13 REASONS as to Why THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is set in the MCU!

13 REASONS as to Why THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is set in the MCU!

Is TASM set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? This has been one our minds since day one and I'd just like to weigh in and analyze certain ascpects that might have been missed.

Follow Chad:
By Chad Suplee - 11/7/2012
Let me just start off by saying that THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN has been getting quite the hate simply because it didn't deliver the untold story that we were promised. Despite this, I have found 13 reasons as to why I believe TASM is set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe! Starting with...


REASON #1: PETER’S PARENTS

Let’s start this with Peter Parker’s parents. Now, I’m pretty sure I’m going to sound like a broken record since almost every one defending this movie hides behind this reason and to tell you truth …they DO have a point. We all know that in the comics, Richard and Mary Parker are S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and since everyone is pretty much aware that S.H.I.E.L.D. has a MAJOR role in The Avengers, it’s only logical that this makes sense. Which leads me to my second point…

REASON #2: THE S.H.I.E.L.D. PRESENCE IN THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE

S.H.I.E.L.D. plays a pretty big role in the MCU, so why would Sony’s TASM introduce Peter’s mom and dad and have zero connection to S.H.I.E.L.D.? If this new series of films will focus on Peter’s parents, it’s gonna have to either:
1. Tie into MCU eventually.
2. Give us all a damn good reason for why they have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with MCU.
Personally, If they don’t tie TASM into MCU and instead come up with some bullcrap excuse as to why Richard and Mary left Peter without connecting them to S.H.I.E.L.D., It’s gonna feel like a massive letdown especially knowing what really happens in the comics. Also considering that they’d piss off a lot of Spider-man fans.

REASON #3: THE ORIGIN STORY DONE RIGHT:

Let’s just say Marvel was going to allow Spider-Man into their MCU, I can tell you right now, Marvel was sure as hell not going to let that fat bastard Maguire suit up with the rest of the gang. Nuh Uh! We needed a new Spider-man! thus TASM was born! Despite the whole “PARENTS STORYLINE BEING DROPPED” This is a more realistic approach to the origin story and one that makes much more sense than the old one. I always asked myself “How come the spider chose Peter?” but in this film, It shows a curious Peter Parker sneaking in Oscorp (Because he is super smart) and the spider-room where HE tinkered with the machine and all the spiders fell on him. It was his own fault! That’s what I loved about this film. The origin story is very crucial to the spider-man mythos and can’t be done in 15 mins! *cough cough SAM RAIMI! I do believe that this version fits rather nicely with what the MCU has created.

REASON #4: OSCORP TOWER IN THE AVENGERS

This one has been done to death but I’d like to include it anyways. A while back it was mentioned how the Oscorp tower seen in TASM, was really close to being in The Avengers. Even though the reason for why this was didn’t happen was simply because The Avengers buildings and stuff had already been finalized and it was a little to late for that. Despite this, It shows that Marvel Studios was willing as Sony was too. Most people seem to overlook that. Both parties were willing to…share…hmmm.

REASON #5: CASHCOW…REALLY?

As you all know, Sony was going to lose the rights to Spidey if they didn’t have anything cooking in the oven by this year so a lot of us speculated or perhaps already drew the conclusion that this reboot was only made simple because Sony didn’t wanna lose the rights. I disagree. Since Spider-Man 4 was drowning in a puddle of piss, Sony wasn’t able to come to an agreement with Sam Raimi, so they eventually pulled the plug on the project and the movie was cancelled. Yada Yada! Now here’s the interesting part…Sony is not stupid. They’ve made stupid decisions leading into half-assed box-office bombs, but they are not stupid. So…WHY WOULD THEY WAIT 5 YEARS? Is it possible that Sony saw Marvel’s success as an opportunity to redeem themselves? Maybe or maybe not. But I can’t help but notice one little detail. Why Reboot? Sony could have easily kicked Raimi to the curve and given another director the chair, Maguire more money and could have made another movie (Pretty sure it’d make Spider-Man 3 look like an Oscar worthy film) but would have still made A LOT of chedder. Might have even hit the billion mark. Instead they took the risk of starting from scratch with new director, new actor, new everything. This could have bombed hard when they could have had another box office monster! Good question?

REASON #6: NEVER…REALLY….FULLY DENIED?

