No prob. Yes, Webkit is beautiful. Especially since Apple began loosening up on it's developer restrictions (course they did lay-off half their staff to do it). Google owns most of it now, but their integration with HTML5 is why we even have half the web environment we do now.

Marvel made the deal lol. That's the big thing people don't seem to get. Sony has complete creative control over Spider-Man in the MCU and their stand-alone. Why would Marvel accept that kind of restriction if they didn't need the character?

At this point it's all semantics really and personal opinions. You seem to be a Marvel guy, which is fine. However I honestly don't have faith in the current Marvel climate because I dislike a lot of what they're doing. I didn't like the Avengers at all. I'm one in a million I guess, but it just wasn't good for me.…

So you work in IT and can claim that Firefox is a secure browser without beyond easy back-door infiltration? Or that it is a stable platform on which to develop native/mobile apps and websites?

See it's your last comment. That's I think the disconnect. You didn't consider the ASM films good, nor Sony's treatment of Spider-Man good. However, their films have brought in $4 Billion on 5 films on one character. Compare that to the MCU starting with Iron Man - $6 Billion off 8 films for Marvel based on 6-7…

It's still in production, just on hold till they sort out the MCU stuff.

Actually they don't. It's not doom and gloom it's brass tax. A studio needs a film to at least double it's earnings to be deemed a success. Every Spider-Man film that has been released has done that. In spades. Whether the story, pacing, etc have been up to snuff is debatable, but the studio doesn't need Marvel.…

It's not Fegie he's not trusting. It's the fact that he will have no creative control on Spider-Man. Sony gets the final call on anything related to our friendly neighborhood bug-man. That's the issue. If they do something in the MCU that Sony doesn't like? They have to change it. That's directly effecting the house…

I am nearly 100% with you on this. Minus the language haha. But yes, this is essentially what's going to happen.

Sony Studios announced the Sinister Six, Venom, solo Spider-Man film, etc. Feige is only onboard for the solo film, but has little creative control.

Nope. Sony has complete creative control. That was part of the arrangement. Sony owns Spider-Man on film. They aren't going to let Marvel just take over completely.

Um, that's actually incorrect. In both the 616 and Ultimates universe they are twins, and the children of Magneto. That is their origin. They've never been anything else.

Same reason I dislike Joss Wheadon, snark. It removes all sense of tension and drama from a moment where there needs to be serious. I'm not a huge fan of Bendis either, he did give us the god-awful House of M that they're still cleaning up from. Or the Secret War which ushered in Civil War, ugh. Him and JMS were the…

Honestly, I was a Marvel guy till the mid 90's, and then it got weird. Swtiched to Image till the 00's cause Spawn, Witchblade, etc. From there on it was all DC, starting with the Green Lantern: Rebirth era. Always loved Batman, but the rest I just didn't connect with till I was older.

That's a fair point, and I can see why you'd say what you did. It's still studio politics, and he didn't split with Disney, only moved aside from the chair. He was still on board for both films - executive and creative. Disney offered him another film and he's still a producer in the new Avengers film. He's still very…

Yea, the relevancy of a lot of heroes right now is a hard sell I feel like. Especially on DC's end of things, some of it's fair - some definitely not.

I guess I'm using Flagship in the sense of posterity. Being the original Marvel title as we know the brand. Yes there is a significant drop since the relaunch (Hickman's run was fantastic). There was pretty significant drop in X titles as well.

So they're changing the established nature of their characters. Got it. We'll just have to see. I don't understand why my being curious of how they'll handle their history is causing a debate. I don't particularly like the fact that they can't create them how they actually are already, as their lineage is quite…

It's all rumors. No matter which way you spin it. Sales are going down, but they leave other books around that have worse sales - a majority of the X-Books actually. Why cancel a flagship title before others if sales are worse with those? What logic is that? One way does look better than the others I'll admit. It's…

Not the characters, but their backstory. Because there aren't Mutants in the Marvel films. There aren't due to the Fox rights. So while the characters are going to be used, I'm wondering how they will be portrayed. They don't have to go the whole "kids of Magneto" route of course. I'm just wondering how it'll be…