[quote=“timber_munki, post:19, topic:60046”]
So what does the asterisk next to not torture, kill, use foul language, tobacco, illegal drug & alcohol abuse requirements mean?
[/quote]I imagine referencing something else in the contract we haven’t seen.
2 Likes
Would threatening an arachnophobic with an itsy bitsy spider count as torture? (Actually, would just a mere semi-friendly interrogation by Spiderman count?)
2 Likes
EXCEPTION: if the screenwriter takes the GRIMDARK option, these stipulations do not apply. See Appendix A: “Making Spiderman Darker and Edgier.”
3 Likes
He can be Miles. He can’t be a black Peter Parker.
2 Likes
Can he use enhanced interrogation techniques?
4 Likes
I guess that means “Kraven’s Last Hunt” won’t ever be a movie. Which is too bad, as it’s one of the better Spiderman stories.
1 Like
It’s kind of shocking how many sites are reporting this info by flat out copying and pasting the contract, but clearly aren’t bothering to actually read it. That or they are entirely lacking in their reading comprehension skills.
Correction, it’s a Kong toy we are trying to lick shit out of, not a cong toy.
If anyone needs enhancement for that mental image, here is a cross-section diagram with instructions:
I am holding out for Peter Parker Posey.
9 Likes
It’s not torture, it’s enhanced interrogation. Spiderman does not torture.
5 Likes
I recently read a hyped up clickbaity story, referenced here:
The One Character JK Rowling Regrets Killing—It’s Not Who You’d Expect
I seemed to have him kidnapped and killed for no good reason. He is not the first wizard whom Voldemort murdered because he knew too much (or too little), but he is the only one I feel guilty about, because it was all my fault.
Here, Rowling is accepting authorial responsibility. She chooses to kill certain characters, and save certain other characters for the purposes of advancing her stories. Her regret is over not tying up a loose end that, upon close reading, might detract from her work.
Authors choose to have their characters torture (or better yet, refrain from torturing) because it advances their literary goals. Not because they are forced to do so. Not because their stories must reflect the real world. But because that’s the story they have chosen to write. Authors who choose not to recognize their choices are bad writers.
Thank you!
This article originally misspelled the name of the toy from which it is difficult to lick shit. Trying to remove the twentieth century from superhero comics is like trying to lick shit from a Kong toy, not a cong toy. Boing Boing regrets the error.
2 Likes
To be fair, none of this says that all Spiderman movies have to follow these rules, just that Sony Spiderman movies do. They can always let the license revert to Marvel, which they should do in any event.
It seems to me that it’s in Marvel’s interest to make any Spiderman movies Sony makes suck.
Well, let’s remember the era in which Stan Lee and Steve Ditko conceived him…
Spider-Man, Spider-Man,
Does whatever contractual subclause 7A says he can
18 Likes
That’s nothing. You should see the rules that Archie Comics set down, when Sabrina the Teenage Witch was turned into a live-action TV show. They weren’t even allowed to remove “Teenage Witch” from the title as she aged.
1 Like
The more interesting thing about this, IMO, is that Marvel seems to have not written the contract that way for the Fantastic Four, given that Michael B. Jordan is playing Johnny Storm.
1 Like
So I note that guidelines leave it open for a weed smoking Spider-man.
Are Seth Rogan and James Franco working on anything at the moment?
Probably because no one remembers what the hell those movies are about other than that there’s a stretch dude and a rock guy that looks suspiciously like poop.
1 Like
