Jump to content
CJohn

Spider-Man: Far From Home | 2 JUL 2019 | ***ENDGAME SPOILERS ALLOWED***

Recommended Posts

Just now, Menor said:

The existence and promotion of a non-MCU Spidey will prompt the negative buzz to rise back up. People will forget about it, but then they'll be reminded of it again, and will start shitting on it again.

Like it happened with Aladdin, Star Wars or all the other boycotted movies...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, raulbalarezo said:

Spidey has always been huge overseas, even bad movies without MCU connection, Spider-Man 3 made $540M OS back in 2007, TASM2 made $500M back in 2014

Indeed and then it destroyed the brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, expensiveho said:

According to Deadline (I know they don't know shit most of the time but it's the best source we have) TASM2 got $70m in profit, with ancillaries included.

 

If the 5% deal is true, then Marvel still gets 35m (5% off 700m, as far as I know that was the deal for every Marvel character including Fox and Universal) so basically they got 50% of the profit anyway. Now, I'm sure FFH got a way bigger profit considering it grossed far more and had a smaller budget, so even with 50/50 Sony benefits more from working with Disney that doing it themselves.

In reality they made 70M on Amazing Spider Man, on TASM 2 they made about nothing, I also really think take the 50-50 co-financing on a 1.1 billion grosser (it is a much better deal than what they had on James Bond at least) than a 700M movie, for the giant budget affair.

 

It is more when they break out that it get a big deal, much better giving a 50M on the over one billion revenues they made on Spider Man 2/Spider man 3 than give half of the 330m of profits, those new Spider Man are a big tier above the TASM generation in success.

 

7 minutes ago, expensiveho said:

Of course these are a lot of assumptions, but Sony just seems confident that they can make Spidey work even though they haven't in a while.

I am starting to feel that the ability to use him outside Spider Man movies is also quite the big deal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually great! All superheroes should go back to their personal stories.

 

There is seriously no lamer and nerdier thing than cross-fucks, guest appearances and shared universes. Makes the Superhero ghetto-genre even more pathetic, fat and basement-dwelling.

 

So OFF with Spidey here - also kill all the X-men, and never even think about the cursed Fan4astik 4. Also Captain Marvel should only appear in her own movies (if at all), where laws of nature are apparently different.

 

Last thing, Disney went so far in forcefully tying Spidey to Iron Man, that it should have been clear that one of them CAN NOT OUTLIVE  the other. :) *happy Shay*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Titan Man said:

But nobody bats an eye to the burning Amazon forest. Ahh, never change, humans, never change...

I have seen a lot of people talking about the burning Amazon. The "nobody bats an eye" thing seems to be a criticism of people caring about entertainment than sincerely trying to bring awareness.

 

5 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

I haven't seen anything remotely negative from casual fans. Maybe that's just because whenever I try to see the reactions on the internet, the only people I can see are Marvel stans (ie. Marvel twitter or people from the marvel subreddit). 

Idk if it's possible to tell which are casual fans on the internet (although the sheer volume of the trends makes it seem like it's a lot more than just a disgruntled core group). I'm just talking about people who I know irl that watch the MCU movies but don't discuss MCU news or anything like that who have complained about this to me.  

  • Disbelief 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cdsacken said:

Indeed and then it destroyed the brand

How the brand just did 733m OS if it was destroyed ?

 

Some brand are quite resilient, look what Batman/Star Wars survived over the age, Spider Man is probably one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

That was under Amy Pascal. I trust Tom Rothman way more at least at keeping budgets low.

Those movies made money, that wasn’t the problem. The toxic buzz basically killed their ambitions for bigger things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Titan Man said:

Like it happened with Aladdin, Star Wars or all the other boycotted movies...

Solo bombed hard. :ph34r:

Edited by Valonqar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Titan Man said:

But nobody bats an eye to the burning Amazon forest. Ahh, never change, humans, never change...

To be fair, an American complaining on twitter about one seem more likely to bring a change for one case than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2012 there was the “MCU fanbase” and “the GA.” Now the MCU fanbase is the GA. Not everyone is hardcore caring about Hollywood studio rumor details and profit sharing and blah blah blah, but they know that they like the new version of Spider-man that exists alongside the other MCU superheroes. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Titan Man said:

Like it happened with Aladdin, Star Wars or all the other boycotted movies...

Aladdin's OW was absolutely affected by the negative buzz. But then the movie got very good WOM and was able to get past that. Solo was also affected by negative buzz and, although it was liked by audiences, it didn't get the very good/excellent WOM it needed to recover from that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

How the brand just did 733m OS if it was destroyed ?

