Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
So much for 'boycott'.. fizzle fizzle...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
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.
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.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
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.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
Imagine all the people...
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.
Wow. You should probably talk to a professional about these feelings you're having.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
Good-bye
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."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
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.
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?
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Disney Exec : Ok, we need to get that Spiderman property back.
... or maybe not.
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]
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
Sony Pictures will continue to ... have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
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.
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...
Nerds have no taste and no culture, news at 11.
you might be on the wrong website
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hey, it could happen...
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.
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?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.)
Quotes from A Man for All Seasons
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.
So, basically, everything you've posted in this thread then?
Seriously, get over it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
I thought that was Branagh's (or maybe Feige's) whole take on Asgardian magic.
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...
the architecture WAS historically accurate...
to a 1989 video game
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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"
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Something happened at the end of your last sentence, there are words there but I can't read them...
Is Garfield the one in the Amazing Spiderman? Then yeah, agree wholeheartedly. The Tobey Maguire films were pretty awful :S
and how would you characterize your comment?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"stop criticizing, only i can"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it