While I agreed with most of what you said, I do want to point out IM was produced by Marvel Studios and released by Paramount in 2008; as such, Disney had nothing to do with the Nick Fury post-credits scene or the seeds of the shared universe. Remember, Hulk's rights were at Universal, further complicating the effort to make Avengers in the first place.
Like retheming the Norway Pavillion to Arrendale?
I think Disney is becoming more cognizant of that fact and it seems like they are trying to place their name on anything MCU recently. An example would be the College Football Championship game on ESPN where the second Avengers trailer premiered. Also the Ant-Man trailer on ABC's Agent Carter.
Again I can agree with this.
Disney's approach to integrating Marvel has been a little cautious. I agree that Marvel targets a key demographic group for Disney that was needed, but they are walking a fine line between "family entertainment" and appealing to male teenagers and young adults. I think they did keep the brands seperate for that reason in the beginning. You still get the financial benefit of Marvel's success but you don't hurt the core brand. With that approach you also fail to maximize synergies of the acquisition. As @spacemt354 pointed out above they do seem to be making more of an effort recently to promote Marvel films as being made by Disney. It may be a shift in thinking. Either way the theme parks (outside of FL) are still lacking any significant Marvel presence. Maybe that will change soon too.
This is pure speculation, of course, but I almost wonder if they decided that adding Spidey in to CA:CW wouldn't have worked from a story perspective (rather than a financial one. I mean, there are only been 3 ways to incorporate him, and none really were options for various reasons:
oH) without showing his origin. I suppose this could work as most people know his origin story already, you just run into the same problem as fusing TASM w/ the MCU: where was he during Avengers 1&2, IM3, CA:TWS and AoS?
This is pure speculation, of course, but I almost wonder if they decided that adding Spidey in to CA:CW wouldn't have worked from a story perspective (rather than a financial one. I mean, there are only been 3 ways to incorporate him, and none really were options for various reasons:
I suppose they've going to run into the same problems if the deal gets worked out for IW 1&2, they just have more time to craft a narrative that fits in with what they've created already. Who knows, a new Spidey solo origin film setting up his appearance in IW could still be made, it just makes my head spin we could be seeing a third Spidey origin in 15 years due to Sony's malfeasance.
- Merge TASM 1&2 with the MCU as cannon and with Garfield returning as Spidey. This was apparently least palatable to Marvel because the leaks suggested he would not return (which is a shame, because though I didn't like the movies, I liked Garfield as Pete/Spidey). Wise choice as neither TASM or Avengers shows signs of each other's presence, and people would wonder where was Spidey during the "Battle of New York"
- Treat CW as Spidey's origin story, which would then lead into his appearance in IW 1&2 (and likely solo movies set in the MCU). This wouldn't work as CW is going to have too much going on to have room for an origin story, plus Spidey's role in the comic story would require an established, well-known superhero in the movie. BP serves that role (only in reverse) better than an origin Spidey.
- Introduce Spidey as an established hero in the MCU (ala Batman in BvS
