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

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Y

The Director didn't like Spider-Man 3 so it was a problem how's that for a fact.

Spider-Man made money but it was coming off one of the best Superhero films ever Spider-Man 2. But it has not been remembered well even by it's creators and the biggest issue was Sony meddling and shoving characters into it same story as Amazing Spider-Man 2 and I will be dollar of donuts it will happen with Holland's 3rd Spidey film as Sony is hellbent on creating their Spiderverse.

How’s that for a fact? It’s an irrelevant fact because I’m not debating whether the director liked it. I’m debating that it killed the franchise. It didn’t. Sony was so confident moving forward they gave their lead actor the highest grossing contract in movie history to move forward with a sequel. That contract came out a year later after all the reviews and reception was in.

You can’t credibly claim it was the reason the franchise died and nothing supports that.

I didn’t think the movie was that good either. But I’m not self indulgent enough to think it ended to franchise in spite of all the information we have

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

See, this is why many are actually HAPPY that marvel is making these movies ... they can actually get it done. No reboots, no excuses ... the movies are simply made.

Why is it exactly that marvel can put out more movies than its peers with greater sucess and a whole lot less drama? Yeah, they might lose a director but they simply get another and the show goes on. The other guys are just a mess with Tranks and the Snyders and the Raimis generating more conversation about what's going on behind the camera than in front of it.

Marvel has multiple franchises they run. Spider-Man is one. They stopped making Iron Man solos as soon as Downey started talking about retiring and could only get him in team ups. Evans wanted out and now Cap is on hold after 3 films. The difference is they own Guardians and Black Panther, and Ant Man, and Thor. So they have more to make movies on. Guardians was on hold for awhile until the Gunn situation. You just won’t notice because of everything else. It kinda helps owning a company of characters that spawned 100’s of comic titles over the years

[Jokerz79]

Y

How’s that for a fact? It’s an irrelevant fact because I’m not debating whether the director liked it. I’m debating that it killed the franchise. It didn’t. Sony was so confident moving forward they gave their lead actor the highest grossing contract in movie history to move forward with a sequel. That contract came out a year later after all the reviews and reception was in.

You can’t credibly claim it was the reason the franchise died and nothing supports that.

I didn’t think the movie was that good either. But I’m not self indulgent enough to think it ended to franchise in spite of all the information we have

One if the Director calls it bad it's a safe bet you can call it bad and be right.



Two Sony wasn't confident hence also planning a reboot and Sony hacks showed they were more interested in rebooting than going forward with Raimi but went forward out of obligation and because it was a popular series even with the last film being met with mixed reactions but were grateful when Raimi backed out telling them to Reboot like they want instead of wasting money on developing a film which would likely not happen since he really didn't want to make it.


Franchises don't consider rebooting unless a mistake was made.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

One if the Director calls it bad it's a safe bet you can call it bad and be right.



Two Sony wasn't confident hence also planning a reboot and Sony hacks showed they were more interested in rebooting than going forward with Raimi but went forward out of obligation and because it was a popular series even with the last film being met with mixed reactions but were grateful when Raimi backed out telling them to Reboot like they want instead of wasting money on developing a film which would likely not happen since he really didn't want to make it.


Franchises don't consider rebooting unless a mistake was made.

1. Well I’m not arguing whether it was bad or not. It’s subjective. But feel free to spend cycles arguing a point I’m not really arguing.

2. No studio is going to give their actor the biggest contract in film history on a film they aren’t confident on. You are flat out wrong here.

3, they wanted to reboot because they knew they were losing all the actors.

Sorry you can make a bunch of biased comments and call Sony hacks all you want, but we know exactly what happened in this process. They didn’t reboot because of Spider-Man 3. It was a combo of the director not having a script and actors trying to move on. They had a lot invested in a film you claim they weren’t confident in

[Theleviathan]

I’m sorry but you are a liar who makes things up and doesn’t use facts. Your opinions aren’t facts.

YOU said Spider-Man 3 was panned. It has a fresh rating on RT, it has far more positive than negative reviews, the audience score that is split right down the middle. So no you are factually wrong. I don’t care that you didn’t like it. It means nothing standing against reality.

This is your problem. You don’t know how to objectively look at the reality of the situation so you defer to your own opinion and conjecture. Again you are wrong, every objective metric and statement backs up that you are wrong. You rambling and shouting your opinion doesn’t change that.

It’s a waste of time. The facts are not on your side and you transparently avoid them. You’re creating a made up fantasy narrative to justify your opinion.

Everything in your last post was made up opinion that you can’t substantiate

See, you sorta proved my point. My entire first paragraph was facts (From RT, a source you also quoted, you can look them up) and, because they put Spiderman 3's RT numbers in context, you threw a tantrum in this post. It shows that saying 51% is somehow significant is nonsense. Many bad movies, credited with helping to kill franchises, actually had HIGHER audience scores than Spiderman 3. Even Amazing Spiderman 2, which you implied killed the franchise, was better received by some metrics. This post is a tantrum and shows that most of this rant you went on should be directed at a mirror.

Sony planned a reboot after Spiderman 3. That's the only fact I need, but I provided plenty of others too. Giving Maguire a deal they ultimately didn't pay him for is irrelevant. You know what they DID pay for after Spiderman 3? A freaking reboot.

Your ranting, misleading response to facts validates how I've characterized your approach. I don't know why you're so emotional about this, but you're not even remotely near having a fair discussion here.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

See, you sorta proved my point. My entire first paragraph was facts (From RT, a source you also quoted, you can look them up) and, because they put Spiderman 3's RT numbers in context, you threw a tantrum in this post. It shows that saying 51% is somehow significant is nonsense. Many bad movies, credited with helping to kill franchises, actually had HIGHER audience scores than Spiderman 3. Even Amazing Spiderman 2, which you implied killed the franchise, was better received by some metrics. This post is a tantrum and shows that most of this rant you went on should be directed at a mirror.

Sony planned a reboot after Spiderman 3. That's the only fact I need, but I provided plenty of others too. Giving Maguire a deal they ultimately didn't pay him for is irrelevant. You know what they DID pay for after Spiderman 3? A freaking reboot.

Your ranting, misleading response to facts validates how I've characterized your approach. I don't know why you're so emotional about this, but you're not even remotely near having a fair discussion here.

I proved none of your points friend. You said the film was panned by critics. The RT reviews prove you wrong. You spent a paragraph making spin to justify what the facts and statistics say you are incorrect about

It is kind of interesting watching someone post quotes and stats that directly contradicts their points and trying to argue otherwise and hoping nobody actually notices.

You said it was panned.your words. I didn’t put them in your mouth. We’re there more positive or negative reviews for this film you said was panned? There is a correct answer. That answer suggests you have been misleading and are mischaracterizing the reception.

You mischaracterize things. You tossed out a quote saying it proved Raimi thought Spider-Man 3 was the reason he couldn’t come up with script. Yet in your quote, Raimi only mentions Spider-Msn 3 as his motivation to do the film. He sites his own personal failure for what he couldn’t get a script. You mischaracterized Raimi’s quote to suit your argument.

You’ve done this consistently the entire thread.

There are still several facts I brought up that you refuse to go near.

There’s only so many ways I can take your approach.

[Theleviathan]

I proved none of your points friend.

Well, it appears you don't know what a fact is. And that you have no interest in a fair discussion.

Spiderman 3 is solidly in the same critic rating range as films like Last Stand, Amazing Spiderman 2, and X-men Apocalypse. "Panned" is subjective, but I stand by it. Being in the same class as those movies is being panned. It's not a raging dumpster fire like, say, Suicide Squad or Green Lantern, but the RT rating by critics is weak. The Audience score is even weaker and stacks up with turds like Green Lantern.

You keep saying Sony "invested" in Maguire. Well....no, they didn't. They agreed to a contract but they didn't invest any actual money. In fact, you'd have a stronger argument that Spiderman 3 wasn't to blame if the other, contradictory, claim you make is true: had Maguire just walked away they had their reason to reboot. In the end, they rebooted because the person they gave one more shot - Raimi - backed out. Meanwhile, Sony had concurrently been planning a reboot. You know, the sorta thing that doesn't happen following successful films.

And Raimi? His motivation was "unhappiness" with his prior film. How that weighed on his failure to get Spiderman 4 is speculation, but we know he connected his feeling of failure with three as motivation for four. It's perfectly reasonable to think that failure weighed too heavily. Just as it's reasonable for you to think it was something else that weighed heavily. Neither of us know.

But I do know this.....Spiderman 3 was not well received. Had it been at the same level of cultural appreciation, critical response, and audience adoration of 2...."reboot" would've never been considered by Sony. Much less planned. Much less actually enacted.

[TheCape]

One if the Director calls it bad it's a safe bet you can call it bad and be right.



Two Sony wasn't confident hence also planning a reboot and Sony hacks showed they were more interested in rebooting than going forward with Raimi but went forward out of obligation and because it was a popular series even with the last film being met with mixed reactions but were grateful when Raimi backed out telling them to Reboot like they want instead of wasting money on developing a film which would likely not happen since he really didn't want to make it.


Franchises don't consider rebooting unless a mistake was made.

Meh, Raimi can say whatever he wants, i still enjoyed it his movie in spite of his flaws, even if quality wise is a step down.

As for what happened with Spider-Man, i maintain my opinion, MCU Spidey lost all his luster to me after Civil War and i had little interest into seeing much of that version going forward, but i do sympathize with the fans that enjoyed then and wanted to see more of it.

[Beaddle]

Meh, Raimi can say whatever he wants, i still enjoyed it his movie in spite of his flaws, even if quality wise is a step down.

As for what happened with Spider-Man, i maintain my opinion, MCU Spidey lost all his luster to me after Civil War and i had little interest into seeing much of that version going forward, but i do sympathize with the fans that enjoyed then and wanted to see more of it.

he had no arc in civil war to lose his luster. he did a cameo.

[XPac]

Marvel has multiple franchises they run. Spider-Man is one. They stopped making Iron Man solos as soon as Downey started talking about retiring and could only get him in team ups. Evans wanted out and now Cap is on hold after 3 films. The difference is they own Guardians and Black Panther, and Ant Man, and Thor. So they have more to make movies on. Guardians was on hold for awhile until the Gunn situation. You just won’t notice because of everything else. It kinda helps owning a company of characters that spawned 100’s of comic titles over the years

Yes, marvel has multiple franchises ... essentially they're juggling 4 times as much stuff and doing a better job of it too.

Sony wanted to do multiple franchises too ...they wanted a Venom spinoff from Spider-Man 3, and a sinister 6 spin off from Amazing Spider-Man. But it's hard to build a multiverse around a core franchise which is constantly being rebooted. Sony found out even before WB that marvel makes it look easy.

And yes, marvel had actors who left too. They all had big planned send offs, and everything went accordingly to plan. Not exactly comparable to Spider-Man 4.

[TheCape]

he had no arc in civil war to lose his luster. he did a cameo.

No, but he has a couple of cool moments and scenes that made me excited about his next movie. Little by little i was getting dissapointed thought, i get why people like those movies and they aren't bad, but it wasn't what i wanted.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Well, it appears you don't know what a fact is. And that you have no interest in a fair discussion.

Spiderman 3 is solidly in the same critic rating range as films like Last Stand, Amazing Spiderman 2, and X-men Apocalypse. "Panned" is subjective, but I stand by it. Being in the same class as those movies is being panned. It's not a raging dumpster fire like, say, Suicide Squad or Green Lantern, but the RT rating by critics is weak. The Audience score is even weaker and stacks up with turds like Green Lantern.

You keep saying Sony "invested" in Maguire. Well....no, they didn't. They agreed to a contract but they didn't invest any actual money. In fact, you'd have a stronger argument that Spiderman 3 wasn't to blame if the other, contradictory, claim you make is true: had Maguire just walked away they had their reason to reboot. In the end, they rebooted because the person they gave one more shot - Raimi - backed out. Meanwhile, Sony had concurrently been planning a reboot. You know, the sorta thing that doesn't happen following successful films.

