-
[QUOTE=Spiderfang;3838820]At this point I'm almost convinced that this is an internal sabotage type of deal ALA "the producers" so that they lose so much money from these crappy movies that they can sell the rights to Disney no questions asked. I mean, who's really asking for a Jackpot movie? Morbius?[/QUOTE]
Morbius I have no problem with. But, Silver Sable? Jackpot? Kraven? Yeah, this are just odd choices.
-
[QUOTE=Alan2099;3839217]Morbius I have no problem with. But, Silver Sable? Jackpot? Kraven? Yeah, this are just odd choices.[/QUOTE]
At least Sable actually held an ongoing series at one point.
-
As someone pointed out, couldn't the same arguments (Who are these non-entities? Why are people going to care?) have been made against Marvel greenlighting films starring Guardians of the Galaxy and Scott Lang?
MCU had 4 (then) B-List solo heroes* and a team-up movie before they started "scraping the bottom of the barrel" as opposed to Sony who have an A-List hero, a potential A-List anti-hero and then the "bottom of the barrel".
*At the time, some folks (like Zack Snyder) implied that some of MCU's Big Four like Thor were the bottom of the barrel as well.
-
[QUOTE=Confuzzled;3839264]As someone pointed out, couldn't the same arguments (Who are these non-entities? Why are people going to care?) have been made against Marvel greenlighting films starring Guardians of the Galaxy and Scott Lang?[/QUOTE]
I think the difference is that, at the very least, Guardians of the Galaxy specifically had several ongoing runs to it's name before they tried to make a movie out of it. Sure, Gunn dramatically revamped the group, but there was quite a bit of source material to draw from even if it was "niche" as far as comic book properties.
Even Scott Lang, while more of a team player then a solo star, had the Ant-Man legacy behind him.
Most of these properties that Sony is trying to build on are Spider-Man centric supporting or minor characters that were generally designed just to play off or interact with Spider-Man.
[QUOTE]MCU had 4 (then) B-List solo heroes* and a team-up movie before they started "scraping the bottom of the barrel" as opposed to Sony who have an A-List hero, a potential A-List anti-hero and then the "bottom of the barrel"[/QUOTE]
And I would say those B-list solo heroes had way more to their name then Jackpot or Kraven.
-
They should just do Silk if they honestly want a solid third female hero with enough background to join Felicia and Sable. An Aunt May movie as was once suggested in the previous run would make more sense than a Jackpot film.
-
[QUOTE=Derek Metaltron;3839430]They should just do Silk if they honestly want a solid third female hero with enough background to join Felicia and Sable. An Aunt May movie as was once suggested in the previous run would make more sense than a Jackpot film.[/QUOTE]
I would really like to see you repeating this after they announce a Trouble movie. ;p
-
I think this speaks of how few superpowered/vigilante female characters are in the Spider-Man family, aside from the 4-5 Spider-Woman iterations running around at any given time.
-
[QUOTE=Zeitgeist;3840379]I think this speaks of how few superpowered/vigilante female characters are in the Spider-Man family, aside from the 4-5 Spider-Woman iterations running around at any given time.[/QUOTE]
It probably doesn't help that the Spider-Man Family isn't really much of a thing :p.
Really, Spider-Man in general just wasn't designed as the kind of IP or character farm that Marvel has been trying to make the franchise in the past few years, and that Sony is trying to make happen on film.
-
[QUOTE=Confuzzled;3839264]As someone pointed out, couldn't the same arguments (Who are these non-entities? Why are people going to care?) have been made against Marvel greenlighting films starring Guardians of the Galaxy and Scott Lang?
MCU had 4 (then) B-List solo heroes* and a team-up movie before they started "scraping the bottom of the barrel" as opposed to Sony who have an A-List hero, a potential A-List anti-hero and then the "bottom of the barrel".
*At the time, some folks (like Zack Snyder) implied that some of MCU's Big Four like Thor were the bottom of the barrel as well.[/QUOTE]
Are people seriously comparing Jackpot and Morbius to Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy? Get your Spidey blinders off. Sony is full of retards.
-
Interesting that Jackpot will apear in a new movie.
Interesting because despite her being a new character it shows that the creativity during Brand New Day in having new characters in the Spider-Man stories was so much that Producers choosed this character to have a new movie.
This reflects the creativity that was during Brand New Day in moving forward the Spider-Man stories to feature new characters.
Because after Black Cat and Silver Sable there is a enormous gap in regards of new Female powered characters that are allies of Spider-Man.
-
[QUOTE=JGC;3841341]Are people seriously comparing Jackpot and Morbius to Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy? Get your Spidey blinders off. Sony is full of retards.[/QUOTE]
I think the point is if the movie is good, no one will care that the source material was a "failed" concept.
-
[QUOTE=JGC;3841341]Are people seriously comparing Jackpot and Morbius to Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy? Get your Spidey blinders off. Sony is full of retards.[/QUOTE]
I think the point is if the movie is good, no one will care that the source material was a "failed" concept.
-
They out here trying to ruin all the spider-man character before Marvel can use them. Smh.
-
streamline the origin. make it work.
-
I literally know nothing of her other than she exists as a creation during the Brand New Day years. An era I actively avoided.
Read a few spot books here/there but was disgusted with the Mephisto situation as so many were.
Silver Sable makes sense
Black Cat makes sense
I get the comparisons to say GotG or Big Hero 6 and can agree, especially BH6.
That said the laughing headlines mocking it almost write themselves if this project actually went forward.