The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[swanpride]

And they want to protect the brand.

Sony will reconsider the moment one of their oh so genial movies bombs. Really, didn't they pay attention? People didn't watch Venom because they thought the movie was great.

[Raja]

13 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

A 70/30 split doesn't seem the least bit unreasonable of a deal. Sony got greedy and, now they need to do something to prove they aren't going to fuck over Spider-Man...again. 

Disney/MCU really won't suffer or care over the loss of Spider-Man (financially) other than really wanting all of their toys back home.

Sony is the owner, not Disney keep that in mind. Now Disney so needed Peter Parker for their Infinity Saga they were willing to make a bad deal. But that saga is over and of everything announced upcoming a friendly neighborhood hero would only really fit into a Disney+ miniseries. Disney surely no longer needed Spider-Man so put out an insulting offer.

Sony made money from Venom and got almost universal acclaim for Into The Spider-verse. They have absolutely no incentive to give away their monetary asset for the MCU nerd. Especially when the Spider-Man specific nerd has been complaining about to much Tony Stark/Avengers, hot Aunt May, not my MJ and Ned being a renamed Miles Morales character.

[swanpride]

I think it was less about "need" and more about the desire to rescue the Brand before Sony runs it into the ground with sh... movies.

Also, Sony can do BOTH! Why should they just built two Spider-Man franchises if they can have three?

I wonder if Rothman is the problem...he has never played well with Marvel. And we all know how little he understands Comic book fans.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Sony is the owner, not Disney keep that in mind. Now Disney so needed Peter Parker for their Infinity Saga they were willing to make a bad deal. But that saga is over and of everything announced upcoming a friendly neighborhood hero would only really fit into a Disney+ miniseries. Disney surely no longer needed Spider-Man so put out an insulting offer.

Sony made money from Venom and got almost universal acclaim for Into The Spider-verse. They have absolutely no incentive to give away their monetary asset for the MCU nerd. Especially when the Spider-Man specific nerd has been complaining about to much Tony Stark/Avengers, hot Aunt May, not my MJ and Ned being a renamed Miles Morales character.

Yes and Sony so needed Marvel to make a successful Spider-Man movie that they gave up complete creative control and took all the financial risk. In the years leading up to the deal Sony was forced to sell Spider-Man merchandising rights and their reboot failed. Both studios made a pretty poor deal because they needed the other at that time. I don’t think 30% (or even 50%) is particularly insulting when were now talking about a partnership between two most successful studios this year rather. Neither feels like they need the other so no deal. It’s just business. 

Personally I think Sony is on boggy ground based on past performance and their current leadership but I sincerely hope they prove me wrong. Unfortunately Sony’s superhero movie are probably going to overly scrutinized and judged more harshly then they probably deserve in the wake of this decision. Time will tell which or if both studios made the right decision. 

1 hour ago, swanpride said:

I think it was less about "need" and more about the desire to rescue the Brand before Sony runs it into the ground with sh... movies.

Also, Sony can do BOTH! Why should they just built two Spider-Man franchises if they can have three?

I wonder if Rothman is the problem...he has never played well with Marvel. And we all know how little he understands Comic book fans.

Probably. The Hollywood Reporter story includes a includes a quote from a Sony insider that Rothman feels like they now know and understand Feige’s playbook and they no longer need him. That combined with his history as a micromanager has me concerned.

One good thing is that according to that article he no longer sees superhero movies as a fad. Unfortunately I doubt he understands the genre well enough to understand what people want. I mean is anyone excited about Morbius?

I truly can’t believe they created the perfect opportunity with Into the Spiderverse to introduce a non-Peter Parker live action Spider-Man and they are wasting it. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Guest

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Sony is the owner, not Disney keep that in mind. Now Disney so needed Peter Parker for their Infinity Saga they were willing to make a bad deal. But that saga is over and of everything announced upcoming a friendly neighborhood hero would only really fit into a Disney+ miniseries. Disney surely no longer needed Spider-Man so put out an insulting offer.

Sony made money from Venom and got almost universal acclaim for Into The Spider-verse. They have absolutely no incentive to give away their monetary asset for the MCU nerd. Especially when the Spider-Man specific nerd has been complaining about to much Tony Stark/Avengers, hot Aunt May, not my MJ and Ned being a renamed Miles Morales character.

Disney didn't need Spider-Man. They were doing a fine job of making absurdly, ridiculously profitable movies already, and Spider-Man was never a focal point of the Avengers marketing. The Infinity Saga would be pretty much unchanged, if they hadn't been able to use Spider-Man.

