Poll of the Day > I wish I had not watched the newest Spiderman Homecoming trailer

(+) Yeah! (+)

Should have learned my lesson from recent trailers, seems like Sony gave away the entire plot of the film
---

Which one was this? Was it the same one posted in the Geekcoming topic? Because it did kinda reveal a bunch but not really the whole thing I'd say.
---

It was the one where Stark shows up and says he wants the suit back

Stopped watching at that point. I feel like that would have been better off saving for the film itself.
---

I hope Ironman/Stark doesn't take too much attention from Spider-Man. At the same time, I can't help but feel that's the only reason he's in this movie. On another note, is Vulture that big of a villain or the producers figure we've seen enough of the Green Goblin?
---

i just want to point out that this is the second reboot of spiderman in the last 5 years.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

I hope Ironman/Stark doesn't take too much attention from Spider-Man. At the same time, I can't help but feel that's the only reason he's in this movie. On another note, is Vulture that big of a villain or the producers figure we've seen enough of the Green Goblin?

Vulture is actually one of the darker spidey villains from recent comics

At one point he was abducting children and using them as his henchman
---

I wish they hadn't shown Iron Man save that ship. Just seems lame to show how that plays out... >_<
---

Supposedly, it's statistically proven that trailers that spoil the whole film sell more tickets for that film than those that don't, because people like to know what they're paying for, even if it ruins the film itself.

Movies that keep the plot a relative secret and are still successful like Deadpool are supposedly pretty rare, but it was only allowed for Deadpool in the first place because the movie wasn't expected to make money by the studio.

Did the Logan trailers spoil the movie? I didn't watch them so I don't know, all I remember are the commercials that show X-23 revealing she has claws.
---

Star wars The Force Awakens didn't show that much either IIRC.
I dunno if that was also the case with Rogue One though.
---

No, Logan's trailer was really good. It built interest in the world and really didn't show anything other than prof x having a brain fart.
---

DarkKirby2500 posted...

Did the Logan trailers spoil the movie? I didn't watch them so I don't know, all I remember are the commercials that show X-23 revealing she has claws.

Yes.

They showed Professor X dying
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

They showed Professor X dying

like when he died before?

quoting spoilers doesn't keep the spoiler tags, huh
---

InfestedAdam posted...

I hope Ironman/Stark doesn't take too much attention from Spider-Man. At the same time, I can't help but feel that's the only reason he's in this movie. On another note, is Vulture that big of a villain or the producers figure we've seen enough of the Green Goblin?

He's not one of Spider-Man's top villains but he's probably more well known than half the MCU villains.
---

helIy posted...

SmokeMassTree posted...

They showed Professor X dying

like when he died before?

quoting spoilers doesn't keep the spoiler tags, huh

It does, just not if you highlight a specific spot to quote.
---

There's a reason why I don't watch trailers anymore
---

helIy posted...

i just want to point out that this is the second reboot of spiderman in the last 5 years.

If I'm not mistaken if Sony and Fox don't at least crank out a stinker with the Marvel properties they have rights to once every 5 years the rights revert back to Marvel Studio's ownership automatically.

Frankly, I wish all the properties would go back to Marvel so you don't have preposterous situations like a full scale alien invasion in progress over midtown Manhattan with only the Avengers there to respond despite at least 2/3 of the rest of the Marvelverse being within spitting distance yet conspicuously absent.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Frankly, I wish all the properties would go back to Marvel so you don't have preposterous situations like a full scale alien invasion in progress over midtown Manhattan with only the Avengers there to respond despite at least 2/3 of the rest of the Marvelverse being within spitting distance yet conspicuously absent.

To be fair, Marvel getting control of all of their property back just makes that problem worse, not better.

At the moment, it makes perfect sense that the X-Men, Spider-Man, and the Fantastic Four don't respond to threats in NYC because they literally don't exist in the MCU (well, Spider-Man does now, but possibly not for long). They essentially all live in parallel universes. So the Manhattan being invaded in The Avengers is not the same Manhattan that Spider-Man is in in his first five movies, nor is it the same Manhattan the X-Men save in their first movie, or the Manhattan the Fantastic Four hang out in.

(And it's not even as if this should be a hard concept to grasp, because we all implicitly understand it's ALSO not the same Manhattan the Men in Black hang out in, or the Manhattan the Watchmen are from, or the Manhattan where Harry met Sally or when the Muppets took Manhattan. Except now I totally want Kermit and Gonzo to show up to help fight Thanos in Infinity War.)

But the more characters who are incorporated into the overarching framework (like every character who has ever been on Agents of SHIELD or all of the Netflix shows), the harder it gets to justify why every Marvel movie in the future doesn't have 400 heroes show up when a major world-threatening catastrophe happens.

In the real world, it doesn't happen because you have to PAY all of those actors. But in the setting, you're still going to need to explain what the hell the Defenders and SHIELD and whoever else are doing if they don't show up in Infinity War when Thanos is trashing everything.

So if Marvel gets Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four and the X-Men back, then they sort of NEED to incorporate them all into the narrative, whereas at the moment, they don't.

And honestly, I almost kind of prefer things they way they are now. The X-Men have ALWAYS worked better alone (in the comics as well), and trying to weave them into the Avengers universe would just devalue them and their whole universe. And while the Fantastic Four have floundered in movies, I think they'd be worse off in the Avengers universe than they would be in one that mostly just focuses on them and their family dynamic as opposed to treating them like just another bunch of superheroes.

As for Spider-Man, he's already straddling that line where Sony may be going back on the deal they made with Marvel, and they're still pushing for a separate Venom movie outside of that deal anyway, sooo...


---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

If I'm not mistaken if Sony and Fox don't at least crank out a stinker with the Marvel properties they have rights to once every 5 years the rights revert back to Marvel Studio's ownership automatically.

Not sure if it's 5 years specifically, but there's definitely a "If you don't use X property within a period of Y time the rights revert back to Marvel" clause involved in all of those deals.

I THINK the Fox deal for the Fantastic Four is 7-8 years, because there was talk of Josh Trank edging up against the time limit when he was filming his shitty Fantastic Four reboot, and that was released about 8 years after Rise of the Silver Surfer. No clue if the same time scale is involved with the X-Men, but in that case, they're not cranking out constant X-related films to maintain the rights as much as they are to cash in on the lucrative profits anyway (see also the Legion TV show and the New Mutants movie they're currently kicking around in development, on top of Deadpool and whatever else they can spin out of the core franchise. There's a LOT to work with when you have the rights to EVERY X-Men related character, story, and title).

Sony's got a similar deal (ie, they have to keep making Spider-Man films or lose all the rights), but I'm not sure the exact time limit on that one either. It MIGHT be shorter, since Amazing Spider-Man was supposedly pushed out to maintain the rights, and that was only about 5 years after Spider-Man 3.

The only outstanding deal Marvel has that differs from those is the one that ties Hulk to Universal, which is supposedly a distribution deal that absolutely no one seems willing to talk about, but which seems to boil down to Marvel having to pay Universal a percentage of the gross on any Hulk solo movie they make, which Marvel seems unwilling to do (which is why they're basically doing the World War Hulk storyline as a Thor movie instead). I have no idea how many movies are tied to that deal (ie, Marvel would have to release X number of films through Universal before that deal lapses), but it definitely seems to be a "number of films" deal rather than a time-based one, because it doesn't seem to have an actual expiration date (and Marvel doesn't seem all that inclined to deal with Universal, whereas Universal doesn't seem all that inclined to sell the rights back, so Hulk might be in limbo pretty much forever).

Namor was the only other character tied up by Universal if I remember, but it's been implied those rights have finally been pulled back to Marvel. On the other hand, DC getting the Aquaman movie out first (and the almost inevitable failure of the Aquaman movie) will probably keep Marvel from wanting to do anything with Namor.

(If they're smart, they COULD play up the period of time in the 90s when Namor associated with the Heroes for Hire and work him into the Defenders line-up of Netflix shows - doubly fitting since he was actually one of the founding Defenders in the comics - which would bypass a lot of problems, but I don't know if they really care all that much about him as a character at the moment. They've got WAAAY too many irons in the fire right now.)


---

Blighboy posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

I hope Ironman/Stark doesn't take too much attention from Spider-Man. At the same time, I can't help but feel that's the only reason he's in this movie. On another note, is Vulture that big of a villain or the producers figure we've seen enough of the Green Goblin?

He's not one of Spider-Man's top villains but he's probably more well known than half the MCU villains.

Isn't Vulture the first villain spidey faces in the OG comic books?
---

Jiggy101011 posted...

Isn't Vulture the first villain spidey faces in the OG comic books?

Technically, the first villain he faces is the nameless burglar who shoots his uncle.

But the first supervillain he faces is The Chameleon. Vulture doesn't show up until the second issue. Doc Ock shows up in issue #3.


---

Mead posted...

Vulture is actually one of the darker spidey villains from recent comics

vulture is not recent, the character first appeared in 1963

InfestedAdam posted...

On another note, is Vulture that big of a villain or the producers figure we've seen enough of the Green Goblin?

He's Spidey's first major villain and has appeared in most of the cartoons in addition to having a prominent spot in the comics. Sure, you COULD use a villain like Hobgoblin who has better name recognition yet hasn't appeared in film yet, but I think they're probably saving the goblins in general and it'd be tricky to do without bringing in Norman at all (since even in the 90s Spidey, Hobgoblin's weapons came from Osborn)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And honestly, I almost kind of prefer things they way they are now. The X-Men have ALWAYS worked better alone (in the comics as well), and trying to weave them into the Avengers universe would just devalue them and their whole universe. And while the Fantastic Four have floundered in movies, I think they'd be worse off in the Avengers universe than they would be in one that mostly just focuses on them and their family dynamic as opposed to treating them like just another bunch of superheroes.

This, pretty much. Plus the X-Men only really work as a concept in continuities where everybody doesn't have powers.
---