Spider-Man doesn't need to be saved

[url]https://imgur.com/a/QCiSY0q[/url]

As of recent news spread, Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures failed to reach an agreement to renew their collaboration for Spider-Man movies. Entire Spider-Man communities have been stormed with skepticism to say the least, and hopelessness and desperation to say the worst, even though "over-reaction" would be the best fitting word.

As usual in our days and age, everything must become a Twitter hash tag, an internet trend, various kind of reactions spread throughout the net, Instagram accounts being delirious and YouTube videos filled with indignation and regret. And all of this not because the Brazilian government is still cutting the Amazonian Forest or large Chunks of the Siberian region is burning or hundreds of desperate people are dying in the Mediterranean sea or any other kind of natural and human disaster is happening somewhere on planet Earth. No, all of this because the most popular fictional character ever created is no longer part of the, arguably, greatest commercial success in silverscreen's history.
#savespiderman here, #savespiderman there.

As if Spider-Man ever needed Marvel Studios to save him.
As if people could pretend to ignore historical facts, like Spider-Man's movie right being sold in 1998 from Marvel to Sony in order to get out of chapter seven and save themselves from bankruptcy. Not only that, but Marvel offered the entirety of their characters to Sony, but Sony executives refused as they believed that only Spider-Man was worth the effort and the money. It was a bad, short-sighted move, a mistake that benefitted Marvel in the long run as they were capable of re-establish their wealth and later founding one of the greatest and most successful Hollywood studio ever made.

With this piece I don't want to defend Sony Pictures, nor condemn Marvel Studios. Both of them are financial Juggernauts and their best interest is money, not the millions of fans in the world. For sure, in 2015 when the deal went through, Sony and Marvel didn't seek each other just to give the fans what they wanted and please their comic book power fantasy. Money was the sole reason that deal happened. Sony got a lot of greens from the five solo movies they developed from 2002 to 2014, but they realized that they could get more by cooperating with Disney-owned Marvel Studios. Marvel, on the other hand, realized how incomplete felt their cinematograpic universe without its main hero, the most popular, recognized and loved character of their stable. It was the perfect marriage for both parties. A timed marriage, however. The moment the agreement was signed and officialized, destiny - or for better saying- Business' clock started to ticking down. The agreement was made to let Sony catch their breath after the negative feedback that the Amazing Spider-Man 2 received from fans and press in 2014.
Sony desperately needed to rebuild a long lost virginity with the fanbase of the character, Marvel needed Spider-Man to give some authority and credibility to their MCU. That agreement however had its ends. The moment the character would become bankable again, Sony would take him back. That was the deal both parties signed and agreed on.

So, as you can see, the problem does not lie with the percentages as many pseudo-news sites falsely reported. Nor it is a problem concerning the quality of the movies. The core, the heart, the very centre of the whole situation lies in the kind of deal that was signed. It may resemble a monkey paw wish, maybe Sony lacked some good will or maybe Marvel shot too early, too much, aiming at the moon.

It doesn't matter.
Spider-Man doesn't need to be saved from anyone. One could debate whether the Marvel Studios labeled movies were better than Sony's ones or viceversa. But one thing is for sure, Spider-Man will always be there. Where? Top of the mountain, top billing superhero, a brand of his own, the one kind that makes oneself wonder if is Spider-Man that holds Marvel afloat and not viceversa.
Fans' overreacting isn't something totally new, and it is reasonable enough, especially when you have the allegedly most popular fictional character ever made. The fanbase was dissatisfied to say the least when the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon show was canceled after two seasons met with overwhelming good reception from both critics and audience.
Despite Spider-Man 3's shortcomings, many people were saddened by the lack of a proper ending to the Raimi trilogy and the lack of a fourth chapter that, against all odds, entered pre-production phase.
And Spider-Man fans were disappointed even when the game studios behind Spider-Man: Web of Shadows was shut down and their highly anticipated sequel was canned by Activision.
But what about comic books? After the One More Day disaster, the Dan Slott era begun. It was a very controversial direction taken by Slott, but Spidey came back on top of the food chain after years of disappointing sales.
Even after Slott's run started to fade, the current run by Nick Spencer, ten years later, brought back a lot of enthusiasm and interest even in the old paper format.

What I am trying to say, you may wonder?

That the entertainment business has patterns. Some more predictable than others. Spider-Man is a character created in 1962 (eons ago if we consider that the character might be older than any of his fans and that he survived all his three creators- Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and the often forgotten Jack Kirby who designed most of the costume and penciled the very first cover of a Spider-Man story), with the first multimedia release being the 1966 cartoon.
Since then Spider-Man has had many ups and downs (the former being far more than the latter), some of them being more dramatic and more deserving of attention, like the aforementioned 1997-1999 almost-bankruptcy of Marvel, or the bad press gained by stories like Sins Past and One More Day, or the bad video games the characters received before the 2018 masterpiece made by Insomniac (under Sony banner, ironically) or the even worse cartoon series like this current one or the abysmal ultimate Spider-Man.

