I think it was @David_D who suggested it, but Black Widow would fill that role well.
M
Black Widow would be interesting but I think Phil would be better because of him being the more "everyman" as opposed to Black Widow. Also, with Phil being the the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., I would think both Iron Man and Captain America would want Phil on their side.
I think it was @David_D who suggested it, but Black Widow would fill that role well.
M
Black Widow would be interesting but I think Phil would be better because of him being the more "everyman" as opposed to Black Widow. Also, with Phil being the the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., I would think both Iron Man and Captain America would want Phil on their side.
I don't think they'll be pulling Coulson back into the movies anytime soon and his leadership of Shield makes him less of an everyman, and puts him in the position of making that decision for others. I also think that other than Black Widow's first appearance being IM2, and having a major role in Cap 2, choosing her to be the man in the middle makes no sense storywise. Nothing she's done or said suggests that she has any loyalty to Tony Stark, whereas she's clearly has a close relationship with Cap built entirely on loyalty. She would have to actively betray that trust they built to side with Tony, which would be interesting, but doesn't fill that pivotal in-between role, while undermining her character development. Plus she would have to return, hat in hand to Cap in the end.
Spider-man would have been best, as he would have been a blank slate as far as relationships went, convincingly being swayed one way or the other. Black Panther is a decent stand-in as he and Stark has a great deal more in common but when they finally get down to the ethical dilemma, it won't be hard to see him side with Cap. A lot depends on what the divide is over, but I somehow doubt Cap will be on the wrong side of the issue in "Captain America: Civil War".
I think it was @David_D who suggested it, but Black Widow would fill that role well.
M
Black Widow would be interesting but I think Phil would be better because of him being the more "everyman" as opposed to Black Widow. Also, with Phil being the the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., I would think both Iron Man and Captain America would want Phil on their side.
I don't think they'll be pulling Coulson back into the movies anytime soon and his leadership of Shield makes him less of an everyman, and puts him in the position of making that decision for others. I also think that other than Black Widow's first appearance being IM2, and having a major role in Cap 2, choosing her to be the man in the middle makes no sense storywise. Nothing she's done or said suggests that she has any loyalty to Tony Stark, whereas she's clearly has a close relationship with Cap built entirely on loyalty. She would have to actively betray that trust they built to side with Tony, which would be interesting, but doesn't fill that pivotal in-between role, while undermining her character development. Plus she would have to return, hat in hand to Cap in the end.
Spider-man would have been best, as he would have been a blank slate as far as relationships went, convincingly being swayed one way or the other. Black Panther is a decent stand-in as he and Stark has a great deal more in common but when they finally get down to the ethical dilemma, it won't be hard to see him side with Cap. A lot depends on what the divide is over, but I somehow doubt Cap will be on the wrong side of the issue in "Captain America: Civil War".
Could be. But it may also be that, in the MCU version of Civil War, it might start out more as Cap vs. Fury, instead of Cap vs. Stark. And in that case I think Black Widow would have a harder choice to make.
Or, it could be that the torn-between-the-two-sides role that Spider-Man played in the comics is not that important, so you wouldn't need Black Widow (or anyone else) to fill that place.
It has been awhile since I've read CW, but I feel like Peter's main story beat was revealing his identity to the public (which would be a strange thing to make a thing of if you dumped the Spider-Man who has been the only superhero in the Sony continuity into a Marvel Cinematic Universe where the only hero that hides his face in a mask revealed his identity to the public long ago.
I don't remember what all his side switching actually meant to the final outcome of the story. But he felt like a subplot that could be cut. Especially in a movie series where secret identities have been less of a thing.
My guess is that this version of a Civil War will be less about masked vigilantes having to register, and more about those with powers being forced to be SHIELD conscripts.
That, or whatever Stark (or Stark and Fury) do to defeat Ultron is some bridge too far for Cap.
I'm amazed Sony is so lost as to what to do with the character. And each story that comes out makes things sound worse and worse. Sinister Six? A Black Cat movie? An Aunt May movie? A Spider-Man comedy by the team that made 21 Jump Street? I know some of those sound made up, but they're all ideas in development that have been in the press in recent weeks.