And Raimi? His motivation was "unhappiness" with his prior film. How that weighed on his failure to get Spiderman 4 is speculation, but we know he connected his feeling of failure with three as motivation for four. It's perfectly reasonable to think that failure weighed too heavily. Just as it's reasonable for you to think it was something else that weighed heavily. Neither of us know.

But I do know this.....Spiderman 3 was not well received. Had it been at the same level of cultural appreciation, critical response, and audience adoration of 2...."reboot" would've never been considered by Sony. Much less planned. Much less actually enacted.

I already gave you a list of indisputable and well documented facts. Raimi stated his motivation. You twisted it and assumed alternatives one for your own purposes. This is going nowhere, it's like talking to someone who doesn't know to have a fact based argument.

[WebLurker]

Sony did not slaughter the spiderman series anymore than warner brothers has slaughtered batman. who still makes Batman movies?

Kinda hard for Warner Bros. to not make Batman movies, since they own the film rights. Different scenario from Spider-Man, where those rights were contracted out to a second company. Besides, at the end of the day, the company is made up of people, who come and go over time. When we say that we trust (or do not trust) Warner Bros, Marvel Studios, Fox, or whoever, we mean we don't trust the employees. While I might point out Sony's mismanagement of the franchise in the past (SM3 and 4, the ASM movies), that's just past events. It's more important how the company is now then how it was then. Heck, I think Venom is a stronger argument then SM3 that Sony doesn't have a handle on making the franchise work, since that's the version of the company that'll be in charge of the next Spidey solo. (Same thing with citing the first two Raimi movies as why Sony is a better choice then Marvel Studios; companies change and the current iteration is what's relevant.)

also would any batman fan trust disney over warner brothers when it comes to batman, despite batman been a mixed bag at WB much like X-Men was at fox?

??????????????

Sony were labelled the bad guys by the bias disney news feed media.

And all the unhappy users on Twitter, where they in on the conspiracy, too?

People have seen saying there is a bias to marvel studios for years now and right now, its so obvious even the strongest mcu supporters don't even deny it anymore that MCU gets too much of a pass. this sony failed deal just proves it again even this year alone for the 4th time.

Dunno what to say to that.

The overall reception is Sony made the best spiderman movies and MCU spidey iron boy series does not measure up.

I don't think the MCU Spider-Man movies are as unpopular as you think. I've also found that Sony's incompetence with the franchise has overshadowed their (legitimate) successes, based on what I've seen online.

[Kaled]

Something I have wonder about and the disagreement between Sony and Disney has brought it to my mind again. The agreement was made with Marvel before Disney bought Marvel and when one company buys another they are under no obligation to honor any contracts Marvel made with other studios. Same with any other business. I worked at a convenience store and when it was bought by someone else he had to get new contracts with the supplies. He did not have to honor the ones the old owner made. The new owner either made new contracts with them or went with someone else or handled the supplies himself. If Disney could doe this why did they not say the movie rights are back to use and if you want to keep making movies with the characters then you will have to make a new contract with us.

[Midvillian1322]

Something I have wonder about and the disagreement between Sony and Disney has brought it to my mind again. The agreement was made with Marvel before Disney bought Marvel and when one company buys another they are under no obligation to honor any contracts Marvel made with other studios. Same with any other business. I worked at a convenience store and when it was bought by someone else he had to get new contracts with the supplies. He did not have to honor the ones the old owner made. The new owner either made new contracts with them or went with someone else or handled the supplies himself. If Disney could doe this why did they not say the movie rights are back to use and if you want to keep making movies with the characters then you will have to make a new contract with us.

Because that's not how this contract is structured. As long as Sony doesnt break the contract Spiderman is they'res for a long time to come. Rumor is though its non transferable so if Sony ever sold off they're film division rights would revert back. That or they either dont make a movie in X about of time or portray Peter in a way that was stipulated as a no no in the contract. Remember hearing as part of the deal Marvel said Sony couldnt make Peter smoke,do drugs, or be gay etc... Not sure how true that it but makes sense if in the 90s marvel was worried about a movie doing damage the image of one of the top sellers they had.