The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[Kel Varnsen]

I think part of it might be for continuity issues as well (like origins). I mean Iron Man being taken hostage in Vietnam and building a suit doesn't really work anymore. Change it to the middle east and it is more current, plus it fits in better with his movie origin. Same issues with magneto as I mentioned above in an earlier post (assuming they keep him). The only one whose origin you really can't mess with is Cap and his ties to WWII. You can't really update it to say that Cap was a Desert Storm vet who punched Saddam in the face and then got frozen in ice. But still the bigger issue is like you said they want the comics to be something for the movie watchers to discover.

 

It is sadly plausible, isn't it? The thought that Marvel's iconic comic books could become the equivalent of those licensed Star Wars comics from the 70s, a cash boost for a company already raking in money from their movies and TV shows, is really depressing.

 

But I don't think Marvel helped themselves by tossing away so much of their own past. I remember when they decided to reboot all their books a couple of years ago, I was so disappointed in them. They had Uncanny X-Men, Fantastic Four and others that were reaching 500 issues. Books stretching back 40 years or so, and the issue numbers reflected that longevity. But they thought a bunch of #1s would bring in loads of new readers, so just tossed it all away. DC did the same, with books even more venerable (Detective Comics volume 2, issue 1? Blech).

Yea the more I think about it the more I think that the comics themselves are probably a lesser division of the company. Like I said an average comic in a month probably makes Disney less money than a commercial run during Agent Carter. An average comic in a month will also probably make less than what a single movie screen will make in revenue for the opening weekend of Avengers 2. Hell the toy line/licensing of marvel characters probably makes Disney more than the comics do.

 

Wow they rebooted the numbering again. I was reading in the late 90's when they relaunched Daredevil as Marvel Knights and relaunched a bunch of other titles like Avengers under Heroes Return. Slowly they kept the new numbering, but added the old numbering under it in a smaller font. Then I think they just did away with the new numbering and went back to the old as they realized that a bunch of comics were reaching some pretty significant milestoes. Is that what you are talking about or did they start the numbering again?

[Danny Franks]

Wow they rebooted the numbering again. I was reading in the late 90's when they relaunched Daredevil as Marvel Knights and relaunched a bunch of other titles like Avengers under Heroes Return. Slowly they kept the new numbering, but added the old numbering under it in a smaller font. Then I think they just did away with the new numbering and went back to the old as they realized that a bunch of comics were reaching some pretty significant milestoes. Is that what you are talking about or did they start the numbering again?

 

No, they did it again just a couple of years ago. Rebooted all their books with new #1s, cancelled some, launched some new ones, as part of that Marvel NOW! initiative. It was pretty much the same time I gave up on reading comics, because the direction that all the books I liked were taking was so dreadful. I stuck it out with Gambit and Winter Soldier while they lasted (though Ed Brubaker might as well have shot Winter Soldier through the head on his way out the door, for all the chances he gave the subsequent writer of succeeding).

 

It was still nowhere near as bad as DC with their New 52, mind. Nothing could be as bad as that. But what it does is highlight one of the problems with comic book publishing at the big 2. They did Marvel NOW! in 2012, and it was heralded as a new start and a great jumping on place for new readers, and as the vision for the company going forward. Now, two years later, they're dumping it all and starting again. So they'll be annoying the long-time readers again, and perhaps annoying the ones who started with Marvel NOW! as well. Smart.

[Rick Kitchen]

If they leave Howard Stark back in WW II and working with Peggy Carter in the 40s, updating Tony to the 90s/2000s stretches things a bit, unless Howard is his grandfather instead of his father.

[Kel Varnsen]

If they leave Howard Stark back in WW II and working with Peggy Carter in the 40s, updating Tony to the 90s/2000s stretches things a bit, unless Howard is his grandfather instead of his father.

Considering how they have characterized Howard in the MCU it hasn't been that much of a stretch for me. I mean he is young in 1946 (maybe late 20's?) and a total ladies man then 20 years later in the 60's he becomes Roger Sterling, marries a super young wife (because he is still a player and crazy rich) and has Tony who is around 40 by the time the first movie comes out. 

