Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Sony/Disney break up, Spider Man out of the MCU

Ben in Tampa : 8/20/2019 5:12 pm
I guess the current franchise with Tom Holland will continue, but will have no involvement from Marvel Studios and Spider Man is no longer apart of the MCU stories.

Bummer.
Deadline Article - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: RE: RE: RE: robbie  
GF1080 : 8/20/2019 6:38 pm : link
In comment 14537425 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 14537424 GF1080 said:


Quote:


In comment 14537422 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


In comment 14537414 bigblue5611_2 said:


Quote:


Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.



SONY owns Spiderman not Disney.



Sony owns the movie right to Spiderman not the character.



Same shit. We are talking about movies right now. So, SONY owns the movie rights to Spiderman and Disney wants that and 50%? What does SONY get in return. Still the same question I had before.


Disney made Sony tons more money with the recent films. Sony is going to fall back to Andrew Garfield or less money now. I also wouldnt be shocked if Holland and Watts leave somehow and then Sony is back to stage 1.
SONY owns nothing related to Spidey other than the license to make  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 6:38 pm : link
Spidey films. IF SONY were to go belly up or be sold off to another studio, let's say UNIVERSAL, then the rights to Spidey films automatically go back to MARVEL STUDIOS/DISNEY. Marvel has the TV and merchandising rights. This is terrible for Marvel Studios. Spider-Man was positioned to be their flagship character, which he historically has been and still should be. Not anymore.
RE: I may be ignorant here but what does Sony get out of striking a deal?  
Sonic Youth : 8/20/2019 6:40 pm : link
In comment 14537405 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
All I see is Disney gets to use SONY's product and Disney wants 50%. All I see is Disney taking and taking. What are they giving? This sucks but where is the benefit to SONY? Is it just DIsney saying we will make you a lot of money if you do this?
Pretty sure it was 50% co-financing, not a 50/50 box office split. Plus the MCU Spider-man movies made way more than the Sony only ones if Marvel was taking the figures cited in the article.

Marvel produced their films for them  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 6:41 pm : link
That's not being greedy. Marvel Studios didn't see a dime of that money. They resuscitated the character and integrated him into the greater MCU.
I agree that SONY would absolutely benefit from teaming up  
robbieballs2003 : 8/20/2019 6:42 pm : link
but I am just curious what SONY gets in return. It seems like Disney is strongarming SONY here. SONY is definitely thinking they are better than they are but at the same time that doesn't mean they should just bend over to Disney.
The Venom success was a one off imo  
Torrag : 8/20/2019 6:43 pm : link
They had a great actor in Hardy and the fans were curious. I know I was. But the film was so friggin bad any second installment is doomed.
RE: RE: I may be ignorant here but what does Sony get out of striking a deal?  
robbieballs2003 : 8/20/2019 6:43 pm : link
In comment 14537433 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
In comment 14537405 robbieballs2003 said:


Quote:


All I see is Disney gets to use SONY's product and Disney wants 50%. All I see is Disney taking and taking. What are they giving? This sucks but where is the benefit to SONY? Is it just DIsney saying we will make you a lot of money if you do this?

Pretty sure it was 50% co-financing, not a 50/50 box office split. Plus the MCU Spider-man movies made way more than the Sony only ones if Marvel was taking the figures cited in the article.


Gotcha. That makes more sense.
SONY's production team sucks  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 6:44 pm : link
They literally killed the golden goose that is Spider-Man. They did it in the infamous Spider-MAn 3 with Raimi and the two crappy Amazing Spider-Man flicks. They needed Marvel Studios to rescue them. All Sony needed to do was step the fuck out of the way, but of course they couldn't. Those shit heads wanted to do an Aunt May movie. lol. Come the fuck on.
watch thid  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 6:45 pm : link
...


IT'S OVER! Sony Takes Back Spider-Man From Kevin Feige & The MCU!! - ( New Window )
Tips on parsing that Deadline article.  
81_Great_Dane : 8/20/2019 6:46 pm : link
He says at the end that Feige, Disney/Marvel and Sony didn't comment. So who's his source then? I'm not saying he doesn't have one, but these things get planted because someone wants them planted. That's especially true when the writer is Mike Fleming, who has made his career by being very cozy with his sources.

The source is somebody who wants to put pressure on Sony. Could be someone at Disney, or Marvel, or at an agency. Since the article sucks up to Kevin Feige and throws shade at Sony, the source almost certainly was not at Sony. Unless there's someone inside Sony who disagrees with the decision of studio higher-ups and wants to embarrass them. That's unlikely.

Reading between the lines, this is part of the negotiation. Talks have stalled and somebody thought public pressure would help bring Sony back to the table and soften their position. It might work.
good  
RasputinPrime : 8/20/2019 6:46 pm : link
I hated the last Spider-Man movie (ok, more than hated it).

Let Sony get their act together and make something good enough where they can dictate terms to Disney.
RE: Marvel produced their films for them  
robbieballs2003 : 8/20/2019 6:47 pm : link
In comment 14537434 Optimus-NY said:
Quote:
That's not being greedy. Marvel Studios didn't see a dime of that money. They resuscitated the character and integrated him into the greater MCU.


While I agree that they did an amazing job revitalizing Spiderman because it was just so overdone recently, that is in the past. This is business and if SONY still holds the rights to solo Spiderman films then they really hold the cards right now. That is something that Disney obviously wants. Spiderman is too big to make a tv show and put on their streaming service. This is SONY's ace card right here.
RE: SONY's production team sucks  
robbieballs2003 : 8/20/2019 6:48 pm : link
In comment 14537439 Optimus-NY said:
Quote:
They literally killed the golden goose that is Spider-Man. They did it in the infamous Spider-MAn 3 with Raimi and the two crappy Amazing Spider-Man flicks. They needed Marvel Studios to rescue them. All Sony needed to do was step the fuck out of the way, but of course they couldn't. Those shit heads wanted to do an Aunt May movie. lol. Come the fuck on.


HAHAHA. Really? A movie about Aunt May? Well, if it is Marissa Tomei then I might watch. Haha.
RE: SONY owns nothing related to Spidey other than the license to make  
Sonic Youth : 8/20/2019 6:54 pm : link
In comment 14537431 Optimus-NY said:
Quote:
Spidey films. IF SONY were to go belly up or be sold off to another studio, let's say UNIVERSAL, then the rights to Spidey films automatically go back to MARVEL STUDIOS/DISNEY. Marvel has the TV and merchandising rights. This is terrible for Marvel Studios. Spider-Man was positioned to be their flagship character, which he historically has been and still should be. Not anymore.
I have way more faith in the MCU to put out quality movies than Sony. They made GotG a franchise, they can live
The SONY hack spurred Spidey's entry into the MCU  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 7:11 pm : link
Let's see.
RE: Tips on parsing that Deadline article.  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 7:14 pm : link
In comment 14537441 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
He says at the end that Feige, Disney/Marvel and Sony didn't comment. So who's his source then? I'm not saying he doesn't have one, but these things get planted because someone wants them planted. That's especially true when the writer is Mike Fleming, who has made his career by being very cozy with his sources.

The source is somebody who wants to put pressure on Sony. Could be someone at Disney, or Marvel, or at an agency. Since the article sucks up to Kevin Feige and throws shade at Sony, the source almost certainly was not at Sony. Unless there's someone inside Sony who disagrees with the decision of studio higher-ups and wants to embarrass them. That's unlikely.

Reading between the lines, this is part of the negotiation. Talks have stalled and somebody thought public pressure would help bring Sony back to the table and soften their position. It might work.



Thank you Ben. I see you're a journalist so I trust what you're saying. Your post is required reading for this thread. I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.
I meant 81_Great_Dane, not Ben  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 7:15 pm : link
Sorry
Wow  
Jay on the Island : 8/20/2019 7:55 pm : link
That's terrible. Sony is idiotic here, they will end up making their own Spiderman solo film that will bomb.
Sony has backtracked their  
tyrik13 : 8/20/2019 8:46 pm : link
Statement and they are reopening negotiations. Itís not a lost cause yet
RE: RE: Tips on parsing that Deadline article.  
81_Great_Dane : 8/20/2019 8:52 pm : link
In comment 14537463 Optimus-NY said:
Quote:
I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.
Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.
RE: Sony has backtracked their  
81_Great_Dane : 8/20/2019 8:53 pm : link
In comment 14537533 tyrik13 said:
Quote:
Statement and they are reopening negotiations. Itís not a lost cause yet
Whoever planted that story knew EXACTLY what they were doing. That's how you negotiate through the media.
RE: RE: RE: Tips on parsing that Deadline article.  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 9:25 pm : link
In comment 14537539 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
In comment 14537463 Optimus-NY said:


Quote:


I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.

Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.


