|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Sept 6, 2019 14:45:17 GMT
It keeps Spider-Man in the cinema, where he belongs, not on the Disney kids channel, which is where all Marvel films are heading.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 6, 2019 18:32:23 GMT
Or Spidey will quickly become unprofitable once again like it did Sony had sole control over the franchise, or you know somewhere in the middle who knows, Sony seems to not really changed much though in the last decade, their plan after Spidey 3 was Venom and the Sinister 6 movies, their plan for after TASM 2 was Venom and the sinister 6 movies, their plan now is more Venom and build to a sinister 6 movie...but dear god I hope I am wrong and they don't intend to rush into a Sinister 6 film in the next 2 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 18:52:50 GMT
As long as they hit the theater first, it doesn't matter to me what channel scoops them up later. It's not like they'd be unavailable to buy later.
There's been 8 Spiderman films. Sony has the best and worst track record. It made the 2 best and 3 worst. Its best was better than MCU, but MCU hasn't dropped the ball like Sony. I think they're safer in the MCU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Sept 6, 2019 22:20:51 GMT
You mean it's better for Spiderman to be with a hit-and-miss studio?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Sept 6, 2019 22:54:30 GMT
hopefully they fire Tom Holland now
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 6, 2019 22:57:46 GMT
hopefully they fire Tom Holland now Why would they do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Sept 6, 2019 23:35:36 GMT
hopefully they fire Tom Holland now Why would they do that? sick of teenage Parker
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 6, 2019 23:42:55 GMT
So am I, but Tom Holland is 23, so it’s not like he has to play a teenage Spider-Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Sept 7, 2019 4:50:50 GMT
It would only be best had we not already endured 5 Spider-Man movies pre-MCU which for everyone finally felt right. Now Sony has to pretend the world won't miss Spider-Man teaming with X-Men &/or Fantastic Four, let alone everyone else in the MCU.
The only alibi for Sony is the MCU really didn't seem to have huge plans for Spider-Man itself. Partially the MCU might've been hedging the future for this Sony bs, & maybe not diving deeper for the character turned Sony off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 5:45:45 GMT
It's also better for me to be with your Mum but it isnt the right thing to do
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 5:49:47 GMT
Or Spidey will quickly become unprofitable once again like it did Sony had sole control over the franchise, or you know somewhere in the middle who knows, Sony seems to not really changed much though in the last decade, their plan after Spidey 3 was Venom and the Sinister 6 movies, their plan for after TASM 2 was Venom and the sinister 6 movies, their plan now is more Venom and build to a sinister 6 movie...but dear god I hope I am wrong and they don't intend to rush into a Sinister 6 film in the next 2 years. Third time's the charm ha. Spider-man actually made a lot of money for Sony but Sony being infamously greedy, decided that it wasnt enough. Yes some were great, some were bad but Im optimistic due to Venom and Spider-verse. Hopefully they can hammer out a deal ie disney and sony but on the other hand Im curious about what Sony will do with the character this time round
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 7, 2019 12:14:05 GMT
Or Spidey will quickly become unprofitable once again like it did Sony had sole control over the franchise, or you know somewhere in the middle who knows, Sony seems to not really changed much though in the last decade, their plan after Spidey 3 was Venom and the Sinister 6 movies, their plan for after TASM 2 was Venom and the sinister 6 movies, their plan now is more Venom and build to a sinister 6 movie...but dear god I hope I am wrong and they don't intend to rush into a Sinister 6 film in the next 2 years. Third time's the charm ha. Spider-man actually made a lot of money for Sony but Sony being infamously greedy, decided that it wasnt enough. Yes some were great, some were bad but Im optimistic due to Venom and Spider-verse. Hopefully they can hammer out a deal ie disney and sony but on the other hand Im curious about what Sony will do with the character this time round Yeah and no, Spidey in TASM series made significantly less money than the last Spidey film and TASM 2 lost more than TASM 1 being the lowest grossing live action spidey films to date whilst also being among the most expensive, TASM 1 was like $230m before marketing, and TASM 2 was upwards of $290m, with a marketing expense of $180-190m, that's a combined cost of up to $480m on a film that grossed less than $710m, that aint greed that is utter idiocy.
As for me I dunno Spider-Verse is supposedly heavily due to Lord & Miller who wont be able to do a Spidey film franchise because they are locked into the animated films and live action TV shows with Sony and a long term movie deal with Universal I think, even if they wanted to they simply wont have the time or resources to invest in a larger live action Spider-Verse.
