|
redbackground posted:As someone who will never be able to watch WW unless it's on June 6th specifically at the Alamo Drafthouse three states away from where I live, how dare you. Don't forget you have to see it at that specific showing and not any of the half dozen others in that same theater.
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Marvel does own the rights to Jessica Drew, but not to the name Spider-Woman. Also...Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Sony has already pretty much stated that after the Homecoming sequel they are taking Spider-Man back to being exclusive to Sony movies. This is not true and is just the clickbait junk. You surely referring to Amy Pascal's offhand comment a month or two ago, and she doesn't even work for Sony anymore and didn't at the time. The only reason she's still a producer on this movie is that she was in the position before Sony got rid of her. Sony and Marvel have a deal in place and have said they will see about doing another deal when the time comes. And they'll probably come to the conclusion that it's best to stay with Marvel on this. So yeah they could take it back but saying they've already come out and said they are taking it back is just bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
JT Smiley posted:Don't forget you have to see it at that specific showing and not any of the half dozen others in that same theater. Way to rub it in 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
X-O posted:Marvel does own the rights to Jessica Drew, but not to the name Spider-Woman. Also... Someone from Sony also described the deal as a way to rehab the Spider-Man franchise. You're right that Pascal is not the final say, but Sony has made it pretty clear that their ideal scenario is one where they are making a (successful) Spider-Man cinematic universe on their own.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
They're literally making a bunch of connected movies that don't include Spider-Man so I'm not sure it's very clear.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
I mean that guy is a big ol toolbox but tbh I'm pretty done with the Democrats too
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Any plans Sony has for taking back Spiderman will probably be changed by the hojillions of dollars the movie is going to make.purple death ray posted:I mean that guy is a big ol toolbox but tbh I'm pretty done with the Democrats too Not the salient tweet here man.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:Any plans Sony has for taking back Spiderman will probably be changed by the hojillions of dollars the movie is going to make. This is probably true. Sony Entertainment is walking the razor's edge in terms of financial solvency, so they might decide that the "safe" way to proceed is to keep Spidey with the MCU and then do lower-budget "Spidey-Adjacent" movies to try and capitalize. I should have been more specific: - Sony has only committed to two Spider-Man movies in the MCU. - Sony did this deal out of desperation to keep the studio afloat (along with going all-in on the Emoji movie.  )- Sony's ideal scenario is a successful Spider-Man franchise with lots of spinoffs that they monetize and control 100% and they have been pretty open about that. - Sony might not go with their ideal strategy because it is too risky. The main point is that Sony can pull out whenever they want and they would like to be in a reality where they are the sole drivers of Spider-Man content, but their precarious situation means they may or may not. The current situation is a deal Sony made out of necessity and not something they are incredibly thrilled about. Sony corporate is extremely unhappy with the film division.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Yeah, when talking about future plans at Sony Entertainment, you have to remember that their budget for this year is literally 💩.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
It'd be ironic as heck if Sony sells Spider-Man back to Marvel to avoid a bankruptcy.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
These franchise plans are always exaggerated to the point of being useless. Remember that at some point we had an entire Spider-man Cinematic Universe ready, including a Sinister Six movie, Female Led Movie and Venom? The last one is the only still standing and even then it's very rocky.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
If I were a Sony exec, why wouldn't I want to extend the deal with Marvel/Disney for more co-op Spider-Man films in the future? Does profit sharing hurt that bad?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
teagone posted:If I were a Sony exec, why wouldn't I want to extend the deal with Marvel/Disney for more co-op Spider-Man films in the future? Does profit sharing hurt that bad? I would assume hubris factors in. But half of a fuckton of money is still a fuckton of money. It would be stupid for them not to extend it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
teagone posted:If I were a Sony exec, why wouldn't I want to extend the deal with Marvel/Disney for more co-op Spider-Man films in the future? Does profit sharing hurt that bad? Disney doesn't see the obvious profit potential of an Avengers team who are into hastags, snapchat, and tough mudder, which stifles Sony's creativity.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
They're never gonna be satisfied with half a fuckton, though. It's gonna be like those guys who hassle their girlfriends for an open relationship and then sit home alone while the girl is getting laid left and right. They want the whole pie and they're probably going to shoot themselves in the foot and throw away a perfectly good shared spiderman situation for an all Sony shared universe of movies that's never gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
