Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie Thread

[Red Devil-Taker316]

It does sound a bit like a Sony spin there.

[Tigerstyle]

Deffo spin.

Sony are just shitting in a bag and punching it. I know Disney have probably asked for the moon on this (and rightly so, it wasn't Sony that made it the biggest Spiderman film). It's kind of bullshit that this contract can basically go on forever, while Disney/Marvel still have to try and get a buck off it by owning the merchandise rights.

It's all very stupid, and while Spiderman is still the only thing that Marvel don't own, they'll never be complete.

[Chris2K]

As always with these sort of failed negotiations, the fallout from it is that nobody wins. I do feel sorry for Tom Holland though who I thought was doing a very good job.

[tristy]

According to the Hollywood Reporter - Disney wanted a 30% stake in co-financing and producing the Spidey movies, not 50 like previously reported. While Sony has plans for two more movies, Tom Holland has the option for one more - and Jon Watts' contract was completed with Far From Home.

Disney wanted more money, since they basically revived interest in Spider-Man. And Sony now thinks they can do it by themselves again, since they've seen Feige at work and feel they learned enough from him. Also the successes of Venom and Into the Spider-Verse make them think they don't need Marvel Studios.

[Benjamin]

Was Venom a success commercially? I thought it was only so-so.

[Lint]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin said:

Was Venom a success commercially? I thought it was only so-so.

Budget was $100-150 million.  Deadline reported it needed to make $450 million to break even.  Wound up grossing around $850 million, but "only" did $213 million in the US and Canada.

So take that as you will.  It did so-so domestically, but was hot shit overseas and particularly in China

[Jimmy]

1 hour ago, Lint said:

Budget was $100-150 million.  Deadline reported it needed to make $450 million to break even.  Wound up grossing around $850 million, but "only" did $213 million in the US and Canada.

So take that as you will.  It did so-so domestically, but was hot shit overseas and particularly in China

Bombed critically, though. 

I feel like Sony overlook shit like that. People keep coming back to Marvel because they generally deliver good movies. Their last version of Spider-Man didn't take off, because amongst other things, they just didn't make very good films. I thought Venom was terrible, too. It might make a bunch of money the first time around, because it has the advantage of being new and being a property people have heard of it, but they'd have to make massive improvements to increase the return on that because people will remember it just wasn't very good.

Obviously, adding Tom Holland's Spider-Man in would give it a huge financial boost, but the quality of the film needs to be good if they want to actually get people to come back in the same way Marvel do. 

[Lint]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

I thought Venom was terrible, too.

Well Mr. Director, you might know better then me, but I liked Venom.  I mean, don't get me wrong, it wasn't great.  It had a lot of issues, like the CG looked like it was pulled straight from Terminator 2, but the movie wasn't bad exactly.  It was a nice, dumb popcorn movie that you didn't have to think too much about.  After I rented it, I thought "Well that wasn't a great movie, but it didn't deserve the hate it got"

But Sony is riding high.  Far From Home hit 1 billion, Into The Spider-Verse hit close to $400 million.  Sony feels like they can whip their dick out and go "Look at this!"  Not realizing Marvel can take out the MCU dick and destroy cities

[Tigerstyle]

I thought Venom was really bad, nigh on unwatchable.

Adding Tom Hollands Spider-Man to what was a "gritty" comedy(?) is just bad bad bad.

If Marvel were to buy their property back, how much would it cost? In the billions? I don't know how this would work.

I reckon if Sony ran it and it did a poor job at the box office they should apply to the courts for misuse.

[Benjamin]

Venom was dogshit.

[Red Devil-Taker316]

That's where Spiderverse comes in. Movie won an Oscar afterall.

[Hellraiser]

4 hours ago, Tigerstyle said:

If Marvel were to buy their property back, how much would it cost? In the billions? I don't know how this would work.

I don't know what kind of deal Marvel made with Sony back in the day. But in the case of Constantin Film and later 20th Century Fox the deal was that the property remained with them as long as they keep producing movies. If they didn't do anything with the property in x amount of years the movie rights would revert back to Marvel. Which is what we got that unreleased Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie in the early 90s as well as Fant4stic in 2015. 

Spider Man is the biggest and most successful franchise Sony have right now (othere than maybe Jumanji depending on how well the next movie does), so they won't give that up. And if they keep producing movies I don't think there is anything Marvel can do other than hope that these movies bomb so that Sony might come back to the negotiating table. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Hellraiser

[tristy]

49 minutes ago, Red Devil-Taker316 said:

That's where Spiderverse comes in. Movie won an Oscar afterall.

Do they value an Oscar or $1b in ticket sales more, though?

[Jimmy]

2 hours ago, tristy said:

Do they value an Oscar or $1b in ticket sales more, though?

I think it's more Spider-Verse really found that word of mouth audience because it was genuinely great. That Oscar win will have 100% brought a new audience, and also some added authenticity or an urgency to watch for some skeptical viewers.

No way that movie makes anywhere near as much if people aren't raving about it being the best Spider-Man film produced, which they were. There was huge critical, you have to watch this hype around it that Sony didn't achieve with Garfield's Spider-Man or Venom. 

Obviously 1$b means more. But the two ain't mutually exclusive. 

[TCO]

Venom was shit. And besides it being shit, the whole thing makes no fucking sense without Spider-Man. The symbiote without Spider-man, isn't Venom and Eddie Brock isn't Eddie Brock without Peter Parker.

I don't give a shit about a failed journalist in his 40s who sound like he's slightly brain damaged and lives in San Francisco, that's not Eddie Brock.

[LittleDaniel]

1 minute ago, Jimmy said:

Obviously 1$b means more. But the two ain't mutually exclusive. 

The classic quote from Michael Eisner seems appropriate here.

"We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement…. In order to make money, we must always make entertaining movies, and if we make entertaining movies, at times we will reliably make history, art, a statement, or all three. We may even win awards…."

[Red Devil-Taker316]

8 hours ago, tristy said:

Do they value an Oscar or $1b in ticket sales more, though?

The idea is they made a great Spiderman move and a profitable one in 2018, so they probably think they can make $1B with a future Spiderman film without Disney.

[GoGo Yubari]

EDIT: Kit Harrington will be in Eternals playing Dane Whitman, AKA The Black Knight.

[Maxx]

Wow, Black Knight, Marvel is just gonna try whatever the hell they want

[Meacon Keaton]

At this point, why the hell not.