Jump to content

Marvel Cinematic Universe


Jmerc
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just came back from Far From Home not too long ago. Saw the news while I was actually in the theatre. Hopefully they can get their sheeit together. Everybody needs to play nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im like seeing the reaction on Twitter and have no idea why Sony is taking the brunt of it. 50% for a property you dont even own is ridiculous for Disney to ask for. Especially when youre consuming all other media properties at an alarming rate as it is.

 

Maybe because the Spider-Man movies made a shitload of money BECAUSE of Disney, and Sony should be happy to partake in those spoils to the degree that they do. It's not like Sony was making Spider-Man "must-see" before Disney came along. They damn sure weren't pulling a billion dollars at the box office.

 

And you're right...Disney is buying up properties at an alarming rate. Which is probably more good reason why Sony should aim to cooperate with them before they just force a hostile takeover (bound to happen).

Edited by Generations
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updates on the original IGN report:

 

According to THR, "Sony film studio chief Tom Rothman and Marvel president Kevin Feige have been talking for months. In the end, neither party was willing to cede enough ground to come to an agreement, leading to the breakup of the partnership and removal of Feige from his producing role on any future Spider-Man movies from Sony."

 

Of course, Deadline's report may have been a purposeful leak intended to rile up Marvel fans to try and force the two companies back to the bargaining table, given how beloved (and seemingly integral) Holland's iteration of Spider-Man is in the MCU, but it seems that neither Sony nor Marvel are currently willing to budge.

 

Deadline's sources say that Disney CEO Bob Iger had spent the past several months attempting to broker a new agreement for continued Marvel and Sony partnerships. Deadline's sources also say that Sony has reasoned that the studio will manage without Feige.

 

While one source told IGN that negotiations are ongoing, a separate source indicated to IGN that Deadline's initial report is accurate and talks have stalled, which seems to have been confirmed by Variety and THR's reporting, and Sony's subsequent statement.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/08/20/breaking-spider-man-out-of-the-mcu-marvel-sony-cant-reach-deal?sf107511944=1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Im like seeing the reaction on Twitter and have no idea why Sony is taking the brunt of it. 50% for a property you dont even own is ridiculous for Disney to ask for. Especially when youre consuming all other media properties at an alarming rate as it is.

Maybe because the Spider-Man movies made a shitload of money BECAUSE of Disney, and Sony should be happy to partake in those spoils to the degree that they do. It's not like Sony was making Spider-Man "must-see" before Disney came along. They damn sure weren't pulling a billion dollars at the box office.

 

And you're right...Disney is buying up properties at an alarming rate. Which is probably more good reason why Sony should aim to cooperate with them before they just force a hostile takeover (bound to happen).

Sonys not even close to being in the same financial situation Fox was in. Sony shouldnt just bend over and let the biggest studio push them around when theyre the ones who actually own the property and who actually put up most of the money to make the movie. Venom made a shit ton with out Disney. Spiderverse won an Oscar without Disney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Im like seeing the reaction on Twitter and have no idea why Sony is taking the brunt of it. 50% for a property you dont even own is ridiculous for Disney to ask for. Especially when youre consuming all other media properties at an alarming rate as it is.

Maybe because the Spider-Man movies made a shitload of money BECAUSE of Disney, and Sony should be happy to partake in those spoils to the degree that they do. It's not like Sony was making Spider-Man "must-see" before Disney came along. They damn sure weren't pulling a billion dollars at the box office.

 

And you're right...Disney is buying up properties at an alarming rate. Which is probably more good reason why Sony should aim to cooperate with them before they just force a hostile takeover (bound to happen).

Sonys not even close to being in the same financial situation Fox was in. Sony shouldnt just bend over and let the biggest studio push them around when theyre the ones who actually own the property and who actually put up most of the money to make the movie. Venom made a shit ton with out Disney. Spiderverse won an Oscar without Disney.

 

What? No they didn't. The whole point of the deal in the first place was that the production cost mainly fell onto Marvel.

 

Even Venom only rode the good status created by MCU. Reminder: Before the MCU Superhero movies were almost dead. Except for the Dark Knight they stunk up. Sony also almost killed all interest in movie Spiderman with TAS2. Even the DCEU rides the hope of fans for a rival of the MCU, All the DC movies were financially a success. Suicide Squad even won an Oscar. But for what they were, they were still considered a failure. So Venom making "a shit ton without Disney" isn't even correct, as the movie wouldn't have even be made without the MCU paving the way AND making shit tons of money is worth nothing, if it is not critically a success and you can't even sell merchandise of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression Sony was financing these things and paying for marketing clats, and double checking on the article on Marvels website announcing the deal thats what it says. Superhero movies were not dead until the MCU. Spider-Man 3 made a *censored*ton of money. And the Dark Knight doesnt count because...? You said so? As bad as a lot of them were, very few were bombing financially. And an Oscar for best animated feature is a bit more pretigious than best make-up. Not to to take anything away from people in make-up, its just often isnt something than can save a bad film. Whos to say the MCU would be around if it werent for Raimis Spider-Man films being massive successes after the genre faceplanted in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Again. Spiderman 3 made money, but killed the franchise. I didn't say the Dark Knight doesn't count. I said it's an outlier. The other movies, like Green Lantern, X3, Fantastic 4, etc. were failures. The Dark Knight was surrounded by shit. Using it to say Superhero movies were critical successes would be a lie.

 

And my point with the Oscar mention is... That they're nothing to brag about. Especially considering the treatment of Japanese Studios Animations. Into the Spider Verse was a great movie, but getting the Oscar is not the reason why.

 

And saying the MCU got its success on the back of the Spiderman trilogy is laughable. Spiderman is the third most recognizable Superhero after Batman and Superman. All Marvel had left were the scrabs at the bottom of their most profitable characters. Ironman was nothing like any of the Raimi trilogy. Marvel made it work, despite the majority of the movie-going audience at best knowing Ironman as a "That's that Marvel robot Hero, right?" character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression Sony was financing these things and paying for marketing clats, and double checking on the article on Marvels website announcing the deal thats what it says.

Yeah, that's how it sounded. Marvel was producing but didn't have to pay any of that technically (though I think there was a fixed amount Marvel gave Sony every time a movie was made). Marvel wanted to go in half and half of the financing, and also would boost the guaranteed 5% first-dollar gross to 50% overall on top of already having full merchandising rev that they've has been getting on the solo films. Sony ain't bout that life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Again. Spiderman 3 made money, but killed the franchise. I didn't say the Dark Knight doesn't count. I said it's an outlier. The other movies, like Green Lantern, X3, Fantastic 4, etc. were failures. The Dark Knight was surrounded by shit. Using it to say Superhero movies were critical successes would be a lie.

 

And my point with the Oscar mention is... That they're nothing to brag about. Especially considering the treatment of Japanese Studios Animations. Into the Spider Verse was a great movie, but getting the Oscar is not the reason why.

 

And saying the MCU got its success on the back of the Spiderman trilogy is laughable. Spiderman is the third most recognizable Superhero after Batman and Superman. All Marvel had left were the scrabs at the bottom of their most profitable characters. Ironman was nothing like any of the Raimi trilogy. Marvel made it work, despite the majority of the movie-going audience at best knowing Ironman as a "That's that Marvel robot Hero, right?" character.

All those movies except Green Lantern werent financial failures (if thats what youre saying). Green Lantern doesnt count anyway, though, since it doesnt fit your narrative considering that it was released a few years after Iron Man was released and MCU was established. Also, Spider-Man 4 didnt happen because of behind-the-scenes issues, not because of whatever youre alluding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally explained how it's not a financial thing.

 

Either way. Green Lantern helps my case even more then. Can't say the MCU rode the goodwill of the Spider Man trilogy if Green Lantern flops around at the same time. Anyway, It was just a superhero movie I remembered right of the bat. There are countless others, such as Blade Trinity, both Ghostrider movies, Jonah Hex, Constantine, The Hulk, etc.

Edited by LEGION
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But failure in what way? Critical reception? Fan reception? Neither matters for your whole false narrative about superhero films being almost dead until the MCU came along. Fans may have been disgruntled but they were sure as hell paying to see these movies, which is what the Hollywood executives who make these movies primarily care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of Superhero movies failed at the box office and critical & audience response led to not many follow-up projects, merchandice and co-promotional work being produced and sold. Therefore a failure, because there is no gain in the long run and continuing with the Superhero franchise risked a minus in total. No proper film studio wants to only break even. You need atleast double of that to call it a success.

 

And certain movies, even when fulfilling that goal, still are not considered a success when they, on premise alone, should make much more. Like The Solo Star Wars movie, for example. Or Batman vs. Superman, which had the two most popular and famous comic book characters in their most famous storyline. Again. Financial success of one movie is not the goal of a movie studio. Financial security for all future projects is and that's something that the MCU under Disney has succeeded in with the creation of brand new house hold names in Black Panther, Doctor Strange and the Guardians of the Galaxy, while Sony did not with the disaster that was TAS2 and the mixed reception of Venom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly...I think it's wrong to think that the world "failure" as it pertains to film must equate to a complete and utter bomb. Instead, I think that when you have a huge trademark like a Marvel franchise...you should pretty much be looking at opening in spot #1 and staying there until the film leaves theaters. If you aren't doing that with a Marvel franchise...that's kind of a failure, tbh. And that goes doubly for physical release and rentals. Even if you pull money from unsuspecting theater-goers...if you make shit off physical and rental sales...it means that people saw the movie in the theater, wish they hadn't wasted the money...and never went back for seconds.

 

I think there's an entire tier system as it pertains to what a "failed" movie truly is. It doesn't need to mean that the studio lost a bunch of money and was forced to shutdown. It basically just means that opportunities were missed. If you make $100,000,000 when you could have made $1,000,000,000...that's a pretty glaring failure, IMO. You certainly wouldn't call that a success.

Edited by Generations
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so it's now about money again?

 

If you haven't noticed, my problem with your argument is your claim about superhero movies were somehow were on the verge of dying just before MCU came along which is complete nonsense. No doubt the Marvel studios films have taken the genre to new heights (and their branding does indeed hold a lot of weight) but let's not revise history and make what they've done an even more incredible feat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...