Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    102

    Default so I was reading about Spider-Verse

    and I read that Dan Scott said two versions that he wasn't allowed to use but were mentioned in the story were Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man as well as Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. That's a shame and would have been really cool to see. I think it's stupid they weren't allowed to use them, because without Marvel, Lee and Ditko, we wouldn't have had a Spider-Man movie in the first place. The movies were based on the comics. But instead it comes around to "Well, we are Sony, we own the rights to the characters, and even though we are not going to make a Spidey movie with Tobey or Andrew, you still can't use it even though your comics were the inspiration for our movies." And if it comes to profits, the filmmakers and actors already made their salaries and back end box office profits so what does it matter?

  2. #2
    Better than YOU! Alan2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,198

    Default

    I think it had more to do with likeness rights.

    I could be mistaken though.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    and I read that Dan Scott said two versions that he wasn't allowed to use but were mentioned in the story were Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man as well as Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man.
    Both are Sony creations, and Sony owns the rights specifically to their adaptations of Spider-Man whether it's Weisman's Spectacular cartoon, the Sam Raimi movies and so on.

    I think it's stupid they weren't allowed to use them, because without Marvel, Lee and Ditko, we wouldn't have had a Spider-Man movie in the first place.
    Well this isn't Lee and Ditko, this is Dan Slott. In the case of Dan Slott's Spider-Verse, that comic wouldn't exist without the pre-existing adaptations, alternate universes and other versions of Spider-Man by creators around the world, including Sony. And considering that Slott killed off the Amazing Friends Spider-Man and the Hostess Cakes Spider-Man, and so on, it's not exactly respectful and reverent to adaptations you know. Sony has the ability to say no is all. Remember that Ron Frenz, co-creator of Spider-Girl was quite upset and scathing about Slott's use of Spider-Girl elements in that story.

    The movies were based on the comics.
    The comics published from around AF#15 to about the 90s. Not the comics after that.

    But instead it comes around to "Well, we are Sony, we own the rights to the characters, and even though we are not going to make a Spidey movie with Tobey or Andrew, you still can't use it even though your comics were the inspiration for our movies."
    Dan Slott's comics weren't the inspiration for either the Raimi or Garfield movies. Sony has no obligation to do anything for Marvel after the success of the Spider-Man Trilogy pulled it out of bankruptcy and played a major role in creating conditions for the MCU to later come to be. Spider-Man is STAR WARS for Sony. Marvel will get Spider-Man back from Sony out of its cold dead hands.

    And if it comes to profits, the filmmakers and actors already made their salaries and back end box office profits so what does it matter?
    Because licensing. Sony can make money of their versions and adaptations of those characters. Also prestige. And control. Sony would be quite reluctant to entertain the pretensions of a comic book writer trying to state that the movies are merely an alternate universe to the regular 616 Spider-Man and calling dibs on doing a canonical continuation or finale of that. Doing so would basically be telling that the viewers of that movie didn't see Spider-Man. As far as the directors, cast, and producers go, and as far as many fans are concerned, Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man. That was the belief in which they made it. And they might not appreciate the most commercially and critically successful solo Spider-Man films not given pride of place in such an event.

  4. #4
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    102

    Default

    my comment about the studio saying that your comics were the inspiration, I was talking about Spider-man comics in general not Dan Slott. I never said that Slott's run inspired the Tobey and Andrew movies. You can clearly see they were inspired by the 60s and 70s comics.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CTTT View Post
    my comment about the studio saying that your comics were the inspiration, I was talking about Spider-man comics in general not Dan Slott. I never said that Slott's run inspired the Tobey and Andrew movies. You can clearly see they were inspired by the 60s and 70s comics.
    The issue is Sony saying no to this event. That doesn't mean that they think poorly or badly of the comics in general. Or that them vetoing use of Garfield and Tobey and elements from their adaptations is snubbing when from their perspective it's understandable.

    You can however say that Sony not consenting to allow the use of their adaptations for Spider-Verse and later borrowing the title for their animated movie and foundation for spinoffs is a major d--k move. On the other hand, Into the Spider-Verse aside from the title has practically nothing to do with the comic storyline Spider-Verse. It doesn't use the Inheritors, you don't have random AU Spider-Man being killed for shock value. The storyline has got nothing to do with that. You don't have Superior Spider-Man or Silk or any of Slott's characters. It's main inspirations are all Bendis -- Death of Spider-Man, Ultimate Fallout, Miles Morales' origin and prowler arc and Spider-Men I and Spider-Men II.

  6. #6
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,700

    Default

    all passive aggressive insinuation and imaginary perspectives aside, it’s as/more likely that it just came down to contracting limits and money. slott could have offered to crown the sony garfield spidey “mother of spiders, breaker of webs” and sony may still have said “meh”

    sony are planning a spin-off featuring silk too
    troo fan or death

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Both are Sony creations, and Sony owns the rights specifically to their adaptations of Spider-Man whether it's Weisman's Spectacular cartoon, the Sam Raimi movies and so on.



    Well this isn't Lee and Ditko, this is Dan Slott. In the case of Dan Slott's Spider-Verse, that comic wouldn't exist without the pre-existing adaptations, alternate universes and other versions of Spider-Man by creators around the world, including Sony. And considering that Slott killed off the Amazing Friends Spider-Man and the Hostess Cakes Spider-Man, and so on, it's not exactly respectful and reverent to adaptations you know. Sony has the ability to say no is all. Remember that Ron Frenz, co-creator of Spider-Girl was quite upset and scathing about Slott's use of Spider-Girl elements in that story.



    The comics published from around AF#15 to about the 90s. Not the comics after that.



    Dan Slott's comics weren't the inspiration for either the Raimi or Garfield movies. Sony has no obligation to do anything for Marvel after the success of the Spider-Man Trilogy pulled it out of bankruptcy and played a major role in creating conditions for the MCU to later come to be. Spider-Man is STAR WARS for Sony. Marvel will get Spider-Man back from Sony out of its cold dead hands.



    Because licensing. Sony can make money of their versions and adaptations of those characters. Also prestige. And control. Sony would be quite reluctant to entertain the pretensions of a comic book writer trying to state that the movies are merely an alternate universe to the regular 616 Spider-Man and calling dibs on doing a canonical continuation or finale of that. Doing so would basically be telling that the viewers of that movie didn't see Spider-Man. As far as the directors, cast, and producers go, and as far as many fans are concerned, Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man. That was the belief in which they made it. And they might not appreciate the most commercially and critically successful solo Spider-Man films not given pride of place in such an event.
    For Sony, it also wouldn't make sense to go through the effort of making some kind of deal with Marvel in order to allow for the film versions of their characters to pop up in the comic books. It's too much work for too little benefit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •