|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jul 31, 2019 9:15:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 31, 2019 12:00:57 GMT
It's a shame Disney couldn't wrestle Spider-Man away from them outright. Now we have to deal with their shitty Venom movies and whatever other terrible ideas they come up with until the end of time. Feige never should've brokered that deal. He should've let Spider-Man rot a few more years until Sony were willing to sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 31, 2019 12:21:41 GMT
Considering the fact that Far From Home made a billion why wouldn't they be?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 31, 2019 12:58:51 GMT
Holland has one more film before the Sony-Disney deal is essentially complete. I can’t say I look forward to Sony taking the reigns again if they decide to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jul 31, 2019 14:50:18 GMT
Considering the fact that Far From Home made a billion why wouldn't they be? I was being cheeky. Spiderman not only scored a billion at the box office but pretty much gave them a net gain in the first quarter this year. I think they are counting their blessings that they made that deal. The spear head of that deal on sony's side needs to get a raise...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2019 18:21:51 GMT
Considering the fact that Far From Home made a billion why wouldn't they be? I was being cheeky. Spiderman not only scored a billion at the box office but pretty much gave them a net gain in the first quarter this year. I think they are counting their blessings that they made that deal. The spear head of that deal on sony's side needs to get a raise... Her name is Amy and instead of getting a raise, i believe she was fired --- because she likes to throw sandwiches at people.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 31, 2019 19:16:58 GMT
I was being cheeky. Spiderman not only scored a billion at the box office but pretty much gave them a net gain in the first quarter this year. I think they are counting their blessings that they made that deal. The spear head of that deal on sony's side needs to get a raise... Her name is Amy and instead of getting a raise, i believe she was fired --- because she likes to throw sandwiches at people. Amy is certainly a treasure, let us not forget that she, per the Sony e-mail leaks, did whatever she could to make sure that Ivan Reitman have nothing to do with the last Ghostbusters and have it be a reboot without any ties to the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2019 21:50:59 GMT
Her name is Amy and instead of getting a raise, i believe she was fired --- because she likes to throw sandwiches at people. Amy is certainly a treasure, let us not forget that she, per the Sony e-mail leaks, did whatever she could to make sure that Ivan Reitman have nothing to do with the last Ghostbusters and have it be a reboot without any ties to the original. Wasn't it Cohen that she hated (whom Reitman was pushing)? In any event, Reitman certainly got the last, loudest laugh. Amy may be a complete wreck in all other areas but, somehow, she seems to have learned how to make successful Spider-Man movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 31, 2019 22:10:09 GMT
Amy is certainly a treasure, let us not forget that she, per the Sony e-mail leaks, did whatever she could to make sure that Ivan Reitman have nothing to do with the last Ghostbusters and have it be a reboot without any ties to the original. Wasn't it Cohen that she hated (whom Reitman was pushing)? In any event, Reitman certainly got the last, loudest laugh. Amy may be a complete wreck in all other areas but, somehow, she seems to have learned how to make successful Spider-Man movies. Well you know what they say about broken clocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2019 22:21:28 GMT
Wasn't it Cohen that she hated (whom Reitman was pushing)? In any event, Reitman certainly got the last, loudest laugh. Amy may be a complete wreck in all other areas but, somehow, she seems to have learned how to make successful Spider-Man movies. Well you know what they say about broken clocks. If said clock helps you gross billions and throws in an Oscar to boot - can you really complain? Sony finally managed to post its first profit in the film division in five years. I can't believe I'm saying this but, I'm actually a little scared of what will happen to the franchise without her stout presence in the mix. Still, she does have this air about her of being totally shit faced half of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 1, 2019 1:26:04 GMT
Well you know what they say about broken clocks. If said clock helps you gross billions and throws in an Oscar to boot - can you really complain? Sony finally managed to post its first profit in the film division in five years. I can't believe I'm saying this but, I'm actually a little scared of what will happen to the franchise without her stout presence in the mix. Still, she does have this air about her of being totally shit faced half of the time. Was it her bright idea for Sony to trade their half of all Spidey film related merch in exchange for Marvel's I think 5% stake of the films box office?
