My first reaction is THANK GOD. The Amazing Spider-man films had already run their course, so I'm really glad that the change of leadership at Sony has resulted in this.
Well, the first appearance they're talking about has obviously gotta be Civil War. Which starts shooting in just a couple of months. So either (a) it's just gonna be a cameo or post-credits stinger; (b) they subject the film to recasting and rewrites in record time; or (c) they've been expecting a deal for a while and already have the groundwork in place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
(c) they've been expecting a deal for a while and already have the groundwork in place.
The rumors were that Marvel was actually trying to get Spider-man from Sony for a small role in Civil War for a while. However, Sony previously declined because they had all these plans for ASM, I guess, but with the hack and the fallout and failure of the Interview, I guess they want to hedge their bets. Marvel rewrote the screenplay to feature a different hero, I guess. I assume what this means is that they've finally succeded, and Marvel just has to unrewrite the story.
In broad strokes, Spidey isn't really that integral to the Civil War. And since the movies have always been loose adaptations of comic storylines at best, with different story beats, plot twists, and even resolutions, I figured they just wrote him out of it and focused on the core of the conflict, which of course is Cap vs. Iron Man. (Especially since they have to pack it all into two hours.) So it's interesting to me that they're apparently ready to do this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In broad strokes, Spidey isn't really that integral to the Civil War. And since the movies have always been loose adaptations of comic storylines at best, with different story beats, plot twists, and even resolutions, I figured they just wrote him out of it and focused on the core of the conflict, which of course is Cap vs. Iron Man. (Especially since they have to pack it all into two hours.) So it's interesting to me that they're apparently ready to do this.
I think, since they decided no more origin stories, that it would be a great way to introduce Spidey into the MCU. Like, in more of a cameo role. Especially since Civil War doesn't really make a lot of sense without costumed heroes with Secret Identities, which none of the current crew have.
I don't think he's integral, I think they just wanted the character there.
I think, since they decided no more origin stories, that it would be a great way to introduce Spidey into the MCU. Like, in more of a cameo role. Especially since Civil War doesn't really make a lot of sense without costumed heroes with Secret Identities, which none of the current crew have.
I don't think he's integral, I think they just wanted the character there.
Bear in mind that I think the Netflix series are adding some costumed secret ID heroes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Spiderman was intended to be the character that let us examine the morality of both camps, since he initially is swayed to reveal his identity by Iron Man, we then see the repercussions in Spideys life as they are attacked and almost shot by random haters/people. Ultimately discovering that the cause is twisted and the ideology initially presented is not what is actually being done and shifting to Cap's side where he still works as a conscience type POV character.
Also the rumor is that there where Two scripts ready for Civil War, one with Black Panther, and one with Black Panther AND Spider-man, so if that's true then it is possible that they only need to recast spidey and then just do some minimal reshooting (the hardest part would be the recasting tho, and the actor getting ready in such a short time, unless Marvel are psychic's and had even that already pre-planned....)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Spiderman was intended to be the character that let us examine the morality of both camps, since he initially is swayed to reveal his identity by Iron Man, we then see the repercussions in Spideys life as they are attacked and almost shot by random haters/people. Ultimately discovering that the cause is twisted and the ideology initially presented is not what is actually being done and shifting to Cap's side where he still works as a conscience type POV character.
Also the rumor is that there where Two scripts ready for Civil War, one with Black Panther, and one with Black Panther AND Spider-man, so if that's true then it is possible that they only need to recast spidey and then just do some minimal reshooting (the hardest part would be the recasting tho, and the actor getting ready in such a short time, unless Marvel are psychic's and had even that already pre-planned....)
I'm not sure shooting has even started on Civil War. I think it begins around April.
As long as it does to Spiderman what Avengers did to the Hulk (new actor, detached from any previous continuity), I'm ok with it. The Spiderman reboot was a terrible direction for the films, and I didn't even bother seeing its sequel.
As long as it does to Spiderman what Avengers did to the Hulk (new actor, detached from any previous continuity), I'm ok with it. The Spiderman reboot was a terrible direction for the films, and I didn't even bother seeing its sequel.
It sounds like Andrew Garfield is out, so yeah.
Although Hulk in Avengers is Hulk from the Incredible Hulk, but yes they didn't connect it.
Good. Andrew Garfield is certainly a talented actor, and gave a great performance in everything else I've seen him in, but the direction taken for his interpretation of Spiderman was completely wrong.
Although Hulk in Avengers is Hulk from the Incredible Hulk, but yes they didn't connect it.
Which was excellent. They did exactly what they needed to do, which is say, "Continuity? Look, whatever. He's the Hulk. You already know who he is. He gets mad, he turns green and starts breaking everything. That's all you need to know. Let's move on."
Oh, and they hired Mark Ruffalo. But the fact that this is a good thing goes without saying.
Good. Andrew Garfield is certainly a talented actor, and gave a great performance in everything else I've seen him in, but the direction taken for his interpretation of Spiderman was completely wrong.
I actually liked how he played Spider-man in ASM 1, the jackass wit was the closest thing to the comics and/or animated series we have seen to date.
I hated everything else he did and was told to do for Peter Parker but how he played the Spidey parts at least was satisfactory.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Glad this finally happened. Apparently there is the idea floating around that the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of Spiderman could be Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker. Not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, it does open up some new story-telling possibilities and avoids some of the reboot fatigue with the character. And yes adding a significant non-white superhero, while it shouldn't be the driving force for doing it, would be a positive.
On the other hand, Peter Parker is a pretty iconic character to ditch. Spiderman is probably the third best known superhero in the western world (behind Superman/Batman). Of course speaking as someone who hasn't paid close attention to Spiderman comics in about 15 years, the last decade or so of his continuity just seems like a hot mess anyway, so maybe starting fresh isn't such a bad idea after all.
Glad this finally happened. Apparently there is the idea floating around that the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of Spiderman could be Miles Morales instead of Peter Parker. Not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, it does open up some new story-telling possibilities and avoids some of the reboot fatigue with the character. And yes adding a significant non-white superhero, while it shouldn't be the driving force for doing it, would be a positive.
On the other hand, Peter Parker is a pretty iconic character to ditch. Spiderman is probably the third best known superhero in the western world (behind Superman/Batman). Of course speaking as someone who hasn't paid close attention to Spiderman comics in about 15 years, the last decade or so of his continuity just seems like a hot mess anyway, so maybe starting fresh isn't such a bad idea after all.
Probably going to go with Peter parker, but I feel like with all the Miles Morales (basically Donald Glover) hype, they would take that into consideration for future stand alone spiderman films
And yes adding a significant non-white superhero, while it shouldn't be the driving force for doing it, would be a positive.
Is there any reason to have Miles Morales exist except to fulfill the quota of non-white superhero?
Seems that's precisely what he was created to do.
Is there any reason to have Nick Fury be portrayed by Samuel L Jackson instead of an old, white guy other than to fill a quota? Doesn't mean it can't still be awesome. I'm not overly familiar with the character of Morales, but what matters to me is if the character and their stories are interesting/entertaining. We've already had two separate Spiderman film franchises about Peter Parker in less than 15 years. One way to combat the "reboot fatigue" of a *third* film franchise would be to not retread the same ground and instead go with a different character under the mask.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
The press release used the name "Peter Parker."
As far as I can tell it's only used once in a quote from a Sony exec who says that this deal "takes Peter Parker's story into the future". That doesn't really mean anything about how either character is going to be used in the MCU.
And yes adding a significant non-white superhero, while it shouldn't be the driving force for doing it, would be a positive.
Is there any reason to have Miles Morales exist except to fulfill the quota of non-white superhero?
Seems that's precisely what he was created to do.
Different backstory and motivation?
I mean i'm fairly certain that enough people are tired of Peter Parker and the ol Uncle Ben dying and "With great power, comes great responsibilities" origin story. I'd probably skip out on the solo spiderman movie if they did yet another origin story of Peter Parker.
Is there any reason to have Nick Fury be portrayed by Samuel L Jackson instead of an old, white guy other than to fill a quota? Doesn't mean it can't still be awesome.
That's not analogous. Samuel L. Jackson is playing Nick Fury. They just happened to cast a black actor for a character that was drawn previously as white. Which is fine. If they wanted to have Peter Parker played by a black or hispanic or black/hispanic actor, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that.
Morales, on the other hand, is a completely different character invented to take on the mantle of Spiderman instead of Peter Parker. Which is dumb. Spiderman is Peter Parker. Why not just make the new character the protagonist in a new series? Why make him Spiderman?
One way to combat the "reboot fatigue" of a *third* film franchise would be to not retread the same ground and instead go with a different character under the mask.
Except why? Spiderman is Peter Parker. Why have anyone else be him?
If people are tired of Spiderman, here's a crazy idea: Why don't you just give the Spiderman franchise a rest and start making films about other heroes?
Which is my point. Why not just create a new superhero?
This is such a tired argument, because we all know new superheroes rarely sell well or gain the same traction as the classics. The crux of the matter here is that the audience doesn't really want change, we want the illusion of change with the same comfortable patterns. Most popular modern day superheroes were created in the 40's or the 60's which meant that most of them were white, and the rest tended to be stereotypes. This means that the heroes no one wants to change are all white, and pretty much all WASPs. It's not an inherently bad thing to want to make heroes that are more representative, that might appeal more to different people to see themselves more represented in the heroes they love. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but it's a pretty huge deal to a lot of my friends who struggle to find characters they can easily identify with outside of certain stereotypes.
And if a Legacy character is handled well and is a good character in their own right, what's the problem? Of course there will always be cynical business decisions behind some of it, and they will always loop back around in the end to the original established hero. But Miles is pretty great, and we get a fresh approach to the type of character we love, and sometimes (like is the case with Captain Marvel) the replacement ends up being better and has more staying power, or spins off into their own thing. And even if he does get replaced or disappears off the map, it really doesn't matter any more than any other Legacy character fading away. I liked Bucky's turn as Cap, and I'm liking Sam Wilson's too.
Despite any number of Spider-spin-offs, Spider-man has never had his own Robin, his own Superboy, his own Bucky, etc (there have been any number of spin-off spider-men and way too many clones, but no one who truly could have been a successor that wasn't just a clone of Peter himself). I hope in the reboot Marvel is looking at for the comics, Miles becomes Peter's protege and fills that role.
In any case, I think Miles would be a good trap door character for an MCU Peter Parker. Maybe the upcoming Sinister Six movie could feature the heroic death of Peter Parker (Ala the Ultimate version of the death of Peter Parker), post-Civil War, and Miles will take up the mantle for future films.
This is such a tired argument, because we all know new superheroes rarely sell well or gain the same traction as the classics. The crux of the matter here is that the audience doesn't really want change, we want the illusion of change with the same comfortable patterns.
If the audience doesn't want change, why (A) kill off Peter Parker and (B) change the fundamental protagonist of Spiderman?
You're making the exact opposite of sense here, Jay.
Which is my point. Why not just create a new superhero?
Honestly, what superhero would they make now that isn't just a different incarnation of a previous one? I think they've literally exhausted all possible superpower options for heroes that aren't (A) Completely overpowered to the point that a story isn't even worth telling. (B) Completely underpowered that any attempts to craft a story will seem completely farfetched.
They'd literally be scrapping further in the proverbial barrel by attempting to craft a completely new character as oppose to introducing a new incarnation of a previous established chracter
As far as I can tell it's only used once in a quote from a Sony exec who says that this deal "takes Peter Parker's story into the future". That doesn't really mean anything about how either character is going to be used in the MCU.
At this point, of course, everything is still up in the air. But I'm telling you, if you're a gambler, bet on Peter Parker being Spider-Man. Miles Morales fans should not get their hopes up. We got Hal Jordan in Green Lantern, Steve Rogers in Captain America, Barry Allen in The Flash, and Bruce Wayne in everything Batman ever.
]I mean i'm fairly certain that enough people are tired of Peter Parker and the ol Uncle Ben dying and "With great power, comes great responsibilities" origin story. I'd probably skip out on the solo spiderman movie if they did yet another origin story of Peter Parker.
Parker or Morales, we're not getting another origin story. Civil War has got enough on its narrative plate already.
In fact, some of the cleverer speculation I'm hearing is that they leave the mask on for most of the movie, leaving it a delicious mystery to the fanboys who's under there.
This is such a tired argument, because we all know new superheroes rarely sell well or gain the same traction as the classics. The crux of the matter here is that the audience doesn't really want change, we want the illusion of change with the same comfortable patterns. Most popular modern day superheroes were created in the 40's or the 60's which meant that most of them were white, and the rest tended to be stereotypes. This means that the heroes no one wants to change are all white, and pretty much all WASPs. It's not an inherently bad thing to want to make heroes that are more representative, that might appeal more to different people to see themselves more represented in the heroes they love. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but it's a pretty huge deal to a lot of my friends who struggle to find characters they can easily identify with outside of certain stereotypes.
I have deep reservations about the underlying premise here that people can only identify with characters of their own race/gender/etc. I want to see more diversity in the protagonist pool for exactly the opposite reason: to get white readers identifying with black characters, black readers identifying with white characters, men identifying with women, women identifying with men, and everybody starting to realize how freaking stupid these identity barriers are.
But that's a much bigger issue. On the subject of superheroes, I think you're being a little overly pessimistic on the inability of new characters to break into the Silver Age White Boys' Club. You yourself mention Captain Marvel - she's technically a legacy character, but she's got basically bugger-all to do with the previous holders of the name, and I really don't think her rise to popularity would have been significantly hampered had they never existed. And most of the popular X-Men are products of the 70s or later - all with original and not legacy identities, many of them women and minorities. Storm didn't have to be Thor-Woman or whatever; she's Storm. Finally, everybody's said it a billion times now, but it bears repeating: Guardians of the Galaxy proves that Marvel can turn complete unknowns into household names.
And if a Legacy character is handled well and is a good character in their own right, what's the problem?
From a story standpoint, it's sometimes kind of dumb for them to acquire the same powers. Obviously this doesn't apply to the badass normals, but what are the odds that irradiated spiders bite two young men in New York City with alliterative names? And from a broader standpoint, is it really the right message to send that female and minority characters can only succeed through imitation of the successes of white men? An original black Avenger who can stand on his own image and accomplishments means far more than a black Spider-Man who will always be riding Peter Parker's coattails.
What I'm basically trying to say here is: MOAR FALCON.
Honestly, what superhero would they make now that isn't just a different incarnation of a previous one? I think they've literally exhausted all possible superpower options for heroes that aren't (A) Completely overpowered to the point that a story isn't even worth telling. (B) Completely underpowered that any attempts to craft a story will seem completely farfetched.
They'd literally be scrapping further in the proverbial barrel by attempting to craft a completely new character as oppose to introducing a new incarnation of a previous established chracter
A new super identity isn't about new powers. It's about a costume and a hook. Nobody is going to mistake Superman for Wonder Woman, or Wolverine for Deadpool, or Batman for Captain America. You could write a superhero story populated entirely with generic "flying brick" powers, or no powers at all. You may, in fact, be able to think of examples.
]I mean i'm fairly certain that enough people are tired of Peter Parker and the ol Uncle Ben dying and "With great power, comes great responsibilities" origin story. I'd probably skip out on the solo spiderman movie if they did yet another origin story of Peter Parker.
Parker or Morales, we're not getting another origin story. Civil War has got enough on its narrative plate already.
In fact, some of the cleverer speculation I'm hearing is that they leave the mask on for most of the movie, leaving it a delicious mystery to the fanboys who's under there.
They will most likely drop spiderman in without the origin for Civil war which is pretty expected honestly, the focus is Capt and Stark of course. What I feel like they will do is tell the origin story in the solo film in a series of long flashbacks. Knowing that the deal for Spiderman in the MCU includes final say by Sony will probably mean yet another origin story of some kind unless they use other marvel projects to explain it (Netflix shows or AoS possibly).
Didn't see this mentioned but one of the reasons Samuel L Jackson plays Nick Fury is that ultimate universe Fury is blqck and said in one of the comics that if they made a movie he'd want Samuel L Jackson to play him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My first reaction is THANK GOD. The Amazing Spider-man films had already run their course, so I'm really glad that the change of leadership at Sony has resulted in this.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think he's integral, I think they just wanted the character there.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Bear in mind that I think the Netflix series are adding some costumed secret ID heroes.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Also the rumor is that there where Two scripts ready for Civil War, one with Black Panther, and one with Black Panther AND Spider-man, so if that's true then it is possible that they only need to recast spidey and then just do some minimal reshooting (the hardest part would be the recasting tho, and the actor getting ready in such a short time, unless Marvel are psychic's and had even that already pre-planned....)
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Although Hulk in Avengers is Hulk from the Incredible Hulk, but yes they didn't connect it.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Which was excellent. They did exactly what they needed to do, which is say, "Continuity? Look, whatever. He's the Hulk. You already know who he is. He gets mad, he turns green and starts breaking everything. That's all you need to know. Let's move on."
Oh, and they hired Mark Ruffalo. But the fact that this is a good thing goes without saying.
I hated everything else he did and was told to do for Peter Parker but how he played the Spidey parts at least was satisfactory.
On the other hand, Peter Parker is a pretty iconic character to ditch. Spiderman is probably the third best known superhero in the western world (behind Superman/Batman). Of course speaking as someone who hasn't paid close attention to Spiderman comics in about 15 years, the last decade or so of his continuity just seems like a hot mess anyway, so maybe starting fresh isn't such a bad idea after all.
Probably going to go with Peter parker, but I feel like with all the Miles Morales (basically Donald Glover) hype, they would take that into consideration for future stand alone spiderman films
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Seems that's precisely what he was created to do.
Is there any reason to have Nick Fury be portrayed by Samuel L Jackson instead of an old, white guy other than to fill a quota? Doesn't mean it can't still be awesome. I'm not overly familiar with the character of Morales, but what matters to me is if the character and their stories are interesting/entertaining. We've already had two separate Spiderman film franchises about Peter Parker in less than 15 years. One way to combat the "reboot fatigue" of a *third* film franchise would be to not retread the same ground and instead go with a different character under the mask.
As far as I can tell it's only used once in a quote from a Sony exec who says that this deal "takes Peter Parker's story into the future". That doesn't really mean anything about how either character is going to be used in the MCU.
Different backstory and motivation?
I mean i'm fairly certain that enough people are tired of Peter Parker and the ol Uncle Ben dying and "With great power, comes great responsibilities" origin story. I'd probably skip out on the solo spiderman movie if they did yet another origin story of Peter Parker.
Morales, on the other hand, is a completely different character invented to take on the mantle of Spiderman instead of Peter Parker. Which is dumb. Spiderman is Peter Parker. Why not just make the new character the protagonist in a new series? Why make him Spiderman?
Except why? Spiderman is Peter Parker. Why have anyone else be him?
If people are tired of Spiderman, here's a crazy idea: Why don't you just give the Spiderman franchise a rest and start making films about other heroes?
Which is my point. Why not just create a new superhero?
And if a Legacy character is handled well and is a good character in their own right, what's the problem? Of course there will always be cynical business decisions behind some of it, and they will always loop back around in the end to the original established hero. But Miles is pretty great, and we get a fresh approach to the type of character we love, and sometimes (like is the case with Captain Marvel) the replacement ends up being better and has more staying power, or spins off into their own thing. And even if he does get replaced or disappears off the map, it really doesn't matter any more than any other Legacy character fading away. I liked Bucky's turn as Cap, and I'm liking Sam Wilson's too.
Despite any number of Spider-spin-offs, Spider-man has never had his own Robin, his own Superboy, his own Bucky, etc (there have been any number of spin-off spider-men and way too many clones, but no one who truly could have been a successor that wasn't just a clone of Peter himself). I hope in the reboot Marvel is looking at for the comics, Miles becomes Peter's protege and fills that role.
In any case, I think Miles would be a good trap door character for an MCU Peter Parker. Maybe the upcoming Sinister Six movie could feature the heroic death of Peter Parker (Ala the Ultimate version of the death of Peter Parker), post-Civil War, and Miles will take up the mantle for future films.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You're making the exact opposite of sense here, Jay.
Honestly, what superhero would they make now that isn't just a different incarnation of a previous one? I think they've literally exhausted all possible superpower options for heroes that aren't (A) Completely overpowered to the point that a story isn't even worth telling. (B) Completely underpowered that any attempts to craft a story will seem completely farfetched.
They'd literally be scrapping further in the proverbial barrel by attempting to craft a completely new character as oppose to introducing a new incarnation of a previous established chracter
Parker or Morales, we're not getting another origin story. Civil War has got enough on its narrative plate already.
In fact, some of the cleverer speculation I'm hearing is that they leave the mask on for most of the movie, leaving it a delicious mystery to the fanboys who's under there.
I have deep reservations about the underlying premise here that people can only identify with characters of their own race/gender/etc. I want to see more diversity in the protagonist pool for exactly the opposite reason: to get white readers identifying with black characters, black readers identifying with white characters, men identifying with women, women identifying with men, and everybody starting to realize how freaking stupid these identity barriers are.
But that's a much bigger issue. On the subject of superheroes, I think you're being a little overly pessimistic on the inability of new characters to break into the Silver Age White Boys' Club. You yourself mention Captain Marvel - she's technically a legacy character, but she's got basically bugger-all to do with the previous holders of the name, and I really don't think her rise to popularity would have been significantly hampered had they never existed. And most of the popular X-Men are products of the 70s or later - all with original and not legacy identities, many of them women and minorities. Storm didn't have to be Thor-Woman or whatever; she's Storm. Finally, everybody's said it a billion times now, but it bears repeating: Guardians of the Galaxy proves that Marvel can turn complete unknowns into household names.
We don't have to give up on new superheroes.
From a story standpoint, it's sometimes kind of dumb for them to acquire the same powers. Obviously this doesn't apply to the badass normals, but what are the odds that irradiated spiders bite two young men in New York City with alliterative names? And from a broader standpoint, is it really the right message to send that female and minority characters can only succeed through imitation of the successes of white men? An original black Avenger who can stand on his own image and accomplishments means far more than a black Spider-Man who will always be riding Peter Parker's coattails.
What I'm basically trying to say here is: MOAR FALCON.
A new super identity isn't about new powers. It's about a costume and a hook. Nobody is going to mistake Superman for Wonder Woman, or Wolverine for Deadpool, or Batman for Captain America. You could write a superhero story populated entirely with generic "flying brick" powers, or no powers at all. You may, in fact, be able to think of examples.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They will most likely drop spiderman in without the origin for Civil war which is pretty expected honestly, the focus is Capt and Stark of course. What I feel like they will do is tell the origin story in the solo film in a series of long flashbacks. Knowing that the deal for Spiderman in the MCU includes final say by Sony will probably mean yet another origin story of some kind unless they use other marvel projects to explain it (Netflix shows or AoS possibly).