Sony Pictures Entertainment Brings Marvel Studios Into The Amazing World Of Spider-Ma

[OcStat]

Well realistically, I don't think they had the foresight plan 10 movies at Sony Pictures. It could have been done, and I think Raimi and Co. could have stayed longer to make a real saga, but that just wasn't how things were done back then.

 

[Arach Knight]

Well realistically, I don't think they had the foresight plan 10 movies at Sony Pictures. It could have been done, and I think Raimi and Co. could have stayed longer to make a real saga, but that just wasn't how things were done back then.

The original series was meant to have six films. Still not ten films,but it does show that studios did have foresight in mind, even back then when the genre was still experiencing a renaissance.

http://whatculture.com/film/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-sam-raimis-spider-man-4.php/9

 

[Mr.M]

Someone clearly hasn't read Kraven's Last Hunt...done right, the character is definitely capable of entertaining audiences, and he would make for an awesome villain for Spidey to face off against. Introducing him as a bit-character during Civil War is also smooth as can be. Good idea, Protar.Haven't you seen ASM2 and Spider-Man 3? Stuffing films with villains doesn't automatically make it better.

Kraven's Last Hunt doesn't work with a fledgling Spiderman. It's more of a Dark Knight Returns than a movie about his high school years. I don't see audiences yearning for more of that angsty teen stuff. I don't believe audiences care much for characters like Liz Allen and Flash, and you can't develop these characters in a two hour film anyway. Spidey appearances on the big screen need to be event films, not episodic like the Webb and Raimi series. That phase is done and the character needs to evolve. I think his next three films on the big screen need to be at least Winter Soldieresque in scope. You need the big pieces, multiple villains and supporting heroes. People want massive spectacle when they pay 15 bucks and 3D/IMAX. Yes ASM2 and SM3 were disasters, but that's due to horrible story telling and writing. That's what it boils down to.

I'll be shocked if 2017 doesn't introduce multiple arcs possibly setting up a S6 movie, or at least feature multiple heroes setting up bigger things in the future.

Well realistically, I don't think they had the foresight plan 10 movies at Sony Pictures. It could have been done, and I think Raimi and Co. could have stayed longer to make a real saga, but that just wasn't how things were done back then.

It should have been Harry Potter. But they cast too old and moved the story too fast. They had all their baskets full with a handful of characters. After the Webb series ensuing that, the opportunity to do this has passed. It's no longer profitable to create something like that for a very, VERY long time.

 

[Protar]

Kraven's Last Hunt doesn't work with a fledgling Spiderman. It's more of a Dark Knight Returns than a movie about his high school years. I don't see audiences yearning for more of that angsty teen stuff. I don't believe audiences care much for characters like Liz Allen and Flash, and you can't develop these characters in a two hour film anyway. Spidey appearances on the big screen need to be event films, not episodic like the Webb and Raimi series. That phase is done and the character needs to evolve. I think his next three films on the big screen need to be at least Winter Soldieresque in scope. You need the big pieces, multiple villains and supporting heroes. People want massive spectacle when they pay 15 bucks and 3D/IMAX. Yes ASM2 and SM3 were disasters, but that's due to horrible story telling and writing. That's what it boils down to.

I'll be shocked if 2017 doesn't introduce multiple arcs possibly setting up a S6 movie, or at least feature multiple heroes setting up bigger things in the future.

I really disagree. While some links to the rest of the MCU's plot lines are inevitable, I really think his first MCU solo film should be a simple story, so the focus can be on Spiderman, his character and his ideals. That's why I'd go with Kraven, because he's got simple motives and yet can still be a fun villain.

 

[Dark Raven]

I don't think MCU Spidey's first solo should be a story that could have been a Spidey solo that could've easily happened under Sony when he was all alone by himself. What is to distinguish this Spidey film from all the previous entries? Just the fact that it's co-produced by Kevin Feige this time?

I think to distinguish itself, this Spidey film should have him up against someone like the Kingpin, with Daredevil showing up. Spidey can still take on one of his own villains that were already under Sony as a secondary villain, but it should have the Kingpin pulling the strings behind the scenes. Otherwise this is just the umpteenth Spider-Man film as far as the general public are concerned if nothing is different.

