Homecoming "Spider-Man Summit" Thread

[hippie_hunter]

Why would Sony give up their big franchise?[/B]

It's not so much Sony giving it up. Sony is never going to just give up the Spider-Man film IP, that would just be stupid. Even though it has been one of diminishing returns, all it will take is just one movie for it to go back on the right track, just like how Days of Future Past brought the X-Men film IP back on the right track.

But any Sony/Marvel deal is not going to have Sony just flat out give up Spider-Man. Even though there are some details that diverge from the various stories such as the Wall Street Journal and Latino Review, almost all of them agree that Sony would keep the distribution rights. Almost all of them agree that Sony would remain on as a production partner. It sounds like the major hurdles are the creative aspects of the IP, not the business aspects.

And honestly, it's just smart business at this point for Sony Pictures to team up with Marvel Studios for many reasons:

1. It mitigates risk. Whether it's a 50/50 split or the 60/40 split that Latino Review is reporting on, it will still mean that Sony has a partner to share the risk with. Instead of spending over $300 million to produce and market the film, Sony's risks would be half of that. Sony's risks are even further mitigated by the fact that Marvel Studios is a studio that is very responsible in regards to film budgets. Most Marvel films are kept on budget or even under-budget. Asides from Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and the Avengers, Marvel has produced their films under $200 million.

2. It's higher potential for profit. Basically, Marvel Studios has become a money printing factory for the Walt Disney Company after the Avengers. The Marvel brand on top of the film logos has become as potent as the Pixar brand. Marvel's Spider-Man has far greater potential to be a box office smash than any Sony produced Spider-Man. Even though Sony wouldn't be getting 100% of the box office revenues, the potential for a higher ROI is far greater with a collaboration with Marvel.

3. Sony's plans for Spider-Man aren't very good. Like at all. Warner Bros. releasing Suicide Squad before Sinister Six kinda kills all hype for that movie. Warner Bros. releasing Wonder Woman potentially before Sony's female centric Spider-Man film kills the hype for that movie. Marvel Studios and 20th Century Fox having better film slates for the Marvel Cinematic Universe and X-Men film franchise kinda makes the Spider-Man film slate look rather meager and weak in comparison. There is nothing to be excited for with what Sony has with the Spider-Man film IP and that could really hurt them since their plans will require investments of hundreds of millions of dollars.

They still made big profit even if they didn't make $1 Billion

The general consensus is that no, Sony did not make big profits on the Amazing Spider-Man 2. The e-mails even leaked of how horrible with financing projects Sony Pictures has become like Men in Black 3 making over $600 million in the box office and yet Sony still lost money on it. Or how they spent millions on the Steve Jobs biopic and have lost the film to Universal due to ineptitude. This is not a Spider-Man problem, this is a Sony Pictures problem of Sony Pictures not being fiscally responsible.

With Amazing Spider-Man 2, because the full budgetary details have not been released, we can mostly assume on most things. However it is fact that Sony went overboard with the budget. If Sony kept the budget under better control, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If Sony didn't have such high expectations for the Amazing Spider-Man 2, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Most assume that Sony either broke even (which is not really acceptable in business) or that the ROI was so small that it wasn't even worth it (which is also not acceptable). Compounded by the fact that the Spider-Man film franchise has been one of diminishing returns for Sony.

 

[smashmode]

Guys,

The original reports that Wall Street Journal said that the deal fell through and that was just some kind of co-operation with Sony retaining creative control of solo flicks.

You may like Raimi's flicks, Webb's, none or both but Spider-Man is the highest grossing solo superhero franchise (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films) and for merchandise though that is for Superheros .

Look at X-Men, Fox stopped the decline that started after X3 and got Days Of Future Past e to make like 730 million.

Why would Sony give up their big franchise? They still made big profit even if they didn't make $1 Billion

And there are other sources saying the deal is still alive, its up to you if you want to believe them or not.

WHy would Sony give up their big franchise? Well they wouldn't, it would be a dual ownership thing with things going back and forth. Because 100% of diminishing returns is going to be less than 40% of what Marvel can do with it.

 

[Micromind]

Unless Sony completely sell-off their Spider-Man movie making rights back to Marvel, which I doubt they will....I don't see why Sony will agree to recast Andrew Garfield in MCU movies.

I mean, if Sony makes a deal with Marvel Studios for the sake of earning some money and getting their Spidey property some much needed popularity, as they would want to make another TASM 3 movie in a few years time.

