Ten years? They've had three Iron Man films between 2008 and 2013. If Spider-Man is as popular as I'm sure they hope it is, they're not likely to drag out the releases by that much. I was thinking that they'd more likely go with about two years between the solo films - so 2017, 2019, and 2021, plus appearances in other films.
-
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.
Spider-Man is Entering The Marvel Cinematic Universe
- Thread starter Colonel Nasty
- Start date
Ten years? They've had three Iron Man films between 2008 and 2013. If Spider-Man is as popular as I'm sure they hope it is, they're not likely to drag out the releases by that much. I was thinking that they'd more likely go with about two years between the solo films - so 2017, 2019, and 2021, plus appearances in other films.
Future PhaZe
Member
Given the enormity of the situation in Iron Man 3 without any other Avengers getting involved, I think its safe for Spidey to have whatever situations writers want to without worrying about it messing anything up.
Wafflecakes
Member
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Wafflecakes
Member
I could accept him as Peter Parker on the condition that he dies in the first film as an entrance for Miles M.
Hot Coldman
Banned
he was in a beer advert
darkhunger
Member
Possible. Iron Man was a different situation though. Marvel has a ton of properties to compete for slots now. Plus Sony still wants to keep some of their spinoff plans, which would require them to spread their main Spidey movies out.
Hot Coldman
Banned
Adam Scott as Spidey would be extra funny if they are bringing back JK Simmons.
The spinoffs aren't happening. They might say they are, but they're not.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Nope, especially not in the second. His college classmates would have been cracking 22 Jump Street jokes if they went ahead with ASM3 in 2018.
darkhunger
Member
The last five Spider-Man films has been successful. They're not happening.
darkhunger
Member
There's no logic to your statement. Sony certainly has had many plans to make spinoffs, and the fact that those plans didn't pan out so far because of various circumstances unrelated to the viability of the spinoffs themselves has absolutely no bearing what their future plans will be. Sony will be Sony and they will keep trying.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
The whole point of the deal was that Sony didn't trust Sony to do right by Spidey, so they want Marvel to do it for them.
So they're not gonna keep trying, and they're likely not going to continue pursuing spinoffs. They're going to try and revitalize the character first, and then capitalize on that.
Marvel is in charge of Spidey now.
Are you really saying he didn't look 17 in ASM1?
The point is that Garfield was already 28 when he started and he didn't have this drastic appearance change at 31.
Someone like Dylan isn't going to suddenly look 40 in 3 years and he's already got a much younger looking face.
Just for visuals:
Filming of The Amazing Spider-Man began December 6, 2010, when Garfield was 27. By April, filiming had wrapped. In January 2011, Garfield looked like this:
Filming of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 began February 13, 2013, when Garfield would have been about 29.5 years old. He looked like this on set:
I imagine that The Amazing Spider-Man 3 would be close to starting to film now if the previous film were successful, so how does he look now?
Even considering the aging effects of facial hair, I think Sho_Nuff has a point. Mind you, there are people in their early 20s who look that old, but they look notably older.
Anyway, I think he really only managed to successfully pull off "high school student" for the first film, myself.
This is how he looked in 2007 at the age of ~24, though:
And Lerman:
And O'Brien:
I guess it's more I'm looking at it from the perspective that Andrew started at 28 and looked young while Dylan won't even be 28 by the time Civil war and the first instalment arrive.Just for visuals:
Filming of The Amazing Spider-Man began December 6, 2010, when Garfield was 27. By April, filiming had wrapped. In January 2011, Garfield looked like this:
Filming of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 began February 13, 2013, when Garfield would have been about 29.5 years old. He looked like this on set:
I imagine that The Amazing Spider-Man 3 would be close to starting to film now if the previous film were successful, so how does he look now?
Even considering the aging effects of facial hair, I think Sho_Nuff has a point. Mind you, there are people in their early 20s who look that old, but they look notably older.
Anyway, I think he really only managed to successfully pull off "high school student" for the first film, myself.
This is how he looked in 2007 at the age of ~24, though:
And Lerman:
And O'Brien:
I do still think Andrew pulled off the teenager look in ASM2 but that's more subjective.
Oh, I agree with the broader argument you were making; I just felt like although he pulled off a teenager at 27, it was a stretch at 29.5 and I wanted pictures so we weren't just going off of how we remembered him looking.
