Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 12:49:59 GMT
Well so far the biggest problem is when they revamp the characters they don't look like the Universal Monsters, Another is they tried to build a cinematic universe first and tell a compelling story second. I think I had heard about Steve Blum wanting to tackle the Dark Universe. Could be interesting. Can't be worse then what has been done so far. You are right and that seems to be the problem with a number of things at the moment including the DCEU with their newest versions of the Joker and Lex Luthor and rather than go for the original looks or the most known studios look to be making their own versions of things and I think they are doing it 'cause they want to be original and not compared to the original versions of those characters whether they are Universal Monsters or superheroes and supervillains from comic books but it often blows up in their faces 'cause people want to see the versions they are most familiar with. I am not sure why they decided to rush into making a cinematic universe with the Universal Monsters 'cause it would have been better for them to take things one step at a time but I think they may have got overconfident and thought they would easily be able to do it much like Warner Bros with DC.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Sept 8, 2018 23:27:26 GMT
I agree the radical changes to certain characters is to differentiate them from what came before. But they were such big departures that the characters felt off and audiences didn't take well to them.
Reminds me of The Batman, the first animated Batman show after Batman: The Animated Series. Which worked against the show and accentuated its differences all the more.
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Sept 9, 2018 9:19:22 GMT
Well so far the biggest problem is when they revamp the characters they don't look like the Universal Monsters, Another is they tried to build a cinematic universe first and tell a compelling story second. I think I had heard about Steve Blum wanting to tackle the Dark Universe. Could be interesting. Can't be worse then what has been done so far. You are right and that seems to be the problem with a number of things at the moment including the DCEU with their newest versions of the Joker and Lex Luthor and rather than go for the original looks or the most known studios look to be making their own versions of things and I think they are doing it 'cause they want to be original and not compared to the original versions of those characters whether they are Universal Monsters or superheroes and supervillains from comic books but it often blows up in their faces 'cause people want to see the versions they are most familiar with. I am not sure why they decided to rush into making a cinematic universe with the Universal Monsters 'cause it would have been better for them to take things one step at a time but I think they may have got overconfident and thought they would easily be able to do it much like Warner Bros with DC. 100% agree about Universal rushing it with the cinematic universe. Money is the obvious reason of course but they could have taken the Conjuring approach. What WB did was make a well received movie with the Conjuring. When they had the trust of the fans, they went to make the Annabelle spinoff and now the Nun, which is opening huge in the US. If Blum is going to handle the Universal Monsters, start by making one good horror movie, forget the spinoffs and cinematic universe. If it doesn't click go with another. If the film is well received then you start thinking spinoffs.
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Sept 13, 2018 1:43:07 GMT
SWAMP THING: DC UNIVERSE SERIES WILL BE 'HARD R,' USE PRACTICAL COSTUME Gary Dauberman (It, The Nun), co-writer and executive producer on DC Universe's upcoming Swamp Thing live-action series, revealed new details about what we can expect from the latest version of the plant-loving superhero when it premieres in 2019. During an interview with SlashFilm, Dauberman talked about the advantages of working with a streaming service like DC Universe and how the company encouraged him to go darker, by not shying away from graphic violence (among other adult themes). "We always set out to make Swamp Thing as hard R as we could and go graphic with the violence," Dauberman told SlashFilm, adding, "with the adult themes and make it as scary as possible. Because we’re doing it through the DC streaming service, they really pushed us, although they didn’t have to push hard, for us to go as extreme as we could. We really took our inspiration from the Alan Moore run in Swamp Thing, this landmark run. Fans of that series will know it gets pretty weird and extreme and scary. We really wanted to live up to that standard that Moore set up back in the ‘80s." Dauberman goes on to say that he's proud of the work that the team over at Fractured FX have been doing on the physical Swamp Thing suit. "Swamp Thing himself looks incredible," explained Dauberman. "It’s going to look amazing and less of the 'man in suit' that you’ve seen in the movie and the other TV show... [but] there is a physical costume." In terms of the overall story, Dauberman informed the outlet that Swamp Thing is an "origin story of the Swamp Thing and it’s Alec Holland wrestling with who he’s become. A lot of it’s told through the point of view of Abby Arcane." DC Universe officially launches on Batman Day - September 15, 2018, with the first episode of Titans premiering on October 12. If you're attending New York Comic-Con, there will be a special advanced screening of Titans on October 3. sea.ign.com/swamp-thing/141131/news/swamp-thing-dc-universe-series-will-be-hard-r-use-practical
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 13:59:28 GMT
You are right and that seems to be the problem with a number of things at the moment including the DCEU with their newest versions of the Joker and Lex Luthor and rather than go for the original looks or the most known studios look to be making their own versions of things and I think they are doing it 'cause they want to be original and not compared to the original versions of those characters whether they are Universal Monsters or superheroes and supervillains from comic books but it often blows up in their faces 'cause people want to see the versions they are most familiar with. I am not sure why they decided to rush into making a cinematic universe with the Universal Monsters 'cause it would have been better for them to take things one step at a time but I think they may have got overconfident and thought they would easily be able to do it much like Warner Bros with DC. 100% agree about Universal rushing it with the cinematic universe. Money is the obvious reason of course but they could have taken the Conjuring approach. What WB did was make a well received movie with the Conjuring. When they had