Marvel Cinematic Universe - General Thread

LBD "Nytetrayn"

Broke the Matrix
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
Sony has nothing to do with it.
Marvel was getting antsy about Sony's deathgrip on Spider-Man and cut a deal in 2009, where they'd let Sony hang onto the film rights if they surrendered the tv rights. Sony agreed and Disney bought out Marvel later that year, giving Disney total control of Spider-Man's tv rights.

That's why Disney's been making their own Spider-Man shows since then without Sony's involvement. Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2017, and Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man. Which has a second season coming IIRC.
Not to mention Disney+ has the complete Spider-Man tv catalogue on it.

And since Disney+ counts as tv rather than film, Disney can make whatever Spider-Man series they want on it without having to pay Sony a dime.

So why aren't we getting a Spider-Man Disney+ show? The short answer is we have one, Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man.
Beat me to it.
 

LordGigaIce

Another babka?
Citizen
I'd guess the reason why Disney doesn't do a live action Spider-Man show (and even why they feel they have to pitch their current animated show as an alternate universe take on MCU Spidey) is the same
reason why every DC show on tv has to dance around Batman either being too young to be Batman, dead, retired, or in self-imposed exile.
No one wants a cash cow film franchise hero "devalued" by a competing live action version on tv/streaming.

True, Disney has to split the profits from the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies with Sony, but it's still a very nice chunk of change. They're not going to do anything that may impact that box office.

Now the funniest thing would be if Disney paid Andrew Garfield to do a continuation of his Spider-Man in Disney+ form, but I think even he may be too expensive for streaming budgets. Especially with Disney's lessened enthusiasm for the platform.
 

Sabrblade

Continuity Nutcase
Citizen
I'd guess the reason why Disney doesn't do a live action Spider-Man show (and even why they feel they have to pitch their current animated show as an alternate universe take on MCU Spidey) is the same
reason why every DC show on tv has to dance around Batman either being too young to be Batman, dead, retired, or in self-imposed exile.
No one wants a cash cow film franchise hero "devalued" by a competing live action version on tv/streaming.
I thought the reason there hasn't been a proper live-action TV series for Batman since the Adam West show is because, unlike Superman (who is arguably on the same level as Batman and yet has had proper TV shows of his own in addition to feature films), they actually can't make a new live-action Batman TV show due to overcomplicated rights issue entanglements:

 

Stepwise

...even Team Whirl.
Citizen
A Spider-Man mini-series that led towards another event would be fun, and it'd give the story time to breathe - it wouldn't even need to be a full year-after-year series like Agents of Shield was. Some of their series (like Hawkeye, Loki, and Ms. Marvel) have been fun.
 

LordGigaIce

Another babka?
Citizen
I think the lack of a live action Disney+ Spider-Man series comes down to a few factors...

One, if it's staring Tom Holland, the worry is that it would devalue the current film series. After all, will people be as eager to line up to buy tickets to the next film if they can get their Tom Holland Spidey fix through a Disney+ show?

Two, if it's staring someone else, the worry is that it would devalue the current film series by introducing a second concurrent live action Spider-Man and may confuse audience members.

Three, circling back to Tom Holland, he's probably too pricey for a tv or streaming budget these days.

Sony doesn't enter the picture. Disney can do whatever they want with Spider-Man on tv. Still, that doesn't mean there aren't other issues with the idea.

I thought the reason there hasn't been a proper live-action TV series for Batman since the Adam West show is because, unlike Superman (who is arguably on the same level as Batman and yet has had proper TV shows of his own in addition to feature films), they actually can't make a new live-action Batman TV show due to overcomplicated rights issue entanglements:

That's possibly part of it, but the Bat Embargo has been a thing at WB going back to the early 2000s, at least.
 

LBD "Nytetrayn"

Broke the Matrix
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
One, if it's staring Tom Holland, the worry is that it would devalue the current film series. After all, will people be as eager to line up to buy tickets to the next film if they can get their Tom Holland Spidey fix through a Disney+ show?

Two, if it's staring someone else, the worry is that it would devalue the current film series by introducing a second concurrent live action Spider-Man and may confuse audience members.

I was just thinking like a short series between the years-long gap between movies. Like Falcon and Winter Soldier and those.

I mean, it'd just be nice to see Spider-Man doing the Friendly Neighborhood thing without having to cram it into the montage during the next movie or something.

If that would somehow cut into the audience for Brand New Day... I don't know. Sounds like a weakness in the Spider-Brand to me.
 


Top Bottom