Avi Arad Responds to Feige Article, Takes Credit for Marvel Studios' Success

[Lady Warp Spasm]

While he has a point, I thought Avi left Marvel studios? So, yes he started things, but Fiege is commanding the very successful ship right now.

Avi should be proud of what he accomplished > Spider-Man has been huge.

[DebkoX]

He should. Fiege is doing brilliantly, but Arad should be proud of what he has done.
It can be argued that, without the success of Spider-man, the MCU may not have came.

[YoungThanos]

Given that Avi Arad's name comes up as "PRODUCER" of the worse Marvel film this decade so far.(GhostRider:SOV) Recognition is the last thing he should be fishing for. Him dismissing Spider-man in the MCU the way he did, probably didn't help matters.

[heddykase]

He did not think Marvel Studios on it's own would succeed. He made sure to say there would be NO way spider-man would ever be in the avengers/cross to the MCU until they've "run out of ideas" (really seems to be a cop-out excuse to not affiliate with marvel studios away-from-sony), and makes sure he emphasizes that he will never, ever see Miles Morales as spider-man. He seems to be the old fart in the room. Yeah, he was cool when he was involved with the comic books, but the past few months all I've seen is him running his mouth. Think Smart, Marvel, Toss him, he's outlived his usefulness once Marvel made their own movies. Come on disney, buy out sony and fox's rights to the characters and bring them home, and remove Arad so we can have some really good content all around. I mean, unless you want more cheesy spiderman films, and the horrendous FF film that's coming.

[Nirikins]

I'd like to see Disney buy the rights back to both those franchises, if only to control the rate of release. I'm loving the quality from MCU and terrified that the bloat of rush to screen announcements from both Sony and Fox will eventually fatigue movie goers who don't know the difference between studios. Crappy films reflect badly on all of them. Add DC's plans to the mix and suddenly I worry they'll all endanger better products.

[Rogue Star]

I'd like to see Disney buy the rights back to both those franchises, if only to control the rate of release. I'm loving the quality from MCU and terrified that the bloat of rush to screen announcements from both Sony and Fox will eventually fatigue movie goers who don't know the difference between studios. Crappy films reflect badly on all of them. Add DC's plans to the mix and suddenly I worry they'll all endanger better products.

I had that same fear but I'm hoping that people will just learn to flock to the MCU films and avoid the other studios' desperate cash grabs.

[Legato]

I had that same fear but I'm hoping that people will just learn to flock to the MCU films and avoid the other studios' desperate cash grabs.

Thats a little sad and petty isn't it? Actually it is TBH. It's cool like the MCU but wishing fail on a company is a little fanatical

[Rogue Star]

Thats a little sad and petty isn't it? Actually it is TBH. It's cool like the MCU but wishing fail on a company is a little fanatical

I don't wish fail on anyone. All I'm saying is that IF other studios are going to sacrifice quality for the sake of making money, and flood the market with mediocre or worse films to the detriment of the comic book movie genre, I would hope that the movie goers will still watch the MCU movies; rather than abandoning all hope for comic book movies.

[Hamdinger]

Arad laid the finacial groundwork, the business infrastructure for Marvel Studios, which he deserves credit for, but others actually made the movies. Arad trying to take credit for that other aspect makes him seem like a typical lying hollywood scumwad.

[Scavenger]

Arad laid the finacial groundwork, the business infrastructure for Marvel Studios, which he deserves credit for, but others actually made the movies. Arad trying to take credit for that other aspect makes him seem like a typical lying hollywood scumwad.

No, It's someone who founded the studio wanting the credit for founding the studio. He didn't take anything away from Feige, who by most accounts was Arad's protege. Arad is the father of the modern super hero movie era. He should get credit for that.

He left Marvel because he wanted to go out on his own. If there was other reasons, it'd likely be something with Perlmutter who was his partner in saving Marvel from bankruptcy/Ron Perleman...though I've never seen news on there being strife there.

I'm on the same page as Sam Raimi: I really don't like Venom or any of the symbionts. Peter Parker's old, jealous costume is a terrible concept for a villain.

Well evil version of Spider-Man, which is what Venom is, is one of the most popular villains, so he gets to go in the movies.

He did not think Marvel Studios on it's own would succeed. He made sure to say there would be NO way spider-man would ever be in the avengers/cross to the MCU until they've "run out of ideas" (really seems to be a cop-out excuse to not affiliate with marvel studios away-from-sony), and makes sure he emphasizes that he will never, ever see Miles Morales as spider-man.(

I just don't respect that he has declared that almost anything that's not connected to the Lee/Ditko canon is heretical (i.e., Miles Morales, Miguel O'Hara, etc.) and therefore off the table for development.

Unless you've read something I haven't, that's all an unfair interpretation (likely from CA's piss poor article). The point made was doing the variant spider-man characters like Ben or Miles just doesn't make sense for the movies. Yes, comic audiences will buy "long lost clone" and "random black kid gets same powers", but mainstream audiences won't. You get one movie every few years...if people are going to be invested in them, then it's about Peter...not his clone, not kid who when you boil it down is black Peter, but isn't quite Peter, but otherwise, is the same.

(I do think it's short sighted to write off Miguel, as Spider-Man 2099 is a very different concept than alternate modern day Spider-Man's.....a Blade Runner esque super hero movie could be very cool, and something that Marvel & Fox or WB/DC don't really have a good property for.)

[Carabas]

I'd like to see Disney buy the rights back to both those franchises, if only to control the rate of release. I'm loving the quality from MCU and terrified that the bloat of rush to screen announcements from both Sony and Fox will eventually fatigue movie goers who don't know the difference between studios. Crappy films reflect badly on all of them. Add DC's plans to the mix and suddenly I worry they'll all endanger better products.

I don't really think they're for sale. Fox and Sony'd have to be idiots to sell at this point.

[Toonimator]

Unless you've read something I haven't, that's all an unfair interpretation (likely from CA's piss poor article). The point made was doing the variant spider-man characters like Ben or Miles just doesn't make sense for the movies. Yes, comic audiences will buy "long lost clone" and "random black kid gets same powers", but mainstream audiences won't. You get one movie every few years...if people are going to be invested in them, then it's about Peter...not his clone, not kid who when you boil it down is black Peter, but isn't quite Peter, but otherwise, is the same.

But you've got Garfield saying (IIRC) that he's out after the 3rd...are they gonna reboot again? Recast, ala the '90s Bat-films?

Or, maybe, they can take a cue from the Ultimate Universe (which the ASMs and MCU have borrowed from in the past) and maybe take this "Sinister Six" build-up to do the Death of Peter Parker, with six villains raising hell and Spider-Man's basically the only guy that can stop them... and he does, but it costs him his life (but not before Sally Field caps the Goblin for good in her own front yard, in time to hear Pete's final words). And maybe there's another plot running thru the film, of some kid who, despite not being a Parker, gets some spider-powers of his own... or maybe it's just a tease at the end, with him deciding to honor Pete's legacy while watching the televised funeral for Spider-Man and doodling a similar Spidey-mask...there's a million ways they could write in Miles and make it work, transitioning the series over to him, and introduce him to the mainstream audiences. People didn't think it'd work in the comics, even with the "Oh, but it's just the Ultimate Universe" excuse, yet he seemed to be pretty well-received overall. Why couldn't the same work for the movies, if properly established?

[Slade Wilson]

Lots of anger in this thread.....

I dont get the Anti-Symbiote mood thats going on here. Venom is one of the greatest Marvel characters of all time in my opinion (The early 90s Version that is) and Carnage is probably my most favorite Marvel villain ever. I would kill (pun intended^^) to see one of them or both on the big screen and adapted faithfully. There was a time when Marvel went a little nuts with the Symbiote thing but Venom and Carnage are still among my Top 10 Marvel Characters of all time. Actually its the Spidey comics from that era (Late 80s/Early 90s) that made me a fan in the first place, its by far my most favorite era in Spideys history (Early 90s are generally my most favorite Marvel era). All that McFarlane/Michelinie/Larsen stuff - thats MY Spider-Man.

I understand that Raimi loves particularly the 60s and 70s era of Spidey because thats the stuff that he grew up on but as a director of a Spider-Man movie he has to consider all of the fans and their preferences, not just his own. Including Venom in a Spider-Man movie needed to be done sooner or later. Unfortunately it wasnt done very well. I still appreciate that they included some scenes that were very close to McFarlanes early Venom stuff like the scene in the church but unfortunately the writing, which betrayed that Raimi didnt know how to get a handle on Venoms character and the terrible casting choice of Topher Grace ruined most of it. But IF done faithfully by someone who knows how to handle Venom, this would be a movie that I have been waiting for.