What could happen is Garfield continuing as Spider-Man in Marvel movies and in Sony's TASM 3.

 

[hippie_hunter]

As much as I like Garfield's Spider-Man, it would just be best to just let him go. If Sony just simply made the first Amazing Spider-Man film, it could have worked, but after the second one, just no. The universes don't mesh anymore.

 

[AF3619]

Agreed on letting Andrew go, this franchise like it or not are holding back his career

 

[spider-neil]

I want to see Garfield in the suit one more time but if Marvel get their hands on Spider-Man again they will wipe the slate clean.

 

[AF3619]

I want to see Garfield in the suit one more time but if Marvel get their hands on Spider-Man again they will wipe the slate clean.

I want that too but with this recent hack and those comments he did basically saying "TASM2 failure was sony's interferance" looks like he is not coming back

 

[SpideyK]

As much as I like Garfield's Spider-Man, it would just be best to just let him go. If Sony just simply made the first Amazing Spider-Man film, it could have worked, but after the second one, just no. The universes don't mesh anymore.

That's sort of what I feel, as well. ASM1 and the MCU would mesh together pretty damn easily. With ASM2, thoug, not quite as easily.

I do want Andrew in the MCU, but as of now, it seems sort of messy. I'm hoping for the best, though.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

Hopefully at this summit the powers-that-be decide to keep Spidey 100% and to scale back the universe building idea and simply go back to making Spider-Man movies that build steadily rather than all at once, then in a good few years they can spin-off a Venom movie once the symbiote and characters have been established

I don't understand your stance. I mean look at your own avatar!!! Marvel Studios made a talking racoon work!!! I mean look what they did with freaking Guardians of the Galaxy of all properties! I thought that this could have been a misstep. I saw it and was BLOWN AWAY! In my opinion, it blows the doors off of either "Amazing" movie. I think even the mediocre Marvel movies are better than TASM & TASM2. And you know if Marvel had the property the amount of attention they would give it. They would not put out one of their "mediocre" efforts.

 

[GoldGoblin]

If Marvel made Spider-Man movies,we would get villains that actually look amazing,they would resemble their comic looks.Marvel would actually give us a real Green Goblin.

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

If Marvel made Spider-Man movies,we would get villains that actually look amazing,they would resemble their comic looks.Marvel would actually give us a real Green Goblin.

It's just too bad the iconic Gwen Stacy death was already used and ruined in ASM2 before Marvel could.

 

[Dark Raven]

If Marvel made Spider-Man movies,we would get villains that actually look amazing,they would resemble their comic looks.Marvel would actually give us a real Green Goblin.

Well I don't know about that. None of the Marvel villains have really looked much like their comic counterparts apart from Loki and Winter Soldier. I think Marvel need to improve this so that both the heroes and villains look great.

 

[SlamAdams]

Well I don't know about that. None of the Marvel villains have really looked much like their comic counterparts apart from Loki and Winter Soldier. I think Marvel need to improve this so that both the heroes and villains look great.

Whether or not they looked accurate, I thought they have all looked great. Iron Monger was on the money I think. Nebula was close to perfect. Ronan was pretty damn close. Despite the narrative changes, The Mandarin looked pretty damn cool. Batroc was an improvement IMO.

 

[Atharun]

I may be in the minority here but I for one want Andrew Garfield to stay as Pete/Spidey. I would never have said that before but then I watched Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall and it made me realize when you have the right person for the job you keep them. When they brought back Judi Dench as M in the reboot it hit me. I see Andrew in the same light. As peter/Spidey he is great IMO. I think the ASM movies visuals are great and superior to the Raimi's but the writing is the killer. The parents part never really went anywhere. yeah everything was linked but it was also very disjointed but the cast...they were something special. If we could have Andrew intereact with people like RDJ, or Sam jackson, thnk we would be in for a treat.

 

[GoldGoblin]

It's just too bad the iconic Gwen Stacy death was already used and ruined in ASM2 before Marvel could.

^
That's another thing that Sony doesn't know how to do,they don't know how to let things simmer,they don't have any patience,they don't know what pace is,they want everything now.

They just cram every story,and every spidey villain into one movie.

 

[Orba]

I may be in the minority here but I for one want Andrew Garfield to stay as Pete/Spidey. I would never have said that before but then I watched Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall and it made me realize when you have the right person for the job you keep them. When they brought back Judi Dench as M in the reboot it hit me. I see Andrew in the same light. As peter/Spidey he is great IMO. I think the ASM movies visuals are great and superior to the Raimi's but the writing is the killer. The parents part never really went anywhere. yeah everything was linked but it was also very disjointed but the cast...they were something special. If we could have Andrew intereact with people like RDJ, or Sam jackson, thnk we would be in for a treat.