 

Some brand are quite resilient, look what Batman/Star Wars survived over the age, Spider Man is probably one of those.

HC obviously helped and then FFH with the tie into MCU helped it a ton. Damaged the brand is better but I mean HC did less overseas....despite being much better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rebeccas said:

Those movies made money, that wasn’t the problem. The toxic buzz basically killed their ambitions for bigger things. 

 

Not TASM 2, Sony expected to make only $14M for the movie total lifetime and for the third party investor to loose 5 millions,

 

With the participation in, TASM 2 net budget was almost 310M, the net budget was about 300M at break even point with the bonuses. It needed 850M with 300M DBO for a good return. It was a big problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Barnack said:

How the brand just did 733m OS if it was destroyed ?

 

Some brand are quite resilient, look what Batman/Star Wars survived over the age, Spider Man is probably one of those.

The whole TASM2 "apocalypse" is ridiculous to me, it made them money (edit: it didn't, but it wasn't a flop), it got at worst mediocre reviews, but it just didn't manage to launch the shared universe they hoped to have. Of course the natural next step was to bring the character to the most popular franchise in the world, but even without the MCU a new reboot would've done fine if it was any good, IMO. 

Edited by Titan Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cdsacken said:

HC obviously helped and then FFH with the tie into MCU helped it a ton. Damaged the brand is better but I mean HC did less overseas....despite being much better 

Yes obviously Damaged it quite a bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Rorschach said:

Everyone's still going on about this, huh?

If you mean spiderman sony vs disney thing then OFC... this IS the spidey thread.. but if you mean "everyone still going on as if this will stick" then you are right to ask...

16 minutes ago, CJohn said:

I wanna see that sweet Spider-Man vs Venom movie. Who do I have to boycott for that to happen? Disney?

 

 

How do i block irrelevant/angry people like you? I am on my phone so the desktop version isnt an option if anyone tries to explain it.. Want to block few posterpests with nothing better to do than poison a box office message board without contributing... heeeelp!:'(

 

TTVOMJ

Edited by Maximum Avery
Typos
  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

HC obviously helped and then FFH with the tie into MCU helped it a ton. Damaged the brand is better but I mean HC did less overseas....despite being much better 

? Homecoming beat ASM2 OS. It just wasn't a huge increase like DOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Krissykins said:

Because Disney already has all of the merchandise and the theme park rights in their most recent agreement. There’s no mention of them wanting to share that with Sony. 

 

They also want to jump from 5% to 50%. 

 

So to answer your first question, yes, it’s greed.  

I am not sure if you're confused or not about who actually owns the character of Spider-Man, so just to clarify, Disney owns the rights to the character Spider-Man. They are the sole owners of the character. So why would Sony have theme park rights to a character that they don't own? 

 

Disney does not have the exclusive theme park rights to Spider-Man. Universal Studios has the theme park rights to Spider-Man in all theme parks east of the Mississippi River, which means no Spider-Man at Walt Disney World. Disney does have the theme park rights at the other theme parks. This has absolutely zero to do with Spider-Man movies. Unless you mistakenly think that Sony owns Spider-Man. So I will reiterate, Disney owns the character Spider-Man.

 

As for merchandising, Sony traded the merchandising rights to Disney in exchange for not having to pay Marvel a licensing fee for using Marvel's Spider-Man character in movies. That's why Disney has the merchandising rights. 

 

Marvel is actually supplying all the creativity and supervision in making the movie. Additionally, the character is allowed to be included in a very successful franchise, which only increases its box office prospects, which were fading badly before it was allowed to be included in said franchise. Why is it greedy to value all of that at 50%, when you're also willing to finance half the movie? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maximum Avery said:

If you mean spiderman sony vs disnez thing then OFC... this IS the spidey thread.. but if you mean "everyone still going on as if this will stick" theb you are right to ask...

How do i block irrelevant/angry people like you? I am on my phone so the desktop version isnt an option if anyone tries to explain it.. Want to block few posterpests with nothing better to do than poison a box office message board without contributing... heeeelp!:'(

 

TTVOMJ

Yes, I am very angry about all of this. I will burn down Sony and Disney if they don't reach an agreement and boycott their movies until the end of times.

 

Also, there is an actual thread pinned about me somewhere in this forum so I would say I am quite relevant. Two actually, if we count the CJohn Saga.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.