 

[Spiderdevil]

What is shocking is that Sony is completely financing the solo, which is crazy considering it's the second reboot in a ten year span. I had assumed had Sony agreed to a deal as this, it would be with the intention of continuing with the Garfield saga with ASM3. Otherwise, it's way too risky, and I wouldn't invest 200 million in another Spidey film for another 5-10 years, especially after what happened with ASM2. Don't be surprised if the 2017 is anything but a solo film. Could be an Avengers lite, ala Civil War, featuring popular MCU TV show characters. What stories can they possibly give us that would be fresh, especially if we are dealing with Spidey in his formative years again?

Kraven the hunter

Hopefully Marvel's budget department is involved in some capacity and they manage to make a quality Spider-man movie in 150-175M like GOTG and TWS

Even though the budget thing may seem a losing game since its a tough job making Spidey movies cheap and the revenue keeps dropping, I still think both Marvel and Sony will come out as winners. Like how CapAm and Thor became major box office giants (in comparison to mediocre first movie) after both appeared in Avengers, in the same way Spidey's role in civil war will help rekindle interest and make the audience anticipate his movie

 

[Spiderdevil]

I sincerely doubt that. I don't think Marvel would have allowed Sony to keep the rights to Spidey and related characters if they thought that they could actually continue to make those films unaided. It would taint the MCU too much. Marvel certainly doesn't want 2 spiderman franchises running around - if that happens, it will cause too much confusion and the Sony films will drag down the Marvel ones by proxy. And Sony certainly doesn't have the budget to make Spiderman movies for both Marvel and themselves.

Basically, all these things like Sony having final creative control, and still technically being able to make a S6 movie - it's all just face saving on their part. In all but the most pedantic of senses Spiderman is back with Marvel, the rest is just little cherries thrown in there so Sony can maintain some shred of dignity in public.

Plus they would be bogged down clearing up Sony's Spidey mess in their proper MCU movie

I am sure Marvel and Feige were clear that they would have a say in script, casting, direction and all

 

[Spiderdevil]

Kraven's Last Hunt doesn't work with a fledgling Spiderman. It's more of a Dark Knight Returns than a movie about his high school years. I don't see audiences yearning for more of that angsty teen stuff. I don't believe audiences care much for characters like Liz Allen and Flash, and you can't develop these characters in a two hour film anyway. Spidey appearances on the big screen need to be event films, not episodic like the Webb and Raimi series. That phase is done and the character needs to evolve. I think his next three films on the big screen need to be at least Winter Soldieresque in scope. You need the big pieces, multiple villains and supporting heroes. People want massive spectacle when they pay 15 bucks and 3D/IMAX. Yes ASM2 and SM3 were disasters, but that's due to horrible story telling and writing. That's what it boils down to.

I'll be shocked if 2017 doesn't introduce multiple arcs possibly setting up a S6 movie, or at least feature multiple heroes setting up bigger things in the future.

Basically everything you said was the vision of Webb and TASM2, this needs to be a Spectacle, Spider-man vs three villains, Oscorp and Ravencroft as the big bad guy institutes, Multiple semi-villains (Kafta, Menken, Smythe, The Gentlemen), foreshadowing (Felicia Hardy, Norman Osborn), easter eggs and what not

Basically they tried to make Spider-man to big, maybe we need a Simple story now. Ant-man will be a test to that, are the audience still able to appreciate and enjoy a simple origin? Or they too accustomed to spectacles and event films?

 

[Mr.M]

Kraven the hunter

Hopefully Marvel's budget department is involved in some capacity and they manage to make a quality Spider-man movie in 150-175M like GOTG and TWS

Even though the budget thing may seem a losing game since its a tough job making Spidey movies cheap and the revenue keeps dropping, I still think both Marvel and Sony will come out as winners. Like how CapAm and Thor became major box office giants (in comparison to mediocre first movie) after both appeared in Avengers, in the same way Spidey's role in civil war will help rekindle interest and make the audience anticipate his movie

No, what you are describing is another TIH. Cheaper budget relative to the last (adjusted for inflation), not great from a visual standpoint (due to low budget), and more episodic, chapter by chapter story telling.

Marvel has to up the ante. Playing it safe is not the answer. If the DD Netflix series blows up, there is definitely options to cross him into the film medium with Spidey. Frankly, I think it is risky going from TV to film. That's why if I'm Marvel I am introducing SHIELD characters that will become heroes or have separate TV series. How much can Marvel get away with that, with Sony footing the bill?

Since Iron Man and Cap need a break, I would look to burn another film on SLJ's contract and incorporate SHIELD heavily. DD is an option if Kingpin is involved. That's probably the best bet.

