Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:24, 14 February 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marvel Cinematic Universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	Marvel Cinematic Universe has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 3, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed April 12, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: British / Comic book This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media franchises Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why are the Raimi and Webb Spider-Man films, X-Men and Fantastic Four films not mentioned in this article? A: Please see the MCU films article FAQ

MCU Draft Articles and Good Topic status For all articles that are currently being created in the Draft space, please see Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Drafts. For the status of MCU articles as we approach Good Topic status across various subtopics, please see Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe/Good Topic status.

Gunn, Guardians and Infinity War

Just came across this, and did not know where it would best fit. Gunn has also stated in some other recent interviews on this subject. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it isn't really anything new. Marvel has always striven to have individual films be individual (to varying levels of success). Marvel will still put the Guardians and Thanos in Infinity War if they want, and Gunn will still try to make the best solo movie he can if he wants. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If it hasn't already been noted though, we can put this at the GotG2 draft page, just saying that Gunn wants to focus on the single film rather than the bigger picture. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I see we do have some stuff on that at the draft page, so I don't no where else it would be useful. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters

@Favre1fan93: Since this section is about all of the MCU, not just the films, hasn't Gregg still appeared the most? He has been in 32 TV episodes so far, and Jackson has only been in 2. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about properties, you can't compare a tv episode to a feature film. If that were the case Patton Oswalt might be have been in more then Jackson.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should be changed to "appeared in the most properties in the franchise" or something, to clarify. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, wording may have to be adjusted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

State of the Articles (Jan 2015)

Hi all. Been meaning to create something like this for a while. Just wanted to kind of do a check in on the pages we have been working on to address anything, and what not. I think this past year, we made some really great strides and new article creations, and welcomed a bunch of editors into our "regulars" fold. At least for me with this, I wanted other opinions on GA and then just to kind of look ahead for the next few months for what pages have to worry about.

GAs

• To start, I think that GotG may be ready now from when I nominated it back in October. And if others agree, and it passes that will take me to my next point:
• If GotG is nominated and passed, do we feel ready to nominate the film articles for Good Topic?
• I also feel the list of television series article may be ready to nominate for a featured list, but I have thought of maybe waiting until Daredevil releases.
• Maybe Adam and our other more TV-series centric editors can answer this, but are any of the AoS articles ready for GA? I know there was a small discussion a bit ago on the season 1 talk. Would the main page, the season 1 article, or any of the episodes be ready? And if not for the first two, what work do we still need to do to get them there, in your opinions?

Upcoming work (~5 months)

• Jan-Feb: Agent Carter continues to air
• March: Agents of SHIELD comes back
• April: Cap: CW begins filming, draft article moves to mainspace; Daredevil premieres
• May: Age of Ultron releases, page has protection through October 2015; Doctor Strange begins filming, draft article moves to mainspace
  • For Cap: CW and Doctor Strange, I have the resulting sections that should subsequently appear at Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Sequel and Doctor Strange#Film once the mainspace articles exist.

I think that is it from my end. If I forgot anything in the upcoming section, let me know. I'm going to ping known editors that are always contributing, but others are more than welcome to join the conversation. Please let me know your thoughts on what I said, and add anything else you feel we need to go over! Looking forward to a productive 2015! @TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Adamstom.97, Sock, and Fandraltastic: @Drovethrughosts and Ditto51:

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea Favre, communication is never a bad thing :) Concerning GotG, as long as the lead, post-credits scene, and box office issues are sorted out, I am fine with this being nominated. Once that passes, that will be 10 film GAs, so I would be happy to go ahead with the topic nomination straight after. I'm not so sure about the TV list, but if we leave it till after Daredevil comes out, hopefully we will have some more info on JJ and maybe some of the other series, and potentially on the futures of AoS and AC, so maybe waiting till then could help fill out the article a bit, etc. I wouldn't look to the AoS and AC episode articles for GA anytime soon. I plan on continuing to just create and expand these, and think that that should be the focus for now, but maybe down the track a bit. As for the main AoS articles, I think if some of us give the Season 1 page a full c/e, and then we perhaps ask the guild to do the same, and just make sure there isn't anything missing or something like that, then I would be happy to nominate that one. As for the main page, I am working on some issues in the reception section there, and I intend to completely redo the cast and characters section, so perhaps have a look at GA after that? I can't really think of anything else right now, just that I am looking forward to a good year :) adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The biggest issue that the reviewer had with GotG was that it was unstable because it was still in theaters and so still had box office numbers coming in. Coverage is also something that is fixed as time goes on and various things that were missing like DVD releases and stuff are added to the article. The only bit I'm not sure on is if the sources have been ironed out yet or not.

I think Season 2 for AoS can go up for testing against the "B-class" criteria now. The List of characters page could use a few more sources in the character desciptions, just to ensure everything is sourced. Season 1 should go up alongside the main AoS page for GA-status if we are going to do that. While it does need copy editing (probably), it appears to be more sourced and detailed than the main article and nothing new and big is really going to come out because we are on season 2, so it is stable.

I have no idea on how to improve the list of episodes article though...

• Main AoS page →
• Season 1 page →
• Season 2 page → --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 10:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, could we discuss the list of episodes article and how that works? Do we just leave it as a normal list? I can't see it changing much ever. I am also curently working on a revised version of the AoS characters page, as I said I would at that talk quite a while ago, but it is still an ongoing project, and I don't know if anybody else is interested in it or not, but if we are going to use it, it could help that page get to GA, since at the moment it is a pretty bare set of tables and lists really. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There isn't actually must information at the MoS page. Just look at the other 3 examples I guess.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the AoS LoE should be examined once the series ends, or has a few more seasons under its belt. I agree with Ditto's suggestions for changing classes. So pretty much, for the time being in the very near future, we will be planning three articles for GA: Main AoS, AoS season 1 and GotG? Adam, would the AoS Pilot be close to GA at all you think? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely the closest out of them all. If you were interested in nominating it, then I wouldn't object. As long as there isn't anything that we really should be taking out/putting in, then I guess we could just c/e and give it a go. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man & Sinister Six

Should probably be added to the list of upcoming films. Toonamiguy (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if this is true and they are still going ahead with the film, we need better confirmation than this, from a reliable source. Also, the article clearly states that the November 2016 date is the old release date (which we already knew) and that the film has been delayed, so what you are asking to be added is incorrect any way. And finally, the films table here is just transcluded from List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, so more info on each of the actual confirmed films can be found there, with links to even more info where available. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We all really need slow down and consider what we all just read. This is great news but in the rush I think we are loosing sight of what is actually being stated.

1. The character Spider-Man will appear in a MCU film.
2. MCU characters may appear in Spider-Man films.
3. Feige will CO-produce a future Spider-Man film.
4. Sony will retain ownership, financing, distribution, and creative control of future Spider-Man films.

What it does NOT say:

1. Future Spider-Man films will be a part of the MCU.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. Spider-Man films will be a part of MCU. Why they changed realese dates and gave Spidey one of MCU dates? Mike210381 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have verification from a reliable source stating that the Spider-Man films will a part of the MCU. What you are stating is synthesis of published material: if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. We need a explicit verification that A=C.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"We're thrilled to work with Sony Pictures to bring the iconic web-slinger into the Marvel Cinematic Universe"... read whole articles & Mike210381 (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the character that was #1 in my original post.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And this is clear that next Spidey film will be a part of MCU. Mike210381 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hardly, the Spider-Man character will be in MCU. Sony is releasing a Spider-Man film in 2017, co-produced by Kevin Feige. But nowhere does it say that Sony's film will be a part of MCU.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Marvel gave Sony their realese date just like that and change dates for 4 their movies? They did that because it's not part of MCU????? Think about it... Mike210381 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Who knows? It could be a non-compete clause in the agreement. We need explicit verification not assumptions. That is Misplaced Pages policy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not assumptions that's facts. All news pages says that. Everyone is wrong but not you? Mike210381 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Again please provide explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have found the statement you are looking for. "Marvel's involvement will hopefully deliver the creative continuity and authenticity that fans demand from the MCU." That's from Kevin Feige discussing the Sony films in future that he will be co-producing. That tells us the films will be set in the MCU (and that they will "hopefully" be able to keep it up to the standard people expect of the MCU). Bit of a dig through the article to get it but it was in there, I'd assume that they assumed that we'd assume it was part of the MCU which was why it wasn't made as clear as it was (but that takes a lot of assuming). Thankfully there is that one sentence to confirm it outright. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You're still ignoring that just because A=B and B=C doesn't mean A=C. It says that Marvel is involved, and that they will hopefully "deliver the creative continuity..." and so on. Just be patient, we'll know soon enough. We're in no rush. Sock (tock talk) 14:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave you that verification, but you have problem with understanding... In one news they said that Spidey had joined MCU, that he will appere in one film before his solo one, they annouced reboot on a date on one of MCU films and MCU characters may appear in Spider-Man films, that's clear that is a part of MCU, and that news says that! Mike210381 (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"The new relationship follows a decade of speculation among fans about whether Spider-Man – who has always been an integral and important part of the larger Marvel Universe in the comic books – could become part of the Marvel Universe on the big screen. Spider-Man has more than 50 years of history in Marvel’s world, and with this deal, fans will be able to experience Spider-Man taking his rightful place among other Super Heroes in the MCU." Mike210381 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

At no point have they said that the Spiderman film will be in the MCU, just that the characters will be shared between franchises. And they also haven't stated reboot. They have stated a spiderman film will be released and that then forced the other films back. For all we know the film could be in the cinematic universe and the previous films could also be in the universe.

If Fox suddenly stated that they were willing to share characters and the term mutants (other than Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch) would we be jumping at the chance to ibnclude their films in the lineup? No. Why? Because they were released before the MCU, but would you assume reboot? Probably. And yet it is extremely unlikely to be a reboot. Until there is explict verivication that the spiderman and sinster six films will be in the same universe as the MCU.

Speaking of Sinsier Six, that is still in development and would likely use the continuity already set up rather than having to delay it further to try and match it up to the MCU story.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another article that confirms the franchise being rebooted, and integrated into the MCU. http://www.movies.com/movie-news/new-spider-man-movie-questions/17885 Toonamiguy (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't actually look reliable, it looks like someone with a website went across the internt and found answers that suited their plesure and then put them onto a question and answer sheet. Also if the fact that spiderman was being rebooted is true then why wouldn't that be in the titles of all the other sources provided? Along the lines of "Spiderman gets Rebooted and Joins the Marvel Universe! or something like that. It just seems like that is something they would want to make clear.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Every source has confirmed that Andrew Garfield is being replaced, due to the fact that the series is being rebooted. Toonamiguy (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We are stepping away from the central question again, is there explicit verification that states the Spider-Man film is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? The quote Ruffice98 provided just seems like quality assurances from Fiege. @Adamstom.97, Fandraltastic, Favre1fan93, and Tenebrae: I'd like to here from some more regulars.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is premature to state that the Spider-Man franchise is now part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For all we know, this is a one-time "crossover". I support the content that currently exists in the article. However, are we wanting to list the planned Spider-Man film under the "Films" section, which is distinct from any franchise claims? Nevermind, I did not recall the film-specific details correctly. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Erik: Sorry, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films seems to be more directly impacted than this article. This was just the only thread I found on the subject.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Marvel press release does say: "Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films." If the reboot does feature MCU characters, with repercussions in the MCU, I suppose it would be considered an MCU film. But that's a ways away. Richiekim (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's in reference to characters only. We need more information. For all we know it could be like the Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch situation with FOX. Iron Man could show up in a Spidey film but will it be the RDJ Iron Man from the MCU films? We just don't know.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll make it short because every time I try to post something an edit conflict gets thrown up. The Kevin Feige comment is very clear from where I'm standing. They are going to try to deliver these demands because its in the MCU (the above butchering of basic arithmetic to prove a point is shocking frankly). As for other points, the reboot is quite clearly explained in the press release, it's a new Spider-Man making his first appearance. Also, if an MCU character appears in the film, say the MCU Iron Man but its not the MCU Iron Man, then it isn't an MCU character, it's a Marvel character that also features in the MCU. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with those who think that it is premature to say that the Spider-Man franchise is now part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Those who believe otherwise, should keep WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL in mind... Fortdj33 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't said that Sony and Marvel will be sharing Spidey like it's with Quicksilver ans Scarlet Witch, but that Spider-Man will join MCU. It's clear. Mike210381 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't clear. Spiderman is involved in the comic civil war storylines just like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are involved in the comic Avengers, so Marvel negoitiate a deal so that Sony reboot spiderman and it gives them access to the character in there films as long as there is no competition between their films. No where have they stated that the reboot will be mixed in with the MCU films. Just that it will be rebooted.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not using a crystal ball to point out a quote from the president of Marvel suggesting it. He's said that they are doing something because those are the demands on the MCU. How is that not suggesting it is in the MCU? Ruffice98 (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

