Making Sense of SPIDER-MAN in the MCU

The bombshell has dropped, the smoke is starting to clear, and uncertainty has taken its place. But through it all, one thing is for sure:

Spider-Man is finally coming home.

In what will probably be referred to as one of the biggest "Remember where you were when. . ." moments in recent memory, Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios finally came to a hard-fought agreement to share the rights to everyone's favorite web-slinging superhero, after months and months of wild rumors, rampant speculation, juicy gossip, and numerous twists-and-turns that left everyone not knowing what to expect next.

So perhaps it's fitting that this strange, unlikely turn of events could be directly attributed to yet another strange and unlikely turn of events - the controversy and uproar over the release of the James Franco and Seth Rogan movie, The Interview.

That's right, the fulfillment of every fanboy's wet dream (at least, the wet dreams concerning Spider-Man. Let's keep all your other perverted little fantasies out of this, shall we?) was most likely made possible thanks to a lowbrow Franco/Rogan comedy, combined with the pettiness and immaturity of the North Korean dictator who (allegedly) felt compelled to order a series of hacks on Sony and publicly leak sensitive information and e-mails. . .among which we first learned of Sony's internal panic at the dire situation they found themselves in.
  But even that, ladies and gentlemen, wouldn't have been enough to secure the beginning stages of the extraction, rescue, and recovery of Marvel's golden boy. Oh no, the REAL catalyst for such a never-before-seen negotiation of character rights was a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot - the utterly disappointing performance and overall reception of Sony's expectant $1 billion hit, The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

The colossal financial and critical failure of that blockbuster proved to be enough to completely derail plans for a proposed trilogy, force the studio to rethink their entire strategy, and stop a fledgling 'Spidey-verse' right in its tracks like a tranquilized Rhino (sorry, please excuse the horrible pun. To distract you from that, you can read more of my thoughts about that whole trainwreck here).

But that was then. As we're all aware of by now, things have kind of changed in the last few days and weeks.

The initial shock is over, the news has finally sunk in. . .but what does this mean going forward? What does this deal actually entail in the first place? And how will it affect Sony and Marvel's plans, both in the present and in the future?

Let's find out.

---

---

The Actual Deal:

First things first - what exactly do we know about the deal itself?

Well, Marvel has NOT bought and reacquired the rights to the character of Spider-Man. That much seems clear, right? It's a collaboration, as evidenced by the fact that both Sony and Marvel made a joint announcement, where both studios will act as partners who share the rights for the character. Even so, it's unprecedented, it's game-changing, and it's a huge deal (literally. Get it? Deal? Heh). . .but perhaps most importantly, it's just so damn complicated.

Make no mistake, I'm almost positive that the delay between the initial drawn-out talks, the rumored January "Spidey Summit", and the official announcement over 2 weeks ago was due to the tricky legal aspects of the negotiations:

Who gets what percentage of the overall box office revenue, how are the merchandising profits split, how long is the deal in effect, which studio name actually goes before the title of the film, which studio executives are involved. . .the present list of answerable and unanswerable questions goes on and on, and I'd hazard a guess that Sony and Marvel themselves are still in the middle of ironing many of those details out.

So what are the concrete, straightforward facts?

• No money is being exchanged by either company for these rights.

• Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige and, to a lesser extent, Sony Pictures co-chairman Amy Pascal, are in. Who's out? None other than the infamous, hated, and vilified head honcho previously in charge of Sony's Spider-Man Franchise, Avi Arad.

• Another concrete, if somewhat controversial, fact: Marvel certainly DOES have creative control and input over the final product, in spite of what the official press release says.

What's more interesting, in my opinion, is what this means for the future. Is this just a one-time thing? Similar to the original licensing agreement, will more Sony-distributed Spider-Man movies need to come out periodically in order to maintain this new deal? Or is this an entirely different animal altogether - maybe this rights-sharing thing is the new, permanent status quo for Spidey? Unfortunately, this remains to be seen as of yet.

---

---

The Cameo:

"Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU)."

This was the part of the press release that caught everyone's attention. Frustratingly, it doesn't quite say which movie that Spider-Man will appear in before his new solo movie, and that omission has opened up a Pandora's box of speculation.

So which movie could he make his first cameo in?

• Dr. Strange makes sense on some level, I suppose, as the inclusion of such a brand-name character could give the rookie franchise a boost of star-power (though I'm pretty sure Benedict Cumberbatch's presence will provide enough of that all on its own).