Basically everything you said was the vision of Webb and TASM2, this needs to be a Spectacle, Spider-man vs three villains, Oscorp and Ravencroft as the big bad guy institutes, Multiple semi-villains (Kafta, Menken, Smythe, The Gentlemen), foreshadowing (Felicia Hardy, Norman Osborn), easter eggs and what not

Basically they tried to make Spider-man to big, maybe we need a Simple story now. Ant-man will be a test to that, are the audience still able to appreciate and enjoy a simple origin? Or they too accustomed to spectacles and event films?

I get all that. This is too risky. But you guys need to understand, SONY wants this film, NOT Marvel. Sony is paying for it. If they want to pay for a simple, less ambitious story that they feel will turn a decent profit, then more power to them.

My intentions, if I am Lynton/Belgrad and advising my producers, would be to capitalize from my new position within the MCU. Disney has given you an excellent mid summer window to release this thing. You have access to multiple characters. You have to go big in this spot. You didn't previously have the resources to bring that vision together, but now you have the IP's to get that done.

 

[Protar]

I really feel as though putting in too many characters will just be failing to learn from the mistakes of the past. They've already made that error twice. I think audiences can still appreciate a simple story. Keep some ties to Civil War and continue the SHRA to set it a part from the previous films, but ultimately focus on Spidey and what makes him tick. Including another major Marvel character was part of the deal AFAIK - I'd go with Ant-man. There's lots of snark potential there, and he's a character who could do with a boost. What better way than by putting him next to Spiderman? And he ties Spiderman 2017 into the MCU without completely eclipsing him in the way Iron Man or Cap might.

 

[Tony Stark]

Marvel didn't have to allow the press release to worded so strongly in Sony's favour. It could have been more neutral. Either Marvel are so secure in themselves and their identity that they don't care what others think when they read the press release and how it could be construed, or perhaps it is actually skewed more in Sony's favour than we might realise. I hope it's the former situation.

What I think is more interesting is how Pascal is attached to this. Some have said her last act as chief executive was to give herself this job.

There are two sides of this. She is hated within Sony, so the upper execs will be more likely to listen to Feige than her, she's the one that brought down the companies reputation and cost them millions. But the other good news is that Tolmach and Arad are basically out. The studio is saying they will stay on as executive producers, but really they have been fired.

So really this whole deal comes down to how Pascal is going to behave with Feige. Will she go with the flow trying to restore her reputation, or will she be the tone deaf blowhard she was as chief of Sony Pictures.

Usually people at that level are more out for their own self interest, but I think she's a smart lady and hopefully is going to rely on Feige's reputation to reinvigorate the franchise, thus she looks good in the process.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

What I think is more interesting is how Pascal is attached to this. Some have said her last act as chief executive was to give herself this job.

I figured it was more of a severance package kind of thing. If she was already heavily involved in discussions w/Marvel it would make sens eto keep her on board in a production capacity, moreso since you're giving Arad the heave-ho

 

[Arach Knight]

I really feel as though putting in too many characters will just be failing to learn from the mistakes of the past. They've already made that error twice. I think audiences can still appreciate a simple story.

The problem isn't the number of characters. There are plenty of superhero films with ensemble casts. The problem is the lack of investment in developing the characters. Too often, villains and allies are lumped in with no real development or arc.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

The budget will be $200m minimum, probably more. The point of this partnership is for a Spidey movie - and every subsequent film - to do IM3 type business. At the very least.

 

[Mr.M]

I really feel as though putting in too many characters will just be failing to learn from the mistakes of the past. They've already made that error twice. I think audiences can still appreciate a simple story. Keep some ties to Civil War and continue the SHRA to set it a part from the previous films, but ultimately focus on Spidey and what makes him tick. Including another major Marvel character was part of the deal AFAIK - I'd go with Ant-man. There's lots of snark potential there, and he's a character who could do with a boost. What better way than by putting him next to Spiderman? And he ties Spiderman 2017 into the MCU without completely eclipsing him in the way Iron Man or Cap might.

Spidey was relegated to Spidey villains in the Sonyverse (along with high school buddies). There was no equivalent hero for Spidey to team up with. They screwed up Venom the first time so that pairing would never have worked so soon again. While the rogue gallery is good, it takes time to develop them, and having every one of them relate to Parker and keeping their origins fresh is hard in of itself.

