Page 12 of 42 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 629
  1. #166
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I am sure the first Fantastic Four movie, the first Captain America movie, heck the first Punisher movie with Dolph Lundgren, and why not the first Batman serial in the '40s would be quite keen on hearing of these advantages.
    Do you really need it explained to you how the pent-up demand for a Spider-Man movie would be far greater than the pent-up demand for a Punisher, Captain America or FF movie?

    Do you really need it explained to you that the first FF movie, the first Captain America movie and the first Punisher movie all ranged from mediocre to outright garbage and that good movies do generally tend to out perform bad ones? And do you also need it explained to you that the Captain America movie went direct-to-video in the US as did The Punisher and that movies that actually play in theaters tend to do much better at the box office than ones that go direct to video?

    And do you really need it explained to you that a serial from the '40s doesn't quite have the same advantage as a modern blockbuster? Do you also puzzle over how Richard Donner's Superman was a bigger hit than Superman and the Mole Man? That one was a groundbreaking spectacle and the other was not?

    Let me put it in plainer terms: the first Raimi Spider-Man film was the first A-level, big budget treatment for Spider-Man. It had the advantage of being the first lavish, state of the art Spidey spectacle, one that promised to do the character full justice in live action. The impact of that can never be duplicated. Especially as none of the subsequent films have (wisely so) taken a radically different approach with the character.

    Whether partnered with Marvel Studios or working on their own, Sony is not going to ever going to have a Spider-Man film make the kind of money domestically that the first Raimi film did. They just aren't. But that doesn't mean that that the franchise can't continue to be very successful.

    I'm not against Sony having full control of having Spidey again. Sony did some fine stuff with Spidey before Marvel Studios came along and ITSV proves that they aren't reliant on Marvel to continue to make great Spidey films. But both parties should see the wisdom in extending their partnership for at least another couple of films and in making a smoother transition for fans. But hey, whatever happens, happens.

  2. #167
    Mighty Member Exciter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,832

    Default

    I知 okay with losing the whole 的ron Boy storyline. To me, it felt like the equivalent of making Superman inspired by and the protege of, say, Hawkman - both good characters, but one is vastly superior and should not be subordinated to the other.

    The MCU Spider-Man never felt like Spider-Man to me.
    Age of Marvels and DC Next Dawn - Fan Made Solicitation Games, make your pulls now! Want back story? Check the Wiki!

  3. #168
    Benefactor / Malefactor H-E-D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,617

    Default

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...ivorce-1233490

    Looks like it wasn't just a negotiation tactic.

  4. #169
    Mighty Member Spider-Chan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    That sounds pretty definitive. And that things got ugly between them.

    One reassuring thing: expect Lord & Miller to be pretty much in charge of the next movies.

  5. #170
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevinroc View Post
    They made a pretty big deal about Mahershala Ali being cast as Blade. So I'd say "yes".
    Well, now, sure, but back in the day, Blade wasn't a well known character. It's actually sort of shocking that he was given a film at all.

  6. #171
    Benefactor / Malefactor H-E-D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exciter View Post
    I’m okay with losing the whole “Iron Boy” storyline. To me, it felt like the equivalent of making Superman inspired by and the protege of, say, Hawkman - both good characters, but one is vastly superior and should not be subordinated to the other.

    The MCU Spider-Man never felt like Spider-Man to me.
    I know what you mean. Homecoming got a lot of love from most of the people around me but it never quite clicked for me. It was fine, sure, but it felt half-baked. Didn't feel like Peter had a meaningful arc, it didn't feel like it mattered to Peter's journey, really. Far From Home, I loved, and I think a huge part of that was that Tony Stark was not in the movie. I never thought TH and RDJr had spectacular screen chemistry or that the relationship between the two was especially well done. We worked better to me as a martyr than as a living mentor.

  7. #172
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H-E-D View Post
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...ivorce-1233490

    Looks like it wasn't just a negotiation tactic.
    "Everything is fine" said Sony, as they sent out a number of tweets about their #1 film franchise in the middle of the night.

  8. #173
    Benefactor / Malefactor H-E-D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider-Chan View Post
    That sounds pretty definitive. And that things got ugly between them.

    One reassuring thing: expect Lord & Miller to be pretty much in charge of the next movies.
    I don't really know if I expect them to get involved in the live action side of things, but that would be a pretty solid pair of creative hands to have on-board. Don't want to over-credit them for Spider-Verse, though. Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman, Christina Steinberg, there was a whole creative host assembled on that movie.

  9. #174
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    586

    Default

    While many of us are blaming Sony, anyone who read the Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter articles would be made aware that Sony was the one who wanted to continue the partnership as is. What that meant was Disney kept the merchandising rights for the character and would finance and get all of the money from any Avengers movies featuring the web-head, while Sony would continue to finance and keep the money from any features they made (aside from 5% from the first dollar that was real profit to Sony and upwards going back to Disney). Disney, however, wanted more than that. Disney wanted to share production responsibilities and the rewards with Sony equally on top of what it was already getting. In short, while Disney would assume 50% of the risk related to making a movie about Spider-Man, they’d also get 50% of the reward.

    This was, simply put, a bad move for Sony. If they took it, a character that they would essentially get $700 million out of, no matter what, would only garner them around $600 million at the max. And, yes, the risk would be partially assumed by Disney, but that is still money lost. For example, a good rule of thumb is that three times the budget of any movie makes a movie profitable. Spider-Man: Far From Home was made for $160 million, and made over $1.1 billion so far. In terms of profit, based on these very basic rules admittedly, Far From Home made the studio a healthy take of $620 million more than it needed to break even (and probably something on the order of $400 million in profit). Now, if Sony had only had to front $80 million, they still wouldn’t have started making profit after the same dollar amount because Disney also gets half the take. And, then, Sony has to split the remaining amount past that into two. Far From Home goes from a $400 million profit movie to around a $200 million profit movie. That’s still good—but hardly the kind of thing that a studio executive would get lauded for doing for their studio.

    Sony was right to not take that deal. I would’ve rightly called them ludicrous for pulling such a move. Especially if Disney wasn’t planning on cutting Sony in on the market share for merchandising or Avengers flicks (and, let’s face it, the idea is laughable), someone would deserve to lose their job if they made that deal.

    On the flip side, it sadly makes sense why Disney would want to do it. While I think the move is greedy, it does mean that Disney loses one Marvel film a year in output. And that’s every two years with how much Sony wants to make a new Spider-Man film. With Disney recently acquiring all these other properties that they get 100% of the take of, it makes sense that Disney would want a little something extra to make it worth their while to let their producer make another studio’s movies every other year. So, while I think Disney is 100% to blame for the deal falling through, it isn’t like I don’t understand the motivation behind the moves they made. It makes sense. There is an opportunity cost associated with making new Spider-Man movies set in the MCU.

    So, what happens now? For now, Spider-Man will remain at home with Sony. My best guess is that Sony will start tying in their other Marvel properties to Tom Holland’s Spider-Man franchise. It’s easily their most profitable franchise yet. Joining Spider-Man with Venom might even be an event on the level of the first Avengers with how well their recent films both did, especially in China. I wouldn’t count Sony out on this front either. They have movies revolving around Morbius (a vampire), Black Cat (a thief that has been a good foil to Spider-Man), and Kraven the Hunter (said to revolve around Kraven’s Last Hunt) in the pipeline too. The guys who made Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse are developing material for TV set in this universe too. And Tom Holland’s Spider-Man franchise has not one, but two sequels slated for development. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were back-to-back sequels that shot for July of 2021 and July of 2022 in release date. The last two Spider-Man films were about placing him in the MCU—the next two will be about expanding his own corner in the universe Feige helped create for them.

    The last phrase might seem weird, but bear with me. In Sony’s own statement, they said that they had appreciated the work Feige had done on Spider-Man and that the path he started them on was one “which we will continue on.” That seems to indicate that Sony has the ability to continue to develop the version of Spider-Man that appeared in the MCU and will, thusly, be able to build out their own corner of the MCU with the character. This is weird, but it seems that there is no way to remove Sony’s universe of characters, as long as they connect to Holland’s Spider-Man, from the MCU. And, indeed, I’m betting Sony is counting on that as audiences continue to show up for MCU fare.

    This also seems to me that Sony and Marvel are merely taking a break—they aren’t broken up. Feige will probably still be close to the production of these movies. After all, they are going to be perceived by the audience, and realistically be constructed as MCU installments. Once Disney feels like they want Spider-Man back in the MCU bad enough to interact with characters like the X-Men and the like, they will probably start talks again. And Sony, I’m sure, will welcome the interactions with those characters to further legitimize their own universe. It’s more like when two people, whom you know love each other, break up to evaluate where they are at more appropriately and then come back later when the timing is better.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  10. #175
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    Let me put it in plainer terms: the first Raimi Spider-Man film was the first A-level, big budget treatment for Spider-Man. It had the advantage of being the first lavish, state of the art Spidey spectacle, one that promised to do the character full justice in live action. The impact of that can never be duplicated. Especially as none of the subsequent films have (wisely so) taken a radically different approach with the character.
    I remember the massive hype leading up to Spider-Man. Hero Hype did maybe a 2 year countdown or something. Big budget spectacle and decades of pent up demand for one of North America's hottest property. Yeah no way is any Spider-Man movie after Raimi's is going to beat the adjusted domestic box office gross. Even unadjusted is going to be difficult.

  11. #176
    Niffleheim
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    6,897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H-E-D View Post
    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...ivorce-1233490

    Looks like it wasn't just a negotiation tactic.


    Sony has given their response it's finally over.
    Last edited by Tofali; 08-21-2019 at 12:16 AM.

  12. #177
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colossus1980 View Post
    I remember the massive hype leading up to Spider-Man. Hero Hype did maybe a 2 year countdown or something. Big budget spectacle and decades of pent up demand for one of North America's hottest property. Yeah no way is any Spider-Man movie after Raimi's is going to beat the adjusted domestic box office gross. Even unadjusted is going to be difficult.
    Raimi's Spiderman was better written with higher quality filmmaking to the later reboots. Somebody pointed it out already. fans only care about the ''art''. Raimi's Spiderman ended in 2007, the best defense of not liking Holland's Ironboy comes more from the Spiderverse.

  13. #178
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    While many of us are blaming Sony, anyone who read the Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter articles would be made aware that Sony was the one who wanted to continue the partnership as is. What that meant was Disney kept the merchandising rights for the character and would finance and get all of the money from any Avengers movies featuring the web-head, while Sony would continue to finance and keep the money from any features they made (aside from 5% from the first dollar that was real profit to Sony and upwards going back to Disney). Disney, however, wanted more than that. Disney wanted to share production responsibilities and the rewards with Sony equally on top of what it was already getting. In short, while Disney would assume 50% of the risk related to making a movie about Spider-Man, they’d also get 50% of the reward.
    Forbes is reporting Disney got greedy, so its Disney's fault not Sony. Yet its all been spined in the media Sony are the fools for ending the deal. Sony is getting demonized, that is expected. We already know how biased things are. The backlash is hardly real, what's real is how Spiderman fans are reacting quite positively to the news.

  14. #179
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Forbes is reporting Disney got greedy, so its Disney's fault not Sony. Yet its all been spined in the media Sony are the fools for ending the deal. Sony is getting demonized, that is expected. We already know how biased things are. The backlash is hardly real, what's real is how Spiderman fans are reacting quite positively to the news.
    are they? the response from the audience seems overwhelmingly negative but i have no way of accurately gauging that
    troo fan or death

  15. #180
    Astonishing Member Derek Metaltron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    4,767

    Default



    Confirmed much of what I said earlier. Also that the original article is written by a well known Sony lackey

Posting Permissions

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