• Ant-Man seems even less likely, as I can't even imagine how a writer could somehow bring Spidey into the fold in that story, especially in the wake of the well-documented drama behind the scenes.


• An Age of Ultron cameo, however, might not be so unheard-of. (Potential SPOILERS in this paragraph, for the faint of heart) The very end of the movie is rumored to be about Captain America organizing a new team of Avengers recruits, made up of some old and new members. If that ends up becoming the post-credits stinger, and given that the famous shawarma scene in The Avengers wasn't actually shot until AFTER the big red carpet premiere of the movie itself, there might still be time to include the new Spider-Man (though, admittedly, it would be difficult as they haven't even begun casting for the new one yet. . .to our knowledge, at least).

In all likelihood, Captain America: Civil War will be the first appearance for the MCU's Spider-Man. The Russo brothers clearly have a strong interest and passion for the character (why else would they have gone out of their way to contact Amy Pascal in order to produce Sony's future Spider-Man movies before this new deal went down?), and it helps that the source material involves Spidey playing a huge role in the war.

But we should probably stop and ask ourselves. . .would that really make sense for the MCU? We have reason to believe that the core of Civil War will be about Cap and Falcon continuing their search for Bucky, while Tony Stark is perhaps trying to bring Bucky to justice (or even kill him) for the murder of his parents, amongst a plethora of other war crimes.

Meanwhile, the involvement of a suited-up Black Panther is already confirmed, and most assumed that he would take over Spider-Man's comic book role of being caught between the two quarreling heroes. Does the news about Spider-Man change that? Will Black Panther's role be reduced dramatically because of this, or even removed altogether?

My gut instinct is no.

For one thing, you don't trot out Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. and go all-out to introduce Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther if there was any chance his debut appearance would later be reduced to little more than a cameo.

But most importantly, consider this - Marvel has a history of using comic-accurate titles for films that don't actually resemble those comic storylines at all. Look no further than The Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, and now Civil War. There's a solid precedent for this kind of thing.

Therefore, we can't assume that just because Spidey had a pivotal role in the comics, it automatically means he'll be given the same part in the movie (you can pretty much forget about ever seeing his infamous unmasking moment in the movie, for that matter). Marvel has shown that they certainly aren't afraid to adapt on the fly (Robert Downey, Jr.'s restructured contract for Civil War is proof of this), but significantly re-writing large swaths of the script to accommodate Spider-Man might be too much at this point.

. . .That said, I'd be remiss not to mention the distinct, just-in-case possibility of Captain America writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely developing TWO different script treatments for Civil War - one with the inclusion and heavy involvement of Spider-Man, and one without.

In any event, if I were a betting man, I would say that our favorite web-slinger will have nothing more than a brief cameo in Civil War, perhaps something similar to Quicksilver's scene-stealing moment in X-Men: Days of Future Past. . .though it also wouldn't surprise me to see him only pop up in the after-credits scene at the end.

But no matter how it plays out, I think it's safe to say that Spider-Man's role will have less to do with directly impacting the events of Civil War, and more about setting up his 2017 solo movie.

---

---

The Solo Movie:

So speaking of which, the new Spider-Man solo film already has a release date of July 28, 2017. We know that Andrew Garfield will NOT be reprising the character, and the language of the press release leads us to believe that this will be yet another reboot for the highly-profitable franchise (the THIRD different iteration of the character in less than 10 years).

It then stands to reason that all connections and references to The Amazing Spider-Man movies will be thrown out the window and done away with. Sony's leaked emails revealed that Marvel understandably didn't want their shared universe to have anything to do with that much-maligned franchise, and so it's no surprise to see Marc Webb's planned trilogy cut short and end with a whimper.

But this, of course, only leads to even more questions.

First, let's address the elephant in the room right away: this WILL be a story about Peter Parker, as opposed to some of the other comic book characters who have worn the suit. Why? Apart from the press release actually naming Peter, it's simple: the general audience simply knows that Peter Parker IS Spider-Man.

Now, does that mean we won't ever see someone like Miles Morales pick up the mantle someday down the line? If Marvel's smart, no. In fact, I'd LOVE to see that happen. . .eventually. But right now, it just makes good business sense to finally do Peter Parker justice, while leaving all doors open for the future.

But here's another legitimate concern - will the new solo movie be yet ANOTHER repeat of Spidey's well-known origin story? Again, the smart money would be on "Awww, hell nah!" There are a few ways that MCU could get around this:

• They could "The Incredible Hulk" it by briefly going over the highlights of his origin story during the opening credit sequence. . .for the benefit of the 3 people left on earth who aren't aware of it by now.


• They could decide to simply skip the origin altogether, and trust the audience enough to simply drop us right in the middle of Peter Parker trying to juggle high school, his relationship with Aunt May, perhaps a romance or two, and just focus on the daily struggle of being Spider-Man in a post-Avengers world.


• They could address it in a somewhat meta, tongue-in-cheek fashion during his appearance in Civil War. A scene with Tony Stark verbally sparring with Spidey and arguing about how a spider-bite isn't exactly the most original way to be given powers could bring down the house, if done right.

As for what the solo movie would actually be about. . .I won't go there. I'm sure you've all seen endless amounts of fan-fic and fan theories lately about what that could deal with, and I have no interest in adding my own crappy ideas to that list.

All I'll say is that Marvel's insistence on portraying Peter Parker in high school is probably the right way to go. The opportunity to really sink their teeth into Parker's early career is just too tantalizing, and placing a noticeably young Parker in the midst of such grown-up and established heroes like Chris Evans' Steve Rogers and Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark is just too fun of a dynamic to completely do away with.

It might give you reason to pause when you consider a young, inexperienced, teenaged Spider-Man trying to hold his own in Captain America: Civil War. . .but that's exactly why I believe he'll have little to no impact whatsoever in that movie. It'll be a simple cameo to introduce the character and gauge fan interest, and then move on to establish him in his own movie a year later. As the saying goes - no harm, no foul.

---

---

The Ripple Effect:

By now, it should be pretty clear that this deal has MASSIVE ramifications for both studios. Let's tackle Marvel first.

After the official press release unexpectedly dropped, eagle-eyed fans noticed that the date for Spider-Man's solo movie coincided with the proposed release date for Thor: Ragnarok. Shortly thereafter, Marvel announced that a handful of their Phase 3 movies would be pushed back to make room for the Spider-Man film. Suddenly, that nifty graphic shown during their Phase 3 announcement had become completely obsolete.

Now, it's easy to gripe about how Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and Inhumans are going to be pushed back for a character that plenty of audience members are, quite frankly, getting a little sick of by now. While some hold to the belief that audiences are simply sick of BAD Spider-Man movies (if you think about it, we haven't really seen a genuinely great Spidey flick since 2004!), it's also true that the Phase 3 movies are only getting pushed back 6 months or so.

When those movies were years away in the first place, I just don't see how another 6 months is enough to make a big deal about.

No, the more important issue to bring up is just how this lineup shuffle affects the Infinity Wars films and the larger story that Marvel is trying to tell.

As you can see in the graphic, the Black Panther solo movie was previously going to lead into Avengers: Infinity War Part I. Captain Marvel and Inhumans would've then been sandwiched in between Part I and Part II.

But now, the new lineup has been rearranged so that the Spider-Man film replaces Thor: Ragnarok, and now the Thor threequel leads into Infinity War. Similarly, Black Panther is now bumped until AFTER Part I drops and will be followed up by Captain Marvel. . .which, by the way, now serves as the lead-in to Part II. Inhumans, assuming the role of the red-headed stepchild of the MCU, will be pushed back until after Part II.

Taken at face value, it seems like an odd decision all around. 

Does the new placement of Black Panther mean that his solo film will still spring naturally from the events of Infinity War Part I, or will that movie now have to be slightly changed in order to set up T'Challa's first solo venture? Without the benefit of being immediately followed up by Black Panther, does Thor: Ragnarok cover enough material on its own to be a proper segue into Infinity War? And how the heck does Inhumans fit into the picture, seeing as how both Infinity War films will be over and done with by then?

Let's just say I don't envy Kevin Feige and the rest of the Marvel team that has to figure all these headaches out.

Moving on to Sony, their long-term plans (*snicker*) seem even more murky.

With Amy Pascal busy with the Spider-Man/MCU deal, Sony has just hired ex-20th Century Fox head honcho Tom Rothman to steer their ship. That's right, even after dumping the toxic Avi Arad, Sony went ahead and jumped into bed with yet ANOTHER moron, infamous for his anti-superhero movie agenda and notoriously cheap mindset.

