Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

ComingSoon wrote:WARNING: Potential spoilers for Marvel Studios’ “Phase Three.”

The future of Spider-Man at Sony Pictures has been a big question mark ever since last year’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2 failed to meet studio expectations. Though spin-off films for the franchise are in development, with The Sinister Six even scheduled for release on November 11, 2016, there’s still been no official word on what will happen with the wall crawler.

Rumors and reports persisted last month in the wake of the Sony hack that discussions had taken place between Sony and Marvel Studios to “bring the character home,” though none of those details have been confirmed and vary wildly from place to place as to whether they fell through or would continue. Now, Latino-Review has quite the report on the webhead that, should it come to fruition, should delight many fans.

The outlet reports (following a number of potential spoilers for other Marvel films) that Marvel’s Avengers: Infinity War Part I will sideline a number of the heroes from Phase One (corroborating an earlier report that said the same) in favor of the new faces of Phase Three at the forefront. Among those faces, the site reports, will be none other than Spider-Man. Not only will an MCU version of the character reportedly appear in the film, but he will be played by a new actor.

It’s unclear what this means for the planned films at Sony or when, if true, an official announcement will come, but should our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man return to Marvel and meet his fellow Avengers, it will arguably be the biggest thing to happen in the history of superhero movies.

Marvel’s Avengers: Infinity War Part I is set for release on May 4, 2018 with Part II to debut one year later on May 3, 2019.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Batman is not the only hero of Gotham, likewise Superman is not Metropolis only hero.

And yet stories set in either city almost exclusively involve them, or someone closely tied to them, since they're both the main features of either city.

true, but its also true that the use of Ra's and his league in other DC character comics were originally done in the hope that bat fans will buy books they do not normally buy.

That's probably why Ra's was on Arrow as well. Likewise, it could be they had a big list of "off limits" characters and Ra's wasn't listed. Or Firefly for that matter.

Burn wrote:Sony really having no idea what to do with the franchise.

Duke of Luns wrote:Suppose Spider-Man does come to the Marvel Cinematic U, that would be fantastic. However, what about the Sony films? Would they continue to exist in their own separate series and continue, and we'll have two different Spider-Men(like Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch), or will Spider-Man be relegated to appearing in only Avengers related projects, with some kind of profit sharing between the companies?

If it's the latter and there's no other Amazing Spider-Man films, then Sinister Six is going to be more pointless than the Wolverine(which wasn't bad). Even more worthless than Superman Returns. I like crossover films as much as the next person, but there's more than enough Spider-Man lore to justify running a separate film series.

And please, no more reboots! Spider-Man 3 didn't even justify a reboot, as they could have easily fixed any problems created by the film or they could have built on those plots to create more stories.

Duke of Luns wrote:And please, no more reboots! Spider-Man 3 didn't even justify a reboot, as they could have easily fixed any problems created by the film or they could have built on those plots to create more stories.

Duke of Luns wrote:Spider-Man 3 didn't even justify a reboot, as they could have easily fixed any problems created by the film or they could have built on those plots to create more stories.

Shadowman wrote:

Duke of Luns wrote:Spider-Man 3 didn't even justify a reboot, as they could have easily fixed any problems created by the film or they could have built on those plots to create more stories.

I don't think it's possible that Spider-Man 4 would be able to "fix" any of the problems created by Spider-Man 3, considering the main problem with that movie was that it wasn't good.

Duke of Luns wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Duke of Luns wrote:Spider-Man 3 didn't even justify a reboot, as they could have easily fixed any problems created by the film or they could have built on those plots to create more stories.

I don't think it's possible that Spider-Man 4 would be able to "fix" any of the problems created by Spider-Man 3, considering the main problem with that movie was that it wasn't good.

Spider-Man 3 was at least way more interesting than the Amazing Spider-Man. And it's certainly no X-3.

Shadowman wrote:

Duke of Luns wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Duke of Luns wrote:Spider-Man 3 didn't even justify a reboot, as they could have easily fixed any problems created by the film or they could have built on those plots to create more stories.

I don't think it's possible that Spider-Man 4 would be able to "fix" any of the problems created by Spider-Man 3, considering the main problem with that movie was that it wasn't good.

Spider-Man 3 was at least way more interesting than the Amazing Spider-Man. And it's certainly no X-3.

Amazing Spider-Man didn't include emo-haircut Peter Parker doing a song and dance number.

Duke of Luns wrote:But Spider-Man 3 didn't have Peter fighting crime purely out of vengeance.

Or have Uncle Ben die because of two cents.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Duke of Luns wrote:But Spider-Man 3 didn't have Peter fighting crime purely out of vengeance.

it sort of did.

Or have Uncle Ben die because of two cents.

2 cents?

Duke of Luns wrote:But Spider-Man 3 didn't have Peter fighting crime purely out of vengeance.

Duke of Luns wrote:Or have the main villain find out his identity because he labeled his camera.

Duke of Luns wrote:Or have Uncle Ben die because of two cents.

Shadowman wrote:[

Duke of Luns wrote:Or have the main villain find out his identity because he labeled his camera.

Yeah, they just found out because he didn't think to cover a wound on his arm. Or because they unmasked him themselves. Or because they watched him unmask in front of them.

Burn wrote:I prefer "woman accidentally killed by Thanos"

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Burn wrote:I prefer "woman accidentally killed by Thanos"

How about "woman purposely killed by Thanos?"

Duke of Luns wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Duke of Luns wrote:But Spider-Man 3 didn't have Peter fighting crime purely out of vengeance.

it sort of did.

Eh, now that I think about it, yeah the suit did kind of have him hunt Sandman down for vengence. Still not a fan of how Amazing had Peter hunt down mostly blonde criminals instead of stopping crime out of general good will(or soothing his guilt).

They did change that focus in Amazing later on when he helped the kid out the car and he saw he could be so much more, but by that point I'm usually annoyed how they changed things for the sake of making them different.

Or have Uncle Ben die because of two cents.

2 cents?

Yeah, Peter was short two cents and jerk cashier wouldn't let him buy his milk. He then lets the thief rob the store, which leads to Uncle Ben and the thief encountering each other, and Ben getting shot. Ergo, Uncle Ben died because of two cents. For whatever reason I think that's extremely inconsequential, stupid, and contrived, even without comparing it to other source material.

ZeroWolf wrote:I was never a fan of the reboots, just seemed pointless especially when incredible hulk proved you could do a origin story in the opening credits.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:I was never a fan of the reboots, just seemed pointless especially when incredible hulk proved you could do a origin story in the opening credits.

but that origin story in Incredible Hulk is a reboot.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

ZeroWolf wrote:I was never a fan of the reboots, just seemed pointless especially when incredible hulk proved you could do a origin story in the opening credits.

but that origin story in Incredible Hulk is a reboot.

I think he means its pointless to devote an entire movie to the origin story when one was already made a few years prior. Incredible Hulk didn't bother with the origin story, just putting out the basics in the first few minutes and trusting the viewer knows enough about Hulk. All-Star Superman did the same thing, opening by detailing Superman's origin in nine words.