Spider-Man survived all of this and was left unscathed. Every other intellectual property would be dead or gravely wounded by this time.
No. Spider-Man always get up and Fought back. For every bad story or stalling writer's run the character has received, it was counterbalanced by some Kraven's Last Hunt, Loeb's Blue, The Night Gwen Stacy died, etc.
For every bad cartoon show, Spider-Man got Spectacular and the Animated Series. For every Spider-Man friend or foe there was a Spider-Man PS4.
It happened so many times in the past that the fanbase has nothing to fear about. This is a clear pattern
Whenever Spider-Man failed, he came back stronger and better than before in a way that only art imitating life (and not viceversa!) could do.

As everything else Spider-Man related, Sony win/lose ratio is not that bad after all. The first two Raimi movies, alongside Bryan Singer's X-men flicks and 1999 Blade starring Wesley Snipes literally created the concept of the current superhero movie formula.
The first Amazing Spider-Man was somewhat decent and still respected by the audience.
Amazing Spider-Man 2 is undeniably a bad movie, but it had a very epic and grim final act and Gwen Stacy's character was given justice after Raimi failed to prove himself brave enough to use her and her father as something more than talking cameos.
More recently, Sony had two major hits with Venom (2018)and the animated Into the Spider-Verse, which won an Oscar and put an end over Disney's dominating streak at the Academy Awards.

In other words, Sony has everything needed to pull on by itself a solo, successful Spider-Man movie capable of reaching a billion in the box office. This, of course, taking into account the worst case scenario, which is not set stone yet.
Nothing, as of right now, impedes Sony and Marvel to reach for another agreement, maybe in a month or two, when hot temperamental egos and internet outrage will be cooled down.
Sony and Marvel are still negotiating. Even though the negotiations should go south, something I personally doubt as it would collide with everyone's interests, Sony could still pull a wild card from the sleeve and make a solo Tom Holland movie sharing the screen with the well-received Venom portrayed by Tom Hardy. Avoidance or carefully wording dialogs hinting at other Marvel heroes will be needed, but a Peter Parker finally capable of freeing himself from the emotional burden of Tony Stark and embracing adulthood and maturity could be a very well needed change. After all Peter Parker will not be a teenager for ever. He will not be a shadow of Iron man forever.

Anticipating the coming-of-age aspect of the character wouldn't be too damaging, as the loyal MCU fanbase will be mostly, well, still loyal, while old timers and "purists" of the character, disappointed by the many and often unneeded changes made in the MCU lore, will find a new reason to come back sitting in the theater after so many years.

So Spider-Man will survive. The negotiations are still on. A reboot is not necessary. Either way we're going to have our daily allowance of Spider-Man merchandise, made of paper, celluloid, plastic or pixels. In other words, the world is still spinning, the sky is still blue and nobody is caring enough about the Amazonian or the Siberian or the Mediterranean.

[QUOTE=AlexCampy89;4526941]As if Spider-Man ever needed Marvel Studios to save him.
As if people could pretend to ignore historical facts, like Spider-Man's movie right being sold in 1998 from Marvel to Sony in order to get out of chapter seven and save themselves from bankruptcy. Not only that, but Marvel offered the entirety of their characters to Sony, but Sony executives refused as they believed that only Spider-Man was worth the effort and the money. It was a bad, short-sighted move, a mistake that benefitted Marvel in the long run as they were capable of re-establish their wealth and later founding one of the greatest and most successful Hollywood studio ever made. [/quote]

I wouldn't call it a bad move. Outside of not being able to see the future...there was no way anyone could predict how big Marvel Studios or the MCU and so on would be, would become. Spider-Man being Marvel's biggest character was the correct read.

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4526974]I wouldn't call it a bad move. Outside of not being able to see the future...there was no way anyone could predict how big Marvel Studios or the MCU and so on would be, would become. Spider-Man being Marvel's biggest character was the correct read.[/QUOTE]


Oh, you are right, but I wasn't trying to assess it as a fact, but rather I was echoing the public consensus that saw everything made by Sony as pure evil/wrong.

I don't think Sony is evil and I think we need to get away from this urge to have a good guy and a bad guy in a situation that's just two companies wanting different things. That said, I like Marvel Studio's track record a lot better (even if I find I tend to like the Sony Spidey movies more when they make something really good) and want to see MCU Spidey movie 3, not a modified version thereof, ergo, I want to see the deal reinstated and do not want Sony to make it on their own again.