I hope it all goes well because if Sony can get themselves going strong like Marvel is both companies could do 2-3 films a year which I am down for, I don't want Sony to fail I am just very cautious in believing that they wont fail due to their past actions, hope they prove my fears wrong though.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 7, 2019 12:16:04 GMT
hopefully they fire Tom Holland now Hoping that a young man loses his dream job all because you don't like him playing a character in a 2 hour movie once every 2 years or so...you are a heartless cúnt you know that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 13:42:14 GMT
Third time's the charm ha. Spider-man actually made a lot of money for Sony but Sony being infamously greedy, decided that it wasnt enough. Yes some were great, some were bad but Im optimistic due to Venom and Spider-verse. Hopefully they can hammer out a deal ie disney and sony but on the other hand Im curious about what Sony will do with the character this time round Yeah and no, Spidey in TASM series made significantly less money than the last Spidey film and TASM 2 lost more than TASM 1 being the lowest grossing live action spidey films to date whilst also being among the most expensive, TASM 1 was like $230m before marketing, and TASM 2 was upwards of $290m, with a marketing expense of $180-190m, that's a combined cost of up to $480m on a film that grossed less than $710m, that aint greed that is utter idiocy.
As for me I dunno Spider-Verse is supposedly heavily due to Lord & Miller who wont be able to do a Spidey film franchise because they are locked into the animated films and live action TV shows with Sony and a long term movie deal with Universal I think, even if they wanted to they simply wont have the time or resources to invest in a larger live action Spider-Verse.
I hope it all goes well because if Sony can get themselves going strong like Marvel is both companies could do 2-3 films a year which I am down for, I don't want Sony to fail I am just very cautious in believing that they wont fail due to their past actions, hope they prove my fears wrong though.
Why arent the marketing costs mentioned with other films or films from other studios?
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Sept 7, 2019 15:02:08 GMT
It would only be best had we not already endured 5 Spider-Man movies pre-MCU which for everyone finally felt right. Now Sony has to pretend the world won't miss Spider-Man teaming with X-Men &/or Fantastic Four, let alone everyone else in the MCU. The only alibi for Sony is the MCU really didn't seem to have huge plans for Spider-Man itself. Partially the MCU might've been hedging the future for this Sony bs, & maybe not diving deeper for the character turned Sony off. I think it’s far more important that SpiderMan fight his rogues gallery than team up with the FF or X-Men. |
|
|
|
Post by James on Sept 7, 2019 16:03:54 GMT
TASM 2 was the lowest grossing SM movie (besides Spider-Verse). FFH is the highest.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 7, 2019 16:08:39 GMT
Yeah and no, Spidey in TASM series made significantly less money than the last Spidey film and TASM 2 lost more than TASM 1 being the lowest grossing live action spidey films to date whilst also being among the most expensive, TASM 1 was like $230m before marketing, and TASM 2 was upwards of $290m, with a marketing expense of $180-190m, that's a combined cost of up to $480m on a film that grossed less than $710m, that aint greed that is utter idiocy.
As for me I dunno Spider-Verse is supposedly heavily due to Lord & Miller who wont be able to do a Spidey film franchise because they are locked into the animated films and live action TV shows with Sony and a long term movie deal with Universal I think, even if they wanted to they simply wont have the time or resources to invest in a larger live action Spider-Verse.
I hope it all goes well because if Sony can get themselves going strong like Marvel is both companies could do 2-3 films a year which I am down for, I don't want Sony to fail I am just very cautious in believing that they wont fail due to their past actions, hope they prove my fears wrong though.
Why arent the marketing costs mentioned with other films or films from other studios? They are but mostly only when explaining why a film that grossed upwards of like $600m is still a bomb, usually you are talking $100-150m marketing cost for most blockbusters which with few exceptions will cap out at the $200m mark, Endgame probably all in all cost like $500m in production & marketing but it wont be mentioned because they grossed close to $3b.