But with the Bond movies continuity was never of massive importance with them, you can watch them in any order without ever feeling that you have missed out on something. Sure there are some storylines that do appear in multiple films like Blofeld, but not enough to matter really. Hehe the films aren't even in the same order as the books that they are based on, Dr No is actually a sequel of Live and Let Die, and the reason he gets his Walther PPK at the start of the film is that his old gun got caught in his clothes at the end of From Russia With Love and he nearly dies.

 

[Frodo]

I think the best course of action whether it be the Sony/Marvel 60/40 plan or the character staying exclusively with Sony, would be a reboot of some sort which in effect means letting Garfield and the rest of the crew go. Keaton did two Batman films, Dalton did Two Bond films, there's no shame in Garfield doing just two Spiderman films. No, its not Garfield's fault. Yes he's a good actor . At this point its about what the best creative vision is for the character going forward , not holding onto the Webb's version because we don't want to let the lead go.

The writing is on the wall. The next film even if it is ASM 3, is gonna be a major break from the other two from story, to focus, and probably the lead. I think the only question at this point is really about which direction they go.

 

[Stormz96]

^
That's another thing that Sony doesn't know how to do,they don't know how to let things simmer,they don't have any patience,they don't know what pace is,they want everything now.

They just cram every story,and every spidey villain into one movie.

Imagine if peter was with Gwen for 3 or 4 or even 5 movies, and then she dies. That would be so effective.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

Imagine if peter was with Gwen for 3 or 4 or even 5 movies, and then she dies. That would be so effective.

As I watched The Spectacular Spider-Man, I kept thinking, if they actually get to do the death of Gwen Stacy, it would have been so tragic!

The way they did it in TASM2 I felt nothing.

 

[Visualiza]

It's just too bad the iconic Gwen Stacy death was already used and ruined in ASM2 before Marvel could.

If it was ruined, then that only means that it can be corrected later (assuming Disney gets the rights).

Such a wasted storyline. The way Webb & Co. executed it, it's as if they took the gimmick of "Spidey's first love" and ran with that part of it alone, completely neglecting everything (and everyone) else related to it. If Marvel decides to tackle it themselves, I hope they take cues from the comic arc, and have Harry, Flash, MJ, and college life be important aspects in Peter's life. Show how being Spider-Man actually conflicts with his life (and I mean social, academic, and professional; dig deep please), and either let him learn something this time, or present him as a fully formed character that already has a strong sense of responsibility and selflessness.

 

[GoldGoblin]

They could make so many movies,they have so many stories from the comics,and spidey has so many villains,they could easily make this franchise like the James Bond movies.But Sony just wants trilogies,cramming too many things into them,recycling the villains,and repeating the process with more reboots.

I don't want trilogy,reboot,trilogy,reboot...
They even have the worse designers who create the villains looks.If Sony keeps making spidey movies,I'll watch them,but I won't pay to,I will find a copy online.I think a lot of people will do this.

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

If Sony keeps making spidey movies,I'll watch them,but I won't pay to,I will find a copy online.I think a lot of people will do this.

I just bought a ticket to Winter Soldier and snuck in the ASM2 theater. No money to Sony from me.

 

[SuperT]

Shame they would let Garfield go because he along with Stone were a helluva lot better than Dunst and Macguire.

 

[Stormz96]

As I watched The Spectacular Spider-Man, I kept thinking, if they actually get to do the death of Gwen Stacy, it would have been so tragic!

The way they did it in TASM2 I felt nothing.

We all knew it was going to happen, and it was essentially shoehorned in. I give props to Garfield, he was great in the scene, And the visuals were very nice as well. But yea, if TSSM did Gwen's death, it would've been absolutely heartbreaking! Sadly we'll never know if they would've gone that route

 

[UltimateWebhead]

As I watched The Spectacular Spider-Man, I kept thinking, if they actually get to do the death of Gwen Stacy, it would have been so tragic!

The way they did it in TASM2 I felt nothing.

That show did everything better.

Shame they would let Garfield go because he along with Stone were a helluva lot better than Dunst and Macguire.

Maybe so. Doesn't mean Marvel wouldn't be able to find another talented young actor to fill the role. Their castings have been excellent so far within their movies.