Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Disney-Sony Spider-Man Deal Ends
#1
Quote:EXCLUSIVE: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige won’t produce any further Spider-Man films because of an inability by Disney and Sony Pictures to reach new terms that would have given the former a co-financing stake going forward. A dispute that has taken place over the past few months at the top of Disney and Sony has essentially nixed Feige, and the future involvement of Marvel from the Spider-Man universe, sources said.

This comes at a moment when the last two films Kevin Feige produced broke all-time records — Disney’s Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film of all time, and Spider-Man: Far From Home this week surpassed the James Bond film Skyfall to become the all time highest grossing film for Sony Pictures.


Sources said there are two more Spider-Man films in the works that are meant to have director Jon Watts and Tom Holland front and center. Unless something dramatic happens, Feige won’t be the lead creative producer of those pictures.

There is a lot of webbing here, but it all comes down to money, and it’s easy to understand why both sides refused to give ground. Disney asked that future Spider-Man films be a 50/50 co-financing arrangement between the studios, and there were discussions that this might extend to other films in the Spider-Man universe. Sony turned that offer down flat, and I don’t believe they even came back to the table to figure out a compromise. Led by Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra, Sony just simply didn’t want to share its biggest franchise. Sony proposed keeping the arrangement going under the current terms where Marvel receives in the range of 5% of first dollar gross, sources said. Disney refused.

Now, it’s easy to say that Feige has enough on his plate, especially after taking control of the X-Men universe in the Fox acquisition, including the Deadpool franchise, along with architecting the next phase of the Marvel superhero universe and building movies and shows for Disney +. But I’m told Feige loves Spider-Man, arguably the biggest superhero character in the Marvel canon. He would have continued if Disney and Sony could have reached new deal terms.

Essentially Sony has made a decision that is similar to saying, thank you, but we think we can win the championship without Michael Jordan. After all, Feige’s first decade at Marvel is largely unblemished and his consistency has been nothing short of historic: even George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson haven’t seen everything turn into a hit, and so maybe only James Cameron has the success record that Feige has achieved. But Feige has done it all in the last 10 years, producing and overseeing 23 superheros, with not a flop in the bunch.  They’ve all been number one openers that have collectively grossed $26.8 billion. Feige this year became the producer of the top grossing film ever for two studios — Sony and Disney — and he produced three of the top four highest grossing films this year in Avengers: Endgame, Captain Marvel and Spider-Man: Far From Home. This after scoring the first ever Best Picture Oscar nom for a superhero film last year with Black Panther. I can’t think of a Hollywood producer/executive who has done anything close to this.

And the launch of the new iteration of Spider-Man was done brilliantly with Marvel’s support and help. It has been a boon to both studios. Tom Holland’s character was introduced in the Joe & Anthony Russo-directed 2016 blockbuster Captain America: Civil War, the film that set up the two record breaking Avengers films. Sony’s first rebooted Spidey film, 2017’s Spider-Man: Homecoming, rode that Marvel wave and grossed $880 million worldwide, and then the webslinger was a key character in the two Avengers films, leading to the Spidey sequel that this week became Sony’s top grossing film ever.

Sources said Disney’s top brass for the past several months has sought new terms for Feige and the Marvel cross-pollination to continue. As the Spider-Man relationship grew, Feige and Sony Pictures chief Tom Rothman spoke about the possibility of a wider involvement in the Sony-controlled Spider-man universe, which contains 900 characters. I’m told that Feige lent an unofficial hand with the blockbuster Venom, but I’ve also been told that that film was far from the polished product that grossed $856 million worldwide, until Rothman himself spent a good long time in the editing room helping to get it there.

It is understandable that the fiscally shrewd Rothman would balk at giving up half of Sony’s biggest franchise to Marvel. After all, Marvel already owns the merchandising on Spider-Man. Does the Mouse really need half of the movie universe also? Sony so far has decided that as valuable as Feige is, Disney is asking too high a price.

Sources said that Sony reasoned that they will be fine, without Feige. The creative template has been set on the Spider-Man films, and Watt and Holland are in place along with Amy Pascal, who became producer with Feige after she exited the executive suite after presiding over the previous Spider-man iterations directed by Sam Raimi and Marc Webb as Sony Pictures chief.

The Venom sequel is well underway with Andy Serkis directing Tom Hardy, and there is Morbius with Jared Leto, Kraven The Hunter, and another spinoff with the characters Silver Sable and Black Cat. And a Sinister Six film that got shelved. Sony, which once felt the ticking clock of generating a Spider-Man film every three or so years to prevent a rights reversion to Disney, now has plenty of pictures to make. And the studio also won the Best Animated Feature Oscar for Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse, a smash hit they made on their own.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feige...202672545/
[Image: JVqTWoz.png]

Death Hurts

Artwork: My Art
Original StoriesNo Heroes | Good Days | Carnage Hero
Social MediaTwitter | Twitch
Reply
#2
After yesterday's explosive news, here's some much needed context from both sides about the state of Spider-Man and his future in the MCU.

From Deadline:

Quote:Disney asked that future Spider-Man films be a 50/50 co-financing arrangement between the studios, and there were discussions that this might extend to other films in the Spider-Man universe. Sony turned that offer down flat, and I don’t believe they even came back to the table to figure out a compromise. Led by Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra, Sony just simply didn’t want to share its biggest franchise. Sony proposed keeping the arrangement going under the current terms where Marvel receives in the range of 5% of first dollar gross, sources said. Disney refused.

.....Sources said there are two more Spider-Man films in the works that are meant to have director Jon Watts and Tom Holland front and center. Unless something dramatic happens, Feige won’t be the lead creative producer of those pictures.

However, Variety reported saying that negotiations are still ongoing:

Quote:The deal is still in negotiation even though Disney and Sony reached an Impass. Nothing is final as a deal could still be reached.

io9 gave a further update saying that it is specifically about producer credit:

Quote:A Sony rep told us it’s their belief this dispute is simply over a producer credit and negotiations are ongoing. They further clarified Feige has contributed to other Spider-centric movies that he did not receive a producer credit on.

However, Sony put out a pretty definitive statement:

Quote:“Much of today’s news about Spider-Man has mischaracterized recent discussions about Kevin Feige’s involvement in the franchise,” says a Sony spokesperson. “We are disappointed, but respect Disney’s decision not to have him continue as a lead producer of our next live action Spider-Man film.”

“We hope this might change in the future, but understand that the many new responsibilities that Disney has given him – including all their newly added Marvel properties – do not allow time for him to work on IP they do not own,” says the statement. “Kevin is terrific and we are grateful for his help and guidance and appreciate the path he has helped put us on, which we will continue.”



While I'm optimistic that the deal will be reach in agreement with the two studios, with Disney biting the bullet (unless they outright buy the rights back, assuming Sony is willingly) by agreeing with the terms, there seems a lot of criticisms on both end.

Disney has merchandising rights of Spider-Man, which in 2012, generated over 1.2 billion in retail sales. So the 50/50 split, in Sony's perspective, can be seen as too much.

Kevin Feige, in terms of producer credit, is known to have given advice/notes to other films, such as X-Men, FF and vie versa. You can see his notes for Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Marvel Studios is currently will showcase their plans at D23 this Saturday, so I'm hope they will be able to figure something out by that point (considering that, just like the James Gunn decision, Disney is also facing its backlash for making poor decisions). Otherwise, Sony will have a hell a lot to explain if they went ahead and do Spider-Man without any involvement of Marvel Studios. Do note, Venom was an international hit with $856,085,151 with a 100 million dollar budget as opposed to Into the Spider-Verse, with 90 million budget, with a box office of $375,469,903.
[Image: JVqTWoz.png]

Death Hurts

Artwork: My Art
Original StoriesNo Heroes | Good Days | Carnage Hero
Social MediaTwitter | Twitch
Reply
#3
[Image: rJ2KH1g.png]

Alright, now we have new reports about this deal. This is becoming a bit of a mess on who to blame.

'Spider-Man' Standoff: Why Sony Thinks It Doesn't Need "Kevin's Playbook" Anymore:

Quote:But now Sony film chief Tom Rothman will need to deliver Marvel-less fare that lives up to hype of the character's MCU appearances.

Sony Pictures' Tom Rothman and Marvel’s Kevin Feige had plenty of smiles at the Hollywood premiere of Spider-Man: Far From Home in late June, but the pearly whites belied an inner turmoil. While the executives hit the red carpet, talks to extend the unique partnership between Sony and Disney, which owns Marvel Studios, were breaking down over the future use of the character of Spider-Man. 