With Kingpin, he's already established on TV. Guys like Norman and Octavius wouldn't need a big back story anymore because they blend in seamlessly with elements already in the MCU. OsCorp, new rival to Stark Industries. Octopus needs no introduction. Any other villain would need significant development, or would otherwise be relegated to henchman status.

So it's absolutely imperative to introduce all those guys in 2017. A potential plot could be Kingpin being a proponent of hunting masked super vigilantes that fail to go public, and the film is the beginning of the S6. Yeah, I think you could start there, and then move into more personal stories later on in the series. The franchise can't wait another 3-4 films before getting to the main event.

A great way to introduce the Spidey villains is featuring Daily Bugle and Parker in DD Season 2, and tracing the roots of potential Spidey villains in season 2 who join Team Kingpin in 2017.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I really disagree. While some links to the rest of the MCU's plot lines are inevitable, I really think his first MCU solo film should be a simple story, so the focus can be on Spiderman, his character and his ideals. That's why I'd go with Kraven, because he's got simple motives and yet can still be a fun villain.

Yeah, Kraven is simple and makes sense. After seeing Spidey in action during Civil War, he'd be itching to take down the spectacular Spider-Man. Peter could even ask T'Challa for info on Kraven after having run-ins with him before in Africa.

 

[Protar]

Spidey was relegated to Spidey villains in the Sonyverse (along with high school buddies). There was no equivalent hero for Spidey to team up with. They screwed up Venom the first time so that pairing would never have worked so soon again. While the rogue gallery is good, it takes time to develop them, and having every one of them relate to Parker and keeping their origins fresh is hard in of itself.

With Kingpin, he's already established on TV. Guys like Norman and Octavius wouldn't need a big back story anymore because they blend in seamlessly with elements already in the MCU. OsCorp, new rival to Stark Industries. Octopus needs no introduction. Any other villain would need significant development, or would otherwise be relegated to henchman status.

So it's absolutely imperative to introduce all those guys in 2017. A potential plot could be Kingpin being a proponent of hunting masked super vigilantes that fail to go public, and the film is the beginning of the S6. Yeah, I think you could start there, and then move into more personal stories later on in the series. The franchise can't wait another 3-4 films before getting to the main event.

A great way to introduce the Spidey villains is featuring Daily Bugle and Parker in DD Season 2, and tracing the roots of potential Spidey villains in season 2 on Team Kingpin in 2017.

I'm not saying that there aren't other potential routes they could go, I'd just personally rather they started off small. Back to basics. Keep in mind that most of the story for Phase 3 has already been worked out. So they've got a good opportunity here to do a simpler story, whereas in Phase 4 Spidey's films can have a major impact on the continuity.

And it absolutely isn't imperative that they introduce Oscorp, Kingpin and Dr.Oc all in one film. That's way too much. One possibility is to introduce Norman Osborn (pre-goblin) in Civil War as a military contractor allied to Stark.

My personal idea for the first trilogy:
> 2017: Kraven as I said, hunting down unregistered Supers. Develop some of Peter's class mates, especially Flash Thompson. He'll be important later.

> 2019: Kick off phase 4. Green Goblin is the main villain. This can be the set up a Thunderbolt movie, so Thunderbolt Ross can appear too. Thompson hired as security by Oscorp.

> 2022: Still in Phase 4. Venom as the main villain, at this point separate from Oscorp. The basic Venom story, with Eddie Brock. Introduce Miles Morales as well. Brock dies at the end. Post-credit's scene has Oscorp getting their hands on the symbiote.

> 2024: Thunderbolt's movie. This would be the cap-off to Phase 4, bringing in villains from all of Phase 4's films. Green Goblin would star, as would Flash Thompson as Agent Venom.

In the future, Venom could get his own franchise, Miles Moralse could take over from Parker once his actor's contract is up. At some point a Spiderverse would be cool.

ETA: And that's all just a super rough version. I'd like to introduce like Black Cat as well - that could be something for film two. As much as I'd like to see more of Gwen, I feel like it'd be good to have a love interest who is actually a Superhero as well.

 

[Loki882]

I don't know that Marvel is going to RADICALLY alter their Phase Three plots/story just to fit in a bunch of Spider-Man characters. That could easily come across as forced/awkward. Will there be some connections, sure. But probably not as many as some people seem to think, and not as big.

 

[Protar]

I don't know that Marvel is going to RADICALLY alter their Phase Three plots/story just to fit in a bunch of Spider-Man characters. That could easily come across as forced/awkward. Will there be some connections, sure. But probably not as many as some people seem to think, and not as big.

