Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
50-50 =/= taking it up the anus
Giving up controlling interest in their biggest movie franchise for absolutely no reason is taking it up the Butt. No studio, no business would accept that without some kind of massive pay off.
This isnt even close to the original deal which both sides were happy to make. Its simple greed on Disneys side, not giving a shit about the fans.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Sony doesn't understand the character, they tried turning him into a skateboarder.
Yeah, his true characterisation should be as Iron Man Junior right?
But again this isnt Marvel. Its all Disney. Just like with the firing of James Gunn situation.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Got a source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/sony-pictures-profits-losses-2016/amp/
That was in 2017. And having a few profitable movies since then doesn't fix that situation much.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Clearly you missed Venom which grossed $850million on a $100mill budget.
You forgot to include marketing, advertisment, and distribution, less overseas profits percentages, etc
I think Russos should demand 50% of the Avengers franchise.
I mean 50/50 is totally fair right?
Originally posted by Inhuman
You forgot to include marketing, advertisment, and distribution, less overseas profits percentages, etc
You mean like with every film?
I mean Are you honestly denying Venom was a massive success? It grossed 8.5 times its budget. Far From Home didnt. And Homecoming certainly didnt.
Like What is this Fake News week?
Originally posted by Darth Thor
You mean like with every film?I mean Are you honestly denying Venom was a massive success? It grossed 8.5 times its budget. What is this Fake News week?
Link to where I said Venom was a failure.
What I said was that a few profitable movies Sony had had in a couple years are not enough to get them out the hole they are in.
Originally posted by Inhuman
Sony pictures has been losing money for years now and is in bad shape. I don't think pumping out animated Spider Man movies, or films based on Black Cat or Silver Sable that could make small profits will help them much.
this is so undoubtedly true
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
50-50 =/= taking it up the anus.Sony doesn't understand the character, they tried turning him into a skateboarder.
exactly.... no reason for disney to not want more money.. other studios would do the same..
Originally posted by SquallX
Marvel is the Spider-Man tights far than Sony.Sony doesn’t need to make good Spidy flicks, they just need to make it and make a small profit, and Spidy stays there’s.
If anything, Sony can always go the animated route, that was well received.
Well, even if they get small profits, it just makes the selling option more attractive.
Besides, profit ain't all of it, but also the character's prestige and therefore the franchise's prestige.
The only reason Sony rebuted Spiderman was because they knew the MCU had the fan's backup for their product to be accepted, otherwise, they wouldn't likely reboot the Spider Man franchise in a short term considering how terrible the Andrew Gardfield's adaptation was.
They can make money on the short term, but as fans get disappointed, they lose in the long term.
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
This could potentially happen given the very bad press Sony is getting right now. Tom Rothman gotta prove he won't f%ck up Spidey which he undoubtedly will
The MCU fans boycotting Sony wouldn't be a surprise.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Out of the Sony only films- 5 live action Spidey movies, one animated and one Venom film, id argue Sony has only messed up twice. 2/7 times isnt a bad record.And even when they mess up they still bank money tbh.
Spidey is their biggest franchise plain and simple. They wont give away controlling interest in their biggest property. That would be asinine.
If Marvel wants to please the fans they can do. They have nothing to lose. If they want to be greedy f***s they can do that to. Clearly their brain dead corporate fan boys will worship then either way.
Certainly Marvel is being greedy but Sony shouldn't be cocky either.
Well, Spider Man was dead for Spiderman 3 from Tommy McGuirre for 5 years before the reboot from Sony with Andrew.
They screwed just as badly or worse with Amazing Spiderman 2.
Sure, they can reboot again, but definitely 5 to God knows how many years (because I wouldn't expect them to reboot sooner than the previous time) before the next adaptation is money in the garbage and a wasted franchise.
First Venom was okay and so was Spiderverse, but so was First Spiderman and Amazing Spiderman.... Will Venom 2 and whatever continuation of the Spiderverse remain faithful in quality? Sony isn't the MCU yet, I wouldn't place my money that they can keep up.
Originally posted by Inhuman
That was in 2017. And having a few profitable movies since then doesn't fix that situation much.
To be more accurate, that article was from 2017. The actual financial data being cited is from 2016.
A lot can happen in three years so, frankly, I don't find your source particularly relevant right now tbh, especially considering you seem to be forgetting that Sony was making the lion's share of the money from the MCU Spidey films.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Worse.SM 3 is a meme goldmine and still had some redeeming qualities, such as Sandman, who was f*cking perfect.
TASM 2 was a mistake. It hurt to watch it. Gwenn's death is the only thing they got right.
Well, we all laugh at McGuirre's dances and emo personality, that was redeemable.
What's evident is that Sony has a bad record for long term quality. They seem able to start a franchise but not to maintain it.
There's no evidence to suggest that they'll do better now. Perhaps they will, perhaps they'll continue to repeat their failures.
Maguire, not McGuirre.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
What's evident is that Sony has a bad record for long term quality. They seem able to start a franchise but not to maintain it.There's no evidence to suggest that they'll do better now. Perhaps they will, perhaps they'll continue to repeat their failures.
They are no long-term planners, that's for sure.
Originally posted by NemeBro
To be more accurate, that article was from 2017. The actual financial data being cited is from 2016.A lot can happen in three years so, frankly, I don't find your source particularly relevant right now tbh, especially considering you seem to be forgetting that Sony was making the lion's share of the money from the MCU Spidey films.
So what your are trying to say is that the Spiderman films (after ASM2 ) alone were enough to bring the entirety of the Sony film division out of the dumpster.
Cute theory tbh.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Worse.SM 3 is a meme goldmine and still had some redeeming qualities, such as Sandman, who was f*cking perfect.
TASM 2 was a mistake. It hurt to watch it. Gwenn's death is the only thing they got right.
Wasn't Gwenn's death what killed fan-interest in having a sequel?
I took my girlfriend to see that movie opening night - big mistake.
On the way home she was in tears and wouldn't shut up about Gwenn dying.
Her: "I can't believe she died! They killed her! She and Spiderman won't be able to have babies now!"
Me: "She was supposed to die. It was based off the original comics."
Her: "I hate you! I hate you! Gwenn shouldn't have died! I hated this movie and so did all my friends! Arghhhh!"
Me: "It's just a movie. Jesus Christ."
Her: "Gwenn shouldn't have died!"
Me: "Shut up!"
I dumped her a year later.
She gave good head, but she was annoying as hell and dumb as a bag of bricks.
I believe Spiderman and Sony have benefitted immensely from Marvel Studios involvement in the Tom Holland iteration of Spiderman, moreso than the other way around, so it wasn't unreasonable for Disney to negotiate for greater than the 5% movie profits they were receiving. Had Sony developed another Spiderman movie on their own, given how the previous two were received, it would have made less than Justice League and critically received worse than ASM2. I think a 50-50 split was reaching on Disney's part, however as always in negotiations, the first offer must always be more than what you're expecting to get; I think realistically Disney would have been happy with a 25-30% share.