Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 27333435363738394041 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 629
  1. #541
    Mighty Member Zeitgeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    1,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    They have made only ONE movie that wasn’t liked by a majority of critics.
    Sorry, "D is still a pass" is far below the benchmark of where a Spider-Man film should be. Spider-Man 3 is universally considered a disappointment compared to the two previous films in the series (studio meddling specifically taking the blame for that), Amazing Spider-Man 2 generally a mess of a failure, and Venom panned by critics and despite making money, splitting fans right down the middle. Overall, a pretty erratic track record at least, with most of the highs way back at the beginning.
    Last edited by Zeitgeist; 09-18-2019 at 08:36 AM.
    ♪ღ♪*.ククク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ღ♪ク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ღ♪*

    ♪ღ♪░M░E░P░H░I░S░T░O░ W░A░S░ R░I░G░H░T░♪ღ♪

    *♪ღ♪*.ククク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ღ♪吻

  2. #542
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    Okay, we can talk about that.

    Spider-Man: A- CinemaScore, 90% Rotten Tomatoes
    Spider-Man 2: A- CinemaScore, 93% Rotten Tomatoes
    Spider-Man 3: B+ CinemaScore, 63% Rotten Tomatoes (still a red tomato)
    The Amazing Spider-Man: A- CinemaScore, 72% Rotten Tomatoes
    The Amazing Spider-Man 2: B+ CinemaScore, 52% Rotten Tomatoes
    Venom: B+ CinemaScore, 29% Rotten Tomatoes
    Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse: A+ CinemaScore (the only Spider-Man film, MCU or not, to score that high), 97% Rotten Tomatoes

    They have made only ONE movie that wasn’t liked by a majority of critics. They have made three movies that MATCH the lowest scoring Marvel Studios films, but have NEVER fallen beneath their lowest fan reception. I think we are exaggerating how bad Sony’s Spider-Man films have been received outside of our little bubble. That, and I genuinely enjoyed every Spider-Man movie made with the lone exception of Spider-Man 3. We can go ahead and state that I lack credibility, but obviously I’m not alone (see above) and all film is subjective rather than objective.

    In short, no, their track record maybspeak for itself for you, but certainly not for me and definitely not for general audiences. Frankly, for me, I think you had a better argument with Rothman being responsible for X-Men: The Last Stand and Deadpool having his mouth sewn shut. Of course, that had its flaws, what with him being responsible for a lot of Fox’s successful features, including putting in motion fantastic original programming that made the studio a force to be reckoned with come awards season time.
    (Are you relying on CinemaScore to try to make your point? Really?)

    As for the RT scores, one of those grades is a "C", one of those grades is a "D", and two of them are "F" marks from critics, which are far below where any Spider-Man film should be.

    These grades do not mean what you think they do.

    Marvel gave up the film rights in the 1990s to studios like Fox and Sony to avoid declaring bankruptcy. The fact that they did that is the only reason Disney had anything to purchase in 2009. That being said, the old expression goes, “you reap what you sow”. And, as of right now, Sony has the exclusive right to the property in film. And Disney, and its fans, can act as entitled as they want to have Spider-Man with them, but Sony has the rights, and Disney need to stop acting like they can run roughshod over everyone in this industry or that they no longer need a deal they lauded as a great deal for them four years ago.
    Far be it for me to defend Disney, but you need to stop stanning for Sony.

    The fact is that Sony are not entitled to people seeing their movies just because they can put Spider-Man in them. That's why they made their deal with Disney to begin with. The Amazing Spider-Man films cost more, and made less, than the Raimi films that preceded them.

    Oh, absolutely. But, here’s the thing, that’s what both sides were counting on by making this public. They want people upset and angry and driving the other side to accept a deal. In the Variety article it is even stated these are the kinds of tactics that Rothman has engaged in before. I fully expect, given how close the figures got over the week since it was announced there was a split and D23, that they are back to the negotiating table.

    I would like to point out, though, that for all the people putting their faith in the trades to let us know when negotiations have started, I wouldn’t hold your breath. According to Deadline, these talks had been going on for months and the first we heard of it was when discussions had broken down. And, in 2014, after discussions had broken down over the prospective partnership between Sony and Marvel, it took us THREE MONTHS to hear anything different than it was over. And who’d we hear from that a deal has been reached in February of 2015? It was a press release from Sony and Marvel.

    They only leaked it to the trades to get negotiations started up again on different terms with each side signaling they would’ve made compromises my guess is they weren’t making in the room at the time. But, now, we just have to be patient and wade through denial after denial, just like last time. After all, Sony categorically denied the 2015 deal until it happened. I expect the same happened here.
    It wouldn't shock me if they end up making another deal over Spider-Man film rights. The fact is that being a part of the MCU has been very beneficial to Spider-Man. They made the first Spider-Man film that grossed over a billion dollars.

  3. #543
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    I've seen Sony Spider-Man and I've seen MCU Spider-Man. Sony has a mixed track record, some high successes, some low disappointments. On the flipside MCU Spidey is a consistent success...but that success has never reached the highs Sony sometimes reached (not talking about box office here). If I'm honest, I'd rather risk the chance of another Spider-Man 3 or TASM2 on the chance that maybe I'll get another Spider-Man 1 & 2 or Into the Spider-Verse over a guaranteed good but never great MCU Spidey film. At least the gamble is exciting, and sometimes the payoff is great. I know what I'll get from an MCU Spider-Man, but now I have no clue what I'll get from Sony, and for once inconsistency is okay. I'll take a couple of stinkers mixed in with some outright classics over a couple alright movies I'll largely forget.

    This is of course just my personal opinion. I hope they are not back at the negotiation table and that Spidey really is out of the MCU for the next few Spidey films.

  4. #544
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexCampy89 View Post
    People have a very biased attitude towards Sony.

    Sony did good for the most part with Spider-Man.
    Raimi's Spider-Man 3 is a movie with a lot of problems in it, but it is better than anything else the DCEU has ever did to this point (except Aquaman and Wonder Woman) and many MCU movies (Thor the Dark World, Iron man 2, Antman and the Wasp, Captain Marvel) and Fox movies (all the Fantastic 4d, X-men Last Stand, Wolverine Origins, etc).

    Even Amazing Spider-Man 1 is somewhat decent, despite some odd choices. And the death of Gwen Stacy in ASM 2 was really excellent, imo.
    ITSV managed to make Miles Morales relevant and important for the very first time since his creation.
    I don't care what's the reported BTS dramas behind those movies, they were made by Sony.
    I agree that SM3 turned out better then its reputation suggests.

    However, since Raimi's day, the only unqualified good thing they've put together on their own was the Spider-Verse movie -- and that's a different department. Fair enough if you liked the Webb movies, but I found them to be generally bad (the original is the definition of a "why does this even exist?" flaccid remake and the sequel is an utter mess which only existed to make sequels that never got made). Venom was, at best, a guilty pleasure with a good lead actor. That is not a promising track record and comprises half of the studio's live action output on this franchise.

    Sony could pull it off, but they have a lot to prove.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  5. #545
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    I've seen Sony Spider-Man and I've seen MCU Spider-Man. Sony has a mixed track record, some high successes, some low disappointments. On the flipside MCU Spidey is a consistent success...but that success has never reached the highs Sony sometimes reached (not talking about box office here). If I'm honest, I'd rather risk the chance of another Spider-Man 3 or TASM2 on the chance that maybe I'll get another Spider-Man 1 & 2 or Into the Spider-Verse over a guaranteed good but never great MCU Spidey film. At least the gamble is exciting, and sometimes the payoff is great. I know what I'll get from an MCU Spider-Man, but now I have no clue what I'll get from Sony, and for once inconsistency is okay. I'll take a couple of stinkers mixed in with some outright classics over a couple alright movies I'll largely forget.

    This is of course just my personal opinion. I hope they are not back at the negotiation table and that Spidey really is out of the MCU for the next few Spidey films.
    The words "Exciting gamble" are not what you want to hear when you put $150,000,000+ into a movie

  6. #546
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    (Are you relying on CinemaScore to try to make your point? Really?)

    As for the RT scores, one of those grades is a "C", one of those grades is a "D", and two of them are "F" marks from critics, which are far below where any Spider-Man film should be.

    These grades do not mean what you think they do.
    I used CinemaScore because it is the only verified tool that actually gets the audience that actually saw the movie and poll them. Admittedly, it usually ends up skewing good (because people that go to movies are usually predisposed to liking what that movie is/what it was sold as), but it is the best metric to get an audience score and, this, their general reception of the movie without turning to tired money arguments, which we could also do. But I think it is fair to use those scores.

    And Rotten Tomatoes doesn稚 really operate on grades. It is more like the chances you will like a film. If the majority of critics like a film, I take it as 土ou are likely to like this movie. The red tomato is just an example of more security and certification that you can walk into this movie and expect to have a good time.

    Far be it for me to defend Disney, but you need to stop stanning for Sony.

    The fact is that Sony are not entitled to people seeing their movies just because they can put Spider-Man in them. That's why they made their deal with Disney to begin with. The Amazing Spider-Man films cost more, and made less, than the Raimi films that preceded them.
    I don稚 think any movie studio is entitled to have anyone see their films. But, I also think that it is remarkably unfair to be placing the onous on Sony to make things right. I think this tweet kind of gets it about what Disney was asking Sony to do:

    Not Safe For Work Tweet

    It wouldn't shock me if they end up making another deal over Spider-Man film rights. The fact is that being a part of the MCU has been very beneficial to Spider-Man. They made the first Spider-Man film that grossed over a billion dollars.
    Certainly, but Disney needs to offer a deal where Sony makes more, dollar amount not percentage return off their investment, off the MCU Spider-Man films than ones that they make on their own. If you look at the math, if Sony had just made TASM and its sequel more fiscally responsible, they would致e made MORE on those films than they would make with a 50/50 split even if every film performs like Far From Home. Once that is met, I think we will see a new deal made. But it on both of them to compromise, not just for Sony to accept whatever Disney offers because the connection to the MCU drove the Spider-Man character痴 ceiling $200 million higher.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  7. #547
    Mighty Member Zeitgeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    1,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    If I'm honest, I'd rather risk the chance of another Spider-Man 3 or TASM2 on the chance that maybe I'll get another Spider-Man 1 & 2 or Into the Spider-Verse over a guaranteed good but never great MCU Spidey film.
    I'm curious, what makes you feel MCU Spider-Man films have already plateaued only after 2 solo films and could never reach "great"?
    Personally I can't help but imagine all the stuff they could have done if they actually got to play with all the toys the past two franchises were privy to: Norman and Harry Osborn, Ock Ock, etc.
    ♪ღ♪*.ククク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ღ♪ク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ღ♪*

    ♪ღ♪░M░E░P░H░I░S░T░O░ W░A░S░ R░I░G░H░T░♪ღ♪

    *♪ღ♪*.ククク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ク.*ィ ィ*.ククク.*♪ღ♪吻

  8. #548
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    I used CinemaScore because it is the only verified tool that actually gets the audience that actually saw the movie and poll them. Admittedly, it usually ends up skewing good (because people that go to movies are usually predisposed to liking what that movie is/what it was sold as), but it is the best metric to get an audience score and, this, their general reception of the movie without turning to tired money arguments, which we could also do. But I think it is fair to use those scores.

    And Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t really operate on grades. It is more like the chances you will like a film. If the majority of critics like a film, I take it as “you are likely to like this movie”. The red tomato is just an example of more security and certification that you can walk into this movie and expect to have a good time.
    Audience review scores are a mistake, and we're seeing such things have been weaponized over films like Captain Marvel. We saw such scores being used with video game audience scores recently with Astral Chain. (http://www.nintendolife.com/news/201...d_astral_chain)

    I don't put any stock in "audience scores". So we can strike that "point" immediately.

    I know RT is a review aggregate site. But it feels like you're trying to move the goalposts because you realized that the way RT scores those films? Doesn't say good things about the critical reception to them.


    I don’t think any movie studio is entitled to have anyone see their films. But, I also think that it is remarkably unfair to be placing the onous on Sony to make things right. I think this tweet kind of gets it about what Disney was asking Sony to do:

    Not Safe For Work Tweet
    Are you serious with using this tweet as "evidence"?