People are assuming that because spiderman is now set to appear in the MCU that the films are also set in the MCU. However it could just be that the spiderman films just hire another dude to play there version of Iron Man. I can't see Marvel giving Sony the ability to play around with their characters since Sony will have complete control. Also "suggesting" does not equal certain, that is why it is a suggestion and not a statement of fact.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give further evidence then. The quote I gave for the reboot confirmation refers to the MCU Spider-Man as "the new Spider-Man". That's a definite article, thus there is only one new Spider-Man. That leaves only two possibilities, either they are both the same Spider-Man (and thus the same universe) or Andrew Garfield is still Spider-Man over on the Sony end, but as numerous sources are saying he's been dropped. It's one or the other, certainly not a new Sony version. I'd also add that if Marvel and Sony were continuing with separate versions there certainly would not be any discussions of MCU characters appearing in the Amazing Spider-Man 3 (as it would be). That's going into original research territory, but is very sound logic to base the search for a definitive conclusion. If you can source Andrew Garfield as being definitely out, they have to be the same. Ruffice98 (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"The new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe" & "Andrew Garfield is NO LONGER Spider-Man. Someone new will be cast. First appearance in MCU, then solo film". That says the solo movie will have MCU connection, if it will be the same actor in MCU film and new Spidey film. Mike210381 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys the solo film will be part of the MCU Kevin Feige posted it online, and Spider-Man will re-appear in Avengers Infinity War Part 1, and possible Part 2 (unconfirmed) so why would they have him appear in a marvel, then sony, then a marvel film and not have the sony one part of the mcu? It's not a one-time crossover as spider-man as he will appear in a film before his solo film, then the solo film, then avengers 3. So marvel are making a deal with sony to make seperate films with the same actor despite the fact marvel said both companies would make films within the mcu, and by the way, marvel are making the whole film, Sony just distributes, advertises, casts, and has "tweaking" rights on the costume. So marvel are making sony a film and ultimately delaying their own films, when they had plenty of chances to do this, so they are making a film for a rival company, which would lose them money from their later films. Well done guys, the perfect logic. GUYS THEY SAID ITS PART OF THE MCU, IT WILL HAVE THE MCU INTRO, MARVEL MAKES THE FILM, IT WILL HAVE MCU CHARACTERS, ITS PART OF THE MCU FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyloias (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Um...Marvel isn't making the film...--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Um...Marvel is making the film. "...Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel..." -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

All I am reading is a bunch conjecture: "If they are doing this then it must mean that". Misplaced Pages policy is based on verification. If we do not have verification the explicitly states the film is a part of the MCU, then we cannot list it. I am not saying that it is or isn't a MCU film, just that we do not have verification that it is. Remember WP:Verifiability, not truth.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, it has not been stated that it is it, you are just taking what they say and twisting in. The most they have done in hinted at it, they have not actually confirmed it yet! When they do it will be added to the article.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In official statements there is that he will be part of MCU... I don't get it, what else confirmation you want? It's state clear , . Spidey will be part of MCU with new actor, who will first appere in one of MCU movies then in solo one. It's not enough? Mike210381 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They say Spiderman is, and we are not disputing that. We are disputing that nothing has stated that the new films will be in the MCU. Everyone is just assuming that that is what the sources say even when they don't outright say it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Feige said "I am equally excited for the opportunity to have Spider-Man appear in the MCU", charakter will make an apperence in upcoming MCU movie. It doesn't meen that the movie is in the MCU? I think that we read different article. Mike210381 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously guys? This is getting ridiculous. There appears to be a consensus that we shouldn't jump to conclusions on this (even excluding my opinion), so can we knock it off for now? A character being in a film and a film being in a series do not necessarily go hand in hand. The bugs from Slither appeared in Guardians, should we add that? No, we shouldn't. Should we add A Million Ways to Die in the West to Back to the Future (franchise) because Doc Brown appeared in it? You better believe we shouldn't.

Please, just wait for explicit wording. You guys are making (very logical) inferences, and that's fine, but it doesn't belong here. The character is part of the MCU. His films probably are, but have not been confirmed to be. Either way, this argument has become so circular that I'm getting vertigo, so can we please let this lie until we have confirmation from Marvel or Sony? Sock (tock talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a statement on whether it should or shouldn't be in there, but I find it amusing that some of the same people who keep saying "we need to wait for explicit wording from Marvel" argued vehemently that it wasn't necessary in regards to Doctor Strange's release date (an old issue from last summer). The hypocritical stance makes it seem like certain people feel like they have ownership over the article as opposed to actually believing in Misplaced Pages principles and policies. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's any help, my reading of this portion of the Marvel press release...

Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel's Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal....

...is that the Disney movies (and the former Paramount entries) are in the MCU and that the upcoming Sony Pictures release is not.

It's saying "Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel Cinematic Universe film and then afterward in the Sony franchise." It sounds to me as if Marvel considers them two different things.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The difference between that dispute and this one is that we had a source that definatly stated the Doctor Strange date (Variety) here we have people looking at the source, all infering the same thing (that the new spiderman films will be in the MCU) but some of us are actually trying to follow Misplaced Pages Policy by arguing that the sources don't state it clearly and as such it is not clear. All that is clear is that a spiderman that may or may not be the same one as the one in the re-rebooted franchise will be in MCU films during Phase 3. Most notably Civil War...--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This obviously isn't the place to get into that other dispute, but with that one we had literally a dozen different sources (some with QUOTES FROM KEVIN FEIGE!) that all said the same thing and were much newer than the source being used. Yet people still insisted that it didn't matter what Marvel was saying. At least this time it's not as bad. There wasn't even any ambiguity last time, yet people still argued otherwise. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a similar situation to the (as we know it) current Hulk situation. Marvel Studios has control of the character rights, but any future solo film will still be distributed and financed by Universal. The main question I have that makes me sway towards these films being in the MCU is, if the supposedly "same" character is appearing in definitive MCU films, and then again in solo Sony films, with the potential for MCU versions of characters to appear, I take that to mean that it is within the MCU. Also, can we please create a subheading "Break" and clearly layout what is explicitly known from the press release and subsequent reliable sources, and what is still the question areas? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Break

Just to clarify everything that is actually known, and has been absolutely clearly stated in the press release (with no ambiguity) as requested above:

1. Sony and Marvel have reached a deal to allow Spider-Man to appear in the MCU.

2. Spider-Man will appear in an upcoming MCU film prior to July 2017.

3. A new Spider-Man film will be released in July 2017 with Kevin Feige acting as producer, produced and distributed by Sony.

4. The aforementioned MCU film will be the first appearance of the new Spider-Man (note the definite article).

5. Sony will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control over all future solo Spider-Man films.

6. Marvel and Sony are looking to include MCU characters in future Spider-Man films (note "MCU characters", not just "Marvel owned characters").

7. This will definitely be the Peter Parker version of Spider-Man.

8. Marvel intend to deliver the creative continuity and authenticity that fans demand from the MCU in the Sony film.

I hope this clarifies the situation for everyone, but with the MCU characters being under consideration, and also the fact that they only refer to one new Spider-Man in the press release it only leaves two potential situations as I have described before unless the situation changes in the mean time (namely that either it is intended to be the same universe or Sony intend to continue their existing films alongside Marvel's new continuity within the MCU). Ruffice98 (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are some of my opinions on points from the press release (they are similar to Ruffice's, as I was writing this as they were submitting theirs, so sorry for overlap) This is from the press release or other RS (which will be linked). Points listed are from top of the press release, down:

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

This is expanded by the WSJ's report that that film will be Civil War. (WSJ article is for subscribers, here is an RS reporting on it). Additionally, using the wording "new Spider-Man" suggests that Andrew Garfield will not be involved, thus ASM and ASM 2 should not be considered as tied to this new franchise. Multiple RS's have since reported that Garfield will be recast. As well, the WSJ article reports that Sinister Six has been delayed, so who knows how that will apparently fit in with these new films.

2. "Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal"

"co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal" indicates that Marvel Studios will be a production company for the film, along with Sony Pictures Entertainment

3. "Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films."

This statement confirms that Columbia Pictures will distribute the film, not Disney. I am also potentially reading this as a similar situation to the Hulk rights, where Marvel Studios has the ability to use the character, but solo films are still financed and distributed by Universal.

4. "Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films."

Personally, this statement here reveals that the Spider-Man films will have some connectivity to the larger MCU. The full extent, based on this wording, is unclear. It should be noted that the wording is explicitly characters from the MCU not additional Marvel characters (ie Iron Man appearing but it not being RDJ's Iron Man).

5. Kevin Feige said, "Marvel's involvement will hopefully deliver the creative continuity and authenticity that fans demand from the MCU. I am equally excited for the opportunity to have Spider-Man appear in the MCU, something which both we at Marvel, and fans alike, have been looking forward to for years."

The first sentence does not clearly indicate to me that the Spider-Man films will be in the MCU. It will be an "upgrade" as it were from the ASM films, but could still be separated. The second sentence about him appearing in the MCU, could just refer to the first film appearance.

These are the points I felt we were all trying to discuss. Overall, I feel like yes the Spider-Man films will be a part of the MCU in some way, but the wording as presented in the press release does not give us unquestionable doubt that this is the case. If you agree or disagree with my personal opinions on them, let's discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for all my posting. I've just come across new info. Here from here and here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you've covered almost everything. The only other thing that really stands out is of course the use of "the new Spider-Man" which confirms there is currently only one new Spider-Man in the foreseeable future. That does leave open the possibility Sony could be carrying on The Amazing Spider-Man series of films as well, so as I've said before get a source confirming Andrew Garfield is out and you confirm it is the MCU, otherwise there would be more than one new Spider-Man and Marvel wouldn't have "the new Spider-Man". Ruffice98 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to clear-up a few things. First it says Feige will be a CO-producer. There's a huge difference between a producer and co-producer. Despite common misconception a co-producer has nothing to with the number of producers or shared responsibilities. A producer is the person who is in charge of the production, which is what Feige was on most of MCU films. A co-producer is more or less just an advisor. Which backs up what Feige talking about in he said, "Marvel's involvement will hopefully deliver the creative continuity and authenticity that fans demand from the MCU". However, the source goes on to say "Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films." So Sony will have the last word and can totally disregard any suggestions from Feige. Also Marvel Studios was already a co-production company on the previous Spider-Man films, X-Men films and Fantastic Four films, which are not a part of the MCU. This is NOT like situation with Universal, which was a distribution deal only. Marvel had a similar one with Paramount, but the films were independently produced by Marvel Studios. Sony will be lead company on the Spider-Man films. Secondly, even if the same actors are used it does not guarantee that film is a part of MCU. More likely yes, but guarantee no. As Sock pointed out there is precedent that this is not always the case. Bottom line is we need explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with you in this discussion TriiipleThreat, I would like to point out that the Producers Guild defines co-producers as "two or more functioning producers who perform jointly or cumulatively all of the producer functions as a team or group." See here. What you described sounds more like an Executive Producer to me. DinoSlider (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No, TriiipleThreat, Marvel Studios did not have anything to do with the previous Spider-Man, X-Men, or Fantastic Four movies. Marvel Entertainment co-produced those, and there is a huge difference. So far, Marvel Studios has only produced films set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, including all the Paramount Marvel films and Universal's The Incredible Hulk. Marvel Entertainment signifies that Marvel's characters are licensed out to other studios and that Marvel has no creative input whatsoever.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Variety confirms that Sony will continue development of Spidey spinoff films like Sinister Six and Venom without Marvel or Feige's involvement. Richiekim (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It says Kevin Feige isn't involved currently with any of those projects. That doesn't rule out his involvement in future, and it also does not place Marvel in any position at all. The press release tells us the deal between Sony and Marvel will continue to develop the character "into the future" so to assume Marvel is dropping out after this next film is a bit off to say the least. They'll want to keep an eye over things, especially if it is tied into the MCU as most expect. Ruffice98 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source saying Spider-Man will join the MCU. Also, it mentions Marvel moving back 4 of its films to accommodate the deal. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article? Your source says: "In a deal long-sought by Marvel Studios, Spider-Man—the character licensed to Sony Pictures years before the comic book company got into the filmmaking business—will be joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe alongside Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man, Chris Evans’ Captain America, and the rest of the Avengers team." Spider-Man the character. Nowhere in that article does it say the point you're trying to prove, which is that the 2017 film is in the MCU. "After the webslinger does a tour within the Marvel Studios realm, Sony Pictures will release a stand-alone Spider-Man film on July 28, 2017, and Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige—who engineered the concept of a interconnected superhero franchise—will help produce it along with Amy Pascal..." is what is said. Which is what every other source is saying. Sock (tock talk) 13:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"The deal means Spider-Man will appear in one of Marvel’s upcoming movies next, the studio said in its announcement late Monday." How can it logically be argued that Spider-Man will appear in a MCU film yet his film won't be part of the MCU? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Marvel had never annouced a film before, that wasn't in the MCU on their official page. None of X-Men, F4 or earlier Spieder-Man films were annouced there. By the way, most of the web sites inform about new Spider-Man film as a part of third phase of MCU. And as I said earlier, they changed four dates to put Spidey movie, and this is without any profits from this movie... Main argument about that this is a part a MCU is that they annouced that film on Marvel.com. Spider-man joined MCU as a character but also as a movie, they didn't said that only the character joind. Mike210381 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They did not explicitly say that the film is a part of the MCU, only that Spider-Man is. Everything else is completely circumstantial. If it is we will have verification sooner or later. Misplaced Pages is not the news and there is no rush.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that's wikipedia it's not the news and there is no rush!!! Maybe you could start to read the others arguments and stop looking for a trick in Sony/Marvel deal??? Look maybe at the facts:

1. As I said, Marvel had never annouced a film before, that wasn't in the MCU??? NO THEY HAVE NOT!!! He annouced Spieder-Man film on their realese date (previously Thor: Ragnorok) and change 4 realese date for MCU phase three. ,

2. One of MCU connections are cast & characters... Spidey will be recast and his first apperence will be before his solo film, in one of MCU films (probably in Civil War). That's mean that he will be introduced in MCU and the same actor will play him in his solo one. Also the other MCU characters can appere in Spider-Man future solo movie (NOT Marvel characters but MCU's). That's connect with the MCU??? YES IT IS!!!

That aren't a reliable sources??? I don't think that Feige will say: "for all wikipedia users, that don't understed Sony/Marvel deal, yes, Spieder Man film will be part of MCU"... All the news sites said that it is! The other languages wikipedia used that source as reliable, but YOU knows better. Mike210381 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Again the evidence you provided is circumstantial and the very definition of WP:SYN. None of the sources you provided say the film is a part of Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel moving release dates or making announcements on their website is irrelevant unless they say WHY they are doing it. Us inferring why, no matter how logicial it might seem to you is original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion with you makes no sense at all, because you know the best.Mike210381 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As you can see here, I'm not alone.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too. Mike210381 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys...come on. This has gotten so far beyond out of hand. TriiipleThreat's last argument was bulletproof, and you responded snidely without actually countering any of his points. That seems strange to me. WP:SYN is the absolutely best way to describe the arguments presented here, and in this case, TriiipleThreat does know best. He's presented every single argument he's made clearly, with sources, and with policies/guidelines backing his points. This is nearing WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. Sock (tock talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a dumb argument over semantics again. Obviously the 2017 Spider-Man movie will be set in the MCU whether or not the press release specifically states it, it's inherently implied. I guess we have to wait several months for someone to say in layman's terms that the movie will be set in the MCU so we can edit the page. What a joke. Suzuku (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid your claim of what's "obvious" is simply your own POV. Clearly, others of us have reached the opposite "obvious" conclusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's also consider now that it has been revealed that Marvel and Sony are exchanging no money regarding this, and the character is just being licensed to Marvel. That further throws in to question if the film will indeed be part of the MCU because, once again, Sony is controlling everything, and can very well keep it separate (while also using licensed MCU characters). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: No money, it doesn't mean that Sony can make what they want... They made a deal, we don't know exacly what that deal says. I don't think that Marvel give MCU characters just like that. Why is Feige producer of future Spider-Man film? It's clear that he will be on guard of MCU connection... I'm sure that every detail is in their agreement, but they do not gave the content of the agreement in public. Marvel gave their realese date (i know that i said that few times), there is no deal without nothing... From the statment of Marvel & Sony is clear that it will be part of MCU... I don't know why some of you search arguments that it isn't... Mike210381 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You keep assuming and synthesizing sources to make this the case. Based on the wording in the press release, it is not clear at all that the film will be in the MCU. Stating that A) Feige is producing and B) it is on a former MCU film dates, does not equal C) it is part of the MCU. The arguments against it being in the MCU have more substance to them, because they are backed by our policies and the actual wording of the press release and subsequent RS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies aside, it is very clear that this is part of the MCU. Otherwise what would be the point of even sharing the same actors across MCU and Spidey movies only to say that essentially it changes nothing about where these characters belong? That may not be good enough to the Wikireaucracy, but I'm just talking from a common sense point of view here. 91.5.26.79 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid your claim of what's "very clear" is simply your own POV. Others of us have reached the opposite "very clear" conclusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Because others are intentionally obtuse, I suppose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.31.221 (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong there. They have said share characters, that does not mean actors.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Feige is producer to help ensure it launches well and to try and bring people's hopes up. And Sony can do what they want as they have full creative control. Marvel are simply advisors to the new film's production. From what the sources say, Sony get to use MCU characters and have to restart the franshice (again) while Marvel gets Spiderman in there films while not being able to make a stand alone spiderman film for themsleves.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I don't know if you read my previous arguments. Not only Feige as producer or realese date, there is more arguments. Never mind, i think that i'll stop to continue that discussion... Mike210381 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We've read your previous arguments, its just you are infering, which is fine in the News World (mostly) but here it needs to be said clearly (or at least not implied) unlike it has been in all of the sources provided. Also that one was me not Favre. :)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So basically the deal is that they can use the other characters from each franchise without the threat of legal action. Feige is not going to just hand over to Sony's creative teams, something that they have worked hard on building for six years!!--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd advise you read the press release again because that's exactly what they are talking about doing. Marvel are discussing giving Sony MCU characters, that means the versions of the character as seen in the MCU, not Marvel Studio's owned characters or any other version you can invent in your head (that would be original research which everyone seems to bleat on about until it doesn't suit them). Ruffice98 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Spider-Man film is set within the MCU and going forward, all of its followups and spinoffs will be to. You can expect to see some MCU characters showing up in Sony films too." Npamusic (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

First time on a wiki, so I'm not sure if I'm posting correctly, sorry. But I think the headline to the press release says i all, "Sony Pictures Brings Marvel Studios (aka MCU) Into the Amazing World Of Spider-Man." Note the headline does not say Sony Pictures brings Spider-Man to Marvel Studios. I think the headline speaks for itself, the MCU is coming to Spider-Man. --Darpavader (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the first line of the press release reads, "Sony Pictures Entertainment and Marvel Studios announced today that Sony is bringing Marvel into the amazing world of Spider-Man." That's pretty clear that the next Spider-Man film is in fact part of the MCU. If it was just the other way around it would read, "Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today that Sony is bringing Spider-Man to Marvel." That's a big difference. Clearly Spider-Man 2017 will be part of the MCU. --Darpavader (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't say that the next Spider-Man film will be set in the MCU, even if we can easily infer that that is what they mean. All it is really saying is that Sony is bringing Marvel Studios onboard to help make the next Spider-Man film, which does not mean that the film will be set in the MCU, it just means that another studio will be assisting in some way with the creation of this new reboot, and that other studio just so happens to be one whose own films all share one universe. The dots are sitting there for us to quite easily connect them, but that is WP:OR and WP:SYN, which means we have to wait until somebody official connects them for us before we can ourselves state here that the film will be set in the MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Later in the release it says, "We're thrilled to work with Sony to bring Spider-Man into the MCU." That quote speaks to the whole deal. Plus Marvel is working with Sony on the Sony film, Sony is not working woth Marvel on any Marvel films. So the quote is clear. --Darpavader (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

while i do think the spidey film could very well be part of the MCU, one thing i'd like to point out with the argument that since Feige is producing then it means its part of the MCU, ahem......Feige is also co-produing Deadpool and that aint part of the MCU. Eagc7 (talk)

I'll believe that particular story when Fox outright say it because I can't see Kevin Feige going near it with a barge pole without good reason and all we have is one website claiming he's involved. There is one thing we can absolutely 100% say with regards to that solo film's status in the MCU without any doubt and that is that Marvel and Sony are having discussions to include MCU characters in it, which means it is definitely set in the MCU should those discussions succeed. This is already noted later on in the article which is the correct way to go if a consensus can't be reached regarding it definitely being in the MCU because at the very least there is an intention to include it. Ruffice98 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Another big clue that the new solo Spider-Man movie will be in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is Variety is reporting that Disney/Marvel is waiting on Sony to cast the new Spider-Man soon so that they can introduce him in Captain America: Civil War. . TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that will just be part of the deal and nothing specific to it being part of the MCU, although clearly that is Marvel's intention if it hasn't been decided on already so they would want Sony on side in the casting. I would caution using the Variety source, they claim the studio hasn't decided which version of Spider-Man they are using and so Miles Morales is a possibility, although a quick look through the press release and you'll see they do explicitly state it will be the Peter Parker version. Ruffice98 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit strange that they say they haven't decided on whether they are using Peter Parker or Miles Morales, yet in the same article they say that Sony is looking at actors such as Dylan O'Brien and Logan Lerman to play the next Spider-Man. It seems that it is pretty obvious that they are going with Peter Parker if that is the case.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Marvel is waiting for Sony to cast Spider-Man because they want to use the same actor. That still doesn't mean that the solo film will be set in the MCU. And to everyone saying that they haven't decided on which Spider-Man, in the official press release they specifically say Peter Parker, which is why they are now looking at such actors as O'Brien and Lerman for the role. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second. So you're saying that even if Sony and Marvel use the same actor as Spider-Man, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Sony films are in the MCU? How did you come to that conclusion? If they use the same actor, then it is obviously part of the MCU, case closed.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be stupid, but it could happen, until Marvel or Sony say that the film is in the MCU, we cannont add it to the article. Simple as.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. As I said earlier it would make the case more likely but it doesn't guarantee it. John Munch has been played by the same actor across 10 different television shows, but it doesn't mean that they all are apart of the same universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They've stated their intention to include MCU characters in the solo film, unless the whole deal collapses in the mean time it will be fairly obvious what the eventual conclusion will be. We may end up waiting a year for it but the information will be given eventually. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As a separate point to the ongoing discussion, and probably the best compromise we can get to, is to accept the solo Spider-Man film as being intended to be set within the MCU rather than actually set within it for the moment. It's a small enough distinction to be made but is one we can certainly source at the moment. We wouldn't need to make any changes to this article, although a note of this fact would need to be added onto the potential projects part of the MCU films page. This specifically relates to this particular quote from the press release:

"Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films."