teagone posted:If I were a Sony exec, why wouldn't I want to extend the deal with Marvel/Disney for more co-op Spider-Man films in the future? Does profit sharing hurt that bad? If you were in charge of a division of a company that almost went bankrupt and the CEO said, "We aren't selling off your division this year, but you need to make it profitable and prove your worth," would you like to be the executive who says: quote:Okay, thanks for giving me a chance. My plan to save the division is to take our only valuable IP and give it to our biggest competitor to get them to help us make a movie. In order to do this, we need to schedule the movie release date to make sure that they have absolutely no competition with their other movies and we get to give them half of our money. Please continue paying me my executive salary for my brilliant business plan of "give our competition money forever and cement our reputation for having no competency at making films," which are the only thing we make at the Entertainment Division of Sony. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:08 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You said it yourself, he's enough Spider-Man to be distinct from Batman, and enough Batman to be distinct from Spider-Man. Surely in 2017, with a second Guardians of the Galaxy movie in the books, we're not still doing this.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:If you were in charge of a division of a company that almost went bankrupt and the CEO said, "We aren't selling off your division this year, but you need to make it profitable and prove your worth," would you like to be the executive who says: That reputation was cemented years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
haitfais posted:That reputation was cemented years ago. Yeah, but if you are trying to sell your necessity and the value of your division to the CEO you don't just say, "We suck and don't know what we're doing. Just roll with it and give me some money, I guess?"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Sony actually does make all the money from Spider-Man. That was the deal. 100% for Marvel for their movies he's in, 100% for Sony for his solo movies even if they have Iron Man. Marvel gets all the merch either way though I think?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
I don't know exactly how it works nowadays but I seem to remember that the Tobey Spider-man merch profits were entirely Sony's because they technically owned (and possibly still own?) the likeness of Spider-man with the raised webbing, to the point that Marvel had to get special permission from Sony to use that look on some variant covers.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Sony actually does make all the money from Spider-Man. That was the deal. 100% for Marvel for their movies he's in, 100% for Sony for his solo movies even if they have Iron Man.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Maybe it's just my fever dream, but the whole Sony thing could also be a way to try and get as much money as they can to sell back the rights to Marvel. The last time Sony was involved with the Spider-Man franchise it was left in pretty bad shape. But now that he's part of the MCU and getting a hot new movie, that increases the theoretical money they could ask for the rights. The whole thing about them taking Spidey back seems to me like a negotiation tactic to get more money: "Gee, we would love to sell it back to you guys for a truckload of money, but we have already invested so much money in other Spider-Man related movies already! We are this close to starting to film the Slyde movie. Maybe if you changed it to a bajillion dollars we could go ahead and cancel the production so you can get the rights with no problems." Or someone who is not incomepetent could see that working with Marvel is like free money, and sign up for another 10 years of Spider-Man in the MCU.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Super Dan posted:I think the weirdest part of this is the inclusion of Dominic Fortune. Has he ever been considered a Spider-Man character? Would Sony even have the rights to him? Fortune is definitely with Marvel; he was in the filmed-but-not-greenlit Mockingbird pilot.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 08:36
|
|
Kal-L posted:Maybe it's just my fever dream, but the whole Sony thing could also be a way to try and get as much money as they can to sell back the rights to Marvel. You're greatly overestimating Sony "Ghostbusters 2016 is the movie we're banking on"'s business savvy.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Amazing Spider-Man 2 still made enough money that it would be #7 in the MCU, they weren't that desperate.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Amazing Spider-Man 2 still made enough money that it would be #7 in the MCU, they weren't that desperate. But it made the least money of any Spider-Man film yet released, while also being the most expensive. That's the kind of trajectory that makes the people who hold the money nervous, it wasn't a financial failure in the grand scheme of things, but within the context of the character, previous films and competition, it was.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
If the theory that they are planning to sell the rights back was true, why would they decide to start doing a bunch of other solo films that fall under the Spider-Man rights banner like a Venom film and a Silver Sable film? I highly doubt that's the case. I find the idea more plausible that they are going to squeeze every dollar they can out of the film rights they do have, until the time comes (which is possible) that Sony shuts down their film production.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
I for one am ready for Venom done in the style of Logan
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Amazing Spider-Man 2 still made enough money that it would be #7 in the MCU, they weren't that desperate. The studio only gets a portion of ticket sales and Sony got $0 for merchandising or licensing fees that a lot of other movies get. It was also the most expensive Spider-Man film and a big drop from the previous highs. When you factor in the costs of advertising, ASM2 was only somewhat profitable. A Spider-Man movie that was in development for more than a year that Sony wants to use as a tent-pole needs to do a lot better than that to justify the time+risks. This is especially true for a studio like Sony that hasn't had any big original hits in the last decade and doesn't have any other major franchise IPs.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
None of that's unique to Sony, except the merchandise situation. I'm just saying that the "pump and dump" suggestion is ridiculous. It's not like Sony had no other way to go with Spider-Man, ASM2 didn't bomb.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 00:36
|
|
Aphrodite posted:I'm just saying that the "pump and dump" suggestion is ridiculous. It's not like Sony had no other way to go with Spider-Man, ASM2 didn't bomb. It bombed as far as they're concerned. Just like how BvS made almost a billion dollars and is considered a huge disappointment.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:It bombed as far as they're concerned. Just like how BvS made almost a billion dollars and is considered a huge disappointment. Just a head's up: I did like ASM" and BvS. But given that Sony was expecting to use ASM series as a way to make their own Spider-Verse, it failed in that regard. Isn't their whole film division in a bad situation right now? I could see them do the Venom film, find out that it underperforms/bombs, and then sell the rights back to Marvel so they can use the money for other projects/pay their debts/give their executives a bonus for being so great.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 06:48
|
|
Kal-L posted:Isn't their whole film division in a bad situation right now? Yeah. Ghostbusters was the one they were banking on last year and they spent a fuckton advertising it and it bombed spectacularly. The way big studios tend to work is that a single film isn't just supposed to succeed on its own merits, the big "safe bet" film's profits is supposed to help finance other films later on and cushion losses for more "risky" films coming out that year. So that's why something like BvS making less than 2 billion dollars is considered a flop. Sony's been having a lot of problem with their tentpoles lately and Sony in general is circling the drain on everything but the PS4, so they can't exactly get bailed out by HQ. E: Man, I forgot Sony built an entire division that was supposed to manage tie-ins and sequels for that Ghostbusters movie. And now those people are probably homeless. Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 07:01 on May 28, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
It's like Dick Tracy from 1990 - it was a hit but it wasn't necessarily a success. It was produced for about $50 million and earned about $170 million, but they spent $60 million on merchandise and marketing, so it wasn't as big as they'd hoped. For comparison, Batman '89 was made for $35 million (don't know how much went on marketing but I assume it must have been a lot) but made something like $450 million and was the second-biggest movie of the year. Edit: Remember when Eon really wanted to start up a James Bond spin-off series based on Halle Berry's character from Die Another Day, to the point where I have a feeling that there were some versions of the movie poster (if you remember that movie poster) where she was positioned in front of Pierce Brosnan? Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 11:03 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Kal-L posted:Isn't their whole film division in a bad situation right now? I could see them do the Venom film, find out that it underperforms/bombs, and then sell the rights back to Marvel so they can use the money for other projects/pay their debts/give their executives a bonus for being so great. More than halfway through 2015, Sony barely is hanging on at the box office. The studio has fallen to seventh place in domestic market share — behind the five other majors and Lionsgate — with a mere $247 million in grosses, just 3.74 percent of the total pie. Globally, Sony has made a weak $564 million. (By comparison, leader Universal Pictures has pulled in $1.8 billion domestically and more than $5 billion worldwide.) As its peers all have released at least one film that has earned $300 million worldwide, Sony’s highest-grossing movie, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, topped out at only $104 million. Its latest attempt to create a homegrown tentpole, Adam Sandler's Pixels, isn’t reversing that downward trajectory.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:E: Man, I forgot Sony built an entire division that was supposed to manage tie-ins and sequels for that Ghostbusters movie. And now those people are probably homeless.  You know I thought earlier that you were just making fun of Ghostbusters for flopping, but seriously what the hell.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Sockser posted:More than halfway through 2015, Sony barely is hanging on at the box office. The studio has fallen to seventh place in domestic market share — behind the five other majors and Lionsgate — with a mere $247 million in grosses, just 3.74 percent of the total pie. Globally, Sony has made a weak $564 million. (By comparison, leader Universal Pictures has pulled in $1.8 billion domestically and more than $5 billion worldwide.) As its peers all have released at least one film that has earned $300 million worldwide, Sony’s highest-grossing movie, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, topped out at only $104 million. Its latest attempt to create a homegrown tentpole, Adam Sandler's Pixels, isn’t reversing that downward trajectory. lmao
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Still waiting for the Paul Blart Cinematic Universe.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:Still waiting for the Paul Blart Cinematic Universe. It's called the Blartverse.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 19:29
|
|