Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Marvel and Sony to Share Spider-Man!

FREE AT LAST!!!

41 replies to this topic

#26
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,636 posts
True there is no need to retell. Just like there was never a need to recast so soon the first time. That's part of the reason the Amazing Spider-Man movies didn't do well. That and that first one was meh.....

I just hope this has been in the works for a while. Marvel has adjusted their schedule to accommodate Spidey. You just know though that the next announcement will be from Fox, if FF does well,that there will be an X-Men FF crossover.

#27
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts

I've heard marvel doesn't want to do any more origin stories at all, even for the non-mainstream heroes like Strange and Captain Marvel.

It may not matter for Spidey's solo flick, though. Ultimately, if it's a Sony picture, they will have final say.



#28
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,655 posts
Technically yeah. Officially. But with Kevin Fiege as executive producer, I doubt it in reality. I think that was thrown in just for Sony to save face.

#29
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

I think Kevin's role on solo Spider-films will be to ensure they don't do anything that jacks up the MCU since Sony will basically be making in-continuity movies.



#30
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,636 posts
https://www.yahoo.co...-050048660.html

There are some good thoughts in there. Especially lightening the tone of the movies. I thought ASP2 did a better job, but we all knew where they were going in the end of the movie. I think they should take The Incredible Hulk approach. Though Marvel recast the roles, the events of the Ang Lee movie still took place. It was a continuation of a story and not a reboot.

#31
The Human Torch

The Human Torch

    zambingo

  • Members
  • 34,069 posts
Pretty sure that Norton's Hulk was a reboot, as shown by his accident being more like Bixby's show (mixed with Super Soildery Shield Stuff) than Bana's film. Afterthought: Perhaps you meant Norton to Ruffalo, as I do think Norton's film events are part of Ruffalo's version.

#32
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,636 posts
Not gonna lie. I never saw the beginning of the movie. It always seemed that the events happening were playing off Norton already being the hulk.

#33
The Human Torch

The Human Torch

    zambingo

  • Members
  • 34,069 posts
I can't recall where the new origin is shown, but I think it's only a flashback and the film starts with Banner as the Hulk already. That could be why you remember it more as a continuation. Or I could be remembering wrong.

#34
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
Not a continuation. They haven't said whether the last 2 spider-films will be MCU or not-- but recasting Garfield makes it seem likely they are not.

#35
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,636 posts
I think the earliest part of the movie I remember is him in the bottling factory. I just looked it up and they call it a loose sequel. They re did the origin to mimic the television show more than the first one did, but the idea was to just go forward from The Hulk.

#36
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,176 posts
I thought the idea at the time was you could believe it was a continuation or not

#37
The Human Torch

The Human Torch

    zambingo

  • Members
  • 34,069 posts
I don't think so but maybe.

#38
Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Who is Number 1?

  • Member
  • 2,675 posts
In all honesty, I went was anti The Amazing Spider-man as soon as it was announced - the reboot so soon after Raimi's films just wound me up. Really unnecessary - just greed by Sony.
After all the recent news, I finally watched the most recent film for the first time and didn't think it was as bad as I feared. Way too many characters - cut that down and it might have been a more popular film. Garfield is fine, no issues with him if they had wanted to continue with him in the MCU.

But it seems certain we'll have yet another actor in the role, which is a real shame.

#39
The Human Torch

The Human Torch

    zambingo

  • Members
  • 34,069 posts
Actors are meant to act a part. Ownership of roles is a modern perception that might be harming the ability to tell stories. There could be a different actor as a particular character in every film, as long as the character is the character it should be okay.

#40
ShadowDog

ShadowDog

    Supra-Awesome Badass PIE Pimp

  • Member
  • 42,592 posts
I keep hearing Sony had to do the reboot to keep the rights but that seems off to me. They'd done 3 SM movies within the span of 6-7 years. Seems like that would satisfiy some kind of minimum requirement for at least a decade. Batman had a longer gap after their run of movies starting in 1989. So I dunno.

#41
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,176 posts

I don't know that anyone knows the specifics of the contracts.  

 

But since Batman is owned by the company putting out the movies, I don't understand that comparison.


  • Darth Krawlie +1 this

#42
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

The specifics are unknown, but Sony and Fox have to keep using their licenses to keep them-- not sure what the exact deadline is, but it's a thing.

 

And yeah, DC and WB are both part of AOL Time Warner so they don't have to worry about these things.





Reply to this topic