• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

kiguel182

Member
Oct 31, 2017
9,440

Justice League performed poorly. It did 200 million less than the Batman v Superman movie and had both of those characters and Wonder Woman that just had a highly successful movie. That movie isn't a success in any way.

Transformers is a good example that you can make bad movies and keep racking a ton of money.
 

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
14,985
We really don't know the details or who is at fault (it likely isn't anyones, its business), and the internet is going apeshit on Sony over this.
 

BDS

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,845
With Disney owning the TV rights to Spiderman and with the way they are already leveraging MCU talent on Disney+, this whole thing has the potential to get so much more complicated and nasty.

Does Disney own the animated Spider-Man TV rights or all Spider-Man TV rights? Because a live-action Disney+ Spider-Man street-level TV series would actually probably be better than the movies, but the character would never be able to appear in the movies anyway because Sony has those rights.
 

Min

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,068
Justice League made 650M worldwide and 230M domestic. Infinity war made 2B worldwide. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 made more than a fucking Justice League movie. There isn't an argument against that being a poor performance.

And I'm not putting in the same work for Transformers, but that franchise was rebooted for a reason.

Not saying they weren't bad movies. Just saying they're making profits. Also DC has been in shambles and directionless while Infinity War is a 20+ movie conclusion to a saga. I'm not saying it's topping Disney, but obviously there is an audience for bad movies with a close to 1/2billion in profits.
 

Ithil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,377
BvS opened so big that it ended up profitable, but it has atrocious legs, and the first film crossover of Batman and Superman failing to do a billion worldwide (and not even 900 million in fact) is a sign that audiences despised the film. Justice League lost money, far from being their answer to Avengers, and he's talking about Transformers The Last Knight, not Age of Extinction, which dropped huge from previous films and also lost money.
 

deathsaber

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,097
With this, both companies have egg on their face.

On Disney- why did they have to change the deal and ask for more (WAY more)- just keep the good thing going. Even if your cut is small on the solo Spidey films, you get the merchandising, and you get the character to appear in your other films, which is huge selling point since you basically set up the character as Iron Man's successor in the MCU.

On Sony- lets get real guys- you don't have what it takes to make a good Spidey film and you need Feige/MCU. That 1 billion + gross is all about being part of the MCU and coming out in close proximity to endgame and being a follow up to it. Yes Spidey is popular, and you had a hit with Venom (since there was a lot of pent up demand for the character), but you aren't going to see remotely the same success if you leave the MCU. Audiences are reasonably smart- if you want to see an example of what happens to a comic property that is part of what is perceived to be a lame duck universe- go look at how Xmen Dark Phoenix did. While I don't believe a newly isolated Spidey film (with no Stark reverence, no Happy, no ties to pretty much ANYthing that happened in the previous two films) will do that bad, but you will not see success anything close to what you had from Far From Home or Homecoming.

Both sides need to come to their senses, and come back to the table (and hopefully agree to just move forward with a deal close-ish to the original agreement they had.
 

Tace

Avenger
Nov 1, 2017
35,471
The Rapscallion
I don't think it will be that hard for Sony to make good Spider-Man movies now that the groundwork has already been laid for Holland Spidey as a character. Getting Peter Parker/Spider-Man right as a character is the hardest part and that's already done. If you really are a Spider-Man fan why not just be hopeful for that rather than write it off already?
As a real Spider-Man fan I'd rather it stay with Disney. Raimi is gone at Sony(and they are the ones who pushed him out), Spider-Verse was animated which would translate very differently to live action. Plus hearing about silver and black and how Venom got made...those decisions weren't made because Sony loves Spider-Man. Silver Sable and Black Cat don't even fucking hang like that, and Sony was/is trying to push that as a movie.

Creatively, I don't see how any Spider-Man fan prefers Sony has full control over the franchise rather than Marvel Studios these days.
 

Azerth

Prophet of Truth - Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,176
That's what seems odd to me. The spider-man movies were making upwards to 700mil how is that bad?

3 made as much (more even) as homecoming lol
and they probably got more profit from homecoming then 3 due to budget. 3 had a 250mil budget while homecoming had 175
 

Min

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,068
BvS opened so big that it ended up profitable, but it has atrocious legs, and the first film crossover of Batman and Superman failing to do a billion worldwide (and not even 900 million in fact) is a sign that audiences despised the film. Justice League lost money, far from being their answer to Avengers, and he's talking about Transformers The Last Knight, not Age of Extinction, which dropped huge from previous films and also lost money.

Wow. Didn't know Justice League lost $60M nvm.
 

Jest

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,565
Marvel Studios were "only" co-producing films in the late 90s and early aughts yes (not just licensing, most rights were already sold by that point anyway) but they existed. They didn't begin the move to full production until they started working on Iron Man in 2005, coincidentally around when HOM delivered Decimation over in the comics.

As far as games are concerned, I dunno? We've seen what Disney "hardball" looks like and in that scenario I'd say nothing's really off the table. I certainly think the games (and other licensing) ending up as collateral is far more likely than Bat V Spider ever hitting screens.

