Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 106
  1. #31
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toddx77 View Post
    I feel like this was the result of Sony wanting to make sure Peter would be used since his past movies have been popular and everyone knows who he is. With Marvel doing things like making Ant-Man with Hank Pym and Janet van Dyke old and Scott and Hope as main characters Sony probably feared Marvel maybe doing something like that with Spider-Man. Since Peter is the only Spider-Man they have worked with and they are containing some control Sony probably want to make sure Marvel would use Peter first since Sony would have a better idea of what they are doing then say if Miles of chosen.




    How much you want to bet the next "In your face jam" will be about this? lol
    These are Marvel guidelines that Sony must follow.

  2. #32
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    The document was written as part of the Sony/Marvel deal, so it's fairly recent. And the wording seems to pretty clearly indicate that there was at least a small window open for one of the existing alternate versions of Spider-Man (3 of the 4 most widely-known of which are not caucasian) to appear, probably not as an initial lead, but possibly as a supporting or replacement character down the line.
    It's from 2011.

  3. #33
    Fantastic Member Darth Weevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalorama View Post
    The document was written as part of the Sony/Marvel deal, so it's fairly recent. And the wording seems to pretty clearly indicate that there was at least a small window open for one of the existing alternate versions of Spider-Man (3 of the 4 most widely-known of which are not caucasian) to appear, probably not as an initial lead, but possibly as a supporting or replacement character down the line.
    Okay, clicked through and it's from 2011—well before the current JV agreement, but long after the initial licensing agreement. Gawker also notes it's one month after Miles Morales was introduced, and I think that's where we get the real story: Marvel knew Sony could use Miles, but they didn't want them mixing the two characters together, using Miles' life story, but calling him Peter Parker. Also saying "if you want a Black Spider-Man, use Miles." I don't see the big deal there, though maybe the "Spidey can't be gay" clause is a bit more problematic, since it extends to all not-explicitly gay alternate Spider-Men.

  4. #34
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Weevil View Post
    Okay, clicked through and it's from 2011—well before the current JV agreement, but long after the initial licensing agreement. Gawker also notes it's one month after Miles Morales was introduced, and I think that's where we get the real story: Marvel knew Sony could use Miles, but they didn't want them mixing the two characters together, using Miles' life story, but calling him Peter Parker. Also saying "if you want a Black Spider-Man, use Miles." I don't see the big deal there, though maybe the "Spidey can't be gay" clause is a bit more problematic, since it extends to all not-explicitly gay alternate Spider-Men.
    That's pretty much how I read it to. They have their own brand and don't want the expectations changed for their comics.

  5. #35
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    6,457

    Default

    Basically, all it really says is that Sony can only use a version of Spider-Man that's based on an already existing version in the comics, whether it's Parker or someone else, and then outlines what qualities define those versions. (That's why the Spider-Man-specific list doesn't say anything about race/ethnicity, because there are multiple existing versions of Spider-man that aren't white).

    There really isn't anything particularly objectionable or controversial about it.
    Last edited by kalorama; 06-19-2015 at 03:26 PM.

  6. #36
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Is the popularity of Miles Morals something based in reality or just driven by buzz on social media? I have always thought Mayday Parker is the most popular non-Peter Parker Spider-Man, considering how long is her series.

  7. #37
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Weevil View Post
    Okay, clicked through and it's from 2011ówell before the current JV agreement, but long after the initial licensing agreement. Gawker also notes it's one month after Miles Morales was introduced, and I think that's where we get the real story: Marvel knew Sony could use Miles, but they didn't want them mixing the two characters together, using Miles' life story, but calling him Peter Parker. Also saying "if you want a Black Spider-Man, use Miles." I don't see the big deal there, though maybe the "Spidey can't be gay" clause is a bit more problematic, since it extends to all not-explicitly gay alternate Spider-Men.
    If I remember right there was some rejiggering of the licensing agreement back then, I think with Sony keeping movies rights and Marvel getting merchandising rights they didn't have.

    It's funny how this sites article gives the impression that it's Sony saying Spider-Man must not be gay or non-white. But if you look in other places it's clearly Marvel's guild lines, and the Gawker one specifically says this is from 2011, so it's not coming from this new Marvel Sony deal. Although in the new deal it sounds like Marvel is running the creative side, so even if this was new, it would still be something Marvel was telling Sony they had to do.

  8. #38
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Weevil View Post
    Okay, clicked through and it's from 2011—well before the current JV agreement, but long after the initial licensing agreement. Gawker also notes it's one month after Miles Morales was introduced, and I think that's where we get the real story: Marvel knew Sony could use Miles, but they didn't want them mixing the two characters together, using Miles' life story, but calling him Peter Parker. Also saying "if you want a Black Spider-Man, use Miles." I don't see the big deal there, though maybe the "Spidey can't be gay" clause is a bit more problematic, since it extends to all not-explicitly gay alternate Spider-Men.
    They made a new deal in which Sony got something better in live action departement, but lost animated rights, hence Sony's Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon was canceled and replaced by Disney's Ultimate Spider-Man

    The gay thing is about Sony not being allowed to create new Spider character that is gay, but if Marvel itself does it in comics, they can use it.

