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.
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 )
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.
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’m not a big Venom comic fan, so I can’t be the one that says it was a bad depiction. I’m a just a comic book movie fan. It wasn’t 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 it’s an R rated film like the Wolverine one was.
I have absolutely been dying to see a Carnage involved film.
I don’t see any reason why a Venom 2 and more MCU involved Spider-Man can’t happen. Tom Holland is by far the best Spider-Man so I hope this doesn’t mess that up.
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.
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 didn’t 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.
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.
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 didn’t 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.
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 didn’t 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, I’m sure people would go see it.
On another note, Disney should use Disney + to make a love action “TV” 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 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.
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?
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 )
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.
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 it’s an R rated film like the Wolverine one was.
I have absolutely been dying to see a Carnage involved film.
I don’t see any reason why a Venom 2 and more MCU involved Spider-Man can’t happen. Tom Holland is by far the best Spider-Man so I hope this doesn’t mess that up.
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.
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 didn’t 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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, I think there are a bunch of people like myself who didn’t 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, I’m sure people would go see it.
On another note, Disney should use Disney + to make a love action “TV” 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 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.
THE DEAL IS BACK ON? Sony & Marvel Agree on Spider-Man in the MCU?? - ( New Window )