If so then yeah, also depends on how much input she had on the latest Spidey films, she could have just been involved to collect a cheque and not actually contribute anything, Spider-Verse wasn't even announced to be made until after she was fired from her position with Sony, fired...resigned, same thing I think in Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 1, 2019 7:20:43 GMT
Amy is certainly a treasure, let us not forget that she, per the Sony e-mail leaks, did whatever she could to make sure that Ivan Reitman have nothing to do with the last Ghostbusters and have it be a reboot without any ties to the original. Wasn't it Cohen that she hated (whom Reitman was pushing)? In any event, Reitman certainly got the last, loudest laugh. Amy may be a complete wreck in all other areas but, somehow, she seems to have learned how to make successful Spider-Man movies. You are correct, he was pushing for Sacha Baron Cohen for the villain because he could be funny as well as scary when needed but Pascal kept insisting on Will Ferrell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 1, 2019 18:02:30 GMT
If said clock helps you gross billions and throws in an Oscar to boot - can you really complain? Sony finally managed to post its first profit in the film division in five years. I can't believe I'm saying this but, I'm actually a little scared of what will happen to the franchise without her stout presence in the mix. Still, she does have this air about her of being totally shit faced half of the time. Was it her bright idea for Sony to trade their half of all Spidey film related merch in exchange for Marvel's I think 5% stake of the films box office?
If so then yeah, also depends on how much input she had on the latest Spidey films, she could have just been involved to collect a cheque and not actually contribute anything, Spider-Verse wasn't even announced to be made until after she was fired from her position with Sony, fired...resigned, same thing I think in Hollywood.
I'm reasonably sure that decision was above Amy's paygrade. Sony's electronics division was hemorrhaging cash at the time. No company ever wants to sell valuable assets, but in the short term, it solved their cashflow problem. A lowly movie producer wasn't going to have much to say about that. Her company is actively involved in the production and development of recent Spider-Man films. That doesn't mean that Amy has personally made all of the calls that resulted in successful outcomes. It does indicate that she has intelligent and savvy folks on her payroll though. From what I've been able to gather, it was Amy who brokered the MCU Spider-Man deal, and she has been pivotal in getting the two sides to cooperate. Rumor has it that she was the one responsible for getting Sony to back off of including Tom Holland in the Venom movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 1, 2019 18:03:51 GMT
Wasn't it Cohen that she hated (whom Reitman was pushing)? In any event, Reitman certainly got the last, loudest laugh. Amy may be a complete wreck in all other areas but, somehow, she seems to have learned how to make successful Spider-Man movies. You are correct, he was pushing for Sacha Baron Cohen for the villain because he could be funny as well as scary when needed but Pascal kept insisting on Will Ferrell. What a dizzy bitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 2, 2019 1:12:30 GMT
You are correct, he was pushing for Sacha Baron Cohen for the villain because he could be funny as well as scary when needed but Pascal kept insisting on Will Ferrell. What a dizzy bitch. I mean...Will can do more serious parts, but Cohen has more range and can slide into legit crazy scary easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 2, 2019 2:04:52 GMT
Was it her bright idea for Sony to trade their half of all Spidey film related merch in exchange for Marvel's I think 5% stake of the films box office?
If so then yeah, also depends on how much input she had on the latest Spidey films, she could have just been involved to collect a cheque and not actually contribute anything, Spider-Verse wasn't even announced to be made until after she was fired from her position with Sony, fired...resigned, same thing I think in Hollywood.
I'm reasonably sure that decision was above Amy's paygrade. Sony's electronics division was hemorrhaging cash at the time. No company ever wants to sell valuable assets, but in the short term, it solved their cashflow problem. A lowly movie producer wasn't going to have much to say about that. Her company is actively involved in the production and development of recent Spider-Man films. That doesn't mean that Amy has personally made all of the calls that resulted in successful outcomes. It does indicate that she has intelligent and savvy folks on her payroll though. From what I've been able to gather, it was Amy who brokered the MCU Spider-Man deal, and she has been pivotal in getting the two sides to cooperate. Rumor has it that she was the one responsible for getting Sony to back off of including Tom Holland in the Venom movie. Didn't they renegotiate their deal prior to either TASM or TASM2 at which point she was the head of Sony or something?
I don't see how that helped either, Marvel had 5% of the box office even for Far From Home that's just over $50m, surely movie merch, tie ins, sponsorships and such for Spidey films are worth more than $100m, like Batman 89 made like $800m from 89-91 off of movie tie in products.
And you think from giving up all that tie in cash Sony saved all of what $30-35m from sharing with Disney per TASM films, that's mental.
I find it hard to buy she's the one who backed off Sony though, just because she was the one in interviews saying Venom is in the MCU then having to backtrack not long after.
But as for her producing I think she's still meant to be involved in ongoing projects she's had a hand in or her company would be, she's not exclusively with another studio just they have a first look deal, so I dunno if that means any project her company backs has to first offer it to was it Universal she's with now? or the other way around, but it does mean they can do other things still, so I would think new Spidey films she's already attached to will still have her input whatever that may be.
I don't see it as too big an issue either way, I mean sure she was connected to the films when they have been good but she's also been attached when they went to shit, so it's not like she's the magic ingredient, I mean who was the dickhead at Fox that hated CBM's? I mean sure under him we got Wolverine, Daredevil, Elektra, Last Stand & 2 F4 movies, but we also got X1, X2 & First Class so who knows whats gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 2, 2019 2:11:15 GMT
I'm reasonably sure that decision was above Amy's paygrade. Sony's electronics division was hemorrhaging cash at the time. No company ever wants to sell valuable assets, but in the short term, it solved their cashflow problem. A lowly movie producer wasn't going to have much to say about that. Her company is actively involved in the production and development of recent Spider-Man films. That doesn't mean that Amy has personally made all of the calls that resulted in successful outcomes. It does indicate that she has intelligent and savvy folks on her payroll though. From what I've been able to gather, it was Amy who brokered the MCU Spider-Man deal, and she has been pivotal in getting the two sides to cooperate. Rumor has it that she was the one responsible for getting Sony to back off of including Tom Holland in the Venom movie. Didn't they renegotiate their deal prior to either TASM or TASM2 at which point she was the head of Sony or something?
I don't see how that helped either, Marvel had 5% of the box office even for Far From Home that's just over $50m, surely movie merch, tie ins, sponsorships and such for Spidey films are worth more than $100m, like Batman 89 made like $800m from 89-91 off of movie tie in products.
And you think from giving up all that tie in cash Sony saved all of what $30-35m from sharing with Disney per TASM films, that's mental.
I find it hard to buy she's the one who backed off Sony though, just because she was the one in interviews saying Venom is in the MCU then having to backtrack not long after.
But as for her producing I think she's still meant to be involved in ongoing projects she's had a hand in or her company would be, she's not exclusively with another studio just they have a first look deal, so I dunno if that means any project her company backs has to first offer it to was it Universal she's with now? or the other way around, but it does mean they can do other things still, so I would think new Spidey films she's already attached to will still have her input whatever that may be.
I don't see it as too big an issue either way, I mean sure she was connected to the films when they have been good but she's also been attached when they went to shit, so it's not like she's the magic ingredient, I mean who was the dickhead at Fox that hated CBM's? I mean sure under him we got Wolverine, Daredevil, Elektra, Last Stand & 2 F4 movies, but we also got X1, X2 & First Class so who knows whats gonna happen.
I thought Sony traded away all rights to Spider-Man related merch in exchange for keeping 100% of the profit from their Spider-Man films?
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Aug 2, 2019 3:02:47 GMT
Didn't they renegotiate their deal prior to either TASM or TASM2 at which point she was the head of Sony or something?
I don't see how that helped either, Marvel had 5% of the box office even for Far From Home that's just over $50m, surely movie merch, tie ins, sponsorships and such for Spidey films are worth more than $100m, like Batman 89 made like $800m from 89-91 off of movie tie in products.
And you think from giving up all that tie in cash Sony saved all of what $30-35m from sharing with Disney per TASM films, that's mental.
I find it hard to buy she's the one who backed off Sony though, just because she was the one in interviews saying Venom is in the MCU then having to backtrack not long after.
But as for her producing I think she's still meant to be involved in ongoing projects she's had a hand in or her company would be, she's not exclusively with another studio just they have a first look deal, so I dunno if that means any project her company backs has to first offer it to was it Universal she's with now? or the other way around, but it does mean they can do other things still, so I would think new Spidey films she's already attached to will still have her input whatever that may be.
I don't see it as too big an issue either way, I mean sure she was connected to the films when they have been good but she's also been attached when they went to shit, so it's not like she's the magic ingredient, I mean who was the dickhead at Fox that hated CBM's? I mean sure under him we got Wolverine, Daredevil, Elektra, Last Stand & 2 F4 movies, but we also got X1, X2 & First Class so who knows whats gonna happen.
