A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Phicinfan]

In fairness, that's not what Sony is doing. They are trying and failing to build a franchise similar to what Marvel built with the Avengers movies. It's not surprising that they are failing. Spider-man is a solo character who can maintain a series of his own. But he shouldn't be the basis for a franchise of different series like Avengers.

Making a hit super hero movie that pleases audiences and critics alike is hard. Building a franchise around it is harder. Building a mega franchise is extremely challenging. Doing so around a solo character is nigh impossible.

Anyway, Sony is not pulling a Roger Corman and putting out weak movies just to satisfy the terms of their contract and hold on to the property. They are really trying their best. But they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. So they are failing.

Not sure I totally agree here.
I think Sony is hamstrung, because they could not do a long term tale as Disney/Marvel can.

When they first launched Ironman, no one was sure what would be next, and how it would grow, but yet Disney and Marvel did, as they had Easter eggs in the credits. We now know, they had a long term plan, and that plan involved Hero's we have not seen in Movies in the past. Plus long term plans to move to new series with Avengers as the climax.

Sony doesn't have that capability. They have X-men and Spiderman, and thats it. While Spiderman and Wolverine have interacted in the comics, X-men and spidey haven't. There is no long term direction to go.

Add to that, Sony basically admitted they blew it and completely retold the same stories in both series. Hitting fairly well with Xmen, not so much with Spidey. That to me is their biggest issue. They see superheros are hot, but only have limited availablity, so they are struggling to keep revamping what they have.

I wonder what happens with the Fantastic four remake as well, as I see this failing as the Spidey revamp did as well.

 

[lebeau]

No, they'd rather have Sony stop making the movies and sell the owning rights to Disney that way they have the movie rights AND the merchandising rights. That's why they've been negotiating with Sony. Also, your statement is dependent upon how well the characters are received within the movie. People won't buy a lot of Spiderman merchandise if the movie isn't quality.

Not exactly. If they wanted to buy the movie rights from Sony they would. Sony would part with them for the right price. They know they messed up Spider-man.

But Disney doesn't want to make Spider-man movies. They have all the super heroes they need. If they can negotiate with Sony to use the character, they will. If Sony is dumb enough to let the rights revert, they will be happy to have him back in the fold. But unless Sony gives up and offers to sell Spidey back dirt cheap (which I can't imagine they will be dumb enough to do), Disney isn't all that interested in buying the rights back.

Why would they be? They spanked Spidey with Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

[asianway]

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

View attachment 80468

Good thing they did a lot of those buy backs in 09 when the stock was dirt cheap.
Oh

 

[lebeau]

Great point, but applies to the general population equally. Comics are dead, have been since around Death of Superman. In fairness, I think even going back to the '89 Batman, far more movie-goers knew the character from TV (West version, Superfriends, syndicated reruns of Filmation cartoon) than read The Dark Knight. And the 80s were when comics were booming, relatively.

[ETA: Of course, the reason comics are dying is they quit targeting a broad market when they went to essentially comic stores-only, and instead tried to make money with more and more upcharges on an ever-dwindling hard core fanbase. Hey, anyone go to that Halloween party within a party last October?]

Comics are cyclical. The 90s were a time of boom and bust. The Death of Superman story you're referencing came at a time when comics (Superman aside) were selling like crazy. The speculators drove a huge boom in the business. Then they left and there was a bust later in the decade that nearly bankrupted Marvel. I don't have current numbers in front of me, but I understand current comic book sales are reasonably healthy again. Rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Phicinfan]

Not exactly. If they wanted to buy the movie rights from Sony they would. Sony would part with them for the right price. They know they messed up Spider-man.

But Disney doesn't want to make Spider-man movies. They have all the super heroes they need. If they can negotiate with Sony to use the character, they will. If Sony is dumb enough to let the rights revert, they will be happy to have him back in the fold. But unless Sony gives up and offers to sell Spidey back dirt cheap (which I can't imagine they will be dumb enough to do), Disney isn't all that interested in buying the rights back.

Why would they be? They spanked Spidey with Guardians of the Galaxy.

Totally disagree here, I believe Marvel and Disney do want Xmen and Spiderman, to go to the full hilt with the comic story of the infinity glove and Civil war all were involved. The more marvel power they can pull, the better position they will be.

the other concern Marvel/Disney has to have is backlash. If Sony and WB keep putting out bad superhero movies, it has the potential to sour the market, and potentially poisen their wells.

Adding Spidey for Avengers three has already been out there in rumors for a while

 

[spacemt354]

But Disney doesn't want to make Spider-man movies. They have all the super heroes they need. If they can negotiate with Sony to use the character, they will. If Sony is dumb enough to let the rights revert, they will be happy to have him back in the fold.

