|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Dec 6, 2018 15:44:39 GMT
That's what I meant. Just didn't catch the grammar error of leaving out the "not". Ironically, the error of leaving out the "not" made your post sound less obtuse. If you believe that even a group like TWD Company can pay $10B for a single comic IP "without feeling a sting" and heads rolling due to lack of investment amortization, ...oh well...
I'm talking to the one who can't afford paying his $10 bets.
|
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 715
Likes: 311
|
Post by havenless on Dec 6, 2018 15:46:27 GMT
Sony execs recently stated that After a sequel to Homecoming, and two more appearances in Infinity War, it may be difficult for a crossover between companies to ever work again. And yes, this means they may very well be unwilling to keep sharing the character.
But what does that really mean?
I mean it's a negotiation tactic. I have no doubt that Sony is fully willing and capable of running with their own independent series and reclaiming sole rights to Spiderman, but I doubt they'd pass up the opportunity to find out what Marvel is willing to pay to retain rights to use the character. The question would be to what extent Marvel would entertain a negotiation, and if Sony is only interested in top dollar and nothing less.
To me, the smart thing Sony should do is design a spiderverse that works with the MCU so that it's movies can be entirely independent, but still have the capability for some crossover appearances from time to time, just not to the extent that occurs with the other MCU movies. The solo Venom flick for instance, would automatically sell more tickets and DVD's if it has at least some relation to the MCU, even if that is vague and undefined, than if it had no connection whatsoever. Spectacularly wrong prediction by Arch (who I gather has reappeared on a different site). Venom needed no MCU links at all, not even in the lightest for it to be a financial success that may still top Homecoming. Can someone please point this out to him? Nothing he said was incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 6, 2018 15:57:41 GMT
If they reboot it, no more Peter Parker. We have three versions of him, we don't need a fourth.
Give it to Miles or shake it up and make Gwen Stacey the new Spidey.
No more Peter Parker for the next reboot.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 6, 2018 16:05:06 GMT
Nothing he said was incorrect? 1) The ''smart'' thing to tie Venom into the MCU wasn't actually smart, because they made bank without it. This just comes off as arrogant. ''Other studios need MCU help, without it they would fail''. So regarding Venom he was wrong. 2) Venom had no relation to the MCU, and is currently at $845M. Homecoming, with heavy involvement from MCU poster boy Tony Stark, finished at $880M. So his statement of ''The solo Venom flick for instance, would automatically sell more tickets and DVD's if it has at least some relation to the MCU, even if that is vague and undefined, than if it had no connection whatsoever.'' is false. Venom had no relation to the MCU and still got on par with an MCU spiderman film.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 6, 2018 17:07:48 GMT
Good spidey deserves to be back with sony and fight tom hardys venom When Sony get Spidey back, they need to fire Tom Holland. Hes too much of a kid, would get destroyed by Venom.
They should recast Andrew Garfield, the best Spiderman to date.
Tom Holland is 22 going on 23, and last I checked Spidey is usually portrayed as a youthful character. Garfield was good while in costume, but his Peter Parker was lacking.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 6, 2018 17:11:41 GMT
Good spidey deserves to be back with sony and fight tom hardys venom Spider-Man IS with Sony, he never left. Also your reacting to a year old thread...
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 6, 2018 17:14:05 GMT
When Sony get Spidey back, they need to fire Tom Holland. Hes too much of a kid, would get destroyed by Venom.
They should recast Andrew Garfield, the best Spiderman to date.
Yes I thought the same. I want a Spiderman for once, not a Spiderkid.
But I would prefer a fresh actor who can play against high clibers like Tom Hardy or Woody's Carnage.
Spider-Man usually portrayed as a youthful character. Tom Holland's Spider-Man has been able to stand toe to toe with high calibers like RDJ's Tony Stark and Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 6, 2018 17:27:20 GMT
Nothing he said was incorrect? 1) The ''smart'' thing to tie Venom into the MCU wasn't actually smart, because they made bank without it. This just comes off as arrogant. ''Other studios need MCU help, without it they would fail''. So regarding Venom he was wrong. 2) Venom had no relation to the MCU, and is currently at $845M. Homecoming, with heavy involvement from MCU poster boy Tony Stark, finished at $880M. So his statement of ''The solo Venom flick for instance, would automatically sell more tickets and DVD's if it has at least some relation to the MCU, even if that is vague and undefined, than if it had no connection whatsoever.'' is false. Venom had no relation to the MCU and still got on par with an MCU spiderman film. I hate to defend a statement by the dearly departed Arch, but there's no way to prove it wouldn't have made more with a connection to the MCU. Three quarters of its total gross was accumulated in foreign markets, where it's quite possible they thought it was connected to the MCU, anyway. Regardless, its domestic total sits at $212,341,986 . Not a bad haul at all, but Homecoming made over $100M more than that domestically; can you honestly say Venom wouldn't have made more money if it actually featured Spider-Man or other MCU characters?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Dec 6, 2018 17:28:07 GMT
Yes I thought the same. I want a Spiderman for once, not a Spiderkid.
