Spider-Man forced out of the MCU due to failed Sony Deal

[80sbaby]

I'd say the reality is that the companies don't care. I only ever see inflation mentioned in discussions online. When a company is talking about their numbers, they generally don't compare the inflated numbers from last quarter/year/cycle to what they're currently doing. I don't see it as relative since, again, we don't know that Spider-Man 3 would have made that same amount today as it did back then.

[Frobisher]

This is incredibly revisionist

1. Spider-Man 3 did not kill the franchise and anyone who thinks that is incredibly misinformed. You want to know how much confidence Sony had in moving forward? Tobey McGuire signed the biggest actors contract in history at the time for Spider-Man 4, well after the third film came out. They were ready to go. The problem was Raimi couldn’t get a script that he was satisfied with and he knew that they were rebooting once he was done because all the actors were publicly talking about how they were drained by the films. When Raimi told Sony he couldn’t do a script they moved on.

2. Disney had a good deal. They exchanged oversight from Feige for Spider-Man, one of the world’s biggest characters, in their films. That’s not a massive investment from Disney. Literally all the financing came from Sony, the crew came from Sony, the contracts came from Sony, the production came from Sony. Feige who Disney already employed was told to give them oversite.

It would cost billions for Disney to get Spider-Man from Sony, having Feige involved is in fact virtually nothing in comparison to that

You can tell Spider-man 3 didn’t kill the franchise purely on the grounds that Sony still have it, and literally released a Spider-man film this year.

[XPac]

You can tell Spider-man 3 didn’t kill the franchise purely on the grounds that Sony still have it, and literally released a Spider-man film this year.

Spider-Man 3 is very similar to X-Men 3. It did really really well at the box office, but at the same time garnered enough criticism from the critics and audience to actually damage the franchise despite the box office success. You can sort of out Dawn of Justice in a similar boat.

WB, Fox and Sony seem to have the same problem of being unable to string together more than 2-3 movies before inevitably putting out one which generates that sort of backlash. That's why what marvel pulled off is so amazing. They managed to pull off 2 dozen without being on the receiving end of a momentum killing movie.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'd say the reality is that the companies don't care. I only ever see inflation mentioned in discussions online. When a company is talking about their numbers, they generally don't compare the inflated numbers from last quarter/year/cycle to what they're currently doing. I don't see it as relative since, again, we don't know that Spider-Man 3 would have made that same amount today as it did back then.

There's a reason for that.... Inflation means that the dollar amount today is higher, so why would you bring up that despite holding the record on something those dollars are actually worth less and it's not an apple to apples comparison.

[Star_Jammer]

No that's different. Gone With the Wind was released at a time when the industry was different, there was no home release, and films stayed in theaters forever.

It's perfectly valid to acknowledge inflation with a movie from 2002, 2004 and 2007 in a comparison with films 10 years later. It's also ridiculous to think that the international market, particularly with the Chinese market opening up wouldn't have pushed those films over a billion. The difference between Spider-Man 1-3 and Far From Home is essentially that market and even the safest estimates of inflation.

It's kinda ridiculous to act like those films weren't the equivalent to Avengers level films back in the 2000's.

2002 to 2012 is a world of a difference in accessible other entertainment and other costs tied to movie-going.

[80sbaby]

2002 to 2012 is a world of a difference in accessible other entertainment and other costs tied to movie-going.

This is my point as well.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Do either of you really think that the current market which has consistently skewed in the same direction indicates that it’s MORE difficult now for a film to gross a billion?

Like I getting like that your favorite film series is breaking records, but there was a time when being a generic summer blockbuster didn’t get you close to a billion. Go back to Titanic, you’re really going to argue that Far Far Home was anywhere near as big as that was?

[Star_Jammer]

Do either of you really think that the current market which has consistently skewed in the same direction indicates that it’s MORE difficult now for a film to gross a billion?

Like I getting like that your favorite film series is breaking records, but there was a time when being a generic summer blockbuster didn’t get you close to a billion. Go back to Titanic, you’re really going to argue that Far Far Home was anywhere near as big as that was?

I don't think that anyone has argued FFH was more popular than Titanic.

At least I'm saying you have to consider all factors (or at least acknowledge they exist, since calculating everything would be rather difficult), and wonder if Titanic would be as popular...today.

[80sbaby]

Do either of you really think that the current market which has consistently skewed in the same direction indicates that it’s MORE difficult now for a film to gross a billion?

Like I getting like that your favorite film series is breaking records, but there was a time when being a generic summer blockbuster didn’t get you close to a billion. Go back to Titanic, you’re really going to argue that Far Far Home was anywhere near as big as that was?

I'm not saying that FFH is bigger than Titanic. I'm saying it's not a foregone conclusion that it would do the exact same numbers now. There are other factors to consider, as Star Jammer said. So just using "inflation" to say that older films would be as financially successful (or even more so) today is flawed.

