|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Aug 21, 2019 18:26:34 GMT -5
It's worth noting that Tom Holland may be done in the role. The studio insiders that made the original leak that led to Sony going public revealed that Holland's Sony contract was for two solo movies with the option of a third. It's now up to Sony to convince Holland to stay on or be faced with the possibility of a recasting or a reboot.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Aug 21, 2019 19:10:51 GMT -5
It's worth noting that Tom Holland may be done in the role. The studio insiders that made the original leak that led to Sony going public revealed that Holland's Sony contract was for two solo movies with the option of a third. It's now up to Sony to convince Holland to stay on or be faced with the possibility of a recasting or a reboot. From a personal standpoint it has to suck for him You can realistically argue he was going to be the face of the whole thing with Downey gone and Evans done as a full time Cap. You could have watched him grow up and mature and with him growing up we get more mature Spider-Man stories but now that is up in the air thanks to this
|
|
EyeofTyr
Hank Scorpio
Strange and Mystical
Posts: 5,744
|
Post by EyeofTyr on Aug 21, 2019 19:39:11 GMT -5
I don't really see either being the victim here, Sony and Disney are both giant corporations. Just because one is run arguably better than the other doesn't mean that we're suddenly in the bizarro timeline Vince likes to try to sell people on that WWE was this little ma and pa wrestling promotion that was being picked on by the big, bad WCW corporate machine. Sony tries to gobble up things just as much as Disney. So I don't really feel an inherent sympathy for either.
What I do feel is dread at Sony's track record at handling Spider-Man on their own. Seemingly every success they've had with Spider-Man has had heavy involvement from the MCU and Kevin Feige attached to it (even if he wasn't properly credited for all of it). So there's not a whole lot to boost my confidence they've learned their lessons from Spider-Man 3 and the Amazing Spider-Man series, especially with them still trying to make their Spider-Man Cinematic Universe - Spider-Man a thing.
I know people keep pointing to Venom, but like, it wasn't a masterpiece. It was a dumb, fun movie but that's about as far as I'd go. It wasn't as good as the Spider-Man movies (especially Into the Spiderverse) and it wasn't as good as the mass majority of the MCU movies. I'd like more than a dumb, fun movie for a Spider-Man movie (though I guess I'd take it over a possible alternative being something like Amazing Spider-Man 2).
Moreover, I'm annoyed that Peter might just be gone from the MCU. I liked Peter being apart of it, I liked that he was seemingly going to have a big role in it. At the heart of it, I don't care about the politics of the two studios hashing out this deal, I just want this deal to be made so things can continue as is. So we're not dropping this Peter and his story, and what he's been through.
And so we're not yet again starting at Square One of Peter Parker's story. Spider bite, Uncle Ben, Peter not yet growing into the man he can become, yadda yadda yadda.
It's like with Batman and Superman. I don't need some big, drawn out song and dance of the Waynes being gunned down or Kyrpton being blown up ever again (or not for a very, very long time).
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Aug 21, 2019 20:13:08 GMT -5
A wider-teaching consequence of this is Ryan Coogler had apparently been hoping to use Kraven in Black Panther 2. With Sony no longer playing ball, that's likely a non-starter. It's worth noting that Tom Holland may be done in the role. The studio insiders that made the original leak that led to Sony going public revealed that Holland's Sony contract was for two solo movies with the option of a third. It's now up to Sony to convince Holland to stay on or be faced with the possibility of a recasting or a reboot. From a personal standpoint it has to suck for him You can realistically argue he was going to be the face of the whole thing with Downey gone and Evans done as a full time Cap. You could have watched him grow up and mature and with him growing up we get more mature Spider-Man stories but now that is up in the air thanks to this Yeah, if there's anybody close to being a victim, it's him. Sure, he's a multimillionaire at just 23 and beloved by millions of people, but hearing him talk about playing Spidey it's clear the role means the world to him, and he's potentially going from being the face of the MCU and acting with the huge range of megastars they have to being shoehorned into Sony's discount MCU with Jared Leto, Tom Hardy, and Tyreese.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Aug 21, 2019 20:56:51 GMT -5
A 50/50 split is ridiculous, Sony owns the rights. I don't know how much money Sony puts in vs how much Disney puts in per film, but I would think a 70/30 split favoring Sony would be fair. Disney didn’t just walk in asking for 50% of the profit, t hey offered to be a co-financier and put up 50% of the production cost which would entitle them to 50% of the profit because they’d be assuming 50% of the risk. As it stood, Disney invested $0 in Homecoming and Far From Home because Sony was sole financier and got 5% for their producer credit. I feel like this part doesn't get mentioned nearly enough. Folks throw up that 50% like Kevin Feige kicked in the door waving the four-four and said "run them pockets". He offered to be total partners, taking 50% of risk (which, considering Marvel has a much larger piggy bank to play with, I'm surprised they weren't financing the films in the first place), and in exchange, getting 50% of profits. Now, no sane man would expect them to go from five percent of first week to fifty percent of overall, even with the offer of sharing risk, but Disney's offer wasn't that unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Aug 21, 2019 21:51:04 GMT -5
A wider-teaching consequence of this is Ryan Coogler had apparently been hoping to use Kraven in Black Panther 2. With Sony no longer playing ball, that's likely a non-starter. From a personal standpoint it has to suck for him You can realistically argue he was going to be the face of the whole thing with Downey gone and Evans done as a full time Cap. You could have watched him grow up and mature and with him growing up we get more mature Spider-Man stories but now that is up in the air thanks to this Yeah, if there's anybody close to being a victim, it's him. Sure, he's a multimillionaire at just 23 and beloved by millions of people, but hearing him talk about playing Spidey it's clear the role means the world to him, and he's potentially going from being the face of the MCU and acting with the huge range of megastars they have to being shoehorned into Sony's discount MCU with Jared Leto, Tom Hardy, and Tyreese. I think they ultimately work something out in the long term because no way could they let this happen. It will hurt Marvel to an extent because it was easy to fit him into the universe but it’s going to be hard as f*** to take him out when he was supposed to be the future. On the flip side, Sony has had financial success with Venom and good for them but it just won’t be the same. Tom can still make money being Spider-Man but it will be more if he wants to. His doors are wide open so while he may not have the MCU, he could land roles elsewhere thanks to his notoriety but I know this must suck for him to be in the middle on this
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Aug 21, 2019 21:56:29 GMT -5
Honestly. Between Spider-Verse and the PS4 game I feel like Sony actually tries to further the character along instead of infantilizing him at every turn like Marvel studios and marvel comics.
|
|
|
Post by Duke Cameron on Aug 21, 2019 22:31:33 GMT -5
The PS4 Spider-Man has been my favorite portrayal of the character outside of the comics in a long time. My loyalty lies with whichever company (Sony) brings me a sequel.
|
|
wildojinx
Wade Wilson
Posts: 26,904
Member is Online
|
Post by wildojinx on Aug 21, 2019 22:41:31 GMT -5
I wonder if the next Deadpool film will make some snarky comment on this whole situation, no matter what happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 23:04:21 GMT -5
I wonder if the next Deadpool film will make some snarky comment on this whole situation, no matter what happens. I don't think Disney's willing to laugh at themselves enough to allow it. They apparently had to cut out a joke about Kylo Ren being a crybaby in Ralph Breaks the Internet even though that's basically what his character is.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Aug 21, 2019 23:11:22 GMT -5
Feige said himself that the relationship between Disney/Marvel and Sony was always tense given the "loan" of the character by Sony. If anything they should've been even more careful when it came to the politics and financial matters between the two. If neither side is willing to budge on the numbers game, at least we can say we got to experience Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Aug 21, 2019 23:14:05 GMT -5
I get that this is a money issue, and that Disney may be asking for too much from Sony to keep this deal going. But again, Sony is carrying itself around like it OWNS THE F****** CHARACTER! It really makes me wonder, if FFH hadn't done so good in theaters, whether Sony would have been willing to walk away from the table like this. That's what's rankling so many people right now. People love the MCU take on Peter, and seeing the character potentially cut off because Sony seems to think that they can do what Marvel's doing, and take even more money from it...it's a fool's gamble right now, especially if they decide to reboot the character again. Hell, the fact that Sony took steps to ourright buy Insomniac, the Spider Man game makers, seems suspicious to me now in hindsight. I think the "What if" is in respect to Venom. Had Venom bombed, I don't think Sony would be doing this. Venom being a financial success makes them now want a Venom movie with Spider Man (or vice-versa). That's just what I was thinking. The success of "Venom" and the Academy Award win for "Into The Spider-Verse" is exactly what caused this. I knew once one or two of those happened they would feel untouchable and garner a powerful sense of leverage.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Aug 21, 2019 23:44:54 GMT -5
I think the "What if" is in respect to Venom. Had Venom bombed, I don't think Sony would be doing this. Venom being a financial success makes them now want a Venom movie with Spider Man (or vice-versa). That's just what I was thinking. The success of "Venom" and the Academy Award win for "Into The Spider-Verse" is exactly what caused this. I knew once one or two of those happened they would feel untouchable and garner a powerful sense of leverage. Leverage that they may have inadvertently squandered. While it can certainly be said Sony really haven't done anything wrong as they're protecting their investment, they've still come out of this looking like the bad guys and generated a lot of ill will amongst the core fan base, something that Star Wars is currently struggling with. Throw in spending $100 million on Morbius, which doesn't look a sound investment at all, Men in Black International's failure exposing that Sony really haven't learned anything from the fallout of ASM2 and Ghostbusters 2016, and Sony's high ground could crumble beneath their feet in swift fashion.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Aug 22, 2019 0:43:44 GMT -5
I think the "What if" is in respect to Venom. Had Venom bombed, I don't think Sony would be doing this. Venom being a financial success makes them now want a Venom movie with Spider Man (or vice-versa). That's just what I was thinking. The success of "Venom" and the Academy Award win for "Into The Spider-Verse" is exactly what caused this. I knew once one or two of those happened they would feel untouchable and garner a powerful sense of leverage. We could change some of the wording of what you said and it's as applicable to Disney.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 1:03:02 GMT -5
The success of "Venom" and the Academy Award win for "Into The Spider-Verse" is exactly what caused this. I knew once one or two of those happened they would feel untouchable and garner a powerful sense of leverage. We could change some of the wording of what you said and it's as applicable to Disney. I mean, not really, because Disney is a money-making machine with a laundry list of huge franchises and more being made all the time. Sony had a couple of movies that did pretty decently amidst a bunch of flops.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Aug 22, 2019 1:25:01 GMT -5
We could change some of the wording of what you said and it's as applicable to Disney. I mean, not really, because Disney is a money-making machine with a laundry list of huge franchises and more being made all the time. Sony had a couple of movies that did pretty decently amidst a bunch of flops. Indeed. And, to be honest, I'm sure if Disney really wanted Spider-Man they'd probably be more than willing to drop a billion dollars in Sony's lap, and Sony would likely as not take it.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Aug 22, 2019 1:27:42 GMT -5
The success of "Venom" and the Academy Award win for "Into The Spider-Verse" is exactly what caused this. I knew once one or two of those happened they would feel untouchable and garner a powerful sense of leverage. We could change some of the wording of what you said and it's as applicable to Disney. Much like was stated. Disney had a series of million to billion dollar successes. It wasn't just Aladdin. You have to go back to "Civil War", "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2", "Dr. Strange", "Black Panther", "Infinity War", "Captain Marvel", "Endgame", "Aladdin", "Beauty and The Beast", "Lion King", "Toy Story 4", and we're not even counting the last few "Star Wars" films either. Sony felt as soon as "Venom" became a surprise success and "Into The Spider-Verse" garnering an Academy Award, they felt massively untouchable with the success getting to their heads. Compare those two to the list of Disney/Marvel successful string of films you can't help but wonder "How in the world does Sony gain anything from this?"
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Aug 22, 2019 1:28:48 GMT -5
I mean, not really, because Disney is a money-making machine with a laundry list of huge franchises and more being made all the time. Sony had a couple of movies that did pretty decently amidst a bunch of flops. Indeed. And, to be honest, I'm sure if Disney really wanted Spider-Man they'd probably be more than willing to drop a billion dollars in Sony's lap, and Sony would likely as not take it. You might be right too. Wouldn't surprise me if they feel they don't need Spidey since they have X-Men and Fantastic Four back. It'd just be nice if they could work together again and continue the partnership.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Aug 22, 2019 1:44:29 GMT -5
We could change some of the wording of what you said and it's as applicable to Disney. I mean, not really, because Disney is a money-making machine with a laundry list of huge franchises and more being made all the time. Sony had a couple of movies that did pretty decently amidst a bunch of flops. I thought they were similar because the narrative could be spun in such a way that Disney presumes to deserve more profits because, well, it's Disney? It makes money, therefore deserves to make more money. A lot of the online discourse seems to fall into this line of thinking, which is baffling and creepy. I also think this line of thinking is so popular in this case because the weaponization of (toxic) fandom that treats crappy Sony movies, like Ghostbusters 2016, Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Men in Black International, as acts of aggression that need to be, ahem, avenged, which positions Disney as the supposed hero to Sony's villain. And this weaponized fandom is nowhere near as toxic to Disney despite movies like The Lion King or Aladdin, which have still been drubbed online, or even The Last Jedi, which is the shitstorm of a conversation that will never end, when compared to Sony's perceived failings as a movie studio. The online conversation I've read aligns with the perspective that Disney is entitled to more money because they make not-bad movies that people enjoy, and people feel entitled to be entertained by more of the same movies they already like, which Disney is willing to supply, and Sony should acquiesce to Disney's wants because Sony fails/failed to do what Disney does. Kevin Smith's tweet from a couple of days ago is the perfect representation of this mindset. Like I said a few pages back, corporations are not your friends. There are no heroes here, no side worth rooting for, even when I would much rather have movies like Into the Spider-Verse than Endgame. But the level and content of the discourse I've read about this story is so strange and sad, I simply can't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Aug 22, 2019 2:03:34 GMT -5
Indeed. And, to be honest, I'm sure if Disney really wanted Spider-Man they'd probably be more than willing to drop a billion dollars in Sony's lap, and Sony would likely as not take it. You might be right too. Wouldn't surprise me if they feel they don't need Spidey since they have X-Men and Fantastic Four back. It'd just be nice if they could work together again and continue the partnership. I think if push comes to shove and they can't work a deal out, Disney simply pays up. They can afford it, and Sony would make more money selling the rights than they will gambling on good box office numbers, since Disney already own 100% of the merchandising rights. On average a studio makes around 15-20% of the worldwide box office once expenses are deducted. Realistically, it would take Sony 10-12 movies pulling at least $800 million each time to equal that number... and their track record doesn't suggest they're capable of that.
|
|