Remember what they're trying to take from you

Doubtful. Parker is too poor to qualify nor does he practice.

Is being israeli an ethnicity or religion? There are blacks claiming to be the original israelites, but they are just a bunch of racist extremists with their head far up their own ass.

>Also, who the frick cares how it’s spelled?
Spider-Man does

I ain’t from Twitter or acting in bad faith. I think it ks silly to throw a tissy-fit about the spelling of a name.

>Spiderverse was a failure
I mean it did make less money than Chicken Little adjusted for inflation, and only slightly more than Bee Movie

>that it's accolades makes it unworthy of a sequel are borderline stupid.
Not everything needs a sequel regardless of accolades, people outside of Cinemaphile expressed concern when two sequels were announced and said they felt ITSV was best left standalone and that a sequel might ruin things, and from the looks of ATSV so far they might potentially be right

>I mean it did make less money than Chicken Little adjusted for inflation

Still dosen't make it a complete financial failure, especially considering the factors going against. One of those factors mainly being that its a Sony pictures animated movie which don't tend to make that much money and its lack of promotion. If Spider verse were made by Disney and got the numbers it did I would totally agree with you.

>Not everything needs a sequel regardless of accolades, people outside of Cinemaphile expressed concern when two sequels were announced and said they felt ITSV was best left standalone and that a sequel might ruin things

The reasons I've seen anons stipulate as to why spiderverse didn't deserve sequels was mainly because of miles and his "inability to carry a trilogy", whatever the frick that means, despite his presence in the first movie not being a prominent or even remotely existent factor as to why that movie didn't make a shit ton of money.

>It means he doesn't really have any stories you could adapt for a sequel

If we were talking about a standalone miles movie I'd probably agree with you, but that isn't the case. What ATSV is doing seems more like a natural progression from the concepts introduced in the first movie. Having the characters hop between universes rather than introducing a bunch of em into one universe. What I meant earlier about anon's saying that miles couldn't "carry a trilogy" is that most of em seemed to attribute the box office reception to spider verse as a fault of him specifically being in the protagonist role rather than all other factors and seeing him not being replaced by some other spider person as some sort of agenda being set up on the part of sony despite again, most public perception of his character confined to that movie not being too negative.

>they felt ITSV was best left standalone and that a sequel might ruin things, and from the looks of ATSV so far they might potentially be right

Why might they be right? The only bad omen i've seen as to the quality of this movie is a WW84 writer being attached. Other than that it dosen't seem too bad.

No it can be very apparent from the first movie itself

>Peter isn't just a fricking loser who keeps doing stupid shit while getting shit on by the universe.
We're talking about a movie series in which Peter is a manchild loser who doesn't want to marry MJ because he's irresponsible and then when he does marry her and have a kid, he takes the kid on a mission to put her in danger because he's irresponsible

>can't draw a dime with any of their toys
>galaxy's edge doesn't turn money like they expected
>diminishing returns on every release of film or show save, what, Mandalorian seasons 1 and 2?
Not saying they're going bankrupt by any means, but I am saying this is not the cash cow they were hoping for when it was bought

It takes a year and a half to make a blockbuster look and Marvel and Pixar. They planned to release every year after TFA but Iger said to take a break after ROS. That doesn’t happen if a franchise is doing well.

>Ok, episode 4 came out in 1977. Episode 5 came out in 1980. That’s about three years. Episode 6 came out in 1983. Hmm! Three years!

>Episode 1 came out in 1999. Episode 2 came out in 2002. Episode 3… 2005. Hmmm! Must be a coincidence!
This is because George wanted Star Wars to be an event. Disney wanted a Star Wars movie every year until solo bombed and ROS underperformed. They’ve said this themselves. The Obi Wan movie was turned into a tv show for this very reason.

>Akso, maybe they want to make sure they do these next FIVE MOVIES THAT WERE ANNOUNCED right. Just a thought.
You know these are recently in development right? They don’t even have scripts and they plan to release them back to back like before so no, it’s not about “getting it right”. It’s because the franchise is dying.

>The dumbest fricking, lack of evidence assumption you could possibly make.
Amy Pascal literally came out and said the movie is a love story between Gwen and Miles.

>People have wanted him to have a kid forever and him having one was an extension of the arc he had in the previous movie.
Then make that the movie instead of a side feature? If I wanted the Spider-Family as a consolation prize instead of the main attraction I'd go read Renew Your Vows

>this is a grievous simplification of his character in the movie.
That's what happened, you can try to explain it or handwave it but there's no way around the fact they decided to have Peter come off as massively irresponsible in both when they had the freedom to write anything

>Did you want the peter in this movie to be with an aged down alternate version of Gwen instead of MJ?
How about just omit showing a version of Peter's first love with another guy.
>the last movie didn't establish whether or not peter b. parker had a gwen in his universe or not.
And the sequel establishes he did.
>It's a multiverse spiderman movie starring multiple spider people not a 2D standalone peter parker spiderman movie.
You said we're getting Family-Man Peter, I said it's nothing worth celebrating since it's just a small part of a multiverse Spider-Man movie.
>its dumb to chastise a movie for not giving you a premise you wanted when its simply trying to be something completely different from the literal 9 other peter parker spiderman movies we've gotten.
Shame it's going in the "completely shit that misses the point of the IP" direction of "completely different" by adapting multiverse cancer instead of the "completely different" direction of finally letting Peter get older and have kids in a major movie as its focus.
>It literally didn't.
It literally did.
>I personally don't get why it's so sacrilegious to have a peter parker learn responsibility instead of him just having it out the jump.
Makes sense for a 15 year old Peter who's yet to lose Ben, it makes zero sense for a middle aged Peter who's been Spider-Man for decades.
>ATSV to know how dangerous it was bringing his kid along but as far as we know it probably wasn't.
The first movie establishes the multiverse is deadly for periods of time longer than a day, they have some sort of device in the sequel that stabilizes them but it's still a huge risk, you wouldn't take your infant kid deep diving because you have an atmospheric suit.
>Regardless, i love how your acting like spiderverse is the only piece of spiderman media that made him uncharacteristically irresponsible.
It's certainly the one where people ignore it happened the most and instead claim the opposite.

>Venom alone hooked people in his movie.

That's because venom is already a well known Spiderman character who had already appeared in a live action Spiderman movie as opposed to miles and Gwen, who hadn't become mainstream till spider verse. The concept of a Venom movie where he's the anti hero protagonist was enough to pull people into the movie. Same couldn't be said with mfing morbius, a character no one knows about by comparison.

>If this was just another spiderman movie with peter but animated it probably would've just made less money, especially since it would have to compete with the already preexisting MCU movies
This is a baseless assumption when Spider-Man media makes bank even when it's terrible like TASM

It's not a baseless assumption, it's just speculation about a movie that probably wouldn't be made. Lets say a 3D animated spiderman movie starring peter were made instead of spiderverse. It would have to compete with the already pre-existing live action spiderman movie series that is already making billions. Regardless of that Marvel being Marvel would most likely not invest in it unless they somehow KNEW it would make a lot of money.
Hell they hardly believed spider verse would be successful which is why that movie got barely any official promotion so why would they make ANOTHER spiderman reboot just done in 3D when they're already meat riding holland?

Regardless of any of this, this just seems like cope because you dislike the concept of miles being the protag instead of peter for the 4th time more than Spider verses mere existence.

>Yeah maybe they should've let Morbius use the whole multiverse mythos to prop him so his movie could make money, or maybe they should have not made the movie at all if that's what's necessary to make him "work".

Or maybe the movie should've just been good. Coincidingly with the fact he is an unknown character, the movie bombed is the fact that the movie was review bombed to hell and no one wanted to see it unless it was for the memes.
Even with a gaggle of unknown spiderpeople, spiderverse still made a decent amount for an animated movie at the box office.

>And I'm speculating the opposite.
whats your evidence for the opposite?

>And Gunn's Batman is competing with Reeves' Batman and they're making both anyway.

That's because they're both live action batman movies which are already known for making bank. And this is ignoring the fact that again, they're both live action. A 3D animated Spiderman movie will of course be cannibalized by a live action one, regardless of quality because live action films unfortunately tend to make more money. Mask of the Phantasm, a 2D animated batman movie, absolutely bombed at the box office compared to batman returns, a live action batman movie that came out only a year before.

>They KNEW Miles wouldn't make a lot of money, they made the movie anyway, it didn't make a lot of money, they ordered two sequels anyway.

You keep saying "Miles" like he was the reason the movies didn't make billions or something. They made the movie because it was relatively cheap to make and it still made a decent amount of money, more than most other Sony animated movies, and it got a lot of media attention and praise which is why they greenlighted sequels. It definitely worked out since ATSV is projected to make triple the opening box office revenue in comparison to ITSV.

>Miles is just Peter but black

In the comics sure, the movie does more to differentiate him and that seems to be the general consensus

Peter being a solo act was because no one took him seriously he had a set up lifr of praticing amatuer crime fighting.

That’s because miles isn’t allowed to have flaws and therefore has nothing to grow out of.

>One of the earliest Spider-man stories is him trying to join the Fantastic Four and getting rebuffed because Peter is a solo act doing everything by himself and learning the ropes by himself. Miles is the opposite of that.

So he ISNT just a reskin of peter?

>Miles existing at all.
That's the thing, in 616 he justs exists and is in stasis until marvel can replace peter with him and inherit every thing while peter takes a backseat doing nothing of note. In spiderverse, it was great that he became a spider-man of his world and grew into it. Now you have the spiderverse being a crutch for the films while doing nothing for him solo but introduce more Spider-Man and having miles be different from every one else because of course.

Same guy from before btw

>Wow I wrote the above point without reading this far and you've made my point for me, why would they make ANOTHER young Spider-Man movie when they could've focused an animated trilogy on Spider-Dad and his kids, which would be radically different compared to any previous Spider-Man movie.

Because why would they just have him be a dad out the jump without him earning it? If they wanted Spider Dad in a Spiderman trilogy they'd probably inevitably do it with Holland now that its confirmed he's doing 3 more movies. Also I don't know how peter being a dad would be enough to be "radically different to any previous spiderman movie", that just seems like a natural progression for his character that most of the movies haven't had enough time to explore thanks to either being cancelled to early (Raimi/TASM peter) or having not reached that point yet (MCU peter).

Regardless if Miles or Pete were the protag of 3D animated movie they definitely still need a hook that wasn't just a retelling of another spider man story starring peter, or a completely non-mainstream spider person to pull audiences away from the MCU shit.

[...]
>spiderverse still made a decent amount for an animated movie at the box office.
It's the #77 animated movie by box office not adjusted for inflation, if you did it'd be even lower and surpassed by stuff like Shark Tale and Chicken Little like someone in the thread mentioned
>whats your evidence for the opposite?
I have as much as you have for your original claim
>And this is ignoring the fact that again, they're both live action. A 3D animated Spiderman movie will of course be cannibalized by a live action one
There's really no basis for the claim a live action movie would cannibalize an animated one but that two live action ones aren't competing, if anything it's the opposite since they should attract different demographics
>Mask of the Phantasm, a 2D animated batman movie
That was more of a production/promotion/release shitshow fault than anything, I don't know of any other direct-to-video animated movie made in 8 months for $6M and then repurposed for theaters only to play daytime screenings so it's an extreme outlier
>You keep saying "Miles" like he was the reason the movies didn't make billions or something.
Well we know multiverse movies can make a lot of money, and Spider-Man movies, and animated movies, Miles is the only odd factor out we could point to as the culprit for now
>They made the movie because it was relatively cheap to make and it still made a decent amount of money
A Peter movie would've been just as cheap and probably made a lot more money
>more than most other Sony animated movies, and it got a lot of media attention and praise which is why they greenlighted sequels.
It gave about the same ROI as the others compared to the budget, and got outgrossed by every Hotel Transylvania despite that being an original IP and not a gargantuan established one
>It definitely worked out since ATSV is projected to make triple the opening box office revenue in comparison to ITSV.
Just double actually

>In the comics sure, the movie does more to differentiate him and that seems to be the general consensus
Not really, Miles is still black Peter without the compelling stuff in the movie but Peter is older and jaded compared to his usual self so Miles appears different
>Because why would they just have him be a dad out the jump without him earning it?
You can make it a movie arc, a trilogy arc, or just skip right into the family business if you want to because people already know this stuff, it's how superhero movies stopped showing origin stories for characters who've already had movies that explain those
>If they wanted Spider Dad in a Spiderman trilogy they'd probably inevitably do it with Holland now that its confirmed he's doing 3 more movies
Holland is the Spider-Man for zoomers, it's been three movies and he's just now going to college, and he's looked exactly the same the whole time, I don't think anyone would buy him as a father
>Also I don't know how peter being a dad would be enough to be "radically different to any previous spiderman movie", that just seems like a natural progression for his character that most of the movies haven't had enough time to explore
But we've never seen it explored in anything but comics either way, it's why the upcoming Gunn Batman has Damien, as a fresh take on Batman without resorting to having Bruce give up the cape
>Regardless if Miles or Pete were the protag of 3D animated movie they definitely still need a hook that wasn't just a retelling of another spider man story starring peter
I feel like family Spider-Man could've made a good kids' movie with little Mayday or Anna-May or Ben or all running around like little Spider-Men in the vein of Incredibles, or like an implied soft continuation of the TASM movies since Peter B already looks a lot like Garfield and people wanted him back, he could've even voiced him

An appeal to tradition maybe? Or something intrinsically white in his background like how Bruce Wayne is from an old money new england family?

It also makes no sense for a New York college campus to be 99% white, even back in the 60s.

Well the bigger issue with Freshman Year is that every single one of the supporting cast has been replaced with a diversity hire. It’s literally unrecognisable. The only character that looks even close to being from the actual side cast is Norman and he was race swapped too.