    Certainly, but Disney needs to offer a deal where Sony makes more, dollar amount not percentage return off their investment, off the MCU Spider-Man films than ones that they make on their own. If you look at the math, if Sony had just made TASM and its sequel more fiscally responsible, they would’ve made MORE on those films than they would make with a 50/50 split even if every film performs like Far From Home. Once that is met, I think we will see a new deal made. But it on both of them to compromise, not just for Sony to accept whatever Disney offers because the connection to the MCU drove the Spider-Man character’s ceiling $200 million higher.
    You do know Disney offered to help pay for those movies as part of any deal, right? I feel like you seem to be overlooking that part of the equation.

  9. #549
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Audience review scores are a mistake, and we're seeing such things have been weaponized over films like Captain Marvel. We saw such scores being used with video game audience scores recently with Astral Chain. (http://www.nintendolife.com/news/201...d_astral_chain)

    I don't put any stock in "audience scores". So we can strike that "point" immediately.
    CinemaScore is the only legitimate audience score because it doesn’t allow such a thing to occur. They verify people only vote once, do it in person (no bots as a result), and make sure someone actually saw the movie. Which means the CinemaScore ratings aren’t victim to literally any of the tactics you described above. You can look into them yourself if you don’t believe me, but they are the only audience rating I trust for that reason.

    I know RT is a review aggregate site. But it feels like you're trying to move the goalposts because you realized that the way RT scores those films? Doesn't say good things about the critical reception to them.
    No. I understand Rotten Tomatoes just fine. Always have. It gives the number of critics that would say the movie is good, no matter by what measure. So it doesn’t necessarily indicate level of quality so much as how crowd pleasing it is. And getting a majority of critics to say they liked it is still pretty good. Of course, even better if you can get close to 100% of them to say they liked it, like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse did.

    Are you serious with using this tweet as "evidence"?
    I don’t believe that I said it was evidence. I think I said that it basically sums up what Disney was asking Sony to do in order to make a new deal. And I stand by that.

    You do know Disney offered to help pay for those movies as part of any deal, right? I feel like you seem to be overlooking that part of the equation.
    I am aware. Which is why I stated that it isn’t how much more Sony gets in terms of what they spent. Sony needs a deal that makes it so they get more in flat dollar profit than TASM. The multiple of profit compared to what they spent is nice, but hardly relevant. They would rather make $110 million in pure profit from a film that cost them more to make, say, than $105 million in pure profit from a movie that they spent less on. And Disney was asking for such a huge stake in revenue (with, yes, offering cost sharing co-financing to boot) that if Sony made their future films at the kind of budgets they made the recent Spider-Man films for and they only returned revenue even at the levels of TASM, they still would’ve made more than they would’ve from the deal Disney offered.

    Let’s say Sony makes another Spider-Man film and they make it for the exact same amount they made Spider-Man: Far From Home for ($160 million) and let’s say they spend another $160 million on marketing the film. That makes a grand total of $320 million spent on the film. Now, Sony is likely guessing a Spider-Man film that is decently received, minus the MCU, can turn out around $850 million, or what Venom made (with a 29% Rotten Tomatoes score and many people hating on it, even in pre-release buzz). Now, we multiply that by 66%, or subtract the theaters’ cut. That leaves Sony with a movie that gets back right around $561 million. Subtracting their costs, Sony makes around $241 million.

    Now, let’s say Disney and Sony co-finance a Spider-Man sequel at the same cost. And let’s guess it won’t come out right after another Avengers film so there won’t be that same kind of bump. But people who liked Far From Home will go see it. So, Spider-Man 3 Version 2.0 makes roughly $1.1 billion. Likewise, Sony only spends $160 million on the film. But they also only get half of the proceeds of the film. So, Sony ends up with $363 million back in their pocket after the theaters’ cut and Disney gets their half. That makes them $203 million.

    Sony, even by undervaluing what a decently received Spider-Man flick would do today by giving it Venom levels of revenue, would make more money going it alone than entering into a co-financing agreement. That doesn’t say anything about the fact that giving Disney co-financing rights also gives them rights to the material in the films. Right now, Sony can take Holland’s Spider-Man and basically do a third movie without the MCU because the only things they can’t use from the first two are the MCU characters and mention the connections likewise to the wider universe. They own the versions of the characters in question, including Holland’s Spider-Man because they financed these films completely. If they give Disney anything then, if the next deal comes up for re-negotiation, Sony either makes a new deal or they have to do a hard reboot with the character, because now that version of Spider-Man is co-owned by Disney. So, there are also long-term consequences for them. Sony probably needs to make not just more than $40 million LESS than they would on a film they made themselves to make all that worthwhile.