the trust of the fans, they went to make the Annabelle spinoff and now the Nun, which is opening huge in the US. If Blum is going to handle the Universal Monsters, start by making one good horror movie, forget the spinoffs and cinematic universe. If it doesn't click go with another. If the film is well received then you start thinking spinoffs. Yeah. Money is the most likely reason and is the reason for a lot of things in Hollywood. It feels like there is a lot of rushing going on in the movie industry at the moment though not just with the DCEU and the Universal Monsters movie universe but with a number of movies that are coming out and I have heard they are already saying they are making another 'Halloween' movie and there are a few movies sequels being announced before the first movie comes out and some of these people must have a lot of money to spend 'cause the sequels still come out even when the first movie isn't that successful. I think trust in the fans is important and they should focus on trying to get that but I think some of them don't care about the fans that much and just see dollar signs. They only care about the fans if they don't bring in the dollar signs they are hoping to get. Hopefully Universal can turn things around 'cause they have a lot of good characters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 14:06:09 GMT
I agree the radical changes to certain characters is to differentiate them from what came before. But they were such big departures that the characters felt off and audiences didn't take well to them. Reminds me of The Batman, the first animated Batman show after Batman: The Animated Series. Which worked against the show and accentuated its differences all the more. You mean 'The New Batman Adventures' which was a continuation to 'Batman: The Animated Series' or 'The Batman' that aired between 2004-2008 'cause I didn't think the latter was that bad and used to watch it when it was on Channel 9 and they had some good episodes and there was one that had the 'Birds of Prey' in it (with Catwoman oddly taking Batgirl's place) and Gail Simone wrote the episode or was 'Batman: The Brave and the Bold?' I can't remember now 'cause I recently re-watched both of them but I remember the episode.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 14, 2018 16:20:59 GMT
100% agree about Universal rushing it with the cinematic universe. Money is the obvious reason of course but they could have taken the Conjuring approach. What WB did was make a well received movie with the Conjuring. When they had the trust of the fans, they went to make the Annabelle spinoff and now the Nun, which is opening huge in the US. If Blum is going to handle the Universal Monsters, start by making one good horror movie, forget the spinoffs and cinematic universe. If it doesn't click go with another. If the film is well received then you start thinking spinoffs. Yeah. Money is the most likely reason and is the reason for a lot of things in Hollywood. It feels like there is a lot of rushing going on in the movie industry at the moment though not just with the DCEU and the Universal Monsters movie universe but with a number of movies that are coming out and I have heard they are already saying they are making another 'Halloween' movie and there are a few movies sequels being announced before the first movie comes out and some of these people must have a lot of money to spend 'cause the sequels still come out even when the first movie isn't that successful. I think trust in the fans is important and they should focus on trying to get that but I think some of them don't care about the fans that much and just see dollar signs. They only care about the fans if they don't bring in the dollar signs they are hoping to get. Hopefully Universal can turn things around 'cause they have a lot of good characters. It's fine to announce future project if the brand is strong enough, ie Marvel, or if the projects are small enough ie Halloween, though Halloween is waiting to see how this one does before greenlighting a 2nd film, it was meant to be shot back to back and doing 2 films but they decided to see if fans actually like the film and want a sequel so theres that, I think that's kind of smart go in with an idea of what if we do a sequel, so that way if a film is a hit your already in the creative process to do another, especially something like a Halloween where it can be a rather quick like this where it started filming n January finished in February and is in theatres before November, unlike a cbm where it's like 18 months or more due to the CGI and shit.
Some you can also get away with if the films are just part of the business model, like with DC and Marvel where the toy sales and other merch can offset even lacklustre box office sales, but when you are relying only on the BO and home media you kind of need to wait and be sure yeah people like this otherwise you can be flushing money down the drain.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Sept 23, 2018 17:19:53 GMT
And sometimes a film does better overseas then domestically. Which can decide whether to kill a franchise or continue it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2018 12:31:06 GMT
Yeah. Money is the most likely reason and is the reason for a lot of things in Hollywood. It feels like there is a lot of rushing going on in the movie industry at the moment though not just with the DCEU and the Universal Monsters movie universe but with a number of movies that are coming out and I have heard they are already saying they are making another 'Halloween' movie and there are a few movies sequels being announced before the first movie comes out and some of these people must have a lot of money to spend 'cause the sequels still come out even when the first movie isn't that successful. I think trust in the fans is important and they should focus on trying to get that but I think some of them don't care about the fans that much and just see dollar signs. They only care about the fans if they don't bring in the dollar signs they are hoping to get. Hopefully Universal can turn things around 'cause they have a lot of good characters. It's fine to announce future project if the brand is strong enough, ie Marvel, or if the projects are small enough ie Halloween, though Halloween is waiting to see how this one does before greenlighting a 2nd film, it was meant to be shot back to back and doing 2 films but they decided to see if fans actually like the film and want a sequel so theres that, I think that's kind of smart go in with an idea of what if we do a sequel, so that way if a film is a hit your already in the creative process to do another, especially something like a Halloween where it can be a rather quick like this where it started filming n January finished in February and is in theatres before November, unlike a cbm where it's like 18 months or more due to the CGI and shit.
Some you can also get away with if the films are just part of the business model, like with DC and Marvel where the toy sales and other merch can offset even lacklustre box office sales, but when you are relying only on the BO and home media you kind of need to wait and be sure yeah people like this otherwise you can be flushing money down the drain.
What are your thoughts on 'Venom' getting a sequel Dazz? I don't know if you have seen the movie yet but it has been getting a lot of bad reviews this week with many criticisng the PG rating and comparing it to past superhero movies that flopped but it has been very successful at the Box Office and already made over $200 million worldwide and sites are reporting it should make at least $500 million at the end and the sequel with Carnage will definitely be happening. I haven't seen it myself to know what it is like so I will leave my judgement until then 'cause critics have been known to get things wrong and criticise movies that have gone on to become classics in their genre especially Horror movies like 'A Nightmare On Elm Street', 'Friday the 13th', 'Halloween' and 'Child's Play' but if the other films in the Sony Spiderverse are successful and 'Venom 2' is well received we might be seeing a lot of characters hitting the big screen for the first time which will be good to see if they handle them right.
This might turn out to be a case of Sony getting too far ahead of themselves like we are talking about with the Universal Monsters Universe but it could be the start of something big for all we know and time will only tell.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 9, 2018 16:15:37 GMT
It's fine to announce future project if the brand is strong enough, ie Marvel, or if the projects are small enough ie Halloween, though Halloween is waiting to see how this one does before greenlighting a 2nd film, it was meant to be shot back to back and doing 2 films but they decided to see if fans actually like the film and want a sequel so theres that, I think that's kind of smart go in with an idea of what if we do a sequel, so that way if a film is a hit your already in the creative process to do another, especially something like a Halloween where it can be a rather quick like this where it started filming n January finished in February and is in theatres before November, unlike a cbm where it's like 18 months or more due to the CGI and shit.
Some you can also get away with if the films are just part of the business model, like with DC and Marvel where the toy sales and other merch can offset even lacklustre box office sales, but when you are relying only on the BO and home media you kind of need to wait and be sure yeah people like this otherwise you can be flushing money down the drain.
What are your thoughts on 'Venom' getting a sequel Dazz? I don't know if you have seen the movie yet but it has been getting a lot of bad reviews this week with many criticisng the PG rating and comparing it to past superhero movies that flopped but it has been very successful at the Box Office and already made over $200 million worldwide and sites are reporting it should make at least $500 million at the end and the sequel with Carnage will definitely be happening. I haven't seen it myself to know what it is like so I will leave my judgement until then 'cause critics have been known to get things wrong and criticise movies that have gone on to become classics in their genre especially Horror movies like 'A Nightmare On Elm Street', 'Friday the 13th', 'Halloween' and 'Child's Play' but if the other films in the Sony Spiderverse are successful and 'Venom 2' is well received we might be seeing a lot of characters hitting the big screen for the first time which will be good to see if they handle them right.
This might turn out to be a case of Sony getting too far ahead of themselves like we are talking about with the Universal Monsters Universe but it could be the start of something big for all we know and time will only tell.
Yeah it's taking a critical sodomising but good thing is like you said great opening weekend and last I checked it had an overwhelmingly positive fan response on RT's 89% positive with a 4+ out of 5 rating, critics can hate it all they want but if the majority of fans love it that's all that matters.
Only thing I worry about is it's said to need to hit $450m to break even so $500m would be negligible profit if it takes too long to get there, plus a sequel will cost more, so I dunno, did Sony already greenlight a sequel or are they waiting on it? if they are waiting I could see them needing closer to $600m to move forward.
I really don't want to hazard a guess with Sony tbh their business model is so fucked up at times, I mean worst thing I have heard about Venom is two fold one it's too 90's which whatever I like that stuff well enough, plus Hardy is supposedly great and he is the film so that seems like a good thing, the other is that the trailers were misleading, which is strange normally critics are the ones who go easy on films for that whilst fans hold a grudge, seems to be the reverse here.
I wont go see the film in the cinema as I am one of those one movie a year blokes, I already went to see IW back in may so im good, id rather wait 2-3 months and buy the stuff on blu ray or home media, more value for money plus that way I can watch the movie in my boxers, comfort after all is key.
I will say though I have little faith in Sony with this stuff, I mean part of their problem is they don't seem to have a clue we saw this in the press ages ago when one of their muckity mucks did a interview with Feige with them and they said Venom was in the MCU and Marvel had to make it clear as day asap no he isn't, even if Venom is a film I love I have "faith" Sony will fuck things up soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Oct 10, 2018 11:36:08 GMT
Sony has fucked up in the past. Look at Spider-Man 3 or Amazing Spider-Man 2. I doubt they have learned their lessons and will fuck things up again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 10:41:07 GMT
What are your thoughts on 'Venom' getting a sequel Dazz? I don't know if you have seen the movie yet but it has been getting a lot of bad reviews this week with many criticisng the PG rating and comparing it to past superhero movies that flopped but it has been very successful at the Box Office and already made over $200 million worldwide and sites are reporting it should make at least $500 million at the end and the sequel with Carnage will definitely be happening. I haven't seen it myself to know what it is like so I will leave my judgement until then 'cause critics have been known to get things wrong and criticise movies that have gone on to become classics in their genre especially Horror movies like 'A Nightmare On Elm Street', 'Friday the 13th', 'Halloween' and 'Child's Play' but if the other films in the Sony Spiderverse are successful and 'Venom 2' is well received we might be seeing a lot of characters hitting the big screen for the first time which will be good to see if they handle them right.
This might turn out to be a case of Sony getting too far ahead of themselves like we are talking about with the Universal Monsters Universe but it could be the start of something big for all we know and time will only tell.
Yeah it's taking a critical sodomising but good thing is like you said great opening weekend and last I checked it had an overwhelmingly positive fan response on RT's 89% positive with a 4+ out of 5 rating, critics can hate it all they want but if the majority of fans love it that's all that matters.
Only thing I worry about is it's said to need to hit $450m to break even so $500m would be negligible profit if it takes too long to get there, plus a sequel will cost more, so I dunno, did Sony already greenlight a sequel or are they waiting on it? if they are waiting I could see them needing closer to $600m to move forward.
I really don't want to hazard a guess with Sony tbh their business model is so fucked up at times, I mean worst thing I have heard about Venom is two fold one it's too 90's which whatever I like that stuff well enough, plus Hardy is supposedly great and he is the film so that seems like a good thing, the other is that the trailers were misleading, which is strange normally critics are the ones who go easy on films for that whilst fans hold a grudge, seems to be the reverse here.
I wont go see the film in the cinema as I am one of those one movie a year blokes, I already went to see IW back in may so im good, id rather wait 2-3 months and buy the stuff on blu ray or home media, more value for money plus that way I can watch the movie in my boxers, comfort after all is key.
I will say though I have little faith in Sony with this stuff, I mean part of their problem is they don't seem to have a clue we saw this in the press ages ago when one of their muckity mucks did a interview with Feige with them and they said Venom was in the MCU and Marvel had to make it clear as day asap no he isn't, even if Venom is a film I love I have "faith" Sony will fuck things up soon enough.
Yeah. I’m surprised over how successful it has been so far especially after so many critics were saying it was a mess and the Sony Spiderverse was going to bite the dust after only having one movie and it just goes to show how wrong critics can be and there have been a number of successful movies that critics tore to pieces in the past which are highly regarded as classics now. Not to say ‘Venom’ is one of those movies as I have yet to even see the movie myself (and will wait until it is out on Foxtel Box Office and DVD ‘cause we don’t go to the cinemas to see superhero movies) but it sounds like it isn’t that bad and will be interesting to see. I hear a lot of people are even more excited about the sequel and think it will be better ‘cause they will have time to learn from their mistakes and make the next one even better.
The fact people and fans in particular love it is all that matters ‘cause that’s who these people should ultimately be making movies for and not the critics and if it were up to critics I doubt we would even have any superhero movies or Horror movies especially Horror movies ‘cause critics have long hated the genre and gone out of their way to put it down over the years. I don’t know how much ‘Venom’ has made so far but I have seen a lot of other entertainment sites saying a sequel is going to happen too and while it hasn’t been officially announced by Sony I did read some of the people who worked on the movie have confirmed it is underway. Another sequel that is happening is a sequel to the new ‘Halloween’ movie and there is now talk of a whole new series of ‘Halloween’ movies under the new timeline which could see the franchise go on for another decade.
The real question for the future of Sony’s Spiderverse is going to be how successful the other movies are ‘cause we have already seen ‘Venom’ can be successful at the Box Office but I heard there is a lot on the line with other upcoming movies like ‘Silk’, ‘Mobius the Living Vampire’, ‘Black Cat’ and ‘Silver Sable’ and how they perform remains to be seen. Some websites have been criticising Sony over the long wait for ‘Black Widow’ and ‘Silver Sable’ and believe they should be releasing the ‘Black Widow’ movie much sooner to capitalise on the success of ‘Wonder Woman’ and the high demand for more female lead superhero movies but I think their biggest mistake is putting Silk, Black Widow and Silver Sable over SpiderGwen who I recently read is the biggest selling character in the Spiderverse below Spider-Man and is also Marvel’s fastest rising superhero now.
My Brother-In-Law thinks a SpiderGwen movie with Emma Stone now could be more successful than Venom and what is interesting to note there is Emma Stone said a few years back she would return if she got to play SpiderGwen this time and I think they should Sony should move SpiderGwen forward as their top female superhero in the SpiderVerse. It appears Marvel have the rights for Jessica Drew/ Spider Woman since a lot of sites have reported she is going to debut in the next ‘Spider-Man’ movie and it could lead to a ‘Spider Woman’ movie but since Gwen Stacy debuted in Spider-Man I think her rights would belong to Sony. However you might not be aware of this but the Gwen Stacy most have been familiar with is not the same Gwen Stacy that is SpiderGwen and SpiderGwen is Gwen Stacy in an alternate universe and depending on what they do going forward they could use that to make all the Sony Spiderverse movies separate from the MCU saying they are in SpiderGwen’s universe.
Hopefully Sony do a good job going forward so we can finally see a lot of these characters in Live Action.
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Oct 26, 2018 7:02:14 GMT
Yeah it's taking a critical sodomising but good thing is like you said great opening weekend and last I checked it had an overwhelmingly positive fan response on RT's 89% positive with a 4+ out of 5 rating, critics can hate it all they want but if the majority of fans love it that's all that matters.
Only thing I worry about is it's said to need to hit $450m to break even so $500m would be negligible profit if it takes too long to get there, plus a sequel will cost more, so I dunno, did Sony already greenlight a sequel or are they waiting on it? if they are waiting I could see them needing closer to $600m to move forward.
I really don't want to hazard a guess with Sony tbh their business model is so fucked up at times, I mean worst thing I have heard about Venom is two fold one it's too 90's which whatever I like that stuff well enough, plus Hardy is supposedly great and he is the film so that seems like a good thing, the other is that the trailers were misleading, which is strange normally critics are the ones who go easy on films for that whilst fans hold a grudge, seems to be the reverse here.
I wont go see the film in the cinema as I am one of those one movie a year blokes, I already went to see IW back in may so im good, id rather wait 2-3 months and buy the stuff on blu ray or home media, more value for money plus that way I can watch the movie in my boxers, comfort after all is key.
I will say though I have little faith in Sony with this stuff, I mean part of their problem is they don't seem to have a clue we saw this in the press ages ago when one of their muckity mucks did a interview with Feige with them and they said Venom was in the MCU and Marvel had to make it clear as day asap no he isn't, even if Venom is a film I love I have "faith" Sony will fuck things up soon enough.
Yeah. I’m surprised over how successful it has been so far especially after so many critics were saying it was a mess and the Sony Spiderverse was going to bite the dust after only having one movie and it just goes to show how wrong critics can be and there have been a number of successful movies that critics tore to pieces in the past which are highly regarded as classics now. Not to say ‘Venom’ is one of those movies as I have yet to even see the movie myself (and will wait until it is out on Foxtel Box Office and DVD ‘cause we don’t go to the cinemas to see superhero movies) but it sounds like it isn’t that bad and will be interesting to see. I hear a lot of people are even more excited about the sequel and think it will be better ‘cause they will have time to learn from their mistakes and make the next one even better.
The fact people and fans in particular love it is all that matters ‘cause that’s who these people should ultimately be making movies for and not the critics and if it were up to critics I doubt we would even have any superhero movies or Horror movies especially Horror movies ‘cause critics have long hated the genre and gone out of their way to put it down over the years. I don’t know how much ‘Venom’ has made so far but I have seen a lot of other entertainment sites saying a sequel is going to happen too and while it hasn’t been officially announced by Sony I did read some of the people who worked on the movie have confirmed it is underway. Another sequel that is happening is a sequel to the new ‘Halloween’ movie and there is now talk of a whole new series of ‘Halloween’ movies under the new timeline which could see the franchise go on for another decade.
The real question for the future of Sony’s Spiderverse is going to be how successful the other movies are ‘cause we have already seen ‘Venom’ can be successful at the Box Office but I heard there is a lot on the line with other upcoming movies like ‘Silk’, ‘Mobius the Living Vampire’, ‘Black Cat’ and ‘Silver Sable’ and how they perform remains to be seen. Some websites have been criticising Sony over the long wait for ‘Black Widow’ and ‘Silver Sable’ and believe they should be releasing the ‘Black Widow’ movie much sooner to capitalise on the success of ‘Wonder Woman’ and the high demand for more female lead superhero movies but I think their biggest mistake is putting Silk, Black Widow and Silver Sable over SpiderGwen who I recently read is the biggest selling character in the Spiderverse below Spider-Man and is also Marvel’s fastest rising superhero now.
My Brother-In-Law thinks a SpiderGwen movie with Emma Stone now could be more successful than Venom and what is interesting to note there is Emma Stone said a few years back she would return if she got to play SpiderGwen this time and I think they should Sony should move SpiderGwen forward as their top female superhero in the SpiderVerse. It appears Marvel have the rights for Jessica Drew/ Spider Woman since a lot of sites have reported she is going to debut in the next ‘Spider-Man’ movie and it could lead to a ‘Spider Woman’ movie but since Gwen Stacy debuted in Spider-Man I think her rights would belong to Sony. However you might not be aware of this but the Gwen Stacy most have been familiar with is not the same Gwen Stacy that is SpiderGwen and SpiderGwen is Gwen Stacy in an alternate universe and depending on what they do going forward they could use that to make all the Sony Spiderverse movies separate from the MCU saying they are in SpiderGwen’s universe.
Hopefully Sony do a good job going forward so we can finally see a lot of these characters in Live Action. Would Emma Stone play SpiderGwen? Wasn’t she the actress that said she wouldn’t play leading roles in movies unless she was paid the same amount as men? Betcha whatever actresses they get to play Black Widow or Silk or Silver Sab don’t get paid half as much as Tom Hardy even if their films are more successful.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 26, 2018 20:26:37 GMT
I think that was Jessica Chastain, and tbf it's not just about the role but the box office backing to justify a major payday, Tom Hardy is a major name and has been in some huge hits, a Chastain maybe able to negotiate a similar fee or not don't really know but if you take their top 5 films not including Venom for Hardy or Madagascar 3 for Chastain as it was a voice over job, Hardy has double the top box office nearly than she does, so he has the clout to demand more, but Scarlet Johansson is getting the same for Black Widow as Evans & Hemsowrth got for Ragnarok & Civil War $15m a piece, and she was the 2nd highest paid actor on Infinity War because she has the biggest non-MCU track record as a lead beside Downey, Jennifer Lawrence also got $8m more than Pratt for Passengers the other year and she had % of the films profit iirc.
And no common sense says unless they hire an actor who is a bigger name than Hardy for Black Cat or Silver Sable or SpiderGwen they wont get paid more than Hardy for the first film, because studios want to get the talent as cheap as they can but should any of those films if they do happen which with Sony is still an if and they stomp Venom box office wise, unless they lock the actress's down to lower deals for multiple films they'll likely get more for a sequel than he does, just look at Downey he started off not being the highest, Terrence Howard I heard was paid $3.5m to Downey's $500k, but then he got I heard $10m for IM2 and we have all heard the crazy numbers he has been getting since Avengers, but that's also because his contract wasn't the same as the others, IM1 was a one shot contract at the time so when that made a shit ton of cash Downey had the pull to demand more and acquiesce to less.
Also as far as I know Hardy got $7m for Venom, that will likely go up for Venom 2, but compare that to Tom Holland who has supposedly earned less than $5m between his 3 appearances as Spider-Man so far in the MCU, the bs pay discrepancy between men and women in film is real but it's not always about gender star power is often a vital component as well.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Oct 28, 2018 13:21:11 GMT
Speaking of star power, anyone know how much Michael Keaton was paid of Spider-Man: Homecoming? He's a bigger name then Tom Holland, so I could assume he would be paid more. But he's not the star, so maybe he wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 28, 2018 21:03:36 GMT
I imagine he was, Holland I think only got $1.5m for Homecoming and supposedly Keaton's talks to do the picture stalled and salary was an issue for both him & RDJ, and with their box office track record it's hard to think Disney or Sony could low ball these guys, especially as Keaton not only is a star but he was in the midst of his big career resurgence at the time, no way I see him doing a big budget superhero movie for less than a few million at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 13:00:03 GMT
Yeah. I’m surprised over how successful it has been so far especially after so many critics were saying it was a mess and the Sony Spiderverse was going to bite the dust after only having one movie and it just goes to show how wrong critics can be and there have been a number of successful movies that critics tore to pieces in the past which are highly regarded as classics now. Not to say ‘Venom’ is one of those movies as I have yet to even see the movie myself (and will wait until it is out on Foxtel Box Office and DVD ‘cause we don’t go to the cinemas to see superhero movies) but it sounds like it isn’t that bad and will be interesting to see. I hear a lot of people are even more excited about the sequel and think it will be better ‘cause they will have time to learn from their mistakes and make the next one even better.
The fact people and fans in particular love it is all that matters ‘cause that’s who these people should ultimately be making movies for and not the critics and if it were up to critics I doubt we would even have any superhero movies or Horror movies especially Horror movies ‘cause critics have long hated the genre and gone out of their way to put it down over the years. I don’t know how much ‘Venom’ has made so far but I have seen a lot of other entertainment sites saying a sequel is going to happen too and while it hasn’t been officially announced by Sony I did read some of the people who worked on the movie have confirmed it is underway. Another sequel that is happening is a sequel to the new ‘Halloween’ movie and there is now talk of a whole new series of ‘Halloween’ movies under the new timeline which could see the franchise go on for another decade.
The real question for the future of Sony’s Spiderverse is going to be how successful the other movies are ‘cause we have already seen ‘Venom’ can be successful at the Box Office but I heard there is a lot on the line with other upcoming movies like ‘Silk’, ‘Mobius the Living Vampire’, ‘Black Cat’ and ‘Silver Sable’ and how they perform remains to be seen. Some websites have been criticising Sony over the long wait for ‘Black Widow’ and ‘Silver Sable’ and believe they should be releasing the ‘Black Widow’ movie much sooner to capitalise on the success of ‘Wonder Woman’ and the high demand for more female lead superhero movies but I think their biggest mistake is putting Silk, Black Widow and Silver Sable over SpiderGwen who I recently read is the biggest selling character in the Spiderverse below Spider-Man and is also Marvel’s fastest rising superhero now.
My Brother-In-Law thinks a SpiderGwen movie with Emma Stone now could be more successful than Venom and what is interesting to note there is Emma Stone said a few years back she would return if she got to play SpiderGwen this time and I think they should Sony should move SpiderGwen forward as their top female superhero in the SpiderVerse. It appears Marvel have the rights for Jessica Drew/ Spider Woman since a lot of sites have reported she is going to debut in the next ‘Spider-Man’ movie and it could lead to a ‘Spider Woman’ movie but since Gwen Stacy debuted in Spider-Man I think her rights would belong to Sony. However you might not be aware of this but the Gwen Stacy most have been familiar with is not the same Gwen Stacy that is SpiderGwen and SpiderGwen is Gwen Stacy in an alternate universe and depending on what they do going forward they could use that to make all the Sony Spiderverse movies separate from the MCU saying they are in SpiderGwen’s universe.
Hopefully Sony do a good job going forward so we can finally see a lot of these characters in Live Action. Would Emma Stone play SpiderGwen? Wasn’t she the actress that said she wouldn’t play leading roles in movies unless she was paid the same amount as men? Betcha whatever actresses they get to play Black Widow or Silk or Silver Sab don’t get paid half as much as Tom Hardy even if their films are more successful. Well, for one it is a very popular role and SpiderGwen is said to be one of Marvel's selling superheroes at the moment and she was beating a lot of the superheroes that have movies out on the comic book charts not long ago including Iron Man and Thor. Having Emma Stone return to play the role would be a really smart decision on Sony's behalf especially now that she is one of the biggest names in the industry and would bring viewers to the movie that aren't big fans of superhero movies. I think dazz is right about Jessica Chastain and there are a number of actresses who are doing that but she is probably the most high profile one and there are also male actors who who are turning down roles in female lead movies where they are getting paid a much larger amount of money than the female star or halving the money they get with the actress so she gets paid the most for being the main star. It is good to see male actors are doing that but sadly the people in charge aren't willing to change things and pay the actresses more. I agree with you Dazz about the actresses who play Black Cat and Silver Scorpion getting paid more than Tom Hardy but I think the actress who plays SpiderGwen/ Ghost Spider should especially if they set all these movies in her universe to separate it from the MCU.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 16, 2018 14:53:12 GMT
Would Emma Stone play SpiderGwen? Wasn’t she the actress that said she wouldn’t play leading roles in movies unless she was paid the same amount as men? Betcha whatever actresses they get to play Black Widow or Silk or Silver Sab don’t get paid half as much as Tom Hardy even if their films are more successful. Well, for one it is a very popular role and SpiderGwen is said to be one of Marvel's selling superheroes at the moment and she was beating a lot of the superheroes that have movies out on the comic book charts not long ago including Iron Man and Thor. Having Emma Stone return to play the role would be a really smart decision on Sony's behalf especially now that she is one of the biggest names in the industry and would bring viewers to the movie that aren't big fans of superhero movies. I think dazz is right about Jessica Chastain and there are a number of actresses who are doing that but she is probably the most high profile one and there are also male actors who who are turning down roles in female lead movies where they are getting paid a much larger amount of money than the female star or halving the money they get with the actress so she gets paid the most for being the main star. It is good to see male actors are doing that but sadly the people in charge aren't willing to change things and pay the actresses more. I agree with you Dazz about the actresses who play Black Cat and Silver Scorpion getting paid more than Tom Hardy but I think the actress who plays SpiderGwen/ Ghost Spider should especially if they set all these movies in her universe to separate it from the MCU.
All depends on who they cast, if they cast *they wont* Jenifer Lawrence for example she would obviously be getting Downey or atleast MCU establish lead pay because she's a proven lead in the genre and can earn big money, Emma Stone depends on how her next projects work, her last film bombed if the next one does also that's 2 in a row and as she's not really been the lead in this type of film I doubt she would get more than Hardy, equal I can see more than not really.
I also don't think characters mean anything in this regard, I know you bring it up a lot but comic sales and importance means nothing to movie execs, and for good reason, comic sales pale in comparison to TV viewers, more people in America watch an episode of Legends Of Tomorrow than brought copies of some of the most popular comic titles in the last 30 years, so more people know who White Canary is than knows who the highest selling comic character this decade is.
Now if they do Spider-Gwen and it crushes like it does $850m+ then yeah whoever plays that character should get way more for SG2 than Hardy for Venom 2.
In regards to the pay thing do you think next time SAG goes on strike this should be a sticking point to their deals? I think favoured nations should be automatically added to all contracts, not just blanket but like give actors 10-15 names that if the movie sign and sign for more money for a similar prominence of role they should be bumped up to match within 10% of their deal, as I don't think $1-2m really matter when your already getting 8 figures and same for a few hundred thou when talking in the millions and such, but it stops the silly shit of he got $15m and she only got $5m for similar roles type of thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2018 10:58:38 GMT
Well, for one it is a very popular role and SpiderGwen is said to be one of Marvel's selling superheroes at the moment and she was beating a lot of the superheroes that have movies out on the comic book charts not long ago including Iron Man and Thor. Having Emma Stone return to play the role would be a really smart decision on Sony's behalf especially now that she is one of the biggest names in the industry and would bring viewers to the movie that aren't big fans of superhero movies. I think dazz is right about Jessica Chastain and there are a number of actresses who are doing that but she is probably the most high profile one and there are also male actors who who are turning down roles in female lead movies where they are getting paid a much larger amount of money than the female star or halving the money they get with the actress so she gets paid the most for being the main star. It is good to see male actors are doing that but sadly the people in charge aren't willing to change things and pay the actresses more. I agree with you Dazz about the actresses who play Black Cat and Silver Scorpion getting paid more than Tom Hardy but I think the actress who plays SpiderGwen/ Ghost Spider should especially if they set all these movies in her universe to separate it from the MCU.
All depends on who they cast, if they cast *they wont* Jenifer Lawrence for example she would obviously be getting Downey or atleast MCU establish lead pay because she's a proven lead in the genre and can earn big money, Emma Stone depends on how her next projects work, her last film bombed if the next one does also that's 2 in a row and as she's not really been the lead in this type of film I doubt she would get more than Hardy, equal I can see more than not really.
I also don't think characters mean anything in this regard, I know you bring it up a lot but comic sales and importance means nothing to movie execs, and for good reason, comic sales pale in comparison to TV viewers, more people in America watch an episode of Legends Of Tomorrow than brought copies of some of the most popular comic titles in the last 30 years, so more people know who White Canary is than knows who the highest selling comic character this decade is.
Now if they do Spider-Gwen and it crushes like it does $850m+ then yeah whoever plays that character should get way more for SG2 than Hardy for Venom 2.
In regards to the pay thing do you think next time SAG goes on strike this should be a sticking point to their deals? I think favoured nations should be automatically added to all contracts, not just blanket but like give actors 10-15 names that if the movie sign and sign for more money for a similar prominence of role they should be bumped up to match within 10% of their deal, as I don't think $1-2m really matter when your already getting 8 figures and same for a few hundred thou when talking in the millions and such, but it stops the silly shit of he got $15m and she only got $5m for similar roles type of thing.
Yeah. You are right about Emma Stone but I have to say that’s one of the big double standards I have noticed in Hollywood and when an actress stars in a couple of flops it can destroy her career and she can go from being one of the most talked about celebrities in the world to an afterthought whereas male actors can and have appeared in tons of flops and still come back from it and the Rock is a good example of an actor who starred in many flops and ‘Baywatch’ was a flop and it was featured on lists of ‘Worst Movies Of 2017’ but it didn’t stop him being the highest paid actor in the world at the time (I think he is down to 2nd this year) and the blame didn’t go on him. Often when movies have female leads and they flop the blame still goes on the actress more than the writers or Director and we have people who claim the movie flopped ‘cause it had a female lead.
We saw Hollywood do this for a long time with female lead action and comic book movies and it was used an excuse not to make more female lead comic book movies for a long time up until the success of ‘Wonder Woman’ last year which broke a lot of records. Actresses are still treated very differently in Hollywood compared to their male counterparts and female directors are too and some of the most successful Directors of all time directed flop after flop early in their careers but we have people who expect female directors’ first and second movies to be huge box office hits and if they aren’t they go on to say the movie flopped ‘cause she was a woman and women shouldn’t be directors. No. Emma Stone hasn't really been the lead in this type of film and playing SpiderGwen is very different than just playing Gwen Stacy and it is a far more physical role and she would be playing the hero and not the love interest of the hero.
What Marvel have been able to do with Gwen Stacy in recent years has been quite amazing 'cause she has gone from being somebody who was long known for just being one of Spider-Man's love interests and not even his main love interest (Mary Jayne holds that title for many fans) and they have made her into her own superhero and she is now one of Marvel's most popular superheroes and DC has tried to do something like this with Lois Lane and even Lana Lang in the past and not been very successful but many people see Gwen as a more likable and relatable character and enjoy the quirks of her universe. With 'Into the Spiderverse' being a success we now know we are going to have a Spider-Gwen spinoff animated film and it was officially confirmed Spider-Woman and Silk will be in that movie too and I read Sony are using the animated movies as a testing ground to introduce more characters to audiences before having them in live action and now we know Sony has ownership of 'Spider Woman' it explains why the MCU has not used Jessica Drew and hopefully Sony see SpiderGwen and Spider Woman are more popular characters and push the live action 'Silk' film back in favour of them.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Dec 31, 2018 20:06:20 GMT
Say, did you know Cindy Moon who is Silk was in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Avengers: infinity War?
|
|