Disney had been seeking a co-financing arrangement on upcoming movies, looking for at least a 30 percent stake. Sony, which counts Spider-Man as one of its only reliable moneymaking franchises, said no. Before both sides walked away, talks had gone to the top level, with Rothman and CEO Tony Vinciquerra on Sony’s side and Disney Studios' co-chairmen Alan Horn and Alan Bergman involved. In the next month and a half, Far From Home would go on to catch $1.109 billion in the box office web, becoming Sony’s biggest movie of all time. The figure reinforced both sides’ thinking. Sony executives believed they didn’t need Disney anymore, and Disney was in no way leaving money, and Peter Parker, behind, sources tell The Hollywood Reporter.

The divorce spilled out in public on Tuesday, with Sony laying the blame at Disney’s feet, saying the Burbank-based studio now had Feige too busy to work on future movies. "We hope this might change in the future, but understand that the many new responsibilities that Disney has given him — including all their newly added Marvel properties — do not allow time for him to work on IP they do not own," Sony Pictures said. The feud marked a rare display of inter-studio conflict. Even Avengers: Endgame star Jeremy Renner joined the fray, making an Instagram plea, "Hey @sonypictures we want Spider-Man back to @therealstanlee and @marvel please, thank you."

Disney and Sony were in different places when the idea of a co-operation was broached in 2014. Sony was coming off of two successful but widely derided Amazing Spider-Man pics and was seen as squandering the most popular Marvel hero. Marvel, while successful, was still finding its footing in its “phase two” of movies, jumping from a nadir with Thor: Dark World to a zenith with Guardians of the Galaxy.

It was in this environment that then Sony Pictures Entertainment co-chairperson Amy Pascal reached out to Feige and over lunch made a proposal. What ensued was a very simple arrangement. So simple, say insiders, that the deal was only a four- to five-page document. Sony would loan Spider-Man out for one film, Captain America: Civil War, and in return, Sony would get Feige’s producing service for two movies. The deal was later revised to include both Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame. “You have to remember, Marvel wasn’t in the same place as it was now. There was a still a question of how far could this ‘superhero thing’ go,” says one insider familiar with the deal.

Disney did not get a producing fee nor did Feige for the initial deal, say multiple insiders. “Just getting Spider-Man in even one of their movies at the time, that was a stem cell infusion for Marvel,” notes a source regarding the company’s willingness to make a deal at the time.

There was also the unique merchandising arrangement. Sony had earlier relinquished the merchandising rights to Disney for a one-time payment of $175 million. Also in the deal, insiders note, was a provision that saw Disney making a yearly royalty payment to Sony that was amounting to around $30 million a year. Sources say that Disney tied the royalty to the performance of the Feige-produced movies; the better the pics performed, the lower the royalty. (It is unclear whether this will change going forward.)

Regardless, the arrangement was groundbreaking. Here was a major studio loaning out one of its top lieutenants to a rival that owned the movie rights of a character it owned in all other respects. And Feige was given carte blanche to run Spider-Man the way he wanted, even as Sony held the purse.

And both reaped in the rewards of the arrangement. Civil War, with key support from the web-slinger, grossed $1.15 billion. Homecoming, the first Feige-made movie, made $880.1 million, even as it featured Marvel’s Iron Man and deepened the intertwining story threads of the two companies’ movies. And Spider-Man was also an emotional foil and fan favorite in the two-part Avengers films, both of which grossed over $2 billion. In the case of Avengers: Endgame, the pic became the top money earner of all time. Marvel took a victory lap at San Diego Comic-Con, driving fans into a frenzy by teasing new movies. The MCU, with its next phase set, appears nearly unstoppable.

Sony, meanwhile, also forged ahead with renewed commitment to its Spider-Man spinoff. At a retreat, Rothman, who took over from Pascal when the latter was fired amid the Sony email hack, was convinced by two executives to see superhero films as not a fad but as genres within a larger genre, sources say. The result was Venom, a critically scorned movie that nevertheless grossed $856 million. A sequel is now in the works. Also in postproduction is Morbius with Jared Leto.

And then there was Phil Lord and Chris Miller's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, the animated film that became one of 2018’s critical darlings and won the best animated movie Oscar. The feeling from Sony was that it bounced back to a place where it could strike on its own. “Tom is thinking ‘Okay, we’ve learned everything we need to from Kevin’s playbook. We did Venom on our own and we did Spider-Verse,'” comments a Sony insider.

Now, insiders at both studios are pointing fingers at one another about counteroffers that never happened or offers that were supposedly mighty generous. "The economic terms for that [Spider-Man] franchise seem to have gotten more complicated — partly reflecting Disney’s shifting priorities since the Fox acquisition," says Wall Street analyst Tuna Amobi, of CFRA Research, who isn't surprised by the impasse. "From an economic and creative standpoint, I would think the development probably has more implications either way for Sony."

Rothman will need to deliver Marvel-less fare that lives up to hype of the Spider-Man character's MCU appearances. "If the two sides don’t come to a compromise, it’s a lose-lose for everybody," argues Shawn Robbins, chief analyst for industry website Boxoffice. "Marvel won’t be able to resolve the cliffhanger in future movies, which is saying something when it’s their most popular hero. And for Sony, who has had success, Far From Home doesn’t get to a billion dollars without Feige and Marvel’s involvement."

Adds Robbins, "The other big question is, 'How are fans are going to react to a Tom Holland Spider-Man movie that is not set in the MCU?' That is a roll of the dice that no studio should take."

Because there's so much money to be made, the parties could also eventually come back to the table. “It is in the best interests of both sides to have come to an agreement,” notes analyst Steven Birenberg of Northlake Capital Management, which owns shares of Disney. “Spidey is an important part of what Marvel has been doing in the MCU and seemed to be for what they plan to do. Perhaps for the first time since Iron Man and the first few films after, there is some uncertainty as to the success of future Marvel films, defining success as the ridiculously high bar that the Avengers has set.”

Feige, meanwhile, does have plenty on his plate, including the sizzle of sequels to Thor and Black Panther and Captain Marvel as well as new chef’s concoctions such as The Eternals and Blade, not to mention a pantry filled with mutants, meaning Fox's X-Men.

Sony’s slate is less diverse, and while it is moving ahead with spinoffs and a sequel to Venom, the future of Spider-Man is unclear. Holland, sources say, has an option for one more movie, while director Jon Watts is done with his two-picture deal and is free to pursue other projects. "The big test will be two years or so from now, when an eventual Spider-Man movie is made," says the Sony insider.

An reddit user posted information to clear any misconceptions about this ordeal [Edited for updated information]:

"ZachMeininger Wrote:The original deal was for Marvel to use Spider-man in 3 of their movies and Marvel would be the creative force behind 2 Sony published movies. Sony had no involvement in and made no profit from team up films that Spider-man was in. Sony financed the standalone Spider-man movies and Marvel Studios received 5% of the First Dollar Gross. This means 5% of the opening weekend box office, not the entire box office. THIS DEAL DID NOT INCLUDE ANY MERCHANDISING. Disney bought the merchandising rights for Spider-man in 2011 in a separate deal.

Sony only owns the rights to Spider-man films and Live Action Spider-Man TV series, but not animated TV series, games or any other form of Spider-man media.

The original deal ended so Disney and Sony were renegotiating. NOBODY BROKE ANY DEALS.

The original report came from a journalist well known from the Sony email leaks a few years back for being given information from Sony to report on. This fits with a common strategy Sony uses to apply public pressure during negotiations.

Current reporting says in the negotiations Sony wanted to continue the current deal while Disney wanted a larger cut so it would be worth their time and offered a 50/50 split with the all costs and all profit (Edit for clarification: Disney wanted to pay for half of all costs as well as split the profits). There are reports saying that Disney was looking for Sony to negotiate down to around 30% but this is fresh news and not confirmed. Original reports say that Sony would only stick the the original deal while newer reports say that Sony made multiple counter offers. As of right now it is unclear which is true.

It seems like Sony leaked the news to placed pressure on Disney and why Sony's PR team quickly gave out an excuse that Kevin Feige was "too busy".

Some should be familiar with Tim Rothman who was a former President of Fox, infamous for him green lighting multiple flops, films such as X Men Origins Wolverine, silence Deadpool and comment that Galactus would not be able to sell well with the audience and made him a cloud.

This is getting really interesting....
[Image: JVqTWoz.png]

Death Hurts

Artwork: My Art
Original StoriesNo Heroes | Good Days | Carnage Hero
Social MediaTwitter | Twitch
Reply
#4
My opinion on this whole thing is two fold.

The first is that Sony's track record for live action Spider-Man films is half awful.

The second is that Marvel should be sticking with what works, rather than what doesn't.

- - - - -

Okay, let's begin with what originally caused things to go wrong with the Sony Spider-Man films.

NONE OTHER THAN VENOM: LETHAL PROTECTOR AAAAAH

Just kidding. All of the problems started with Spider-Man 3. The one with too many villains. According to the Cutshort video on the cancelled Spider-Man 4, it was Sony who convinced Raimi to add in Venom, despite him not really understanding the character.[1] Arguably, this is what made the movie so bad. If you cut out the elements involving Venom, it would've probably been a lot better. Or at least, not having Venom be the final antagonist and instead build him up for a second film. Whatever. Point is, Sony's meddling helped kill Spider-Man 3 for the future. Which leads to the second point.

Second thing is, Raimi wanted to make Spider-Man 4 to make up for all the bad parts of Spider-Man 3, featuring the Vulture is a strange almost flash forward to Homecoming.[2] Except over time, Sony wanted to just reboot the franchise that they themselves had a hand in tainting, new actor, and wash their hands of Spider-Man 3. Though Raimi wanted to make a fourth film to try and repair the damage, eventually he gave up following repeated instances of Sony suggesting a reboot and also suggesting Kurt Conners as the Lizard, leading to the Amazing Spider-Man.[3]

Which lead to the Amazing Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield looks like he was born to play Peter Parker and is good at the role, it's just that the two movies he was in sucked. Like, awfully sucked. I could link reviews, data about the movie, etc, but I don't think anyone will argue with me that they were not as good as Spider-Man 1 and 2. Of particular contention, a jerk Peter Parker, questionable costume design for the first one, flashy but no tension super hero fights, etc. Though we did get a female lead in the movie who was more popular and more of a character in her own right.

First Amazing Spider-Man film was alright, but wasn't great. That's okay, first installment often has issues finding it's foot. A New Hope wouldn't be nearly as popular without the Empire Strikes Back. Far From Home took everything that Homecoming build up and made it even better. So have to give some leeway to a first installment. And then we got the Amazing Spider-Man 2. The joke is about this one is how it was basically just a shoe-horned attempt at making a Spider Cinematic Universe to compete with the MCU, crossed off everything off a Sony Executive's checklist for future marketing material, etc, so once again I won't be providing any links here. Of particular notes here for this film are a plot making Peter Parker from "anyone" into "designated hero," a poorly written kill off just to tie into the comic book lore, way too many villains like Spider-Man 3, and the whole movie feeling incongruous and patchwork.

Thing is, despite every flaw with the Amazing Spider-Man films, they managed to make some money. Despite the fact they were what could be described as Hollywood quality. Good enough to be enjoyed, but could never argued to be great. And once again referring to Cutshort, Sony was planning on announcing and making an Amazing Spider-Man 3. Except when it was time for the announcement, Andrew Garfield didn't want to attend it due to flight sickness, which was being hosted by the then CEO of Sony.[4] Considering that four days later the series was cancelled, that was a pretty bad move.

And then we have Venom. I don't need to say much. Venom was hilarious, the special effects for goopy boy were great. The villain was lackluster, Eddie Brock was one of the most generic straight white boy protagonists you could have, She-Venom was basically a foot note in the movie, the Symbiote was a strange cross between the original "adrenaline junkie" version and the ultimate "consuming incompatible hosts from the inside" version, the overall plot was best described as "Eddie Brock moves from set piece to set piece" and we got not one, but two fake out deaths that manage to completely ruin any emotion in the movie. Once again i'm not linking anything because I don't feel like anyone here will disagree with me.

In recap, Sony Spider-Man films:
1, 2, were great
3, ASM2, ruined by executives
ASM, Venom, were lackluster
4, ASM3, cancelled by executives
Homecoming was good
Into the Spider-Verse, Far From Home were amazing films

What does this all mean? It means that when Sony messes with the films, they end up either awful, or cancelled. When Sony doesn't mess with the films, we get great things. Sony managed to produce two of the most pivotal super hero films that cemented the genre, the first two Spider-Man films. They also made Into the Spider-Verse without any of Marvel's help, a movie that is argued to be the best Spider-Man film. Take a look at the last non-MCU Spider-Man films. ASM, ASM2, and Venom. Lackluster and something not worth seeing in theaters. Compare Homecoming and Far From Home. Those are movies I believe are quite enjoyable from home, but are even better enjoyed in theaters. Especially Far From Home.

With Feige, we got Tom Holland Spider-Man. We got a Peter Parker who is an incredible version of the character. The last phase of the MCU is special to me specifically because of Spider-Man. And if things go well, he'll take up a prominent place in the future of the MCU. An MCU without Spider-Man after Endgame would not be very good for the fans, or the box office. It is in the interest of most people for Fiege and the MCU to stay with Spider-Man, as he's now slotted into one of the primary Avengers spots, alongside Thor, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Black Panther, etc.

What I don't want is Tom Holland Spidey to end up in a Venom quality character. I did not like Venom. It had good parts. But the bad parts outweighed the good. That movie could've been done so much better if it wasn't so generic. Which is the same word I could use to describe Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man. Generic. Andrew was great in the part, but he was in an awful movie. Compare that to Tom's Spider-Man, who has evolved on the big screen and is a fully realized character and not just a collection of traits, powers, and set pieces. A collection of traits, powers, set pieces, that's Andrew and Venom.

And I'm not touching Venom 2 with a ten foot pole. As much as I adore Carnage, I don't doubt the movie will be not worth my money. I will go back to any better version of Carnage.

- - - - -

Second part. Much shorter.

It seems that Kevin Fiege really does have a lot on his plate. Spider-Man, Black Panther, Thor, Captain Marvel, and the X-Men's whole universe. That is a lot. But honestly? Toss out the X-Men. Focus on what's been good. Spider-Man has been great. Black Panther was a cultural milestone. Thor is currently speaking the last remaining original Avenger with his own film franchise and he's continuing to get a story line evolving just like Spider-Man's. Captain Marvel started out as a spin off of the Avengers, just like Black Panther, and has won my heart over with her solo film. I originally did not care for her in Endgame, but having seen her solo film, I am grateful for the character being present in the movies. Especially with Far From Home's secret. The X-Men though? Let it die. We got an end to the original X-Men, with Logan acting as a send off for the original movies that helped shape the modern super hero comics and movie landscape from what I understand. The new ones? Apparently the last two films have been Venom levels of generic and lackluster. Just let it go.

Avoiding over saturating an audience is important. I can tell you how many Phase 4 films I'm going out in theaters to see.
Thor 4, Guardians 3, Captain Marvel 2.
Films I will be watching on video.
Doctor Strange 2, Black Widow.
I don't really care about the real Mandarin being the antagonist of a new film about a new character. A bit hypocritical of me considering Ant-Man and Captain Marvel were both spin offs about new characters? Yeah. But all I wanted from the real Mandarin was Rhodey as War Machine fighting a Dragon. Except, we're not getting that. So I don't care. Will I change my mind? Possibly.

So i repeat. Get rid of the X-Men. I don't have the time, the patience, or the money to go watch every single Marvel film and tv show. I'm a huge fan of Cloak and Dagger in the comics. But my work prevented me from watching the tv show. So I didn't. Despite the fact that it was aimed at teenagers, and I was in the demographic at the time.

Now will Disney+ change things? When it launches I'll probably subscribe for one month a year and binge all of the MCU I missed / want caught up on. But then I don't need to shell out for movies when I'm only going to see the ones I truly want in theaters, the rest on demand, and completely ignoring some.

- - - - -

Last thing. I don't care about the morality or economics of this situation. I just want Tom Holland to go down as the best live action Spider-Man, beating out Tobey. I don't want him to end up in his own Spider-Man 3. I don't want to look back on Tom Holland and go "you did good, Spidey. Shame it ended too soon." I don't want him regulated to films as generic as Venom.

And I don't really care about anything else.

- - - - -

[1] - "The Untold Story of Sam Raimi's Cancelled Spider-Man 4 | Cutshort" https://youtu.be/usx2TizyV1Y?t=98
[2] - https://youtu.be/usx2TizyV1Y?t=237
[3] - https://youtu.be/usx2TizyV1Y?t=423
[4] - "The Bizarre Plot of The Cancelled Amazing Spiderman 3 | Cutshort" https://youtu.be/KW2fw2pe50A?t=108
Forum Mod, focused on Art Garden and Roleplay Park
Ends of the Earth RP | Boogaverse RP Characters.
Current controller of the Meeting of the Dark. | Mysterious Summons: Malefor, Rex Marksley.
Creative Fiction: Solarian Stories; Withered; The Death Lords; Death Knight Detective; Warframe Fan Fiction

"To the Ends of the Earth."
Reply
#5
Sam Raimi was a huge Spider-Man fan, let’s get that right. Sony essentially placed pressure on him since they had a different vision. He wanted to capture the Golden Age of Spider-Man and only include villains from that era—but Sony had different ideas. 