[QUOTE=WebLurker;4529997][U]I don't think Sony is evil and I think we need to get away from this urge to have a good guy and a bad guy in a situation that's just two companies wanting different things[/U]. That said, I like Marvel Studio's track record a lot better (even if I find I tend to like the Sony Spidey movies more when they make something really good) and want to see MCU Spidey movie 3, not a modified version thereof, ergo, I want to see the deal reinstated and do not want Sony to make it on their own again.[/QUOTE]

Well said, friend. Some of the reactions I've read online, frankly, are absurd in their level of vitriol.

[QUOTE]That the entertainment business has patterns. Some more predictable than others. Spider-Man is a character created in 1962 (eons ago if we consider that the character might be older than any of his fans and that he survived all his three creators- Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and the often forgotten Jack Kirby [B]who designed most of the costume[/B] and penciled the very first cover of a Spider-Man story), with the first multimedia release being the 1966 cartoon.[/QUOTE]This is incorrect. Jack Kirby did not design most of the costume and frankly judging from most reliable sources he had little to do with the character's creation. When Stan came up with the idea, he originally went to Jack and he did up designing a costume but it looked nothing like the iconic red and blue costume that covered up the character's face. Stan disliked Jack's version, feeling it didn't fit with his concept of a relatable teenage superhero, and in his own words looked "too heroic" -- so imagine the square jawed chiselled Golden Age characters like Captain America where they wore a cowl where you could see his mouth and chin which was usual look for superheroes at the time, and that's pretty much what Jack drew. Lee, wanting to get away from that convention felt Jack 's style didn't suit his vision for the concept so he went to Ditko, who designed it into the costume we all know. It was actually Ditko's idea to have the mask cover his entire face in order to add a sense of ''mystery" to the character and he came up with the hand gesture he makes when he shoots a web. Kirby's only real contribution to Spider-Man history was, as you pointed out, penciling the cover for Amazing Fantasy#15 which is the first ever appearance of the character.

Sony's problem is they have no vision. They are completely reactionary. Whatever the popular thing is they will just try to chase that. They screwed up the Raimi trilogy, and they are undoubtedly going to screw up the cliffhanger to "Far From Home" as well.

[QUOTE=Amadeus Arkham;4530056]This is incorrect. Jack Kirby did not design most of the costume and frankly judging from most reliable sources he had little to do with the character's creation. When Stan came up with the idea, he originally went to Jack and he did up designing a costume but it looked nothing like the iconic red and blue costume that covered up the character's face. Stan disliked Jack's version, feeling it didn't fit with his concept of a relatable teenage superhero, and in his own words looked "too heroic" -- so imagine the square jawed chiselled Golden Age characters like Captain America where they wore a cowl where you could see his mouth and chin which was usual look for superheroes at the time, and that's pretty much what Jack drew. Lee, wanting to get away from that convention felt Jack 's style didn't suit his vision for the concept so he went to Ditko, who designed it into the costume we all know. It was actually Ditko's idea to have the mask cover his entire face in order to add a sense of ''mystery" to the character and he came up with the hand gesture he makes when he shoots a web. Kirby's only real contribution to Spider-Man history was, as you pointed out, penciling the cover for Amazing Fantasy#15 which is the first ever appearance of the character.[/QUOTE]

Kirby also came up with the idea of Peter staying with his Aunt and Uncle. Lee came up with the names.

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4530087]Kirby also came up with the idea of Peter staying with his Aunt and Uncle. Lee came up with the names.[/QUOTE] That’s what’s been said by some historians though from what I’ve read Jack’s idea was that Peter was living with an “elderly couple” which is pretty vague I can only acknowledge it as a possibility. Either way, Spider-Man was mostly the brainchild of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko and Kirby held little influence on the creation of the character. That’s not to take away Kirby’s countless contributions to other characters that he indeed played a significant role in co-creating like the X-Men, Hulk, and Fantastic Four but Spider-Man is the one character he didn’t have much involvement in, if at all, beyond penciling a cover or two for the character.

[QUOTE=Amadeus Arkham;4530056]This is incorrect. Jack Kirby did not design most of the costume and frankly judging from most reliable sources he had little to do with the character's creation. When Stan came up with the idea, he originally went to Jack and he did up designing a costume but it looked nothing like the iconic red and blue costume that covered up the character's face. Stan disliked Jack's version, feeling it didn't fit with his concept of a relatable teenage superhero, and in his own words looked "too heroic" -- so imagine the square jawed chiselled Golden Age characters like Captain America where they wore a cowl where you could see his mouth and chin which was usual look for superheroes at the time, and that's pretty much what Jack drew. Lee, wanting to get away from that convention felt Jack 's style didn't suit his vision for the concept so he went to Ditko, who designed it into the costume we all know. It was actually Ditko's idea to have the mask cover his entire face in order to add a sense of ''mystery" to the character and he came up with the hand gesture he makes when he shoots a web. Kirby's only real contribution to Spider-Man history was, as you pointed out, penciling the cover for Amazing Fantasy#15 which is the first ever appearance of the character.[/QUOTE]

While this is unrelated to the thread, I'll tell what I know about it:


Yes, Ditko made a full face mask, the shape of the eyes and the web patterns on the costume. The red and blue color scheme, and the symbol on the chest and the red boots were Kirby ideas.

The webs used as mean of transportation were Stan Lee's idea to replace Ditko's flying broom (later recycled for Green Goblin) , while the webs used as a mean to subjugate the opponent came from Eric Stanton, who occasionally helped Ditko on his works.

Also, Kirby penciled one special issue in which spidey's powers are highlighted and several other covers (notably #1, 10, Annuals, etc.

With time, various versions of the myth surfaced, with each author throwing water to their mill, so the full truth will never be fully revealed as even the creators themselves misremembered few details.

I never intended to downplay Ditko's role, simply wanted to say that a little but significant part of Spider-Man s ' birth
Is due to Kirby too.

No. He doesn't need to be saved, what he needs is someone as talented as Sam Raimi to come back with a clear vision for the next 10 years. Thanks for also reminding people it was the X-men, Blade and Spiderman movies that started this superhero frenzy we have now. I need to send that message to Jeremy Renner. I have to ask him where he gets the nerves to demand Sony just give the right back to Disney. Does he know his career as Hawkeye only happened because Spiderman was one of the IPs that kept marvel out of bankruptcy to create marvel studios?

It would not be 100% bad if the deal fails. I think the Disney media lackeys and some of their actors should learn some humility and stop acting like bullies, who spew ignorance all the time. Yahoo is declaring no Spiderman film can make a billion without the mcu when and if the Raimi movies came out now, they would make more than a billion. Had any comic movie in history even made up to 500m before Spiderman 2002 that made 800m? The pure ignorance and Disney positive spin out there is beyond ridiculous.

[QUOTE=AlexCampy89;4530481]While this is unrelated to the thread, I'll tell what I know about it:


Yes, Ditko made a full face mask, the shape of the eyes and the web patterns on the costume. The red and blue color scheme, and the symbol on the chest and the red boots were Kirby ideas.

The webs used as mean of transportation were Stan Lee's idea to replace Ditko's flying broom (later recycled for Green Goblin) , while the webs used as a mean to subjugate the opponent came from Eric Stanton, who occasionally helped Ditko on his works.

Also, Kirby penciled one special issue in which spidey's powers are highlighted and several other covers (notably #1, 10, Annuals, etc.

With time, various versions of the myth surfaced, with each author throwing water to their mill, so the full truth will never be fully revealed as even the creators themselves misremembered few details.

I never intended to downplay Ditko's role, simply wanted to say that a little but significant part of Spider-Man s ' birth
Is due to Kirby too.[/QUOTE] Once again...wrong. From the way you’re describing Kirby’s Spider-Man you’re obviously referring to this [URL="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yj3NQzeK6Fo/T68RZHrrhuI/AAAAAAAAMeA/D0nPNCuRaJg/s1600/tumblr_m3q1zw8aom1qbndfn.jpg"]picture. [/URL] That image is a doctored image of Giant Man From Tales To Astonish made to look like it could be Kirby’s prototypical version of Spider-Man. [URL="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GKE0Ng2q-UM/T68TgqV7mGI/AAAAAAAAMeg/mQF6FaadWAU/s1600/tumblr_lj57j5pbtg1qc63ooo1_500.jpg"]This is apparently what Kirby’s version of Spider-Man really looked like before Ditko took over. [/URL] As you can see, it’s basically Kirby recycling his Captain America design, and there’s virtually nothing that Ditko used for his rendition of the costume. Now you could argue maybe Ditko carried over Kirby’s idea to put a Spider-symbol on the costume but that’s really a common design thing used for dozens of superheroes before, and hardly counts as significant contribution of any kind.

[URL="https://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2012/05/hoax-of-year-jack-kirbys-spiderman.html?m=1"]This blog goes into it pretty in depth and should clear up some confusion[/URL]. Kirby’s contribution to Spider-Man was always paltry and not enough for him to be considered a “third creator.'' He made no significant contributions. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a slight against Kirby who undeniably is still the most important artist in Marvel having played a significant role in co-creating many beloved Marvel characters we enjoy to this day but according to most reliable sources his contribution to Spider-Man was very small.

[QUOTE=Vegeta;4530071]Sony's problem is they have no vision. They are completely reactionary. Whatever the popular thing is they will just try to chase that. They screwed up the Raimi trilogy, and they are undoubtedly going to screw up the cliffhanger to "Far From Home" as well.[/QUOTE]

This is probably their biggest problem as a studio. They have no long game, no build up. I think part of the issue was that they really were under the impression that Fiege and Disney would do the thinking for them while they tried to figure out what to do with Venom and...Morbius.