[Jokerz79]

Do either of you really think that the current market which has consistently skewed in the same direction indicates that it’s MORE difficult now for a film to gross a billion?

Like I getting like that your favorite film series is breaking records, but there was a time when being a generic summer blockbuster didn’t get you close to a billion. Go back to Titanic, you’re really going to argue that Far Far Home was anywhere near as big as that was?

I'd say its harder because many can pirate films day of release and stay home unlike 15 years ago.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'd say its harder because many can pirate films day of release and stay home unlike 15 years ago.

Statistically it's not. 20 years ago a film to cross 1 billion needed to be the most culturally relevant film of the year, it's song needed to be a number 1 hit, it had to have two of the hottest up and coming young actors ever, it had to have groundbreaking tech, it needed to play in theaters forever, it needed to viewed as an Oscar caliber film. That's what it took to get a billion. Now 5 films a summer do it.

Do you know how many pre 2000 films made a billion? 3. Titanic, Jurassic Park and Phantom Menace. Three of the most culturally relevant films of all time as far as anticipation and being remembered.

You know how many did it in the 2000's? 4. Avatar (groundbreaking 3D technology), The Dark Knight (one of the most culturally relevant superhero films ever), Return of the King (final chapter to one of the most important film trilogies ever) and Pirates of the Carribbean 2.

So we went from 3 films in the 90's (the first decade it happened), 4 films in the 2000's, and over 30 in the 2010's.

Yeah it's much harder today.... Anyone thinks that isn't inflation is kidding themselves.

[useridgoeshere]

Do either of you really think that the current market which has consistently skewed in the same direction indicates that it’s MORE difficult now for a film to gross a billion?

Like I getting like that your favorite film series is breaking records, but there was a time when being a generic summer blockbuster didn’t get you close to a billion. Go back to Titanic, you’re really going to argue that Far Far Home was anywhere near as big as that was?

This feels like an anti-Sony point. If it's easy to get to a billion these days and they've only done it once without Marvel's help, that must say something about their skills.

It's been more common for Disney and Universal to make $1-billion movies, but based on results, it's actually been harder for WB and impossible for Sony to reach $1-billion in the past 6 years. So the data suggests Sony would've found a way to fail with SM 1-3 the same way they failed with every other non-Marvel movie in the past 6 years.

[XPac]

Statistically it's not. 20 years ago a film to cross 1 billion needed to be the most culturally relevant film of the year, it's song needed to be a number 1 hit, it had to have two of the hottest up and coming young actors ever, it had to have groundbreaking tech, it needed to play in theaters forever, it needed to viewed as an Oscar caliber film. That's what it took to get a billion. Now 5 films a summer do it.

Do you know how many pre 2000 films made a billion? 3. Titanic, Jurassic Park and Phantom Menace. Three of the most culturally relevant films of all time as far as anticipation and being remembered.

You know how many did it in the 2000's? 4. Avatar (groundbreaking 3D technology), The Dark Knight (one of the most culturally relevant superhero films ever), Return of the King (final chapter to one of the most important film trilogies ever) and Pirates of the Carribbean 2.

So we went from 3 films in the 90's (the first decade it happened), 4 films in the 2000's, and over 30 in the 2010's.

Yeah it's much harder today.... Anyone thinks that isn't inflation is kidding themselves.

In the least, it might be fair to argue it's harder for SONY today since they only seem capable of doing it with Marvels help.

[G. Boney]

You can tell Spider-man 3 didn’t kill the franchise purely on the grounds that Sony still have it, and literally released a Spider-man film this year.

It didn't kill the franchise of course, but someone correct me if I'm wrong: Doesn't Sony have to keep making Spidey movies if they want to keep the film rights?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

This feels like an anti-Sony point. If it's easy to get to a billion these days and they've only done it once without Marvel's help, that must say something about their skills.

It's been more common for Disney and Universal to make $1-billion movies, but based on results, it's actually been harder for WB and impossible for Sony to reach $1-billion in the past 6 years. So the data suggests Sony would've found a way to fail with SM 1-3 the same way they failed with every other non-Marvel movie in the past 6 years.

These are the Marvel films that crossed a billion:

Avengers:

Iron Man 3 (billed as the follow up to Avengers)

Avengers 2.

Captain America Civil War (basically an Avengers flick)

Black Panther (billed as the lead into Avengers 3)

Avengers 3

Captain Marvel (billed as the lead in to Avengers 4)

Avengers 4

Far From Home (billed as the follow up to Avengers 4)

So basically Marvel has Avengers and then can get a few other films over the hump if they can directly tie it to the Avengers and make people feel like they need to see it as part of the most recent Avengers film. So in there entire library, they have one franchise that they can actually leverage to make a billion and anything else needs to be the movie directly preceding or following it and marketed as being an important film to that particular property.

Sony, doesn't have the Avengers.