Thats a little sad and petty isn't it? Actually it is TBH. It's cool like the MCU but wishing fail on a company is a little fanatical

I really agree. I am getting a bit tired of this constant praise of the MCU like every movie is completely perfect while every other company is only producing crap films which is so not true.

I love the MCU, its very faithful and has very individual films and the concept of the interweaving plotlines and a shared universe is really awesome but not every movie in the MCU was a milestone masterpiece. Hulk was pretty mediocre and his character didnt become really popular until Avengers. The first Cap movie was a bit dragging and rocky and among general audiences it wasnt all that popular. Iron Man 3 had its faire share of critics and detractors as well and Iron Man 2 actually was met with quite some negative backlash (Though I never agreed with that, I like both Iron Man sequels very much). The Thor movies were received well but not with a whole lot of praise (The 2nd Thor was also much less well received by critics if you look at the RT score). The only three films that so far were met with universal praise from critics and most fans were Iron Man, Avengers and Cap 2 (Which is more than deserved - all three are among the best superherofilms ever made IMO).

So while the MCU is pretty good and created something very awesome and groundbreaking - its not without its flaws. And the other companies have created great movies too. Sony did the first two Spider-Man films which were absolutely groundbreaking and paved the way for the evolution of the genre. Fox similarly produced the first two X-Men films , which in my opinion are still two of the greatest movies of all time in this genre (especially X2). And while X3 and the first Wolverine were a heavy decline in quality, I think that First Class and The Wolverine were excellent films (flawed in some areas but still really great films) and Days of Future Past certainly does not look like "a desperate cashgrab" to me. So far it looks like one of the most mindblowing movie in the genre to me. Of course I can not judge the film yet before I have seen it.

Similarly we dont know yet how DCs upcoming movies are gonna be like so I find it unfair to dismiss them in advance as movies that will "ruin the comic book movie genre with their lack of quality".

Marvel is doing great stuff with the MCU (especially lately) but not every one of their films is a masterpiece to behold and similarly both Fox and Sony have created great and not so great movies. And both companies still absolutely have the capacity to make great movies. So does Warner/DC by the way. lets be a bit more open minded shall we?

[Ceebiro]

Unless you've read something I haven't, that's all an unfair interpretation (likely from CA's piss poor article). The point made was doing the variant spider-man characters like Ben or Miles just doesn't make sense for the movies. Yes, comic audiences will buy "long lost clone" and "random black kid gets same powers", but mainstream audiences won't. You get one movie every few years...if people are going to be invested in them, then it's about Peter...not his clone, not kid who when you boil it down is black Peter, but isn't quite Peter, but otherwise, is the same.

(I do think it's short sighted to write off Miguel, as Spider-Man 2099 is a very different concept than alternate modern day Spider-Man's.....a Blade Runner esque super hero movie could be very cool, and something that Marvel & Fox or WB/DC don't really have a good property for.)

Who would have thought mainstream audiences would have bought into B-List on a good day armored Avenger, Iron Man? If it's anything I've learned in the past few years, is that it's not so easy to project what the mainstream audience is or isn't willing to accept. For all of the complaints about the first ASM, it still made more money than any Marvel film not starring Robert Downey Jr (and two that did). For all the complaints about the quality of Bay's Transformers, it's still a multibillion dollar franchise. I'd argue that Miles's similarities to Peter would actually make him more palatable to audiences than if he was the complete opposite - that character of doing good with the gifts you have, while bearing the weight of the world. That's something that resonates with people, and is a character trait that's not wholly exclusive to Peter Parker anyway.

[YoungThanos]

Thats a little sad and petty isn't it? Actually it is TBH. It's cool like the MCU but wishing fail on a company is a little fanatical

I don't know about anyone else but I'm personally just routing for my favorite team. Is being glade Lebron left Cleveland for Miami where he was a better fit the definition of being petty??? While routing for your favorite team in this case it's possible that the other teams may loose.

Case in point, Sony walked on the "court" overconfident with ASM2 thinking they were going to get the best box office for a CBM and now they're facing elimination from first place next weekend to "Neighbors" of all films.

Not wishing failure on ASM2 personally but I did pass on the film and I'm looking forward to seeing "Neighbors" this Friday. Does that make sense...?