But I would prefer a fresh actor who can play against high clibers like Tom Hardy or Woody's Carnage.
Spider-Man usually portrayed as a youthful character. Tom Holland's Spider-Man has been able to stand toe to toe with high calibers like RDJ's Tony Stark and Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange. That's all fine.
Acting quality and the definition of "youthful" is largly subjective. See the 70s TV show.
I find Holland unremarkable and generic in this role.
I hope he will get ample Oscars in his career, I just would prefer someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 6, 2018 17:40:03 GMT
Spider-Man usually portrayed as a youthful character. Tom Holland's Spider-Man has been able to stand toe to toe with high calibers like RDJ's Tony Stark and Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange. That's all fine.
Acting quality and the definition of "youthful" is largly subjective. See the 70s TV show.
I find Holland unremarkable and generic in this role.
I hope he will get ample Oscars in his career, I just would prefer someone else.
You raise an interesting point. I actually enjoy Holland's performance, but Peter won't be a kid forever. The Spidey I grew up reading was a full grown man with a wife, a job, etc. If (and it's a big if with so many iterations of the character in the comics these days) they continue Spidey films into his adulthood, I'm curious as to whether they would stick with Holland or recast. They're kind of stuck with Holland at this point, aren't they? The franchise has been rebooted so many times they almost have to stick with Holland for continuity's sake. It presents an ironic twist on the issue of casting a younger character. Usually you worry about casting a kid and hoping he doesn't age out of the role; this time the actor may end up looking too young to play an adult Peter Parker. Peter isn't a lumberjack by any means but he has to be a little more rugged than Holland by the time he's 27, no?
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 6, 2018 17:51:24 GMT
That's all fine.
Acting quality and the definition of "youthful" is largly subjective. See the 70s TV show.
I find Holland unremarkable and generic in this role.
I hope he will get ample Oscars in his career, I just would prefer someone else.
You raise an interesting point. I actually enjoy Holland's performance, but Peter won't be a kid forever. The Spidey I grew up reading was a full grown man with a wife, a job, etc. If (and it's a big if with so many iterations of the character in the comics these days) they continue Spidey films into his adulthood, I'm curious as to whether they would stick with Holland or recast. They're kind of stuck with Holland at this point, aren't they? The franchise has been rebooted so many times they almost have to stick with Holland for continuity's sake. It presents an ironic twist on the issue of casting a younger character. Usually you worry about casting a kid and hoping he doesn't age out of the role; this time the actor may end up looking too young to play an adult Peter Parker. Peter isn't a lumberjack by any means but he has to be a little more rugged than Holland by the time he's 27, no? They can easily make him appear older if they need to. They can do some amazing things in Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 6, 2018 18:14:18 GMT
You raise an interesting point. I actually enjoy Holland's performance, but Peter won't be a kid forever. The Spidey I grew up reading was a full grown man with a wife, a job, etc. If (and it's a big if with so many iterations of the character in the comics these days) they continue Spidey films into his adulthood, I'm curious as to whether they would stick with Holland or recast. They're kind of stuck with Holland at this point, aren't they? The franchise has been rebooted so many times they almost have to stick with Holland for continuity's sake. It presents an ironic twist on the issue of casting a younger character. Usually you worry about casting a kid and hoping he doesn't age out of the role; this time the actor may end up looking too young to play an adult Peter Parker. Peter isn't a lumberjack by any means but he has to be a little more rugged than Holland by the time he's 27, no? They can easily make him appear older if they need to. They can do some amazing things in Hollywood. It'll have more to do with his performance. Sure they can give him a different haircut and change his wardrobe, but the nuance of character obviously comes down to the actor. Sooner or later Peter will have more confidence and be a little less awkward, it'll be up to Holland to convey that.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 6, 2018 20:36:43 GMT
Yes I thought the same. I want a Spiderman for once, not a Spiderkid.
But I would prefer a fresh actor who can play against high clibers like Tom Hardy or Woody's Carnage.
Spider-Man usually portrayed as a youthful character. Tom Holland's Spider-Man has been able to stand toe to toe with high calibers like RDJ's Tony Stark and Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange. He was conceived as a youthful character, but he grew up over time. I’m personally just sick of Peter Parker always having to be in high school. His high school days made up a very small portion of his adventures in the original comics. He didn’t even meet people like Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy until he was college. I just wish that Marvel would stop placing so much emphasis on him as a high school student. It’s why I’m honestly glad that the animated movie is portraying him as a middle aged man.