Thanks! That's invaluable info 81_Great_Dane. Thanks for the 411 on this. I find this stuff fascinating.
RE: RE: Sony has backtracked their  
Optimus-NY : 8/20/2019 9:26 pm : link
In comment 14537540 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
In comment 14537533 tyrik13 said:


Quote:


Statement and they are reopening negotiations. Itís not a lost cause yet

Whoever planted that story knew EXACTLY what they were doing. That's how you negotiate through the media.


Educational stuff there 81_Great_Dane. Thanks :-) I feel much better now.
SONY's fingerprints were all over the last Spiderman movie  
Ron from Ninerland : 8/20/2019 9:50 pm : link
The shameless product placements in the last Spiderman movie were a SONY thing. They did the same thing in the Amazing Spider Man series ( the one with Gwen Stacey ). I was surprised to see a product placement for Synchrony bank. Those scumbags are a little better than a payday lender. Disney on their own wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
Odd position for both companies.  
Knineteen : 8/21/2019 12:49 am : link
The MCU is in transition right now as some of the more popular characters are no more and their replacements are still to be decided. Spider-man is an incredibly popular draw and a very established character. It would appear Parker is being setup as the next incarnation of Tony Stark. I don't see how Disney can simply boot Spider-man from the MCU.

Sony on the other hand...I don't know what they plan on doing other than solo Spider-man films. But if anyone is paying attention, every solo Spider-man film has been incredibly profitable. So, it might not be a bad thing if Sony goes it alone.
RE: Odd position for both companies.  
81_Great_Dane : 8/21/2019 2:38 am : link
In comment 14537692 Knineteen said:
Quote:
The MCU is in transition right now as some of the more popular characters are no more and their replacements are still to be decided. Spider-man is an incredibly popular draw and a very established character. It would appear Parker is being setup as the next incarnation of Tony Stark. I don't see how Disney can simply boot Spider-man from the MCU.
Well, now you're thinking like Sony: "Marvel needs Spider-man, we don't have to give an inch." I don't think that's gonna work. I think Disney and Sony will meet in the middle somewhere. This news will help push everyone back to the table.
RE: RE: RE: Tips on parsing that Deadline article.  
LauderdaleMatty : 8/21/2019 6:29 am : link
In comment 14537539 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
In comment 14537463 Optimus-NY said:


Quote:


I betchya that the source is someone from Marvel.

Possible but it would be, um, ethically questionable to use someone at Marvel your main source and then say Marvel didn't comment. Mike Fleming dances up to the line on things like that but even for him that would be queasy. If he says that Sony, Marvel, Disney and Feige didn't comment, he's probably telling the truth. So who else would know enough to leak this? Agents for Marvel, Feige. Another producer on the movie, and those producers' reps, would also know. Also agents for Tom Holland, Jon Favreau, Zendaya. But mostly agents and lawyers.


Just like all the leaks we get when players and teams are fighting. The agents love negotiate inthe press. IMO
id lean towards this being a negotiation tactic as well....  
Italianju : 8/21/2019 7:25 am : link
but it sux if it really happens. SONY would be stupid to do this as Disney 1000% does not need spiderman. They will just write him out for the next 10 years until Disney buys SONY or some shit. The only characters the MCU has lost is Cap and Iron Man. I get that is the two biggest, but they still have a ton of characters that are popular with fans now like Black Panther, Thor, Hulk, Captain Marvel, etc.. And they havent even introduced the characters they just got back from Fox. The MCU wont skip a beat without Spiderman but SONY will smash him into the next venom movie and it will be a disaster.
What does SONY get?  
widmerseyebrow : 8/21/2019 9:08 am : link
I thought they didn't have to pay a dime to produce the Tom Holland films but got to collect a fat check. A check that will always be fatter when he's involved in the MCU, Avengers, etc. Disney wants a bigger split after taking all the risk?

Venom was terrible but enough people saw it that Sony probably thinks they're capable of making good movies again.

Anywho I think this is all really just round 1 pf negotiations.
RE: robbie  
LakeGeorgeGiant : 8/21/2019 9:09 am : link
In comment 14537414 bigblue5611_2 said:
Quote:
Wouldn't it be the other way around at the beginning of your post? SONY gets to use Disney's product since Disney owns Marvel? I'm not positive of what the initial agreement was when SONY first bought the rights to Spider-Man, but they haven't had the best track record when making them without having Marvel involved.


