President's Day Weekend Thread (2/16-19) | Bob Marley 28.6/34.1 (52 6-Day), Madame Web 15.3/18 (26 6-Day)

[Krissykins]

On 1/10/2024 at 3:42 PM, Krissykins said:

Just throwing out a random prediction:

 

$22,000,000 6 day

$40,000,000 total domestic. 
 

It seems doomed. I’m excited to see it though, maybe it’ll be a camp mess! 

My prediction for Madame Web from January 10th could end up being spot-on! 

[Napoleon]

I’ve seen a few posts on social media hyping Madame Web as if it’s a “so bad it’s good” classic (even though reviews say it isn’t, that it is just boringly terrible). I wonder if this will help the numbers a bit. I didn’t see this much activity for last year’s cbm flops (including the most surprising one, The Marvels), so I was expecting people to simply ignore Madame Web’s existence.

[vafrow]

Is there a definitive sources for what the actual rules are for Sony to retain the rights to Spiderman? Do the B and C level characters count towards their requirement, or do they need to produce an actual Spiderman movie.

 

I'm unsure if these Madame Web and Kraven films are being made for contractual purposes, or were they trying to build out their universe so they have the option to split from the MCU.

[JustLurking]

4 hours ago, Krissykins said:

My prediction for Madame Web from January 10th could end up being spot-on! 

40M off 22M 6days seems very optimistic for something this hated. That's pretty much the same multiplier Morbius had off its 3-day.

[JustLurking]

33 minutes ago, vafrow said:

Is there a definitive sources for what the actual rules are for Sony to retain the rights to Spiderman? Do the B and C level characters count towards their requirement, or do they need to produce an actual Spiderman movie.

 

I'm unsure if these Madame Web and Kraven films are being made for contractual purposes, or were they trying to build out their universe so they have the option to split from the MCU.

It doesn't matter at all. They're not making these films for contractual purposes. They just need to make a spidey film every 5 years for that, and spiderman4 won't release after december 2026.

Edited February 17 by JustLurking

[JonathanMB]

2 hours ago, Napoleon said:

I’ve seen a few posts on social media hyping Madame Web as if it’s a “so bad it’s good” classic (even though reviews say it isn’t, that it is just boringly terrible). I wonder if this will help the numbers a bit. I didn’t see this much activity for last year’s cbm flops (including the most surprising one, The Marvels), so I was expecting people to simply ignore Madame Web’s existence.

 

"So bad it's good" only ends up really bringing in a very small-if-vocal niche of moviegoers, definitely not enough to save a movie in theaters. Let's not forget how much toxic buzz was around Morbius and how that did not save the movie one bit. 

[vafrow]

8 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

It doesn't matter at all. They're not making these films for contractual purposes. They just need to make a spidey film every 5 years for that, and spiderman4 won't release after december 2026.

 

It matters in the long run. We still haven't seen anything concrete on the next Spiderman film, and, I'm not sure what's locked down in terms of cast or Feige involvement. 

 

I'm just really curious where Sony goes from here. It feels like a lot of Sony's efforts has been to try and give them a pathway to split from the MCU, but they're more at their mercy than ever. Likewise, Marvel being spread to thin likely isn't interested in taking on Sony's legwork without a bigger cut.

 

 

[DInky]

1 hour ago, vafrow said:

Is there a definitive sources for what the actual rules are for Sony to retain the rights to Spiderman? Do the B and C level characters count towards their requirement, or do they need to produce an actual Spiderman movie.

 

I'm unsure if these Madame Web and Kraven films are being made for contractual purposes, or were they trying to build out their universe so they have the option to split from the MCU.

 

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1076531156

 

Quote

MALONE: For Sony to keep the "Spider-Man" rights, they apparently have to keep making "Spider-Man" movies per the contract.

ROBINSON: Here's a part of the Sony-Marvel contract. I'm going to read - are you going - I'm going to hit you with some...

MALONE: You got text?

ROBINSON: ...Contract verbiage.