Exactly, which is why it's a good opportunity to do a simpler Spiderman story, before he inevitably will take centre-stage in Phase 4. That said, Civil War hasn't started filming yet, and clearly they had back-up plans for it if they got Spidey back. So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Osborn cameo in Civil War.

 

[Dark Raven]

I don't know that Marvel is going to RADICALLY alter their Phase Three plots/story just to fit in a bunch of Spider-Man characters. That could easily come across as forced/awkward. Will there be some connections, sure. But probably not as many as some people seem to think, and not as big.

Well, they could just replace random characters who would've featured in the films anyway with more specific Spider-Man related characters.

But the standalone Spidey film in 2017 should maybe advance the overall Phase 3 plot instead of just being a pure standalone which just happens to feature Spidey. That might have a bearing on whom the Spidey villain could be.

If Marvel made Firelord a herald of Thanos instead of a herald of Galactus, then Spidey could fight him in his solo movie like he did in the comics.

But there are also plenty of characters to also draw from out of all the Marvel Team-Up issues.

 

[MakeMinesMarvel]

I mean the movie would write itself.

Spider-Man needs a Super Hero supporting character it would make the film different. Daredevil will be a underrated super star after this Netflix series hits. He'll be developed already which is a huge plus.

 

[Spiderdevil]

No, what you are describing is another TIH. Cheaper budget relative to the last (adjusted for inflation), not great from a visual standpoint (due to low budget), and more episodic, chapter by chapter story telling.

Its a mixed bag really, TIH,Thor and TFA were jokes for a Budget of 150M

While Iron Man, GOTG, TWS were extremely well done for a budget of 150-175.Even Avengers so good looking at 220M while TASM1 was a joke at a higher 230M budget

Marvel has to up the ante. Playing it safe is not the answer. If the DD Netflix series blows up, there is definitely options to cross him into the film medium with Spidey. Frankly, I think it is risky going from TV to film. That's why if I'm Marvel I am introducing SHIELD characters that will become heroes or have separate TV series. How much can Marvel get away with that, with Sony footing the bill?

You now what,I was so pissed when DD Netflix was announced, basically because I anticipated the Spidey would return to MCU shortly and Sony are not gonna make another movie in TASM's universe (this was shortly after TASM2's release)

I wanted them to make a Daredevil movie, followed by a Spider-man movie then Luke Cage, Punisher , Jessica Jones movies etc.They could then team-up as in a Defenders movie akin to the bigger superheroes and Avengers,but this would more street-level, more rough around the edges and more Amatuerish than Avengers. Kingpin would serve as the common villain of DD,Spidey and Punisher like he is the comics

It can still happen in some capacity though

I get all that. This is too risky. But you guys need to understand, SONY wants this film, NOT Marvel. Sony is paying for it. If they want to pay for a simple, less ambitious story that they feel will turn a decent profit, then more power to them.

My intentions, if I am Lynton/Belgrad and advising my producers, would be to capitalize from my new position within the MCU. Disney has given you an excellent mid summer window to release this thing. You have access to multiple characters. You have to go big in this spot. You didn't previously have the resources to bring that vision together, but now you have the IP's to get that done.

Basically what you mean is that they have more resources to make his universe wide than the previous Spider-man limited universe which stretched thin in comparison to MCU, DCCU or even X-men Universe

I agree to that but I would breathe a lot easier if Marvel and Feige atleast had a major say in creative decision

 

[<(o_o)>]

Who will be Spidey's first opponent in this new batch of movies, a proper Green Goblin or Venom?

 

[ElectroFlare]

Who will be Spidey's first opponent in this new batch of movies, a proper Green Goblin or Venom?

So far in recent cinematic history, we've have the Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Sandman, Venom, Green Goblin 2 ("New Goblin"), Lizard, Rhino, Electro, and Green Goblin (Harry).

Kraven is a great choice to mix things up. They could go the Punisher's roots and use him as a villain (on his way to anti-hero status). Vulture could be fun to see to.

But what Spidey villain is basically designed to be in a movie? What villain gives you a reason to put Spider-Man in fantastic visual sequences and mess with his head? And also not a physical villain, like the others on this list?

Mysterio. Good ol fishbowl head could be a lot of fun to use on the big screen.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Who will be Spidey's first opponent in this new batch of movies, a proper Green Goblin or Venom?

Hopefully neither. Venom doesn't work well without the whole black suit setup. And, frankly, they need to take a long rest before resorting to Green Goblin again.