Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Ad Blockers

Please do not use ad blocking software when visiting MiceChat. It costs money to keep MiceChat online, and ad revenue offsets this. Thank you.
2 of 2 < >

Registration Policy

In order to eliminate SPAM, all new users must verify their email. Once the email address is verified, we make sure your IP address is not a VPN, proxy, or tor exit node. If you have tried to register and it was not approved, please send an email to administrator@micechat.com. We will try to resolve the issue and then you can try again. Thank you.
See more
See less

So about that Spider-Man

Collapse

Ad Widget

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So about that Spider-Man

    We know Disney wants to build a Spider-Man attraction in DCA, they announced as much at D23, but it raises a few concerns.

    Firstly, Disney does not own Tom Holland's Spider-Man. Although he's in the MCU, he is a Sony property. Sony has the rights to Spider-Man movies and, as a result, anything based on them. Right now they actually do have the Amazing Spider-Man 2 costume for the meet n greet in the parks which is just bizarre, honestly. Now they could do a comic book version of the character, but are people going to rush out and see a version of Spider-Man based on the comics instead of the MCU? I don't think so, and that gets to my second concern.

    Spider-Man Homecoming isn't doing that great. Ok, it's not a bomb. It's made its money back, even. But it's underperforming, at least by Marvel standards. It's made $262 million domestically so far in its three and a half weeks of release. For comparison, Guardians of the Galaxy made $387 million in its total theatrical run. The first three Raimi Spider-Man movies all cracked over $300 million back in the early 2000's with the first one reaching over $400 million. While it has done better than the Amazing Spider-Man 2 and is currently tied with the first Amazing Spider-Man movie and will likely make more money than it by the time it's out of theaters, it still is something to look at. So is name brand really enough to bring in people to see a new Spider-Man attraction? It's likely that the reason Spider-Man is underperforming in the box office is due to the fact this is the third incarnation of the character we've had within the last 10 years. In other words, name brand has really only hurt the franchise. Which brings me to my final point.

    There is no definitive Spider-Man. Whether you like Tobey Maguire's or Andrew Garfield's or Tom Holland's, there's simply no single Spider-Man to look at. There's too many. And this is a problem that currently effects the character of Spider-Man the most, but it's something a lot of comic book characters in general have or will have. Batman has had six different actors portray the character. If you were to depict the character on a ride, would you use any of the actors to portray him? Likely not as there'll be another incarnation down the line. The only two characters, I would say, that have had numerous actors portray them and you could still pick an iconic one would be Superman (Christopher Reeves) and James Bond (Sean Connery). But with Spider-Man, there is no one iconic actor to choose from and if you choose Tom Holland, there'll need to be a new face in there sooner or later because Tom Holland is not the first actor to play Spider-Man nor the last.

    Or they could just build a screen based roller coaster with Tom Holland that'll be dated within five to ten years and they'll switch it out then. Probably what they'll end up doing.

  • #2
    A lot of factors go into determining a movie' success, in the fact that Spider-Man: Homecoming will wind up only the 9th highest earning of the 16 MCU films released so far is not necessarily indicative of the character's popularity. Both moviegoers and film critics really liked the film, but there may have been too much competition at the box office to get the repeat viewings that drive up box office revenues.

    The fact is, Spider-Man has been Marvel's most popular character for the past 50 years or so, and the average person familiar with Spider-Man really doesn't think about the distinctions between the movie version or the comic book version or the animated version. They are all just "Spider-Man".

    And that's why I think that in whatever Spider-Man attraction that Disney is going to build, it's going to focus on the costumed Spider-Man and not a Peter Parker with Tom Holland's face.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think you raise some good points. I definitely agree that the multiple incarnations of Spiderman poses a problem for Imagineering, since clearly a decision has to be made out of all the distinct possibilities for how he looks and sounds. I could see them going with some generic comic book version that combines the looks and paying Tom Holland to voice act the character, perhaps re-recording the lines if Sony decides to change the character again. There's no doubt that franchise fatigue is plaguing the Spiderman movies, though I think the most recent one was much better at capturing the tone of the rest of the MCU than Amazing Spiderman.

      With that said, I don't think Disney would build a ride centered around a single character (as opposed to a team) if they didn't have something great in store. I'm not saying there won't be screens, but I wouldn't be surprised if the technology Disney had earmarked for the Monsters Inc. door coaster gets repurposed for Spiderman and really knocks our socks off. We'll have to wait and see, but I'm predicting that Disney is betting that the ride and story itself will stand the test of time no matter what Sony does with the movies. I think they'll pull of something unique to the IP like crafting a ride-vehicle specific to the story elements and in due time we'll find the ride almost (but not quite ) as good as Indiana Jones.