They made the deal because they wanted Spider-Man, as they should because he's a Marvel character. They want all their characters back, and that's been clear for a long time now. And they made a deal that gave Sony the lion's share of the movie ticket sales for Spider-Man movies, because they knew they could make just as much or more from selling Spider-Man merchandise.

And there's no doubt that the deal shaped Sony's Spider-Man movies far more than it shaped Marvel's MCU movies.

Disney probably feel like they're in an even stronger position now, because they have the mutants and the Fantastic Four back, and they've demonstrated to Sony just how much money they can make together. If Sony want to refuse then it's up to them, but they're not the studio that can point to an unbroken success of 20+ movies. They're the studio that barely made it past the first sequel, on their last two attempts at building a Spider-Man franchise.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Danny Franks

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Disney didn't need Spider-Man. They were doing a fine job of making absurdly, ridiculously profitable movies already, and Spider-Man was never a focal point of the Avengers marketing. The Infinity Saga would be pretty much unchanged, if they hadn't been able to use Spider-Man.

I agree that it was more of a want than a need but Marvel was on slightly unsteady ground when the Spider-Man deal was made. They had or were about to release some of their best (Winter Soldier and Guardians) and some of their worst (IM3, Dark World, and Ultron) movies. The movies were still  performing well but criticism was growing. With the Perlmutter drama and the villain problem it was a turning point the Marvel and Feige used to cement their dominance. Without Spider-Man the MCU would still be dominant but I’m not sure it would have quite the same power. Spider-Man proved Marvel could do what DC couldn’t. To take one of the biggest comic characters and successfully bring him to the big screen and integrate him into a larger universe. 

50 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Disney probably feel like they're in an even stronger position now, because they have the mutants and the Fantastic Four back, and they've demonstrated to Sony just how much money they can make together. If Sony want to refuse then it's up to them, but they're not the studio that can point to an unbroken success of 20+ movies. They're the studio that barely made it past the first sequel, on their last two attempts at building a Spider-Man franchise.

Speaking of this, I do not understand the number of people and articles I have seen talking about “how does the MCU go forward with Spider-Man”. A lot of people seem to believe that Marvel so completely set up Spidey up as the future of the MCU that they are screwed going forward. I feel like have been watching different movies. I feel like it has been set up so they can easily move forward. They even used Far From Home to set up the growing cosmic world and in the process they left Sony with a cliffhanger they have to write their way out of.

In the other hand I feel like Sony has backed themself into a corner where they are almost certain to fail. 

[ursula]

4 hours ago, Raja said:

Sony made money from Venom and got almost universal acclaim for Into The Spider-verse. They have absolutely no incentive to give away their monetary asset for the MCU nerd. Especially when the Spider-Man specific nerd has been complaining about to much Tony Stark/Avengers, hot Aunt May, not my MJ and Ned being a renamed Miles Morales character.

This. I remember the first time I watched the Homecoming trailer and Tony Stark appeared and I legit rolled my eyes. There are lots of Spidey fans who are not enamored of MCU Spider-Man at all. Probably a deeply unpopular opinion, but I would be very happy if FFH is the last MCU Spider-Man movie we ever get. And if it means not getting Peter Parker on the big screen for years and years, that's fine too.

The fact that the split is happening because Disney's strong-arm tactics did not work is just the cherry on top.

Edited August 22, 2019 by ursula

[swanpride]

Honestly, I never got this attitude. I mean, I didn't like the first Spiderman trilogy. I sat it out and let the fans have their fun. I didn't like Fox's take on the X-men. I sat it out and let the fans have their fun. And in this case it is especially puzzling, because Sony could have done both. There are so many versions of Spiderman it could have explored, while also continuing the deal with Disney.

[ursula]

11 minutes ago, swanpride said:

And in this case it is especially puzzling, because Sony could have done both. There are so many versions of Spiderman it could have explored, while also continuing the deal with Disney.

Did you miss the part where Sony wanted to continue the deal and Disney wanted to change it?

[swanpride]

Yes. So what? If Disney had shared part of the cost, there would have been more money available for other Spider-Man related projects. It would have still been a win/win for Sony. Less of the risk, still a huge chunk of the gain, and they could still have continued with their various side projects.

Disney isn't losing anything here. They can release one Marvel movie more instead of worrying about not stepping on Spider-man's toes, while also keeping the whole revenue.

