Review Pirates

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

"Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" is scheduled for its theatrical debut on March 25, 2016. The movie trailer for the upcoming film has been reported to be slated for release on the premiere of "Mad Max: Fury Road". Jason Momoa reveals details on his Aquaman character along with his thoughts on Batman, Superman and upcoming "Justice League" movie.

Fans have been patiently waiting for the trailer of "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" as much as they have been waiting for its premiere.

It was reported before that the trailer will be released on the Super Bowl XLIX and on the premiere of "Jupiter Ascending".

However up until now, fans are still disappointed that Warner Bros has not released it yet and they will yet to confirm if the "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" leaked trailer last year is true or not. Latest news reveals that the trailer for the upcoming Batman vs Superman film will be revealed on the premiere of "Mad Max: Fury Road" on May 15. Fury Road is another Warner Bros. Film and it is the latest installment in the post-apocalyptic Mad Max Franchise.

In related news, Aquaman's new look in the "Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" reveals a fierce looking King of Atlantis. Jason Momoa will play the role of the King and he revealed several insights on what will be his part in the clash between Batman and Superman.

The actor revealed that he is as hyped as fans are in the clash between Batman and Superman saying that "It's the first time in history to have them both on the screen together, and I'm just excited to see those two up there..."

Jason Momoa also revealed that Justice League will be formed and there will be an upcoming film, however he said that "'Justice League' is still quite a ways away. But I'm looking forward to it.

Henry's a sweetheart, Ben is a badass, so I'm really looking forward to when we all shoot 'Justice League.'"

Furthermore, the former Game of Thrones star also said that "There's definitely a plan in this whole universe that [Zack Snyder] is designing," adding that "and it's amazing to be a part of it. I think everything that you see that is building, there's a purpose behind the whole plan... What's great about this is Zack, man. We don't want to just reinvent it, but he's a got a whole idea of what Aquaman should be and I'm really honored to be playing it. I'm excited for the world to see it."

"Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" is set for release on March 25, 2016. Fans can expect its first trailer on the premiere of "Mad Max: Fury Road" this May 15, 2015.

Courtesy of vcpost.com

Batman V. Superman Cast Update! Jason Momoa Reveals Plot & Trailer Date Announced!

12:46 AM

We recently learned that the latest episode of The Vampire Diaries drew in the lowest ratings the show has ever seen, but could this have any implication on season seven?

I must admit, I was shocked when I heard the numbers, and there is no doubt they must be worrying to the show-runners. After all, this was the episode where so many troubling storylines were tied up.

It was heavily teased that Bonnie was going to return, and anyone following the show knew it was going to be Sheriff Forbes' funeral and the chance to see what happened with the long-awaited Steroline, so why did nobody care?

I really don't have the answer to this question. To me the community seems more engaged than ever about season six, but will ratings like these affect the future of the show?

Season seven has already be confirmed, and although there are whispers than one of the shows holy trinity (Nina Dobrev, Ian Somerhalder and Paul Wesely) have not signed on yet, this is not a certain truth.

I'm holding out hope that this will just be a blip in viewer numbers that will be ironed out by next weeks long-awaited episode.

But, if Ian Somerhalder at the helm as director can't give things a much-needed boost, then I am going to really start bashing on that panic button...

Is The Vampire Diaries Season 7 Really in Danger Due to Poor Ratings?

12:45 AM

(Note, potential SPOILERS for Avengers: Age of Ultron below)

So, folks - if, like me, you're already massively over-excited for the impending arrival of Avengers: Age of Ultron, there's probably a palpable hole in your life right now. After all, it's been far too long since last year's release of Guardians of the Galaxy, Netflix's Daredevil is still over a month away, Agent Carter has finished its run, and Spider-Man's arrival in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has already been announced. What, then, do we have to obsess over in terms of the MCU?

Well, for some of us, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. can provide a temporary fix of Marvel-goodness - but for fans who stick to the movies? The next two months are set to be a long wait.

Unless, of course, one of the stars of Age of Ultron were to come riding to the rescue - like, say, if...

Chris Hemsworth Totally Just Confirmed a Bunch of Age of Ultron Rumors

Which, wouldn't you know it, he totally just did...

Speaking to IGN, Hemsworth - Thor himself - not only confirmed that a whole bunch of long-standing rumors are true, but totally teased a major fight scene that we weren't expecting.

That's right...

Thor's Set to Fight...The Vision?

Yup, from the sounds of it, IGN's set visit coincided with the filming of a big fight sequence between the two long-time Avengers - one which suggests that The Vision spends at least a part of the movie acting as a villain...

"This is their first meeting, really. And it's, as you can see, it's conflicted. It's a big fight scene."

The intriguing part, there? From the sounds of it, it's not a clear-cut hero vs. villain kind of situation - suggesting that the pair's first meeting might well come late in the film, perhaps after The Vision has shown he has the potential to be a hero.

Which might actually be a whole lot more plausible than it initially sounds, considering...

Hemsworth Just Revealed He'll Head Off Alone in the Middle of the Movie

Remember how, back in that leaked video of Tony Stark and Cap chopping wood, they made reference to Thor clearing out?

Well, it sure seems like that's going to be for a decent chunk of the movie. As Hemsworth suggested, when asked whether Thor was 'divorced' from what's happening in Asgard:

"He kind of is until the third act. Halfway through [the story] Thor begins to have suspicions about what the bigger picture is here, you know? Who's involved. And he actually doesn't know by the end of it, but he starts to think something’s not right here. [He thinks] 'This is all a little too convenient. Why has this happened?' Which you know, certainly points his focus back there [to Asgard]."

At the same time, though...

Thor Seems Set to Spot the Thanos Problem

As Hemsworth puts it:

"[In this one] the threat is so great that I think all of them are sort of scratching their heads and going, 'Okay we have to kill this many things?' He sort of openly admits that we [maybe] can't win this one. It's just an onslaught and it doesn't stop. It's an open floodgate and what it also sets in motion is an even bigger threat. I think that's what Thor is kind of stuck on. That's where his attention is: an even bigger picture of Thor being from Asgard. He can just say, 'Hang on, there's a whole universe here, which is signaling something else.'"

Because that bigger threat? That's totally Thanos...

Plus, just to add to Thor's problems...

He's Definitely Going to Be Struck By a Scarlet Witch Vision

And, best of all, it sounds as though we really are going to see those long-rumored visions cause all kinds of internal problems for the team:

"It certainly creates a conflict. It's more kind of in their individual selves rather than the team so much. I think they'll begin to have their fears sort of held up in front of them and for Thor I think it's a corruption of power. And with all of them having so much power and with the understanding that we're in this sort of endless battle here [with no idea] when this is going to end and how it ends...That scene is actually being rewritten at the moment if you want to talk to Joss about it, so it's hard to even say what it will be in Thor’s dream sequence. But, yeah, it kicks in motion his movement. That's where he really starts to kind of move through the story. Once that dream occurs he goes, 'Oh, I can see what's coming and my fear is this could be true.' So yeah it’s a ticking clock."

Which sounds downright awesome.

The main takeaway from all of that, though? Chris Hemsworth clearly can't be trusted to keep a secret - and long may that continue...

What do you think, though? What'll we see Thor head off to do in Age of Ultron? What can we expect his Scarlet Witch-induced vision to be? And just what the heck is the deal with Thanos?

Chris Hemsworth Confirms THAT Avengers: Age of Ultron Rumor

12:43 AM

Monday, February 16, 2015

Orcs are commonplace villains in the fantasy world and in Tolkein's Mythology the race of sentient beings are associated with the forces of dark and evil. InThe Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings writings, these monstrous humanoids are cruel, blood-thirsty and destructive and are always the primary obstacle to progress in Middle Earth.

Yet as repulsive as they are in the movies, have you ever wondered what the people who portray them look like behind the mask?

For your viewing pleasure, I have exposed some of the men who bring the Orcs of Middle Earth to life:

Lawrence Makoare as Lurtz

Who? Lurtz was the first leader of the Uruk-hai Scouts. In The Fellowship of the Ring, he kills Boromir and is then slain by Aragorn as revenge.

Fun Fact: Considering Lawrence Makoare's size, he did not have to wear the same amount of bulky padding and clothing as the other Uruk-hai actors.

Jed Brophy as Snaga

Who? Snaga is an Orc scout that meets Uglúk's group in The Two Towers.

Fun Fact: Jed Brophy's children, Sadwyn and Riley, also appeared in the films. His son appeared as Eldarion, whose parents were Arwen and Elessar.

Stephen Ure as Grishnákh

Who? Grishnákh was the orc captain of a group of Mordor Orcs that joined Saruman's Urak-hai troops, who had captured Merry and Pippin, on the plains of Rohan.

Fun Fact: Stephen Ure is an Australian actor who also played Gorbag in The Return of the King. Interestingly, both Orcs that he played were attempting to kill a hobbit before being struck down.

Nathaniel Lees as Uglúk

Who? Uglúk was the leader of the Uruk-hai scouts after Lurtz's death. His group were the ones who captured Merry and Pippin at Amon Hen and were on their way to Isengard.

Fun Fact: The New Zealand actor is of Samoan descent and is best known for his roles in The Matrix and The Two Towers.

Manu Bennett as Azog

Who? Azog the Defiler is more prominent in The Hobbit installments. He was an Orc chieftain who lived in Moria during the late Third Age, becoming the leader of the Goblins of Moria and initiating the War of the Dwarves and Orcs by beheading King Thrór.

Fun Fact: When asked how he approached his character after being cast, he said:

"The night I was cast, I went out and bought The Empire Strikes Back and Jaws. My goals were to get a voice as sinister as Darth Vader and the menacing physicality of the shark. It's so easy to take these big beasts - these ferocious characters - and cook them at ten the whole time. But I wanted to have this circling, steady presence that would suddenly attack randomly."

And now... no Orc story would be complete without the epic fan made Orc Dance (featuring Legolas of course!)

Absolutely bizarre but strangely brilliant..?

'The Lord of the Rings' Orcs Unmasked: The Actors Behind The Terrifying Exterior

3:46 AM

Friday, February 13, 2015

With the recent news that Spider-Man will partially be returning to the hands of Marvel, but whose rights are still owned by Sony, also came word that the young actor, Andrew Garfield, will be taking off the mask, shedding his suit, ditching his gadgets, and will not be reprising the role of Spidey, much to the dismay of his dedicated fans.

Early reports on the recasting were making it sound like Garfield, who played the wise-cracking, sarcastic Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had be ousted by the studios largely because they wanted to go with someone younger than the 31-year-old actor. Apparently, that wasn't always the situation.

According to The Daily Beast, Andrew Garfield was in talks with Marvel-Sony to continue his work as the fan-favorite wall-crawler, but in the end things simply didn't pan out between them. Ultimately, "it didn’t make sense" for Garfield to move onto the next chapter of Spidey's tale.

It's still unsure whether it was officially his decision or the studios, and where the discussions ended, but some are beginning to speculate that it was actually Garfield who cut his time short. I know, it seems ridiculous that Garfield, who has made it abundantly clear how passionate he is about the role, would turn down playing Spider-Man, but that doesn't make it impossible.

It was likely pretty unsettling for Garfield to have his fate in the Spider-Manfranchise so up in the air due to the messy custody battle between Marvel and Sony. Or, perhaps it was due to the changes Sony made to The Amazing Spider-Man 2, followed by the unfavorable views of the sequel that wore him down. At the Toronto International Film Festival in September, Garfield was quoted byThe Daily Beast saying:

It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related.

Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.

No one can deny that Garfield is a talented, passionate actor with, I'm sure, plenty of potential roles on his plate. With this new shift in Spider-Manownership, it might be a better move career-wise for Garfield to take this opportunity to end his role as Peter Parker and move onto other projects where he's not tied down to a multi-movie superhero franchise.

In lieu of Garfield's absence, the Marvel-Sony teams have opted to reboot Spider-Man (again!) and give him an entirely new look, with a fresh face for the role, minus the origin story. Because, honestly, who doesn't know that whole narrative already? In the wise words of head of the Fosun-backed Studio 8, Jeff Robinov:

In the next Spider-Man movies, we can’t go back to his origin story. Think of the 25 films in the James Bond franchise; just because a new creative team comes aboard, and breathes new life into a classic property, doesn’t mean the origin story has to be retold.

While Marvel’s Kevin Feige is working alongside Amy Pascal from Sony, Sony still holds majority share over Spider-Man's rights. Earlier today, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter announced that it's still true that the studio (Sony) is aiming to cast someone younger (high school age) than Garfield to next don the red and blue suit. Sorry, Tobey.

That being said, nothing it set in stone and the role is still up for grabs, so we can't be entirely sure what to expect.

When push comes to shove, I get it. Sometimes, even with all the wishing and hoping of fans like me, casting just doesn't work out. And that doesn't mean those of us who feel like Garfield's run was too short will have to feign agreement with the studios' decisions. Still, now that Marvel was able to regain some control over Spider-Man's fate, I'm sure whoever they pick to fill Garfield's suit will be the right choice for the role.

Who do you think should play the next Spider-Man? Let me know in the comments section, or check out our Spider-Man fan casting HERE.

Was it Actually Andrew Garfield Who Wanted Out of 'Spider-Man'?

5:04 AM

So much to my dismay, it's official, Garfield is out. While this is a tough blow to those of us who loved his portrayal of the webslinger, this Marvel-Sony reboot is also an opportunity to recast one of the best comic book to movie characters in history.

Yesterday Variety and The Hollywood Reporter announced that the Marvel-Sony reboot will be looking for someone younger than Garfield to play the role, but will be skipping the origin story - which I think we all agree is okay - and jumping straight into Peter's storyline.

That being said, nothing it set in stone until the studios speak. Since the role is still technically up for grabs, let's hear what you guys think with another Moviepilot fan casting!

Dylan O'Brien

It seems like The Maze Runner and Teen Wolf actor is the frontrunner as far as fan castings go. O'Brien is funny, witty, and he certainly looks the part. Not to mention, he was surprisingly good in an action role like Maze Runner, so his battle scenes could be pretty awesome. If the studio decides to go with a younger Peter Parker, then he might be the right guy for the job.

Logan Lerman

Like O'Brien, Lerman seems to be the other apple of Sony/Marvel's eyes. Lerman certainly fits into the "younger than Garfield" category at the age of 23 and with the face of a 17-year old. He also has a fairly wide range of acting working on films like the Percy Jackson franchise, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Fury. Together, these three movies give him the experience of playing a superhuman, a quirky outcast, and a coming of age solider, respectively. I think Lerman could play the part rather well.

Fan Casting: Who Do You Want to Play the Next Spider-Man?

5:04 AM

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is rapidly expanding. New films, TV shows and characters are joining all the time. Two upcoming films are Captain America: Civil War and Thor: Ragnarok. And whilst these movies seem awesome so far, there are some who think that they would be better with the addition of a character called Ragnarok. This article will aim to prove why Ragnarok would not be a good addition to the MCU.

Who is Ragnarok?

Who is this Ragnarok character. Well, from his Wikepedia page,

When the real Thor was missing in action, presumed dead, Tony Stark took one of his hairs, which he had retained from the first meeting of the Avengers, and helped Reed Richards and Hank Pym clone the Asgardian DNA within, fusing him with Stark technology. This resulted in the creation of a new, cyborg Thor.

I'll give you a moment to take all of that in.

And if that paragraph full of ridiculousness isn't enough to make you hope this character stays away, I do have other points.

The Logic Doesn't Work in the MCU

In case you've been living under a rock (or indeed The Rock), you'll know that the next film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is Avengers: Age of Ultron. This film will see Tony Stark creating a powerful robot which he hopes will aid the world. Unfortunately, the robot goes bonkers and causes mass destruction and, potentially, the death of one of his closest friends. The film will aim to break Tony down and put the quilt of the situation all on him.

Given that he has just created a robot that went bad, does it seem at all likely that he would immediately make another one? One that is even more powerful than the previous one? No. After Ultron, Tony's robot building days will be well and truly over.

He's just created a robot which caused mass destruction, he will not be making and other attempts. If he does not feel immensely guilty and morally distraught after creating Ultron, well then, frankly, the film isn't being realistic. Imagine if you built a little drone. It's quite nice, but one day you lose control of it and it explodes, killing several people including one of your best friends. Now, would you then immediately start working on a bigger, more advanced drone or would you never ever build anything ever again? I'd wager it would be the later.

In summary, unless Marvel wants to present Tony Stark as an unfeeling man of no guilt or sorrow, then Ragnarok should never appear.

He's not needed

Ragnarok is a side plot in Civil War. He is activated in battle, kills a hero and this further puts the blame on Iron Man's side.But then he is simply "fixed" and returns to fight. However, in the film version the story will be vastly different. The Civil War movie will have to incorporate much of the seven key issues, plus the hundreds of tie-ins, into a cohesive and compelling film. This is very hard to do. The film needs to fully demonstrate the key relationship between Captain America and Iron Man, how their ideals and values clash. It also needs to tell a story which involves lots characters and sub-plots. Overall, there will be enough content in Civil War without rushing Ragnarok into things, he would be an unnecessary and confusing addition.

But what about Thor: Ragnarok I year you say? Well, what if I told you that Ragnarok, the storyline, is very different to Ragnarok, the character? In fact, the character has never appeared in a Ragnarok storyline. Ragnarok is the Norse apocalypse, Thor battles giant fire demons, summoned by Loki and Asgard is pulverised in what should be some wonderful destruction porn. There is no time for any clone plot in a Ragnarok movie.

Would you like to have Thor face off against a clone of himself which did not work out as planned, the exact plot of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace?

... or this?

Hemsworth

Chris Hemsworth is a big star, and he doesn't come cheap. Marvel will want to use his contract correctly, they wouldn't want to waste precious Hemsworth movies on him playing Ragnarok instead of Thor.

Also, just imagine it, Chris Hemsworth is not just playing an alien demigod based off Norse mythology, he's now playing a robot clone of said alien demigod who believes that he is actually the real demigod. Hemsworth will be wandering around scowling, saying things like, "I am the real Thor". It's too bad to even conceive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are lots of reasons as to why Ragnarok should never appear in the MCU. His character is extremely goofy, undermines the events of Age of Ultron and the effect they have on Tony Stark, is completely unnecessary, could deny us seeing Thor fighting some awesome fire giants and would pretty much be impossible for anyone to play with even a hint of believability.

Why Ragnarok (the character) should not be in the MCU

5:33 AM

Sorry, but the reported inclusion of Spider-Man in "Captain America: Civil War" is, in the long run, a huge mistake for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

First, it diminishes Captain America! The name of the film is "Captain America: Civil War", NOT "Avengers: Civil War". Chris Evans' Captain America has seen an upward trajectory in popularity with the masses from his first film, through "Avengers" to the surprisingly robust box-office for "Captain America: Winter Soldier".

In the past six months, Cap's third solo outing has morphed from what looked to be an interesting and exciting showdown with his friend Bucky to having to basically share top-billing with Robert Downey, Jr.'s Iron Man in his own film to now also sharing screen time with ScarJo's Black Widow, Cap-centric character Falcon..NOW you want to add Spider-Man?

Second, the people who think adding Spidey to this already overstuffed film - aren't these the same people who complain films like "Spider-man 3" failed because they have too many characters? Seriously, how is SOMEONE not going to get short shrift here? Captain America risks being an afterthought in his own movie. After moving to have a greater role in "Captain America: Civil War", even Robery Downey, Jr.'s Iron Man, one of the two main antagonists, risks having his role diminished as well.

What about Bucky Barnes? Or the Falcon? Or a certain other character..

Third, Marvel risks making Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther less important - which would give less of a bounce to his upcoming solo film.Seriously, it was Chadwick Boseman who electrified fans by walking in between Chris Evans and Robert Downey, Jr. four short months ago. He was supposedly going to fill the Spider-man role. Now that Spider-Man is available, Marvel risks making the character far less important, which can only hurt him in future films.

Fourth, Kevin Feige has explained that superhero do not exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, what is the point of having Spider-Man in the film in the first place? The film will be more about world governments demanding accountability and oversight of superheroes instead of them forcibly revealing their true identity to the authorities.

So, without the "big unmasking" from the comics, what is the purpose of having Spider-Man in this film again? Without his friendship with Stark? Without anyone in the MCU knowing who he is?

This has the potential to be a humongous mistake.

Jerome Maida-Writer

Why It Would Be A Mistake To Include Spider-Man In "Captain America: Civil War"

5:31 AM

Kim Kardashian did not break the internet. I repeat: Kim Kardashian did not break the internet! IT IS SPIDERMAN WHO BROKE THE INTERNET.

The prodigal son is back to Marvel, partially. In a ripple sending deal, Marvel Studios have decided to partner with Sony to share Spiderman's film rights. This means that Spiderman will be in Marvel's Phase 3.

I am a supreme Spiderman fan. And I cannot begin to express my excitement over this news. I am going crazy like a cuckoo.

But, the consequent news of Thor, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and The Inhumans being pushed back hit me too hard.

Thor's date has been changed from July 28th, 2017 to November 3rd, 2017. The Nov 3 spot was reserved for Black Panther which has now moved into Captain Marvel's slot of July 6th. Captain Marvel has taken the November 2nd, 2018 spot and in turn pushed Inhumans beyond the Infinity War Part 2 spot to July 12th, 2019.

I am a massive Inhumans fan, as evident by my gigantic post on the Inhumansbefore. I wanted to see the Inhumans featured in their own film before the events of Avengers Infinity War.

But I think the way things are right now, we are likely to have the Inhumans directly introduced in the Avengers without a solo film. Their plotline is being followed in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. So, it is likely that Marvel will introduce them directly in the Infinity War, forcing them to come out of hiding to deal with Thanos and his minions.

And after the events of the Infinity War, they will get a solo film of their own in July with Maximus the Mad taking the throne while they were away.

As for Captain Marvel, she will still have a solo film before the events of Infinity War, but she has been pushed to November. She is in my top 5 favourite superheroes. Sigh.

Black Panther, another of my favourites, is now getting a solo film after the events of Avengers Infinity War Part 1.

I have been trying to figure this out since the announcements last year. How will Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Inhumans' solo films fit between the two Infinity War films?

Is it that Infinity War Part 1 takes place entirely in the cosmos, far from earth? Is Infinity War Part 1 the film where we see Thanos collect all Infinity Stones? Will Loki's scepter leave Earth at the end of Avengers Age of Ultron and back to Asgard?

Or will Thanos make landfall on Earth at the end of Infinity War Part 1 to retrieve the final stone missing from his Gauntlet in the form of the Mind Gem?

It remains to be seen how things pan out.

My only complaint is the absence of an Inhumans film before the events of Infinity War.

I will riot if the Inhumans aren't featured in the Infinity War at all. That will be the cruellest joke from Marvel and I will not laugh at it.

What Does Spiderman's Inclusion in the MCU mean for the Pushed Back Films?

5:26 AM

Guys! I am trying to write this without freaking out so allow me to write one line of random drabble. Ready?

ANDJFNSNSKGNSKNF!!

Spider-Man is coming to the MCU! Spider-Man will appear in an upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe film! Which film that is has yet to be announced, but I'd put my money on Captain America: Civil War!

Afterwards, Sony Pictures will release the next installment of the Amazing Spider-Man franchise on July 28th, 2017 with Kevin Feige and Amy Pascal co-producing!

Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films. Basically, this means that Marvel will be able to have Spider-Man in their films, but almost ALL of the credit goes to Sony; something I am completely okay with!

Not only will Spidey be able to show up in Captain America's films if he wants, the heroes of the MCU might also be able to show up in Amazing Spider-Manfilms! Yes! JUST YES!

According to the Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, Bob Iger:

"Spider-Man is one of Marvel's great characters, beloved around the world. We're thrilled to work with Sony Pictures to bring the iconic web-slinger into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which opens up fantastic new opportunities for storytelling and franchise building."

Finally! Two huge companies working together, instead of trying to bring each other down! If you think about it, this is some huge Civil War foreshadowing. Think of Sony and Marvel as the two sides. Spidey brought them together and ended the war, making a much better ending than the actual Civil War storyline's!

The news comes from an article on Marvel.com. Unfortunately, going to the link directly does not work; at least not for me. So instead, go to the tweet below and click on the link from there. If it still doesn't work, very sorry.

No word on who will play Spidey, but I'm hoping they keep Andrew Garfield. If not, I have faith in both Sony and Marvel to cast the best person for the job!

Spider-Man Coming to MCU! Fans Rejoice!

5:16 AM