Spider-Man Out Of The MCU (Thanks To Sony)

Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
23
Disney is going to play hardball in an effort to get the rights back to Spidey. Look at what they did to Fantastic Four and X-Men...they completely removed them from the Marvel comic universe for a long time to devalue the franchises. They can afford to cut their nose off to spite their faces with those franchises...But Spidey is their flagship character. Its going to be one hell of a pissing contest for sure.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
229
Reaction score
0
Ridiculous that Disney wants 50 percent even more ridiculous that Sony thought 5 percent was still good enough.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
23
Ridiculous that Disney wants 50 percent even more ridiculous that Sony thought 5 percent was still good enough.
Read into how Disney makes a living hell for theatres, they refuse to show films like Star Wars or Avengers at a venue unless it dominates their biggest and best screens afo x ammount of weeks and all the while taking 70 to 80 percent of the ticket sale. Disney has now bought Hollywood. So as theatres are forced to charge 12 dollars for popcorn to stay open, don't sweat it you can always catch the movie later on Disney Plus which will start to dominate the Netflix style scene. Dont forget they bought Fox so now most of what is worth streaming has Di$ney dollars attached.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
5
I think this is very stupid on Sony's part. It seems like they've forgotten that before the Disney deal, their Spider-Man movie franchise wasn't exactly in the best of shape. It was Spidey's association with the rest of the MCU that breathed new life into the property. Homecoming and Far from Home are both great movies on their own, but a big part of what makes them work is the connection they have to the larger Marvel Universe. I guess that's a tough thing to measure, but Sony could be taking a huge risk here by expecting audiences to just forget about that connection. This feels like a giant step backwards in terms of the way superhero movies are made now.

One article I read seemed to suggest that this will hurt Marvel more than it will hurt Sony. I disagree. This stinks for Marvel for sure. Spidey is obviously an important character and it was clear they had plans for him moving forward. But they have a giant character pool to draw from. Granted, few that are as well-known and beloved as Spider-Man, but they'll keep chugging along just fine. Marvel doesn't really have anything to prove. They were successful before Spider-Man, they'll be successful without him.

And with Marvel/Disney's recent acquisition of the Fox franchises, this will seem particularly ridiculous when Spidey is the only Marvel character NOT in the MCU.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,582
Reaction score
31
the appeal of the MCU was having all these characters in the same universe. but it's a "multiverse" now so what difference does it make? there's no MCU anymore, per se.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,582
Reaction score
31
also , I don't think this is entirely "Thanks to Sony" (as the title of the thread suggests)
Sony reportedly wanted to maintain the current agreement where Marvel receives approximately five percent of first-dollar gross (opening day box office revenue), while Disney wanted to split it 50/50.
^^ Disney came at Sony with a demand of "10x more" than they were already getting.

this is a bit unreasonable -- to change the terms of an(y) existing deal, by a factor of 10x. this is blackmail.

Ridiculous that Disney wants 50 percent even more ridiculous that Sony thought 5 percent was still good enough.
Sony gave multiple (reasonable) counter-offers , but it seems like Disney has their head up their own *** on this one.

they dug in their heels. they're being unreasonable. (they are acting like bullies).

I blame Disney for this. not Sony.


-===-

Read into how Disney makes a living hell for theatres, they refuse to show films like Star Wars or Avengers at a venue unless it dominates their biggest and best screens afo x ammount of weeks and all the while taking 70 to 80 percent of the ticket sale. Disney has now bought Hollywood. So as theatres are forced to charge 12 dollars for popcorn to stay open, don't sweat it you can always catch the movie later on Disney Plus which will start to dominate the Netflix style scene. Dont forget they bought Fox so now most of what is worth streaming has Di$ney dollars attached.
^^ I think it's a good thing, in the long run, if Spiderman is NOT owned by "Di$ney Dollars" -- they already own everything else -- from Star Wars to Monday Night Football -- it's getting ridiculous.

Kudos to Sony , for defying "the mouse" -- and Kudos to "Spidey", for standing up to this bully. :p LOL

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
229
Reaction score
0
the appeal of the MCU was having all these characters in the same universe. but it's a "multiverse" now so what difference does it make? there's no MCU anymore, per se.
What? Are you talking about?
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,582
Reaction score
31
the MCU is not a single universe. it's a multiverse. (its an MCM now; not an MCU). :p



the appeal of the MCU was having all these characters in a "single universe" -- but that's not going to happen anyways -- it's not a single universe anymore, so what difference does it make?
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
229
Reaction score
0
Maybe. All the Multiverse talk in Spidey 2 was bs. The characters have theorized it, but even in Endgame, they established they were not creating an alternate timeline. I'm not sure how ignoring Peter considering everything that happened in Far From Home will be a good thing for Sony or the fans.

