Jump to content
CJohn

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

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I just can't believe though that audiences would go for hitting reset on Spider-man for the third time in roughly a decade. First Spider-Man 4 gets canned, then Sony plans 6 TASM movies after the first and only makes it through two, and now supposedly three Holland trilogies were outlined and they might not make it through the first one. They can't keep not seeing things through with this franchise. 

Exactly! This is why audiences will side with Disney/Marvel even if Disney/Marvel are the ones technically to blame here. As I said before, it isn't the audience's job (unless you're a studio fanboy) to concern themselves with which studio is getting the short and long end of the stick. They're the paying customers and they only care about what they're seeing on screen. If the Spider-Man character suddenly gets plucked out of the MCU, a chunk will still see the now detached Spider-Man films from Sony but a lot will say screw this and just stick with the MCU.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if it turns out this is true and Holland doesn't even have to do one more movie, that could mean huge trouble for Sony. Having to reboot for the third time, jfc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

There’s always the chance that this gets resolved before the end of the year. If that happens, it’s still possible that we could get one in 2021, although Marvel already has three other movies scheduled for that year. 

With all of this happening, I'm not sure if a script will be ready by time. Even if writing has already started for Spider-man 3, it's probably been stalled until this gets resolved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think audiences are going to accept a 4th live action spiderman version especially if the 3rd one was quite successful and well liked. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Do you think The Incredibles would’ve been as big if say Warner Bros or MGM or Paramount was distributing it? It’s sequel was yes an excellent movie as was the first and ITSV but different expectations for different film. Sony Animation doesn’t have the same drawing power as Pixar/WDAS/Dreamworks/Illumination and Animated CBMs 

 

 

You kind of made my point for me as to why Sony is in a tough spot without Disney with the above. Sony's Spider-Man films will not gross the same amount of money for the same reason that the animated film didn't gross as much. Just like your argument about the animated films, it works the same way with the characters association to the MCU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does explain why nothing was mentioned at the Comic Con panel

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, infamous5445 said:

Also, if it turns out this is true and Holland doesn't even have to do one more movie, that could mean huge trouble for Sony. Having to reboot for the third time, jfc.

Tom Holland doesn’t seem like the kind of person who would turn down getting to continue playing Spider-Man, regardless of whether or not Kevin Feige is involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Both sides are fucking up.

 

 

This whole thing is a confusing mess, first DHD says “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. Sources said that Sony, led by Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra, came back with other configurations, but Disney didn’t want to do that.”

 

 

Now we’re hearing reports of the opposite, it’s just a mess

Deadline's information clearly came from Sony. However, The Hollywood Reporters information seems to have come from both companies. That THR article mentioned Disney only asking for 30%. It doesn't change anything I have written on the subject, but it does make me question the accuracy of the Deadline article.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I dont think audiences are going to accept a 4th live action spiderman version especially if the 3rd one was quite successful and well liked. 

Or at the very least a 4th Peter Parker series. They should really try other Spider-Men and Spider-Women to use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This does explain why nothing was mentioned at the Comic Con panel

I assumed that was simply because it was up to Sony to announce the next Spider-Man film. 

Share this post


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

Deadline's information clearly came from Sony. However, The Hollywood Reporters information seems to have come from both companies. That THR article mentioned Disney only asking for 30%. It doesn't change anything I have written on the subject, but it does make me question the accuracy of the Deadline article.

Deadline doesn’t say if the sources came from either, the whole thing seems like a mess 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Macleod said:

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. "

 

That has to be the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, like ever!

 

What a blunder that is for Disney!

 

As an ingenious entrepreneur and businessman himself, the Shay can straight away shoot a couple of grave mistakes Disney foolishly went with:

 

1. NEVER invest in something that is not yours.

if you need it that much - then first destroy it, buy it cheap (or even expensive) - and only THEN invest in it to its full potential

 

2. NO ONE is irreplaceable!

so Sony has stupid 8-legged freak? big fucking deal!! let them have it and fuck it completely!

I thought you were the "great" Marvel - you had thousands of characters??!! then why not just come up with one of your own that is better?

 

The Shay will really enjoy the million ways in which Sony is about to fuck Marvel now. :) The greedy dimwits really deserve it.

 

Also, it is now clear THAT THE SECOND BIGGEST COMIC UNIVERSE WILL NOW BE SONY - NOT DC.

 

AHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAGAHAHHAHAH

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

But the distinction that is germane to the point I'm making is that The Incredibles isn't based on a pre-existing comic and part of a tradition that includes live-action movies. The Incredibles is the only Incredibles there is, so it gets to "count" in a way nobody wants to count animated versions of other superheroes like Batman or Superman or Captain America. Once a superhero is adapted to live action, you can basically forget about an animated... and better... version of that superhero succeeding. Why? Because cartoons don't count. They're for kids. Not for grownups, like the movies about people in costumes punching out bad guys based on books written for audiences aged 6-13.... 
 


 

I just don't see the evidence to back up this argument. The only movie I can think of besides Spider-verse where they went from live action to animated was Universal's The Grinch. The live action movie was a massive hit. Universal then went the animated route in 2018. The movie grossed $270M domestically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

That has to be the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, like ever!

 

What a blunder that is for Disney!

 

As an ingenious entrepreneur and businessman himself, the Shay can straight away shoot a couple of grave mistakes Disney foolishly went with:

 

1. NEVER invest in something that is not yours.

if you need it that much - then first destroy it, buy it cheap (or even expensive) - and only THEN invest in it to its full potential

 

2. NO ONE is irreplaceable!

so Sony has stupid 8-legged freak? big fucking deal!! let them have it and fuck it completely!

I thought you were the "great" Marvel - you had thousands of characters??!! then why not just come up with one of your own that is better?

 

The Shay will really enjoy the million ways in which Sony is about to fuck Marvel now. :) The greedy dimwits really deserve it.

 

Also, it is now clear THAT THE SECOND BIGGEST COMIC UNIVERSE WILL NOW BE SONY - NOT DC.

 

AHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAGAHAHHAHAH

 

 

How is this guy not banned?

  • Not Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Deadline doesn’t say if the sources came from either, the whole thing seems like a mess 

If Disney was a source, then the Deadline article would have mentioned the 30% number. You can see the information that wasn't available or was omitted from the article when you compare it to the THR article.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, infamous5445 said:

How is this guy not banned?

 

It is not losers who write the rules.

 

Mind your (collapsing) business, Marvel-serf. You are too weak to handle the truth I've bestowed to this thread. Nothing more to say here anyway.

Edited by shayhiri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

If Disney was a source, then the Deadline article would have mentioned the 30% number. You can see the information that wasn't available or was omitted from the article when you compare it to the THR article.  

But the THR article also left out that Sony gave other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine Sony would consider walking away without the knowledge that they still had another Tom Holland Spidey film left cause I doubt the GA would be very accepting of yet another reboot of Spider-Man unless it was live action Miles Morales or something. 

  • Like 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.