-
[QUOTE=TheDarman;4578184]If they came out and said that movie was written by [B]Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers[/B] and was getting Phil Lord and Chris Miller to direct, produce, and give final oversight over the script, I would lose my crap. That would be amazing, especially with such a cool concept for a third film set up after [I]Far From Home[/I].[/QUOTE]
Were they the ones who wrote Into the Spider-Verse?
And yeah, if Sony has the brains to put the Spider-Verse guys in charge of the live action films as well, I'd think many people would get over the loss of the MCU connections pretty well. It would at least ease concerns. Now whether the suits at Sony will do it? We can only pray.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;4580132]Were they the ones who wrote Into the Spider-Verse?
And yeah, if Sony has the brains to put the Spider-Verse guys in charge of the live action films as well, I'd think many people would get over the loss of the MCU connections pretty well. It would at least ease concerns. Now whether the suits at Sony will do it? We can only pray.[/QUOTE]
No. McKenna and Sommers were the guys that wrote the final drafts of [I]Homecoming[/I] and [I]Far From Home[/I]. I think it is good to ensure some franchise continuity, but get Lord and Miller in there to do something new, exciting, and fantastic and I think we have a real good film on our hands. If this split ends up being for good, [B]Sony[/B] [I]needs[/I] some good press coming their way for a third Holland Spider-Man film. You get those guys on board, who delivered the best critically rated [I]Spider-Man[/I] film of all time, made [I]The LEGO[/I] movie, a movie about building blocks, a hit, and made both [I]21 Jump Street[/I] and [I]22 Jump Street[/I], I think that [B]Sony[/B] can really turn this bad press at least partially around and get a lot of naysayers at least curious.
-
[QUOTE=TheDarman;4580345]No. McKenna and Sommers were the guys that wrote the final drafts of [I]Homecoming[/I] and [I]Far From Home[/I]. I think it is good to ensure some franchise continuity, but get Lord and Miller in there to do something new, exciting, and fantastic and I think we have a real good film on our hands. If this split ends up being for good, [B]Sony[/B] [I]needs[/I] some good press coming their way for a third Holland Spider-Man film. You get those guys on board, who delivered the best critically rated [I]Spider-Man[/I] film of all time, made [I]The LEGO[/I] movie, a movie about building blocks, a hit, and made both [I]21 Jump Street[/I] and [I]22 Jump Street[/I], I think that [B]Sony[/B] can really turn this bad press at least partially around and get a lot of naysayers at least curious.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I was not really impressed with the stories of either MCU film, they got anything better under their belts writing wise? Otherwise I'd rather just get the writers from Spider-Verse which had the best story to date I think.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;4580402]Eh, I was not really impressed with the stories of either MCU film, they got anything better under their belts writing wise? Otherwise I'd rather just get the writers from Spider-Verse which had the best story to date I think.[/QUOTE]
That would be Lord and Miller actually. I think having them take the story idea and punch it up a bit would be really great. That and I think having them have creative input on all three of the main production areas would also mitigate any other potential interference by certain parties we might be concerned about.
-
[QUOTE=TheDarman;4580680]That would be Lord and Miller actually. I think having them take the story idea and punch it up a bit would be really great. That and I think having them have creative input on all three of the main production areas would also mitigate any other potential interference by certain parties we might be concerned about.[/QUOTE]
Definitely, I want Lord and Miller in charge of all things Spidey/Marvel over at Sony over Rothman and co.
-
[QUOTE=TheDarman;4580122]To be honest, I think we overestimate the impact of this situation on the bottom line.[/quote]
On the Sony/Marvel bust-up front, yeah, I doubt that affect the box office of whatever film Sony puts out next in their Spidey universe. I do think however that bad stink from a prior film is something that actually sticks.
[quote]After all, if [I]Venom[/I]’s success were merely about the character’s popularity, the second weekend drop would’ve been more severe than a 56% drop, which is par the course for big movies. It would’ve been more similar to [I]Batman v. Superman[/I], which dropped over 60% in its second weekend. [/quote]
So on what merits did it succeed, then? It split viewing audiences at best, it got panned critically - 'live action Venom' is the only thing that seems like it gave the film legs.
Tom Hardy is a great actor and all but I don't think he can float a film on his name alone.
[quote]This isn’t to mention, of course, that the reputation of Holland’s Spider-Man films are pretty good so far. [/quote]
Right, but that's associated primarily with Marvel Studios' involvement / the MCU rub, at least by your average fan. Average movie goer will probably be nonethewiser, granted.
-
[QUOTE=Zeitgeist;4581634]
Right, but that's associated primarily with Marvel Studios' involvement / the MCU rub, at least by your average fan. Average movie goer will probably be nonethewiser, granted.[/QUOTE]
To my experience the average moviegoer doesn't travel in exclusive groups. Often one or two(in the group) are more comicbook savy and inform the others, often organising the trip. So while the XX% of people who see the movie might be generally uninformed about if Spider-Man is part of the MCU or not they rely on people that know. Of course these people don't have to be CBR people or close to that level of fans. They might just be following a twitter acoount or read from some facebook source about the news in comic-movies.
