It is true though that Marvel Studios worked on Spider-man for a pittance. Regardless of any side benefits, producing such a blockbuster for 5% is not logical.
-
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.
EW: Kevin Feige and Tom Holland talk Spider-Man
- Thread starter Halbrand
- Start date
It is true though that Marvel Studios worked on Spider-man for a pittance. Regardless of any side benefits, producing such a blockbuster for 5% is not logical.
Which means it's obviously happening. Third Spider-Man movies are cursed.
You're not gonna buy into Disney+ because Spider-Man isn't part of the MCU anymore? Nvm the fact his movies weren't gonna be on the service anyways?
I'm not calling you a liar, that's just curious logic.
Eh, I doubt it'll fall too significantly. He's one of those heroes you can always count on selling as far as merch goes.
Still don't know that Disney has to budge on anything here. They can survive without him in the movies. Sony's the one that needs help. I just don't believe solo Spidey in his own universe is viable anymore.
Money being left on the table for both sides. It's too good for both not to go back and do something.
I doubt FFH was successful because Nick Fury and Happy Hogan were there.
Adjusted for inflation all the Raimi films would be billion dollar movies, it totally possible to do stand alone Spider-Man films that are huge. And they can just cross over with Venom if they want to and that will be massive.
I recently watched the Raimi trilogy and tbh if they had of ditched the *entire* Sandman arc and focused more on Harry and Peter then it would have been a wonderful conclusion and there would be no discussion as to whether those were the best Spidey films.
Topher Grace was even a good Venom. He proved he could play the bad guy in Predators as well. Hell, he was scarier than the Predators.
I'm not even talking about merchandising. Just having Spidey in the Avengers movies added to their revenue
That I agree with. A discussion about changing the terms was bound to happen. It was just handled horribly by everyone.
I don't want to speak for anyone else or project my thoughts onto a larger audience, but I certainly don't care for a non-integrated Spider-Man anymore after how great the MCU films have been. I've got the Raimi films if I wanted that and anything post MCU will feel small in comparison.
As much as I love Tom Holland's Peter Parker, I'm even less interested in seeing his specific take outside the MCU because there's no way to tell that incarnation's story, for better or for worse, without the rest of the MCU. He's one of the only characters besides Fury/Hill that have been 100% integrated into the ensemble from the very first scene.
Yeah, this.
More merch to sell for Disney, Sony keeps getting 1B+ movies.
Problem is, Sony thinks (And probably wants to test) that: Venom 850 + Spider-Man 1.2B = Endgame profits
And I think it's up to Disney to propose again a deal... And why would they right now?
Sad as it is, I believe Amy Pascal is the only one that could help here :v
It helped that the MCU was leveraging a setting and branding (Goodwill) but most importantly: A previous installment that wasn't horrible.
Homecoming had it hard blasting off because it came directly from Sony's handling. Its success is more about Marvel Studios involvement (Which happens to come with the MCU)
Only the first and barely, Far from Home would be still the #1 at the BO, and this kind of comparison is worse actually having taken exchange rates in account; movies today do better internationally than they did in the 00s.
That's the same as the "Batman + Superman + Wonder Woman = Bigger than Avengers" math that WB/DC did for BvS and Justice League.
It doesn't work like that, there is a lot of demo overlap to even begin to work.
Last edited:
You can say yeah, why would Disney want Spidey now?
Then they announce Spidey is in the center of their new Avengers land and yeah...Disney is gonna come back but with more leverage.
lol Yeah, that's right.
I've always been ignorant about that side of the business. Are theme parks that big, and so profitable for Disney, Universal, etc.?
That's fine, but what does that have to do with Disney+, given Spider-Man movies weren't going to be on there anyway?
It sounds like you were just never going to get Disney+ lol
Fury and Happy themselves didn't boost the movie to a billion; the fact the movie is part of the MCU absolutely did, as was the fact it was the follow-up to the biggest movie of all time.
I'm aware the Raimi movies made a ton of money. I'm also aware they came out before the MCU existed.