It's like Batman or James Bond - a pretty simple formula. You'd have to work to screw it up.
Agreed. Simple Formula. Teenage angst. Trying to find your place in the world and not quite fitting in. Great Power and Responsibility. Guilt & Regret. Hiding it all behind laughter and a joking nature. Easy Peasy.
I'm amazed Sony is so lost as to what to do with the character. And each story that comes out makes things sound worse and worse. Sinister Six? A Black Cat movie? An Aunt May movie? A Spider-Man comedy by the team that made 21 Jump Street? I know some of those sound made up, but they're all ideas in development that have been in the press in recent weeks.
It's like Batman or James Bond - a pretty simple formula. You'd have to work to screw it up.
Agreed. Simple Formula. Teenage angst. Trying to find your place in the world and not quite fitting in. Great Power and Responsibility. Guilt & Regret. Hiding it all behind laughter and a joking nature. Easy Peasy.
Moneyguy, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. That all sounds great. Go with it. But, we need you to add some things. You know, stuff for the kids. First off, toys. We're going to sell a ton of toys so we need about a dozen different costumes for Spidey. You know what? You could also do a "Battle Damaged" Spidey and a Spidey without the mask. Kids will love that crap. And, throw in Venow. I hear he's real popular. You know what else you can do? Update that Green Goblin guy so that he looks like a Power Ranger. Kids love Power Rangers! Oh! And Rhino. Update Rhino so he looks like a Transformer! THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!
I'm amazed Sony is so lost as to what to do with the character. And each story that comes out makes things sound worse and worse. Sinister Six? A Black Cat movie? An Aunt May movie? A Spider-Man comedy by the team that made 21 Jump Street? I know some of those sound made up, but they're all ideas in development that have been in the press in recent weeks.
It's like Batman or James Bond - a pretty simple formula. You'd have to work to screw it up.
Agreed. Simple Formula. Teenage angst. Trying to find your place in the world and not quite fitting in. Great Power and Responsibility. Guilt & Regret. Hiding it all behind laughter and a joking nature. Easy Peasy.
Moneyguy, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. That all sounds great. Go with it. But, we need you to add some things. You know, stuff for the kids. First off, toys. We're going to sell a ton of toys so we need about a dozen different costumes for Spidey. You know what? You could also do a "Battle Damaged" Spidey and a Spidey without the mask. Kids will love that crap. And, throw in Venow. I hear he's real popular. You know what else you can do? Update that Green Goblin guy so that he looks like a Power Ranger. Kids love Power Rangers! Oh! And Rhino. Update Rhino so he looks like a Transformer! THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!
Moneyguy, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. That all sounds great. Go with it. But, we need you to add some things. You know, stuff for the kids. First off, toys. We're going to sell a ton of toys so we need about a dozen different costumes for Spidey. You know what? You could also do a "Battle Damaged" Spidey and a Spidey without the mask. Kids will love that crap. And, throw in Venow. I hear he's real popular. You know what else you can do? Update that Green Goblin guy so that he looks like a Power Ranger. Kids love Power Rangers! Oh! And Rhino. Update Rhino so he looks like a Transformer! THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!
Venom was far from the only problem with that film.
And regardless of whether he liked Venom or not, if he agreed to do it, he should have tried to make the best damn Venom movie he could make. Treating the character as if he were embarrassed by it only made the flaws stick out like a sore thumb.
My intention was to use SM3 as an example. One could replace SM3 references with other masterpieces like X-Men, The Last Stand, Catwoman, Amazing Spider-Man 2, Batman & Robin, etc.
My intention was to use SM3 as an example. One could replace SM3 references with other masterpieces like X-Men, The Last Stand, Catwoman, Amazing Spider-Man 2, Batman & Robin, etc.
Your intention wasn't misunderstood. The comic just was too tempting not to post.
I don't think you'll fInd anyone that disagrees that the suits should share a good amount of blame for the movie. (And of course, so does Raimi)
From what's been reported in the midst of the Sony Entertainment hacking, a deal of a 60/40 split may potentially be reached between Marvel and Sony over Spider-Man. Essentially, if a deal goes ahead between Marvel and Sony for those Spider-Man rights, Marvel Studios wants to wipe the slate clean… and that potentially means getting rid of Andrew Garfield and a number of things brought up in the Raimi films as well. Marvel basically wants creative control and doesn't intend to keep any of Sony's franchise as canon.
This is all from the often scooping and usually correct Latino review, but who knows? We'll see what happens now though. Sony may have missed their chance.
From what's been reported in the midst of the Sony Entertainment hacking, a deal of a 60/40 split may potentially be reached between Marvel and Sony over Spider-Man. Essentially, if a deal goes ahead between Marvel and Sony for those Spider-Man rights, Marvel Studios wants to wipe the slate clean… and that potentially means getting rid of Andrew Garfield and a number of things brought up in the Raimi films as well. Marvel basically wants creative control and doesn't intend to keep any of Sony's franchise as canon.
This is all from the often scooping and usually correct Latino review, but who knows? We'll see what happens now though. Sony may have missed their chance.
One of the articles I read, I wish I still had the link, says Sony Pictures balked at losing creative control and killed the deal, but that after the hacking incident Sony of Japan was furious with Sony Pictures and may be pushing them back to the table. This actually makes a lot of sense considering the dire situation nearly every division of Sony is in. The corporate parent is looking at the bottom line, seeing what Marvel movies do, seeing what their only superhero franchise is doing and want to force the issue, and excite investors.
But it's a terrible deal for Sony Pictures, because it essentially means they can't exploit the characters in any way. They have distribution rights, but they are cut out of all the decision making and still presumably have financial responsibility to the budget.
From what's been reported in the midst of the Sony Entertainment hacking, a deal of a 60/40 split may potentially be reached between Marvel and Sony over Spider-Man. Essentially, if a deal goes ahead between Marvel and Sony for those Spider-Man rights, Marvel Studios wants to wipe the slate clean… and that potentially means getting rid of Andrew Garfield and a number of things brought up in the Raimi films as well. Marvel basically wants creative control and doesn't intend to keep any of Sony's franchise as canon.
This is all from the often scooping and usually correct Latino review, but who knows? We'll see what happens now though. Sony may have missed their chance.
One of the articles I read, I wish I still had the link, says Sony Pictures balked at losing creative control and killed the deal, but that after the hacking incident Sony of Japan was furious with Sony Pictures and may be pushing them back to the table. This actually makes a lot of sense considering the dire situation nearly every division of Sony is in. The corporate parent is looking at the bottom line, seeing what Marvel movies do, seeing what their only superhero franchise is doing and want to force the issue, and excite investors.
But it's a terrible deal for Sony Pictures, because it essentially means they can't exploit the characters in any way. They have distribution rights, but they are cut out of all the decision making and still presumably have financial responsibility to the budget.
Considering all their issues, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony didn't make the call to sell the right back to Marvel (Disney) to raise some cash. I wonder what those rights would be worth today?
I think you're right because I read the same somewhere. However, while it may indeed be a terrible deal for Sony, it has the potential to be a splendid deal for Marvel and Marvel's fans. Spider-Man is one of their flagship legacy characters. I have little doubt that Marvel would handle web-head's story with class and a lot of fun. Much more deftly than Sony has since the first Raimi sequel in 2004. They pretty much peaked right there for me.
Considering all their issues, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony didn't make the call to sell the right back to Marvel (Disney) to raise some cash. I wonder what those rights would be worth today?
Sony just suspended all payments to staff and has abandoned shoots after hackers crippled its computer network, and leaked four films and thousands of documents. They will be sorely needing some cash after this disaster: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/technology/internet/article4295826.ece
From what's been reported in the midst of the Sony Entertainment hacking, a deal of a 60/40 split may potentially be reached between Marvel and Sony over Spider-Man. Essentially, if a deal goes ahead between Marvel and Sony for those Spider-Man rights, Marvel Studios wants to wipe the slate clean… and that potentially means getting rid of Andrew Garfield and a number of things brought up in the Raimi films as well. Marvel basically wants creative control and doesn't intend to keep any of Sony's franchise as canon.
This is all from the often scooping and usually correct Latino review, but who knows? We'll see what happens now though. Sony may have missed their chance.
I predict Barton was either undergoing mandatory therapy following his Loki brainwash or doing the recon that'll be the James Bondian teaser opening for AoU, doing the Winter Soldier storyline.
Following the events of Age of Ultron, the collective governments of the world pass an act designed to regulate all superhuman activity. This polarizes opinion amongst the Avengers, causing two factions to side with Iron Man or Captain America, which causes an epic battle between former allies.
So, unlike the comic series, this Civil War isn't over registering secret identities, but about regulating the superhero activity. Guess we'll have to wait and find out more in Avengers 2, how the cookie crumbles.
Looks like odds are we'll get another Spidey origin story. I really hope they find a way to do him in high school without doing the origin AGAIN.
Hoping to see an Ultimate Spider-man-esque take on the character.
"Ultimate Spider-man-esque" meaning?
Morales? Way too risky.
Origin? Makes sense with the last 2 incorporating it.
Dialogue? I'm hoping not. Bendis-type dialogue is why I could never get into a Ultimate Spider-man or New Avengers. Although I haven't seen ASM2, I have heard the dialogue mirrored Bendis' style. No sure that'd be good.
Comments
Spider-man would have been best, as he would have been a blank slate as far as relationships went, convincingly being swayed one way or the other. Black Panther is a decent stand-in as he and Stark has a great deal more in common but when they finally get down to the ethical dilemma, it won't be hard to see him side with Cap. A lot depends on what the divide is over, but I somehow doubt Cap will be on the wrong side of the issue in "Captain America: Civil War".
Or, it could be that the torn-between-the-two-sides role that Spider-Man played in the comics is not that important, so you wouldn't need Black Widow (or anyone else) to fill that place.
It has been awhile since I've read CW, but I feel like Peter's main story beat was revealing his identity to the public (which would be a strange thing to make a thing of if you dumped the Spider-Man who has been the only superhero in the Sony continuity into a Marvel Cinematic Universe where the only hero that hides his face in a mask revealed his identity to the public long ago.
I don't remember what all his side switching actually meant to the final outcome of the story. But he felt like a subplot that could be cut. Especially in a movie series where secret identities have been less of a thing.
My guess is that this version of a Civil War will be less about masked vigilantes having to register, and more about those with powers being forced to be SHIELD conscripts.
That, or whatever Stark (or Stark and Fury) do to defeat Ultron is some bridge too far for Cap.
And and and
And regardless of whether he liked Venom or not, if he agreed to do it, he should have tried to make the best damn Venom movie he could make. Treating the character as if he were embarrassed by it only made the flaws stick out like a sore thumb.
Your intention wasn't misunderstood. The comic just was too tempting not to post.
I don't think you'll fInd anyone that disagrees that the suits should share a good amount of blame for the movie. (And of course, so does Raimi)
This is all from the often scooping and usually correct Latino review, but who knows? We'll see what happens now though. Sony may have missed their chance.
But it's a terrible deal for Sony Pictures, because it essentially means they can't exploit the characters in any way. They have distribution rights, but they are cut out of all the decision making and still presumably have financial responsibility to the budget.
This is amazing stuff if it's all accurate.
Also read there's a chance Peggy Carter's relationship with the Stark family could factor into the civil war.
M
These guys get it, by the way.
M
http://comicbook.com/2015/03/07/hawkeye-seemingly-confirmed-for-captain-america-civil-war/
M
Makes sense, but I still feel like we're being robbed of an actual Captain America movie.
M
http://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Chris-Pratt-Chris-Evans-Seattle-Children-Hospital-37032229#photo-37032229
M
M
http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/kevin-feige-confirms-the-identity-of-the-next-big-screen-spider-man
Looks like odds are we'll get another Spidey origin story. I really hope they find a way to do him in high school without doing the origin AGAIN.
Hoping to see an Ultimate Spider-man-esque take on the character.
Morales? Way too risky.
Origin? Makes sense with the last 2 incorporating it.
Dialogue? I'm hoping not. Bendis-type dialogue is why I could never get into a Ultimate Spider-man or New Avengers. Although I haven't seen ASM2, I have heard the dialogue mirrored Bendis' style. No sure that'd be good.
M