This is the guy that decided to micromanage Gavin Hood's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. . .to the extent that he actually demanded sets to be repainted and entire scenes changed without the director's knowledge and consent. This is the guy who hates "comic-booky" elements so much, he singlehandedly prevented Sentinels from being used in any of the X-Men films for as long as he could.

So yeah, it'd be easy to watch all this unfold and worry about how he might completely screw up Spider-Man just when we thought we were in the clear. . .but let's take a moment and breathe.

Tom Rothman comes with plenty of baggage, but there's almost no chance he'd be foolish enough to mess around with the deal and potentially cause Marvel to back out. Sony literally needs this partnership in order to recoup some kind of profit from their Spidey goldmine, and so it's more than likely that Rothman will be on his best behavior.

In more worrisome news, recent reports indicate that Sony still intends to move ahead with their Sinister Six spin-off, the Venom film, and perhaps even that rumored all-female team of Spider-Man side characters.

It's unclear if those movies will have anything to do with the MCU's continuity or if Marvel's people will even be involved at all. . .which is precisely what's so worrying about it.

Here's where I fall on the issue - contrary to some panicked knee-jerk reactions, this does NOT mean that Sony suddenly has the power to mess around with the MCU's continuity. It would definitely seem like those spin-offs would occur in the same universe as the MCU. . .but who's to say those movies will ever even be made? There's a major difference between reports that claim Sony is "still moving ahead" with plans for those movies. . .and then Sony actually doing it, you know?

Based on Sony's recent history, they don't exactly have a solid roadmap for their Spidey-centric movies. The Amazing Spider-Man 3 was unceremoniously canceled at the last minute. Their "Spidey-verse" completely fell apart. They were so thoroughly embarrassed by their own ineptitude that they found themselves doing the one thing they swore would never happen - negotiating with Marvel and getting some much-needed help with the character.

With all that in mind. . .we're supposed to believe that, of all their rumored plans and bright ideas (Aunt May solo movie, anyone?), their Sinister Six and Venom movies will be the ones to remain untouched by this deal? That even though Marc Webb's trilogy is now abruptly over (complete with all those loose ends), they'll still turn to Drew Goddard and Alex [frick]ing Kurtzman to right the ship? Somehow, I seriously doubt that.

We can only assume poor Spidey was impaled by Rhino's horn immediately after the screen cut to black.

Sony will inevitably release other movies about the Webhead and his friends. . .but it makes no sense to worry about that now. Clearly, things are still VERY much up in the air. I imagine Sony will take its time and actually take notice of the world's reaction to Spidey's presence in the Marvel universe before making any of their own moves.

Like so many other aspects of this situation, this very much remains in "Let's wait and see" territory.

---

---

Conclusion:

So where does all this leave us? I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of things to be uneasy about. . .and plenty to look forward to as well.

For all you depressed pessimists out there, I suppose there's always the chance that this deal irrevocably screws up the plans that Marvel had laid down beforehand. Perhaps they get too Spidey-happy and other characters get the shaft in their own movies. Maybe things go horribly wrong and we're left with yet another poor adaptation of the beloved character. What if audiences really do have Spidey-fatigue and so giving Spider-Man an important role moving forward turns out to be a mistake?

Maybe it's because I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy, but somehow I just don't see that worst case scenario playing out. As usual, us fanboys have it easy - we can just sit back, relax, enjoy the movies that are relatively unchanged by all this (little more than 2 months til Age of Ultron!), and simply anticipate the massive events still to come. And if it all goes belly-up in a few years, well, I guess we'll just have to deal with the tons of fanboys jumping to the front of the line to say "I told you so!"

But one fact still remains, however.

Spider-Man is finally back where he belongs.

And no matter how this all turns out in the long run, that moment will forever be a turning point for comic book movies. In a few years, we'll be able to look back at that unassuming and seemingly uneventful evening of February 9, 2015, and single it out as the night where things changed.

For the better? For the worse? Like most things, the breathless excitement and mild anxiety comes from not knowing. Like everyone else, I look forward to finding out!

---

---

Thanks for reading and putting up with yet ANOTHER Spider-Man editorial! Hopefully this proved to be a tad different from the usual fancasts and theories we've been subjected to lately. If not, by all means rant and rave about it in the comments below! If so, please feel free to leave a comment anyway!