  9. #39
    Protect the weak. Darth Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    south coast
    Posts
    2,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Penance View Post
    Because a faithfull portrayal of Peter Parker is wrong amirite????????????
    To bad Fox is not so regulated, even if a gay Wolverine brings a smile to my mind.

  10. #40
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    14,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodofthegods View Post
    It's a two way street.

    Edit: Why be so adamant it's not going to happen when this forum is all about diversity? It's wishing it was airborne as bad as you saying the same kalorama. If we want diversity, why shoot down the idea when it's mentioned? Do we want diversity or do we just want fuel to debate? If the eyes of the industry are on any of the message forums the message seems to be mixed.
    The thing is nobody wants it at the expense of their favorite character.

    However NOTHING you do can be done without someone taking a backseat of sorts.

    If Marvel pushed Falcon as Falcon-you would hear folks scream he's taking a spot from (pick any straight white male character that you want) guy.

    You got Dr Strange fans complaining he's being ignored in favor of Luke Cage. Yet Strange has a movie and Cage has an online show.

  11. #41
    All-New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    19

    Default

    The gay clause becomes more problematic in this light. It means that unless Marvel writes a gay Spider-Man character, one can't be used by Sony in a film. No gay Spider-Man has been written, so there will be no gay Spider-Man on film. I get completely that I'm probably going to see at least 5 more Peter Parkers before I see a Miguel or a Miles, and I doubt I'll ever see a gay Spidey, but the fact that it was contracted as such is a bit objectionable.

  12. #42
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rouder View Post
    Is the popularity of Miles Morals something based in reality or just driven by buzz on social media? I have always thought Mayday Parker is the most popular non-Peter Parker Spider-Man, considering how long is her series.
    This idea that Miles' popularity is "social media buzz" is odd. The social media buzz is from people who like the character, obviously.

    I don't know why people feel the need to invalidate or discount Miles popularity
    Last edited by Heisennerd; 06-19-2015 at 05:46 PM.

  13. #43
    Self-Loathing Bendis Fan
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    245

    Default

    ...kill other than in self-defense...
    Marvel has loosened its grip a little on the PC by allowing even this much.

    The Spidey I remember would die before taking anyone's life.

  14. #44
    Self-Loathing Bendis Fan
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisennerd View Post
    I don't know why people feel the need to invalidate or discount Miles popularity
    On every issue, there are 2 sides that refuse to see the other's.

    For instance, the other side doesn't know why people can't accept that Spider-Man is Peter Parker.

    Neither side will soften, and that's on the most trivial of issues. Imagine the important societal ones.

    This is 21st Century America... every issue has 2 extreme sides that can't even begin to understand how the other is thinking. And as more and more people reject contrarians from THEIR groups, each group becomes more and more single-minded. Compromises end up being the OPPOSITE of what each is looking for.

    (But I digress.)

  15. #45
    All-New Member skeezix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10

    Default

    This is a non-story with a click bait headline. Clauses like these are common in licensing arrangements and are used to protect the IP involved by having both parties agree to exactly what the licensee is getting.

    The gay clause is Marvel's way of ensuring that when/if a gay Spider-Man is ever depicted, it is by Marvel's creation with Marvel's handling and not Sony's. If you owned a character that is recognized by billions of people and worth billions of dollars, you wouldn't license it away without sufficient protection either. If Marvel did not include clauses like this, Sony or another counter-party could potentially make a movie about their own version of Spider-Man that might not be in line with what Marvel wants. Yes, Sony has the Spider-Man film rights. But to assume that Marvel gave them a blank canvas to run with their own depiction of Spider-Man back in the day or in 2011 or whenever is naive. This is not Marvel saying Spider-Man can never be gay, it's Marvel saying that when a gay Spider-Man happens, we will be the ones shepherding the character to protect the IP. "If you want it done right, do it yourself."

    The Peter Parker list is just a list of character traits that define Peter Parker along with some standard restrictions you would expect from a family friendly character licensing deal. Yes he is white and heterosexual, but... that is Peter Parker so I don't get why this is a big deal. It's not saying Miles Morales or Miguel O'Hara or whoever else in the future that happens to be non-white can't be Spider-Man. Again this is just protecting the IP of what Peter Parker is so that Marvel & Sony agree on what can and cannot be done with the character.

    This should not be a big deal at all.
    "You don't even know what a write-off is." - Jerry Seinfeld

Posting Permissions

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