It's odd how the Raimi movies are viewed in a negative light these days. While the third one was terrible the first two were very well received at the time.
My understanding  
Cap'n Bluebeard : 8/21/2019 10:48 am : link
From things I read yesterday, Sony had very little to do with producing the movies with Marvel footing almost all of the production and development costs. Sony was still the distributor of the movie.

However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.

So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
RE: My understanding  
GMAN4LIFE : 8/21/2019 10:49 am : link
In comment 14538062 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
From things I read yesterday, Sony had very little to do with producing the movies with Marvel footing almost all of the production and development costs. Sony was still the distributor of the movie.

However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.

So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.



exaccttlllyyy
RE: My understanding  
Jay on the Island : 8/21/2019 11:59 am : link
In comment 14538062 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
From things I read yesterday, Sony had very little to do with producing the movies with Marvel footing almost all of the production and development costs. Sony was still the distributor of the movie.

However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.

So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.

This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.

The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.
RE: RE: My understanding  
Knineteen : 8/21/2019 1:45 pm : link
In comment 14538155 Jay on the Island said:
Quote:
This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.

The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.

Everything about this post is completely wrong.

Have you seen the box office numbers of the past 7 Spider-man films?!
RE: RE: RE: My understanding  
Cap'n Bluebeard : 8/21/2019 1:52 pm : link
In comment 14538289 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 14538155 Jay on the Island said:


Quote:


This is what's going to happen. Sony is going to make Venom 2 expecting it to make a ton of money because the first one did. What they fail to realize is that people went to see the movie because of Tom Hardy and Venom's popularity among fans. I haven't seen it but I've heard it wasn't good which means the sequel will probably disappoint at the box office.

The next Spiderman will also do poorly at the box office which will then cause Sony to either re-evaluate their position and offer Marvel what they want or they will decide to just sell the rights to Marvel.


Everything about this post is completely wrong.

Have you seen the box office numbers of the past 7 Spider-man films?!


Every Spider-man movie has made less money than the movie that preceded it until Marvel got involved.
Oops  
Cap'n Bluebeard : 8/21/2019 1:54 pm : link
Actually, I'm wrong. Spider-man 3 made more than Spider-man 2, probably because Spider-man 2 was eventually recognized as being better than the 1st one.
Sony has made one...  
Italianju : 8/21/2019 2:04 pm : link
very good spider man movie, spider man 2, one good one spider man 1, a couple ok ones in ASM and Venom (i thought it was ok) and two awful ones, ASM 2 and Spider man 3. Thats not a great track record. Especially since Marvel made two that are in the very good range.

I think Disney knew that Sony was going to get crushed for this and they leaked it. Sure maybe it pisses Sony off and they tell disney to kick rocks, but they also might not want the public back lash they are getting. The MCU movies will be fine with or without spider man, but Sony is going to piss off comic book movie fans everywhere and then want them to come see their movies.
RE: RE: RE: RE: My understanding  
Knineteen : 8/21/2019 2:39 pm : link
In comment 14538300 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
Every Spider-man movie has made less money than the movie that preceded it until Marvel got involved.

Well, this is untrue.

But even if we went with that premise, the bump from Spiderman entering the MCU was only around 25%. And that came after The Amazing Spider-Man 2 which is THE worst rated Spider-man film of the entire franchise.
Box Office - ( New Window )
seems like the two sides can meet...  
Italianju : 8/21/2019 3:11 pm : link
somewhere reasonable. Disney shouldnt be getting 5% of opening weekend, especially since they used some of their characters in both movies. But i think 50% is a big ask. I could also see this as a tactic by SONY to get some more of the characters integrated into the MCU. There was some talk of them trying to integrate the Hardy Venom. If you put Spidey, Happy Hogan, Nick Fury, and Potts as Rescue in the next venom movie it would def help the sales of that movie. Or they could go with a different MCU character completely, but by putting someone from the MCU in Venom it will probably make almost a billion dollars.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: My understanding  
Cap'n Bluebeard : 8/21/2019 3:34 pm : link
In comment 14538375 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 14538300 Cap'n Bluebeard said:


Quote:


Every Spider-man movie has made less money than the movie that preceded it until Marvel got involved.


Well, this is untrue.

But even if we went with that premise, the bump from Spiderman entering the MCU was only around 25%. And that came after The Amazing Spider-Man 2 which is THE worst rated Spider-man film of the entire franchise. Box Office - ( New Window )


Already corrected myself since somehow Spider-man 3 made waaaay more money overseas than it did domestically. Really weird. 3 Made almost $40m less than 2 domestically, but made about $145m more internationally than 2 did.