      As for not having the rights to the IP, I don't think Disney is too worried about it. Sony won't give up the rights for any price the way Paramount did with Iron Man because Spiderman is the only thing keeping them afloat (I mean, just look at the Emoji Movie). Disney's best bet is to just let Marvel Studios guide the production of the movies until Sony milks the cow for all it's worth and the movies stop being profitable. Once it reaches that point, Sony will let the rights revert to Marvel, and then Disney can just wait ten years before starting the same brand rehab they did with Star Wars after the prequels did their damage to the franchise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, you know RPaul and I rarely seem to agree on things, but he makes some pretty points here. My problem is how you make these characters "fit" in what I see as the historical Disney Parks narrative. The parks were built on the notion that each land or area exists in a time other than "now", with Epcot being the exception. Spider Man for me, is a hard fit since he exists in the present day and not in a different time. It just doesn't feel like Disney to me in the traditional since. That's the main reason I wish Marvel had been done in a third park with its own entirely different narrative. I'm sure others will disagree, but I'm also sure that I am not alone...

        Comment


        • #5
          This is a bit off topic but it would be so much better IMO if they created an attraction that included all of the MCU characters in it. A dark ride system that is like Harry Potter. Practical effects mixed with screens that take is through the MCU would be so epic. Limiting it to just one character or just a small group would be a waste. Just imagine a AA that is the incredible Hulk! The Spider man in such an attraction would be masked so I am not sure it would matter too much as to which costume they use. Anyways my dreams are always big and what they give us is GoTGMB so I expect something lower scale already. Anyways the Spider Man will most likely be masked and if they do a Peter Parker it will be like Indiana Jones where it's just a likeliness maybe.
          These are some of my favorite TRs I have posted

          DL 55th BDAY trip report
          My company had a special night at the park
          WdW trip report with WWoHP
          NYE 2011 trip report
          Mice Chat 7th anniversary
          Leap year 24 hour report
          New DCA trip report
          NYE 2012
          HKDL trip report

          Comment


          • #6
            Talking about Spiderman in Disneyland just feels wrong...

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the best way to proof it from these problems is just to only feature spiderman in costume. While the voices and constumes change every time they revamp the spiderman films (unnecessarily) most people won't really be able to tell. Heck, finding inspiration in the comics rather than the films is the safest bet, but the opposite approach they took with guardians so what will happen is anybody's guess.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by thedustycoyote View Post
                Talking about Spiderman in Disneyland just feels wrong...
                DCA. Big difference.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not going to address every concern, but in terms of Sony owning the IP, it wouldn't be the first time a studio has granted a theme park rights to build an attraction based on one of their movie IPs, right? I mean, last I checked, the entirety of Harry Potter movie franchise is owned by WB, yet Universal makes bank on the attractions. Sony doesn't have its own theme park and as far as I can tell doesn't plan on it any time soon, so it's not outside of the realm of possibility to make this go off without a hitch in terms of IP ownership.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    With the latest deal between Sony and MCU, MCU has creative control of the movie (story, director...) Sony gets the cash from box office and video sales. Disney get all the money from Merchandise. However after this contract between the three is up (Spider-Man in 4 more MCU movies) they can either negotiate to continue the same or Sony can go on their own. Considering MCU has more popular characters in the MCU catalog then Spiderman I don’t think they will build a Spiderman only ride there’s too much risk that Sony could screw up that franchise. I can however see Spiderman included in avengers ride.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by matterhorn77 View Post
                      With the latest deal between Sony and MCU, MCU has creative control of the movie (story, director...) Sony gets the cash from box office and video sales. Disney get all the money from Merchandise. However after this contract between the three is up (Spider-Man in 4 more MCU movies) they can either negotiate to continue the same or Sony can go on their own. Considering MCU has more popular characters in the MCU catalog then Spiderman I don’t think they will build a Spiderman only ride there’s too much risk that Sony could screw up that franchise. I can however see Spiderman included in avengers ride.

                      Yes.


                      - Robert

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by d1mex View Post
                        DCA. Big difference.
                        Talking about Spiderman and Disney in the same breath just feels wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by d1mex View Post

                          DCA. Big difference.
                          No difference. All Disney parks should be held to the same standard.

                          Originally posted by baroquehoedown View Post
                          I'm not going to address every concern, but in terms of Sony owning the IP, it wouldn't be the first time a studio has granted a theme park rights to build an attraction based on one of their movie IPs, right? I mean, last I checked, the entirety of Harry Potter movie franchise is owned by WB, yet Universal makes bank on the attractions. Sony doesn't have its own theme park and as far as I can tell doesn't plan on it any time soon, so it's not outside of the realm of possibility to make this go off without a hitch in terms of IP ownership.
                          No, you're right, it's not. Disney has done it with Lucasfilm for Indiana Jones and Star Wars before Disney owned them both. However, it is kind of ironic, I suppose, that people defending Mission Breakout saying that the Twilight Zone wasn't owned by Disney so getting rid of it made sense, but Spider-Man's filmography isn't owned by Disney yet it seems to be replacing either Monsters Inc or Bug's Land.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Where did rumors of a Spider-Man ride come from anyway? Not saying I know everything but I hadn't heard that one.

                            Comment


                            • #15

                              IMO
                              Disney Company wants, to many FAN base !
                              And now going to a Disney Park is nor longer the same expedition .
                              Soaring like an EAGLE !

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X