next summer involved with Hickman's Secret Wars event
They have not revealed what it is about fully yet. They've done similar before with teasers for new books and other stuff.
Last edited:
- Dec 13, 2004
- 74,873
- 62,799
Gotcha!
Whatever it is, it's working as Marvel got me very intrigued.
Have they revealed who the female Thor is yet? Really not interested in reading the book, just wanted to know who was picked. I guess in turn also curious if that chick could replace him in the film once Hemsworth moves on?
Whatever it is, it's working as Marvel got me very intrigued.
Have they revealed who the female Thor is yet? Really not interested in reading the book, just wanted to know who was picked. I guess in turn also curious if that chick could replace him in the film once Hemsworth moves on?
Last edited:
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- Apr 4, 2006
- 42,963
- 15,346
A female Thor. Daddy likey.
I might be the only one who feels this way but Marvel just needs more female superheroes.
I might be the only one who feels this way but Marvel just needs more female superheroes.
- Dec 13, 2004
- 74,873
- 62,799
I don't think there is a shortage of female heroes, especially in the Marvels universe.
everysingletime
formerly amel223
- Apr 4, 2006
- 42,963
- 15,346
Yea, but some of these female characters Marvel can't use, lol. And I don't think any of them are Avengers
ej. Storm, Jean Grey, kitty Pryde, Susan Storm, female Wolverine, Psylocke, Mystique
Idk, I just think it'd be nice to add a female Thor to the team
ej. Storm, Jean Grey, kitty Pryde, Susan Storm, female Wolverine, Psylocke, Mystique
Idk, I just think it'd be nice to add a female Thor to the team
Last edited:
- Dec 13, 2004
- 74,873
- 62,799
Oh I didn't know you meant in the movie-verse. My bad.
I do think they plan to add more, they just added Gamora this year and seems Cap/Ms. Marvel is next.
Then there's Skye and Agent Carter, not superheroes but superhot. I think Skye will get powers though.
My bad.I do think they plan to add more, they just added Gamora this year and seems Cap/Ms. Marvel is next.
Then there's Skye and Agent Carter, not superheroes but superhot. I think Skye will get powers though.
Last edited:
- Nov 20, 2007
- 87,880
- 50,394
The problem has just been none of their female superheroes were ever that popular. Doesn't help that the good ones are all X-Men and with FOX.
If Marvel had an iconic hero like Wonder Woman there would've already been a female sup hero solo movie before the Avengers movie.
If Marvel had an iconic hero like Wonder Woman there would've already been a female sup hero solo movie before the Avengers movie.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 32,830
- 24,897
I feel as though Marvel can do anything when it comes to the continuity of the films as long as it's for the fans. Spiderman being involved in the MCU isn't something Marvel needed but something fans (like myself) have wanted because everything in the marvel universe goes through plain ol Peter Parker. It just doesn't feel right having a marvel universe portrayed on film and it's star player isn't involved. Marvel straight up spat in everyone's face in Cap 2 by acknowledging Dr. Strange is active but no one is asking where he is
I feel like it's more so marvel trying to retell some of their more popular mini series which coincidently would translate well to film. Wish I could see a Doomwars reissue/film
.....but then again a lot of things I've been asking for have come to fruition 
Marvel will hopefully opt for a new Spidey altogether. All this talk of SONY being an ally is bull ****. What use is an ally that can't pull their own weight? They're being used plain and simple, otherwise they'd be useless.
Nobody really knows yet but they're most likely new stories about those events for next summer involved with Hickman's Secret Wars event
They have not revealed what it is about fully yet. They've done similar before with teasers for new books and other stuff.
Marvel has 3 options: Either retell Spider-mans origin Story with a new actor AGAIN and make a spiderman film to have it fit into the MCU, use a new actor and have everything spiderman related (him being bitten by the radio active spider, Uncle Ben, etc) all being in whatever crossover film(s) he'll be in or use the template they have with ASM. Which seems less cumbersome? Sony isn't stupid. Them coming to mutual terms with marvel to include him in a marvel studio film and Sony giving all the rights to spiderman back to marvel are 2 different things and the former is the one that is happening. Why would Sony be ready to fully give up their investment to Marvel when marvel already had merchandising rights to spiderman. Spiderman belongs home with Marvel but I feel like Marvel has approved of what Sony has done recently with the ASM series. Again quote me on this, so when it happens I'll hit you with the I told you so again....just like how we're having this convo about spiderman in the MCU and how the Civil War film will play out
As far as the New secret Wars I'm not too excited. I'll give it a chance obviously because of the name and the fact that Axis has brought me back into the comic reading in my spare time particularly when I'm on the porcelain throne. Not a big fan of his work but Remender is doing a decent job on this one.
Not feeling the female Thor AT ALL
Last edited:
- Aug 6, 2012
- 58,006
- 61,927
I love Spidey, but man y'all gotta chill
- Nov 20, 2007
- 87,880
- 50,394
Marvel will hopefully opt for a new Spidey altogether. All this talk of SONY being an ally is bull ****. What use is an ally that can't pull their own weight? They're being used plain and simple, otherwise they'd be useless.
Nobody really knows yet but they're most likely new stories about those events for next summer involved with Hickman's Secret Wars event
They have not revealed what it is about fully yet. They've done similar before with teasers for new books and other stuff.
Marvel has 3 options: Either retell Spider-mans origin Story with a new actor AGAIN and make a spiderman film to have it fit into the MCU, use a new actor and have everything spiderman related (him being bitten by the radio active spider, Uncle Ben, etc) all being in whatever crossover film(s) he'll be in or use the template they have with ASM. Which seems less cumbersome? Sony isn't stupid. Them coming to mutual terms with marvel to include him in a marvel studio film and Sony giving all the rights to spiderman back to marvel are 2 different things and the former is the one that is happening. Why would Sony be ready to fully give up their investment to Marvel when marvel already had merchandising rights to spiderman. Spiderman belongs home with Marvel but I feel like Marvel has approved of what Sony has done recently with the ASM series. Again quote me on this, so when it happens I'll hit you with the I told you so again....just like how we're having this convo about spiderman in the MCU and how the Civil War film will play out
The most favorable option, one they've shown to do prefer is new actor as Spidey, no retelling of an origin, just modify what's established about his past along the way. You don't need to retell Spidey's origin, everybody knows who he is and the whole point of this is to see Spidey with the Avengers. They did it with Norton's Hulk that became Ruffalo's Hulk and they did it seamlessly with Howard as Rhodey to Don as Rhodey. That's what's less cumbersome for Marvel. Since Marvel probably isn't getting a straight up chance to do multiple solo Spidey movies they're gonna most likely go with what they've done before. Leave Garfield behind with SONY.
It's not like the Avengers are going to be fighting that lame Green Goblin or the S6. Give Marvel Spidey and a living Norman Osborn. That's it.
I don't need to quote you at all. There was never a first I told you so for you to come with another one again. You still haven't proven that an anniversary poster has anything to do with Spidey crossing over in to the MCU. Unless you get a quote from Feige saying so I'm still laughing at that stupid idea you tried to float around here like it was fact.
Not sure why you would be really. There's been no info about Secret Wars other than it's a 12 issue year long event that's been promoted as the biggest thing Marvel comics has ever attempted. If there's any excitement to be had it should be because Hickman is the writer and Ribic is the artist
Last edited:
