The BlackBear Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Was the Anti-Venom? Eddie spent some time as a murderous vigilante who could cure people of illnesses and drug addiction, but there was still a normal 'evil' venom running around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 9 hours ago, Rhom said: ASM2 didn't bomb.. It made $200 million domestic and $700 million worldwide. Its only failure was that it didn't make Avengers numbers. It was a critical bomb but I agree to throw the towel in and join the MCU seemed an over-reaction. Even if it is what fans were wanting. Surely they share proceeds with Marvel studios now so they'd need the next spidey film to make a lot more to make more than ASM2. It was pretty damning that they failed to beat the Raimi films given inflation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Going purely by looking at the toy aisle, comic covers, and catching an episode on tv of the new spidey series, isn't Venom a good(-ish) secret agent guy now and even trooping about with the Guardians of the Galaxy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GallowKnight Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 50 minutes ago, Myrddin said: Going purely by looking at the toy aisle, comic covers, and catching an episode on tv of the new spidey series, isn't Venom a good(-ish) secret agent guy now and even trooping about with the Guardians of the Galaxy? Yes he is. Although that's not Eddie Brock in the suit, it's Flash Thompson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 2 hours ago, red snow said: Surely they share proceeds with Marvel studios now so they'd need the next spidey film to make a lot more to make more than ASM2. Presumably they share the cost with Marvel too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 16 minutes ago, polishgenius said: Presumably they share the cost with Marvel too though. That's a valid point. I'm not even sure how the division of labour/reward works with the whole sharing thing. It's probably fairly complicated especially when Spidey appears in Cap America. I'm guessing that one is "free" in the sense Sony gets a lot of free exposure from it. Hopefully they'll shed some light on how things work when the spidey film lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 5 hours ago, red snow said: It was a critical bomb but I agree to throw the towel in and join the MCU seemed an over-reaction. No, because it wasn't just the critical reaction that caused this- the movie was a disappointment box office wise, also the Sony leaks revealed they basically had no idea what the hell they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said: No, because it wasn't just the critical reaction that caused this- the movie was a disappointment box office wise, also the Sony leaks revealed they basically had no idea what the hell they were doing. It was a disappointment, but it was still mildly profitable. But mildly profitable is not too far from unprofitable, and I think they saw the writing on the wall, that the franchise would wind up unprofitable if they kept trying to go it alone. Is the reason they kept recycling the Green Goblin because Marvel didn't release many villains for Spidey when they signed over the spidey rights? Now Sony has access to a much bigger range of villains for Spidey solo movies I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Mysterio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: It was a disappointment, but it was still mildly profitable. But mildly profitable is not too far from unprofitable, and I think they saw the writing on the wall, that the franchise would wind up unprofitable if they kept trying to go it alone. Is the reason they kept recycling the Green Goblin because Marvel didn't release many villains for Spidey when they signed over the spidey rights? Now Sony has access to a much bigger range of villains for Spidey solo movies I assume. They had enough villains to be planning a Sinister Six movie... And that group didn't even include Lizard, Kraven, Venom, Sandman, Carnage or Electro. Don't know how many more villains you can realistically hope for. I loved Garfield and Stone. I wish they hadn't shoe-horned Goblin into the third act of ASM2. A third movie with Gwen/Peter culminating in her death would have been better. Still think a minor ret-con could have fit the Garfield movies into the MCU and then you could even have the major reveal of Spidey's identity in Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said: It was a disappointment, but it was still mildly profitable. But mildly profitable is not too far from unprofitable, and I think they saw the writing on the wall, that the franchise would wind up unprofitable if they kept trying to go it alone. Is the reason they kept recycling the Green Goblin because Marvel didn't release many villains for Spidey when they signed over the spidey rights? Now Sony has access to a much bigger range of villains for Spidey solo movies I assume. They had pretty much all of the villains that started out as Spiderman villains. I do wonder how specific these contracts got on particular characters, but in any case Marvel didn't really have much choice, they were in a very tight spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 14 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said: No, because it wasn't just the critical reaction that caused this- the movie was a disappointment box office wise, also the Sony leaks revealed they basically had no idea what the hell they were doing. I guess they could have spent a shit load on marketing it (which seemed the case at the time) and that's usually as much or more than the cost of making the film so the net profit may have been dubious. Has the film industry ever went through an economic crash in terms of itself? The current scenario where a film has to make a billion (with budgets in the 100 million and marketing in the 100+ million) in order to succeed seems like a recipe for disaster. How many Fant4stic have to happen for a studio to be in financial trouble? The whole thing just feels as though it's edging towards bigger budgets in hop of bigger (but relatively smaller) gains. I guess this is more of a blockbuster issue but that's the superhero genre. It shows why Deadpool is getting a lot of attention due to it having a modest budget but again they promoted the shit out of that film so how much did it really cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 6 hours ago, red snow said: I guess they could have spent a shit load on marketing it (which seemed the case at the time) and that's usually as much or more than the cost of making the film so the net profit may have been dubious. Has the film industry ever went through an economic crash in terms of itself? The current scenario where a film has to make a billion (with budgets in the 100 million and marketing in the 100+ million) in order to succeed seems like a recipe for disaster. How many Fant4stic have to happen for a studio to be in financial trouble? The whole thing just feels as though it's edging towards bigger budgets in hop of bigger (but relatively smaller) gains. I guess this is more of a blockbuster issue but that's the superhero genre. It shows why Deadpool is getting a lot of attention due to it having a modest budget but again they promoted the shit out of that film so how much did it really cost? We're not yet at the point where films are expected to make a billion dollars. Only 24 films in history have made that much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 24 minutes ago, protar said: We're not yet at the point where films are expected to make a billion dollars. Only 24 films in history have made that much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films we can't be that far off if ASM2 is currently the 78th highest grossing film and was considered a flop though. I guess this is where the fact it made less than ASM1 or any of the older Raimi films comes into play because 700 million + is a high bench mark. But not a billion, like I said although I guess they want to be doing Marvel numbers which tend to be in the 750 range. It still doesn't seem worth sharing unless they are expecting a much bigger leap eg the billion mark of Iron Man and the Avengers. I wonder how much Civil War is expected to make? Given the Avengers 2.5 feel to it I can imagine they'd like to hit billion (even though winter soldier was in the low 700 region) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King in Black Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Sony's deal with Marvel never made any sense to me. I mean Fox and FF ? I can totally see it. But Spiderman was in no Daredevil shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastard of Boston Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Spidey revealed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Have to say, in contrast to the comic version it's Cap who comes across as a total dick so far here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 What's Tony say to signal Spiderman? I can't make it out. It seems odd that they'd hold the events of Avengers and Winter Solider against powered people. One was an alien invasion and the other an extreme case of government corruption, and in both cases Captain America and the rest of the Avengers saved people. Even holding the events of Age of Ultron against them is iffy. Yeah Tony and Banner created Ultron, but it didn't really require their special abilities just their intelligence and access to alien technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 "Underoos!" I know this because... I had underoos as a kid... ETA: Looks like the underoos site is being hammered. Page won't load. "Thanks, Tony Stark for making us relevant again!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I just don't have the heart to watch my Avengers fight :-( Marvel is giving me Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher, Luke Cage and Dr. Strange this year but with Civil War they've hurtbmy Avengers loving heart, thanks a lot Marvel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.