You have to consider the contracts that have been signed and then the production time for video game creation. It's not as straight forward as Marvel supposedly cancelling comics or toys (which they control directly). They have licensing contracts to honor. Breaking those has financial and business deal reprecussions. So any move would be more likely to happen after current contracts expire and that's years down the line most likely, even if the current contract *only* extends to one sequel. By that time, this negotiation with Sony will already be said and done.
 

Alice

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
5,867
People siding with Disney is weird. Sony owns the character and, business wise, doesn't own anything to Disney.

Yes, the movies would be less profitable without the MCU but Venom does show that Sony can use the characters to pump out a ton of money.

I want Holland in the MCU and with Feige at the helm but Sony doesn't owe Disney anything.

Sony does *not* own the character, they own the movie rights. That's completely different.
 

abellwillring

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,919
Austin, TX
This is where I stand too. Disney is the reason Spider-Man is pulling in $1 billion. I don't think the Spider-Man movies before Homecoming we're even close a billion at the box office.

I as a casual fan want quality Spider-Man movies. That won't happen with Sony going it alone.
Spider-Man 1-3 all made over $800m worldwide back in an era when very, very few movies were putting up numbers like that. Inflation adjusted would push them all well past $1b worldwide not to mention the fact there wasn't really a market in China for films like today. Spider-Man 3 (ugh) did $891m which is actually more than Homecoming for the record. TASM 1-2 both made over $700m.

TASM was a misstep -- I didn't watch either of them personally as I really had zero interest, but not something they can't bounce back from. Holland pulled me in to the new movies (I actually didn't watch Homecoming until the week before Far From Home) and Zendaya has been my favorite part of both of those movies despite never seeing her in anything else. His buddy is the icing on the cake for me. I don't actually need any sort of Marvel involvement personally.
 

ZeoVGM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
76,107
Providence, RI
K bruh, sorry must have hit a nerve there. Sony was making good spider-man movies (Raimi) before Feige and Disney came along and they still can.

I mean, two out of three. And that was 15 years ago. Since then, they've put out three terrible live action films, one mediocre live action film and one great animated film. Not a great track record to make a "and they still can" claim when their history goes against it.

There is no need for Disney to have any control over spider-man.

There's no "need" for anyone to have control over Spider-Man. What a strange argument to make.

Now in this situation disney is using their very emotional and ouspoken fans to force sony into a bad deal.

And if Sony were the ones who were making out the quality films only to have them taken by, let's say Fox, the fans would be acting the same way.

Disney was making good live action Spider-Man films. Sony was making bad live action Spider-Man films. That's why fans are being outspoken.
 

plagiarize

Eating crackers
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,511
Cape Cod, MA
Exactly. Before competition. Now they're competing with Disney/MCU.

There were no summer blockbusters before the MCU? Of course there was competition. This is bonkers.

Whether you think Sony or Disney are being unreasonable here, the idea that Spider-Man is only popular because of the MCU is some crazy stuff that ignores that Raimi's Spider-Man movies broke box office records. Yes the MCU cross overs helped! But then Spider-Man also helped the MCU films he was in do more money than if he wasn't in them.

Marvel didn't make him central to the marketing for Civil War to help boost the character's popularity. They did it because he's a popular character who would help sell tickets.
 

MeBecomingI

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,037
At this point, I hope Sony splits off Spider-Man from Disney and no deal happens. The people raging about this need to grow the fuck up.

I do think a deal will get done eventually but I really don't care either way. I think Sony will be totally fine on their own.
 

Dierce

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,993
I mean, two out of three. And that was 15 years ago. Since then, they've put out three terrible live action films, one mediocre live action film and one great animated film. Not a great track record to make a "and they still can" claim when their history goes against it.



There's no "need" for anyone to have control over Spider-Man. What a strange argument to make.



And if Sony were the ones who were making out the quality films only to have them taken by, let's say Fox, the fans would be acting the same way.

Disney was making good live action Spider-Man films. Sony was making bad live action Spider-Man films. That's why fans are being outspoken.
I completely disagree with Disney making quality films. But that's all subjective and there is no point in arguing that. Raimi Spider-man movies are still better than 90% of whatever disney has done with marvel films but again, that's just me. I understand why people give in to peer pressure and the mass appeal of the MCU.
 

fiendcode

Member
Oct 26, 2017
24,911
You have to consider the contracts that have been signed and then the production time for video game creation. It's not as straight forward as Marvel supposedly cancelling comics or toys (which they control directly). They have licensing contracts to honor. Breaking those has financial and business deal reprecussions. So any move would be more likely to happen after current contracts expire and that's years down the line most likely, even if the current contract *only* extends to one sequel. By that time, this negotiation with Sony will already be said and done.
Yes but we've seen Disney stall or make licensing contracts untenable before, usually under the guise of creative control. I'm not exactly going out on a limb here, this is Disney's exact playbook. And yes they retain creative control in games too.

Anything is likely here, that's the worry.
 

Deleted member 8674

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,240
ECfLuw2VUAQ5WJx
 

Corrie1960

Banned
Mar 19, 2019
1,888
How does marble get the right to Spider-Man back does don't have lifetime right or something?

What else does Sony have the right to belonging to marvel?
 

Tom Nook

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
15,787
At least one more movie between Marvel/Sony - This will end the Tom Holland Spider man.


I really wanna see what happens next after Far From Home.

That Cliffhanger at the end. :(
 

LFMartins86

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,177
With this, both companies have egg on their face.

On Disney- why did they have to change the deal and ask for more (WAY more)- just keep the good thing going. Even if your cut is small on the solo Spidey films, you get the merchandising, and you get the character to appear in your other films, which is huge selling point since you basically set up the character as Iron Man's successor in the MCU.

On Sony- lets get real guys- you don't have what it takes to make a good Spidey film and you need Feige/MCU. That 1 billion + gross is all about being part of the MCU and coming out in close proximity to endgame and being a follow up to it. Yes Spidey is popular, and you had a hit with Venom (since there was a lot of pent up demand for the character), but you aren't going to see remotely the same success if you leave the MCU. Audiences are reasonably smart- if you want to see an example of what happens to a comic property that is part of what is perceived to be a lame duck universe- go look at how Xmen Dark Phoenix did. While I don't believe a newly isolated Spidey film (with no Stark reverence, no Happy, no ties to pretty much ANYthing that happened in the previous two films) will do that bad, but you will not see success anything close to what you had from Far From Home or Homecoming.

Both sides need to come to their senses, and come back to the table (and hopefully agree to just move forward with a deal close-ish to the original agreement they had.
The terrible Amazing Spider Man 2 did 700M$, the next Spider Man will still have Tom Holland and will easily do something like 800M$ unless it his a train wreck.
For Sony, 100% of 800M$ is better than 50% of 1B$, even if they were also splitting the costs.
 

Sephzilla

Herald of Stoptimus Crime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,493
I really think the current situation sucks all around, but good lord some of the responses I'm seeing from grown ass adults to this news is embarrassing. This is why people shouldn't build their entire identity around media meant to be consumed by kids and teenagers.
 

Moonwater

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
15
User banned (permanent): xenophobia, account in junior phase
Sony is a financially weak foreign company that constantly tries to grift and dilute anything in American culture that will make them money. I'm so glad Disney is teaching them a big boy lesson. Spider-man needs to be out of the hands of Sony entirely.
 

voOsh

Member
Apr 5, 2018
1,665
I really think the current situation sucks all around, but good lord some of the responses I'm seeing from grown ass adults to this news is embarrassing. This is why people shouldn't build their entire identity around media meant to be consumed by kids and teenagers.

Nearly 90 pages and ~4500 replies in less than a day. It's scary man.

Sony is a financially weak foreign company that constantly tries to grift and dilute anything in American culture that will make them money. I'm so glad Disney is teaching them a big boy lesson. Spider-man needs to be out of the hands of Sony entirely.

Holy shit LOL
 

Ukumio

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,415
Australia
Does Disney own the animated Spider-Man TV rights or all Spider-Man TV rights? Because a live-action Disney+ Spider-Man street-level TV series would actually probably be better than the movies, but the character would never be able to appear in the movies anyway because Sony has those rights.
Marvel has the rights to make animated Spider-Man episodes that are less than 40 minutes long.
 

Slaythe

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,841
With this, both companies have egg on their face.

On Disney- why did they have to change the deal and ask for more (WAY more)- just keep the good thing going. Even if your cut is small on the solo Spidey films, you get the merchandising, and you get the character to appear in your other films, which is huge selling point since you basically set up the character as Iron Man's successor in the MCU.

On Sony- lets get real guys- you don't have what it takes to make a good Spidey film and you need Feige/MCU. That 1 billion + gross is all about being part of the MCU and coming out in close proximity to endgame and being a follow up to it. Yes Spidey is popular, and you had a hit with Venom (since there was a lot of pent up demand for the character), but you aren't going to see remotely the same success if you leave the MCU. Audiences are reasonably smart- if you want to see an example of what happens to a comic property that is part of what is perceived to be a lame duck universe- go look at how Xmen Dark Phoenix did. While I don't believe a newly isolated Spidey film (with no Stark reverence, no Happy, no ties to pretty much ANYthing that happened in the previous two films) will do that bad, but you will not see success anything close to what you had from Far From Home or Homecoming.

Both sides need to come to their senses, and come back to the table (and hopefully agree to just move forward with a deal close-ish to the original agreement they had.

lol

"look at dark phoenix", that movie sucked ass and nobody cared for it. People cared for Logan, Deadpool, and days of future fast, all good movies and featuring beloved characters, crazy heh?

And sony can make good spiderman content. They know by now what work and what doesn't, they have spiderman 1, 2, the videogame, and spiderverse.

If Venom, with a very shoddy production and debatable quality, made so much money, a Tom Holland led Spiderman isn't going to tank, and even if it doesn't reach MCU heights, it's not going to earn less than 50% of the previous movie's earnings.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,607
I completely disagree with Disney making quality films. But that's all subjective and there is no point in arguing that. Raimi Spider-man movies are still better than 90% of whatever disney has done with marvel films but again, that's just me. I understand why people give in to peer pressure and the mass appeal of the MCU.
I only like Avengers so that all the kids at school will like me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.