The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 24

[Willie Lumpkin]

Like a turd in the wind

Yeah, I have a feeling this line is going to get used a LOT in the next few days.

 

[Zarex]

Hmmmmm, so cheap, cynical attempts to make films that take advantage of fan’s love for charactees made by people who don’t like or respect the characters result in crap films.

If the dream team of Avi Arad, Amy Pascal and Tom Rothman can't make a superhero film work, I fear for the future of the genre.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If the dream team of Avi Arad, Amy Pascal and Tom Rothman can't make a superhero film work, I fear for the future of the genre.

While amusing, there's a salient point here. Some have speculated that if Venom fails, Sony's response would be to bring back Spider-man.

But that would just be extreme foolishness. The reaction/reviews aren't saying Venom is a bad character. They're saying the film was made poorly. A similarly poorly made Spider-man film is still going to be a mess, and it's clear from the Venom reactions that those in charge don't know what they're doing.

If Sony wants to get anything out of all this, they NEED to work with Marvel in some form. They're not going to succeed on their own.

It's also interesting that many of the reviews talk about this film taking us back to the 2000's - when Sony was making decent Spider-man films. If they think they can just do what worked for them in the past, they're mistaken. The comic-book film world has changed and they need to recognize that and take advantage of Marvel's willingness to work with them.

Working with Marvel, they could keep Spider-man relevant, and that makes a lot more sense than this goofy, screwy head-scratching strategy they're currently trying to implement.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Even Alanis Morissette couldn't beat how utterly ironic the desperate defenders of this movie are:

"See the movie for yoursellllfff! Don't be biaaaassssed! Don't have an agennnnddddaaaa! Make up your owwwnnnn minnnnddd!"
- Ven0mFre4k6969

Not to get all "I know you are but what am I?", but unless you have no knowledge of this, you almost certainly have some sort of a bias. You're on some side.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Even Alanis Morissette couldn't beat how utterly ironic the desperate defenders of this movie are:

"See the movie for yoursellllfff! Don't be biaaaassssed! Don't have an agennnnddddaaaa! Make up your owwwnnnn minnnnddd!"
- Ven0mFre4k6969

Not to get all "I know you are but what am I?", but unless you have no knowledge of this, you almost certainly have some sort of a bias. You're on some side.

Even if we were hearing this was an absolutely great movie, it's a Venom film without Spider-man. I have no interest in that. I'm not going to spend my money to see it.

It's like Fant4stic when people were basically saying we had to pay money to see it so we could complain. No, the studio needs to earn that. We have no obligation to see a film that looks terrible based on trailers, reviews and other information.

I don't have to spend money to complain. I can complain that the studio didn't do what they needed to entice me to spend my money.

 

[ADollarADay]

While amusing, there's a salient point here. Some have speculated that if Venom fails, Sony's response would be to bring back Spider-man.

But that would just be extreme foolishness. The reaction/reviews aren't saying Venom is a bad character. They're saying the film was made poorly. A similarly poorly made Spider-man film is still going to be a mess, and it's clear from the Venom reactions that those in charge don't know what they're doing.

If Sony wants to get anything out of all this, they NEED to work with Marvel in some form. They're not going to succeed on their own.

It's also interesting that many of the reviews talk about this film taking us back to the 2000's - when Sony was making decent Spider-man films. If they think they can just do what worked for them in the past, they're mistaken. The comic-book film world has changed and they need to recognize that and take advantage of Marvel's willingness to work with them.

Working with Marvel, they could keep Spider-man relevant, and that makes a lot more sense than this goofy, screwy head-scratching strategy they're currently trying to implement.

Remember 2 things.

1) It's Sony. Not a good history of execs and decision making
2) Disney will want a fair amount in exchange to keep working with them without owning the rights. Are they willing to give those up?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Remember 2 things.

1) It's Sony. Not a good history of execs and decision making
2) Disney will want a fair amount in exchange to keep working with them without owning the rights. Are they willing to give those up?

Absolutely, I'm not saying Sony will do the right thing, but it's clear by now what the right thing is.

And, yeah, Disney has a strong bargaining position, but there's a reason they have that strong bargaining position. And while Disney has a strong position, Sony is set up to destroy these characters over the next 10 years, and Disney doesn't want to be competing with two Spider-verse films per year even if they are in a long-term death spiral, so Sony does have some leverage.

I would imagine a new agreement to not look as good to Sony as the current agreement, but one thing I would push for, if I were Sony, is two films per year (or maybe three per two years to be a bit more realistic) using Spidey characters. So not just Spidey films specifically, but a Fantastic Four Film that features Sand-Man in the Frightful Four could count as a "Spidey Movie" as an example. Or Rhino fighting Hulk could be another Spidey film.

And then, if I were Sony, I'd want a small percentage on those films - say 2% of gross off the top of my head, but that's the number that could be the point of negotiation - Sony could ask for 5% and Marvel could offer 1% and they could start the negotiation from there.

And alternatively, Sony could put a cash value on the rights free and clear. And again, that's just a number that both sides can negotiate.

But if I were Sony, I'd be seriously looking into something that would give guaranteed cash in some form or another - as opposed to the possibility that they could be looking at a net loss on all their films 10 years from now. (I did some rough numbers on Fantastic Four at one point and decided that, if Fox hasn't taken a loss on the whole thing, they certainly didn't make enough money to justify the effort they put in over the past 15 years).

Sony could similarly be looking at a lot of effort for very minimal gain over the coming years if they continue the half-baked plan they're currently attempting to implement.

 

[terry78]

I think Sony and Fox respectively were kind of trying to stick it to Disney and the MCU regarding their Marvel properties, basically knowing full well how much fans want them integrated but don't want to lose out on keeping all that revenue for themselves or something.

 

[Dark Raven]

Even Alanis Morissette couldn't beat how utterly ironic the desperate defenders of this movie are:

"See the movie for yoursellllfff! Don't be biaaaassssed! Don't have an agennnnddddaaaa! Make up your owwwnnnn minnnnddd!"
- Ven0mFre4k6969

Not to get all "I know you are but what am I?", but unless you have no knowledge of this, you almost certainly have some sort of a bias. You're on some side.

It sounds like the FFINO defenders. They wanted everyone to go and see the film for themselves despite all the signs pointing to it being bad. They wanted people to waste their money to go and make up their own minds. And then when all that money was spent and theatres took stock of box office revenue, all they would see is that people paid to watch that crap. They'd equate it as meaning people liked it and it was a good film. Then of course, everyone who disliked it would be duped into watching it under the pretence of "see if for yourself, don't be biased!"

Looks like the same strategy here. Get bums on seats by any means necessary. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[Zarex]

I will give Sony credit for putting some effort into one Marvel licensed superhero flick this year. Into the Spiderverse looks pretty damn good.

 

[ADollarADay]

Absolutely, I'm not saying Sony will do the right thing, but it's clear by now what the right thing is.

And, yeah, Disney has a strong bargaining position, but there's a reason they have that strong bargaining position. And while Disney has a strong position, Sony is set up to destroy these characters over the next 10 years, and Disney doesn't want to be competing with two Spider-verse films per year even if they are in a long-term death spiral, so Sony does have some leverage.

I would imagine a new agreement to not look as good to Sony as the current agreement, but one thing I would push for, if I were Sony, is two films per year (or maybe three per two years to be a bit more realistic) using Spidey characters. So not just Spidey films specifically, but a Fantastic Four Film that features Sand-Man in the Frightful Four could count as a "Spidey Movie" as an example. Or Rhino fighting Hulk could be another Spidey film.

And then, if I were Sony, I'd want a small percentage on those films - say 2% of gross off the top of my head, but that's the number that could be the point of negotiation - Sony could ask for 5% and Marvel could offer 1% and they could start the negotiation from there.

And alternatively, Sony could put a cash value on the rights free and clear. And again, that's just a number that both sides can negotiate.

But if I were Sony, I'd be seriously looking into something that would give guaranteed cash in some form or another - as opposed to the possibility that they could be looking at a net loss on all their films 10 years from now. (I did some rough numbers on Fantastic Four at one point and decided that, if Fox hasn't taken a loss on the whole thing, they certainly didn't make enough money to justify the effort they put in over the past 15 years).

Sony could similarly be looking at a lot of effort for very minimal gain over the coming years if they continue the half-baked plan they're currently attempting to implement.

Leaked documents showed Marvel offered something like 5% from CW, Homecoming, IW, and Avengers 4 in exchange for the rights reverting back. Sony said no. But yeah I could see a deal like that, if the rights revert.

Sony has some leverage, yeah. They own the live action rights to very popular characters. The question is how much do they think they have vs how much they really have. Marvel's sandbox is about to double, at least. Sony has to make it worth it to them.

 

[Spiderine]

I was really hoping that Sony would drop their ambitions for this awful universe of Spidey supporter characters. This is one step closer to making that happen.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The question is how much do they think they have vs how much they really have.

Well if Venom (almost certainly their second strongest character) BOMBS, that should be a wake-up call. And I guess we're not really to that point yet... but it's certainly not looking good.

Sony may be hoping this is a bomb-proof property - like the DC films that people seem to show up to no matter how bad they are. While it seems clear the reviews will be bad, I really cant predict what Venom will do at the box office. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes $40 million this weekend... but I also can't say I'd be surprised if it makes $80 million even with bad reviews.

We should all know a lot more a week from now.

 

[Spiderine]

Its a shame that with a little common sense Venom had the perfect setup since Spidey went out in space. This stuff could write itself. The same could be said with Morbius being introduced in a new Blade. Nobody asked for these characters as standalone introductions.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Its a shame that with a little common sense Venom had the perfect setup since Spidey went out in space. This stuff could write itself. The same could be said with Morbius being introduced in a new Blade. Nobody asked for these characters as standalone introductions.

Yeah, and this really gets back to the Avi Arad/Tom Rothman issue. There is some real potential here. The best option would be to work with Marvel, but a Spidey-verse with Spider-man and a good long-term plan really does have the potential to be something cool - even without other Marvel characters.

But Sony is trying to build on a lousy foundation and I can't see where they go from here. It seems to me at this point their best chance (if they really want to go it alone) would be to scrap everything, bring in some seriously talented people and start from scratch with a Spidey reboot.

But I highly doubt they have the patience or common sense to do that which really only leaves them with the option of continuing to work with Marvel.

I just can't see how they can start with a bad Venom film and build from there.

 

[Dark Raven]

Well if Venom (almost certainly their second strongest character) BOMBS, that should be a wake-up call. And I guess we're not really to that point yet... but it's certainly not looking good.

Sony may be hoping this is a bomb-proof property - like the DC films that people seem to show up to no matter how bad they are. While it seems clear the reviews will be bad, I really cant predict what Venom will do at the box office. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes $40 million this weekend... but I also can't say I'd be surprised if it makes $80 million even with bad reviews.

We should all know a lot more a week from now.

If Venom bombs, Avi Arad will be like "Ok, let's try a different variation of a Venom movie next year instead!" His reasoning will be like someone sitting on a toilet trying to get out a turd in the wind. If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Even if we were hearing this was an absolutely great movie, it's a Venom film without Spider-man. I have no interest in that. I'm not going to spend my money to see it.

It's like Fant4stic when people were basically saying we had to pay money to see it so we could complain. No, the studio needs to earn that. We have no obligation to see a film that looks terrible based on trailers, reviews and other information.

I don't have to spend money to complain. I can complain that the studio didn't do what they needed to entice me to spend my money.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The Marvel Universe is the Marvel Universe for a reason.

"Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair".

It sounds like the FFINO defenders. They wanted everyone to go and see the film for themselves despite all the signs pointing to it being bad. They wanted people to waste their money to go and make up their own minds. And then when all that money was spent and theatres took stock of box office revenue, all they would see is that people paid to watch that crap. They'd equate it as meaning people liked it and it was a good film. Then of course, everyone who disliked it would be duped into watching it under the pretence of "see if for yourself, don't be biased!"

Looks like the same strategy here. Get bums on seats by any means necessary. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

This is unfolding exactly like FFINO. Definitely starting to see a theme here, guys!

 

[Fallen]

The LIES .

 

[ImSGirl95]

"New Fox" Solidifies Executive Roster With Lachlan Murdoch At the Top

"New Fox" Solidifies Executive Roster With Lachlan Murdoch At the Top

20TH CENTURY FOX’S Vice Chair Emma Watts Takes New Role ATt DISNEY Overseeing Future FOX Releases

20th Century Fox’s Vice Chair Emma Watts Takes New Role At Disney Overseeing Future Fox Releases

Sooo, is the deal close to be finalised?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The LIES .

Now THAT is freakin' hilarious.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

"New Fox" Solidifies Executive Roster With Lachlan Murdoch At the Top

"New Fox" Solidifies Executive Roster With Lachlan Murdoch At the Top

20TH CENTURY FOX’S Vice Chair Emma Watts Takes New Role ATt DISNEY Overseeing Future FOX Releases

20th Century Fox’s Vice Chair Emma Watts Takes New Role At Disney Overseeing Future Fox Releases

Sooo, is the deal close to be finalised?

Interesting that all this is happening already. I would have thought they would have to wait until it closes.

But, yeah, it must mean things are moving along at the very least.

 

[Fallen]

Venom fanboys and Lady Gaga fans fighting on Twitter .

What a week!

 

[WeaponXCII]

Interesting that all this is happening already. I would have thought they would have to wait until it closes.

But, yeah, it must mean things are moving along at the very least.

I hope this means that some international approvals (besides the EU on the 19th) are just around the corner- what a time to be a Marvel fan!

 

[Dark Raven]

Couldn't have said it better myself. The Marvel Universe is the Marvel Universe for a reason.

"Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair".



This is unfolding exactly like FFINO. Definitely starting to see a theme here, guys!

 

[Marvel united]

"New Fox" Solidifies Executive Roster With Lachlan Murdoch At the Top

"New Fox" Solidifies Executive Roster With Lachlan Murdoch At the Top

20TH CENTURY FOX’S Vice Chair Emma Watts Takes New Role ATt DISNEY Overseeing Future FOX Releases

20th Century Fox’s Vice Chair Emma Watts Takes New Role At Disney Overseeing Future Fox Releases

Sooo, is the deal close to be finalised?

While some insiders have indicated a deal close is possible by the end of 2018, the official forecast is for early 2019.

Hmmm