Who is to blame?
He will remain Spiderman, but without Feige producing it and no MCU content.
Comment has been collapsed.
nice, i was getting tired of good spider-man movies.
we need more trash on the cinemas. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
we need more trash on the cinemas.
There's always Captain Marvel.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey Wonder Woman can be a great character. You know with good writing and good acting so yeah ok.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh I can't really say because I don't have a conclusive view on Sony's big picture when it comes to movies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anything can be made into something great.
There's a reason people now care about Shazam, Captain America, Iron Man and even Aquaman to an extent. Shazam was mocked, Captain America, nah, almost the entire Avengers lineup was a band of C-list heroes. Not to even mention someone like Ant-Man or the Guardians of the Galaxy, who... yikes, were as Z-list as Kite-man.
But entertaining movies made them all household names in the pop culture world.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought Shazam got the least amount of money though.
The lower the budget, the better the film usually. The director will be more experimental, more practical effects will be used and a lack of money will lead attention towards whatever needs the least money, like writing.
There's a reason Endgame was as bland as it was.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah Captain Marvel was just as average as Thor 2 or Iron Man 2. It was nowhere near Justice League level bad, at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting. I consider Thor 2 to be one of the best MCU movies (top-5 probably), and Iron Man 2 the worstest of the worst. Captain Marvel somewhere in between.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people love the last Thor movie and hate the others because of all the slap-stick, on the spot, humour in Ragnorok. I am one of the few that didn't actually like it. It was obvious that the actors were having a fantastic time fooling around, and it took away from it for me because it felt like watching the out takes rather than the main feature at times.
Thor2 was a rehash of the first Thor movie though. That's the main reason it gets so much hate in particular. I liked the first one and I felt the second one was the exact same story all over again with a few tweaks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea same here, me and my friends hated Ragnarok but I get it why everyone else love it. I also didn't like the new Spiderman either because of the humor but surprisingly I loved Deadpool and Deadpool 2.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the difference with Deadpool is that it's all in the script, everything fits in with what's going on around them including the humour. It doesn't affect immersion into the world that you're watching. When watching Ragnorok, you're reminded that they're actors in a studio. I didn't like that. The whole point of watching a movie is to be immersed in the story, same as reading a book. lol.
I haven't seen the new Spiderman yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bottom of the Marvel barrel, sure, but unfortunately not among the worst superhero movies.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, you know any Fantastic4, catwoman,most DC films pretty much anything made before Burton´s Batman.
although, it's better to forget all the superhero movies that came before the 90s
But yeah, for marvel definitly, there's a few clunkers that came during the first phase, that are in many ways outdated even when they came out. Which is why i tend to disagree that Thor 2 and Captain Marvel or Black Panther are of similar quality.
I'm going to shut up now, as i hope not to start a discussion over which super hero is better, when there are far better films that should be promoted and recommended over these
Like for example, the all female reboot of Black Panther called Black Cougar
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I may have seen that on a different site. The plot was certainly much easier to follow...
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually thought Justice League was much better than Captain Marvel.
They had so much potential with her character (Marvel), and that film was the best they could do? She was better in Endgame, and she wasn't even the spot-lighted character. Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 were so bad they don't exist to me. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
At least they tried to be different. Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 pretty much used the usual comic movie pattern. Didn't make them bad but yeah not exactly taking risks.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with that, I think it was slightly better than both sequels probably.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, money is the problem, as usual. They'll eventually figure it out, cos money is probably also the solution.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't say that! You're going to trigger fanboys! You should be calling for Marvel's head! :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently Sony doesn't remember that the superhero movies they made without Feige's involvement kinda sucked
Edit: a bigger concern for me was that Disney put a hold on all X-Men related movies when they bought Fox. Here's hoping it was kinda how they paused everything after Avengers 3, and that they haven't cancelled Deadpool 3
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, a "stalemate" (as the article puts it) is not necessarily final. This could well end up being fake news a negotiating tactic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sony just made the most money they've ever made with a movie and their next move is to think they can strike it on their own. That's quite typical really.
I like Holland in the part, more than I did with the other actors but if they have a Spiderman disconnected from the MCU, they're toast. There is no way the latest movie would have made the box-office it got without Fury, Iron Man and the Endgame tie-in.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yikes. That's some fanboy rage. It's correct that they set a new record. So what? First of all giving away half of that would be kind of like making only ... hmm, about half as much? What exactly is the point in arguing that they will make less money when the alternative also is to make only half as much?
Secondly even the pretty generic Venom was very successful financially. Last but not least people seem to forget that it was Sony and not Disney that made superhero movies the success they are today, earning billions with the Sam Raimi trilogy. So what suggests that they need Marvel to make money?
And they aren't toast without the MCU. If they activate even just some of the 900 Marvel characters they have rights for, they could easily create their own "universe". And that was their plan anyway.
What remains is that the quality would be better within in the MCU. As a company that wouldn't be reason enough for me either to share 50:50 with Disney, while Disney already profits by owning all Spiderman merchandising rights.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol fanboy rage? Look who's talking.
It's just some average joe's opinion, man. You may not agree with it but that doesn't make me a "fanboy" or the opinion "rage". Did I use acronyms or capitalize words or trash anyone? Did I spew 4 paragraphs of word vomit over some non-issue about a movie? Nope.
I was just making the point that they will make way less money if they cut themselves off from the MCU and the way I know that is: all the other Spiderman movies they made before. And what's the point of arguing that? Well what's the point of discarding that argument? Since money is what they're fighting over...
Anyway, relax man. It's just a movie. If you're going to start threads in public forums, people are going to comment in them and sometimes (gasp) they're going to express opinions different than your own, politely. If you can't handle it, maybe don't post. Do you own shares in Sony or did I touch a nerve?
You know.. I couldn't remember why I had you on my ignore list in ESGST. Thanks for reminding me..
Comment has been collapsed.
I came to the conclusion "fanboy rage" because you provided an argument that made no sense and added "That's quite typical really.", which suggests that you had a made up opinion in advance which you just tried to reconfirm for yourself.
Besides, you still didn't manage to explain why exactly money should convince Sony to give Marvel half of the business. Which isn't really surprising because all you have is "and the way I know that is: all the other Spiderman movies they made before".
Let's check the actual facts:
Venom made Sony $856,085,151 worldwide, with no MCU/Disney input at all.
The first Spider-Man made them $821,708,551 in 2002.
Compare with the movies where MCU had its part:
Spider-Man: Homecoming got them $880,166,924.
Spider-Man: Far from Home: $1,109,905,159
Now its up to you to explain how they'd make more money by giving 50% of that revenue to Disney, contrary to making more Spider-Man movies without Marvel. It's not even close. But yeah ... "you know".
Considering your persuading style I appreciate being ignored even better im future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hang on. Disney wanted 50% of the profits, not the gross. The production budget for Spiderman 2001 was $139 million, and the general rule of thumb (though it varies widely) is that marketing is an extra 50%. So the net profit was more like $610 million.
Venom's net profit would likewise be closer to $700 million. Into the SpiderVerse made about $240 million profit
After making a similar adjustment, Homecoming earned about $630 million and Far From Home $870 million.
Amazing Spiderman, on the other hand, only made about $450 million profit, and the sequel less than $300
note that none of these numbers take DVD sales into consideration
Marvel's cut of Homecoming is $44 million and of Far From Home is $55 million - which was certainly worth the boost over the previous movies. But Disney is talking about an extra $275 million and $380 million, respectively, which would leave Sony's cut much closer to what they got for the Amazing Spiderman movies.
Sony's 'problem' is that while they have the rights to all spiderman related characters, That included only one "A" character, Spiderman, and only one "B" character, venom. Just about everyone else is on the "D" list - characters like Morbius or Kraven or Nightwatch (which are currently in production) have just about no name recognition. Without Marvel, they're essentially relegating their superhero movies to also-rans, to B-Movie status.
While it's true that Marvel took on risks with lesser characters too, particularly guardians of the Galaxy and Captain Marvel, at that point the MCU was already established and a huge box-office draw, so the tie-ins were sufficient.
Sony had planned their own universe a while back, but after Amazing Spiderman (1 and 2) didn't do that well, it suddenly seemed like a big risk to have similar budgets for unknown characters, and they re-evaluated their plans, including the deal with Marvel. But then Venom blew past all expectations and Sony got greedy
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't really make a difference if Disney wanted half of the profit or half of the revenue, as their offer included sharing the investments into the movie too. If you take half of the revenue and pay half of the costs you end up with half of the profit. So or so the result is that Disney wants half of the business. And far more if you include merch being 100% theirs now, which they split 50-50 till 2011.
I disagree about the characters being nonames or better said it doesn't necessarily matter, especially as the reputation of characters isn't set into stone.
In my youth Kraven was huge for example and now he isn't. On the other hand Iron Man was considered one of the weaker characters, when they began producing the movies and it was the MCU that changed his standing fundamentally.
Who is to say that this couldn't happen with other characters? All you need is a charismatic actor and a good story.
How can it be that Sony got greedy when they are respecting the deal they had while Disney is the one wanting (even) more?
Comment has been collapsed.
going half in on the costs I must have missed, but that would make it very reasonable.
I mean that Sony got greedy in that they looked at the profits from Venom and figured it's better to keep all the profits (minus 5% licensing fee) on every movie, than if they teemed up with Marvel and took a smaller part of a larger pie (even if it means reducing their own risks)
As for Marvel/Disney, Disney owns the characters, but is stuck with licensing deals it can't get out of. Back when Marvel only made comics, the movie deals they struck weren't particularly good, but they were made shortly after Marvel emerged from bankruptcy, when the company's financial position was still iffy and Isaac Perlmutter still needed to recoup all the money he had sunk into acquiring/saving the company.
Comment has been collapsed.
I came to the conclusion "fanboy rage" because you provided an argument that made no sense
In an argument between two corporations, about money, making an argument that one way or another Sony is going to lose money makes no sense?
and added "That's quite typical really.", which suggests that you had a made up opinion in advance which you just tried to reconfirm for yourself.
It's not typical for corporations which make billions of dollar to bicker over money?
Considering your persuading style I appreciate being ignored even better im future.
Wish granted. And your "persuading style" is so awesome by the way. Calling people names with no basis other than they said something you don't like, going on flaming rants and making assumptions without reading what they actually said. You should run for president.
So long.
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh. Honestly, I'm ok with this. Into the Spiderverse was a stand-alone title, completely separate from Disney and the stale MCU, and I'd argue it was BY FAR the best Spiderman movie in years. Maybe even decades. Can they pull off the same magic with live-action? Maybe.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they make another Spiderman movie, they better bring back the real MJ. Accept no substitutes!
Comment has been collapsed.
given that im getting very very tired of the samey generic cookie-cutter marvel-universe films, this can only be a good thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
No wonder since previous terms sounded really bad for Disney.
Sony is believed to have proposed keeping the arrangement under the current terms, which stipulate that Marvel receives about 5% of first-dollar gross and all merchandising revenues.
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/spider-man-mcu-sony-disney-agreement-1203308069/
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes I agree, that 5% isn't much, but you have to keep in mind:
Marvel sold their rights to Sony, so 5% of Blockbusters is better than 0% of everything Sony does with one of the biggest Hero Marvel has...
And if reports are accurate I don't blame Sony for declining.
Going from 5% of Spiderman Films to 50/50 split on everything (including their Venom and Animated Sequels) sounds like a really bad deal for Sony...
But let's see what is said about that in the coming weeks...
Comment has been collapsed.
You do understand that all merch revenues is actually pretty much? Especially considering that Disney hasn't to risk much by investing in the movie first. The pretty lame Amazing Spiderman 2 generated $200 million in merchandising in 2014, 2016 they sold wares for one billion. So yes, Disney did and does profit. A lot.
Oh, and they also get to include the most popular character in their MCU.
Comment has been collapsed.
Really didn't expect it to be that much. Doesn't sound too bad for them then.
Comment has been collapsed.
Disney makes about $4 billion per year in licensing fees.
Note: the most widely reported numbers are the total purchase price of merchandise, which is the wrong number. Licensing fees are typically around 5%, but that does vary significantly.
Comment has been collapsed.
None of the risk, all of the benefit?
Where's the "bad" part of such a deal?