Having a Multiverse won't help them with this problem either. Also Disney took Spidey off the trash heap after those awful films and made them bank. Asking for 50/50 maybe a bit much, but thinking 5 percent was good enough is stupid.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,582
Reaction score
31
Sony was already "making bank" -- that was never the problem.

"Spiderman3" made $890million at the world box office (NOT adjusted for inflation); "homecoming" only made $880million *shrug*

(despite the hype over spidey joining the MCU , Raimi's WORST spiderman film still made MORE than Marvel's first spiderman film -- the hype was unfounded, if strictly from a "make bank" POV)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=spiderman.htm

I think Sony will still "make bank" for themselves, WITHOUT giving 50% to the house-of-Mouse. LOL




(and/or : in order for this "50%" deal to make sense for Sony , the Marvel Movies would need to increase the total box office by more than 2x on each film, to justify their share -- and this hasn't happened: "Far From Home" only brought in ~120% of Spiderman3)

(if I'm Sony , then I'd rather own 100% of spiderman3@890million , vs. 50% of farfromhome@1.1billion -- do the math) :p LOL
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
229
Reaction score
0
Spiderman 3 was at the height of Spiderman this Century. The movie was awful and still made bank. What about Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2, 1 did ok, but they legit thought about canning everything after 2. It was only after the Sony hack revealed that Marvel wanted Spidey for Avengers 1 and the amount they could have made was roughly the same for a five minute cameo. Even then it took the Sony hack to embarrass them to put Spiderman in Civil War. I don't think they also want to pay to make these films, because ILM is probably not an option anymore. They make $600 million, but it will cost $300 million to make another $200 million to market it. When they could just sit by and not do much will making more money.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
6,976
Reaction score
0
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
34,095
Reaction score
8
Sony was already "making bank" -- that was never the problem.

"Spiderman3" made $890million at the world box office (NOT adjusted for inflation); "homecoming" only made $880million *shrug*

(despite the hype over spidey joining the MCU , Raimi's WORST spiderman film still made MORE than Marvel's first spiderman film -- the hype was unfounded, if strictly from a "make bank" POV)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=spiderman.htm

I think Sony will still "make bank" for themselves, WITHOUT giving 50% to the house-of-Mouse. LOL




(and/or : in order for this "50%" deal to make sense for Sony , the Marvel Movies would need to increase the total box office by more than 2x on each film, to justify their share -- and this hasn't happened: "Far From Home" only brought in ~120% of Spiderman3)

(if I'm Sony , then I'd rather own 100% of spiderman3@890million , vs. 50% of farfromhome@1.1billion -- do the math) :p LOL
Keep in mind that, along with requesting 50% of the gross, Disney was also offering to take on 50% of the marketing and production costs ... something that they currently aren't responsible for. Also, these negotiations were due to the agreement coming to an end. Disney didn't suddenly pull Sony into a room demanding more money on the existing deal.
I blame both studios, really. Does Disney deserve more than 5% of the gross on a film that they basically have total creative control over? Absolutely ... especially when a large part of that success is due to their ideas and the fact these films tie into the overall MCU. Was Disney being a bit of a **** asking for 50%, even if they take on 50% of the cost as well? Umm, yeah. It's quite a jump. Regardless, the fans lose out on this ... especially considering the cliffhanger that Far From Home ended on. I hope that cooler heads can still prevail. I guess we'll see.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
4
Honestly it sounds like a lot of B S & in the end Kevin may not be the executive producer anymore but someone from Marvel will be. It’s about how much they are willing to pay & what they want to keep

either after this blows over
Spiderman stays on The MCU
he takes a AoS /Tv approach where he is in the world but not part of the main movie story
or Sony does their own stuff & we have to hear for the next 2-3 years about how the next spider man movie will suck before anyone even sees it.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
229
Reaction score
0
Kevin not being in charge of Marvel would be worse than losing Spiderman. He is a fan who gets it.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
8
Honestly?

I see Spider-Man separate from the MCU in a lot of ways already. Yes he had a nice role in Infinity War and some excellent screen time in Endgame, AND his time in Civil War was pretty much perfect, BUT and this is a big BUT.... now that Stark is gone, what is Spider-Man's connection to the MCU? Fury is in space. Why NOT have Spider-Man go to the Venom-verse (or whatevs) and do the Sinister Six there? Sony can still use all the Spider-Man characters. Do we need any of the MCU heroes in the next couple Spider-Man movies? Don't you want to see Tom Holland vs. Tom Hardy? I sure do. If Sony can do Venom right, and now they have a pretty good template for how to do Spider-Man right.... I see this as a win win.

The next slate of movies from the MCU does not require a webslinger. Give Sony a couple years to make their universe and then we can talk about Secret Wars :)

I'm not 100% sold on this, maybe someone will change my mind.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
13,451
Reaction score
1
Read these little tidbits and you'll see yeas Disney wanted more but they had to fix the ******** mess that Sony made because they have NO clue..

https://nypost.com/2019/04/08/hedgie-to-pitch-sony-on-selling-off-entertainment-division/

And it would make sense for them to do this but....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2019/08/21/how-the-marvel-sony-spider-man-dispute-will-be-solved-one-way-or-another/#5a281e9e6b50

Does anyone think they will do the later and sell for a profit?
this forbes piece is the most logical out there, which means no one will pay attention to it
 

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,320
Reaction score
20
If he does depart, we'll be back to crappy Sony spiderman films. They just can't get him right.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
5
this forbes piece is the most logical out there, which means no one will pay attention to it
Yep, sounds about right.

Sony is high off their ***** if they think audiences will just gladly go back to watching solo Spider-Man movies as if he was never part of the MCU.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
1,456
Reaction score
12
Totally ridiculous! This would be the second time they set up a part three that could have been awesome, and now they're going to kill it before it even happens. The Sinister Six was all set to go against Andrew Garfield's Spidey, and that died. Now we have a real cliffhanger of an ending, and who knows if it will see a proper conclusion. Yes, Marvel did leave the Hulk unfinished, setting up The Leader only to not give us Hulk 2, but since it was still so early in the MCU universe, it could be forgiven more than this can.

I thought only DC was that stupid, with how they totally ignored Green Lantern in Justice League, set up the Hall of Justice/Legion of Doom for a sequel, then decided to drop all the actors & cancel it all after the next Wonder Woman movie.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,582
Reaction score
31
I always go back to my experience as a kid in the 70's reading comic books.
I honestly didn't care back in the 70's, if Spiderman was in the Avengers or not.

all the best Spidey Stories came from the Amazing Spiderman run..
..and they never included "Iron Man in the role of Uncle Ben."

I never read the Captain America title as a kid; I never knew who the Eternals were; I never really cared.
but I was a ravenous Spiderman fan -- that was really, the only book I cared about.

so personally, at this point, I don't care if Spiderman is part of the 'fantastic four' movie universe, moving forward.
Spiderman CAN carry a movie franchise all by himself. with his OWN rogues gallery.
Spiderman IS his own thing. it has ever been thus.


--> if Sony can just concentrate on translating some of the best Spidey Stories onto the big screen,
and be true to the subject matter, then they don't NEED "Tony-Stark-in-the-role-of-Uncle-Ben" in order to sell this character.

(that was just plain weird, in retrospect -- it was an obvious "shoe-horn",
to MAKE spidey line up with the MCU, for the sake of the MCU -- like a cart before the horse).

Sony just needs ONE GUY producing, who understands the subject matter. it could be Kevin Smith, for all I care.
buy Kevin Feige is NOT the "end-all be-all" of comic books (IMO).
the mental gymnastics required to make spidey fit into his MCU, was simply not worth it (IMO)*



(this was also the problem with the andrew garfield movies, if we're honest -- all that stuff about parker's dad being a government agent (or whatever), was just too far afield).
((they never really stuck to the original subject matter -- any more than Feige did, with his 'tony stark as uncle ben' nonsense)).




end of day , we've seen so many different "versions" of spiderman on screen, it's hard to keep track....
...but none of them are true to the Romita Years.

why is it so hard to get this right?
its not rocket science. (and Tony Stark has nothing to do with it).

* Feige has managed to diminish Spidey into a secondary character -- into Iron Man's 'sidekick' (??)
this was not necessary, to sell the character. Spiderman sells himself. he was always the BIGGEST comic title in the Marvel catalog.

but now Spiderman is reduced to a secondary character in an MCU that is, literally, FILLED with secondary characters.
(in the MCU : Spiderman is to Tony Stark , as Falcon is to Steve Rogers -- and that's just plain sad).

(end of day , I respectfully disagree with the Forbes article above: with 'Endgame' marking the permanent departure of 3/5 of the OG_Avengers,
I think the MCU needs spiderman, MORE than spiderman needs the MCU).
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
TBH, I don't know what the long term ramifications will be. I'm not really the biggest Spider-Man fan out there, but I enjoyed Raimi's movies. Albeit 3 was a bit too odd for me. But then again so was Iron Man 3.
The two Amazing Spider-Man movies were okay, but but not something I wanted to hitch my wagon to long term. It almost felt like Sony was trying to make each movie worse then the one before it, but why.

So from where I sit, while it's bit of a bummer, I'm not totally upset if he leaves the MCU. While I thought the cameo type appearance were okay, and neat that they were world building between the whole of Marvel characters. He is one who can be/do just fine on his own, not needing to be a regular Avenger. At least not until he graduates. It also felt like they were grooming him to be something he really wasn't in the Comics.
It felt to me as if the were trying to make Spider-Man out to be like they did with Logan for all three X-Films. He kind of feels forced in Infinity Wars/Endgame.

I feel it was misplaced for Disney to try and make Spider-Man, a "borrowed" character a somebody in the MCU. "Guest cast" sure, Stark's legacy? Disney probably just assumed Sony would be happy that they came along and made him a superstar again. lol

I like the 2 new movies, but I don't think I'll ever really accept him as a main character in Avengers. Or as a major player in the MCU/M. He your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.
That said, not having him connected at all will feel odd now that we had a taste.

Disney probably did deserve more revenue, as it seems like they put in more effort. Meanwhile Sony was just sitting back collecting Money. Unfortunately is appears that Disney got a bit big for their britches, and tried to strong-arm like they always do.. Same way Walmart strong-arms for lower costs.

The sad part is that Disney started something with this character, and it's doubtful Sony will continue that path. Possibly be just blip in time similar to the 2 AMS Movies.

Considering how fanboys react, I'm sure this will lead to Sony attacks rather than aimed at Disney. But I think this is more important to them than it would be to Disney. They have thousands of other characters to draw from, Spider-Man is Sony's only golden egg. Even though they own rights to 100's of characters.

IDK, I almost feel indifferent. But then I see all those what could have been possibilities under Disney. Reverting back will just end up with more rubbish I'm sure, because they don't seem to get the character.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
23
For what it's worth Disney didn't exactly get the character either. Flash Thompson is a Jock Bully, not smart enough for a debate team. Nobody knows Parker is Spidey, which is a huge part of the inner struggle and responsibilities of Peter. He has no outlet, so he makes his conscious decisions with more thought and rationalization. Disney essentially took a crap all over the supporting cast. They are almost as important to the story as the gallery of Villains.
Dont get me wrong I loved both movies, But Rami grew up reading Spider Man and nailed the characters perfectly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
5
I also wonder what effect, if any, this might have on Tom Holland's contract. Obviously, we have no way of knowing the intricate details of his deal, and it may have allowed for this circumstance. But if I was him, I might be feeling a little bit pissed right about now. He signed on to play Peter Parker/Spider-Man with the understanding it would be in a shared universe. That could have been a major selling point for him taking the job. What happens if that aspect is simply taken away? Again, this may have been stipulated in his contract from the beginning, but this seems like a pretty significant change to what he agreed to.

Also, I was under the impression that Holland one more Avengers or crossover movie left on his contract. I thought he had a six movie deal, that was signed after Civil War. It apparently included three Spidey movies and three Avengers/crossover movies. If he makes one more solo movie with Sony, what happens to the last movie on his contract? And I guess his deal is technically with Sony, but Disney obviously has an interest in it too.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
8
I always go back to my experience as a kid in the 70's reading comic books. I honestly didn't care back in the 70's, if Spiderman was in the Avengers or not all the best Spidey Stories came from the Amazing Spiderman run..
..and they never included "Iron Man in the role of Uncle Ben."

I never read the Captain America title as a kid; I never knew who the Eternals were; I never really cared.
but I was a ravenous Spiderman fan -- that was really, the only book I cared about, so personally, at this point, I don't care if Spiderman is part of the 'fantastic four' movie universe, moving forward. Spiderman CAN carry a movie franchise all by himself. with his OWN rogues gallery. Spiderman IS his own thing. it has ever been thus.

--> if Sony can just concentrate on translating some of the best Spidey Stories onto the big screen, and be true to the subject matter, then they don't NEED "Tony-Stark-in-the-role-of-Uncle-Ben" in order to sell this character. (that was just plain weird, in retrospect -- it was an obvious "shoe-horn", to MAKE spidey line up with the MCU, for the sake of the MCU -- like a cart before the horse).

Sony just needs ONE GUY producing, who understands the subject matter. it could be Kevin Smith, for all I care but Kevin Feige is NOT the "end-all be-all" of comic books (IMO). The mental gymnastics required to make spidey fit into his MCU, was simply not worth it (IMO)*

(this was also the problem with the andrew garfield movies, if we're honest -- all that stuff about parker's dad being a government agent (or whatever), was just too far afield).
((they never really stuck to the original subject matter -- any more than Feige did, with his 'tony stark as uncle ben' nonsense)).


End of day, we've seen so many different "versions" of spiderman on screen, it's hard to keep track.... ...but none of them are true to the Romita Years. Why is it so hard to get this right? It's not rocket science. (and Tony Stark has nothing to do with it). * Feige has managed to diminish Spidey into a secondary character -- into Iron Man's 'sidekick' (??) This was not necessary, to sell the character. Spiderman sells himself. he was always the BIGGEST comic title in the Marvel catalog, but now Spiderman is reduced to a secondary character in an MCU that is, literally, FILLED with secondary characters. (in the MCU : Spiderman is to Tony Stark , as Falcon is to Steve Rogers -- and that's just plain sad).

(end of day , I respectfully disagree with the Forbes article above: with 'Endgame' marking the permanent departure of 3/5 of the OG_Avengers,
I think the MCU needs spiderman, MORE than spiderman needs the MCU).
Had to stop reformatting to make this readable at some point.

I agree with the Spider-Man carrying his own universe and the fact that they don't need Avengers to make Spider-Man work. The first 2 Raimi movies worked great. I don't want them to go back to that, but they have their Spider-Man hand-delivered by the team-up with Disney. The rogues gallery they have to work with is legendary and there could easily be at least a Spider-Man Venom movie and a Sinister Six movie before we ever need Spider-Man to hang with any of the other heroes in the MCU.

Don't get me wrong, I WANT Spider-Man in the MCU, but strike up a new deal in a couple years after those 2 movies that have been literally put on a TEE for them to knock out of the park.

I do not think the MCU did anything wrong with Iron Man's involvement. High School Peter Parker couldn't come into that universe without some sort of mentor. It would have been even weirder if he just showed up on his own. Sony doesn't need to do anything but get a decent selection of actors to do the Sinister Six around Keaton and then do a Venom 3 where Spider-Man goes up against and also perhaps fights with Vemon. Hardy and Holland would be amazing to see.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
60
I always go back to my experience as a kid in the 70's reading comic books.
I honestly didn't care back in the 70's, if Spiderman was in the Avengers or not.

all the best Spidey Stories came from the Amazing Spiderman run..
..and they never included "Iron Man in the role of Uncle Ben."

I never read the Captain America title as a kid; I never knew who the Eternals were; I never really cared.
but I was a ravenous Spiderman fan -- that was really, the only book I cared about.

so personally, at this point, I don't care if Spiderman is part of the 'fantastic four' movie universe, moving forward.
Spiderman CAN carry a movie franchise all by himself. with his OWN rogues gallery.
Spiderman IS his own thing. it has ever been thus.


--> if Sony can just concentrate on translating some of the best Spidey Stories onto the big screen,
and be true to the subject matter, then they don't NEED "Tony-Stark-in-the-role-of-Uncle-Ben" in order to sell this character.

(that was just plain weird, in retrospect -- it was an obvious "shoe-horn",
to MAKE spidey line up with the MCU, for the sake of the MCU -- like a cart before the horse).

Sony just needs ONE GUY producing, who understands the subject matter. it could be Kevin Smith, for all I care.
buy Kevin Feige is NOT the "end-all be-all" of comic books (IMO).
the mental gymnastics required to make spidey fit into his MCU, was simply not worth it (IMO)*



(this was also the problem with the andrew garfield movies, if we're honest -- all that stuff about parker's dad being a government agent (or whatever), was just too far afield).
((they never really stuck to the original subject matter -- any more than Feige did, with his 'tony stark as uncle ben' nonsense)).




end of day , we've seen so many different "versions" of spiderman on screen, it's hard to keep track....
...but none of them are true to the Romita Years.

why is it so hard to get this right?
its not rocket science. (and Tony Stark has nothing to do with it).

* Feige has managed to diminish Spidey into a secondary character -- into Iron Man's 'sidekick' (??)
this was not necessary, to sell the character. Spiderman sells himself. he was always the BIGGEST comic title in the Marvel catalog.

but now Spiderman is reduced to a secondary character in an MCU that is, literally, FILLED with secondary characters.
(in the MCU : Spiderman is to Tony Stark , as Falcon is to Steve Rogers -- and that's just plain sad).

(end of day , I respectfully disagree with the Forbes article above: with 'Endgame' marking the permanent departure of 3/5 of the OG_Avengers,
I think the MCU needs spiderman, MORE than spiderman needs the MCU).
I don't 100% disagree, but that's also not being sincerely honest either. Spider-Man has largely remained solo through his publication career, yes, but because he hasn't been a member of a team very often...does not mean he didn't have countless team-up and superhero guest star appearances. Spider-Man has always been his own thing since inception? He's been an individual hero that tends to prefer operating alone, but he's always been a player on the larger chess board. Spider-Man attempts to join the Fantastic Four in quite literally Amazing Spider-Man #1. Doctor Doom appears in ASM #5, Human Torch in ASM #8, Hulk in ASM #14, Daredevil in ASM #16, and those are roles integral to the plot of those individual books. That's excluding one or two panel cameo appearances like Thor and Dr. Strange in Annual #1. That's even excluding just dialogue name drops of other heroes and villains. There's countless more examples, that's just a few, and this is only within the first 20 some issues of Spider-Man's publication. The first two years! This is also leaving out Spider-Man doing his own guest appearances in other books. The Avengers #11, Daredevil #16, X-Men #35, again all in which he played a crucial part within that issues story. Spider-Man literally appears on the cover of Daredevil #1! These aren't simply from the Silver Age, his roots, but they're all examples from even the early Silver Age. A list of complete examples from the 60's alone would likely take months to compile.

This is not something employed with Peter Parker alone. All throughout, superheroes were constantly meeting other superheroes in this sandbox as well. Heroes were swapping villains! Many iconic heroes weren't even introduced in their own books. Black Panther first appeared in Fantastic Four #52, Wolverine in The Incredible Hulk #181, Punisher in ASM #129, endless examples. Spider-Man's very own crime lord, the Kingpin, is now more popularly known as a Daredevil villain! Stan Lee made a very conscious decision that, yes, each will have their own compartmentalized and dedicated book. However, they always will have an inter-connectivity with each other, creating a larger spectrum with greater magnitude. A superhero ecosystem! For example, even the very events of, say, The Avengers could effect what happens in next weeks X-Men. That was birthed as far back as the 60's, that's nothing new! Spider-Man has starred in multiple spin-off books, one being almost exclusively his own in which it was dedicated to nothing but reinforcing the larger scope of the Marvel universe: Marvel Team-Up debuting in the 1970's. Spider-Man has been present (more or less) in nearly every major event book since the inception of event books. Secret Wars (1984), Infinity Gauntlet (1991), his own Maximum Carnage (1994) in which a huge Marvel roster flanked him, Onslaught (1996), on and on.

It's not dishonest to say that he can hold a film franchise on his own. He can. He has. Maybe sometimes he even should. It's simply dishonest to say that him not being allowed to ever play with the other kids...doesn't matter. I'm not saying he always should. I'm saying it should always be a feasible option on the writers table. It's tragic if not and, ultimately, limits to the scope of what can be done with the character. It's dishonest to say that this has never been an aspect of his books. It has been. It always has been...in every Marvel title ever made...since the beginnings. Even the characters who don't like teams still always played in the sandbox with the neighborhood super-kids.

As for the whole Tony as Uncle Ben or that Spider-Man's just Iron Lad argument, I always found this a fundamental misreading;

I mean it def. has its departures. Young Aunt May, the Iron Man influence, no comic-equivalents of MJ or Gwen, Ned being his best friend. But I disagree, I think it's the truest to the spirit of those classic 60's and 70's books, albeit different in places when viewing the details. The one thing a bit jarring now, even for me, is the lack of Uncle Ben. Initially I understood his exclusion; avoid redundancy. I do however feel, though not require to do a literal flashback, after knowing this iteration of the character for too long and leaving Ben Parker never mention would be a mistake. However, I think it's still excusable for now. Homecoming and Far From Home emphasize he's young and impressionable. He admires Tony, the film shows he wants to look up to Tony. Well...why? Does this film need to explicitly state, that early on, that he's a hero because of his pseudo-accountability for Ben's death? As fans, we already know that, and because of that death it would make Peter, an extremely vulnerable and inexperienced teenage kid, very susceptible to two things in particular: A superhero example and a surrogate father figure or mentor. I believe you can just as easily argue that this actually reinforces Ben's importance instead of diminishes, something I find impressive considering he doesn't even need to physically appear or be directly spoken of.

Well...yet...IMO...

So while Peter does get a bit enthralled with Iron Man technology, even the first film thematically establishes that he can't and won't be Tony Stark. The entire climax establishes he's living up to what Ben would want, what he wants, not what Tony wants. He defeats the Vulture not by using some fancy suit, but with his own raw talent, intellect, and abilities. The story is about discovering who he is. The whole arch is discovering your identity and individualism. It's a metaphor for growing up. By the end of Homecoming...he REJECTS the newest suit Tony made him. Although yes, he does gain it in Infinity War (meh...it's space...excused), that's a very intentional rejection. The is crucial! He's finding out the man he is...not the man he thought he WANTED to be: Iron Man. It's a learning lesson. The whole Night Monkey gag has a level of poignancy, it's emphasizing Peter has identity issues and satirizing that subject matter. He then goes on to defeat Mysterio by doing what? Coming to his own senses, literally and figuratively. Mysterio even mocks his old sweat-suit costume, but he defeated the Vulture in that! That's him! And by the end of Far From Home, he's committed to that, granted with a less home-made costume. It climaxes with him finally embracing the iconic Spider-Man, swinging through the skyscrapers of New York, something we don't see in Homecoming and is even directly called out in the Washington Memorial sequence; "I've never been this high before." He's new, he's evolving. By the end of Far From Home he now believes in HIMSELF. Accepts HIS OWN identity, a wonderful parallel for adolescence. And then to directly mirror his newly self-accepted persona, reinforcing this was the intended theme, this identity is then DIRECTLY ATTACKED by both J. Jonah and Mysterio in traditional Stan Lee GOTCHA fashion. As Stan always said, you give Peter joy...and then immediately take it away. Drama!

"Peter, these are the years when a man changes into the man he's going to become for the rest of his life," Uncle Ben: Spider-Man (2002). I don't think that's coincidentally what, ultimately, the theme of both Homecoming and Far From Home is.

I never saw Spider-Man in this as anything but Peter Parker wanting to be a hero because of his mistakes, admiring the examples around him and learning from them, but ultimately discovering his own self-worth and importance despite them. I saw what felt like an actual scared and hormone-filled boy trying to do the right things, as bombastic as it is, whilst trying to balance out the rushing real-life discovery of how confusing it is entering adulthood. Finally!

And I certainly never saw him as just a side-kick...
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,723
Reaction score
34
I still think it would have meant more, if they had at least acknowledged Ben. He's supposedly 16, which could mean that he recently lost him. This is where Tony comes in as a mentor, and help fill that role and guide Peter. But there needed to be some mention of Peter's loss. A reason for his emptiness and longing to fit in/belong and be a Superhero. We don't really get nay of that. It's like there is none of that wisdom from Ben was ever passed down. He's this immature kid trying to wear big boy pants and fails.

This IMO, is where Disney disrespects the character.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
60
I still think it would have meant more, if they had at least acknowledged Ben. He's supposedly 16, which could mean that he recently lost him. This is where Tony comes in as a mentor, and help fill that role and guide Peter. But there needed to be some mention of Peter's loss. A reason for his emptiness and longing to fit in/belong and be a Superhero. We don't really get nay of that. It's like there is none of that wisdom from Ben was ever passed down. He's this immature kid trying to wear big boy pants and fails.

This IMO, is where Disney disrespects the character.
I mean I agree, on a level, but I always viewed the lack of a mention of Ben (only relegated to the initials on his suitcase) as always a temporary. It's not that they wanted to steer clear of it, it's that they wanted to...for now. I think that is largely due to the internet. When it was announced he'd be rebooted AGAIN, the most common concern you'd encounter was people discussing why not to tell the origin again. Honestly, I don't disagree with that either, but there's a difference between not doing the origin...and not mentioning him ever. I will say, if this deal gets mended and there is a third one, I always felt that was the place for Ben Parker.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
8
I mean I agree, on a level, but I always viewed the lack of a mention of Ben (only relegated to the initials on his suitcase) as always a temporary. It's not that they wanted to steer clear of it, it's that they wanted to...for now. I think that is largely due to the internet. When it was announced he'd be rebooted AGAIN, the most common concern you'd encounter was people discussing why not to tell the origin again. Honestly, I don't disagree with that either, but there's a difference between not doing the origin...and not mentioning him ever. I will say, if this deal gets mended and there is a third one, I always felt that was the place for Ben Parker.
Doing another origin story for Spider-Man would have been like showing Batman's origin again in B v S: Dawn of Justice... oh wait, they did that again didn't they... and it was an eye roll moment that they spent any time on it really.

If you don't know anything about Batman or Spider-Man you need to get out more. Even if you had never heard of the characters, ask any friend and they'll tell you parents/uncle murdered. That's enough to motivate anyone.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
8
I don't 100% disagree, but that's also not being sincerely honest either. Spider-Man has largely remained solo through his publication career, yes, but because he hasn't been a member of a team very often...does not mean he didn't have countless team-up and superehero guest star appearances. Spider-Man has always been his own thing since inception? He's been an individual hero that tends to prefer operating alone, but he's always been a player on the larger chess board. Spider-Man attempts to join the Fantastic Four in quite literally Amazing Spider-Man #1. Doctor Doom appears in ASM #5, Human Torch in ASM #8, Hulk in ASM #14, Daredevil in ASM #16, and those are roles integral to the plot of those individual books. That's excluding one or two panel cameo appearances like Thor and Dr. Strange in Annual #1. That's even excluding just dialogue name drops of other heroes and villains. There's countless more examples, that's just a few, and this is only within the first 20 some issues of Spider-Man's publication. The first two years! This is also leaving out Spider-Man doing his own guest appearances in other books. The Avengers #11, Daredevil #16, X-Men #35, again all in which he played a crucial part within that issues story. Spider-Man literally appears on the cover of Daredevil #1! These aren't simply from the Silver Age, his roots, but they're all examples from even the early Silver Age. A list of complete examples from the 60's alone would likely take months to compile.

This is not something employed with Peter Parker alone. All throughout, superheroes were constantly meeting other superheroes in this sandbox as well. Heroes were swapping villains! Stan Lee made a very conscious decision that, yes, each will have their own compartmentalized and dedicated book. However, they always will have an inter-connectivity with each other, creating a larger spectrum with greater magnitude. A superhero ecosystem! For example, even the very events of, say, The Avengers could effect what happens in next weeks X-Men. That was birthed as far back as the 60's, that's nothing new! Spider-Man has starred in multiple spin-off books, one being almost exclusively his own in which it was dedicated to nothing but reinforcing the larger scope of the Marvel universe: Marvel Team-Up debuting in the 1970's. Spider-Man has been present (more or less) in nearly every major event book since the inception of event books. Secret Wars (1984), Infinity Gauntlet (1991), his own Maximum Carnage (1994) in which a huge Marvel roster flanked him, Onslaught (1996), on and on.

...

I never saw Spider-Man in this as anything but Peter Parker wanting to be a hero because of his mistakes, admiring the examples around him and learning from them, but ultimately discovering his own self-worth and importance despite them. I saw what felt like an actual scared and hormone-filled boy trying to do the right things, as bombastic as it is, whilst trying to balance out the rushing real-life discovery of how confusing it is enter adulthood. Finally!

And I certainly never saw him as just a side-kick...
Only edited for length. I bow to your comics knowledge. I would never say Spider-Man is ONLY separate, but he's a strong enough character to. Can't say that about any of the other MCU characters really. I honestly think they'll work it out. Venom in the MCU would be pretty cool.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
6,976
Reaction score
0
I mean I agree, on a level, but I always viewed the lack of a mention of Ben (only relegated to the initials on his suitcase) as always a temporary. It's not that they wanted to steer clear of it, it's that they wanted to...for now. I think that is largely due to the internet. When it was announced he'd be rebooted AGAIN, the most common concern you'd encounter was people discussing why not to tell the origin again. Honestly, I don't disagree with that either, but there's a difference between not doing the origin...and not mentioning him ever. I will say, if this deal gets mended and there is a third one, I always felt that was the place for Ben Parker.
Stop how many times do we need to have/see Uncle Ben killed??? Been there done that...

And just because Marvel used him in their films do you really believe that Sony didn't have some input on his backstory/character?
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
60
Hey thanks, man! I've been kind of unhealthy obsessed with Marvel (and specifically Batman...less DC over-all but I do enjoy just less knowledgeable on as a whole) since childhood. Hah! My dad would read me Silver Age Marvel books at bedtime and they just kind of stuck, my favorite always being Spider-Man. I adore pretty much all of Marvel though. I TOTALLY agree that the Uncle Ben origin story didn't need retold as well. I mean its base knowledge, just like the Wayne murders as you mentioned. And it's been done to deeeeeath! I personally think that was a smart choice. Plus, when you really look at what he explains as his motive for being a superhero to Tony in Captain America: Civil War, it's just an around the bend reference to Ben Parker anyway. I don't think they had to literally say his name for people to understand what he's talking about. Like I said, I will say, by now I think it's safe to have a slight but direct mention of him...but don't do a flashback of Ben actually dying! I'd probably do a real casual reference like May crying over a picture of him and Peter saying something akin to "You still miss him?" "Always!" and that's about as far as I'd go. I also think, in the end, what will happen is that both Disney and Sony will come to their senses and realize that ANY deal (even not their ideal outcome) is better than no deal. It's extremely difficult for me to believe this is the true ending of Spider-Man in the MCU.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,259
Reaction score
60
Stop how many times do we need to have/see Uncle Ben killed??? Been there done that...

And just because Marvel used him in their films do you really believe that Sony didn't have some input on his backstory/character?
Didn't you read what I said? I don't want to see Ben's murder either! But I do think Ben needs mentioned eventually. Big difference! Usually I believe in films having to show and not just tell, but in this case...it's one of those rare cases when you can just tell and it's completely sufficient.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
6,976
Reaction score
0
Didn't you read what I said? I don't want to see Ben's murder either! But I do think Ben needs mentioned eventually. Big difference! Usually I believe in films having to show and not just tell, but in this case...it's one of those rare cases when you can just tell and it's completely sufficient.
Oh they will just like I have a feeling that something is in the works and if it's true all is good...o-o
 
Top