MALONE: Oh, this is - this is it for us. We love reading from a contract. All right, let's - lay it on us, Joanna.

ROBINSON: All right. (Reading) Sony must commence production on a new "Spider-Man" film within three years, nine months and release it within five years, nine months after the release of preceding picture. Boom.

MALONE: Translation - if Sony does not release a "Spider-Man" movie every five years and nine months, the movie rights go back to Marvel, and Sony loses one of the most valuable pieces of intellectual property in the world? I - hard to fact-check. I'm going to go and say it.

WONG: So if you've wondered why there always seems to be a "Spider-Man" movie, it's because there kind of has to be one if Sony wants to keep the rights.

MALONE: And does this go on for eternity?

ROBINSON: Yes.

MALONE: What?

ROBINSON: This is the contract. This is what - this is the devil's bargain that Marvel's made with Sony.

 

So, we can't be 100% sure but it seems like Sony needs to put out actual Spider-Man movies to keep the rights.

[filmlover]

Kraven's definitely a bigger character than Madame Web (who I'm pretty sure was on no one's radar until this movie) but the movie looks no less hacky than this did despite a good cast (including two Oscar winners). And the decision to shift it from a prime first weekend of October release all the way to Labor Day weekend screams just as much zero confidence in the quality.

 

It'll be more interesting to see how Venom 3 fares at the end of the year or if fatigue is also ready to pounce on that one. No disrespect towards Juno Temple (great in the new season of Fargo btw) or Chiwetel Ejiofor, but there's a real "have to keep the costs down as much as possible/bigger names said no" aura on paper if they're supposed to be the exciting new additions to the franchise. Better have a good hook beyond "Venom fights an evil version of himself...again" to avoid the law of diminishing returns.

Edited February 17 by filmlover

[AJG]

13 minutes ago, DInky said:

 

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1076531156

 

 

So, we can't be 100% sure but it seems like Sony needs to put out actual Spider-Man movies to keep the rights.

 

These are outdated terms from the Sony leak in 2014. Before they were changed with Disney.

 

Sony green-lit these films because it was irresponsible for them to not do so. Marvel is hot. Sony has Marvel characters. Shareholders wondered why Sony wasn't using them. That's it. That's the reason we have these films.

Sony's problem is that the characters they have could barely string together their own comic books let alone their own movie. They need creators that are actually invested in and excited about telling the stories of Electro and Scorpion (and they'll be hard to find). Not a studio desperately cranking out movies about Unus The Untouchable because they have to.

[John Marston]

8 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Kraven's definitely a bigger character than Madame Web (who I'm pretty sure was on no one's radar until this movie) but the movie looks no less hacky than this did despite a good cast (including two Oscar winners). And the decision to shift it from a prime first weekend of October release to all the way to Labor Day weekend screams just as much zero confidence in the quality.

 

It'll be more interesting to see how Venom 3 fares at the end of the year or if fatigue is also ready to pounce on that one. No disrespect towards Juno Temple (great in the new season of Fargo btw) or Chiwetel Ejiofor, but there's a real "have to keep the costs down as much as possible/bigger names said no" aura on paper if they're the supposed to be the exciting new additions to the franchise. Better have a good hook beyond "Venom fights an evil version of himself...again" to avoid the law of diminishing returns.

 

Venom 3 will go down a decent amount. Carnage was a huge draw for fans and the post credit scene created huge buzz.

[PlatnumRoyce]

  

38 minutes ago, DInky said:

 

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1076531156

 

 

So, we can't be 100% sure but it seems like Sony needs to put out actual Spider-Man movies to keep the rights.

I don't agree with that interpretation but I agree it's the most logical read of the NPR transcript. I've pulled the actual Sony Hack document (at least a version of the Sony-Marvel contract as amended in 2011) before looking for this exact distinction between "Spider-Man" films and "Spider-Man adjacent/non-Spider-Man character" films and I just don't see it. There's no defined legal term for films like Venom so I think all of these films count as Spider-Man films. 

