Let's start with looking at the Spider-Man news. There was a couple of days recently where a lot of Spider-Man rumors started sprouting up online, including but not limited to:
- Sinister Six will be a soft reboot of the franchise.
- Spider-Man will be incorporated into the MCU.
- Andrew Garfield will no longer play Spider-Man.
- Venom/Carnage, currently set for 2017, is now scrapped.
- The Amazing Spider-Man 3 as a 2018 release is looking unlikely.
A lot of websites pinned the reasoning for this down to the "flop" that 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' endured. Okay, that sounds reasonable. Except in what world was 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' a flop? It managed to make over $700 million worldwide. Sure the domestic figures were probably a bit lower than Sony expected, and they were probably hoping for this to be the first Spider-Man film to break $1 billion, but this is by no means a travesty. $700m is a great result. There's no need for them to start scrapping films and worrying and calling up other studios hoping to flog their character off for a cheap, quick crossover. All they need to do to figure out how to fix Spider-Man is to actually for once read some of the fan and critic complaints about the film, take them on board, and fix them for the next installment. We all no they aren't completely incapable of this. Fans of the franchise were treated to a more comic-book accurate costume in the sequel after complaints that the costume in the first installment swayed too far away from the original suit. Why can't they do this with some of the complaints for the plot and tonal inconsistencies for the second film? The answer is there is no reason. The franchise is still completely redeemable as long as they learn from their mistakes. I get the idea that complaints will be falling onto deaf ears though. How many of the problems with 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' were also comparable to the problems people had with 'Spider-Man 3'? Too many villains is the obvious one, especially with huge, fan favourite villains relegated to five minutes of action at the end of the film (Topher Grace's Venom and Dane Dehaan's Green Goblin). Tonal inconsistencies was also a problem with 'Spider-Man 3'. If Sony refuse to learn from their mistakes that killed their previous Spider-Man series, how do they expect the new one to ever survive? Either way, the random flailing Sony seems to be doing now to set up a franchise is worrying, with 'The Amazing Spider-Man 3' pushed back to 2018, and 'Sinister Six', 'Venom/Carnage' and female led films set for launch before then (although I feel it is necessary to remind people that producers of Spider-Man stated before the release of the second installment that the 2016 Spider-Man slot may not be 'The Amazing Spider-Man 3', and this isn't as much of a panicked reaction to bad press as a lot of sites make it out to be). Now sure, it does seem like Sony doesn't really know what they're doing right now, but I think the one consistency they do have with their plans is that they seem extremely desperate to expand Spider-Man. The rumor that they have cancelled 'Venom/Carnage' seems so against what they have been doing recently, I doubt there's much ground behind it. Garfield being replaced as Peter Parker also seems to come out of nowhere. Andrew Garfield's performance in the sequel was one of the few things critics universally praised, so why would Sony replace him? Are they trying to shatter confidence in the third installment as much as they can? However, I have mixed reactions to the potential integration of Spider-Man with the MCU. We've heard in the past about the willingness of both Marvel and Sony to work together, with an Easter Egg of the Oscorp tower appearing in the Avengers skyline being set up, only failing to happen when designs for the tower weren't finished in time for Avengers. But the level of how much Sony are willing to let Marvel use Spider-Man is debatable. They're probably all for small Easter Eggs, but when you start talking about mixing characters, there's going to be a lot of conflict. Sony would probably love for Spider-Man to be officially in the MCU, and potentially make a small appearance in something like 'Captain America 3' to build some more interest in their property before the next installment launches. But they'd probably also want a cut of the box office from any film Spider-Man appeared in. And while Sony could use Spider-Man, Disney don't really need him right now. When you have the power to make a "Guardians of the Galaxy" films one of the biggest box office hits of the summer, do you really need to sacrifice a percentage of your profits to have Spider-Man quickly appear? The only real reason Disney would need Spider-Man is, coincidentally, if they wanted to properly adapt the Civil War storyline. One of the major points in the story was Spider-Man being torn between Captain America and Iron Man's side in the war, which of course they can't really do without the rights to Spider-Man. But they could probably replace Spidey's role in the story with another character. And really to do a Civil War movie properly, they'd also need the X-Men rights, which they'll probably never get, especially with 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' reinvigorating interest in the franchise. So the rumor of Spider-Man in the MCU is very debatable right now. It probably relies a lot of whether or not Marvel actually are planning the Civil War movie.
The sudden barrage of Captain America rumors, quite similarly, seemingly spout from an inside source. Brilliant. The problem I have with "inside sources" are that anyone can say that they have them, and websites would probably swoop in on it and claim it as fact. Regardless, let's work our way through the Captain America rumors. The main one was that Robert Downey Jr is in final negotiations to sign on to 'Captain America 3'. This certainly rings true with Robert Downey Jr's recent rather mysterious comments regarding his future with Marvel, where he confirmed 'Iron Man 4' was in the works, then almost instantly denied that, and then stated he will continue working with Marvel. Appearing in other franchises would certainly allow him to continue working with Marvel without an 'Iron Man 4' having to be in production. But the idea that he initial signed on for a small role that would require three weeks of work but demanded a larger role seems to be evidence to the contrary of the Civil War movie. Would Kevin Feige, well known strategist to be working years in advance, really be so lax on the plot of Captain America 3 that he'd either plan a Civil War movie and hope Downey comes back, or change it to a Civil War movie upon Downey demanding a larger role? Seems unlikely. It would ring true with the recent comments about the title of 'Captain America 3' revealing big changes for the Marvel universe, but maybe it circles around a different story. One in which Iron Man would be an added bonus, but not a necessity. Something like Secret War, which Iron Man didn't originally star in but would help to replace characters like Spider-Man should a deal with Sony not be reached, and other X-Men and Fantastic Four characters. This could lead to bigger things obviously if it tied into a Secret Invasion film later down the line. It just seems weird that the entire plot of Captain America 3 would rely on the willingness of RDJ and the studio to cooperate at such a late stage. It would make more sense if Tony Stark was only set to be a minor role in the film. However, one point that supports the idea of Civil War is the idea that Chris Evans seems to be wanting to take a break from acting for a while. If Marvel don't want to shelve Captain America while Chris Evans is on a break on the hope that he may resign a new contract, they could always kill Steve Rogers and replace him with either Bucky Barnes, also known as the Winter Soldier, or Sam Wilson, also known as the Falcon, who have both taken over the mantle of Captain America in the comics at some point or another. Alternatively, if they want to give Robert Downey Jr a big exit, they could reverse the death at the end of the Civil War story and have Iron Man die instead of Captain America. Although that entire support for the idea of Civil War happening is just on the off chance Marvel want to dispatch of either Tony Stark or Steve Rogers. One possible idea against it is the idea that would Marvel really want Iron Man to appear as somewhat antagonistic twice in a row? If in 'Avengers: Age of Ultron', Tony creates a machine that creates so much suffering for the Avengers and feels guilty about it, would Marvel want to further him down the road of questionable morals by making him an antagonist in 'Captain America 3'? Nothing solid to dispute the rumors, just food for thought.
In conclusion, some of the information claimed by "inside sources" seems to be rather questionable at best, such as Sony stumbling with their plans to expand the Spider-Man franchise and the idea that Kevin Feige would leave it this late to lock down Robert Downey Jr if he is absolutely needed for a huge role in 'Captain America 3' (just to reiterate, I know this isn't that late to cast an actor, but if they don't get Downey back and can't do Civil War they may need to change a lot of plans in a little time). I imagine we'll hear more in the way of official confirmations for it closer to, if not after, the release of 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron' on 24th April 2015.