Can we all agree on this compromise until such a time that a definitive answer is given? Ruffice98 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would still be introducing original research, as they do not state their intentions whether it be including future Spider-Man films in the MCU or just including MCU characters in a separate universe. All we can say is that they are "exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On the List of films page, in the Potential project subsection, I believe this should be added after the info about the December leak: "In February 2015, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Marvel Studios announced a licensing deal that would allow Spider-Man to appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with the character first appearing in Captain America: Civil War. Marvel Studios will also explore opportunities to integrate other characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe into future Spider-Man films financed, distributed and controlled by Sony Pictures." That's all we know right now until becomes definitive either way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We can add it to the Captain America: Civil War section because have a source stating Spider-Man will appear in that film, but we can't add the Future Spider-Man film to the Potential Project section because we do know that the Future Spider-Man Film is a potential MCU project.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Triiiple is correct, adding it to the potential films section is no different to adding it to the normal sections. We could always put the spiderman in Civil War in the Civil War section and then if we have a development section anywhere, explain in that about the spiderman franshice possibly borrowing characters from the MCU (or put it in the effect on other studios section)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing that nobody's pointed out is this (and yes, I know this doesn't mean we should add Spider-Man to the page, but it's fairly obvious if you use your brain): why would Marvel allow Sony to use characters from the MCU in the solo Spider-Man movies if it wasn't going to be part of the MCU? What would be the point? Basically, if Marvel were to allow Sony to use their characters (not MCU characters, but Marvel characters in general), what would stop Sony from creating their own rival MCU centered around Spider-Man? First, it would create a lot of audience confusion. Second, if the movies are bad, then it could potentially damage the official Marvel movies. There is no way that Marvel would allow this to happen. By integrating Spider-Man into the MCU, both Sony and Marvel benefit. Making Spider-Man movies set within the MCU would give the franchise a much needed boost at the box-office while also creating more buzz for the MCU movies. What this deal comes down to is money. It's obvious that Sony would much rather have an official MCU version of Spider-Man than a fake rival Spider-Man, which is why they are letting Marvel use the character in Captain America: Civil War first. Likewise, if they integrate characters from the MCU, they're going to want to use the real things. They want to use the RDJ Iron Man that everyone knows and loves, not a fake generic version of Iron Man. The problem with the Amazing Spider-Man shared universe is that no matter how many spin-offs you make like Sinister Six, Venom, Black Cat, etc., everything revolves around Spider-Man and therefore feels so much smaller and less epic than what Disney/Marvel is achieving. Marvel wants to use Spider-Man, but they don't need him like Sony needs the MCU. You better believe that Sony will do whatever it takes to tie Spider-Man into the MCU AND make sure that audiences know this because then the franchise has a fighting chance at survival. Why do you think they have Kevin Feige involved? Furthermore, why would Kevin Feige even consider helping Sony set up a rival MCU? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 barely cracked $200 million at the U.S. box-office and who knows how much less The Amazing Spider-Man 3 would've made. What happens now is that Marvel gets to use their #1 character in the MCU and Sony gets a piece of that sweet MCU money. Both studios win. This really isn't that difficult.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that IS original research. What we've got all in all is a source confirming they are looking to integrate MCU characters into the next solo Spider-Man film, yet somehow that's original research to call it a potential project. I'm intrigued to find out why this is original research as there is absolutely none there. They want to include the characters, so its a potential project. How is it not (please provide an explanation without original research of your own)? Ruffice98 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to win an argument or anything, I'm just pointing out the obvious. I even said I know this doesn't mean we should add the new Spider-Man project to the MCU page. Original research or not, it's very, very obvious what is happening here. But no, that is not justification for adding it to the page.TheLastAmigo (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We have information on something Marvel are looking to do with Sony in future, why can we not include this in the article? I'm getting the impression some editors here just want to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend nothing is happening rather than trying to find the best solution for this matter. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that certain editors are "sticking their fingers in their ears", but perhaps they aren't the same editors that you are thinking about. The fact of the matter is, "Marvel is looking to integrate MCU characters into the Spider-Man solo film" does not equal "The Spider-Man solo film is set in the MCU". Period. You may want to think it does, perhaps because it would be cool, and/or perhaps because it would be really weird or confusing if this was not the case, but in the end, it is original research to get from "Marvel is looking to integrate MCU characters into the Spider-Man solo film" to "The Spider-Man solo film is set in the MCU", whether that original research is based in sound logic and reason or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that it isn't about being hopeful, it's about being able to use your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. It's also spelled out very obviously in the press release.

Let's also be honest here. Disney/Marvel would never let Sony use their characters in order to create a rival MCU. It's not going to happen. If you think Marvel would allow that to happen just so they can use Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War, you are sadly mistaken.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The terms of the agreement are also perfectly spelled out by Michael Lyton, CEO at Sony.

If that's not confirmation, I don't know what it is.TheLastAmigo (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I know it does not mean the films are part of the MCU, that is why I brought this particular quote up. This isn't evidence the films are set in the MCU this is evidence Marvel are looking to integrate the characters into the Spider-Man films, and that (in my opinion) should be noteworthy and provides a middle ground to stop this argument raging on further. If we don't have proof that the film is set in the MCU, we at least do have proof that it is intended to involve MCU characters (the reader may then from there make whatever logical leaps they want about setting). Ruffice98 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything that we know as a fact (as listed above) has already been integrated into the encyclopaedia. If this debate is going to remain about whether the press release means what we want it to mean, then fine, but I don't see any other end point than a whole lot of frustration and time wasting. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not everything, the one point we are discussing here is not included anywhere at the moment. From a development point of view it is certainly very significant, Sony have agreed for this character to appear in an MCU film, and now Marvel are discussing including some MCU characters in the solo Spider-Man film. I'm getting the distinct impression nobody but me has a clue what I'm talking about, as everyone keeps bringing it back to proving this film is set in the MCU, which I am not talking about here. Ruffice98 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And what is "the one point we are discussing here" exactly? If it is the fact that Marvel will be looking to introduce MCU characters into the Spider-Man film, then that has already been added to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the one, although I was referring to another article (the films page, under potential projects), the only problem is every conversation regarding the Spidey deal in any way shape or form is apparently supposed to happen here. Ruffice98 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put a notice out at the film project to have some other users weigh in. I will say, though, that Triiiple made a really great point regarding MCU characters in the Spidey film (and why that doesn't mean it is set in the MCU) with the John Munch comparison. Also, I will add this as food for thought (and yes I know the site is not a reliable source). In the seventh paragraph here, it says the following: "Spidey's new universe would "exist in a world where has happened." " To me, that wording would indicate the Spidey films are separate, but loosely mention or reference MCU continuity. And again, I know the site is not a reliable source, it's just something to ponder and keep in the back of your head. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Favre, I would actually take that source, which I agree is unreliable, as meaning that the Spidey films will indeed be set in the MCU, but that they won't contribute to the over-arching storyline as some of the others do, so fans who only watch the Spidey films can without having to watch the other MCU films, even if Infinity War takes place between some of them, and vice versa MCU fans who don't watch the Spidey films aren't going to miss out on any important set up for future Avengers movies, but for anyone who watches both, there will be small acknowledgements, or at least no contradictions, so that the appearance of a single cohesive universe is maintained. Again, the source is unreliable, but that is just how I am taking this. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ruffice98 and TheLastAmigo: Just going back to what you were asking originally, which is to put the sharing MCU characters in the potential projects section. That section is for the potential ideas that they have annonced for future films within the MCU, like the Runaways and Black Widow. Characters being shared wouldn't fit under the scope of that section.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

For procedural purposes, it seems that we have consensus to not include Spider-Man films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at this time. Ofcourse we can always revisit this issue as new information comes to light. Now it seems the discussion is moving on to where to present the information that we have. Perhaps that might be better suited under a different thread or another break.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You idiots want a source that says he's now in the MCU, then click this link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.214.147 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Spider man has recently joined the MCU and this page hasn't featured that so I would like to edit this page adding information about this and the consequences of it. Thank you 86.181.153.1 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please see above section--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If/when it is determined that Sony's Spider-Man is part of the MCU, is it part of Phase 3?

Completely separate from the above debate, but if/when it is indeed determined that the new Spider-Man reboot from Sony is part of the MCU, we should determine whether or not it is part of Marvel Phase 3, or something separate since it is being produced by a different studio. Are the official "Phases" only the ones being produced exclusively by Marvel Studios, or do they encompass films made by different studios, but still officially part of the MCU? Do we wait until we hear it officially from Marvel that it is part of Phase 3, even if it is determined that the solo Spidey movies are part of the MCU, or do we treat it like the TV shows Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, Marvel's Agent Carter, or Marvel's Daredevil, which are part of the MCU, but not part of any Phases? If we don't ever hear anything from Marvel, do we still treat it like an official entry in Marvel Phase 3? Of course, this is all assuming for the sake of argument that the new solo Spider-Man movie is part of the MCU. We may have to make a call on this soon.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The phases are decided by Marvel, if/when it is annonced to be in the MCU then we will see where it falls although its release date will likely put it in phase 3 though--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it would be Phase 3 based on the release date, but if/when it is determined that it is part of the MCU, would it be listed among the other Phase 3 titles or would it be listed separately since it is not being produced by Marvel Studios?TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes because different studio or not, they are all aprart of the MCU--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's not necessarily part of Phase 3 even if it is all set in the MCU. It may very well require a separate table to be produced, much like television has to have one. This might seem a bit awkward but it does give us a good compromise on the matter of whether or not the solo film is part of the MCU. The film is currently being developed with the intention to be part of the MCU, but clearly its status within the phase system is unclear. This means we can keep it separate from the rest of the films, not lock it into the MCU but still discuss it within the article all at the same time. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If they release it in the middle of phase 3 and it is indeed part of the MCU then we can look into this. But as far as I'm concerned, if it is then it will be in phase 3. Otherwise what would be the point in putting it in the middle of the phase unless it is a prequal and is actually set in phase 1 or 2. I guess we'll have to cross that bridge if it comes around.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the phases are confined to Marvel Studio's films. The One-Shots, TV shows, comics etc. have nothing to do with the phase system. This would be no different. Ruffice98 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the phases are confined to films in general. The fact that they are all Marvel Studios films just happens to be so, because no other film is yet set in the MCU. And anyway, there is no point in arguing about this until we actually do have to try and fit another studios' film(s) into these articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Click this link

Let's put this whole Spider-Man not being or being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at rest. Please for the love of God watch this video http://youtube/NYfdJjszOYk this guy in the video knows what he is taking about. Favre1fan93 and TriiipleTreat. -- Zzaxx1 (talk) 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Black panther release date

On the page you have it marked as releasing in 2018, but variety, a respected and reliable source for this type of thing says 2017, so should it be corrected or not? Here is the link:http://variety.com/2015/film/news/spider-man-marvel-sony-movies-1201429508/ 71.104.252.230 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Variety is mistaken in this case. Marvel.com reported that it would be released on July 6, 2018, whereas Variety appears to think that it says 2017. Thanks for bringing it up though! Sock (tock talk) 16:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. mistakes happen, nothing big. Also thank you for being so kind. 71.104.252.230 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• GA-Class comic book films articles
• Comic book films task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• GA-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• GA-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• GA-Class Marvel Comics articles
• Marvel Comics work group articles
• WikiProject Comics articles
• GA-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• GA-Class media franchise articles
• Low-importance media franchise articles
• WikiProject Media franchises articles