[Bruinsfan]

Disney is losing their movie access to Marvel's crown jewel character (and the exceedingly popular actor now playing him!), and potentially experiencing a downturn in merchandising for that character if Sony screws up future efforts. But fortunately for them in a narrative sense Spider-Man has always been his own individual thing that plays well with the other franchises but isn't dependent on them or vice versa. Pulling Spider-Man out of the Jenga tower doesn't really destabilize anything else.

[ursula]

19 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Yes. So what? If Disney had shared part of the cost, there would have been more money available for other Spider-Man related projects. It would have still been a win/win for Sony. Less of the risk, still a huge chunk of the gain, and they could still have continued with their various side projects.

It was already a win/win for Disney. They got to keep 100% on Spider-Man merchandising, 5% on the solo Spider-Man movies (that Sony was 100% financing) and 100% on all Spider-Man cameo roles in the MCU.  

If Disney had shared the costs with Sony, it meant Sony taking home less of the profits on the movies and not a "huge" chunk of the gain. Going from 95% of profits to 50% of profits on your own IP (while DIsney clings to their own 100% merchandising and cameo MCU profits) is a ridiculous proposal and Sony was right to walk away from Disney's strong arm tactics. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by ursula

[swanpride]

They get the merch money anyway because they OWN the merch rights, they didn't need Spider-Man to cameo in the MCU to get exactly the same money and while 5% without any risk is nice, the 100% with a little risk they can get with any other property in the time slot they gave to Spider-Man is even better.

Also, the 50% (with Disney paying it's share of the cost, btw) was the starting offer. Sony supposedly walked away at 70/30. And Disney will still have the merch rights to all the movies they do. Because, again, they are the property of Disney.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, ursula said:

Did you miss the part where Sony wanted to continue the deal and Disney wanted to change it?

29 minutes ago, ursula said:

It was already a win/win for Disney. They got to keep 100% on Spider-Man merchandising, 5% on the solo Spider-Man movies (that Sony was 100% financing) and 100% on all Spider-Man cameo roles in the MCU.  

If Disney had shared the costs with Sony, it meant Sony taking home less of the profits on the movies and not a "huge" chunk of the gain. Going from 95% of profits to 50% of profits on your own IP (while DIsney clings to their own 100% merchandising and cameo MCU profits) is a ridiculous proposal and Sony was right to walk away from Disney's strong arm tactics. 

I wouldn’t assume it was the exact same deal in anything other than financial considerations. There was also references about Marvel’s influence with Sony’s Marvel Universe that complicates things for both studios. I’d also be very surprised if Sony was still willing to give up complete creative control of MCU Spidey. Both are, rightfully, very protective of their respective IP’s and letting another studio play in their sandbox had to be a delicate proposition. 

Even it was the exact same deal Marvel is in too strong a position to agree to those terms again. 

[ursula]

18 minutes ago, swanpride said:

They get the merch money anyway because they OWN the merch rights, they didn't need Spider-Man to cameo in the MCU to get exactly the same money and while 5% without any risk is nice, the 100% with a little risk they can get with any other property in the time slot they gave to Spider-Man is even better.

Same reason why Sony gives Disney a 5% cut on the movies because Sony OWNS the movie rights. Sony is not anymore obligated to give up their movie profit than Disney is to give up their merchandising profit. 

19 minutes ago, swanpride said:

Also, the 50% (with Disney paying it's share of the cost, btw) was the starting offer. Sony supposedly walked away at 70/30. 

False. 70/30 is a fan rumor/wishful thinking to paint Sony as the "bad guy" here. Sony walked away without counter offering Disney's 50/50 on Sony's movie and no profit sharing on Disney's merchandise. 

Again the only party asking for more money here is Disney. Trying to argue that Sony is greedy because they don't want to give Disney even more money off their IP is illogical.

1 minute ago, Dani said:

There was also references about Marvel’s influence with Sony’s Marvel Universe that complicates things for both studios. 

Well obviously the idea that Sony will be happy letting Disney dictate what they do in their non-MCU spider products is laughable. They'd have walked out if that was the only thing they were asking for, and keeping the financial terms unchanged.

Anyway my argument is that Disney tried to get a bigger cut on a deal that was already very lucrative for them. That's on Disney, not on Sony for not being willing to be screwed over. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, ursula said:

False. 70/30 is a fan rumor/wishful thinking to paint Sony as the "bad guy" here. Sony walked away without counter offering Disney's 50/50 on Sony's movie and no profit sharing on Disney's merchandise. 

70/30 came from the Hollywood Reporter which, correct me if I’m wrong, is about on par with Deadline who broke the initial report. I suspect both were accurate based on the info given to each reporter. 

37 minutes ago, ursula said:

Again the only party asking for more money here is Disney. Trying to argue that Sony is greedy because they don't want to give Disney even more money off their IP is illogical.

Both sides are greedy. They’re corporations trying to make the most money possible. 

Out of curiosity what do you think would be a fair deal? Also, do you think Sony can make their Spider-Man universe work?

I really don’t care who has Spider-Man. I just want good superhero movies. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Guest

[Sakura12]

I'm thinking some think that Disney should make 0% of the profit from the solo Spider-man films since Sony owns the character rights. They'll make money on the cameo appearances because they also have the characters they own. When it was Marvel that helped Sony out of the mess they were in with the email leak scandal. Without them Sony would still be trying to make up their losses. Venom did not do well because of Sony. Venom did well because of Marvel bringing hero movies to the mainstream audience. And Venom wasn't even a good movie. 

Marvel can easily explain away Spider-Man's absence by saying they are letting Peter be a kid. It's Sony that's going to have a hard time continuing with the current Spider-man story. Peter's main storyline in both of his movies was wanting to be a Avenger to being one. His whole last movie involved "Fury" and now the galactic SHIELD (since they haven't name checked SWORD yet). Their sudden disappearance from his life would be jarring and hard to explain away.  

The only they can do is wait a few years again and reboot the franchise for the 4th time. But since it's making money they are worried about how does not making movie at all help. 0% of 0 is 0. The first Venom was critically panned so I don't think they are going to be making as much money with the second one as they think. The Marvel stans will definitely be avoiding it since they took Spider-Man away. Some may not like Tom Holland's Spider-man but how many of the general movie going audience do you think are really going to want to see yet another Spider-Man reboot? Even in a few years.  Plus I don't really see why people are trusting Sony with Spider-man, they ruined their last 2 attempts. What makes a difference now? Them taking what they learned from Marvel? Yet not wanting to pay Marvel for that guidance. 

[ursula]

26 minutes ago, Dani said:

Out of curiosity what do you think would be a fair deal? Also, do you think Sony can make their Spider-Man universe work?

Sony literally revived the superhero movie industry with the Raimi movies long before Disney's cookie cutter factory was a blip on the radar. Into the Spiderverse vied with live action Black Panther for the most critically acclaimed superhero movies in recent history. 

How is this a question?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, ursula said:

Sony literally revived the superhero movie industry with the Raimi movies long before Disney's cookie cutter factory was a blip on the radar. Into the Spiderverse vied with live action Black Panther for the most critically acclaimed superhero movies in recent history. 

How is this a question?

Ok, then. Sorry I asked an apparently stupid question. 

[ursula]

8 minutes ago, Dani said:

Ok, then. Sorry I asked an apparently stupid question. 

I'm sorry. That was uncalled for. Disney's made some hugely successful movies but they've also made duds. Their success rate would be about on par* with Sony's Spider Man and the Fox XMen movies but because the MCU is a shared verse, the movies prop each other up, and they can ride through losses better than the others. It doesn't mean that Disney and only Disney has some magical superhero making formula that no one else can tap into. This, more than anything, is what makes me frustrated especially as someone who did not like - at all - the direction the MCU took Spidey as Tony's sidekick. People can make Uncle Ben jokes all they like but MCU made Stark Peter's Uncle Ben. FFH just fell short of saying "with great power comes great responsibility".

*(Now if you're comparing the general Marvel movie verse with the success of the (non-Nolan) DC movies, that's a different topic all together...)

Edited August 22, 2019 by ursula

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ursula said:

Ok I'm sorry for being rude. That was uncalled for. Disney's made some hugely successful movies but they've also made duds. Their success rate would be about on par with Sony's Spider Man and the Fox XMen movies but because the MCU is a shared verse, the movies prop each other up, and they can ride through losses better than the others. It doesn't mean that Disney and only Disney has some magical superhero making formula that no one else can tap into.

No problem. I wasn’t suggesting that only Marvel could do it. My MCU-related concerns are only because it appears Sony is going to continue where Far From Home left off which feels, to me, like a mistake. Personally I’d rather see them create their own thing entirely. 

[Bruinsfan]

I think they would be wise to cling to as much of the narrative and tone from the last two movies as is possible without directly naming MCU-owned characters and other IP. Unless the previews look Catwoman-level bad, the next Spider-Man movie starring Holland is practically guaranteed to earn at least $900 million worldwide. A new Spider-Man reboot starring Joe Dempsie or whoever as a thirtysomething Peter Parker in high school, opposite someone like Kevin Durand or Gerard Butler struggling with a Russian accent to play Kraven the Hunter has no such guarantee.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

I think they would be wise to cling to as much of the narrative and tone from the last two movies as is possible without directly naming MCU-owned characters and other IP. Unless the previews look Catwoman-level bad, the next Spider-Man movie starring Holland is practically guaranteed to earn at least $900 million worldwide. A new Spider-Man reboot starring Joe Dempsie or whoever as a thirtysomething Peter Parker in high school, opposite someone like Kevin Durand or Gerard Butler struggling with a Russian accent to play Kraven the Hunter has no such guarantee.

I agree. That is what they probably have to do to have the level of financial success they need. Every Spider-Man movie they make is going to be heavily scrutinized and compared to Marvel.  But they only have Holland locked for one film. Who knows what happens after that. 

I still wouldn’t be surprised by an triumphant 11th hour deal possibly announced at the D23 Expo. Any deal would be greeted by praise even if it would have been criticized a week ago. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Guest

[wingster55]

I don’t understand the notion that MCU got Peter right. They haven’t gotten into how he’s the everyman and the effect he has on everyday people and interacting with them. 

[blueray]

19 minutes ago, wingster55 said:

I don’t understand the notion that MCU got Peter right. They haven’t gotten into how he’s the everyman and the effect he has on everyday people and interacting with them. 

In Homecoming, this is very present. He is trying to protect his neighborhood. Most of the movie is about his interactions with his classmates and those around him.  This version may not be as much of a loser as say the Toby one was but its more of a realistic take on the character. He has friends but isn't my any means popular and is a nerd.  The second one doesn't show this as much which was a bit disappointing.

[swanpride]

I feel they did a pretty good job capturing the spirit of the character. He isn't really like the Peter Parker from the 1990s, but then, we no longer have the 1990s. Teenagers nowadays are different and live in a different world.

[Raja]

8 hours ago, Dani said:

No problem. I wasn’t suggesting that only Marvel could do it. My MCU-related concerns are only because it appears Sony is going to continue where Far From Home left off which feels, to me, like a mistake. Personally I’d rather see them create their own thing entirely. 

It's like Disney gave Sony the character from the mid credits scene, but how they used him was like a poison pill. If Sony goes ahead it will be without MCU characters to help Peter out of the corner he has been written into 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Edited August 23, 2019 by Cobalt Stargazer

[ursula]

It's cute that people think that SONY is another toy company that Disney can strong arm into capitulation.

2 hours ago, Raja said:

It's like Disney gave Sony the character from the mid credits scene, but how they used him was like a poison pill. If Sony goes ahead it will be without MCU characters to help Peter out of the corner he has been written into 

Yeah, in retrospect, Disney's decision to put such a game-changer in the mid-credits smacks of under-handedness. (And I suspect that it's in the mid-credits for contractual reasons). Same for the decision for Disney to invent Disney's own brand-new character called Michelle a.k.a. MJ instead of just casting Zendaya as Mary Jane Watson. 

[swanpride]

You know, there is a possibility that Sony considers selling the film studio. It would be "in trend" so to speak. But in this case a merger with Paramount is more likely than Disney buying it.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, ursula said:

It's cute that people think that SONY is another toy company that Disney can strong arm into capitulation.

Eh, it's no worse than the people who are acting like Sony is standing up to big bully Disney, when what happened is that Disney managed to create a version of Spiderman that didn't suck. Maguire and Garfield, while good actors in their own rights, were too old to play Peter Parker as a high school student, which is why Holland's version works so well for me. While Venom was a surprise, Sony's also responsible for the new Men In Black movie, which not a single person laughed at in the theater I saw it in. It should have been awesome, and it wasn't IMO, and if their established history with Spidey is any indicator I see no reason this will do anything but fail.

Doesn't Sony also own the rights to Hulk? Someone refresh my memory.

[starri]

7 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Doesn't Sony also own the rights to Hulk? Someone refresh my memory.

Disney has Hulk back now, but Universal retains right of first refusal for distribution of any solo film, which is why they haven't made one.

And, regretfully, it's kept us from a She-Hulk movie.