The same when I see a, lets say, Star-wars movie. There's allways at least one person there who can bring me up to speed on theories or just refresh me memory. I enjoy a good Star wars movie but I don't spend much time between them either reading or thinking about them.
So don't underestimate how wellinformed the general moviegoes are. If Sony ditches Disney and wants to connect it with Venom, Morbius and what else, then many viewers will have the conversation about witch movies that count or if Venom was a good movie before buying that ticket.
-
[QUOTE=Zeitgeist;4581634]On the Sony/Marvel bust-up front, yeah, I doubt that affect the box office of whatever film Sony puts out next in their Spidey universe. I do think however that bad stink from a prior film is something that actually sticks.[/QUOTE]
I guess it depends. [B]Sony[/B] does, from what we’ve seen at least, have acknowledged their creative mis-steps. We haven’t heard anything about a [I]Sinister Six[/I] movie being rushed out. [I]Venom 2[/I] is getting a new director, screenwriter, and an Award winning cinematographer. And it comes out before any [I]Spider-Man[/I] film with Venom would even start marketing.
[QUOTE]So on what merits did it succeed, then? It split viewing audiences at best, it got panned critically - 'live action Venom' is the only thing that seems like it gave the film legs.
Tom Hardy is a great actor and all but I don't think he can float a film on his name alone.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know. [I]Batman v. Superman[/I] seems like the kind of film that would have more of a novelty around it than a [I]Venom[/I] film. Yet, [I]Venom[/I] made almost as much as [I]Batman v. Superman[/I] did, despite opening with less than half of where the latter film earned on its opening weekend. I think that we are really underestimating how much audiences actually enjoyed the film in order to fit our narrative that [B]Sony[/B] can’t be trusted.
[QUOTE]Right, but that's associated primarily with Marvel Studios' involvement / the MCU rub, at least by your average fan. Average movie goer will probably be nonethewiser, granted.[/QUOTE]
I think that the first time they will understand things are different are that next Holland [I]Spider-Man[/I] film. And I think [B]Sony[/B] knows they [I]have to[/I] deliver on that movie for sure. If they can succeed with a [I]Spider-Man[/I] film anywhere near the level of [I]Into the Spider-Verse[/I], then I think the bet is that audiences won’t really care that the MCU won’t be referenced going forward.
Of course, I think this is all moot anyway. I think that the only reason we heard about this is because of public negotiations. After all, [B]Marvel Studios[/B] hasn’t announced what films are releasing in February of 2022 and July 2022 yet. [B]Sony[/B] hasn’t announced any upcoming [I]Spider-Man[/I] film or its director. I think we really need to start worrying once all that is announced.
-
[QUOTE=Zeitgeist;4571511]I mean producing for free and only getting 5% of ticket sales, they need to get paid somehow. I dunno how much merch is made off of the films but I can't imagine either party walked away from this film stiffed or anything. But if you go above and beyond, you ask for a raise. I can't balk at Marvel for renegotiating considering the job they did.[/quote]
producing for [I]free[/I]? that's not the story i know.
and if offering you a well earned raise means i'm out on the street, i love you man, but you ain't getting it.
[quote]
But overall it's such a mutually beneficial partnership that I think both parties are at fault for not making this work. Marvel Studios will continue on because they can make stars out of walking trees, but there's going to be hole in the MCU for a while yet. And Sony can make solo Spidey films, but at what cost? Producer e-mails wanted Peter Parker to be into Tough Mudder and trap music and shit. I think the fans are the ones that lose the most here.[/QUOTE]
i agree it was a mutually beneficial relationship [I]at the time[/I] the deal was struck...but [I]both[/I] companies are at a point now in 2020 where to continue the deal without either raising their individual stakes would be a bad move.
i think it's unfair to judge sony on past emails of things that never came to pass, and to not account for how far they have come since (as a side note, anyone ever read nick cave's script for "gladiator 2"?). marvel have made less than stellar films too, we just forgive them for it.
and i'm saying this as someone who would prefer [I]personally[/I] marvel to be in control.
-
[QUOTE=TheDarman;4580122]To be honest, I think we overestimate the impact of this situation on the bottom line. I mean, [I]Spider-Man: Far From Home[/I]’s re-release, not even two weeks after the news broke, almost made as much as the [I]Avengers: Endgame[/I] did that first weekend ([I]Far From Home[/I]’s re-release was over by the next weekend in most places, unlike [I]Endgame[/I]’s so the comparisons largely end there). I think it is a mistake to try to make up excuses for its success. After all, if [I]Venom[/I]’s success were merely about the character’s popularity, the second weekend drop would’ve been more severe than a 56% drop, which is par the course for big movies. It would’ve been more similar to [I]Batman v. Superman[/I], which dropped over 60% in its second weekend. I don’t think [B]Sony[/B] should have any reason to expect diminishing returns on the [I]sole[/I] fact that Spider-Man (a version who was in the MCU mind you) is no longer explicitly connected to that MCU. This isn’t to mention, of course, that the reputation of Holland’s Spider-Man films are pretty good so far. I think the real test for [B]Sony[/B] is whether they can make a fourth or a fifth Holland Spider-Man film as successful as the first three. And, should they be able to, they were right to send [B]Disney[/B] packing with a 50/50 co-financing partner. But there is still room for negotiation. [B]Disney[/B] needs to offset opportunity cost. I think [B]Sony[/B] will agree to a smaller co-financing stake provided there are stipulations in place that Holland’s Spider-Man remains under their sole ownership. They both make money and [B]Sony[/B] isn’t worried about taking a bath on a [I]Spider-Man[/I] film again.[/QUOTE]
yeah, the "venom only did well cos people think he's cool" is dangerously close to "spider-man only sells because he's a flagship character with +1 slott immunity".
i think your assessment is fair. you don't work in entertainment by any chance?
-
[QUOTE=TheDarman;4583013]
I don’t know. [I]Batman v. Superman[/I] seems like the kind of film that would have more of a novelty around it than a [I]Venom[/I] film. Yet, [I]Venom[/I] made almost as much as [I]Batman v. Superman[/I] did, despite opening with less than half of where the latter film earned on its opening weekend. I think that we are really underestimating how much audiences actually enjoyed the film in order to fit our narrative that [B]Sony[/B] can’t be trusted.[/quote]
and to add to this...this negative sony narrative is prevalent amongst fans. your average movie goer is far less aware or beyond caring.
[quote]
Of course, I think this is all moot anyway. I think that the only reason we heard about this is because of public negotiations.[/QUOTE]
i was in culver city the day the news dropped, a friend directly affected by this laid out their position on it all... and... well, there's always more to it than what's in THR.
-
[QUOTE=boots;4587921]yeah, the "venom only did well cos people think he's cool" is dangerously close to "spider-man only sells because he's a flagship character with +1 slott immunity".
i think your assessment is fair. you don't work in entertainment by any chance?[/QUOTE]
I think the bigger issue is that both arguments seem to have the conviction that “I didn’t like it, and my friends didn’t like it, therefore NO ONE liked it.” And any evidence contrarian to that is dismissed as irrelevant or variables that can be explained with a very convoluted procedure. It turns out that, most of the time, the most simple answer is often the right one. No need to over complicate the fact that you, as an individual, don’t represent the audience as a whole.
Thanks. I really wish I did, but, alas, I don’t. I just am super passionate about this stuff. (I’d welcome any opportunity to get involved though.)
-
[QUOTE=boots;4587928]and to add to this...this negative sony narrative is prevalent amongst fans. your average movie goer is far less aware or beyond caring.[/QUOTE]
Frankly, I think the things that are important to them should be the same things that are important to fans. We shouldn’t be asking the question of whether or not Spider-Man is joined by Captain Marvel or not, but, rather, whether or not the movie Spider-Man is in is good. If I get good movies, I don’t care who makes them. Admittedly, though, I do find it more enjoyable that Spider-Man can interact with those aforementioned characters.
[QUOTE]i was in culver city the day the news dropped, a friend directly affected by this laid out their position on it all... and... well, there's always more to it than what's in THR.[/QUOTE]
Really? That’s fascinating. I’d be intrigued by whatever you could divulge, even if it is just through a DM.
-
If the rumour is true that they cant ghost it as "kind of in the mcu" and have to reboot then its a dead movie.
-
[QUOTE=jetengine;4591258]If the rumour is true that they cant ghost it as "kind of in the mcu" and have to reboot then its a dead movie.[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that [B]Sony[/B] had rejected the co-financing agreement for a multitude of reasons. One of those being that they wouldn’t make as much with a profit split. Another, less obvious one, is that they won’t own the material of that movie. That’s why they rejected it in 2014 (when they were arguably more vulnerable). As a result of them putting forward 100% of the production costs, it was [I]their[/I] movies that we saw. They owned the rights to everything in them save for the MCU elements (Tony Stark, Happy Hogan, and the Avengers references). And I think we overestimate the impact that disentangling the MCU elements will have for a direct sequel to [I]Spider-Man: Far From Home[/I].
For example, EDITH was a program introduced in [I]Far From Home[/I]. Unless there was individual clarification on it, [B]Sony[/B] can reference EDITH, and the drones, so long as there is no mention of the glasses (introduced in [I]Avengers: Infinity War[/I]) or Tony Stark (who developed it). It’s convoluted, but would [B]Sony[/B] be crippled by not being able to directly reference the origins of EDITH? I’d guess probably not.
Mysterio’s origins are the only MCU ties the character really has. But he’s dead. And Spider-Man never learned directly that Mysterio was a former Stark employee, just that he was using illusion tech to fool people. Not difficult to avoid a reference to Stark.
Vulture’s origins could be simplified as merely being an arms dealer of new arms from advanced technology. That goes the same for the Tinkerer and for Shocker.
So, at the end of the day, not having Happy becomes the biggest creative problem for [B]Sony[/B] moving forward. And I’d guess a throwaway line about May “going through a break up” will solve that. And Peter has grown out of Tony’s shadow (that was his arc). The next one could logically have him revisiting Uncle Ben’s example (y’know a new beginning to match the end of a trilogy).