Also with Sony it's more a sticking point because they traded their merch rights to Spidey away for Disney's standing 5% of the films gross, so them making it where Spidey wouldn't be profitable unless it banked a billion per film is kind of hilarious, it's where Disney can get buy with say Antman being a break even film series because they can make $100's of millions on merchandising, DC does the same thing, but when you only have the films box office and DVD sales to get any profit from then why the fuck spend close to half a billion in making the movie especially when the last one was the lowest grossing in the franchises history? who thinks this is a smart conversation? Dipstick Exec #1: Hey this film made over $100m less than the last one and several million less than the previous lowest grossing film what do we do? Dipstick Exec #2: We could increase the budget and marketing spread by a combined $100m or more? Dipstick Exec #3: How will spending $100m more fix the loss in ticket sales by $100m? Dipstick Exec #2: Well you gotta spend money to make money right? Dipstick Exec's 1 & 3: Genius!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 6:30:39 GMT
Why arent the marketing costs mentioned with other films or films from other studios? They are but mostly only when explaining why a film that grossed upwards of like $600m is still a bomb, usually you are talking $100-150m marketing cost for most blockbusters which with few exceptions will cap out at the $200m mark, Endgame probably all in all cost like $500m in production & marketing but it wont be mentioned because they grossed close to $3b.
Also with Sony it's more a sticking point because they traded their merch rights to Spidey away for Disney's standing 5% of the films gross, so them making it where Spidey wouldn't be profitable unless it banked a billion per film is kind of hilarious, it's where Disney can get buy with say Antman being a break even film series because they can make $100's of millions on merchandising, DC does the same thing, but when you only have the films box office and DVD sales to get any profit from then why the fuck spend close to half a billion in making the movie especially when the last one was the lowest grossing in the franchises history? who thinks this is a smart conversation? Dipstick Exec #1: Hey this film made over $100m less than the last one and several million less than the previous lowest grossing film what do we do? Dipstick Exec #2: We could increase the budget and marketing spread by a combined $100m or more? Dipstick Exec #3: How will spending $100m more fix the loss in ticket sales by $100m? Dipstick Exec #2: Well you gotta spend money to make money right? Dipstick Exec's 1 & 3: Genius!!
Well according to wikipedia, theyre pretty good for general info. TAS2 cost almost 300mil to make and im betting that takes into account marketing costs as theres no way that film cost that much without it. So thats still 400mil profit
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 8, 2019 8:50:28 GMT
They are but mostly only when explaining why a film that grossed upwards of like $600m is still a bomb, usually you are talking $100-150m marketing cost for most blockbusters which with few exceptions will cap out at the $200m mark, Endgame probably all in all cost like $500m in production & marketing but it wont be mentioned because they grossed close to $3b.
Also with Sony it's more a sticking point because they traded their merch rights to Spidey away for Disney's standing 5% of the films gross, so them making it where Spidey wouldn't be profitable unless it banked a billion per film is kind of hilarious, it's where Disney can get buy with say Antman being a break even film series because they can make $100's of millions on merchandising, DC does the same thing, but when you only have the films box office and DVD sales to get any profit from then why the fuck spend close to half a billion in making the movie especially when the last one was the lowest grossing in the franchises history? who thinks this is a smart conversation? Dipstick Exec #1: Hey this film made over $100m less than the last one and several million less than the previous lowest grossing film what do we do? Dipstick Exec #2: We could increase the budget and marketing spread by a combined $100m or more? Dipstick Exec #3: How will spending $100m more fix the loss in ticket sales by $100m? Dipstick Exec #2: Well you gotta spend money to make money right? Dipstick Exec's 1 & 3: Genius!!
Well according to wikipedia, theyre pretty good for general info. TAS2 cost almost 300mil to make and im betting that takes into account marketing costs as theres no way that film cost that much without it. So thats still 400mil profit Nope budget refers to production budget, $200-290m production budget and according to their wiki $180-190m marketing costs for anywhere between $380-480m total expenses before you factor in points and percentages, and a film at BEST keeps only 50% of their box office more like high 30's to low 40's internationally and anywhere between 25-33% in china, so of that $710 ish million TASM2 made Sony got less that $355m of it, hence them killing the franchise and rebooting with Marvel.
TASM 2 was also entirely filed in NY state which I don't think is cheap and probably cost a hefty amount of the budget, but it was at the time and may still be the biggest production filmed in the state, so yeah the cost doesn't translate on screen that well but them fuckers spent a shit ton of money just filming that atrocity.
|
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 8, 2019 10:35:00 GMT
TASM 2 was the lowest grossing SM movie (besides Spider-Verse). FFH is the highest. Yeah well in US each Spider-man movie made less than the one before it except for Spider-man 3 that was true for worldwide too. I think The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was barely profitable and because people weren't keen on it a third movie would have surely have made less again. Joining the MCU has revitalised the character. Now it's out of the MCU it might still stand for a while especially if Tom Holland remains Spider-man but who knows after that.
|
|
