TDLink
Member
They filmed the Shawarma scene for Avengers less than a month before it opened.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Marvel Cinematic Universe |OT2| Discussion on released and future projects (spoilers)
- Thread starter TDLink
- Start date
- Status
They filmed the Shawarma scene for Avengers less than a month before it opened.
Totally possible, then!
CloudyTuba
Member
Almost every thread of GAF that discusses MCU Spider-Man has a boatload of people all wishing for Tobey's return and now people in this thread are losing it over the idea of his Spider-Man's theme song playing in an MCU movie.
I'm just saying. Let Tobey go. The actor isn't coming back and I find it highly unlikely that his theme song is coming back, either. MCU Spidey will probably have zero ties to any previous franchise in any way.
Exactly.
It's happening, guys. They dropped the Thanos bomb during Avengers credits, they'll drop the Spidey bomb during Avengers 2 credits.
and the Doom bomb during Avengers 3 credits
Father_Brain
Banned
Do people really want the first appearance of MCU Spider-Man to look as cheap and shoddy as the shawarma and Collector scenes? Well, to each his own.
Yes, that's exactly what we want.
yeah, b
Really? He's 40 and Marvel has said time and time again they want a fresh, young face to play the part. It's all but confirmed this is a new actor, new Spidey, new universe.... I guess non-MCUGAF might be all for it but I imagine we know better round these parts.
People are losing it over Elfman's theme song playing in AoU because it would be an amazing nod and could hint that Parker shows up in the post-credits scene... it has nothing to do with Tobey.
They could make a tease featuring a potato and we'd still love it.
Anyway, it makes sense, right? If I was a movie producer making a movie and I had Danny effin Elfman doing some music, I'd make sure people know.
Father_Brain
Banned
Father_Brain
Banned
Did they get the rights to use Thanos two and a half months before the film's release date, or was he always going to be in the film?
Hint: not the former.
Father_Brain
Banned
Pascal, not the head of Sony Pictures proper, has control of the Spider-Man franchise, and she delegated most of it to Feige.
At least, that was my impression...
That is... not how stuff works legally. She only has as much control as the position she has gives her. Because of her relationship with the franchise, she is co-producing the new film with Feige as the Sony Pictures liaison. She doesn't actually "own" anything. The film rights rests with Sony Pictures.
Right from the press release: "Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films."
As co-producer, she would be the main producer associated with Sony Pictures in discussions for the film, sure, but now that Tim Rothman is effectively her boss, if he isn't happy with something, do you really think she can tell him to fuck off? Lol.
Father_Brain
Banned
Do you really think Feige would have signed a deal that didn't strictly limit how much creative control Sony can actually exert over the 2017 film? I guess anything's possible, but if he was that naive, then he kinda almost deserves to get screwed over by Rothman.
But for now, I continue to believe that that line was and remains mostly face-saving PR on Sony's part.
Maybe? I don't know! I'm going by what they are saying and what we know. Obviously Marvel and Sony really wanted to make this work. I don't think there's any need for "face saving" anyway, since at the end of the day if the entire collaboration tanks, Sony still retains the rights, not Marvel.
Father_Brain
Banned
The face-saving would presumably be because Sony appears to be, out of desperation, giving Marvel pretty much everything they would want with Spider-Man short of the actual film rights. Which is obviously not the narrative they'd prefer to tell their investors and the rest of the world.
This doesn't make any sense to me though What narrative? A Sony investor would first and foremost want to know how Sony is going to make more money and hence pay them dividends on their shares. A deal wither Marvel does all the heavy lifting after being a proven quality in releasing comic book movies which make a ton of money, while Sony profits the most from it being the primary financier, distributor, and rights holder, is a complete victory for Sony. In a business such as this, the only thing that does matter is who holds the rights and is making the most money out of it.
Father_Brain
Banned
I don't question that Sony has plenty to gain financially from this arrangement, but surely the optics of "we're graciously allowing Marvel to play in our sandbox, but it's still our sandbox" are better than "we fucked up this franchise so badly that we're scrapping our previously announced plans for it and letting a subsidiary of another entertainment conglomerate take charge."
The former statement doesn't exist though. It is definitely more of the latter. They acknowledge that this is the best direction to make a more successful Spider-man film, they are recasting everything, and they're dumping the Amazing Spider-man series of films. I don't see how anyone reads it otherwise, which is why I'm confused as to the "face saving" narrative.
This statement definitely doesn't indicate that Sony cares whose "sandbox" it is, nor does it suggest they're doing it out of graciousness. It is a business collaboration to improve the franchise and make more money, because they feel this will satisfy fans better and they recognize that Marvel are the best partners they can get right now. What Sony cares about is that they're still the ones making money off this, and that remains the case.
Father_Brain
Banned
Okay, I see where you're coming from. To be honest, my main points of contention are the wording of the headline, the dubious "final creative control" clause, and the subsequent claims that the Sinister Six and Venom spinoffs are still in development, but I guess we'll see how things play out.
TDLink
Member
They have more time with the Spider-man scene (assuming that is what they are doing) than the Shawarma scene. Effectively three months. That's more than enough time to do a pretty good 30 second CG teaser. And honestly they don't even need to make it completely CG. It can be simple and yet still effective. We'll see.
oh brother you are your needless antagonism
it's like we're a real comics forum
i don't know if spidey is going to be in AoU but if he is, marvel is going to handle him like the golden child everyone knows he is. this isn't a fun Shwarma scene, this is a billion dollar character. they'll put work in to have the CG right for his first tease.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I wouldn't want spidey in AoU, movie's packed enough as it is.
super-heated plasma
Member
Does anyone know if Hugo Weaving/Red Skull will ever come back? The MCU really needs a big villain, and so far Thanos has been nothing but a cock tease. They can't use DOOM, so I would think Red Skull would be the most obvious choice. Hell, his ability to organize the villains in the comics like Old Man Logan shows what a true threat he can be.
he really does not want to return to the role
Pai Pai Master
Banned
The Red Skull will certainly be back at some point but it doesn't need to be Hugo Weaving. Why would he come back and use his original face?
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
He's also under contract. If Marvel wanted to force his hand, they can do it.
I really don't want to see that happen, but if they wanted Weaving to do it they can.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Comic Con.
TacticalFox88
Banned
aHebrewMenagerie
Member
I really like the accents of silver all around the Mk 44.
Latino Review cross-post from Off-Topic:
That would be good news.
When Marvel announced the sharing deal and that Sony would keep creative control over the webslinger, it was surprising. Devin from BadAssDigest has even heard that it might have been deigning to Sony to announce it that way in the first place:
“Everything I have heard is that Marvel is calling most of the shots on this new movie. There's been a lot of language in the press to help Sony avoid some embarrassment, to make this look less like admitting defeat.“
And here’s where I pile on: Avi Arad and Matt Tolomach, producers of the Amazing Spider-Man movies (and Arad being attached to the property since it’s initial sale) are producers for Spider-Man in name only.
We have information from a source suggesting there is no financial involvement whatsoever and no direct creative control over Spidey coming from the old guard. Amy Pascal still has a say in the Mom-and-Pop arrangement she has with Feige, but Disney didn’t want to unite Pearlmutter, Arad and Feige in earnest. This is the solution.
What does that mean? It means Marvel might have a bit more control than we thought. It means the new Spider-Man has been insulated from BOTH Avi Arad and new Sony head, superhero property curse, Tom Rothman.
“Everything I have heard is that Marvel is calling most of the shots on this new movie. There's been a lot of language in the press to help Sony avoid some embarrassment, to make this look less like admitting defeat.“
And here’s where I pile on: Avi Arad and Matt Tolomach, producers of the Amazing Spider-Man movies (and Arad being attached to the property since it’s initial sale) are producers for Spider-Man in name only.
We have information from a source suggesting there is no financial involvement whatsoever and no direct creative control over Spidey coming from the old guard. Amy Pascal still has a say in the Mom-and-Pop arrangement she has with Feige, but Disney didn’t want to unite Pearlmutter, Arad and Feige in earnest. This is the solution.
What does that mean? It means Marvel might have a bit more control than we thought. It means the new Spider-Man has been insulated from BOTH Avi Arad and new Sony head, superhero property curse, Tom Rothman.
That would be good news.
That would be really cool, but yeah, it would never happen.
Father_Brain
Banned
Caution is never a bad thing.
But if Feige really left Marvel in a position where Rothman can screw over the 2017 film, he's a lot less shrewd than I'd thought.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
yep i dont think marvel would have signed this deal unless they were sure they could have enough control to keep it from being a trainwreck
Yeah I doubt Feige would formally include a Spider-Man film into an official MCU Phase without complete control.
If they were going to do a Spidey teaser for Avengers 2 (I find it doubtful they'd get casting done quick enough to do a quick scene given how important this casting will be), I could maybe see it being done in a manner like perhaps having Peter Parker show up to take some pictures of the Avengers for the Bugle or something. It'd probably feel more organic than just having some random scene of Spidey swinging around.
After credits scene with Stark meeting with Norman Osborn to get Oscorp support for a government registration act or something i dunno.
Don't actually show spider-man.
Yeah, I think showing some aspect of the world would be a better approach be it Jonah, Norman or Peter out of costume.
JK Simmons complaining about the Avengers?
BrokenFiction
Member
OOOH! This!
- Status