WELCOME TO THE MARVEL MULTIVERSE -*RIP STAN LEE & Boseman* - XMEN97 release 3/20

I hope the Russos don't do too many closeups tho. But they are way better than whoever directed Quantum of Solace. That movie was a series of convoluted close ups.
 
Last edited:
I've been saying it, both studios could share the rights.

Marvel features Spidey in their films.

Sony keeps making stand alone Spidey films.

It will force both studios to be more collaborative and that may put a strain on the legal side of things, but it's a plan that will make money and it's obvious that's what matters most to these people.

Although it does seem that Marvel actually cares about these stories, but if this is how we start seeing these heroes together on the big screen, I wouldn't mind it.

Either way, keep Garfield. Skip ahead to an older Peter Parker, dealing with all his losses so far and juggling a job, like being a teacher or something. Have him meet Mary Jane to boost some self-confidence and give us the Spider-Man we all know.

Just ideas.
 
SirCoolTryNGoal said:
I've been saying it, both studios could share the rights.

Marvel features Spidey in their films.

Sony keeps making stand alone Spidey films.

It will force both studios to be more collaborative and that may put a strain on the legal side of things, but it's a plan that will make money and it's obvious that's what matters most to these people.

Although it does seem that Marvel actually cares about these stories, but if this is how we start seeing these heroes together on the big screen, I wouldn't mind it.

Either way, keep Garfield. Skip ahead to an older Peter Parker, dealing with all his losses so far and juggling a job, like being a teacher or something. Have him meet Mary Jane to boost some self-confidence and give us the Spider-Man we all know.

Just ideas.
Click to expand...

This
 
SirCoolTryNGoal said:
 
I've been saying it, both studios could share the rights.

Marvel features Spidey in their films.

Sony keeps making stand alone Spidey films.

It will force both studios to be more collaborative and that may put a strain on the legal side of things, but it's a plan that will make money and it's obvious that's what matters most to these people.

Although it does seem that Marvel actually cares about these stories, but if this is how we start seeing these heroes together on the big screen, I wouldn't mind it.

Either way, keep Garfield. Skip ahead to an older Peter Parker, dealing with all his losses so far and juggling a job, like being a teacher or something. Have him meet Mary Jane to boost some self-confidence and give us the Spider-Man we all know.

Just ideas.
Click to expand...
how will this make marvel any more money than they are currently doing 
 
sea manup said:
how will this make marvel any more money than they are currently doing 
Click to expand...

lamekilla about to say how it would triple their revenue :rofl:

But the answer is it wont. Sony is the only one to benefit from the Avengers stimulus package and Marvel will have tied a trash universe to their own. We have all been over this.
 
Word. It's been beaten down to death but ..

Any deal is likely to benefit Sony more than Marvel

There's a law of diminishing returns to how much money you can make. It's hard to improve on how Marvel is doing and then any of the added profits Marvel will have to share with Sony =/

Marvel averaging 700 ish with their movies - at least post Avengers. Let's say a Marvel Spidey movie does a billion. So that's 300 extra, and then you're going to have to split that. And then add the fact that the way Marvel runs things they're not going to do a Spidey movie every year. From Marvel's point of view, is it even worth it? Lol

IMO Sony aleady gave Sony everything they need of Spidey. Spidey is killing the merchandising game, I can't believe Sony gave that up.

Spidey doing over a billion in merch every year. From a merchandising standpoint, it seems Spidey > Batman > Avengers
 
Technically ASM merch is 300M a year. The rest of the sales are not ASM related. They gave up part of 300M (dont know how they split it before). They did not give up a billion in yearly sales. I could see why it would be worth it to sacrifice merch to own the character forever.
 
You mean they actually separate the Spidey merch sales? Interesting. So the other 800 something mill...that goes to ...?
 
All goes to Sony but the production cost, actor/director salary and marketing/advertising costs are all theirs to bare as well.

While Disney pays peanuts for toys to be made in China and make hundreds of millions. The movie itself is advertising for the merch itself.
 