[Raja]

So it looks like Marvel Comics is basically killing off their entire main universe and the Ultimate Universe, and starting over with something new. This is pure speculation, and I haven't read anything new from Marvel in years, but I would almost bet money that the new comics universe would be much more inline with what the cinematic universe is like. I can totally see them either phasing out or killing off any characters/concepts that Disney doesn't have the film rights too. My understanding is that they were already planning on cancelling Fantastic Four and kind of phasing out mutants. So just from a corporate synergy angle I can totally see them wanting things to be at least similar (making comics Tony like movie Tony and comics Cap like movie Cap) so that if someone sees Avengers 2 and goes into a comic store, there is an Avengers comic that is a lot like the movie.

 

Plus the number of people who buy comics is pretty tiny so it kind of dwarfs in comparison to how many people saw Guardians of the Galaxy for example. I mean the top selling comics maybe crack 100,000 issues sold. The number of viewers for Agents of Shield even is around 10 times that.  

So if I am following this right like old cell phones no longer being supported and updated Marvel will let go of titles which they can not use in movies and TV, since it cost more to print and ship without a big payoff from TV advertisers, Netflix and movie audiences. Thus leaving mutants, spider bite victims and the Fantastic with no new comic input and letting the guys who own the old titles go their own way as the comic nerd increasingly sees them as irrelevant and just another movie?

[benteen]

I think Howard Stark had Tony in his 50s.

[JessePinkman]

The UK FF trailer is out.

 

It looks more promising than the Ant-Man trailer. In fact if this movie were being made BY Marvel I'd be a ton more excited. I hate trailers that tell you essentially nothing but this one tells you nothing in a good way, what I mean is that there is nothing I could see where they colossally fucked up.

[Rick Kitchen]

Are they trying to pretend that the FF are not superheroes?

[vb68]

I thought that trailer was alright, but it really didn't get me excited or anything.   I still think Miles Teller in particular is way too young for his character.

 

I do wish FF's movie rights would revert back to Marvel.   I'm curious  what they would do with it.

[Bruinsfan]

I don't think it's even necessarily his age, so much as overall image. I mean, if you told me Daniel Radcliffe or Nicholas Hoult were playing a brilliant polymath scientist, I don't think I'd have any misgivings, and I had no problem with Ben Whislaw playing such a character in Skyfall. I just can't imagine Teller doing much other than angsting over his love life or trying to throw a wild party while someone's parents are out of town.

[Advance35]

I always forget Marvel invented the FF.   They seem to have been out of circulaton for so long.   I also guess there is a lack of interest on my part because the characters on paper seem so pedestrian and uninteresting, but I once thought the same about Steve Rogers, Peggy Carter and Bucky Barnes.   I thought the 3 mentioned were pretty run  of the mill and uninteresting (happy to say I'm wrong on all counts IMO) so maybe the MCU writers could inject something to make the FF Pop.   The trailer doesn't look impressive to me but I wont judge completely yet.

[Kel Varnsen]

I do wish FF's movie rights would revert back to Marvel.   I'm curious  what they would do with it.

If they got those rights back I would be more interested to see what they could do with everything else other than the FF themselves. I mean it would also give them the rights to Doom, Silver Surfer, Galactus, the Skrulls, Namor plus I assume that having the human torch rights back would make it easier for them to do something with the original torch. I mean a Kree/Skrull war movie would be awesome. Hell even a movie with a skrull invasion, and conspiracies surrounding shape shifting aliens could be really cool.

[Advance35]

Does anyone know how much the MCU will ultimately reference the television shows like AoS or Agent Carter.   I was watching Agent Carter and it looks like they are touching on something that utlimately HAS to effect Black Widow/Natasha.   I am familiar with Natasha's comic book lore but the Movie version has remained approriately ambiguous.   We will supposedly get some points of reference in AoU but will it be independant of whatever comes from Agent Carter or in Synch.   Marvel is overseeing both so I would assume they want cohesive.

 

Speaking of, I have enjoyed some parts of Sharon Carter in the Comics but I'm thinking the Captain America Franchise may want to find another love interest for Steve Rogers, at least in the MCU.   I think WAY to much has been done with the Peggy Carter character and to my eyes Sharon is going to have an uphill battle measuring up.

