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.
A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Its a mixed bag really, TIH,Thor and TFA were jokes for a Budget of 150MNo, 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.
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)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?
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.
Who will be Spidey's first opponent in this new batch of movies, a proper Green Goblin or Venom?
Who will be Spidey's first opponent in this new batch of movies, a proper Green Goblin or Venom?