Last edited:
amel223 said:
You mean they actually separate the Spidey merch sales? Interesting. So the other 800 something mill...that goes to ...?
Click to expand...

Well under the old deal Sony would get a piece of of the Spidey merch that they helped sell (ASM stuff). Sony was not getting merch money from the other 800M. Its all spidey but they keep track of the ASM stuff separately.

In a hacked email Sony said something along the lines of "Marvel will make 300M off ASM and we wont". Since we all know Spidey merch sells over a billion a year you can put two and two together.
 
Found the email:

Are you aware that Men In Black 3 may gross $600M at the box office, and yet will lose money for SPE? Shouldn't we question that strategy? Why are some studios making Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Twilight - and we are considering movies like Moneyball, Steve Jobs story, Captain Phillips Story, Evel Knievel story, etc. Are you aware that SPE only has 1 franchise - Spiderman. Yet, it took 5 years to generate a sequel? Spidey 3 was released in summer 2007, #4 in 2012. Don't harry potters come out over 2-3 years?

Are you aware that SPE has only 1 franchise - Spidey? Yet we waited 5 years after Spidey 3 (2007) to release #4? Have you read the SEC annual report? Disney will make $300M on Spidey merchandise this year alone. We won't!

That leaves 800M unaccounted for
 
I actually just skimmed through the ASM parts of Disney 2014 and Sony's 2013 annual reports. Found this interesting. In several places in the Sony annual report they claim they outright sold Spidey-Merch rights, doesnt mention anything about trading it for the movie rights indefinitely (which it wouldnt have to).

"This increase in sales was primarily due to significantly higher theatrical revenues from the current fiscal year’s film slate, partially offset by the sale of a participation interest in Spider-Man merchandising rights in the previous fiscal year"

"...partially offset by 21.4 billion yen of operating income generated from the above-noted sale of a participation interest in Spider-Man merchandising rights during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012"

Is there hope? :nerd:
 
Last edited:
amel223 said:
I read that post four times and I'm not understanding

This is why I'm not in business
Click to expand...

Nah they do that on purpose. I have master's degree in accounting and there are some annual reports that make no sense to me (like Shell)

First quote: Increase in 2013 sales was due to more ticket revenues/revenues from theatres. This increase in revenue is offset by the fact that we sold off spidey merch rights last year.

Second quote: The above mentioned sale of spidey merch increased our cashflow (after considering expenses) by $180,000,000 last year.
 
Last edited:
@lamekilla bout to get his heart broken.


Andrew Garfield Will Be Recast If Marvel Gets ‘Spider-Man’ Back


The drama over the film future of Spider-Man seemingly never ends. After The Amazing Spider-Man 2 failed to deliver, Sony announced an elaborate plan to spread the franchise out into some very intriguing spin-off films like Sinister Six and Venom. Then rumors began bubbling they’d been in touch with Marvel Studios to try and figure out some kind of mutually beneficial deal. At one point, there was even a discussion of Spider-Man maybe appearing in 2016′s Captain America: Civil War. Those talks broke down, and at the moment, things are still in flux.

The latest update is a few of the details in those now legendary Marvel and Sony talks. Apparently, if a deal was worked out, Marvel’s plan was to completely distance their version of Spider-Man from everything Sony had done with the character. That means recasting Andrew Garfield.

Latino Review is reporting details of what Marvel would do if they were to acquire any stake in the Spider-Man character.

Basically, if it had happened, Marvel wouldn’t want any confusion with Sony’s films. So Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and all the work they’ve done would be ignored. (Granted, Webb’s films already ignore the work Raimi did.) Also, Marvel believes audiences understand the Spider-Man origin and are sick of it. If they were to get the character back, he’d already be Spider-Man when we meet him. Hence the idea of him popping up in Civil War.

Marvel’s idea for a solo Spider-Man movie is to push the romance way back. It would be primarily about him dealing with his dual life as a teenager and a superhero, two issues that are well-handled in the best Sony Spider-Man film, Spider-Man 2. When that movie starts, he’s Spider-Man and it’s difficult for him to balance that with his real life, of which Mary Jane is a part. To Marvel, that’s the best of the character and would be their focus. That’s 100% the right idea.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tumblr_lvk7lqrHIY1r76lino1_400.gif
 
RFX45 said:
They're just want to produce, not direct, so you get a better Spideyverse and better story operated by someone who actually knows what they are doing and still get the directors helm at Marvel.

Win-Win in my book.



Plus I don't think Marvel can stop them, they are already directing other films for Sony. Not sure if directors could get non-compete clause?
Click to expand...
They can't be forced in to non-compete clauses. Neither can the actors really (yeah RDJR can't go and be the next Green Lantern but he can be in a WB produced and owned movie). What Marvel could do though is **** with scheduling. Since the directors sign those contracts ahead of time before taking on new projects w/e they signed first takes priority. Marvel could push up the production time for a movie the Russo's are suppose to direct to **** with w/e movie they could direct for any other studio.
SirCoolTryNGoal said:
I've been saying it, both studios could share the rights.

Marvel features Spidey in their films.

Sony keeps making stand alone Spidey films.

It will force both studios to be more collaborative and that may put a strain on the legal side of things, but it's a plan that will make money and it's obvious that's what matters most to these people.

Although it does seem that Marvel actually cares about these stories, but if this is how we start seeing these heroes together on the big screen, I wouldn't mind it.

Either way, keep Garfield. Skip ahead to an older Peter Parker, dealing with all his losses so far and juggling a job, like being a teacher or something. Have him meet Mary Jane to boost some self-confidence and give us the Spider-Man we all know.

Just ideas.
Click to expand...
Disney's stance has been clear and firm on this for a while now. Why share something they feel they should own 100%? They don't want to share profits. They want ALL the profits.
RFX45 said:
@lamekilla bout to get his heart broken.


Andrew Garfield Will Be Recast If Marvel Gets ‘Spider-Man’ Back


The drama over the film future of Spider-Man seemingly never ends. After The Amazing Spider-Man 2 failed to deliver, Sony announced an elaborate plan to spread the franchise out into some very intriguing spin-off films like Sinister Six and Venom. Then rumors began bubbling they’d been in touch with Marvel Studios to try and figure out some kind of mutually beneficial deal. At one point, there was even a discussion of Spider-Man maybe appearing in 2016′s Captain America: Civil War. Those talks broke down, and at the moment, things are still in flux.

The latest update is a few of the details in those now legendary Marvel and Sony talks. Apparently, if a deal was worked out, Marvel’s plan was to completely distance their version of Spider-Man from everything Sony had done with the character. That means recasting Andrew Garfield.

Latino Review is reporting details of what Marvel would do if they were to acquire any stake in the Spider-Man character.

Basically, if it had happened, Marvel wouldn’t want any confusion with Sony’s films. So Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and all the work they’ve done would be ignored. (Granted, Webb’s films already ignore the work Raimi did.) Also, Marvel believes audiences understand the Spider-Man origin and are sick of it. If they were to get the character back, he’d already be Spider-Man when we meet him. Hence the idea of him popping up in Civil War.

Marvel’s idea for a solo Spider-Man movie is to push the romance way back. It would be primarily about him dealing with his dual life as a teenager and a superhero, two issues that are well-handled in the best Sony Spider-Man film, Spider-Man 2. When that movie starts, he’s Spider-Man and it’s difficult for him to balance that with his real life, of which Mary Jane is a part. To Marvel, that’s the best of the character and would be their focus. That’s 100% the right idea.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
But I BEEN SAID THIS!!! :rofl:
amel223 said:
How is recasting Garfield distancing themselves from anything Sony has done?
Click to expand...
Garfield is Sony's Spidey. It's not rocket science here. They don't want anything to do with what Sony has done with Spidey so they won't use the cast, directors, set locations, interns, etc. that Sony used.

It's great news. Better chance of us seeing Spidey villains that wouldn't get the chance to be in a film given how Sony decided to repeat ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom