Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)

[Evildrider]

No recasting is awesome.  Fuck Andrew Garfield.

[sickrubik]

Individual feelings about Garfields performance has little to do with my point, which is more that recasting a role, this soon may rub audiences a little rough.

It really depends on who they end up getting. That being said, I didn't have any problem with Garfield. Garfield was the LEAST of those films problems.

[Fordel]

I am indifferent to keeping or leaving Garfield as Spider-man. I really want to see how they will work him into the MCU or whatever though.

[Evildrider]

All the MCU fans will totally give a new casting/reboot a pass.  You can't really want the last 2 Spider-Man movies to be MCU canon do you?  Cuz.. eww.

[Nevermore]

I finally watched The Amazing Spiderman and I hated the whole cast, so recasting is perfectly fine with me.

[Lakov_Sanite]

In a deal that should surprise no one, marvel lends it's huge brand to sony, who will foot all the bills.  The article didn't mention how much of a cut Marvel is going to get but I'm willing to bet it's not insignificant as the rest of the details all show that marvel has the stronger hand in the deal.

[sickrubik]

All the MCU fans will totally give a new casting/reboot a pass.  You can't really want the last 2 Spider-Man movies to be MCU canon do you?  Cuz.. eww.

I'm not even sure what "MCU fans" means, really. They're stupidly successful movies. Audiences could end up with some reboot fatigue, but we'll see.

I am probably more closer to Fordel on this. Garfield was fine, but, the new stuff could be better. Just don't do a damn origin story again, again. But, I didn't hate the first Amazing Spider-Man. The second one was... Not Good, however. Better than Spider-Man 3, though.

Edit: Friend brought this up on Facebook. Spidey being part of the next wave of Avengers could work well.

[Fordel]

Yea, I didn't hate the first Amazing Spider-Man. It was made for all the wrong reasons, but it wasn't horrible and I didn't feel like I wasted two hours of my life or whatever. The second one... 

I feel like the first Amazing movie could slot into the MCU without much trouble, but the second... again... 

[Velorath]

Haven't seen it mentioned in most of the stories on this but Comingsoon.net mentions:

As a result of the new deal, Thor: Ragnarok will now arrive nearly four months later than planned, moving to November 3, 2017 (from July 28). Black Panther, which previously held that spot, gets delayed eight months, going from that original November 3 date to July 6, 2018. That, in turn, bumps Captain Marvel to November 2, 2018 and moves Inhumans all the way to July 12, 2019. The two-part Avengers: Infinity War, meanwhile, remains set for release May 4, 2018 and May 3, 2019.

If true, I can't say I'm thrilled that four other movies are getting pushed back (three of which are new franchises) to make way for another Spider-man reboot regardless of who is handling it.

[Evildrider]

Yea, I didn't hate the first Amazing Spider-Man. It was made for all the wrong reasons, but it wasn't horrible and I didn't feel like I wasted two hours of my life or whatever. The second one... 

I feel like the first Amazing movie could slot into the MCU without much trouble, but the second... again... 

I mean that is pretty much it.. first one was kind of fine no matter how much I hated the Lizard's look.  As for Garfield there have been rumors that Marvel didn't like him and that he was gone if they ever got control.  Most likely since they are having him show up in a phase 3 movie first, this will be an established Spider-Man that's already been leading the double life for awhile.  Just because he was never named in the movies doesn't mean he hasn't been active.

[Lakov_Sanite]

There's also no need to reveal Peter Parker at all until the next spiderman movie.  They could very well hold off on showing Pete(And the actor playing him) for some time.

[Fordel]

THAT is a very good point, there's no reason to actually have Spider-Man's identity revealed to the other heroes at all.


-edit-

bumps Captain Marvel to November 2, 2018

Dammit, now we'll have to reset the count down clock. 

[Velorath]

There's also no need to reveal Peter Parker at all until the next spiderman movie.  They could very well hold off on showing Pete(And the actor playing him) for some time.

Under the new schedule, Cap: Civil War, Dr. Strange, and GotG2 are the only movies being filmed between now and the Spider-man movie. He doesn't really fit into Dr. Strange or GotG, and Civil War starts filming in April so it would probably be hard to do anything more substantial than a small cameo there at this point. I could see them using the post-credits scenes for all three movies though to do a slow build-up though.

[Evildrider]

Spider-Man could also fit well into an Agents of Shield episode or two to help get him out there.  I guess we'd have to see who is cast first.

[Velorath]

Spider-Man could also fit well into an Agents of Shield episode or two to help get him out there.  I guess we'd have to see who is cast first.

Also depends on the terms of the deal (which we'll likely never know the exact details of). With Sony retaining creative control of the Spider-man movies and the financial burden of making and distributing the films, I imagine they'll only let Marvel use the character to the extent with which it benefits Sony. Putting Spider-man in Agents of Shield seems like it would benefit the show much more than the Spider-man movies (plus TV rights might require separate deal from what they've made with the movie rights). I guess there's a possibility they'd be allowed to use some of the minor Spider-man characters or help establish Oscorp, or maybe Alchemax if they want to distance themselves from the previous movies.

[Lantyssa]

Spidey was always portrayed as being extra careful about revealing his identity to fellow heroes, so it wouldn't be out of line to keep the final actor reveal until a solo movie.

[eldaec]

I wonder if there is a longer term plan agreed but not announced here. It doesn't seem in keeping with Disney's established practice to allow any from of joint control to persist, nor is it really in either company's interest. Sounds like enormous headaches for limited possible upside. 

But recasting and rebooting  is never a problem unless the current actor is enormously popular and broadly identified as the definitive version of a character.  I don't know why people keep bringing it up as a thing.

[HaemishM]

I like Garfield fine as Peter Parker but not enough to be against a recasting. They absolutely should not do any sort of origin story at all though, in any of the movies. Mention it in passing, do a flashback, then move the fuck on and never speak of it again. After 5 movies in less than 15 years, there's nobody who doesn't know the basics of the origin.

With Feige producing, I have a lot more faith that Sony's Spider-Man solo movie won't suck.

[Trippy]

Except that Sony still has final creative control. Not going to end well.

[jgsugden]

Note my reference to the other sources... I'm not saying it is a lock, but I consider it more likely than not that the deal has been reached and will be announced in the next 2 months.

.. and just 10 days under 2 months later...

Marvel has confirmed the new release dates for the 'other' films (http://marvel.com/news/movies/24065/marvel_studios_schedules_new_release_dates_for_4_films) as well.  They are official.  Unless Marvel is putting a lot of resources and creative effort into Spidey, it makes no sense to push back the other movies.  They already knew that there would be Spidey movies in the theaters around that time... if anything, they've lessened the number of hero movies by removing Sinister Six, Venom, Aunt May, etc... 

With Spidey bring introduced in a Marvel film prior to the new Spidey movie, it seems Civil War is the likeliest spot still.  Age of Ultron and Ant-man are too far along to do anything more than a tag.  GotG 2 makes no sense (most likely).  Doc Strange is introducing a whole new world - I could see Spidey appearing in a background scene where Doc Strange is seeing a lot of things through magic, but not a real presence.  Civil War makes the most sense, although I do not expect it to be a majorly integrated role.

One idea that I heard sounded interesting but is pure speculation right now: Showing a Spidey origin story interspersed throughout Civil War and seeing Peter's decision to put on a mask and hide his identity be a result of the registration act.  He might be on screen for a grand total of 10 to 15 minutes.  They could film all of that separately of the film as planned and only do very minor reworking of the main story - and that would avoid yet another full blown Spidey origin story.  I'd be on board for that type of approach.  They could take the origin up to the point where he puts on the mask for the first time and then finish it off at the start of the Spidey Movie with the Uncle Ben death, even...

As for a TV appearance for Spidey - The Netflix series set in NY might make more sense than MAoS.  I could see a cameo in Daredevil Season 2 or the Defenders - just like a cameo by Fury, Stark, Barton or Rodgers makes sense in MAoS.  They could do a tie in story for MAoS as well, but it wouldn't seem to be as organic of a fit.  However, I'm betting that we don't see more than a glimpse or two of Spidey on the small screen anytime before 2019...

One last speculative thing: Whedon said he was not seeing it likely that he'd do the next Avengers films and really wanted to do a movie focused on one character...  However unlikely, pulling Whedon in to be the Spider-man show runner would answer a lot of critics.

[Tannhauser]

Marvel's in a good position, they want Spidey not need him.  Sony knows that Spidey in the MCU would make bank.  They just want a big piece of that bank.  I don't even mind if they keep Garfield, he's a good kid and that would make the two ASM's part of the MCU. 

If I were Sony, I'd not sell Spidey, I'd lease him out per movie to Marvel.  Then after his rapturous appearance in Cap 3 or whatever, Sony makes a new ASM and rides Marvel's coattails to money hats.

Honestly at this point it's up to lawyers and accountants. 

Since we're patting ourselves on the back here...

Nailed it!

[sickrubik]

... and just 10 days under 2 months later...

I was waiting for you to gloat. Keep in mind, the story you originally quoted was about a deal/discussion that had died. I even brought up the summit set for January to discuss things further.

[jgsugden]

...
I was waiting for you to gloat. Keep in mind, the story you originally quoted was about a deal/discussion that had died. I even brought up the summit set for January to discuss things further.

I hate to disappoint people's expectations... And you're failing to remember the rest of the discussion, I think.

[eldaec]

Marvel's in a good position, they want Spidey not need him.  Sony knows that Spidey in the MCU would make bank.  They just want a big piece of that bank.  I don't even mind if they keep Garfield, he's a good kid and that would make the two ASM's part of the MCU. 

If I were Sony, I'd not sell Spidey, I'd lease him out per movie to Marvel.  Then after his rapturous appearance in Cap 3 or whatever, Sony makes a new ASM and rides Marvel's coattails to money hats.

Honestly at this point it's up to lawyers and accountants. 

Since we're patting ourselves on the back here...

Nailed it!

The bit that breaks my mind here is Disney apparently allowing the possibility of Sony just going off and making a Spiderman film after Spiderman has been in the Avengers.

I wonder if the detail of this 'creative control' clause is just glorified bragging rights and a royalty, with Disney firmly in effective control for as long as they keep making Spiderman films and paying Sony.

[Lantyssa]

It's Marvel getting to use Spider-man in their movies and being able to ignore anything from the Sony flicks they want, because they never have to reference them.  Short of getting back all the rights, it's about perfect for Marvel.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Also while Sony has complete control over "spiderman" if they want to include ANYTHING from the MCU into the next spiderman movie you can be assured that creative control will go right back to disney/marvel or spiderman is off on his own again.  

Spiderman in the MCU is a huge boost to the world they are building and a giant commercial for sony which is great for both parties but MCU in a spidey movie is a giant boost to getting people in the theatres and if they want so much as a cameo of iron man's butt, creative control goes right back to marvel.

[jgsugden]

I'm betting they play real nice and that someone with MCU roots runs the Spidey show. 

A bit more info: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70335  Civil War is the first movie for Spidey according to WSJ (I linked AICN because MSJ is behind a wall).  Sinister Six is not dead yet, but I would not be surprised to see them axe it and shift Goddard (who has a lot of ties to Whedon - he worked on Loki script for Whedon in Avengers and developed Daredevil). Heck, I would not be surprised to learn that Goddard's role with Sinister Six has always been a placeholder for when they hand this deal over to him to run.  And, if he takes the reigns, I would not be shocked to see him tie two of his playthings - Daredevil and Spidey - together by having Daredevil go from Netflix into the Spidey movie...

[Surlyboi]

Make it Miles Morales and have Donald Glover play him.

[Evildrider]

Only problem with Donald Glover is he's kind of old for the role now. 

[sickrubik]

I would not be angry with Goddard helming a Spidey flick. Not angry at all. Also, the Whedon/Goddard connection goes back a lot further than that.

[sickrubik]

Only problem with Donald Glover is he's kind of old for the role now. 

I don't really think he is. Dude looks young. But, I also wouldn't be mad with someone like John Boyega, but I'm not sure he has the comedic sensibility.

.... fuck it, can we just get Boyega into SOMETHING Marvel related?

[Tannhauser]

Wouldn't it be fun if we didn't know Spiderman's secret ID?  That could tie into the Civil War where they want him to unmask and we in the audience want to know which version it is, Parker, Morales, etc. but Spidey refuses (until a dramatic moment maybe).

Spidey just shows up at a dramatic time in the Cap movie and everyone kind of shrugs their shoulders.  They've heard of him as a 'street' superhero.

NO FUCKING ORIGIN!

[Evildrider]

So I guess the deal is that Sony gets no money for any movie that Disney uses Spider-Man in and Disney gets nothing for any Spider-man Sony films.

[Raguel]

I'm not interesting in a Sinister Six movie, but a Superior Foes? That'd be awesome.

[HaemishM]

So I guess the deal is that Sony gets no money for any movie that Disney uses Spider-Man in and Disney gets nothing for any Spider-man Sony films.

Disney will get money from the Spider-Man movies IF they make above certain undisclosed milestones.