Spider-Man Finally Joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe

New submitter Chas writes: After years of Marvel fans screaming for a more unified approach to the Marvel Cinematic Universe between the property-holders (Sony, Marvel, Fox), Marvel has announced that they've reached a deal with Sony to bring Spider-Man into the MCU.

From the announcement: "Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago. Together, they will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger. Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films. Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films."

Comments

Ah well

[fustakrakich]

So much for 'boycott'.. fizzle fizzle...

Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Chess_the_cat]

For every character that's added to the Marvel Cinematic Universe you get one more reason to ask "Why doesn't "X" get off his ass and help out?" For example, what is Thor doing during any of the Captain American movies? He doesn't even physically have to be there; just blink your eyes and the bad guys disappear. Marvel is for children.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically all movies have plot holes like that. Most people don't bother to look for them when watching. Some people have an unfortunate curse wherein holes like this scream out at them during or after a movie, ruining their ability to enjoy it. It sounds like you are one of these sorry souls.

You have my sympathies.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[slaker]

Regarding who was doing what where during the Captain America movies:

Thor was battling giants in the rest of the Nine Realms during the first Captain America movie and he was presumably restoring order to them, or perhaps helping to clean up London, during the second. No one on Earth, with the possible exception of Jane Foster, has a way to directly contact Thor.
During Winter Soldier, which only took place over the course of a few days, Cap was essentially a fugitive. Stark had recently destroyed his armor collection and in any case he's primarily a resident of the West Coast who has an antagonistic relationship with his dad's favorite fossil. Hawkeye clearly wasn't in town and I doubt anyone would've wanted the Hulk that close to the US Capitol or Pentagon, even given the circumstances.

A bigger question in my mind relates to the current of the MCU with regard of the impact Hydra and AIM have clearly had on US and worldwide political, intelligence and military operations. Two US Senators were revealed to be working for Hydra and the sitting Vice President was working for AIM. A Hydra associate murdered another US Senator in season 2 of Agents of SHIELD and Hydra is also responsible for destroying SHIELD's 40+ story HQ *and* dropping three (presumably multi-billion dollar) aircraft carrier-size vehicles into the Potomac. I am thinking that the USA of the Marvel Cinematic Universe should be making the response to 9/11 look like another fine afternoon in Mayberry in comparison.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[ShanghaiBill]

Basically all movies have plot holes like that.

Not all plot holes are the same. Captain America has plot holes because it relies on technology that doesn't exist, or didn't exist in the 1940s. I can live with that. Thor has plot holes that rely on magic. They don't belong in the same movie.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

it's a fucking superhero story, why are you taking it so seriously

i would think the largest plot hole would be, gee, i dunno, maybe the fucking guy who can fling webs because he was bit by a radioactive spider?

it might be slightly unrealistic that a dude would get large and green when he gets angry because of gamma ray exposure

and yes, it is for kids. the kid in all of us

or, at least, some of us

get the stick out of your ass

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's because Thor's busy dealing with the events of Thor 2 of course. Convenient? You betcha. But it's called Captain America, not Captain America and Thor. At a certain point you have to realize it's just a silly comic book movie for your amusement, not an intellectually-stimulating film about the human condition. Who cares if it's for children? It's still more fun and faux-intellectual than most of the childish movies out there.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Jane Q. Public]

Not all plot holes are the same. Captain America has plot holes because it relies on technology that doesn't exist, or didn't exist in the 1940s. I can live with that. Thor has plot holes that rely on magic. They don't belong in the same movie.

A distinction so arbitrary as to not really exist:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Jason Levine]

Also don't forget the alien invasion from Avengers and the Ultron attack that's likely coming up in the second Avengers movie. World governments - not just the US - would be going ballistic if all of this occurred in a mere 3 years. (I've often wondered how people function in the comics with superhero/villain battles everywhere and world-ending threats a daily occurrence. "Looks like Loki is trying to destroy Manhattan with Dr. Doom." "Is it Thursday already?")

We know that Captain America 3 is going to be called "Civil War" and will most likely be an adaptation of the superhero conflict between the government (and the heroes supporting them) insisting that all heroes register (including secret identities) and the heroes who said they didn't want to be a part of any government list. I wonder if, in the MCU, all of these events have resulted in a government paranoia about these super-powered folks running around. Which one of these costumed guys will be the next Loki or Ultron? Are any of them working for Hydra? Look at how our government listens in (oops... "collects meta data") on all of our communication based on the current threat of a terror attack. Now imagine an alien invasion, a traitorous vice president working with a terrorist, a Nazi-era evil organization resurfacing by taking down the world's premier security organization and crashing some large vehicles in DC, and then a robot wanting to destroy humanity. Our government would be going insane and anyone who questioned their actions would be rounded up as a potential Hydra agent. If you spoke up and had superpowers. Instant threat. This could easily be a recipe for a "civil war."

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, look at it this way, you got your radioactive spiders and gamma rays, and the stick in the ass, which makes a person into a director or a critic, depending if he's west coast or east coast.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[petteyg359]

It's called "suspension of disbelief". When things get ridiculously illogical even with the alternate physics in whatever universe the movie is in and _character_s start acting ridiculously out of _character_, it becomes less entertaining and more groaning in pain as brain cells commit suicide.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[arekin]

This isnt new to the MCU, this is a comic book thing. Joker blowing up Gotham? Superman can fly there really fast. Green lantern core fighting some evil, Superman can fly there really fast. Why isn't Superman in literally every dc comic?

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

to be a director or a critic implies someone who has sustained some effort in life

and to sustain effort in life requires optimism and positivity: motivation

there is no achievement without effort. and there is no effort without believing in something. and believing in something requires good feelings about something, anything

but some people in life are empty lumps of hate. they will never achieve anything in life. because of the lack of anything positive in their life

they make it this way. with their attitude. it holds them back. their attitude about life becomes self-fulfilling prophecy

but that's not good enough

they also have to rip others down. anyone who has ever made a positive effort and achieved something is a challenge to their attitude towards life: "if being positive results in something worthy, then maybe my negativity is wrong. therefore i have to tear down the concrete example that proves my attitude is wrong, rather than change my attitude"

so it must be that anything admirable in this life be a sticky target of endless bile from witless douchebags

open any youtube comment stream: the mindless negativity on the internet is an endless ocean, filled to the brim with great industry and agitated zeal by the useless empty thoughts of legions of mediocre losers

this is the vast majority of humanity: frustrated, desperate and angry about their own mediocrity. determined to denigrate anything worthy because it represents a challenge to their state of fail

people who sit on the internet and criticize nonconstructively are simply demonstrating the psychology of their self-destruction and their desire to export their fail to other people's lives. they aren't saying a damn thing about whatever they are criticizing

99% of criticism, especially criticism you didn't ask for, is poison. you must utterly ignore it if you hope to achieve anything in this life

haters gonna hate

squelch the static

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

no that's just lack of good storytelling

all stories are full of bullshit. but if you keep moving forward, the brain puts that aside and gets engrossed in a story that eventually eclipses the bullshit

but if it's not a good story, the mind gets bored and starts focusing on the inherent nonsensical bullshit

so what you're talking about is a symptom, a side effect. not a cause

stories full of the most ridiculous plot holes can be great stories, because you just don't care, the story grabs you

meanwhile, stories that go to great pains to make everything in the story make 100% good sense can be snoozefests and bores. because the story doesn't tell you anything interesting or absorbing

who cares if data rejiggers the inertial dampers in 3 seconds to create a phased tachyon field that moves the spatial anomaly to... blah blah blah ridiculous technobabble

why?

because the motherfucking borg, dude

storytelling matters

no one cares about the bullshit if it is good storytelling

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

You are, quite profoundly, misunderstanding the entire premise of a premise.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

movies are full of bullshit. why does one pile of bullshit here matter, but the other pile of bullshit there not matter

selectively applying witless outrage at one pile of bullshit but not the other is stupid

Re: Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Deus ex machina is not good storytelling. Good storytelling does not rely on last-minute miracles to resolve a plot. But then star trek has always been atrociously bad. Nerds have no taste and no culture, news at 11.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, Thor blinking his eyes and people disappearing doesn't seem to happen--even in his own movies.

As for the recent films...

Where were Thor and Cap during Iron Man 3? Well, Thor was in Asgard. Cap, we'll say was at SHIELD HQ.

So why didn't Cap get off his ass and help Tony? Well, for one, Tony was dead according to most people. So Cap wouldn't necessarily be involved until the President was kidnapped. But it's not like they had much information to go on. Heck, it was quite possible that the President was dead after Air Force 1 blew up. I'm sure everything was pretty confused.

Where were Iron Man and Cap during Thor 2? The United States.

Keep in mind that the action in Thor 2 took place in London. Let's assume, for a moment, that Iron Man was in New York. Well, nobody called him, so he wouldn't even think of showing up until he saw the bad guys on the TV. Now he's in New York, he puts on his armor and takes off. If you time the movie, the last bit takes about 20 minutes. Assuming none of the action takes place simultaneously, that means Iron Man has to fly about 10,500 MPH to show up in time for everything to be over. We don't really know the top speed of Iron Man, but I don't think he could manage New York to London in 10 minutes in order to make any kind of difference.

Where were Thor and Iron Man during Cap 2? Well, Thor was in London and Iron Man was in Malibu and we have the same time problem as in Thor 2.

Keep in mind that the Avengers went their own ways after New York. Tony doesn't play well with others--yeah, he's really gonna call Cap and Thor for help. It's just not in his nature. Cap isn't going to call Tony for help because he can't trust him--remember "Trust No One?" Remember that Stark provided the repulsors for the new helicarriers? Tony could be in on it. And I'm not sure that any of them know that Thor is back on Earth.

Where was Spiderman during the Chitauri Invasion? He was fighting Chitauri over on the west side of New York. But since he wasn't wired into the Avengers radio network, he didn't know they were there.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[zephvark]

Look at how our government listens in (oops... "collects meta data") on all of our communication based on the current threat of a terror attack.

That's alleged threat of an alleged terror attack. It's not like this has ever been a serious issue. The government's burned billions of our dollars on, essentially, protecting us from hippopotamus roaming the street. There was one major terrorist attack, one, once, and the whole government has been running in terror and squeaking and squawking, and beating the hell out of all of us, out of utter fear and horror. The U.S. Government is totally cowardly, it's pathetic, and we might want to work on that. The NSA needs to go, immediately, it's a sick and deranged tool for the rich and privileged.

Re: Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

Nerds have no taste and no culture, news at 11.

you might be on the wrong website

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to that question is "off dealing with their own shit", which are practically arc words for the current chapter of the storyline.

Also the ability to blink and make people disappear over arbitrary distances isn't one of Thor's powers. Not in the movie, at least.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why not?

Magic or magic technology, what's the difference really?

Or do you really think the Super-Soldier formula is somehow more "realistic" than Mjolnir?

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[gstoddart]

open any youtube comment stream: the mindless negativity on the internet is an endless ocean

And yet you've got four posts which are entirely filled with "Yarg, teh comix are the sux0rs and teh pointless".

Seriously, if you don't like comic movies, fine ... but if all you're going to do it bitch about how negative the interwebs are while sounding like some screeching monkey ... then just shut the fuck up already.

Your existential suffering sounds tragic. But nobody gives a damn.

99% of criticism, especially criticism you didn't ask for, is poison. you must utterly ignore it if you hope to achieve anything in this life

So, basically, everything you've posted in this thread then?

Seriously, get over it.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Jason Levine]

Good point. But if they react like this based on one terror attack 14 years ago, imagine how the government would react if everything that happened in the Marvel Cinematic Universe happened in real-life. It would make the NSA's activities seem positively legal by comparison!

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[internerdj]

I thought that was Branagh's (or maybe Feige's) whole take on Asgardian magic.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[internerdj]

I had the same reaction to the criticism of Prince of Persia over the inaccuracy of historical middle eastern architecture. If you are bent out of shape about the architecture wait till your distraction by that is broken long enough for you to realize the story has a magic dagger that rolls back time...

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

the architecture WAS historically accurate...

to a 1989 video game

Re: Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Deus ex machina, because *some sort* of resolution is better than none at all.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Coren22]

a Nazi-era evil organization resurfacing by taking down the world's premier security organization and crashing some large vehicles in DC,

In all fairness, HYDRA was using the carriers, it was Captain America and his buddy who dropped the carriers into the Potomac.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[CohibaVancouver]

For every character that's added to the Marvel Cinematic Universe you get one more reason to ask "Why doesn't "X" get off his ass and help out?"

Same glaring problem in the comics, though. Where's Superman when Batman is in trouble? Where's Iron Man when Spider-Man needs help?

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[tnk1]

There is a potentially important difference. Although admittedly, it is mostly a matter of definitions between the two fictional concepts.

"Sufficiently advanced science" would work according to certain principles firmly rooted in natural laws and logic and would presumably be accessible to humans (and any other sentient based on those laws) at a sufficient technological level.

"Magic", such as that produced by deities presumed to be outside the Universe, may be empowered by forces that humans or other denizens of this universe, have no control over nor any access to.

If Asgardians are merely super-powered denizens of the normal Universe, but still fully subordinate to all its physical laws, then yes, their power might be copied eventually.

If they are the local projections of beings from outside the Universe or of beings who span multiple universes, then they may be able to affect the Universe in a way that cannot be duplicated by those of us who are completely of this universe. In that case, full control of the universe from the inside still doesn't necessarily grant the same powers as an Asgardian.

In that case, you could redefine "magic" as "power inaccessible to humanity", and suggest that there might be some way to incorporate that into human knowledge, but since there is no direct path for humans to "uplift" themselves to that level, "magic" would simply be power that is only accessible to humans via an intermediary who exists in a sufficient reality to do so. That sounds a lot like our normal concept of deities, miracles, and praying for intercession.

 

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[tnk1]

The usual problem with Security or Operations doing their job right... having no failures makes evaluating the effectiveness of the controls a much more complex concept.

AQ hasn't had a big attack inside the US in the last few years. Why?

Is it:

a) because they are internally disorganized aside from any external cause
b) the invasion of Afghanistan disordered them
c) easy sources of money dried up once banks and muslim charities started coming under hard scrutiny
d) more and/or better visa checks or no-fly lists prevented intrusions
e) the NSA and other intel is watching much more closely and using their powers to identify threats
f) something entirely different

Or some or all of the above?

I think it is safe to say that the US government has had at least a little something to do with avoiding another attack, but what data can we collect and what methodology do we use to assess that?

It comes down to risk assessment. What vectors for attack are most likely, what is their impact, and how can they be controlled?

On one hand, the risk to individuals is very small from terrorism. Assuming a population who internalizes just how unlikely a terrorist attack is, then you may be able to just simply go back to pre-2001 security levels with some minor modifications. Is a one in a million chance worth a real degradation of privacy? I'd say no.

The problem is that humans have poor risk assessment skills. We often focus on what is possible, rather than what is probable. That's why you'll have people scared shitless of being messily killed by a random bomb, while they drive into work everyday on crowded freeways where a fatal accident is much, much more likely than any attack. And they talk on their cellphone without a care, thus adding to their risk of death or dismemberment.

The media is also a problem, because they play on the novelty of terrorism to get eyes on their sites, and by providing insight into the effects of terrorism, without hammering home how unlikely it is to affect you, they actually make international terrorism effective. I'd argue that if you want to severely decrease the effectiveness of international terrorism, you just implement censorship on the media, preventing them from reporting on low probability events like terrorism (or school shootings for that matter). While I am not against a free press, we need to accept that it is a vector of attack which doesn't always help us.

Is the NSA overreaching, or are they the only reason that we're safe? I don't actually know, and I don't know that most people have any real way of knowing because there's no data and it is hard to interpret. So, instead, we whipsaw back and forth based on our emotions and the level of inconvenience that it exposes us to at any one time.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The main problem with that quote is that it's only half true : you can't replace any magic spell with sufficiently advanced technology. Reality has its limitations, so technology can only advance so far.

What it should say is that simple folks will see advanced technology as magic.

Magic would be easily distinguishable from technology because it allows for things that are not physically possible.

Take for example the simple case of levitating a person. How would you do that, even theoretically, without careful staging, so that:
- The person levitating is not part of it (random person)
- There is no staging (random place: on a plane, on a boat, on a mountain, ...)
- The person is unharmed

Without staging, you'd need some sort of portable device. It would be hard to conceal or even stow on a plane.
Theoretically, there are only so many ways to levitate a person. You'd have to either exert a constant force on every cell of their body, or nullify the gravitational field.
The only way we know of to do the first is with an extremely large magnetic field. Hiding a magnet that size in your pocket is going to hurt. And the target person better not have a pacemaker.

Maybe you could beam some field from some orbiting satellite. But the energies required would be huge, and the side effects would likely harm the person.
The second way might be theoretically possible, we don't know. But it's very unlikely you could do it with a small, portable device.

Another common magic feat is opening a portal to a different place. Again we don't know if the universe even allows that.
If it did, it would require huge energies, and probably generate dangerous radiation or tidal effects or other extreme physics.

Some things just aren't physically possible:
- There is only so much energy you can put in a defined volume before it collapses into a singularity. This would limit any advanced power sources.
- The same is true for information in a defined volume, so there are upper limits on what you can compute and store in memory.
- Information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
- The laws of thermodynamics and various conservation laws will be obeyed in this universe.
- Causality-breaking time travel is impossible. Some causal loops may be possible, but essentially be isolated from the rest of the universe.
- Materials have finite strength, so nothing made of matter is unbreakable. There is no adamantium/unobtanium/vibranium in the real world.
- Etc

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Christ! What a fuckin' drama queen! I hope you're not taking that to the audition! That emo shit is twenty years old.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

and how would you characterize your comment?

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to yours? Shakespearean AND inspirational like good old gospel music! Makes me wanna get up and dance! You, on the other hand, makes one long for a Jim Jones Cocktail. Such anger and sadness in your soul. Here, have my drink. You need it more than me.

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[circletimessquare]

"stop criticizing, only i can"

Re:Marvel's Cinematic Universe

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the point of the quote is not that anything magical can be done by science. It merely states that if technology is sufficiently advanced to an observer said observer will not be able to tell if it is magic or technology.

As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[slaker]

I want to see Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He's part of the living world created by Marvel comics, and the Daily Bugle needs to be part of the skyline, even if it's just background.

Spider-Man is also too much a tentpole character to live in the ensemble world that has been created in the Marvel Universe. I don't want it to become all Spidey all the time (as Fox has done with Wolverine in the X-Men movies). We don't even need an origin because it's been done. Just ground him in the world, establish that Cap and Iron Man are in that same world, that Nick Fury is keeping his eye on Spidey's exploits, and have him off to his own super-powered adventures.

In five years, if Sony actually manages to not fuck it up this time, bring him back as the guy who has seen twice as much of everything as Captain America, a science bro on par with Banner and Stark.

That would be just fine.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[FlyHelicopters]

The only problem I see is that Spider-Man, as cool as he is, isn't in the same league as Iron Man, Thor, or even Captain America...

You're talking about a kid bitten by a spider who can sling webs...

Iron Man has... well, the suit, and Tony Stark's brains...

Thor is a god...

And Captain America is a super soldier...

In some ways, Hawkeye and Black Widow don't belong, they aren't super... but still...

And of course... As Tony Stark says in The Avengers so well... "We have a Hulk!"

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[slaker]

Spidey should be the journeyman hero. He does have great powers. He's much stronger and faster than Captain America, and possessed of the same courage and sense of responsibility. He doesn't have experience or skills at first. He never properly learns to fight, but if you follow his journey long enough, he becomes the guy who has seen absolutely everything and not only that, had to DEAL with absolutely everything because whatever it is Spidey is doing isn't big enough to get Avengers out of the mansion, or because the Fantastic Four is out of town, or because it's two blocks out of Hell's Kitchen and Daredevil doesn't care.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Anonymous Coward]

He's Captain America with webs and magic grip. Seriously....

He can outrun a car.
He can pick up a car.
He can easily jump on top of vehicles and buildings from a standing position.
He's beaten Iron Man in personal combat.
Iron Man has made an Iron Spider suit for him before.
He's been a part of the Avengers.

The list of badass enemies he has had to defeat without assistance from anyone else is insane as well. his resume is easily as impressive as any member of the Avengers, if not moreso. His abilities actually get downplayed because he is not a slug-fest kind of guy, he stays out of range, he uses his head a LOT more than it seems to defeat enemies without killing them or lots of bystanders.

Seriously, you don't sound like you've paid him much attention. He's a lot more than a mildly smart mouth and some web shooter gadgets.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[suutar]

I think you're underestimating his physical abilities (understandable, the movies don't really emphasize them as much as they probably should). At one point, Spiderman was listed as the 4th strongest character in the marvel universe (behind the Hulk, the Thing, and Thor). Admittedly, the marvel universe was less populated, but he's still above Captain America (20 tons vs 1200lbs). He's also got reflexes and balance about as good as Cap, plus spider sense... he doesn't have Cap's experience (though he's probably closer than most, given how many issues he's had) and he doesn't have the shield (but can do a lot with webbing). He definitely lacks Cap's leadership skills. He's probably not suited to be a member of the Avengers for a number of reasons, but he's in that league.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets be honest here, Captain America is pretty useless.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[C0R1D4N]

I am cool with Spiderman joining in on the MCU but in all honesty the X-Men franchise I have always thought worked better as its own universe since it is more about dealing with civil rights and social issues.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[FlyHelicopters]

Fair enough...

I suppose another way to look at it would be... assuming they aren't balanced for a One vs. One game of course...

If they each fought one on one, who would win?

I can't see Spider-Man winning against the Hulk, Iron Man, or Thor personally... He might against Captain America... depends on the situation...

What about Iron Man vs. Hulk? That would be a matchup! :)

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Monkey-Man2000]

What about Iron Man vs. Hulk? That would be a matchup! :)

From the trailers it looks like we'll see in the new Avengers. But the answer will be Iron Man in the Hulkbuster suit. As for the others, the whole premise is that Spider-Man is like a spider and can pick up MANY times his own weight, so I think you are underestimating his chances against the others. He may be scrawny but I always imaged him being able to go toe-to-toe with the Hulk by dropping a building on him or something.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Anonymous Coward]

All this has already been covered in a comic book at one point or another.

Iron Man vs Hulk: Hulk tore the Hulkbuster armor to pieces in very short order. Hulk wins.
Spidey beat Iron Man. Twice.
Spidey vs Hulk, happened several times. While Spidey doesn't exactly win, he doesn't lose either.

If you want to read a lot of Hero vs Hero battles, the entire Civil War series of Marvel is available on their subscription thingy. And a whole ton of other issues, my friend says its actually a really good service, I haven't tried it myself.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[meglon]

Johann Schmidt, I presume.

Re: As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[slaker]

Cap is very much a squad level leader. He knows what's going on in the moment and how to direct others to greatest good. He spent years in combat and he literally never tires, so he's always on the front line. In the Avengers movie, he took charge of keeping civilians safe and made sure each of the others was doing the most good.

And before it's asked, Hawkeye was acting as a spotter for Iron Man and the ground team and the Widow ultimately went on a stealth mission after helping Cap at first. No one was useless.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[chthon]

Spiderman vs. the then whole X-Man team was already done in the sixties (through a misunderstanding of course). The writers let him beat them almost single-handedly. There was no real winner then because the misunderstanding was cleared up in the fight.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[captjc]

The franchise, yes. However, a few crossover characters would be pretty sweet. I'd love to see Ironman try to fight Magneto. I would totally go see an Avengers movie (Even a Spiderman movie) with Deadpool. Forget Shawarma, they all go out for Chimichangas.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Culture20]

Spidey also effortlessly and single handedly beat the later "uncanny" X-Men team during the first Secret Wars, but Prof X mind-wiped the memory from him immediately after.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Culture20]

And it would clear up Pietro and Wanda. MCU would be allowed to call the mutants and Magneto's children.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Piata]

It's a great concept, one I would gladly pay the ~$10/month for but they have bandwidth issues. I gave it a shot during their Christmas $0.98 promo and pages either took forever to load or didn't load at all regardless of the quality of my connection (wired desktop, phone, etc).

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Espectr0]

He's got leadership skills as well. If i recall from the animated show, madame web tests his skills on the Secret Wars episodes, where he gets to lead over Captain America and others

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough...

I suppose another way to look at it would be... assuming they aren't balanced for a One vs. One game of course...

If they each fought one on one, who would win?

I can't see Spider-Man winning against the Hulk, Iron Man, or Thor personally... He might against Captain America... depends on the situation...

What about Iron Man vs. Hulk? That would be a matchup! :)

In the Civil War story arc Spidey bests Ironman and IIRC Mr. Fantastic.

I'm still waiting for a Deadpool movie, need to see a Spideypool movie as well.

Re:As long as he isn't the focus of the MCU

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem thoguh is that you can't actually fight with the Hulk, the more you piss him off the stronger he gets, hence why even Thor couldn't beat him, the longer the fight drags on the harder the Hulk hits back, which is why the only way Thor has beaten him in the past is to launch him into orbit.

spider man is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched spider man as a cartoon on TV as a kid. It got boring.

They made that stupid toby maguire spider man, it got even more boring.

Then they redid it all again, I wouldn't even waste my time downloading that.

Same as superman. Fuck that.

Batman on the other hand is an interesting super hero, provided the movie scum bags don't touch it ever it again.

All of the avengers, cool so far, but it's on the verge of being destroyed.

Hollywood is a giant gaping ass of faggotry controlled by the furiously self obsessed fashion industry. The current level of autofellatio makes Versace look like the champion of straight men, with his dick in more pussy than Jack Nicholson.

Now go cum in your hand and do the spider man on her back.

Re:spider man is gay

[Chas]

Wow. You should probably talk to a professional about these feelings you're having.

Re:spider man is gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but Batman didn't.

Secret Wars?

[SvnLyrBrto]

I wonder if the whole Secret Wars move is really Marvel playing hardball with fox and sony. "Start playing nice with the licenses you extracted when we were hard up for money, or we just end the entire universe and make said licenses worthless by default." Battleworld just sounds so contrived that it's difficult to believe that it's not part of some strategic move, rather than any reasonable plot creativity.

Re:Secret Wars?

[Chas]

Yeah. NO.

Marvel is NOT going to stick a fork into this cash cow. Sorry.

And even if they WERE petty enough to do something DUMB like that, it wouldn't affect those licenses.

What you're seeing is a result of Marvel trying to break into the motion picture entertainment business, and the differing strategies of several successive management teams.

Years ago, "they were just a comics shop" trying to shop their properties around, since they didn't have the means to produce films themselves. So they went to the pros.

And yeah, in light of where they ended up? They made some not-so-great deals.

But those deals brought in money. LOTS of money.

And, not happy with the results of the licenses they let out, a decision was finally made to go with in-house development of properties, using the money, industry contacts, and knowledge they'd slowly built up over the years when they were just licensing stuff out.

Also, the special effects production industry had reached a mass production point that they could, realistically, bring this stuff to the screen without essentially having to rely on an established studio.

Re:Secret Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason for Marvel to break into the motion picture entertainment business, they are a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company. Since being acquired by Disney in 2009, Marvel is no longer licensing its properties to other studios. All this represents is Marvel working with its licensing partners (pre-acquisition) that want a bigger return on their investment.

Re:Secret Wars?

[Chas]

There is no reason for Marvel to break into the motion picture entertainment business

Sure there is.

MONEY.

Just looking at US box office, of the top 50 highest grossing movies, there are 11 comic book films. 8 of which are Marvel property films. All but three are actually PRODUCED by Marvel.
Representing over THREE BILLION DOLLARS in revenue. And that's just the US box office. Worldwide receipts are even BIGGER.

Marvel was not ALWAYS a subsidiary of Walt Disney Company. And the push towards Marvel Studios and the MCU began before the 2009 purchase.
It just accelerated once mouse money was involved. And, considering the returns, I don't blame Disney for shoveling cash at them at all.

I agree about the renegotiations being about creating bigger returns on investment however.

Re:Secret Wars?

[Culture20]

Battleworld is from 1984. This is the fourth Secret Wars event (fifth if you count Nick Fury's "Secret War" with Latveria). They were contrived as a "let's see large numbers of supers duke it out without terribly altering Earth" move. Why they're doing that now after House of M, Civil War, Avengers vs X-Men, and the Ex Nihlo/White Event storylines that markedly changed Earth, I don't know.

Does that explain 2 origins?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't understand the proper sequence of the movies. Somebody care to explain?

Re: Does that explain 2 origins?

[slaker]

They're completely different continuities separated by an unfortunately short period of time. I think the Raimi movies are vastly better and more watchable and that Andrew Garfield was the worst possible choice they could've made, but I suspect some of that is generational.

Re: Does that explain 2 origins?

[Culture20]

Except the villains from "Amazing" 1 and 2 are what we knew MacGuire 4 and 5 were going to be, and we knew MacGuire 6 was going to be "Sinister Six". They just took the scripts for the unfilmed MacGuire movies, tacked on another origin (with web shooters; but no science nerd?), and changed the leading lady character.

Re:Does that explain 2 origins?

[rkhalloran]

The "explanation" is that Sony had to keep producing Spider-Man movies or lose rights to the character back to Marvel/Disney, as recently happened with Fox & Daredevil, and IMHO should have happened with Fantastic Four. Sony's answer was a reboot, with just enough tweak to the storyline to avoid a complete duplication of the Tobey Macguire films. Given the comparably lukewarm reception of the new ones, Sony is hooking themselves to the MCU money machine to presumably get some promotion for whatever they do next to maintain their rights to the character. Just *please* don't do Yet Another Origin in Cap 3; just have Peter (yes, Peter, not Miles Morales) show up in NYC as if he's always been around. Now if they can only get a similar deal with Fox, at least for Wanda & Pietro.

I hope they dont put toby as the next spider man..

[Anonymous Coward]

Tobey Maguire almost made me hate spiderman. I SWEAR, if this happens i will never watch a marvel movie again.... Andrew Garfield was and will be the best spiderman!!! You cant change character faces... it just doesnt work. If they add spiderman into marvel and put a 3rd person as spiderman it would confuse the HELL out of me and how all these movies are supposed to fit (i know they dont) but its kinda retarded having so many variations of the same freaking hero... Iron man will always be RDJ, etc

I just hope they dont fuck this up with casting

Re:I hope they dont put toby as the next spider ma

[spire3661]

This is a silly perspective. When you get older, you will see the faces change again and again, but the stories remain the same. The important thing is the PERFORMANCES, not the genes.

superhero origin stories

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally like most superhero origin movies.

I liked Batman (1989), Men in Black (1997), Matrix (1999), X-Men (2000), Spider-Man (2002), Batman Begins (2005), Superman Returns (2006), Transformers (2007), Iron Man (2008), and The Amazing Spiderman (2012), but I didn't like Unbreakable (2000), Hulk (2003), Hancock (2008), or The Incredible Hulk (2008).

I've watched most of the sequels for all for the movies I said I liked. The only two with bad "second" movies were Men in Black II (2002) and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014); however, the only ones with good "third" movies were Men in Black 3 (2012) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012). In the case of the Matrix, the 3rd movie was so bad that it made most people forget that the 2nd movie was actually okay (it wasn't great, but it was okay; otherwise we wouldn't have gone to see the 3rd).

Anyway, I've concluded that I like superhero origin stories, but I don't like superhero movies. In the future, I'll watch any new origin story of a single superhero, and I might watch the 2nd movie, but I definitely won't watch the 3rd or later. So that means I probably won't bother watching any movie where Spider-Man teams up with other superheroes.

p.s. Fuck shake-cam.

Re:superhero origin stories

[RavenLrD20k]

In the case of the Matrix, the 3rd movie was so bad that it made most people forget that the 2nd movie was actually okay

The Matrix had no sequels you insensitive clod!

Yes, I understand that there were movies that held the name of "The Matrix" with many of the same actors, but I and many geeks like me have banished them from memory much like there was never a "Highlander II"

Re:superhero origin stories

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: I purposely edited that joke out of my post so someone else could make it. You're welcome!

Re:superhero origin stories

[gspeare]

Something happened at the end of your last sentence, there are words there but I can't read them...

The Empire Strikes Back ?

[Rollgunner]

Disney Exec : Ok, we need to get that Spiderman property back.

Disney Lawyer : There's no legal recourse for us, sir. They got the license from Marvel before we bought them.

Disney Exec : I know, I know... Plus, our usual tactic of throwing money at them won't work, either; Sony is in great shape financially.

Disney Lawyer : I might have an idea about that, sir... [speed dials Kim Jong-Un]

... or maybe not.

Re:The Empire Strikes Back ?

[the_humeister]

Disney Exec : I know, I know... Plus, our usual tactic of throwing money at them won't work, either; [b]Sony is in great shape financially.[/b]
 

Actually, they haven't been in great shape financially. But that otherwise might have been plausible...

I don't get super hero movies.

[purpledinoz]

Am I the only one who isn't a big fan of superhero movies? They just rehash the same story over and over again. Like Superman, every movie rehashes the same story.

Re: I don't get super hero movies.

[slaker]

That's true to a degree. Heroes need to be challenged on par with their abilities. Superman will never be meaningfully threatened by anything, and Thor's opponents will always ancient, magical beings since anyone from Iron Man's rogues gallery would be instant toast against him.
But there had never been a movie like the Avengers before, and I'd like to put forth that Captain America 2 made a wonderful pivot to being as much an espionage thriller as a super hero movie.

Re:I don't get super hero movies.

[Xest]

I never used to but they've grown on me in recent years. I think I had to just step back and re-approach it all with a neutral view and a will to give it a chance. Having done that I've found I view them like any other movie now, some are good, some are bad. I loved Avengers Assemble, but thought Winter Soldier was dull. Loved Green Lantern but found Man of Steel a bit boring. Some, like Guardians of the Galaxy you can just enjoy standalone, I enjoyed it because it frankly shared an awful lot of the traits that made the original Star Wars trilogy great.

I've always felt as you do towards super heroes the same towards Star Trek, and Doctor Who also. Given time maybe I'll start to appreciate these too, but whilst I find Star Trek watchable it's never overly excited me because it always felt as you say, once you've seen one episode you've seen them all. Also, as someone who grew up with some of the older iterations of Doctor Who, the modern reincarnation just feels awful in comparison.

But as I discovered with super heroes films, opinions and feelings change. When I came back and started to give them a try again I ended watching pretty much the last 15 years worth of super heroes films in the last 2 years and was kicking myself a bit that I hadn't seen some of them earlier.

So if it's not for you right now, then don't write it off, give it a go now and then when you have time and maybe you'll find they grow on you too and you start to appreciate them, again, maybe I'll find the same with the newest runs of Doctor Who and with Star Trek. I missed Firefly when it came out and never liked Serenity as a result, but having finally watched Firefly last year and Serenity again afterwards I can see why there was so much love for it, in the context of having watched the series the film made far more sense and was far more enjoyable. I'm going to give Battlestar Galactica a go soon and see how I feel about that nowadays.

Re: I don't get super hero movies.

[internerdj]

The Mandarin or Fin Fang Foom would fit well with Thor, probably better than in an Iron Man movie, but that is my beef with the movies. Tony has fought robot, robots, and tiny robots because he is the tech guy. Thor has fought superstrong magic beasts, superstrong and magic beasts. Hulk has fought gamma beasts and gamma beast. Cap has fought corrupted super soldier and corrupted super soldier. Antman is changing the powers of the main villian to be the evil antman. Avengers was sort of refreshing but it looks like the formula will be swarm enemy, swarm enemy before we get Thanos. I want Hulk versus Leader or Tony versus a proper Mandarin. Get these guys out of hero versus evil version of themselves.

Re:I don't get super hero movies.

[Yergle143]

Not your imagination: unless the movie writers love the character enough to let them use their skills to solve problems (see any James Bond film for example) the cheapest story arcs that you will see over and over again in these blockbusters are
1) The origin Story
2) The origin story of the villain
3) The hero loses his powers
4) The hero goes bad.
5) Doomed love.

The X-files, Columbo, even Buffy...these shows feed off interesting plotlines in which the hero gets to be themselves in coping with situations.

The studios do not love their character properties enough to make art.

Re:I don't get super hero movies.

[toddestan]

They reached the saturation point for me several years back. As soon as I realize it's a comic book movie, I pretty much instantly lose all interest. They all have the same basic story/plot (see the screenwriting book "Save The Cat!") and it's just the same characters over and over since they just keep rebooting the same franchises instead of trying something new. I don't get it, but it seems that lots of people like them so they'll just keep cranking them out as long as they make money.

All sony'd up

[meglon]

Sony Pictures will continue to ... have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.

....and there in lies the problem.

Re:I hope they dont put toby as the next spider ma

[s1d3track3D]

Sir, I know Peter Parker and Tobey Maguire was no Peter Parker...

Sorry, I'm old, Tobey Maguire should not have been cast as Spider Man, and Dunst should not have been Mary Jane. Do you remember how hot Mary Jane was in the comic? Dunst? no thanks... And performances? not convincing... believability and appearance are part of performance. Some actors define a role and make it almost impossible to be replaced, say like Jackman as Wolverine for instance, this is good casting, believability and good acting/performance

I much prefered and thought Garfield and Stone were better casted and more believable. but apparently Garfield is out for this reboot, oh well...

Uncle Ben Shoots First

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Hey, it could happen...

Backstory, finally

[dbrueck]

Hooray, maybe now we'll finally get to see Spiderman's backstory - like how he came to be and how Uncle Ben died - instead of always seeing him later on in his super hero career when he has moved past teenage angst and settled into his role.

Re:Backstory, finally

[neo-mkrey]

I don't have any mod points today, so: You're funny! +1

Re:Backstory, finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray, maybe now we'll finally get to see Spiderman's backstory - like how he came to be and how Uncle Ben died - instead of always seeing him later on in his super hero career when he has moved past teenage angst and settled into his role.

One of the things I hated most about the Andrew Garfield reboots is that they started the origin story all over again. I'm just sick of origin stories in general.

Representation Matters!

[Tommi Morre]

Peter Parker again? Lets see Miles Morales on the big screen! (Yeah, it was Peter in the 616-CivilWar, but given how the MCU adapts comics-canon? You can't tell me Miles wouldn't be a great fit, especially given the greater risk a young black super-hero in NYC runs by unmasking.)

Re:Representation Matters!

[vakuona]

It wouldn't make sense for Sony to have a non-Peter Parker Spiderman in there, and I can also imagine that they will have demanded that they be allowed to cast their own Spiderman.

I am also sure they would have conditions about Spiderman's involvement in the film to make it worthwhile for them.

If not, it would be quite a strange arrangement for Sony.

Sony License

[Anonymous Coward]

When does the license of Spider-Man to Sony expire? I can't imagine Disney renewing it once it does.

Re:Sony License

[vakuona]

From what I understand, its never, as long as Sony keeps producing the movies, Marvel doesn't get the rights back.

I can only imagine that Sony will have demanded some additional concessions on the rights they own, e.g. to allow them to take longer between films, in exchange for allowing Marvel to bring Spiderman to the MCU. if I were Sony, I would have asked for that.

As far as I understand, no money changes hands over this deal.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's make a movie or tv show about it.

Re:I hope they dont put toby as the next spider ma

[bemymonkey]

Is Garfield the one in the Amazing Spiderman? Then yeah, agree wholeheartedly. The Tobey Maguire films were pretty awful :S