But yes, I agree that the fact that they are younger than he was does make a big difference here, and I'd argue that they look relatively younger as well.
darkhunger
Member
I don't deny that. That's why I said, AFTER MCU Spidey becomes a big hit (and that's an if), then Sony tries to revive their spinoffs to capitalize. Marvel's in charge precisely because Sony stands to benefit from it in the long run.
Funny thing; this is exactly how I imagine IRL Peter to be like, especially around his aunt when she asks him where he's been.
PandaJones
Unconfirmed Member
Casting a much younger Spider Man might be the smartest thing I've heard about this current
reboot of the web slinger. It's different enough from what's come before and could actually give the studio a fresh take on the material.
Having Parker be in his mid teens obviously aims the project at a younger audience than the previous Spider Man films but it also gives the franchise as a whole room to grow if it hits.
If SPE want four or five films out of this then it allows the actor to literally grow into the roll and have the audience grow older with him. The first film would be aimed at a younger audience with (in theory) the third or fourth film taking a darker turn.
Of course I'm not sure how the Marvel legions are going to take to the idea of a protagonist played by a kid in his mid teens.
(BURN!)
Having Parker be in his mid teens obviously aims the project at a younger audience than the previous Spider Man films but it also gives the franchise as a whole room to grow if it hits.
If SPE want four or five films out of this then it allows the actor to literally grow into the roll and have the audience grow older with him. The first film would be aimed at a younger audience with (in theory) the third or fourth film taking a darker turn.
Of course I'm not sure how the Marvel legions are going to take to the idea of a protagonist played by a kid in his mid teens.
Right. If they're going young, I think it wouldn't just be Peter Parker's actor who would be that age; they would presumably want to cast the other major high school characters in that age range (16 - 18), and at least some of the extras in the school setting scenes.
It's hard to say. I don't think the argument that, "It's Spider-Man! Everyone will see it!" (not that you're making it, but I've seen it asserted) works when we have this pattern:
Spider-Man (2002): $403,706,375
Spider-Man 2 (2004): $373,585,825
Spider-Man 3 (2007): $336,530,303
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012): $262,030,663
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014): $202,853,933
It's even more stark when you look at the adjusted gross figures, with the 2002 film at $577 million, the 2004 film at $499 million, and the 2007 film at $406 million.
It's obvious when they would feel like they need to take a risk, but there is always that question of whether you lose interest from an older audience by placing the movie in the action kids movie niche, especially when (at least this is my impression) a notable segment of the older audience was clamoring for a post-schooling Spider-Man and would feel alienated by the movie targeting that much younger. It's not enough to say, "Oh, they'll see it anyway." The fact that the last few movies have been about $200 - $300 million off of what they could be doing domestically says otherwise, I think.
darkhunger
Member
What action kids movie are you talking about? He'd be a post-puberty teenager with a relatively deep voice and a developed physique. I don't see how audience for a teenager playing a teenager is THAT different than a 20-something playing a teenager. The subject matter is the exact same.
Having a teenage star play Spidey would certainly appeal to a young demographic, but I don't see why adults are supposed to be turned away by it either. Is having a 20-something actor playing a teenager THAT much more appealing to the adult crowd?
Put me on team Dylan. I'd much prefer a 'movie' teenager that's in his twenties and looks young vs a real teenager where they look awkward and like a 13 year old. I think having Dylan play a highschool/college dude in the MCU is different enough since everyone else is playing a 30 or 40 something. With a kid that looks 13, I really couldn't take any of his interactions seriously in Civil War.
Well, my thought process is basically this: Except in the case of Disney Channel television shows explicitly targeted towards children, we're used to seeing actors who are in their early 20s to early 30s playing teenagers on television. Whereas this is what some of those actors actually looked like at the same age their characters were.
Granted, there are also sixteen and seventeen year olds who appear to be twenty-two - but then, why cast them? They're liable to look thirty by the time they're actually twenty-two which rather defeats the purpose of casting young in the first place. If they cast young, they're going to cast someone who looks young, which means they're going to cast someone who looks like this:
When we're used to seeing someone who looks much older playing teenagers. If we extend this to the other principals - and if someone who looks as young as Mateus is cast, they'd need to if they don't want things to look unbelievably incongruous - I think it's easy how it would create the impression that it is a movie targeting kids; the protagonists would appear to be kids. Kids whose voices have broken, but kids nonetheless.