    But, that's why I expect the final split will be closer to 75/25 and that both companies will recognize that it is in their best interests, respectively, to work something out.
    Last edited by TheDarman; 09-18-2019 at 01:52 PM. Reason: Let’s Do the Math
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  10. #550
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    CinemaScore is the only legitimate audience score because it doesn’t allow such a thing to occur. They verify people only vote once, do it in person (no bots as a result), and make sure someone actually saw the movie. Which means the CinemaScore ratings aren’t victim to literally any of the tactics you described above. You can look into them yourself if you don’t believe me, but they are the only audience rating I trust for that reason.
    As I said, audience review scores mean nothing to me. That you insist that they mean something to you doesn't matter at all to me. I will promptly ignore every future reference you make to such a thing.

    No. I understand Rotten Tomatoes just fine. Always have. It gives the number of critics that would say the movie is good, no matter by what measure. So it doesn’t necessarily indicate level of quality so much as how crowd pleasing it is. And getting a majority of critics to say they liked it is still pretty good. Of course, even better if you can get close to 100% of them to say they liked it, like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse did.
    You are moving the goalposts because you realize that critical scores have hurt your argument.

    I don’t believe that I said it was evidence. I think I said that it basically sums up what Disney was asking Sony to do in order to make a new deal. And I stand by that.
    That says all that needs to be said. You aren't serious about this discussion at all. You'd rather stan for Sony.

    I am aware. Which is why I stated that it isn’t how much more Sony gets in terms of what they spent. Sony needs a deal that makes it so they get more in flat dollar profit than TASM. The multiple of profit compared to what they spent is nice, but hardly relevant. They would rather make $110 million in pure profit from a film that cost them more to make, say, than $105 million in pure profit from a movie that they spent less on. And Disney was asking for such a huge stake in revenue (with, yes, offering cost sharing co-financing to boot) that if Sony made their future films at the kind of budgets they made the recent Spider-Man films for and they only returned revenue even at the levels of TASM, they still would’ve made more than they would’ve from the deal Disney offered. I could go into the math on it, but it should be fairly straightforward.
    Sony's bottom line means nothing to me. I don't work for Sony. I don't stan for Sony. I enjoyed seeing Spider-Man in movies interacting with the Avengers and fighting Thanos. I was hoping to see that continue in the future with Spider-Man teaming up with the Fantastic Four and fighting Doctor Doom.

    Spider-Man vs. Venom being produced by the guy who ordered Deadpool's mouth shut? Pass.

  11. #551
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    As I said, audience review scores mean nothing to me. That you insist that they mean something to you doesn't matter at all to me. I will promptly ignore every future reference you make to such a thing.
    All I was trying to demonstrate is that not everyone thinks like you or even people you talk to. They don’t think like me either. They are generally more positive on a lot of films that I hated too. But that’s the way it is, if we want to accept it or not.

    You are moving the goalposts because you realize that critical scores have hurt your argument.
    What argument was I trying to make? I bet if you think the fact that I pointed out that a majority of critics liked all but one Sony Spider-Man film hurts my argument you didn’t properly understand my argument.

    That says all that needs to be said. You aren't serious about this discussion at all. You'd rather stan for Sony.
    I don’t have any interest “stanning” for either company. If Sony had made a precondition of a new deal 50% of the merchandising take and that Spider-Man can appear in their other films without Feige’s involvement or the like, I would be 100% on Disney’s side. But Sony isn’t the one being unreasonable here.

    Sony's bottom line means nothing to me. I don't work for Sony. I don't stan for Sony. I enjoyed seeing Spider-Man in movies interacting with the Avengers and fighting Thanos. I was hoping to see that continue in the future with Spider-Man teaming up with the Fantastic Four and fighting Doctor Doom.

    Spider-Man vs. Venom being produced by the guy who ordered Deadpool's mouth shut? Pass.
    So, your argument is basically we should be sympathetic to Disney trying to offset their opportunity cost by asking for more revenue for films that they don’t currently have the rights to make and we shouldn’t care that Disney was asking, for that to happen, for Sony to take a deal that wouldn’t benefit them financially at all? And I’m the one “stanning” for a company?