In any event, the value of the Spider-man movie brand was plummeting and I don't think that's really all that debatable. To say that Marvel coming in "only" added 25% is accurate, but in this case "only" 25% is $170m and ignores the fact that it still makes Homecoming the 2nd highest grossing film of the franchise. That's hardly a paltry upswing in a series of movies that already had five entries.

It also ignores the fact that the budgets of these films were getting larger while the box office grosses were declining so they were even less profitable when you take that into account. Homecoming turned that around as well, with a budget lower than all of them outside of the 1st one and $83m less than the highest grossing film of the bunch. Far From Home's budget was even lower and grossed more. There really isn't an argument to be made against Marvel substantially increasing the value of the Spider-man film brand.

I thought Venom was alright  
BigBlueDownTheShore : 8/21/2019 4:36 pm : link
Iím not a big Venom comic fan, so I canít be the one that says it was a bad depiction. Iím a just a comic book movie fan. It wasnít fantastic but I enjoyed it. If anything it felt really short.

Now if Sony wants to make Venom 2 with Hardy and Tom Holland and we are going to do the Carnage storyline which the ground work has been laid, I am all for it. I hope itís an R rated film like the Wolverine one was.

I have absolutely been dying to see a Carnage involved film.

I donít see any reason why a Venom 2 and more MCU involved Spider-Man canít happen. Tom Holland is by far the best Spider-Man so I hope this doesnít mess that up.
RE: My understanding  
Sonic Youth : 8/21/2019 4:42 pm : link
In comment 14538062 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
From things I read yesterday, Sony had very little to do with producing the movies with Marvel footing almost all of the production and development costs. Sony was still the distributor of the movie.

However, Marvel only got 5% of the opening weekend profits and nothing after that while Sony got everything else. My understanding is that Marvel was asking for a 50/50 split, which seems pretty reasonable being that they were the ones doing about 99% of the work to make the character a viable, profitable IP again. Spider-man: Far From Home is Sony's second most profitable movie of all-time after Skyfall and they owe it almost completely to Marvel.

So what does Sony have to gain? Incredible amounts of money for not much actual work.
I think FFH actually surpassed Skyfall yesterday. If it hasn't yet, it's only a matter of time since it's being re-released in some areas over LDW.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: My understanding  
BigBlueDownTheShore : 8/21/2019 4:44 pm : link
In comment 14538416 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
In comment 14538375 Knineteen said:


Quote:


In comment 14538300 Cap'n Bluebeard said:


Quote:


Every Spider-man movie has made less money than the movie that preceded it until Marvel got involved.


Well, this is untrue.

But even if we went with that premise, the bump from Spiderman entering the MCU was only around 25%. And that came after The Amazing Spider-Man 2 which is THE worst rated Spider-man film of the entire franchise. Box Office - ( New Window )



Already corrected myself since somehow Spider-man 3 made waaaay more money overseas than it did domestically. Really weird. 3 Made almost $40m less than 2 domestically, but made about $145m more internationally than 2 did.

In any event, the value of the Spider-man movie brand was plummeting and I don't think that's really all that debatable. To say that Marvel coming in "only" added 25% is accurate, but in this case "only" 25% is $170m and ignores the fact that it still makes Homecoming the 2nd highest grossing film of the franchise. That's hardly a paltry upswing in a series of movies that already had five entries.

It also ignores the fact that the budgets of these films were getting larger while the box office grosses were declining so they were even less profitable when you take that into account. Homecoming turned that around as well, with a budget lower than all of them outside of the 1st one and $83m less than the highest grossing film of the bunch. Far From Home's budget was even lower and grossed more. There really isn't an argument to be made against Marvel substantially increasing the value of the Spider-man film brand.


The two Amazing Spider-Man movies were created so that Sony didnít lose the rights to the Spider-Man films. They have to produce movies or they lose the rights. I really enjoyed the first 2 Spider-Man movies with Tobey Maquire. The 3rd one was absolute trash though.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: My understanding  
Knineteen : 8/21/2019 4:50 pm : link
In comment 14538416 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
Already corrected myself since somehow Spider-man 3 made waaaay more money overseas than it did domestically. Really weird. 3 Made almost $40m less than 2 domestically, but made about $145m more internationally than 2 did.