I could be wrong, but that's how I'm thinking about it.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
There is no "after" though. That's what I'm trying to say. If Spidey is a hit, Marvel's not gonna go "nice. good. okay, all yours again, guys" because they still need that character through Avengers 3 and likely past that.
Unless you're specifically talking about sometime in the late 2020s, at which point why would Sony feel they need to "capitalize" after about a decade of sustained success with the character while Marvel's been in charge?
darkhunger
Member
I don't think that's necessarily true though. Harry Potter is one of the top movie franchises of all time, and it has kids/teenagers playing teenagers, and plenty of adults watched it and are huge fans of it. I really think the age thing is overblown.
Spidey is Spidey, not Spidey & company. The deal so far is that Spidey himself appears in MCU movies, and Marvel produces the main Spidey movies. I don't think Marvel can stop Sony from making a spinoff though. In fact, that much is clear from the press so far. Anything else stating otherwise is fan speculation.
And O'Brien:
Gonna suck when he doesn't get it.
If Marvel doesn't like what Sony is doing with Spider-Man then they can easily cut him out of the MCU. This deal is doing a lot more for Sony then it is for Marvel. I really don't see Sony making any major decisions with the franchise before getting the go ahead from Marvel.
darkhunger
Member
Marvel can cut him out, sure, but then they can't use him for their movies either. I think people underestimate the value that Marvel's getting out of this deal. They have a ton to lose if they give him up too, so Sony has the leverage to do what they want with the character as well.
So like I said, all indications so far are that Sony can and will make spinoffs.
Sony has no leverage. The fact that they went from exclusive ownership of Spider-Man movies to sharing it with Marvel makes them the loser in this arrangement. Marvel stands to benefit plenty from the deal but they don't need Spider-Man like Sony needs Marvel. Marvel's movies make more money while Sony's Spidey films make less.
Legally Sony is within their rights to do whatever they want. But realistically they're going to play ball.
Legally Sony is within their rights to do whatever they want. But realistically they're going to play ball.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
But the point I'm trying to get at is "why would they want to?" You're talking like it wasn't Sony's idea to go to Marvel to clean up their Spidey-mess. If they wanted to pursue spinoffs, they could have done it (and were in the process of doing it) themselves. But they didn't. The deal with Marvel doesn't even happen if Sony still thought their ideas for creating a larger Spidey-Universe were all that feasible.
Spidey's got his larger universe - it's over at Marvel now. The thing Sony was trying to build (a shared, connected continuity for multiple films to occur in) is what they're moving with over in Ghostbusters-land. And that's even before we get around to Arad landing Super Mario and bringing that to the studio as well.
Sony doesn't need to (or want to, apparently) pursue Spider-Man spinoffs anymore. Which is why they approached Marvel about them being custodians of the character. Sure, they have the rights, should they wish, to basically give Marvel the finger and go back to what they were doing before they let that studio take control of Spidey, but it makes almost no sense for them to actually DO that, especially if Marvel rehabs the character both critically and financially. Which is why I'm confused about your suggestion that they "capitalize" on Marvel's work - the deal has that capitalizing built in. They're getting all the money from the solo Spidey movies. There's going to be more than just the one, definitely.
I think any jarring "my he looks young" you might get from casting an actual young-looking 16 year old in the role of a 16 year old would eventually go away through the course of the movie, so the only time this would really be much of a problem would be in the period between the casting announcement and really, the first trailer or two.
But I think it's moot because I imagine they're working hard to land O'Brien, regardless. Anyone getting tried out is probably "what's our best backup option should we not get this kid for whatever reason"
That could be true. I suppose we'll see if they go that route.
I'm surprised you think that. I've thought that there's almost no chance for about two weeks now, and you can take at least some of the credit - the bulk of it is completely intrinsic to my person, mind - for inspiring my pessimism!
darkhunger
Member
Eh, Marvel's not doing anyone favors. They've wanted to play with Spidey and they were the ones who approached Sony about the deal in the first place. Sony was the one dragging their feet on the deal, and considering how many concessions Marvel gave up based on the original proposals from the leaked emails (originally Marvel was supposed to have co-production and co-financing rights to the 2017 Spidey movie), I'd venture to say that you are absolutely wrong about this.
Nowhere does it looks like Sony's desperate for this deal. The leaked emails certainly didn't make it seem like that, in fact they reflected quite a bit of skepticism on Sony's part. Sure, Marvel's involvement helps their bottom line for sure, and that's why they went with the deal, but people seem to think that Sony's really desperate to hand Marvel the reigns to their character and I think that's pure wishful thinking that goes against any sort of business logic.
Sony is in this to maximize their own profits. Not to help Marvel make money. They want Spidey to be in the MCU because that gives him maximum exposure. It doesn't mean that they are simply satisfied with that.
And what does Ghostbusters or Mario have to do with this? Sony isn't allowed to have more than one movie franchise? Doesn't make sense.
Again, disagreed completely. If Sony can make more money by pushing spinoffs, they would do it. I don't see the logic of your post at all.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Heh. Apologies for that. Mostly when I'm arguing that particular point, I'm arguing the methods by which people are arriving at it. Like, he gave an awkward interview on the red carpet. That doesn't mean he signed anything, or that he's already in - it could very well mean the situation is very tenuous and he'd rather not have to spend time dancing in a minefield that could piss off one or both sides should he step wrong.
I mean - can you imagine how fucking SHITTY he would feel if it turned out him talking too much or saying just the wrong thing means he misses out on Spider-Man? That some petty executive somewhere decides he doesn't give a fuck how good the kid is, he's going to bury these chances because someone dared to make said exec look bad at a meeting?
Or maybe he just doesn't want to talk about it at all simply because it's out of his hands at this point, and he doesn't know if he's going to get it and calling attention to the fact he's in the running doesn't make things any better. It's not going to make any possible behind-the-scenes contractual wrangling play out any faster, and constantly being questioned about a thing he's in limbo on can't be great.
I mean, those are pretty distinct possibilities, right? People often act like this shit is binary. Like it's an "if, then" situation. And this might not be that at all. So usually when I shoot down kids' dragging rumors in here like an overeager cat with a mouthful of rotten bird carcass to be deposited on GAF's front step, I'm not necessarily shooting down the possibility of O'Brien getting it (there's absolutely something to the fact Variety had his and Lerman's name straight out the gate - plus I believe their names were already being mentioned in the Sony leaks? I think?) I'm shooting down the reasoning that's causing people to excitedly jump to that conclusion while shutting out any and all other information that would provide some level of nuance.
Like, the fact they're auditioning really young kids doesn't necessarily disprove that they want O'Brien/Lerman. It just proves they're looking at different options for backups should O'Brien not work out.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
You cited the leaked emails right after this sentence, and then don't understand where "desperation" (which isn't even the word I used) might fit in? They went straight back to Marvel after the emails hit, with a different version of the same deal they'd turned down previously. You think there's no correlation there? That faith in the company to act remotely competently wasn't at a low? The leak essentially prompted a revisiting of this deal, and it DEFINITELY made Sony a lot more amenable to agreeing to it.
It makes perfect sense. Sony wanted to spin Spidey into it's own, self-containted, interconnected cinematic universe. But they're doing that with Ghostbusters, and they're doing that with Mario (or likely will be doing that with Mario). They don't need to force that into Spider-Man anymore, and now that there are viable options that could be just as profitable for them (if not moreso, considering Ghostbusters is 100% theirs to begin with, and not licensed out) they likely won't pursue their previous plans. They've got Bond, they've got Ghostbusters, they're getting (or have got and are staying quiet about it) Mario. They've got Marvel taking care of Spidey FOR them, specifically so they can use the character in their own existing cinematic universe. You're suggesting they jeopardize that relationship and deal with Marvel to continue pursuing a concept they already pushed to the side for the sake of making that deal.
but if they thought they could make more money by pushing spinoffs, they wouldn't have entered into this agreement in the first place. Your entire premise is contradictory on the face of it. It's like people who suggest George Lucas is somehow secretly still pulling strings over at Lucasfilm whenever they hear about ideas for the series that aren't going strictly to the plan they'd envisioned previously. If Lucas cared that much about what direction Star Wars was going in, he wouldn't have sold the company in the first place. He wouldn't have put a price tag on his control of the series.
If Sony cared to "capitalize" on Spider-Man in the way you're suggesting, they wouldn't have went back to the table after the email leak and agreed to Marvel's deal and effectively handed the keys to the character back to Marvel.
I'm with Bobby on this one. Each Spider-Man movie did worse & worse, & TASM2 made very little profit. Put that with the emails that got leaked, Sony needed this deal to happen to save the Spider-Man franchise.
It's like Bobby said, Sony could legally do whatever, but they know what got them into this mess in the first place, so they're gonna play ball.
It's like Bobby said, Sony could legally do whatever, but they know what got them into this mess in the first place, so they're gonna play ball.
darkhunger
Member
Rumors were that Sony Japan was forcing Sony Pictures to do the deal, especially with the hack which made them lose faith in the division. Even then, the idea that Sony thought they ABSOLUTELY needs Marvel, and that this is a completely one-sided deal (which is the picture you've been painting, and basically means desperation for Sony) is ludicrous.
The simple fact that Marvel regains partial control over Spidey, gets to use him to boost box office for their own movies, and gets to cross-promote the movie with their own merchandising, which they own, is HUGE for them. So big that they were willing to help Sony produce the movie for a small producer's fee, which is miniscule compared to what the original proposal was (which was they would get a significant cut of the box office revenue)
It makes no sense. Sony's execs were complaining in the leaked emails that they have no franchises like other studios do. So now you're saying they should just willingly GIVE UP their biggest one? Ghostbusters is something they are doing to address that issue. But to suggest that its meant to be a replacement for Spidey doesn't make much sense.
Firstly, they didn't "effectively hand the keys to the character back to Marvel". They still own the rights to the character and is the sole-financier of his movies.
Secondly, that analogy with George Lucas makes no sense. You have to understand what Sony's getting out of this deal: 1) exposure by being in MCU movies; 2) Kevin Feige's production expertise. NONE of this precludes Sony from doing a spinoff film.
Your entirely argument seems to stem from the fact that just because Spidey is in the MCU, they can't do anything else with the character, or is not allowed to. There's NOTHING that supports that from anything out there. Sony has rights to the character and they can do what they want with him. Marvel can cry but they have plenty of reasons not to. Plain and simple.
Marvel doesn't need Spider-Man. It's nice to have him and it's going to give them another major character to work with but the MCU is already massively successful without him. Feige has a soft spot for the webhead and Sony and Marvel were already on good terms so they made a deal to work together. But if Sony starts screwing up the character again then Marvel can and will easily pull out. They have the leverage here and Sony knows that. If a spinoff does happen it's going to have approval from Marvel first.
Listen: You won't be tricking me into even tentative optimism at this late date! I am a committed pessimist, thank you very much.
But no, I understood that you were criticizing the argument rather than the conclusion, but since the arguments that he was cast seemed to mostly rest on loose conjecture, the words of anonymous people of indeterminate reliability, and hopes and pixie dust, it was easy to take it one step further to call into question the conclusion as well, especially given the prevalence of established people publishing under their own name that he wasn't in the running.
I think that the possibilities you gave seem perfectly plausible, though.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No, it doesn't. I've specifically said they CAN do whatever they want, sure. It's just that it runs counter to the entire point of agreeing to the deal in the first place. It's the main contradiction in reasoning I've been poking at the entire time. I've never said they CAN'T do anything else with Spidey outside of Marvel, or that they're not allowed to. I said it makes no sense for them to even really pursue that line of thinking given the actions they've taken.
If they wanted to stick to their previous plans, they easily could have. Instead they gave Feige oversight over the character. So obviously, they don't really want to do anything else with the character. They got a sweetheart deal where they don't have to pay the king of Marvel Studios to work on their film, and they don't have to share any profits for those movies with Marvel, in return for Marvel using the character in their guaranteed blockbusters that will do nothing but raise the profile of their character even further.
Your argument for why they'd start making plays that run counter to the reasoning behind that decision is "capitalizing on spinoffs" and I'm telling you they're pursuing that playbook with other film series now, and they don't have to "capitalize" on spinoffs because Marvel's going to continue to make Spidey sequels for them. Again, this whole frame of mind seems to depend on the idea that the money they're making from mainline Spidey movies run by Marvel isn't all theirs anyway. Why would they need to further "capitalize" on spinoffs when they're likely going to have a Spidey movie every two years regardless?
"Capitalizing" on spinoffs isn't that important to them anymore, or they wouldn't have agreed to the deal with Marvel. That's the argument I'm making. It seems pretty obvious to me.
Who did you want for Lex Luthor?