But that's what they have been doing. Spider-Man played an integral role in the Civil War storyline in the comics. Since Captain America: Civil War is adapting that storyline, Marvel/Disney wanted Spider-Man in the film. Negotiations happened, but production of the 2016 Civil War film didn't give enough time for a deal to get done. That's why Black Panther is now in the film (in Spider-Man's role). Apparently rumor has it that Spider-Man is coming to the MCU in a rebooted format for Avengers: Inifinity War Part 1 in 2018.

 

[lebeau]

Not sure I totally agree here.
I think Sony is hamstrung, because they could not do a long term tale as Disney/Marvel can.

When they first launched Ironman, no one was sure what would be next, and how it would grow, but yet Disney and Marvel did, as they had Easter eggs in the credits. We now know, they had a long term plan, and that plan involved Hero's we have not seen in Movies in the past. Plus long term plans to move to new series with Avengers as the climax.

Sony doesn't have that capability. They have X-men and Spiderman, and thats it. While Spiderman and Wolverine have interacted in the comics, X-men and spidey haven't. There is no long term direction to go.

Add to that, Sony basically admitted they blew it and completely retold the same stories in both series. Hitting fairly well with Xmen, not so much with Spidey. That to me is their biggest issue. They see superheros are hot, but only have limited availablity, so they are struggling to keep revamping what they have.

I wonder what happens with the Fantastic four remake as well, as I see this failing as the Spidey revamp did as well.

Actually, they have Spider-man and the supporting characters and that is it. Fox has the rights to the X-Men and the Fantastic Four which supposedly they intend to cross-over Avengers-style.

But that hasn't stopped Sony from planning a franchise. This isn't speculation. They have announced their intentions. A Sinister Six movie is on the way. They had plans for a Venom series (not sure where that stands currently). And also a movie about a female character in the Spiderverse (many speculate Spider Woman but who knows).

One of the reasons Amazing Spider-man 2 was as lousy as it was is that Sony kept shoehorning characters in for the Sinister Six movies its planning. But now that the movie underperformed, their plans are uncertain.

 

[truecoat]

Since Iger became CEO, Disney has spent over $40 billion on stock buybacks. (Just think what one-tenth of that could do for WDW. )

Buybacks do not generate revenue or profit. They inflate stock price but otherwise are like stuffing cash in a mattress.

Excluding 2009, the year of the Marvel purchase, Iger has averaged $4.9 billion in stock buybacks annually.

The Marvel purchase cost Disney $4.6 billion. Stock buyback that year were $138 million. (That's $2.5 billion less than Iger's next lowest year.)

$4.6 billion + $138 million = pretty darn close to Disney's average annual stock buyback.

In 2009, some administrative genius no doubt figured that it was smarter to actually invest in something rather than stuff more cash in the mattress.

Can you expand on stock buybacks. In having a conversation with a friend (vp at fortune 500 company), he told me that only the board could do stock buybacks and a CEO wouldn't initiate this.

 

[lebeau]

Totally disagree here, I believe Marvel and Disney do want Xmen and Spiderman, to go to the full hilt with the comic story of the infinity glove and Civil war all were involved. The more marvel power they can pull, the better position they will be.

the other concern Marvel/Disney has to have is backlash. If Sony and WB keep putting out bad superhero movies, it has the potential to sour the market, and potentially poisen their wells.

Adding Spidey for Avengers three has already been out there in rumors for a while

If they wanted the rights, there's nothing stopping them from buying them back. Fox wouldn't part with X-Men. But the fact that Sony has negotiated over Spider-man tells you they would sell if a serious offer was made.

Disney would be happy to have those characters back, but much like the Marvel theme park rights, they don't need them and aren't going to spend a lot of money to reacquire them.

Don't think like a fanboy. Think like a business. Spending a lot of money to buy back those movie rights would be foolish when they have more characters in their stable than they know what to do with. And GotG has shown that even their minor characters can outgross Spidey if done properly.

 

[Phicinfan]

Actually, they have Spider-man and the supporting characters and that is it. Fox has the rights to the X-Men and the Fantastic Four which supposedly they intend to cross-over Avengers-style.

But that hasn't stopped Sony from planning a franchise. This isn't speculation. They have announced their intentions. A Sinister Six movie is on the way. They had plans for a Venom series (not sure where that stands currently). And also a movie about a female character in the Spiderverse (many speculate Spider Woman but who knows).

One of the reasons Amazing Spider-man 2 was as lousy as it was is that Sony kept shoehorning characters in for the Sinister Six movies its planning. But now that the movie underperformed, their plans are uncertain.

No, you are confusing some.
First thanks for the correction on X-men I keep forgetting they are Fox.
Secondly, Sony ONLY decided to follow Marvel/Disney's plans AFTER the success of what Marvel/Disney did.

I will add, after the Spiderman 2 flop, they have already moved away from the Venom series, and discussions are being had to kill the Sinister Six move. At least that is some of what I have read.

Sony would be wise to sell now, while they have value in the character they have, another movie flop, and they kill that franchise.