I thought Sony traded away all rights to Spider-Man related merch in exchange for keeping 100% of the profit from their Spider-Man films? From what I recall they gave up their half of the movie related merchandising and tie in sales for Marvel's 5% of the films revenue, so that likely included home media sales and licensing deals with things like Netflix + Domestic & International networks, which makes it a little more sense, but how much is questionable as Netflix I think was paying like $200m or something I read for all their Disney content which includes Star Wars, Indiana Jones, the MCU, Pixar, Classics and the like so just how much per year was just that Spidey licensing that they would give up all their merch and tie in revenue to stop Marvel getting their 5%?
Funny thing is to think they did this and their first result after that new deal was TASM2 which I think they barely if at all made money on, so if Marvel only got a % of profit, that means Marvel would have even less to lose in that deal, and with Hollywood accounting Sony could have swindled them for years, I mean Miramax claimed it took years for Clerks to make them any money, despite them paying like $250k for the movie just so they didn't have to give anyone residuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Aug 2, 2019 15:49:07 GMT
I'm reasonably sure that decision was above Amy's paygrade. Sony's electronics division was hemorrhaging cash at the time. No company ever wants to sell valuable assets, but in the short term, it solved their cashflow problem. A lowly movie producer wasn't going to have much to say about that. Her company is actively involved in the production and development of recent Spider-Man films. That doesn't mean that Amy has personally made all of the calls that resulted in successful outcomes. It does indicate that she has intelligent and savvy folks on her payroll though. From what I've been able to gather, it was Amy who brokered the MCU Spider-Man deal, and she has been pivotal in getting the two sides to cooperate. Rumor has it that she was the one responsible for getting Sony to back off of including Tom Holland in the Venom movie. Didn't they renegotiate their deal prior to either TASM or TASM2 at which point she was the head of Sony or something?
I don't see how that helped either, Marvel had 5% of the box office even for Far From Home that's just over $50m, surely movie merch, tie ins, sponsorships and such for Spidey films are worth more than $100m, like Batman 89 made like $800m from 89-91 off of movie tie in products.
And you think from giving up all that tie in cash Sony saved all of what $30-35m from sharing with Disney per TASM films, that's mental.
I find it hard to buy she's the one who backed off Sony though, just because she was the one in interviews saying Venom is in the MCU then having to backtrack not long after.
But as for her producing I think she's still meant to be involved in ongoing projects she's had a hand in or her company would be, she's not exclusively with another studio just they have a first look deal, so I dunno if that means any project her company backs has to first offer it to was it Universal she's with now? or the other way around, but it does mean they can do other things still, so I would think new Spidey films she's already attached to will still have her input whatever that may be.
I don't see it as too big an issue either way, I mean sure she was connected to the films when they have been good but she's also been attached when they went to shit, so it's not like she's the magic ingredient, I mean who was the dickhead at Fox that hated CBM's? I mean sure under him we got Wolverine, Daredevil, Elektra, Last Stand & 2 F4 movies, but we also got X1, X2 & First Class so who knows whats gonna happen.
Even as head of the studio, that decision was still far above Pascal's pay grade. Sony corporate out of Japan made the call. I believe the events you are referring to took place in 2011. Kenichiro Yoshida, Sony's chief financial officer, admitted on an earnings call that the decision to sell Spider-Man merchandising rights back to Marvel was a bad one. The decision was made by his predecessor. They sold those assets to raise short term cash for the then-struggling electronics division. Insiders theorize that Pascal said that Venom was in the MCU because she had worked hard on Kevin's behalf to keep Holland out of the Venom film. In exchange for that effort, she wanted Venom to be a canonical part of the MCU. It was apparently an informal quid pro quo (which Disney, likely with Kevin's input, immediately reneged on). In the Marvel/Sony Spider-Man deal, Kevin is the "magic ingredient" - always and forever. He is the one who brings narrative creativity and innovative storytelling to the table. Amy is the one who clears the runway for Kevin to work his magic. This is necessary because Sony corporate is primarily composed of idiots who do not want to lose face at any cost. Amy Pascal is a bag man. And, based on her recent performance on Spider related properties, she's not half bad at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 5, 2019 20:54:54 GMT
you mean where marvel does all the work and they get half the money? And the success rubs off on them by perception? yeah I think they're ok with that.
|
|