|
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 715
Likes: 311
|
Post by havenless on Dec 6, 2018 22:50:02 GMT
Nothing he said was incorrect? 1) The ''smart'' thing to tie Venom into the MCU wasn't actually smart, because they made bank without it. This just comes off as arrogant. ''Other studios need MCU help, without it they would fail''. So regarding Venom he was wrong. 2) Venom had no relation to the MCU, and is currently at $845M. Homecoming, with heavy involvement from MCU poster boy Tony Stark, finished at $880M. So his statement of ''The solo Venom flick for instance, would automatically sell more tickets and DVD's if it has at least some relation to the MCU, even if that is vague and undefined, than if it had no connection whatsoever.'' is false. Venom had no relation to the MCU and still got on par with an MCU spiderman film. That still doesn’t make his statement false. No matter how much money it made, he’s implying it would have made even more money due to the MCU popularity swell in pop culture at the moment that is undeniable. Unless, of course, your point is the MCU movies are routinely breaking box office records due solely to their film quality? Interesting point you make, maybe you’re right.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 7, 2018 8:52:47 GMT
1) The ''smart'' thing to tie Venom into the MCU wasn't actually smart, because they made bank without it. This just comes off as arrogant. ''Other studios need MCU help, without it they would fail''. So regarding Venom he was wrong. 2) Venom had no relation to the MCU, and is currently at $845M. Homecoming, with heavy involvement from MCU poster boy Tony Stark, finished at $880M. So his statement of ''The solo Venom flick for instance, would automatically sell more tickets and DVD's if it has at least some relation to the MCU, even if that is vague and undefined, than if it had no connection whatsoever.'' is false. Venom had no relation to the MCU and still got on par with an MCU spiderman film. That still doesn’t make his statement false. No matter how much money it made, he’s implying it would have made even more money due to the MCU popularity swell in pop culture at the moment that is undeniable. Unless, of course, your point is the MCU movies are routinely breaking box office records due solely to their film quality? Interesting point you make, maybe you’re right. It does make his statement false because Venom has more or less reached parity with Homecomings intake, without needing the MCU tag with it. If Venom made around 500M, then you can say he was right - having an MCU connection would have pushed it closer to what Homecoming got to.
When he says the Venom solo flock would automatically sell more tickets than if it had no MCU connection, its pretty obvious hes implying Venom was going to make significantly less than Homecoming. But Venom makes the same as MCU Spidey, so ergo Venom doesn't need MCU marketing to make what an MCU film did.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 7, 2018 8:53:09 GMT
So is any going to point this out to him or am I going to have to myself?
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Dec 7, 2018 13:50:03 GMT
1) The ''smart'' thing to tie Venom into the MCU wasn't actually smart, because they made bank without it. This just comes off as arrogant. ''Other studios need MCU help, without it they would fail''. So regarding Venom he was wrong. 2) Venom had no relation to the MCU, and is currently at $845M. Homecoming, with heavy involvement from MCU poster boy Tony Stark, finished at $880M. So his statement of ''The solo Venom flick for instance, would automatically sell more tickets and DVD's if it has at least some relation to the MCU, even if that is vague and undefined, than if it had no connection whatsoever.'' is false. Venom had no relation to the MCU and still got on par with an MCU spiderman film. That still doesn’t make his statement false. No matter how much money it made, he’s implying it would have made even more money due to the MCU popularity swell in pop culture at the moment that is undeniable. Unless, of course, your point is the MCU movies are routinely breaking box office records due solely to their film quality? Interesting point you make, maybe you’re right. People generally believe that Venom is film by Marvel because of the logo. Kevin Feige even said that most people don’t know about the studio stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Dec 7, 2018 14:04:56 GMT
Spider-Man usually portrayed as a youthful character. Tom Holland's Spider-Man has been able to stand toe to toe with high calibers like RDJ's Tony Stark and Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange. He was conceived as a youthful character, but he grew up over time. I’m personally just sick of Peter Parker always having to be in high school. His high school days made up a very small portion of his adventures in the original comics. He didn’t even meet people like Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy until he was college. I just wish that Marvel would stop placing so much emphasis on him as a high school student. It’s why I’m honestly glad that the animated movie is portraying him as a middle aged man. But at the same time, the star of the movie is the high school kid.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Dec 7, 2018 14:15:54 GMT
That still doesn’t make his statement false. No matter how much money it made, he’s implying it would have made even more money due to the MCU popularity swell in pop culture at the moment that is undeniable. Unless, of course, your point is the MCU movies are routinely breaking box office records due solely to their film quality? Interesting point you make, maybe you’re right. People generally believe that Venom is film by Marvel because of the logo. Kevin Feige even said that most people don’t know about the studio stuff. That's why the other studios use it. They didn't start putting the Marvel logo in the trailers until they realized they can use that MCU popularity.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2018 14:45:56 GMT
He was conceived as a youthful character, but he grew up over time. I’m personally just sick of Peter Parker always having to be in high school. His high school days made up a very small portion of his adventures in the original comics. He didn’t even meet people like Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy until he was college. I just wish that Marvel would stop placing so much emphasis on him as a high school student. It’s why I’m honestly glad that the animated movie is portraying him as a middle aged man. But at the same time, the star of the movie is the high school kid. Miles Morales has always been a kid, so I’m not going to make a big deal out of it.
|
|