 

[lebeau]

But that's what they have been doing. Spider-Man played an integral role in the Civil War storyline in the comics. Since Captain America: Civil War is adapting that storyline, Marvel/Disney wanted Spider-Man in the film. Negotiations happened, but production of the 2016 Civil War film didn't give enough time for a deal to get done. That's why Black Panther is now in the film (in Spider-Man's role). Apparently rumor has it that Spider-Man is coming to the MCU in a rebooted format for Avengers: Inifinity War Part 1 in 2018.

Buying back the rights to the Spider-man franchise is not the same thing as negotiating a deal with Sony that allows Marvel to use the character in a mutually beneficial way while allowing Sony to retain the rights overall.

So no, that's not what's been happening.

 

[ford91exploder]

Can you expand on stock buybacks. In having a conversation with a friend (vp at fortune 500 company), he told me that only the board could do stock buybacks and a CEO wouldn't initiate this.

Your friend is correct for companies where the CEO and Chairman are separate individuals and the CEO does not have a seat on the board of directors.

At Disney the COB and CEO are the SAME individual as the roles were combined under Eisner, So Iger has more power than most CEO's as he's simultaneously CEO and Chairman. So he CAN initiate buybacks unlike many (most?) CEO's.

 

[Phicinfan]

If they wanted the rights, there's nothing stopping them from buying them back. Fox wouldn't part with X-Men. But the fact that Sony has negotiated over Spider-man tells you they would sell if a serious offer was made.

Disney would be happy to have those characters back, but much like the Marvel theme park rights, they don't need them and aren't going to spend a lot of money to reacquire them.

Don't think like a fanboy. Think like a business. Spending a lot of money to buy back those movie rights would be foolish when they have more characters in their stable than they know what to do with. And GotG has shown that even their minor characters can outgross Spidey if done properly.

I am not a fanboy, watch the characterizations please.

I do think like a business man, and you don't pay top dollar for a failing franchise. So yes, IF Sony wanted to sell they could have. You are making the assumption Disney low balled, I am making the assumption Sony wants too much to make up for their own failures.

 

[Rodan75]

Speaking of which, the other Hollywood studios are circling around the possibility of licensing KeyChest.
https://www.theinformation.com/As-UltraViolet-Fades-Studios-Ponder-Options.html

Disney Movies Anywhere is a much better solution than Ultraviolet. it is so easy and leverages solid existing infrastructure.

 

[Rodan75]

I think a lot of the perception some have of fans only becoming fans post merger is anecdotal, so not something anyone can prove. I definitely see it though. I know lots of girls who have seem to have only started to really like Star Wars since Kennedy took over, who weren't remotely interested in it during the Clone Wars or back when Revenge of the Sith was released, and just from the Halloween costumes at Mickey's Not So Scary you can tell the presence of Marvel characters has gone up many times over.

that is more because of the Clone Wars and the woman who created the 'Her Universe' stuff to make it cool for girls to be nerds.

 

[ford91exploder]

I am not a fanboy, watch the characterizations please.

I do think like a business man, and you don't pay top dollar for a failing franchise. So yes, IF Sony wanted to sell they could have. You are making the assumption Disney low balled, I am making the assumption Sony wants too much to make up for their own failures.

And the truth is probably a combination of both Disney made a low but not necessarily lowball offer, And Sony because of their recent corporate issues was looking for more than the asset was really worth.

 

[Phicinfan]

And the truth is probably a combination of both Disney made a low but not necessarily lowball offer, And Sony because of their recent corporate issues was looking for more than the asset was really worth.

Good point

 

[truecoat]

Your friend is correct for companies where the CEO and Chairman are separate individuals and the CEO does not have a seat on the board of directors.

At Disney the COB and CEO are the SAME individual as the roles were combined under Eisner, So Iger has more power than most CEO's as he's simultaneously CEO and Chairman. So he CAN initiate buybacks unlike many (most?) CEO's.

Thanks, that clears up the question I had. Seems kind of uh, incestuous. Can I use that word?

 

[ford91exploder]

Disney Movies Anywhere is a much better solution than Ultraviolet. it is so easy and leverages solid existing infrastructure.

Agree Ultraviolet never really WORKED in the Apple sense too complex and buggy.

 

[spacemt354]

Buying back the rights to the Spider-man franchise is not the same thing as negotiating a deal with Sony that allows Marvel to use the character in a mutually beneficial way while allowing Sony to retain the rights overall.

So no, that's not what's been happening.

Actually, it is.

When the original Avengers team contracts expire with Avengers: Infinity War part 2, Marvel Phase 4 is planned, however it would be foolish business logic to assume that all the new characters (Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, Inhumans) will have the same popularity as Guardians of the Galaxy.

Spider-Man is a flagship property and who better to lead the Phase 4 films than him? Disney wants him back. Just at the right price. And Sony has no clue what it's doing. They're going to have to cave eventually.