I genuinely believe those days are largely over. That Spidey/Venom bullet only shoots once. Once it's gone, that's it. It's not even guaranteed to work the first time.
Pretty much.
The symbiote/Venom was a much better choice of villain for the revenge/redemption story Raimi was trying to tell with Spider-Man 3 than Sandman. Ironically, for as much (deserved) flak that Avi Arad got for that movie, the worst parts of it (Sandman retcon, Harry's amnesia) were Raimi's ideas.
People keep defending Disney films and the market as is with the rationale of "all those other genres are on streaming now!" "Its not Disneys fault they are so successfully making cinema so homogeneous just go watch those movies in streaming!"
But then in the next thread gleefully posting about how Netflix is in trouble and that they're cancelling Netflix so they can watch the same homogeneous blockbuster content on streaming.
But then in the next thread gleefully posting about how Netflix is in trouble and that they're cancelling Netflix so they can watch the same homogeneous blockbuster content on streaming.
Lol SM3 is not what's preventing many people from holding those films up as the best.
Yep. This Spider-Man was introduced as part of a world of superheroes just like the comics. Remove him from that and he's not the same Spider-Man. Not to take away from the great writing team, from Jon Watts' direction and from Holland's performance, but I'm not interested in seeing that version of Peter Parker on screen regardless of who is involved in Sony's bastard sequel.
I also don't think Sony would bother following up on the legwork the MCU did to set up future characters and developments. Homecoming introduced a lot of characters for return appearances but I'm sure their haste to get to a Venom crossover means they won't go further with Davis, Toomes, Gargan and Schultz. I wanted them to keep setting up Sinister Six but that's all likely to get sidelined for Venom and Carnage.
Last edited:
Spider man 3 is a bad film top to bottom. There's really nothing redeemable about it other than the sandman origin scene and the best Bruce Campbell cameo. People are quick to blame the exec's and sure they deserve some blame but that film has tons of problems that go far beyond just the suits.
Theme parks are ridiculously high risk-high reward kinds of ventures, especially when you get to the kind of macro-resort level that Disney's parks are at.
Think about it this way: the failure of Euro Disneyland in the '90s nearly tanked the ENTIRE Walt Disney Company. It's part of the reason Disney started to move away from traditional cel animation and one of the primary causes of the end of the Disney Renaissance - the company became EXTREMELY cost-conscious in response to the EuroDisney explosion and began cancelling projects left and right.
I am fully convinced things will go radio silent on this subject for the next few weeks/months and then we'll get the "surprise" announcement that a new deal was struck between, and there is a new Spidey trilogy (plus a few team ups in other films) coming.
Its just right now everyone is proud and sticking to their guns, but once Sony gathers its writers and truly tries to write a non MCU spidey flick and with Holland and realize (with everyone else) that it would make no fucking sense as the character is basically ingrained within the MCU in so many ways to suddenly and artificially ignore that in future films would be so freaking poor.
The same basically goes for Disney, since they made Spidey too big of a character in the MCU at this point. They certainly could have written the films differently. He could have just been a "helper" in Avenger films, and his solo films could have basically 100% existed in Spidey's Manhattan bubble and personal rogues gallery, so a split could have been more digestible, but both Homecoming and Far From Home were written to be so fully integrated into the MCU in so many ways, there just really isn't a logical way to proceed and not be part of that world, short of just doing a complete reboot WITH Tom Holland and straight up acknowledging that this is yet ANOTHER Spiderman and not who you saw fighting Thanos and hanging with Tony Stark and Nick Fury.
Its just right now everyone is proud and sticking to their guns, but once Sony gathers its writers and truly tries to write a non MCU spidey flick and with Holland and realize (with everyone else) that it would make no fucking sense as the character is basically ingrained within the MCU in so many ways to suddenly and artificially ignore that in future films would be so freaking poor.