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I don’t recall EVER hearing that TASM in NOT in the MCU. I mean, there are so many rumors going around about how Garfield’s Spider-Man can tie into The Avengers timeline you’d figure by now MARVEL STUDIOS would be like “QUIT IT! SPIDER-MAN IS NOT IN THE [FRICKING] MCU! GET OVER IT!”. I know it’s been mentioned how TASM lives in it’s own universe but I think that’s just an excuse so fan boys (like myself) don’t get overly excited. Until Kevin Feige confirms that TASM is not in MCU, then and only then shall I rest my case.

REASON #7: POV SHOTS

C’mon guys, The picture speaks for itself doesn’t it? Tell me this is NOT just a coincidence. If TASM had nothing to do with MCU, Then I’d imagine that Sony couldn’t do anything Marvel did…vice versa. Like for example, I heard that MARVEL STUDIOS is not allowed to use the word “mutants” in any of their films because Fox holds the rights to the X-Men and that word is part of that property. Also, there might be a few of you who might think “But both films came out during the same year? How could either of them have known they‘d use this idea?” Well if that was true, I’m pretty sure they’d be filing lawsuits up each others asses. Would they not? They even used this on Iron Man 3 as it was clearly seen in the trailer! Marvel and Sony must have worked out some sort of deal. I’m sorry, anyone can disagree all they want…but they have to admit, this pokes at MCU connection big-time.

REASON #8: THE TONE

Both TASM and The Avengers are unrealistic (yes I know that, aren’t all superhero movies?) but what separates these two (and all of MARVEL STUDIOS films) is that there done in a way that is GROUNDED TO REALITY. Making it seem like this kinda thing could be possible. Like for example, Do you honestly see Maguire’s happy & cheesy Spider-Man (Not meant as a diss) fitting into the MCU? Hell No! Why? Because it feels too fake. The EXTREMELY WELL PUT TOGETHER costume, organic webs, insane jumping ability to the point where it becomes something that can’t be taken seriously, and everything else that doesn’t incorporate it’s surroundings. TASM still has it’s cheesy moments on occasions but takes in consideration lots of aspects. Like the running shoes (vs. Maguire’s Spidey flippers that could technically be considered socks) seem like they would have better grip, run across more surfaces comfortably, kick harder etc. I dunno, but what I do know is that Peter’s intellect is shown in the way the suit was put together in essence. Even the swinging looks real! (Most parts). All the costumes and powers in MCU look legit and not so cheesy while still remaining faithful to the comics.

REASON #9: THE TECHNOLOGY

This isn't a big reason, but I just wanted to point out that the technology is very similar…I couldn't help but notice.

REASON #10: NOW, WHY WOULDN'T THEY?

The Avengers committed box office assasination, so wouldn’t it be logical if ALL studios wanted to do business with them? Have any of you noticed that ever since The Avengers came out, most studios have been trying to whip out their movies too? Stupid FOX recently lost the right to Daredevil on my birthday because they didn’t act quick enough! Announcing reboots and stuff, You’d imagine instead of a studio being like “NO! We will never share this character you created with you!” if anything they’d want to share because that would give their movies a REALLY good chance of being successful! And give us (the fans) what we really want! So everybody wins. I’m sure Sony has jumped on this train, we’ll just have to wait and see if FOX has pulled that stick out of their ass and done the same.

REASON #11: AVI ARAD

Producer Avi Arad himself has said he would love to see Spider-Man in a future Avengers movie but also said that Spider-Man is an individual character that has SOOOOOOO many story arcs to keep him busy for quite a while. I do like how he is open to the idea and I do agree with him. Spidey does have lots of solo stories and in fact, that’s what makes Spider-Man such a relatable character that he does goes through many tragedies/tough times in his life mostly on his own. By the way, Spider-Man doesn’t ACTUALLY become a member of the Avengers till like later! I personally wouldn’t mind seeing him in Avengers 3. Fingers crossed!

REASON #12: ANDREW GARFIELD IS PETER PARKER

Andrew Garfield has been praised for his incredible performance as Peter Parker/Spider-Man by fans and critics alike. He has made this role his own and I personally would not want to see anyone else as Peter Parker. Just like The Chrises, Mark Ruffalo and RDJ, he plays the awkwardness of the character so brilliantly. C’mon Marvel make it happen!

REASON #13: AND THE FAMOUS “LET’S SAY WHAT IF…”

Okay If you still don’t find my reasons valid at this point, please set aside you’re complains and let’s just say “Spider-Man was in MCU”. How would he fit in? A lot of people think that Samuel L. Jackson needs to show up in the end in order for it to happen, but it’s really not that complicated, I saw in a post once that mentioned Peter walking down the street on his way to the Daily Bugle, when he decides to get a hot dog and as he’s waiting, he hears the guy in front of him talking to this other guy saying “Hey, who do you think would win in a fight? Spider-Man or that Stark-guy?” Simple as that. Now regarding the timeline, This could be before or after The Avengers (After would explain the Cranes) so who knows. It’s not super hard, they’d just have to plan it very carefully and not mess it up *cough cough SONY!.

Thanks guys for reading this REALLY long editorial! I really appreciate it. Huge fan of the site as I just wanted to share my ideas and maybe perhaps give anyone who really wants Spider-Man in MCU (like me) a few reasons to believe that’s still more than a possibility.


Oh! And I also wanted to say really quickly, Regarding the blue fingers on Spidey’s costume, What if he drew inspiration from Captain America seeing that he too has a little blue in his gloves? Hmm?
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
3
LIKE!
44 Comments
1 2
CorndogBurglar - 11/7/2012, 3:18 PM
Um...im not saying ASM wont eventually be part of the MCU, because there are rumors of talks between Sony and Marvel.

I will say that your POV shots reason is incredibly ridiculous. Marvel didnt sue Sony for using POV shots because...GASP!...no one owns the rights to camera angles. Shocking i know. You talk like Marvel created the POV shot or something. POV has been used in so many movies its ridiculous.

I cant say all your reasons are dumb, because they're not. But, that one is just stupid.

Also, they can easily explain his parents without using SHIELD. they could just as easily say they were spies for the CIA, FBI, or numerous other organizations. It doesnt HAVE to be SHIELD. If you're willing to accept the changes made to Peter getting bitten, then I fail to understand why changing SHIELD to something else would crash your world.
CorndogBurglar - 11/7/2012, 3:22 PM
Just to support the POV thing, why isnt Marvel getting sued by the other companies that have had hundreds of movies that used POV shots that came before Avengers? By your logic, Marvel is stealing their ideas, right?

Sorry, but that is a terrible reason.
ChadSuplee - 11/7/2012, 3:26 PM
@CorndogBurger
First off...cool name and I appreciate the honesty. Second, regarding the Parents in SHIELD, They could say FBI or CIA but then what is the whole point of the secrecy behind the parents? They've made the parents such a huge part of this upcoming series of Spider-Man films that just saying they were FBI would be...a bit of a letdown. There has to be something more.
ChadSuplee - 11/7/2012, 3:28 PM
It's just that the parents have been hyped up too much for it to be "just" CIA.
UltimateTypeface - 11/7/2012, 3:30 PM
This reeks of desperation.
TheReddestHood - 11/7/2012, 3:33 PM
this is not why it is, This is similarities stupid stuff and your hope.
TheHawkWithin - 11/7/2012, 3:40 PM
Peter's parents are not SHIELD agents and they never were. They were CIA agents.
Spideyguy94 - 11/7/2012, 3:46 PM
@BattlinMurdock it wasn't TASM producer matt tolmach confirmed it
ChadSuplee - 11/7/2012, 3:48 PM
@TheHawkWithin
Recruited by Nick Fury
bazinga85 - 11/7/2012, 3:51 PM
I've got 1 reason why TASM ISN'T set in the MCU...IT'S OWNED BY SONY!!
CorndogBurglar - 11/7/2012, 3:57 PM
Xbandulous

Sorry for being harsh, you made me feel bad with your humble response, lol. We dont get many people like that around here, so sorry. But i do standby my reasoning.

And like i said, not everything your article points out it ludicrous. But some of them are just kind of wishful thinking in my opinion.

I for one would love ALL Marvel's characters in the MCU, bit only if they are made by Marvel. Sadly, i dont think that will happen for a very long time.
DrDoom - 11/7/2012, 3:58 PM
This article is awful and presents no real evidence.
ChadSuplee - 11/7/2012, 4:06 PM
@CorndogBurglar
No problem XD! That's the whole point of an editorial...debate. I've been a long follower of the site but never actually posted anything until now. Just thought I'd point out a few things that caught my attention. Still means a lot that you guys read it! Thanks dudes!
marvel72 - 11/7/2012, 4:50 PM
i give you one reason why its not part of the marvel cinematic universe..........

its not made by marvel studios,its that simple.
JordanKing - 11/7/2012, 4:54 PM
This many consecutive facepalms cannot be good for my head.
TheRealDorkKnight - 11/7/2012, 5:10 PM
@pantherX you said it mate.
kenjim152 - 11/7/2012, 7:31 PM
Weren't Pete's working for Red Skullnin the 90's and not for S.H.I.E.L.D.? If TASM were linked to the avengers S.H.I.E.L.D. agents would be tracking him or something right?
Viltrumite - 11/7/2012, 7:43 PM
I personally consider it part of the MCU; the fact that they wanted to include Oscorp Tower in The Avengers skyline, and where going to if not for time issues sort of solidifies it for me. Even if the only connections between the new Spider-Man series and the MCU are easter eggs, passing references, and a similar tone, I feel as if that's good enough. You don't need Spider-Man showing up in The Avengers 2 for no reason; for the majority of the Marvel Universe's history in the comics, he's been pretty much a loner anyways.
It's sort of like what Mark Millar said about the new X-Men/Fantastic Four universe; he wants it to act as a compliment to the MCU by not contradicting it, and by having the films all look as if they take place in the same universe. As long as the films from other studios maintain a consistent tone, style, feel, and level of quality, drop a couple easter eggs every now and then, and don't outright contradict each other, I'll consider them all from Iron Man onwards (with a few exceptions) to take place within the MCU. They really don't need to directly crossover with each other, as at a certain point it would cease to serve the story and become overkill.
On a completely separate note, I just feel as if it's simply more fun to think of them this way. And, at the end of the day, that's what these movies are all about: fun.
TheFirstAvenger97 - 11/7/2012, 7:46 PM
I just want a cameo.
AmazingFantasy - 11/7/2012, 9:58 PM
VERY GOOD
Pending - 11/7/2012, 10:36 PM
Im in the pool of wanting the spider-man franchise to focus on its own universe and its own villains yea it would be cool seeing him with the avengers but I’d rather just see him as a stand alone hero in his own world with his own problems and have the movies focus more on spider-man instead of wasting their time on trying to tie them in.
Happy11 - 11/8/2012, 12:06 AM
Spiderman will not be in the MCU until Marvel studios get the rights back doesn'tmatter what coincidences are going on both are in new york omg don't make me laugh. Personally I don't want it to happen I like that apart from the big 4 in avengers we are going to be introduced to lesser known characters.
IronSpider101 - 11/8/2012, 1:17 AM
I'd rather see a new Spider-Man enter the Avengers, one made by Marvel studios. Or at least have an impressive film in this series to get everyone behind it.

My fanboy heart would LOVE Tobey to be in it, he's still Peter Parker to me, and I think with Joss Whedon at the helm (who LOVED the first two, by the way) would be magic.

But that's not gonna happen.

TASM was weak, maybe because of Sony interference, maybe because it was just doomed... But I'd rather see a better film come out of this series before I entertain the notion of Spider-Man joining the MCU. The creative team was perfect... Sadly, the movie was far from.

As for the article... yeah, this was pretty ridiculous. Really no grounds for the assertions you're making.


Reason 1/2: They're making that a big deal in the sequels (allegedly) and therefore you have to hold your breath for that one. There's really no basis for assuming they're part of shield. That's wishful thinking and being a part of shield doesn't necessarily make it any better. I don't know why there "has to be more to it". Really, TASM gave us peanuts about their story.

Reason 3: I couldn't disagree more, and many hold that sentiment. It was pretty much the same movie except for a lot of poorly-thought out sequences. Opinions on quality of the movie aside, the hype is far from unanimous that "this was the perfect origin", infact, it leans more to the opposite. That's why we need a better movie for more people to get behind this.

Reason 4: This is the best piece of evidence on here, and still it isn't much. As far as I recall, it was just the same animator(s) and they thought it might be a cool idea? Either way, nobody with real voice has ever confirmed or denied this and therefore it should be taken with a grain of salt at BEST.

Reason 5: Like I said, before. They need to win people over. There's a reason this grossed less than any of the other 3 films. People were either uninterested or didn't like it as much. It needs to prove its worth before it can be called the "big cash-cow" idea. Hell, by this logic, Raimi's Spidey would be a better fit.

Reason 6: Nobody wants to burn bridges. So of course they're not going to deny it, although it's probably because the idea hasn't really occured to them in a serious discussion. They're busy adding characters they own, expanding on ones established, and getting the story they have already planned to move forward.

Reason 7: I'm sorry, but dude... that's awful.

Reason 8: Honestly? I actually feel that Spider-Man 2 (and specifically THAT film) was far closer to the tone of the Avengers than Amazing Spider-Man. It's a matter of opinion here, but still: you're noting similarities, and not reasons why they occupy the same universe.

Reason 9: Similarity, but not a grounded piece of evidence that they occupy the same universe. Still feels like wishful thinking.

Reason 10: I think I've already covered this.

Reason 11: Of course he would say that. He's well, he's... Avi Arad, and the guy isn't all that trustworthy. Not that he's DISHONEST, but this is the guy behind the Fantastic Four movies and one of the reasons Spider-Man 3 and TASM were as low in quality as they were. He's saying he'd love to hop on if he could, because of course that's beneficial to him, but he also made sure not to get people's hopes up because it's an unlikely outcome.

Reason 12: Matter of opinion here, still. I think he was a perfect choice for the role, but the performance was terrible. With better writing and more directorial control from web, he could possibly pick it up. But as it stands, he's nowhere NEAR RDJ or Christopher Reeve level of character-embodiment.

Reason 13: Der... this isn't a reason... remotely. This is a conclusion to your article.
IronSpider101 - 11/8/2012, 1:18 AM
I get that you're a fan of TASM and the MCU and you want really badly for this to happen, but you haven't any solid ground here to work on.
marvelstudios - 11/8/2012, 1:20 AM
I don't want Sony to be involved with Marvel. I would just wait till the Spider-Man rights are back at Marvel, then put him in the MCU. I know what people are going to say: "Spider-man won't be back at Marvel for a decade blah blah". So what? Marvel will be releasing 2-3 movies a year that's set in the MCU. I say let's enjoy the newer characters and wait till SPider-man is back, then put in the MCU.
Kalel219 - 11/8/2012, 2:02 AM
Well written article, even though I personally stopped taking it all that serious after

" Marvel was sure as hell not going to let that fat bastard Maguire suit up with the rest of the gang. Nuh Uh!"
EdgyOutsider - 11/8/2012, 5:58 AM
I am going to come off as an ass and I apologize for it but, this is all wishful thinking. In my opinion, as long as Sony has the film rights to Spider-Man, we will never see him be part of the MCU. Not to mention that TASM (which I think is the best Spider-Man movie, although I liked the original trilogy) doesn't fit into the MCU, what so ever. If you ask me, Spider-Man is going to be the last character that Marvel is going to get the rights back. I like how the MCU is built so far, let's not destroy it by adding Spider-Man. Don't get me wrong, Spidey is my favorite superhero. But, I don't want him in the MCU.

Bottom line: Introduce new characters instead of reintroducing old ones that everyone is so familiar with. Spidey will be in the MCU when Marvel gets the rights back. Plain and simple.
AC1 - 11/8/2012, 9:47 AM
I want TASM to be part of the MCU, but honestly, POINT OF VIEW SHOTS?

I had to stop reading after that. That's the dumbest thing that's ever been posted on this site. That's like saying Taxi Driver is also set in the MCU because it uses POV shots like three times to show Travis Bickle's perspective. Or Psycho must be in the MCU because when Bates kills Marion Crane in the shower scene, it's shot from his POV.

I think the technology in the films is one of the biggest links. Why would they use such similar technology concepts in Oscorp if it wasn't meant to hint at a similarity between Stark Industries. The tones are also similar (although, ironically enough, TASM seems the most mature, apart from Incredible Hulk), plus both companies (Marvel and Sony) seem game for a crossover.

However, as much as I want the two to be part of one universe, there are certain things that don't gel together. If TASM is set after Avengers, then surely the fact that NY had been invaded by aliens shortly before would've been a big deal. I mean, when something as big as that happens, everything changes, and people talk about it for years. It could be set before Avengers, but in that case it'd also have to be set before the bookends of Captain America, and maybe even the majority of Thor, which then raises the question of 'why wasn't Spidey around to help out during The Avengers?' Maybe he was stuck in another part of town fighting aliens alone, but then, why wasn't he ever on Nick Fury's radar? SHIELD know everything in that series, so unless Fury was purposely ignoring him for some reason, then it raises even more continuity questions.
Plus, TASM2 will apparently be set a week after the first one, which means even more events that are supposedly set before Avengers and Cap bookends and possibly Thor.

Finally, even though I want them to be within the continuity of each other, I don't want to see Spidey in an Avengers film, because he'd outshine the other characters. The only time I'd want them to share the screen is in an event movie, like an adaptation of Civil War, or in cameos (maybe Tony Stark having a cameo in a Spidey film, or Peter Parker on a Bugle photography assignment in a future film involving one of the Avengers [Cap would probably be the best fit for that kind of cameo] or even an appearance of Spidey on a video recording owned by SHIELD, showing they're keeping tabs on heroes other than the Avengers).
Shadow101 - 11/8/2012, 4:22 PM
The blue on the fingers are from Ben Reilly 😁
sevenwebheads - 11/8/2012, 6:05 PM
You made look yourself like a jerk once you did the "fat bastard Maguire" thing and you basically lost me there, but i'll still have a pleasure to disapprove every single of your point.

Reason#1: Peter's Parents:
I think it's been clear already that they have nothing to do with SHIELD whatsover. Marc Webb said in one of the recent interviews, that we're gonna see more of the untold story in the sequel, as well as the origin of the spiders that Richard worked on. In case you didn't know, OSCORP'S , both Richard and Mary are hiding from the corporation itself, since Richard, as much as Curtis in the film, didn't want to risk using their creations and formulas, knowing the consequences and so on etc Forget the SHIELD.

Reasons#2: "Give us all damn reason for why they have absolutely nothing to do with mcu"
Yes they will, in the sequel. And it won't be a bullcrap excuse, just because they have nothing to do with SHIELD, doesn't mean they didn't have their own reasons to disappear and leave Peter (as i mentioned in previous answer).

Reason#3:
LOL "I always asked myself “How come the spider chose Peter?” but in this film, It shows a curious Peter Parker sneaking in Oscorp" you just made a fool of yourself once again. That's the point, that's what happened in the comics and in every single origin before. THE SPIDER DID CHOOSE PETER indeed, that's the point of the accident and the whole meaning of Peter becoming spider-man. I won't even mention different universes, madame webb since i don't think you know about it.

Reason#4:
OSCORP Tower was supposed to be nothing more than an easter egg, just to tease fans. And i'm glad they didn't put it in the Avengers.

Reason#5:
"WHY WOULD THEY WAIT 5 YEARS" LOL again, nobody waited for 5 years, Spider-Man 4 was supposed to be released in 2011, and Sony was already working on it, the script and other things were done already. So once i got cancelled, they had just about a little time to do the reboot. So it's quite opposite, they didn't wait, they RUSHED.

Reason#6:
"NEVER..REALLY..DENIED"
It's been denied OFFICIALLY for more than a decade now, SONY owns Spider-Man, MARVEL does not. Do you really need an official confirmation for Spidey not being in The Avengers? It's pretty clear and the don't have to explain it to certain people.

Reason#7:
POV Shot. I'll just pass it cause comparing this stuff and making some conclusion of out it is just plain stupid.

Reason#8:
THE TONE: Yes everything looks real and dark this days. Thanks to Dark Knight and it's success.

Reason#9 is the the reason you should already stop making articles.

Reason#10:
Sony doesn't need to make a business with them, they can make enough cash with Spidey films, whats more, currently it's their biggest cash machine, especially considering the sequel in 2014. TASM did great at box office, sequel might do even better.

Reason#11: Avi Arad said he would love to see Spider-Man in future Avengers. Andrew Garfield said he would love to see Spider-Man in future Avengers. My grandma said she would love to see Spider-Man in future Avengers. BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE A DAMN THING since the rights belong to SONY.

Reason#12:
"Andrew garfield is peter parker" thanks for lettin us know.

Reason#13:

And the Famous "Let's Say What IF..."
What If you make some research before doing an article?



Tainted87 - 11/8/2012, 7:35 PM

It took me a few months to get this picture, and I was saving it for something bigger than this - but I figured: why not? That middle shot - was right in front of some Cuban deli - I was getting some weird looks.

Everything is REACHING, not even quite grasping, at straws. The coincidences aren't even coincidental, they're all happenstance. I'd tell you to try harder, but I don't think we want you to.

I'm also trying to understand why people want to see Spider-man in the Avengers. Just like War Machine, nothing about that group defines them, nor are they REALLY associated with them.
Nighmarewalking117 - 11/8/2012, 8:25 PM
If this does have any "connection" with the Avengers, then as showed in: The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter's Parent's were killed in a "car-accident" only because: Norman Osborn, wanted to cover-up the trail of: Richard Park as a "Scientist", but not as a "Shield Agent" and they were "undercover" as Spies. Not bad editorial, but the way they're going seems that: It will be like Ultimate Spider-Man, where Peter and Eddie Brock Jr. become friends and we see a "flash-back" to: Creating the Symbiote, used for: Cancer, but creates: The Black Suit! Good-job.
Nighmarewalking117 - 11/8/2012, 8:26 PM
And if he is in "The Avengers", he'll be used in "future-movies", along-with being a part of the 2nd-team. That is all...for now?
jbak368 - 11/8/2012, 10:14 PM
I would like this to be true, even though I wasn't interested enough to even see TASM in the theater, but I also have to say that the point about the POV shots is utter nonsense. Using a POV shot in a movie isn't something that can be copyrighted or something, so suggesting that one studio would sue the other over it is ludicrous. A large part of the appeal of superheroes is an aspirational element, so it makes sense to use a POV shot. It's one of the reasons video games are great at delivering superhero experiences (beyond the great superhero games like the Arkham games or Ultimate Alliance or Ultimate Spiderman, playing as many other video game characters, like Ezio or the Prince of Persia or Kratos or Shepard, is essentially a superhero experience.) When you add in factors like huge IMAX screens and 3D, these shots make even more sense as a way to immerse the audience in the experience of the superhero.
jbak368 - 11/8/2012, 10:17 PM
... And then I read the rest of the comments and saw that several people got to that point first. Let me again say that I would like this to be true, and I also consider the Ang Lee Hulk to be part of the MCU (you just have to ignore how he gets bigger as he gets angrier and it fits just fine).
Toasty - 11/9/2012, 6:44 PM
1 Reason why TASM wasn't set in the MCU

1: because it [frick]ing wasn't.
DukeAcureds - 11/11/2012, 12:54 PM
Totally. TASM was entirely underwhelming as it was a superhero summer movie that came out in a years that has completely overshadowed it with films like Avengers and TDKR. Yet this seemed to work in it's favor. It works as a much more personal love-letter to the old skool Spidey fans and there is an intimacy and a heart there. It doesn't hurt that the casting was spot on in every respect and that the two leads have themselves fallen hopelessly in love with one another. If Disney bought the rights back and rebooted it would be a great tragedy and I don't really thgink it's quite sunk in with the majority of the fanbase how much of a tragedy this would be. I think thisis a film that you grow to love more and more and this will become apparent afterit has been on DVD for a long enough time. There's too many BIG superhero films out there shaking their tooshies at the fans, right now. But I think TASM is definitive and genuine, if subtle and small. I hope they don't make the sequel too generic. I'd hope instead for them to explore these characters and storylines more deeply. And no gorram MJ! She had her trilogy! Get a different girl for a love-triangle foil.
DukeAcureds - 11/11/2012, 12:55 PM
DangerStranger@ So Stark tower was built after TASM.
DukeAcureds - 11/11/2012, 12:58 PM
And fvck that whole notion of "Oh, what about the alien invasion,you think there'd be a reference to that in the Spider-Man film".
Well, no. Big events don't have to be referenced for them to have happened. Was there a reference to 9/11 in Spider-Man 2? Will there be a reference to Superstorm Sandy in TASM 2? Or Avengers 2? I wouldn't even be surprised if there were no reference to the Chitauri invasion in Cap 2 or Iron Man 3.
TheCaptain - 11/11/2012, 3:56 PM
This article does seem to be grasping, but some of these ideas are pretty interesting nonetheless. I feel because of its tone like you said, The Amazing Spider-Man could easily be written into the MCU.
And yes I agree w/everyone here the POV shots thing was ridiculous sorry @Xbandabulous lol
@ACira, Well put man.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.