Comment has been collapsed.
it takes time away from more profitable ventures. Remember, for every Sony movie that Kevin Feige produces, he 'could have' produced a Marvel movie instead.
note that he's still limited by production schedules; while Disney certainly has access to funds that would allow them to make more movies, they set limits to their production schedules so as not to flood the market
Comment has been collapsed.
So... for that they force Sony to make less money than they can make on their own?
Who would say "yes" to the least profitable option.
And then people have the nerve to blame Sony.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have seen some superhero movies over the last 20 years, and often they are good, but nothing I am getting too attached to. It's just popular entertainment, nothing more nothing less. I have no idea how these kinds of news get such a big echo.
Comment has been collapsed.
You just answered yourself. Perhaps you didn't get attached to them but a lot of other people did, so it's a big deal for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't care less, I'm bored with superhero movies
Comment has been collapsed.
You're welcome. The comics are also pretty good but they really developed them well in the show. And it's especially recommended for people who are experiencing superhero fatigue.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've just watched the last episode and had a good time with The Boys (that sounds super gay), I'd like to thank you again for your recommendation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Glad you liked it. The comics are also pretty good and a bit different. It's definitely a change from the usual superheroes stuff.
And that didn't sound gay at all. Just... friendly :P
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the last profitable ip Sony has on their sleeve.which doesnt inspire much trust. sure it was good, but Sony´s track record has turned into a recurring joke around friends, even here we have had the atrocious amazing spider man. it's a matter of time before Sony to return to the path they started like 7 years ago, sp its fun to know, spiderman will likely be on that list :P
since i tend to appreciate terrible movies more than i do mediocre ones, i cant wait to see what they will do with this franchise as well.
im stocked
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean tbf at least amazing Spiderman Peter Parker was more like Peter than Tom "I don't do quips/wisecracks" Holland Spiderman
Comment has been collapsed.
that's not exactly true. Tom Holland's Spiderman is much more like the Spiderman from the '60s and '70s, when he wasn't as confident, when he felt he was in over his head. Andrew Garfield was more like the Spiderman from the '80s and '90s, when Peter Parker was more self-assured and settled into his Spiderman alter-ego.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tom Holland is playing more a skrull Peter Parker in the end and the fact we have the same J. Jonah Jameson Actor as Tobey Spiderman doesn't help. Even when Partker wasn't confident, he was probably still smart enough to hang out with Hank Pym, Hank McCoy and the other Eggheads that aren't known womanizing alcoholics.
Comment has been collapsed.
Way too many loot crates to win, both for Sony and Disney, so they will find a solution or better, billions of solutions.
It looks like the James Gunn situation again, Disney overreacting, then coming to senses.
Comment has been collapsed.
Лучший Человек-Паук - Тоби Магуайр. И жаль что Сэм Рэйми так и не снял четвертый фильм, хоть и третий был не очень, но первые два фильма получились отличные!
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought the new spiderman movie was pretty horrible. Entirely predictable, no more radioactive spider the guy just wears a suit. Cookie cutter villian with forced character arc, the only thing enjoyable about the movie was some of the dialogue.
Maybe I have superhero movie fatigue but I thought infinity war was good and endgame was decent but when they dumb down an already pretty dumb concept it really makes it impossible to suspend disbelief.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh, no big loss for me because i did not like any Spider Man film except Maguaire and Raimi trilogy. Garfield ones were absolutely terrible, i watched first Holland movie and it was okay but that's about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly I like the Tom Holland character when he is in other movies. His first solo movie sucked for me, haven't watched the second yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
i'm surprised disney and sony aren't at least tied in the poll. i know disney is the devil, but sony ain't no saint either. i really don't like sony.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if Sony sucks (no disagreement there) the poll is about who fucked up here.
And that's fairly obviously Disney when they got super-greedy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sony is far worst, anyone else remember when they use to have root-kits on there cds to try to keep people from copying them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Typical corporation bullshit, doesn't want to share money, wants all the money, wants exclusive rights to a franchise. Just like all streaming services and their exclusives.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hope that means, No More! Spider-Man Playstation Exclusives :p
Comment has been collapsed.
meh, best superhero movie is still the Die Hard! John McCLane's super power is that he still can fight and move while bleeding everywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the hot topic on Twitter right now, so I thought I'd share the fun.
Comment has been collapsed.