The same basically goes for Disney, since they made Spidey too big of a character in the MCU at this point. They certainly could have written the films differently. He could have just been a "helper" in Avenger films, and his solo films could have basically 100% existed in Spidey's Manhattan bubble and personal rogues gallery, so a split could have been more digestible, but both Homecoming and Far From Home were written to be so fully integrated into the MCU in so many ways, there just really isn't a logical way to proceed and not be part of that world, short of just doing a complete reboot WITH Tom Holland and straight up acknowledging that this is yet ANOTHER Spiderman and not who you saw fighting Thanos and hanging with Tony Stark and Nick Fury.
25/75 is a totally fair share. Generous even taking into account that they are allowed to utilize a character they don't even own the film rights to. Sony has a hell of a lot more to lose here but honestly if Disney won't accept a reasonable offer I cannot say I blame them on a personal level. Business wise however it's probably in their best interest to swallow their pride and give Disney closer to what they want. Disney has a lot of other shit to make bank on versus Sony.
🤔
If he gets sucked into a alternate dimension she will be renamed Mary Jane and have to be asked out again.
Agreed.
Delete Sandman and improve Harry's story and you'd have a good film.
Thank you. That's right, it's basically part of the gigantic tourism industry. Interesting stuff!
Maybe she becomes a frozen character (Unable to be used by either Marvel or Sony) like Bag-Man and, now again, Peter Porker.
Or she becomes a character free to use by both, like Jessica Drew (Sony only her Spider persona, Marvel without Spider-elements)
The problem Raimi had, I think, is that there is only so much you can do without having a long-term plan (Or at least, an already signed sequel).
Some of the most pivotal Spider-Man moments were done thanks to the serial format of comics. That is ideal for soap-oper-y drama.
Films usually don't allow that, you can't throw a "clone/amnesia/long-lasting-love-triangles" trope as seamless in 120 minutes or less and give a satisfying closure.
That's why Raimi retreads ground so much every single entry.
So what are people supposed to do? Pretend that Marvel films are bad and that they don't like watching them?
I think Sony can make good Spider-Man films without the MCU (most Spider-Man movies have been good to great, and only 2 were MCU) but I don't think they can make Holland's MCU Spidey work without the MCU.
Well, I suppose if they made a live action Spiderverse side adventure thing where he's sucked into an alternate dimension. That would handwave all the questions about things they can't use like the Avengers, the Snap, possibly even his classmates, etc, and also let them not grow the character (which wouldn't make sense without the MCU).
Well, I suppose if they made a live action Spiderverse side adventure thing where he's sucked into an alternate dimension. That would handwave all the questions about things they can't use like the Avengers, the Snap, possibly even his classmates, etc, and also let them not grow the character (which wouldn't make sense without the MCU).
Are you seeing the same people defend the many avenues to movie production available while cheering on Netflix's (highly exaggerated) demise?
Present examples. Call someone out by name.
As for people cancelling Netflix for Disney+, either because they can only afford one streaming service or just straight up aren't using/enjoying Netflix anymore, that's their prerogative. Disney isn't an evil corporation because Person A decided he'd rather have their service instead of Netflix.
A lot of complaints about Disney can be boiled down to "I don't like that they're so successful". There are a ton of legitimate complaints to send their way, but that isn't one of them.
nah, from Marvel Studios' end, disentangling Spidey from the MCU is quite easy: just don't mention him again.
Okay, that's a bit glib, we don't know exactly what their plans are/were for the character going forward, but absolutely nothing in FFH necessitated narrative follow-up anywhere outside the next Spider-Man solo film, and they just announced a dozen or so MCU projects that are unlikely to be impacted at all by the Spider-Man rights.
Now, from Sony's end, it would be a lot harder and I more or less agree. In theory, they're free to continue the current franchise on their own, but in practice, it would be a creative and logistical nightmare that would require a roomful of lawyers to first sit down and determine exactly what elements from Homecoming/FFH Sony is legally allowed to use on its own, and it's hard to imagine that ending well for anyone.
How about expanding their taste beyond blockbuster cinema?
I dont even know how we got to this point.
I dont know if it's a cause effect of Trump or just people being so unhappy in general and not seeing much of a future that the only thing they want is vapid blockbuster escapism to forget the world but man I hate this direction we are headed.
And I'm not saying this as some movie snob, I like a lot of MCU films. I like the fast and furious films. But I also like lots of other stuff too. Its killing everything and sucking up all the energy. And if Disney + is some huge success and puts a dent on Netflix why the hell would people be happy about that?!
I dont get it. At all. There is nothing wrong with loving the films but only wanting them and nothing else is not healthy for the industry at all.
I agree with this. The only way I see them having success is with a new Spider-man or Spider-man 4(for nostalgia, focusing on people like me) with the same cast and Sam Raimi.
Creating a sequel of the Garfield Spider-Man or a sequel for Holland without MCU will probably led them to loss.
What's the line for you for how much Disney dominance would be bad for the industry's health? Or is there one?
Say Disney keeps getting more dominant. They get to 60-70% of the box office revenue? Would that concern you?
You think Trump is the reason people like blockbuster films? Cinema has been headed in this direction since Jaws.
People mostly want to watch blockbusters in cinemas because of the social element and the spectacle. For other types of films the majority is fine with watching them at home. I don't think it has anything to do with taste, just with the reality that many people have good TVs at home.
That is a great take.
From Marvel Studios side, I'd like them to throw some comment about "the kid" getting witness protection, "changed his name and dyed blonde" :v
But as you said, nothing in the foreseeable future has been impacted. None of the characters in the current Phase 4 line-up need even a Spider-Man mention. You can pretend he's elsewhere. It also helps that (Endgame spoilers) there was a five years jump, and maybe everything till Black Panther II is happening concurrently with Far from Home.
Though, I'd want them to continue (conclude?) the story as an (less than 44 minutes) animated series. But maybe Disney is playing the long game, who knows?
No, that is not what I said at all. I said people seem to suddenly ONLY want it and nothing else right now. And I wonder IF it's an effect of how unhappy people are right now.
Blockbusters have been around a long time. But they've never dominated the way they have now while other types of films get smaller and smaller and smaller pieces of the pie. They were mostly contained to summer. Now they drop year round and suck all the oxygen out of the room for everything else.
They've been creeping up to this dominant position for decades. Culturally, people have come to use cinema for a evoke certain kinds of emotions - and the modern blockbuster has them all. While they were often released in the summer, studios realized the demand never really goes away- it was a force of habit. (We see the same thing with games- publishers are slowly realizing they can have hits outside of the holidays)
There's room for everything else, but that room isn't necessarily at the movie theater.
Blockbusters dominating the cineplex is a logical conclusion for where the industry has been headed over the years, with the rise of streaming people don't want to go to the theater for every single movie. There will always be the "art house" cinemas to see the latest releases from the Fox Searchlights and A24s and foreign studios, but the big theaters are blockbuster territory year-round now. Whether that's good for the industry or sustainable in the long-term is another issue entirely...but this is where we are at nowadays.
It's not that people only want Disney films. It's that those are increasingly the only movies they want to pay to see in theaters. The reasons why have been discussed ad nauseam.
I shall answer this question after you deign to answer any of mine. The misdirect ain't gonna work on me.
I shall answer this question after you deign to answer any of mine. The misdirect ain't gonna work on me.
I have seen the same posters. I am not going to dig through thread after thread to find quotes.
Now, answer my questions.
It doesn't work like that. Sony has all of the Spider-Man film rights, that includes Miles.
What proof am I demanding? I'm simply asking a question about his opinion?
Now asking someone's opinion is "demanding proof"?
Lmao.
That's what I meant...by they I meant Sony in replacing peter Parker with Miles morales in their Spider-Man universe
Make peter Parker like the hulk of the MCU where they can use the character in avengers but not make a movie kinda like how they got to use hulk in avengers despite the fact universal holds rights to making movies
Will likely need to negotiate with Sony for Tom holland and Peter Parker character - they can minimize him in terms of the Spider-Man character and instead make him the new iron man or a new variation (Iron Spider)
Just wishful thinking ;p
Last edited:
For MCU films in particular there are very obvious reasons why people want to watch them in the theaters.
1. They are great
2. It's a continuous narrative that people want to see the next chapter of
3. They're really fun to watch together with an audience of fans