[swanpride]

Well, they could do a She-Hulk series for Disney Plus...Disney still has the TV rights, as far as I know, and she would fit into a superhero lawyer show in which she has to defend all kind of heroes better anyway.

[rmontro]

It stinks that Spider-Man isn't going to be part of the MCU anymore.  

The only thing that makes it palatable is if now Marvel brings in the X-Men and especially the Fantastic Four in the universe more quickly.  I'm still hoping to see a good Fantastic Four movie in my lifetime.  But I'd also be tickled just to see them (or even one or two of them) guest star in other Marvel movies.

I saw Jason Mamoa said he wanted to play Wolverine.  He's not a short guy by any means, but I would be okay with it.

[Lokiberry]

Don't know how accurate this source is but, the Spider Man thing might  have blown over already.

https://cosmicbook.news/spider-man-deal-7-movies-avengers

[swanpride]

We will see. D-23 is happening soon, so there should be an official announcement at this point. Not the most trustworthy of sources, though.

[wingster55]

12 hours ago, blueray said:

In Homecoming, this is very present. He is trying to protect his neighborhood. Most of the movie is about his interactions with his classmates and those around him.  This version may not be as much of a loser as say the Toby one was but its more of a realistic take on the character. He has friends but isn't my any means popular and is a nerd.  The second one doesn't show this as much which was a bit disappointing.

That’s not quite the same thing as random people being inspired by him. Like the train scene in Spider-Man 2 with Maguire. Or the construction worker with Garfield’s Spidey/scaring the bullies away with some random kid in the sequel. 

[Bruinsfan]

The ferry scene in Homecoming was very similar to the train scene from Spider-Man 2. So much so that when I saw it in theaters I wasn't sure whether it was a homage or an uninventive ripoff.

[JessePinkman]

They've decided to name the new Disneyland Marvel Land "Avengers Campus". I wonder what was wrong with "Avengers Compound"?

[wingster55]

19 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

The ferry scene in Homecoming was very similar to the train scene from Spider-Man 2. So much so that when I saw it in theaters I wasn't sure whether it was a homage or an uninventive ripoff.

Only in stopping it. But the scene with the train riders was the best part. 

[Morrigan2575]

32 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

The ferry scene in Homecoming was very similar to the train scene from Spider-Man 2. So much so that when I saw it in theaters I wasn't sure whether it was a homage or an uninventive ripoff.

I think it was a nod but, I preferred the original. The train scene in Spider-Man 2 hits the perfect emotional notes for Spidey and New Yorkers.

[swanpride]

I took it more of a commentary which showed how fickle public opinion truly is.

[benteen]

3 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

They've decided to name the new Disneyland Marvel Land "Avengers Campus". I wonder what was wrong with "Avengers Compound"?

I wouldn't mind it being called Avengers Academy.  That was a great comic book.

[swanpride]

Or Avengers Adventure....

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Lokiberry said:

Don't know how accurate this source is but, the Spider Man thing might  have blown over already.

https://cosmicbook.news/spider-man-deal-7-movies-avengers

There is nothing in the past to make me believe that guy has the sources to break open this kind of story. He will list groundless speculation as rumor and rumor has fact. He also the guy who Gunn publicly called out for posting his cell phone number and who continued to declare Captain Marvel a failure even as it cruised to a billion. 

Eta- We Got This Covered has a similar story listing it as a rumor. They include the original source as a YouTube video by Lords of the Long Box. Anyone know if that youtuber is a reliable source? 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Guest

[AimingforYoko]

The MCU taketh away, the MCU giveth....

Casting thoughts? An unknown, perhaps? And will she up for The Avengers?

[scarynikki12]

This better be a Scarlet Witch situation where she gets her own show but plays a real role in the movie verse. Kamala deserves to be seen in movie theaters.

[AimingforYoko]

2 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

This better be a Scarlet Witch situation where she gets her own show but plays a real role in the movie verse. Kamala deserves to be seen in movie theaters.

They're pushing the streaming service hard, and Feige's already said features and Disney+ shows are all in the same sandbox.

[quazimodo]

Kit Harrington Joins MCU

Also in the news. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by quazimodo

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

This better be a Scarlet Witch situation where she gets her own show but plays a real role in the movie verse. Kamala deserves to be seen in movie theaters.

She probably will be. Both Brie Larson and Feige mentioned Kamala during Captain Marvel press.

Personally I think there are a lot of signs that Young Avengers is planned. The decision to age up Cassie Lang, Kate Bishop being in the Hawkeye series and now this news makes me think it will be sooner than later.