The Sinister Six (The Amazing Spider-Man series spin-off)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3402242/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Thought it was about time it got it's own topic.

I'm still confused as to what the Sinister Six can do without Spider-Man. It's not like they can do a Marvel version of what the Suicide Squad did in Batman: Assault on Arkham. What brings the Sinister Six together other than a desire to kill Spider-Man?

When did they say Spider-Man wasn't in the movie?

Last rumour was that they wanted to recast Spider-man (which is hopefully not true).

In any case, I don't get why the push the Sinister Six but delay TAS 3. I mean, I get that TAS 2 didn't meet their expectations, but if you read the critics, the thing which frustrated the viewers the most was the insistence the push the sinister six, instead of concentrating on careful world building. So their solution is to take exactly the thing which wasn't liked and make a whole movie out of it??????

It's probably their insistence on Avenger-izing their Spider-Man 'Universe'.

If Spider-Man is in the movie, why not call it Spider-Man: Sinister Six?

Seeing the superhero movie schedule for the next years....Sony would be really smart to throw in their chips with Marvel. Someone has to fail, and if they manage to create some sort of connection to the Universe which is already there and successful, Sony would have a better chance to stay aloof. Otherwise I would bet against them. Big time.

I can agree with that.

Sony's best option right now is to work out a deal - not to give Spider-Man to Marvel, but to let him play in their sandbox. It would be of tremendous benefit for both franchises.

edited 21st Oct '14 8:02:32 AM by TobiasDrake

It would be a tremendous benefit *to Sony*. It remains to be seen whether it'd be a particular benefit to Marvel.

Well, it's not like Sony has no cards at all. Spider-man is not just one Superhero, he has been the face of Marvel for ages. Marvel has the option to either collaborate and get now a boost for his comics, or to step aside and watch while Sony will force out a movie every three years just to keep the rights, which might damage their most important character on the long haul. In the end, it will come down to money, especially merchandise rights, and the amount of say Marvel gets in the Spider-man movies.

Marvel has fared perfectly well without Spider-Man so far in terms of film.

Oh, they don't need Spider-man for the Universe. But he would be a great addition to the Civil war storyline, and there is always the comics and the merchandise to think of. With any other hero it might not be worth the effort, but with Spider-man it certainly would. Plus, they might be able to get some dips into the extensive rogue gallery of Spider-man this way.

Given how very unlike the Spider-Man canon the Amazing series is, though, I wouldn't be surprised if any agreement for Spider-Man to play in the Cinematic Universe came with a stipulation that he has to be rebooted again, this time more in-line with the comics.

Like, outside Spidey himself, the biggest benefit Marvel Studios can get from collaborating with Sony is that if they wanted to use Norman Osborn, they wouldn't have to dance the delicate legal issue of determining whether he qualifies for the same shared status as Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch - allowing Marvel to use Osborn as the Iron Patriot, the leader of the Thunderbolts, and/or the Director of H.A.M.M.E.R. so long as they make no mention of the Green Goblin or Spider-Man - but they can't use Sony's Norman Osborn, because he's dead.

edited 21st Oct '14 3:18:50 PM by TobiasDrake

Eh...I wouldn't bet on that. I wouldn't put it past him to be just in hiding or part of some sort of experiment.

I don't really see the point of recasting Garfield, considering that he is quite popular in the role. The Raimi fans are already angry, it would be unwise to alienated the Webb-fans, too.

And if they come to an agreement (hopefully soon), there is some time until the next avenger movie rolls around. Enough to drop some hints that Spider-man exist in the universe. I mean, they already wanted to show the Oscorp tower in New York and only left it off because there wasn't enough time to add it. This alone is a good sign - even though it will naturally take years until anything happens...but having Spider-man in Avengers three might give the movie the push it might need at this point (after all, the concept to combine Superheroes wont be that unique anymore).

edited 21st Oct '14 4:26:45 PM by swanpride

"Spider-Man" and "cosmic battle against Thanos" don't mix or click together in my eyes.

That's because you don't read enough Marvel Adventures.

Captain America ain't cosmic. Neither is Iron Man. Or Black Widow. Or Hawkeye. They're going to be fighting Thanos anyway.

The Avengers as a whole are suited for cosmic stuff. Spidey always ends up feeling even more out-of-place than them when there's cosmic stuff going on. He's much more explicitly street-level, he just has some crossover appeal like Ghost Rider does, but it still feels out of place because he doesn't have much history with the Avengers. I never really bought it when the cartoon had him leading the Secret Wars.

The only reason the likes of Captain America, Iron Man, or Hawkeye - just for example - seem well-suited to fighting gods and cosmic horrors is because they've been doing it for so long. Thanos is as far out of their league as he is Spider-Man's.

Spidey, at least, actually has an alien as one of his most iconic villains. He's also hosted the Phoenix Force, taken down the Juggernaut, and fights entire teams of X-Men to a standstill on regular occasions. Loki still owes him a debt that probably won't ever get paid.

He's not really that street-level; it's his regular hunting ground, and the adaptations regularly downplay his extracurricular activities, but in the comics, Spidey goes well with just about anything.

Do we actually have confirmation that Civil War - comic book civil war - is actually happening? Or is that still just an instant cockroach of a rumor yet?

We have evidence. It's going down.

Independent from Spider-man's role in the original Civil War story (they most likely will rewrite the whole thing either way to suit their needs), Marvel could use some characters more to pull that one off. Currently there are six avengers, eight if you count Iron Patriot and Falcon, eleven if they include Ant-man, Dr. Strange and The Winter soldier. Most of those character's (Black Widow, Hawkeye because of Black Widow, The Winter Soldier, Falcon) would most likely fall on the side of the Cap in case of conflict or at least not being ready to fight him, or it would make the most sense for them to stay neutral (Thor). So for a proper civil war, they need more characters, especially characters who would go with Tony. Spider-Man is already established, and I can totally see him swinging in for the Civil War storyline in order to come to the conclusion eventually that the Avengers have lost their sight on what is really important (the protection of people), just to swing out again and only coming back for the final fight against Thanos.

Citation needed.

We have one report from one magazine, which fails to make even the slightest effort to distinguish "what we have heard" from "what we are making up as supposition".

We currently have strong rumors, albeit from sources that tend to be more credible than most. That about it.

I'd like Marvel, if they do make a deal with Sony for Spidey, to be able to use some of his villains, supporting cast and elements without necessarily using Spidey himself. The Bugle, for instance. Or Oscorp. Hobgoblin, maybe, for the Daredevil show (the current one is the nephew of one of Daredevil's supporting characters).

edited 23rd Oct '14 8:38:50 AM by KnownUnknown

If they want to avoid confusing people by having two Peters they could always make a deal with Marvel to let them use Miles Morales.

edited 23rd Oct '14 2:36:03 PM by kostya