[Kel Varnsen]

Does anyone know how much the MCU will ultimately reference the television shows like AoS or Agent Carter.   I was watching Agent Carter and it looks like they are touching on something that utlimately HAS to effect Black Widow/Natasha.   I am familiar with Natasha's comic book lore but the Movie version has remained approriately ambiguous.   We will supposedly get some points of reference in AoU but will it be independant of whatever comes from Agent Carter or in Synch.   Marvel is overseeing both so I would assume they want cohesive.

Don't forget over the next several years Marvel will be adding 5 more TV series (Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Power Man, Iron Fist, The Defenders). I think at some point they will have to have some sort of cross over. At some point they are going to need some really strong continuity people keeping track of everything to make sure there aren't too many conflicts. Since these are just the kind of properties that people will obsessively pour over.

[Bruinsfan]

One consistent element of the Defenders that ties together most of the comics runs is the group being called together by Dr. Strange. They might keep that element and have his movie lead into the series.

[KatWay]

They might need to keep some properties more or less separate. Nobody's gonna show up for Avengers 14: Five minutes of screen time for everyone. And the big movies shouldn't get too complicated to follow for the average viewer who's not watching any of the shows.

[Kel Varnsen]

They might need to keep some properties more or less separate. Nobody's gonna show up for Avengers 14: Five minutes of screen time for everyone. And the big movies shouldn't get too complicated to follow for the average viewer who's not watching any of the shows.

I think it could potentially be more like Avengers 3: Five Minutes of Screen Time for everyone. Just looking at how many characters are going to be in Avengers 2, and how many new solo movie characters there are going to be between 2 and 3 (especially if the Guardians of the Galaxy show up at some point in the Avengers movies). 

 

But your right the most part they are going to have to keep them separate. At the same time you want someone keeping track of everything so that say somewhere doesn't get destroyed in one of the movies and then have people living there after the fact in a TV show, or if someone dies in a movie you don't want a show talking about them.  Those are big ones that would be obvious, but there could be all kind of little things that individual writers might not catch (but a certain segment of the viewers would), unless they were keeping up with every other property. 

[Raja]

Does anyone know how much the MCU will ultimately reference the television shows like AoS or Agent Carter.   I was watching Agent Carter and it looks like they are touching on something that utlimately HAS to effect Black Widow/Natasha.   I am familiar with Natasha's comic book lore but the Movie version has remained approriately ambiguous.   We will supposedly get some points of reference in AoU but will it be independant of whatever comes from Agent Carter or in Synch.   Marvel is overseeing both so I would assume they want cohesive.

 

Speaking of, I have enjoyed some parts of Sharon Carter in the Comics but I'm thinking the Captain America Franchise may want to find another love interest for Steve Rogers, at least in the MCU.   I think WAY to much has been done with the Peggy Carter character and to my eyes Sharon is going to have an uphill battle measuring up.

The TV shows are supposed to be intimately intertwined with the theatre MCU. Besides Agents Coulson and Carter, you have had Director Fury, Agent Sitwell, Lady Sif, Agent Hill and Howard Stark all appear on TV and on screen. maybe more if I had to google it. The entire ideal is to mix just as a comics fan would buy Avengers and know the same world was in effect when he bought Ironman comic. They didn't want every director deciding say something like Spiderman producing his webs organically and then have a next director think that was hokey and have it be done by chemistry,

 

Yes it does seem as what is going on with Agent Carter will lay the ground work for Black Widow's Soviet experiences. And once something definable airs it is suppose to be fixed with no more reboots and future film directors on MCU films will lose their ultimate power that other producers give them will just have to live with the previous decisions or make way for another director who will play ball with the universe runner as TV directors must play ball with the show runners world.

[Kel Varnsen]

And once something definable airs it is suppose to be fixed with no more reboots and future film directors on MCU films will lose their ultimate power that other producers give them will just have to live with the previous decisions or make way for another director who will play ball with the universe runner as TV directors must play ball with the show runners world.

I hadn't really thought about that aspect of the shared MCU before but you are absolutely right. Although thinking about it I am not sure if no reboots is a good or a bad thing. I mean it is good, because we won't have to see the same origin stories over and over, and the writer's can't do what ever they want with characters. But at the same time, since everything pretty much has one shot to work, and fit in with the universe you need even more levels of planning and review and oversight on top of what a big budget movie would already have, just to make sure nothing gets messed up.

[Joe]

So a bunch of wallpapers have been released. But the thing is, that isn't Scarlett Johansson's face. I'm not sure whose face it is, but not hers. I'd be offended if I was her.

[Joe]

Rumour! Angelina Jolie to direct Captain Marvel. I'm not convinced by this. Now, a theory. I can't remember if I suggested this here or elsewhere. But my theory is that Marvel wants directors who are good and all, but not too powerful. So the producers can make sure they do it in the preferred style, and with all the connections to the other movies. Like the big exposition about the infinity gems in GOTG. And I think that Jolie has too much power, she'd want to do it her way. I also feel that's why Edgar Wright left Ant-Man.

[BetterButter]

Spider-Man Will Join the Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Jediknight]

Spider-Man Will Join the Marvel Cinematic Universe

I'm not a fan of Garfield not being Spidey anymore.  The guy was the perfect Spidey, plus his interactions with the other actors would have been to notch.  That's the only downside to this.

[stealinghome]

I'm a big meh to this. I don't have strong feelings on Spiderman one way or the other--past feeling that neither the original Spiderman trilogy nor the recent 2 movies really nailed the character--but given Spiderman's popularity, it's hard to avoid feeling like Marvel's going to shove him in everywhere they possibly can. I worry that, somewhat like with Wolverine and Hugh Jackman over in the X-franchise, Marvel will throw Spiderman into movies where he doesn't need to be just for the sake of getting him in there.

[Jazzy24]

I'm not a fan of Garfield not being Spidey anymore. The guy was the perfect Spidey, plus his interactions with the other actors would have been to notch. That's the only downside to this.

Yeah I love Garfield's Spider-Man I want them to keep him ugh.

[Amethyst]

I'm not a fan of Garfield not being Spidey anymore.  The guy was the perfect Spidey, plus his interactions with the other actors would have been to notch.  That's the only downside to this.

 

Same here.  I know the reboot wasn't universally loved or anything, but they nailed the casting with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.  Andrew's Spiderman would have had a great rapport with Bruce Banner and Tony Stark in particular.  However, if they go with Miles Morales as Spiderman, I would definitely be interested.

 

I'm also disappointed that all the other Marvel movies are being pushed back for this, particularly Black Panther, Capt. Marvel, and Thor: Ragnarok. That sucks.

[Trini]

 

I'm also disappointed that all the other Marvel movies are being pushed back for this, particularly Black Panther, Capt. Marvel, and Thor: Ragnarok. That sucks.

 

I don't get this part. Pushing back 4 films for this one character?

 

Article about the decision for people like me who need this all spelled out. Only in Hollywood is $700 million a failure.

[Kromm]

I fall on the side of being overjoyed.  Spidey not being in the MCU always sucked SO much.  He's their flagship character for a reason.  

 

And even at their best, the Sony Spidey movies had one huge weakness.  Spidey, as good as he is on his own (and his origin film needed to basically be a solo affair), is extra-fun when you have him interacting with other heroes.  The best Spidey is not some lonely brooder, he's a wisecracker that drives everyone batty--friend and foe alike.  Even when the films got the part right with him cracking wise at baddies, we never got the other side of that--him doing it with allies.  Important because the wisecracking is for a somewhat different reason there.  With baddies it's a diversion.  With allies it's often the nervousness coming off Peter Parker, behind the mask, manifesting in being jokey instead of visibly angsty.  

 

I also just posted in the Agents of SHIELD forum the notion that I think that Peter Parker and Spidey should be split out into two different debuts.  I actually think Peter should appear in the MCU on Agents of SHIELD in Fall 2015.  That will help tease his appearance the next Spring AS Spidey in Cap 3, and also preserve the suspense with any design changes they make for the MCU.

 

I can see the frustration about the other films being pushed back.  Honestly, if they'd planned this better that shouldn't have happened.  But that's not to say Spidey shouldn't be in the MCU, and as quickly as possible.  They just needed to plan this better than they did.

[Jediknight]

I don't get this part. Pushing back 4 films for this one character?

 

Article about the decision for people like me who need this all spelled out. Only in Hollywood is $700 million a failure.

They were expecting $1 billion, spent a whole lot on advertising, and the film wasn't as well received as the first Amazing.  So it was a disappointment, add in Sony having to sell the merchandising rights back to Marvel in 2011, and that hurt Sony massively.  So all the toys associated with the movie, or Spidey in general that came out at that time, did nothing to help Sony, Marvel got all the money from it.

 

Fox still has the merchandise rights for X-Men and Fantastic Four movies though.

[Kromm]

Same here.  I know the reboot wasn't universally loved or anything, but they nailed the casting with Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.  Andrew's Spiderman would have had a great rapport with Bruce Banner and Tony Stark in particular.  However, if they go with Miles Morales as Spiderman, I would definitely be interested.

I don't mind the idea of diversity--well... almost never.  The problem is that Miles turned out (to me at least) to not be a very interesting character.

[Joe]

I haven't seen the Garfield Spidey movies, because I really didn't like the other ones. I couldn't bring myself to watch another Spider-Man movie, but if he's part of an ensemble, I'm slightly more interested.

[Danny Franks]

I really liked Garfield as Spidey. But I liked Emma Stone as Gwen even more. So in my view, they sabotage their own franchise with their stupid, short-sighted slavery to comic book canon. Serves them right if they have to reboot again. But having some other character be Spider-Man is BS to me. I don't care if they did it in the comics, Peter Parker is the only Spider-Man, in my view.

 

As for Spidey in the Avengers? Don't need him. He was never an Avenger anyway, until Bendis got it in his head that he wanted some sort of 'super heavyweights' team, with Cap, Spidey and Wolverine involved.

[Jediknight]

I really liked Garfield as Spidey. But I liked Emma Stone as Gwen even more. So in my view, they sabotage their own franchise with their stupid, short-sighted slavery to comic book canon. Serves them right if they have to reboot again. But having some other character be Spider-Man is BS to me. I don't care if they did it in the comics, Peter Parker is the only Spider-Man, in my view.

So would you be cool with Emma Stone as Spider-Gwen?

[Danny Franks]

So would you be cool with Emma Stone as Spider-Gwen?

 

I'd be more than cool with Emma Stone as Spider-Woman, sure.

[Kel Varnsen]

 Now, a theory. I can't remember if I suggested this here or elsewhere. But my theory is that Marvel wants directors who are good and all, but not too powerful. So the producers can make sure they do it in the preferred style, and with all the connections to the other movies. 

I am pretty sure I have read that, I don't think it is a theory. I mean the directors of Captain America 2 were two brothers best known for directing episodes of Happy Endings and Community, before Guardians of the Galaxy James Gunn was best known for being the former Mr. Jenna Fischer and while Shane Black is very talented, before Iron Man 3 he was best known for writing the script to the first Leathal Weapon movie in the 80's. Not saying these director aren't talented, but it is not like they were hiring Spielberg or something.

 

I'm a big meh to this. I don't have strong feelings on Spiderman one way or the other--past feeling that neither the original Spiderman trilogy nor the recent 2 movies really nailed the character--but given Spiderman's popularity, it's hard to avoid feeling like Marvel's going to shove him in everywhere they possibly can. I worry that, somewhat like with Wolverine and Hugh Jackman over in the X-franchise, Marvel will throw Spiderman into movies where he doesn't need to be just for the sake of getting him in there.

I feel the same way, even when the MCU movies first started coming out I thought that if they got Spidey Back he could potentially take over and push some of the lesser known, but really interesting movies aside. The fact that other movies are being pushed back (especially Black Panther which I was really interested in) is kind of annoying.

 

I also just posted in the Agents of SHIELD forum the notion that I think that Peter Parker and Spidey should be split out into two different debuts.  I actually think Peter should appear in the MCU on Agents of SHIELD in Fall 2015.  That will help tease his appearance the next Spring AS Spidey in Cap 3, and also preserve the suspense with any design changes they make for the MCU.

 

That's not a bad idea, although I think maybe a better way to introduce Parker would be on one of the Netflix series coming out this year (Daredevil or Jessica Jones). They are both street level NYC heroes so them coming in contact with Parker would be much more likely. Or they could even just mention that something happening in those episodes was being covered by the Daily Bugle. 

[Danny Franks]

That's not a bad idea, although I think maybe a better way to introduce Parker would be on one of the Netflix series coming out this year (Daredevil or Jessica Jones). They are both street level NYC heroes so them coming in contact with Parker would be much more likely. Or they could even just mention that something happening in those episodes was being covered by the Daily Bugle. 

 

If they introduced Peter in one of the Netflix shows, then they'd have to make sure it's only a one off appearance, because the prospect of Spider-Man would instantly overshadow either of those two title characters. It would be a good idea to introduce him as some young reporter that Jessica Jones runs across, and it might be a really fun element, but only for a single episode.

 

Spidey has always been something of a loner, in the superhero world. As I said, prior to Bendis getting everything he wanted at Marvel, Spidey never really spent time on any superhero teams. He hung out with the Fantastic Four sometimes, and did team up occasionally with the X-Men or Avengers, but mostly he did his own thing. The fact that barely anyone in the Marvel Universe knew his identity is proof enough of that. I just don't think he's a crucial part of the cinematic universe, and I definitely worry that he'll overshadow some of the characters who might never have broken out in the movies, had Marvel owned the rights to Spider-Man.

 

I already fear that Age of Ultron will suffer from having too many characters, and yet Marvel are planning on shoving a whole new wave of them at audiences over the next couple of years. At some point, you just get mainstream audiences who are desensitised and bored, and fanboy audiences who are pissed that their own personal favourites were reduced to a few scenes in an overcrowded movie.

[Kel Varnsen]

If they introduced Peter in one of the Netflix shows, then they'd have to make sure it's only a one off appearance, because the prospect of Spider-Man would instantly overshadow either of those two title characters. It would be a good idea to introduce him as some young reporter that Jessica Jones runs across, and it might be a really fun element, but only for a single episode.

 

You are probably right. Although I think Agents of Shield would have the same problem if they tried to introduce him there. At least with Daredevil, Matt Murdock meeting Peter Parker or something, wouldn't be that much of a surprise. Especially if it was just a cameo. If the agents of Shield met him, it would have to be hyped up as a big thing.

 

Also if they are rebooting Spiderman again, are we going to get another damn origin story?

 

I already fear that Age of Ultron will suffer from having too many characters, and yet Marvel are planning on shoving a whole new wave of them at audiences over the next couple of years. At some point, you just get mainstream audiences who are desensitised and bored, and fanboy audiences who are pissed that their own personal favourites were reduced to a few scenes in an overcrowded movie.

 

I worry about the same thing. I mean by my count, just based on who was in the last Avengers and who we see in the trailers, there are going to be at least 15 characters with speaking roles. And for Avengers 3 or 4 they want to bring in the Guardians of the Galaxy? How long are those movies going to be? 

[Kromm]

I feel the same way, even when the MCU movies first started coming out I thought that if they got Spidey Back he could potentially take over and push some of the lesser known, but really interesting movies aside. The fact that other movies are being pushed back (especially Black Panther which I was really interested in) is kind of annoying.. 

Then you should be more happy it panned out the way it did than not.  While we have to put up with the movie delay, the one thing they are NOT going to do is overuse Spidey... because Sony still gets the lion's share of the money, because they have to get Sony's permission each time (and I bet give them back a favor, like loaning them Iron Man for one of their movies, or something like that), and Sony still has the overall creative control. 

 

To me that adds up to a situation where they'll have to negotiate each time.  To me that says that Spidey will be in stuff like Avengers films, perhaps, and clearly he's in the Cap film because the Civil War story is pretty tied to Spidey (even if they change it totally, there's still an emotional tie with Spidey to fans of that storyline, so even with a different role it would seem wrong to not have him.  But I bet he won't be in anything else.  As I said, I was hoping they'd have his Peter Parker side in Agents of Shield for an episode, but realistically I bet that won't happen either.

[Jazzy24]

And they really don't need another reboot of Spiderman.

[Kel Varnsen]

Then you should be more happy it panned out the way it did than not.  While we have to put up with the movie delay, the one thing they are NOT going to do is overuse Spidey... because Sony still gets the lion's share of the money, because they have to get Sony's permission each time (and I bet give them back a favor, like loaning them Iron Man for one of their movies, or something like that), and Sony still has the overall creative control. 

The might not over use spiderman, I guess we will have to wait and see. Plus Sony will now have a version of Spiderman that people will be excited to see. Considering the first article above says they will have complete creative control over the character, is there anything that would really stop them from putting out Spider-man movies at a crazy fast rate. Plus if they have creative control instead of Kevin Feige, I think there is still a good chance they might not be very good (which could hurt the MCU by association).

[Kromm]

The might not over use spiderman, I guess we will have to wait and see. Plus Sony will now have a version of Spiderman that people will be excited to see. Considering the first article above says they will have complete creative control over the character, is there anything that would really stop them from putting out Spider-man movies at a crazy fast rate. Plus if they have creative control instead of Kevin Feige, I think there is still a good chance they might not be very good (which could hurt the MCU by association).

Yeah, but Marvel isn't powerless in this situation.  They have something Sony wants.  Access to the REST of the MCU.

 

Ergo, Sony has an incentive to stay in Marvel's good graces and give them a good amount of decision influence.  I'd say that the mutual needs will balance things out.  Marvel badly wants Spidey, even if my gut thinks they won't use him as much as if he was a true Marvel owned movie character, while Sony, unless they are fools know that even a cameo by Cap, Iron Man or Thor will boost their own movies.  It's the very definition of win-win and both have strong incentives to play nice now that the deal is done.

 

The more I think about also having Spidey on TV, well... the more interesting the idea.  Because if I recall correctly the TV rights actually DID revert to Marvel. But they aren't going to use their own actor.  So we'd potentially have a situation where they'd need to be loaned the actor, but for those appearances (if they happened) THEY'D technically have full creative control.

[Kel Varnsen]

The more I think about also having Spidey on TV, well... the more interesting the idea.  Because if I recall correctly the TV rights actually DID revert to Marvel. But they aren't going to use their own actor.  So we'd potentially have a situation where they'd need to be loaned the actor, but for those appearances (if they happened) THEY'D technically have full creative control.

I was actually thinking about that earlier this week. My understanding is that Marvel always had the TV rights to spiderman, but sort of as a good faith thing they promised to keep it to animated. Now what would happen if that was just some kind of a good faith thing. Could spider-man show up on TV. You wouldn't even need the actor if it was just a CG spiderman swinging between buildings or the name Peter Parker being referenced.

[Spartan Girl]

Captain America: Civil War is turning into Captain America: How Many Superheroes Can We Cram Into A Movie That Isn't Avengers

[Danny Franks]

Captain America: Civil War is turning into Captain America: How Many Superheroes Can We Cram Into A Movie That Isn't Avengers

 

And for someone who was really hoping for a continuation of the Winter Soldier's story, that fucks me right off. I already wasn't wild about Sam Wilson being in the second movie. And Civil War isn't that good a story anyway.

[Spartan Girl]

I'm sure they'll still have Bucky, in some way.  And I'm still hoping for Emily VanCamp/Agent 13/Sharon Carter.

[Kel Varnsen]

And for someone who was really hoping for a continuation of the Winter Soldier's story, that fucks me right off. I already wasn't wild about Sam Wilson being in the second movie. And Civil War isn't that good a story anyway.

Yea the Civil War seems kind of stupid to me. Now if it was some sort of battle between Cap and Tony over whether or not Bucky should do jail time based on his actions as the winter soldier then that could be interesting. Cap would want to protect his friend but Tony wants to bring the guy who probably killed his parents to justice. But a superhero registration story sounds stupid, especially considering the fact that most heroes in the MCU don't have secret identities. Not to mention the fact that the whole idea passing a law to say that "if you have super powers  and you want to fight crime without being arrested for being a vigilante you need to register" sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[Dandesun]

I'm interested in this. I think Spidey would benefit more from being a part of the MCU than the other way around, though. I like Peter just fine though I've never been one to follow the books. Still, I have personal nostalgia when it comes to Spider-Man since he was one of the things that taught me to read when I was four. (He was on the Electric Company and he never spoke but constantly had thought bubbles over his head. I had to know what Spidey was thinking!!)

 

Marvel has managed to keep their various groups separate for the most part. The Spider-Man books are their own entity; the Avenger books are theirs; the Fantastic Four are theirs and the X-Men have their corner, too. Various titles and characters bleed over here and there but, for the most part, they are compartmentalized. Fitting Spider-Man into Civil War seems, to me, to be a lot easier than connecting the MCU to the X-Men. The X-Men, in their way, are as large if not larger than the Avengers universe but, at the same time, there are still connections.

 

Wolverine's past with Black Widow and Captain America and Nick Fury. Carol Danvers' history with Wolverine, Rogue, Mystique and the Starjammers. (Some of that includes her time spent as Binary which can be ignored for the sake of the movie... but the stuff with Rogue and Mystique are pretty major despite the fact that I can see how they can ignore all that stuff, too. For Carol. Personally, I miss flying brick Rogue. Yeah, now she's got Wonder Man's powers and such and... I just don't want to get into that.) Hell, right now, Kitty Pryde is dating Star Lord. (Kitty has a Guys Named Peter fetish it seems.) Hell, Tony Stark tried to recruit Kitty in a A+X book and it was actually... rather funny. (As was his immediately realization as to who stole his Space Jet. 'There's only one person who can hack my codes AND walk through walls. KITTY PRYDE!!')

 

The books can, of course, mix and match to their hearts content based on various writers and editors vying for specific characters and it's much harder to do that with the various titles spread across various companies. Still, I'm feeling positive about Spidey being a part of this.

 

Until such time when I'm not.

[Kel Varnsen]

 The X-Men, in their way, are as large if not larger than the Avengers universe but, at the same time, there are still connections.

I read a comment, I think on another website, about how if the X-men characters were brought into the MCU they would have to seriously de-power a bunch of them. I mean wolverine is a couple of hundred years old, and nearly unkillable. Professor X can wipe out anyone's mind in an instant. And Magneto is crazy powerful in movies. I mean he moved the golden gate bridge. That guy could have ended the battle of NY pretty much all by himself without even needing to move. 

[Dandesun]

Magneto's crazy powerful in the books, too. He's one of the longest running villains/not-so-much villains for a reason. And, yes, his power levels go up and down depending on the writer but it's been agreed that he's an Omega level mutant... capable of altering the world (which he's done) and probably more.

 

Between the two franchises as they are in the movies, Thor could hold his own with the mutants and then some. Magneto would have Iron Man for lunch. Mystique and Black Widow would fight it out. Banner and Beast would just start talking about science and be cool. Hawkeye could go off to the side with Rogue and talk about how they are nothing like their comic book counterparts. And Cap and Wolverine... well, maybe Logan would recognize Steve. Logan could always go up against Hulk. Nice nod, too... since that's how Wolverine was introduced in the comics. The thing is, a lot of the X-characters are so minimized even in their movies that it's hard to know exactly how they'd match up. Storm and Thor have had some interesting meetings in the books over the years (including one where Loki brainwashes Storm into thinking she's the goddess of thunder and gives her a hammer and all that) -- actually a lot of them have had interesting meetings. (Not A vs X. That was... terrible.)

I think X-Men in the MCU could be VERY interesting... but given the current timing, it wouldn't be to the X-Men's favor. Too bad because I love those characters so much.

[stealinghome]

But a superhero registration story sounds stupid, especially considering the fact that most heroes in the MCU don't have secret identities.

This. I'm annoyed that Cap 3 is titled "Civil War" in general because it seems disingenuous. There's just no way to do justice to the Civil War story in the current MCU--so either you have a half-assed/pretty forced storyline or, if they make it something that's only vaguely connected to the comics story idea just to use the "Civil War" title, you have a pretty big bait and switch. Neither is particularly appealing imo, nor is the fact that Tony is going to "win" in what should be Steve's movie.

 

I do wonder how much of this is Marvel thinking that Cap is the weakest draw of all their characters--CA:TFA was the weakest-performing Phase 1 movie by a lot, and CA:TWS only beat out Thor 2 (which was a hot mess) in Phase 2, despite the fact that it was far and away Phase 2's best movie--so they're determined to add other "draws" to the Cap films to get butts in seats. That's the first thing I thought even way back when when they announced Natasha would be in Winter Soldier--that Marvel wanted ScarJo's star power to buttress the Cap franchise--and the Cap 3 news just keeps reinforcing this for me.

 

Plus, given the nature of the character, I suppose it's easier to do SHIELD or post-SHIELD storylines with Cap than it is any of the other headlining characters, which means, when they want to do Avengers-movies-we-don't-want-to-call-Avengers-but-are-really-necessary-for-seeing-the-rest-of-the-franchise, his line is the natural go-to.