Ironically, the Vulture was supposed to show up in Spider-Man 3, not Venom, but Avi Arad had such a hardon for the latter that, well, you know the rest. It’s the no brainer Sam Raimi walked after Sony attempted to pull similar tactics in the “upcoming fourth film”—and went for a reboot route instead. Oh, and Avi Arad is the guy who intent on bringing Venom in the movie screen, that he intent on making a cinematic universe with or without Spider-Man.

Spider-Man 1 and 2 were gold standards of their time. Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 were blunders with many, many issues (the latter underperformed); and once again, Sony continues to meddle with the films and going against the directors because they wanted to replicate the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but with Spider-Man instead. So, it’s wasn’t so much as a joke, but rather, they were attempting to do this thing any means necessary (even a Sinister Six film). Venom was riding on the MCU hype-train, despite being disassociated with the universe (China giving it huge profits, Tom Hardy and of course, Venom just happen to have little to zero competition during its time). Spider-Verse, despite being an excellent quality film, its box office did not indicate any notable successes.

Remember, Sony must make a Spider-Man film every 3 years or rights will revert to Marvel. Hence why during the hacking emails, we seen Sony going into extreme details of making more films of Spider-Man’s history, including an Aunt May film. You can see why the deal with Marvel was beneficial to them. They could not risk rebooting Spider-Man again after that… so Marvel/Disney took advantage of that.

Sony has two options because technically speaking, Disney and Marvel doesn’t need Spider-Man. They can continue with their films with other movies (especially since they don’t involve Spider-Man anyways, such as Eternals, Thor 4 and Dr. Strange). Sony on the other hand, must reference these or ignored them. If they ignored them, the film is basically done. If they reboot—it will receive some backlash since audience is more accustomed with Tom Holland. Either Sony need to get back to table and discuss more, or they can take the risk doing things their way. And you can tell based on their track record, when Sony gets to hands on—it turned into a huge disaster. I personally don’t care about the economics as well, but either side is clearly attempting to get some funds out of it. Sony owns the rights of Spider-Man films, but at the same time, Disney wanted a bigger cut. I won’t be surprised if they resolved this by the time the year ends.

====

I might have to disagree with that. Fox’s X-Men were either blunders, decent at best or just straight up bad (Dark Phoenix essentially bombed in theaters hardcore). I still think Marvel Studios can take up X-Men and give them a proper care they really, really need. Who knows, they might add something completely different about Mutants as they did with all their other characters. Same thing with F4 and Deadpool (though, it was reported that Deadpool would remain largely the same. Won’t be surprise if he shows up in Doctor Strange 2).
[Image: JVqTWoz.png]

Death Hurts

Artwork: My Art
Original StoriesNo Heroes | Good Days | Carnage Hero
Social MediaTwitter | Twitch
Reply
#6
(09-10-2019, 01:18 PM)ShineCero Wrote: Sam Raimi was a huge Spider-Man fan, let’s get that right. Sony essentially placed pressure on him since they had a different vision. He wanted to capture the Golden Age of Spider-Man and only include villains from that era—but Sony had different ideas.

I never implied anything about Raimi as being anything other than a director whose movie got screwed over by corporate Sony and that he wanted to patch things up with a fourth film but became too frustrated by Sony.

(09-10-2019, 01:18 PM)ShineCero Wrote: Ironically, the Vulture was supposed to show up in Spider-Man 3, not Venom, but Avi Arad had such a hardon for the latter that, well, you know the rest. It’s the no brainer Sam Raimi walked after Sony attempted to pull similar tactics in the “upcoming fourth film”—and went for a reboot route instead. Oh, and Avi Arad is the guy who intent on bringing Venom in the movie screen, that he intent on making a cinematic universe with or without Spider-Man.

We're certainly into a Venomverse. That's what all these films outside of Spider-Verse seem like.

(09-10-2019, 01:18 PM)ShineCero Wrote: Spider-Man 1 and 2 were gold standards of their time. Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 were blunders with many, many issues (the latter underperformed); and once again, Sony continues to meddle with the films and going against the directors because they wanted to replicate the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but with Spider-Man instead. So, it’s wasn’t so much as a joke, but rather, they were attempting to do this thing any means necessary (even a Sinister Six film). Venom was riding on the MCU hype-train, despite being disassociated with the universe (China giving it huge profits, Tom Hardy and of course, Venom just happen to have little to zero competition during its time). Spider-Verse, despite being an excellent quality film, its box office did not indicate any notable successes.

I never implied Spider-Man 1 and 2 weren't great. I said Sony's track record was half awful. They managed to produce Spider-Man 1 and 2, and then also produced the ASM series. Spider-Man 3 and ASM 2 are basically the same movie from all the issues they share. I'm disappointed in how well Venom did because of the film's lack of quality aside from special effects, especially compared to the rich nature of Into the Spider-Verse where nearly every scene is a full work of art.

(09-10-2019, 01:18 PM)ShineCero Wrote: Remember, Sony must make a Spider-Man film every 3 years or rights will revert to Marvel. Hence why during the hacking emails, we seen Sony going into extreme details of making more films of Spider-Man’s history, including an Aunt May film. You can see why the deal with Marvel was beneficial to them. They could not risk rebooting Spider-Man again after that… so Marvel/Disney took advantage of that.

I was unaware of the rights reversal. Explains a lot about well, everything involved with Sony. Rather than produce an ancient, long form epic about Spider-Man, we get the MCU's competitor in terms of spin-offs. A third reboot and fourth Spider-Man would be disastrous, especially with how the films keep getting lower in quality.

(09-10-2019, 01:18 PM)ShineCero Wrote: Sony has two options because technically speaking, Disney and Marvel doesn’t need Spider-Man. They can continue with their films with other movies (especially since they don’t involve Spider-Man anyways, such as Eternals, Thor 4 and Dr. Strange). Sony on the other hand, must reference these or ignored them. If they ignored them, the film is basically done. If they reboot—it will receive some backlash since audience is more accustomed with Tom Holland. Either Sony need to get back to table and discuss more, or they can take the risk doing things their way. And you can tell based on their track record, when Sony gets to hands on—it turned into a huge disaster. I personally don’t care about the economics as well, but either side is clearly attempting to get some funds out of it. Sony owns the rights of Spider-Man films, but at the same time, Disney wanted a bigger cut. I won’t be surprised if they resolved this by the time the year ends.

Marvel can go on without Spider-Man, that's true. It would not be the first time that a franchise attempted to shift main character status from a deceased character onto their successor only for them to change the main character halfway through the switch. Sony attempting to go on without Tom Holland, might as well give up. Especially without Marvel's input to prevent ASM2-2. Though yes, both sides are fighting over the money more than anything.

(09-10-2019, 01:18 PM)ShineCero Wrote: I might have to disagree with that. Fox’s X-Men were either blunders, decent at best or just straight up bad (Dark Phoenix essentially bombed in theaters hardcore). I still think Marvel Studios can take up X-Men and give them a proper care they really, really need. Who knows, they might add something completely different about Mutants as they did with all their other characters. Same thing with F4 and Deadpool (though, it was reported that Deadpool would remain largely the same. Won’t be surprise if he shows up in Doctor Strange 2).

I've heard the first two X-Men films were of good quality, along with Days of Future Past, and the Wolverine spin offs. Maybe. I'm not too certain. But the first X-Man film did show super hero movies can succeed as more than a niche, alongside Spider-Man 1. Marvel could make the X-Men good. I won't care because I'm mostly in this now for Thor and Spider-Man. Movies are expensive. And I don't imagine Marvel changing Deadpool much. I don't know why the two Deadpool sequels failed, but it probably has to do with the fact he's relatively niche outside of pop culture.
Forum Mod, focused on Art Garden and Roleplay Park
Ends of the Earth RP | Boogaverse RP Characters.
Current controller of the Meeting of the Dark. | Mysterious Summons: Malefor, Rex Marksley.
Creative Fiction: Solarian Stories; Withered; The Death Lords; Death Knight Detective; Warframe Fan Fiction

"To the Ends of the Earth."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)