In any event, the value of the Spider-man movie brand was plummeting and I don't think that's really all that debatable. To say that Marvel coming in "only" added 25% is accurate, but in this case "only" 25% is $170m and ignores the fact that it still makes Homecoming the 2nd highest grossing film of the franchise. That's hardly a paltry upswing in a series of movies that already had five entries.

It also ignores the fact that the budgets of these films were getting larger while the box office grosses were declining so they were even less profitable when you take that into account. Homecoming turned that around as well, with a budget lower than all of them outside of the 1st one and $83m less than the highest grossing film of the bunch. Far From Home's budget was even lower and grossed more. There really isn't an argument to be made against Marvel substantially increasing the value of the Spider-man film brand.

I don't disagree but I don't know if I would call it "substantial". I also wouldn't say the Spider-man brand was "plummeting". "Declining", yes. "Plummeting", no.

If Sony was dumb enough to allow a $250 million budget, that's on them. Larger budgets don't always equate to bigger box office numbers.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: My understanding  
Cap'n Bluebeard : 8/22/2019 7:57 am : link
In comment 14538464 Knineteen said:
Quote:


I don't disagree but I don't know if I would call it "substantial". I also wouldn't say the Spider-man brand was "plummeting". "Declining", yes. "Plummeting", no.

If Sony was dumb enough to allow a $250 million budget, that's on them. Larger budgets don't always equate to bigger box office numbers.


If you could guarantee any marketing exec or movie producer a 25% increase in gross, they'd be doing backflips for days. That's pretty substantial.

Amazing Spider-man made $130m less than Spider-man 3. Amazing Spider-man 2 made $50m less than that. $182m less over the course of two movies and interest in a 3rd movie at an all-time low is basically a veritable freefall.

Quote:
The two Amazing Spider-Man movies were created so that Sony didnít lose the rights to the Spider-Man films. They have to produce movies or they lose the rights. I really enjoyed the first 2 Spider-Man movies with Tobey Maquire. The 3rd one was absolute trash though.


Sure, I think most people are aware of that. Not sure what the relevance is though. It's not like they didn't try to make good movies, they just whiffed bigtime with a smarmy, douchey take on Peter Parker and bloated scripts that deviated from what fans were familiar with and expecting.

Absolutely agree about the Maguire movies. Spider-man was good, 2 is probably still my favorite super hero movie, and three was just a clusterfuck of awfulness. Like they tried to stuff three different movies into one script and did all of them poorly.
I think my point was 2 fold  
BigBlueDownTheShore : 8/22/2019 8:25 am : link
If done correctly, Sony has proven they can make great Spider-Man films.

Also, I think there are a bunch of people like myself who didnít actually read the comics but caught the fox cartoons (they were amazing at the time, and so adult instead of water downed for kids), and played the old Video games that know who Carnage is and are dying to see him on the big screen. If Carnage is indeed in the next Venom film, Iím sure people would go see it.

On another note, Disney should use Disney + to make a love action ďTVĒ show of the old comic book cartoons. They were just so good and very adult. Sony only has rights to the big screen. They would do much better on the small screen.
Sony owns the TV rights...  
Italianju : 8/22/2019 9:39 am : link
to spider Man as well as the movie rights.

Sony can make a good spider man movie, but they have proven they are just as likely to make a horrible one (ASM2, Spider man 3) as they are to make a good one.

I get this from Sony's standpoint. 50% is an absurd ask for Disney. The movies made under the MCU dont make that much more money, at least not to the point where it makes sense to give disney 50% even with disney covering a lot of costs. This is Disney flexing their muscles and as usual it will just be the fans of these things that suffer. Its a shame that SONY is taking all of the blame here, disney should be taking a large amount of blame as well.

Im hopeful this is all negotiating and they work it out. Feige was already consulting on more of the spider man spin offs, so id be ok if they brought the Hardy Venom into the MCU (mostly cause Hardy was good in the role). There were rumors of a deadpool/spiderman movie that could have been great.
actually it looks like there is some..  
Italianju : 8/22/2019 9:41 am : link
questions on TV rights. Disney does seem to def own the animated TV rights. My bad. Although if they do own the tv rights what stops them from making a TV show with holland as spider man?
Good news!  
Optimus-NY : 8/23/2019 5:15 pm : link
...


THE DEAL IS BACK ON? Sony & Marvel Agree on Spider-Man in the MCU?? - ( New Window )
literally dont see anyone...  
Italianju : 8/23/2019 5:29 pm : link
else anywhere reporting that they came to a new deal. Still hope its true
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner