Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[dudalb]

Lots of cheering, I see, from the Marvel Haters about the split with Sony.

 

[Menor the Destroyer]

2 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

Perhaps they should let it die, and kill it if they have to.

Nah I want to see new Batman movies, especially if the character can be revitalized like Spider-Man was

[dudalb]

5 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Batman needs to heal. I’m not even convinced that giving us a new Batman so soon after Affleck’s Batman crashed and burned is a good idea, but I guess WB just can’t let go of the past. 

More of a case that Batman has been such a cash cow for them they can't resist milking it one more time.

[Legion Again]

1 minute ago, Menor said:

Nah I want to see new Batman movies, especially if the character can be revitalized like Spider-Man was

They should just have Kevin Feige produce the new Batman trilogy tbh, EZPZ

[WittyUsername]

3 minutes ago, Menor said:

Nah I want to see new Batman movies, especially if the character can be revitalized like Spider-Man was

Spider-Man was revitalized by being allowed to interact with other Marvel characters. Interacting with other DC characters is what hurt Batman in the first place. 

[dudalb]

1 minute ago, Thanos Legion said:

They should just have Kevin Feige produce the new Batman trilogy tbh, EZPZ

I understand Fiege's contract with Marvel is over in a couple of years, but I don't thin Warners can lure him away. Disney will pretty much give him whatever he wants, and Disney has deeper pockets then Warners.

[dudalb]

Just now, WittyUsername said:

Spider-Man was revitalized by being allowed to interact with other Marvel characters. Interacting with other DC characters is what hurt Batman in the first place. 

No, it was that the interaction with other DC Charecters was so badly handled.

Batman is pretty much a loner in the comics, but he is willing to work with other DC heros,he is just cautious about any formal relationship.

[Menor the Destroyer]

1 minute ago, WittyUsername said:

Spider-Man was revitalized by being allowed to interact with other Marvel characters. Interacting with other DC characters is what hurt Batman in the first place. 

But also by switching up tones and plotlines, like Homecoming and FFH being a lot more YA focused. 

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, WittyUsername said:

It seems like we’re going to need to wait and see what happens between Marvel and Sony before concluding that there will be no MCU Spider-Man film in 2021. Negotiations are apparently still ongoing. 

Yeah, that's the thing. We don't know how much of this is just negotiation tactics.

 

[2kt09]

38 minutes ago, Litio said:

"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." LMFAO

no mention of merchandising?

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, Jordanstine said:

All of these news especially the Deadline article including their updates all seems to be just coming from Sony’s side...

 

Nothing yet from Disney...

And you won't hear much for Disney for a few days on this. Standard negotiation tactics.

[WittyUsername]

2 minutes ago, Menor said:

But also by switching up tones and plotlines, like Homecoming and FFH being a lot more YA focused. 

I don’t trust Matt Reeves to deliver an interesting Batman movie that can set itself apart from all the ones that came before it. The guy is a painfully boring director. 

[dudalb]

Just now, 2kt09 said:

no mention of merchandising?

Marvel ,when it made it's intial deals with Fox and Sony for X Men and Spidey, retained merchandising rights, with the other studios getting a cut of the profits. That deal still stands.

The fuss is just over Spiderman's appearing in the MCU and the Marvel Studios involvement in the Solo Spidey movies.

[WhiteWings]

I'm seeing some reporters finally waking up to how downright insane the mainstream fandom of the MCU can get. They're all up with pitchforks and torches against Sony because they're not taking a deal that downright sucks for them.

"Disney can do no wrong" I guess.
It almost makes me sympathize with the extreme Disney haters. Once in a while, they are kinda right.

[Ororo Munroe]

42 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Batman needs to heal. I’m not even convinced that giving us a new Batman so soon after Affleck’s Batman crashed and burned is a good idea, but I guess WB just can’t let go of the past. 

Let go of the past? Why should they? We're talking about a comic book character, after all and one of the most iconic, at that. 

 

The Spider-Man comparison is definitely a valid one. Yes, Spidey has the advantage of being included in a successful shared universe but Holland's Spider-Man is also vastly different from the two who came before and that was important in establishing that this version was truly a fresh take on the character.  

 

Whether you like Reeves or not, I think it's safe to say he's not going to deliver Batfleck 2.0 and thank goodness for that because I felt nothing for that version of Batman except annoyance...indifference, at best. And given that Reeves supposedly wants to focus on the detective aspect, he's probably not going to be all that similar to Bale's Batman either. I look forward to seeing what he has to offer. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Ororo Munroe

[Menor the Destroyer]

10 minutes ago, WhiteWings said:

I'm seeing some reporters finally waking up to how downright insane the mainstream fandom of the MCU can get. They're all up with pitchforks and torches against Sony because they're not taking a deal that downright sucks for them.

"Disney can do no wrong" I guess.
It almost makes me sympathize with the extreme Disney haters. Once in a while, they are kinda right.

Most people don't pay attention to the corporate side of things. People hear "Spider-Man is leaving the MCU and Sony is making solo films with him" and react to that. I think Disney and Sony are both at fault here but it's not difficult to figure out why Sony is taking the heat, especially since people were already salty at them for SM3/ASM/ASM2.

[WittyUsername]

9 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

Let go of the past? Why should they? We're talking about a comic book character, after all and one of the most iconic, at that. 

 

The Spider-Man comparison is definitely a valid one. Yes, Spidey has the advantage of being included in a successful shared universe but Holland's Spider-Man is also vastly different from the two who came before and that was important in establishing that this version was truly a fresh take on the character.  

 

Whether you like Reeves or not, I think it's safe to say he's not going to deliver Batfleck 2.0 and thank goodness for that because I felt nothing for that version of Batman except annoyance...indifference, at best. And given that Reeves supposedly wants to focus on the detective aspect, he's probably not going to be all that similar to Bale's Batman either. I look forward to seeing what he has to offer. 

I’m not expecting Matt Reeves to make a Batman movie where anything stands out about it. The guy has no style or vision, and his movies are all pretty disposable and forgettable. The only thing I even remember about that last Planet of the Apes movie is the Coca Cola product placement. 

[2kt09]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Marvel ,when it made it's intial deals with Fox and Sony for X Men and Spidey, retained merchandising rights, with the other studios getting a cut of the profits. That deal still stands.

The fuss is just over Spiderman's appearing in the MCU and the Marvel Studios involvement in the Solo Spidey movies.

 

29 minutes ago, Menor said:

Most people don't pay attention to the corporate side of things. People hear "Spider-Man is leaving the MCU and Sony is making solo films with him" and react to that. I think Disney and Sony are both at fault here but it's not difficult to figure out why Sony is taking the heat, especially since people were already salty at them for SM3/ASM/ASM2.

Well at some point then, Sony sold the merchandising back in 2011. They got into this deal hoping they'd get their shit together with this IP and make sure it's bankable enough to keep holding on to it (even put in place penalty safe guards if they with Marvel didn't gross a certain amount). 

They managed to make the IP bankable  + award-winning without Marvel. 

 

So, what's Sony's financial incentive for Disney wanting a bigger cut when they could have continued w/e deal they currently had in place? 

Edited August 21, 2019 by 2kt09

[Ororo Munroe]

29 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I’m not expecting Matt Reeves to make a Batman movie where anything stands out about it. The guy has no style or vision, and his movies are all pretty disposable and forgettable. The only thing I even remember about that last Planet of the Apes movie is the Coca Cola product placement. 

I can't claim to be a Reeves fan but I think he did good work on Planet of the Apes and he already has my attention with his choice of Pattinson. We'll see how the rest works out but I'm glad to see that WB is at least committed to this movie. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Ororo Munroe

[2kt09]