 

The accurate version of the language I'm seeing simply says "The Production Term will expire on the date..." and instead of Spider-Man film, the production term relates back to the defined term PICTURE which is

• "one or more motion pictures (including, without limitation, sequels, prequels, remakes, serials or other audiovisual works of any nature) intended for initial theatrical release (“Picture(s)”); and"

I'm not sure if I'm looking at the final version of the negotiation but I'm also positive the NPR interview in 2014 didn't actively think about the possibility of Morbius movies when deciding how to compress legalese into a quick interview hit. 

 

If films like Venom didn't count, you'd need some language in the license contract addressing it and the definition of film doesn't say something like "stars spider-man/peter parker". I could find neither (but I could have missed something). Remember, around this time Sony was making noise about a sinister six movie and if that had no impact on rights retention, I'm sure that would have been actively discussed given compressed timeline to make TASM1.

Edited February 17 by PlatnumRoyce
combined 2 posts

[vafrow]

33 minutes ago, DInky said:

 

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1076531156

 

 

So, we can't be 100% sure but it seems like Sony needs to put out actual Spider-Man movies to keep the rights.

 

Thanks. It still feels a bit ambiguous. But, it certainly leans towards being actual Spiderman.

 

It does make you wonder what the behind the scenes negotiations are like right now. Tom Holland is likely sitting on some of the biggest leverage an actor can ever have. 

 

Edit: and reading @PlatnumRoyce above, I'm now back to being unsure. Anyways, something for lawyers to sort out.

Edited February 17 by vafrow

[John Marston]

Sony is just making these movies for the most cynical reason possible. They don't care about quality. They try to make them on the cheap. Their hope is simply the connections to Spider-Man or if people are fooled into thinking they are MCU movies will cause them go into profit whether in theaters or on VOD. 

[DInky]

4 minutes ago, vafrow said:

 

Thanks. It still feels a bit ambiguous. But, it certainly leans towards being actual Spiderman.

 

It does make you wonder what the behind the scenes negotiations are like right now. Tom Holland is likely sitting on some of the biggest leverage an actor can ever have. 

 

My read on the current situation is that Sony is trying to rope Holland into being part of their shitty Spider-Man universe and Holland smartly doesn't want to do it and that's what's holding up the next movie.

[DInky]

11 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

I don't agree with that interpretation. I've pulled the actual Sony Hack document referenced here looking for this exact distinction between "Spider-Man" films and "Spider-Man adjacent/non-Spider-Man character" films and I just don't see it. There's no defined legal term for films like Venom so I think all of these films count as Spider-Man films. 

 

If films like Venom didn't count, you'd need some language in the license contract addressing it and the definition of film doesn't say something like "stars spider-man/peter parker". I could find neither (but I could have missed something). Remember, around this time Sony was making noise about a sinister six movie and if that had no impact on rights retention, I'm sure that would have been actively discussed given compressed timeline to make TASM1.

 

The Sinister Six movie would have been a two-parter titled "The Amazing Spider-Man: Sinister Six" so basically Amazing Spider-Man 3 which would have extended their license.

 

[PlatnumRoyce]

3 minutes ago, DInky said:

 

The Sinister Six movie would have been a two-parter titled "The Amazing Spider-Man: Sinister Six" so basically Amazing Spider-Man 3 which would have extended their license.

 

Neat.

 

Also, I've somehow missed "2021 - Garfield versus McGuire = 2 billion in profits" which is basically what happened in NWH.

 

 

[kayumanggi]

 

[kayumanggi]

 

[JustWatching]

13 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Sony is just making these movies for the most cynical reason possible. They don't care about quality. They try to make them on the cheap. Their hope is simply the connections to Spider-Man or if people are fooled into thinking they are MCU movies will cause them go into profit whether in theaters or on VOD. 

And to be fair, why should they care about quality? They keep getting rewarded for making dreck. The two Venom films and Morbius combined cost just under $300 million and made $1.5 billion WW. Maybe MW face planting so badly will shake up the calculation, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.