    For the record, I would prefer Spider-Man in Feige’s hands to virtually anyone else’s. But that doesn’t mean that I think Feige’s company should have everything they want handed over to them by Sony. I think that both should have come to a deal that made both of them more wealthy and more mutually benefitted.
    Last edited by TheDarman; 09-18-2019 at 02:15 PM.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  12. #552
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    Let’s say Sony makes another Spider-Man film and they make it for the exact same amount they made Spider-Man: Far From Home for ($160 million) and let’s say they spend another $160 million on marketing the film. That makes a grand total of $320 million spent on the film. Now, Sony is likely guessing a Spider-Man film that is decently received, minus the MCU, can turn out around $850 million, or what Venom made (with a 29% Rotten Tomatoes score and many people hating on it, even in pre-release buzz). Now, we multiply that by 66%, or subtract the theaters’ cut. That leaves Sony with a movie that gets back right around $561 million. Subtracting their costs, Sony makes around $241 million.

    Now, let’s say Disney and Sony co-finance a Spider-Man sequel at the same cost. And let’s guess it won’t come out right after another Avengers film so there won’t be that same kind of bump. But people who liked Far From Home will go see it. So, Spider-Man 3 Version 2.0 makes roughly $1.1 billion. Likewise, Sony only spends $160 million on the film. But they also only get half of the proceeds of the film. So, Sony ends up with $363 million back in their pocket after the theaters’ cut and Disney gets their half. That makes them $203 million.

    Sony, even by undervaluing what a decently received Spider-Man flick would do today by giving it Venom levels of revenue, would make more money going it alone than entering into a co-financing agreement. That doesn’t say anything about the fact that giving Disney co-financing rights also gives them rights to the material in the films. Right now, Sony can take Holland’s Spider-Man and basically do a third movie without the MCU because the only things they can’t use from the first two are the MCU characters and mention the connections likewise to the wider universe. They own the versions of the characters in question, including Holland’s Spider-Man because they financed these films completely. If they give Disney anything then, if the next deal comes up for re-negotiation, Sony either makes a new deal or they have to do a hard reboot with the character, because now that version of Spider-Man is co-owned by Disney. So, there are also long-term consequences for them. Sony probably needs to make not just more than $40 million LESS than they would on a film they made themselves to make all that worthwhile.

    But, that's why I expect the final split will be closer to 75/25 and that both companies will recognize that it is in their best interests, respectively, to work something out.
    As for Disney, I’ll also look at the math from their perspective. In July of 2018, Sony’s Spider-Man movies had an off year. So, Disney saw the revenue of all three MCU films for the first time. Ant-Man and the Wasp was a mid-sized hit, garnering $623 million. After the theaters’ cut, Disney saw $411 million come back to them. With marketing and the budget costs attributed, Disney still made just a bit under $100 million off that film. That is almost $100 million that couldn’t be replicated the next year. And, let’s be honest, that’s on the low end.

    With the co-financing deal of 50/50, Disney would’ve seen right around $203 million for Spider-Man’s film this year. That’s more than double what their July Marvel film from the previous year made them. A 50/50 split was something that would’ve really benefitted them.

    However, other configurations would also have made them decent scores off Spider-Man: Far From Home. For example, according to Variety, Sony’s high end was a 75/25 co-financing and revenue split. With 25% of the cost of the film, Disney would’ve been on the hook for roughly $80 million. But, off that $80 million, they would’ve received to them a grand total of $181 million. That would’ve made them a pure profit of $100 million. That would’ve more than offset the opportunity cost of not producing a lower performing Marvel film instead. And it is certainly better than the roughly $37 million they made off Far From Home (with Sony giving them 5% of the total take after the theater cut).
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  13. #553
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    What argument was I trying to make? I bet if you think the fact that I pointed out that a majority of critics liked all but one Sony Spider-Man film hurts my argument you didn稚 properly understand my argument.
    Sony's track record with Spider-Man speaks for itself.

    I don稚 have any interest 都tanning for either company. If Sony had made a precondition of a new deal 50% of the merchandising take and that Spider-Man can appear in their other films without Feige痴 involvement or the like, I would be 100% on Disney痴 side. But Sony isn稚 the one being unreasonable here.
    You literally used a "Disney is ******* Sony" tweet. You're stanning Sony.

    So, your argument is basically we should be sympathetic to Disney trying to offset their opportunity cost by asking for more revenue for films that they don稚 currently have the rights to make and we shouldn稚 care that Disney was asking, for that to happen, for Sony to take a deal that wouldn稚 benefit them financially at all? And I知 the one 都tanning for a company?

    For the record, I would prefer Spider-Man in Feige痴 hands to virtually anyone else痴. But that doesn稚 mean that I think Feige痴 company should have everything they want handed over to them by Sony. I think that both should have come to a deal that made both of them more wealthy and more mutually benefitted.
    I don't work for Disney. I just want to see Spider-Man continue to appear in the MCU. To appear alongside the Fantastic Four. I just don't think this situation is as simple as "Disney = bad, Sony = underdog". These are two gigantic corporations arguing over the film rights to a popular character. I don't care what happens to either of them. (Someone could announce they were buying Sony's film/tv studios tomorrow, and then Spider-Man automatically goes back to Disney/Marvel.)

  14. #554
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    Sony's track record with Spider-Man speaks for itself.
    Agreed. Not all good, not all bad. We’ll have to see how they turn out movie by movie. :P

    You literally used a "Disney is ******* Sony" tweet. You're stanning Sony.
    You’re clearly misunderstanding the point I’m trying to make. I went into great detail on the financial incentives. You can read it if you want, but you clearly have no interest. The gist is merely this, Disney offered a deal that offered Sony no financial benefit for being in business with them. Disney, meanwhile, would’ve gained MORE than enough to have covered up opportunity cost with a revenue split HALF of what they were proposing to Sony. That’s not “stanning” anyone. You just refuse to acknowledge where Sony is coming from by arguing that you don’t care what happens to them, but asked me if I understood why Disney would want more. I’m acknowledging that it was okay for Disney to ask for more, just not that much more. There’s a difference between the two. Deals are supposed to benefit both parties. Maybe not equally, but it has to demonstrate a benefit to Sony too. You wanted them to agree to it in spite of them not receiving a benefit. If that’s not “stanning” Disney, I don’t know what is.

    I don't work for Disney. I just want to see Spider-Man continue to appear in the MCU. To appear alongside the Fantastic Four. I just don't think this situation is as simple as "Disney = bad, Sony = underdog". These are two gigantic corporations arguing over the film rights to a popular character. I don't care what happens to either of them. (Someone could announce they were buying Sony's film/tv studios tomorrow, and then Spider-Man automatically goes back to Disney/Marvel.)
    Except you have shown greater sympathy for Disney’s position and have castrated me as a “Sony stan” for trying to provide their perspective. I want them to work something out. But I think applying pressure to Sony is ridiculous. They can’t accept that deal. It won’t just cost executives jobs; it’ll cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars of money.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  15. #555
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    You池e clearly misunderstanding the point I知 trying to make. I went into great detail on the financial incentives. You can read it if you want, but you clearly have no interest. The gist is merely this, Disney offered a deal that offered Sony no financial benefit for being in business with them. Disney, meanwhile, would致e gained MORE than enough to have covered up opportunity cost with a revenue split HALF of what they were proposing to Sony. That痴 not 都tanning anyone. You just refuse to acknowledge where Sony is coming from by arguing that you don稚 care what happens to them, but asked me if I understood why Disney would want more. I知 acknowledging that it was okay for Disney to ask for more, just not that much more. There痴 a difference between the two. Deals are supposed to benefit both parties. Maybe not equally, but it has to demonstrate a benefit to Sony too. You wanted them to agree to it in spite of them not receiving a benefit. If that痴 not 都tanning Disney, I don稚 know what is.
    You misunderstand. I don't care about the financial situation of large corporations. Most people don't. All they're gonna know is Spider-Man isn't gonna be in a movie with the X-Men. That's what they care about. You can argue numbers and finances all you want, but people not involved in those things don't care about those things. And I think you know this.

    Except you have shown greater sympathy for Disney痴 position and have castrated me as a Sony stan for trying to provide their perspective. I want them to work something out. But I think applying pressure to Sony is ridiculous. They can稚 accept that deal. It won稚 just cost executives jobs; it値l cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars of money.
    I don't work for Sony. I don't care.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •