SirGoofy
Member
There's no way they're going to let the franchise slip out of their fingers, jt. I know you want a Disney(more importantly Marvel Creative) controlled Spidey, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
McGuire and Raimi sook to be out and Spidey 4 dead!
- Thread starter JimboJones123
- Start date
There's no way they're going to let the franchise slip out of their fingers, jt. I know you want a Disney(more importantly Marvel Creative) controlled Spidey, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Smoke and mirrors.
I think they will let it slip a way. It's played out and Sony is not just going to crank out movies just to hold the rights IMO. It just won't be worth it to them. How can there be another origin story when one was established in everone's mind in 2002. Spiderman is going back in the vault at least as it relates to new movie releases. Time to move on.
Disney will bring him back in 10 to 15 years. Sooner in other media (comics, animation etc.) in my opinion.
There's no way they're going to let the franchise slip out of their fingers, jt. I know you want a Disney(more importantly Marvel Creative) controlled Spidey, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon.
I think they will let it slip a way. It's played out and Sony is not just going to crank out movies just to hold the rights IMO. It just won't be worth it to them. How can there be another origin story when one was established in everone's mind in 2002. Spiderman is going back in the vault at least as it relates to new movie releases. Time to move on.
Disney will bring him back in 10 to 15 years. Sooner in other media (comics, animation etc.) in my opinion.
jt04
Well-Known Member
I think it's probably part of the conversion to 3D process. So after the run in theaters you will be able to buy blu-ray regular or 3D versions for your home theater. 3D TV technology is being rolled out. George Lucas is preparing Star Wars for it. Hopefully he is digitizing and recreating all the SFX scenes.
Edit:
Proof....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-of-the-Rings-next-in-line-for-3D-remake.html
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
It's all guess work, unless it's an opinion based on jt's personal crystal ball that contradicts every bit of evidence out there. Then you should put money on it. Wise up, people.
CastleBound
Well-Known Member
There are really no comparisons when making it more of a batman-like concept. Batman and Robin made around 250 million. Spiderman 3 made 890 million. Batman was a failing franchise at the time and even tho many people didn't like Spiderman 3, it still raked in the cash. To reboot something that brought in that much money makes no sense. It was also an 8 year gap between batmans and what should be a 5 year gap between a rebooted spidey.
Like someone said before batman=grit, spidey=...well not grit.
its going to have to be an amazing reboot to break the numbers of Spiderman 3. If not.... FAIL
Like someone said before batman=grit, spidey=...well not grit.
its going to have to be an amazing reboot to break the numbers of Spiderman 3. If not.... FAIL
SirGoofy
Member
lebeau
Well-Known Member
The cartoon landscape is completely different today than it was in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. I could go on for a while, but this is somewhat off topic anyway so I'll keep it short. Long story short, today most animation comes from basic cable. As a result, it can be a lot more inventive than the kiddie fare of previous generations.
Do they sell a lot of Spongebob toys? Yes. Sure. Of course they do. They'd be stupid not to. But, the cartoon came first. The cartoons of the 80s were dominated by shows that were slapped together just to sell the toys. I know these shows are dearly loved by the children who cherished the toys, but the quality was severely lacking.
As someone who has no nostalgic (childhood) attahcment to the cartoons of the 80s, 90s or today, I can say (in my humble opinion) that the cartoons of the 80s were the weakest. They reused animation to an embarassing degree. They were more interested in setting up the latest product to hit the shelves than telling a story. They were often shameless commercials.
But most kids of that era didn't notice. They just asked mom and dad for the latest Transformer or GI Joe (Strawberry Shortcake or Care Bear if you're a girl.)
lebeau
Well-Known Member
Very few things are certain. But this is as close to certain as you can get:
There is no way on earth Sony will let the Spider-man movie rights revert back to Disney until they have crashed and burned at the box office at least once (most likely twice).
You may not remember the years of wrangling over the Spider-man movie rights. For most of the 90s, studios were fighting over who controlled the film rights to Spider-man. In the end, Sony came out the winner and was richly rewarded for its efforts.
Financially, Spider-man movies are 3 for 3. Along with Harry Potter, the Star Wars prequels and Lord of the Rings, it's one of the biggest franchises of the last ten years (I'm ommitting the Matrix because the first one came out in 99.)
Sony may dump the current creative team (who has clout and demands large salaries) but they aren't going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They will make a Spider-man film.
Spider-man is money in the bank. The international box office alone will recoup the film's costs. And if they do it right, the stand to win big. No one is dumb enough to just let that slip away. If someone at Sony did, the shareholders would revolt.
Sorry jt, but this is purely fantasy on your part. More so than usual.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Very few things are certain. But this is as close to certain as you can get:
There is no way on earth Sony will let the Spider-man movie rights revert back to Disney until they have crashed and burned at the box office at least once (most likely twice).
You may not remember the years of wrangling over the Spider-man movie rights. For most of the 90s, studios were fighting over who controlled the film rights to Spider-man. In the end, Sony came out the winner and was richly rewarded for its efforts.
Financially, Spider-man movies are 3 for 3. Along with Harry Potter, the Star Wars prequels and Lord of the Rings, it's one of the biggest franchises of the last ten years (I'm ommitting the Matrix because the first one came out in 99.)
Sony may dump the current creative team (who has clout and demands large salaries) but they aren't going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They will make a Spider-man film.
Spider-man is money in the bank. The international box office alone will recoup the film's costs. And if they do it right, the stand to win big. No one is dumb enough to just let that slip away. If someone at Sony did, the shareholders would revolt.
Sorry jt, but this is purely fantasy on your part. More so than usual.
I always distinguish between what I think will happen and what I want to see happen. I realize they are too different things unlike others here. :lookaroun
Keep in mind, Sony has to keep up a certain level of quality as I understand it or Marvel (Disney) can reclaim the franchise. In any case Disney makes money.
It's as if Pepsi started using a logo similar to Coke. Then Coke won a judgement in court that said for every product sold with the logo Pepsi had to pay Coke a percentage of the sale. Now would Pepsi keep doing that or would they change the logo?
Not a perfect analogy, but close.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
You do realize that the deal between Sony and Marvel hasn't changed one bit since the Disney acquisition, right?
Sony's in the same position they were a year ago.
Regarding the quality issue, Roger Corman held on to the Fantastic Four film rights by making one of the worst movies ever made. It was released for a weekend. The "quality" issue really isn't an issue.
Marvel's not getting those rights back early unless Disney decides to try to buy them back.
Your Coke/Pepsi analogy makes no sense whatsoever. :shrug:
jt04
Well-Known Member
It makes perfect sense but I will break it down even further so you can grasp the point. Sony may not be willing to go to a lot of effort when that effort will largely profit a competitor. Same with Universal continuing to feature and send a check to a chief rival. Unless there is actually collusion, I just don't see them doing it. I could be wrong, or I could be right. I'm sticking with the theory unless I see more evidence rather than fanboy's wishful thinking. (not a reference to you)
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
How is a press release announcing plans for another movie in 2012 not evidence that Sony plans to keep the property?
I can appreciate the argument that studio buzz isn't worth much until there's something to show for it, but that's an attempt to explain away already existing evidence — an attempt that may or may not turn out to be foresighted.
To say that your theory is the one most favored by the facts, or that it's even a 50/50 tossup at this point, just looks like willful blindness. You come off like a talk radio host, where everything that happens supports your pre-favored view, even if it does the exact opposite.
To be honest, I'd respect you more if you'd say "I'm going out on a limb here. This Spider-Man movie isn't getting made, despite what we've been told."
But you don't do that. You first act like it's a foregone conclusion that the movie isn't being made, saying "Time to move on" and whatnot. When that turns out to be too much to stand on, you back up and say it's essentially a coin flip. It isn't. Your view is the contrarian outlier view. Period. The evidence is with the other side at this point. That's just reality.
So given all that, why not just admit you're the one on the limb? There's no shame there, especially if you turn out to be right, and it does keep the discussion interesting.
I don't get the faux sense of certainty/authority you try to attribute to opinions which are pretty clearly shots in the dark, unless it's just an attempt to get people worked up.
jt04
Well-Known Member
How is a press release announcing plans for another movie in 2012 not evidence that Sony plans to keep the property?
(I didn't say it was. The cancellation of the 4th movie and firing of the crew, including Toby M. is evidence something is going on :lookaroun)
I can appreciate the argument that studio buzz isn't worth much until there's something to show for it, but that's an attempt to explain away already existing evidence — an attempt that may or may not turn out to be foresighted. (Very true. I didn't guarantee I am right.)
To say that your theory is the one most favored by the facts,(I never said this:shrugor that it's even a 50/50 tossup (I never said this either) at this point, just looks like willful blindness (your entitled to your opinion, and I, mine). You come off like a talk radio host, where everything that happens supports your pre-favored view, even if it does the exact opposite. (I don't care if Sony keeps the franchise or not. I have no "pre-favored" view. I think they won't. But in the end I don't care one way or the other)
To be honest, I'd respect you more if you'd say "I'm going out on a limb here. This Spider-Man movie isn't getting made, despite what we've been told." (I don't know that. Nobody can say how it will go with 100% certainty. If Sony says they are not going to make a movie they probably immediately lose their rights. The announcement of a reboot buys them time to make a decision one way or the other)
But you don't do that. You first act like it's a foregone conclusion that the movie isn't being made, saying "Time to move on" (my opinion, it is time to move on) and whatnot. When that turns out to be too much to stand on, you back up and say it's essentially a coin flip. (no a "coin flip" implies Sony won't put any thought into it) It isn't. (Your opinion) Your view is the contrarian outlier view. (Exactly, because experience has shown me not to assume anything. Like Disney will be making a 20K remake) Period. (Please explain again why the 4th movie was canceled and they are rebooting) The evidence is with the other side at this point. (Your opinion again:wave
So given all that, why not just admit you're the one on the limb? (I've said many times I enjoy the view from out on the limb. Sorry if that bothers you so much) There's no shame there, (well, thank you for that :lookaroun) especially if you turn out to be right,
I don't get the faux sense of certainty/authority you try to attribute to opinions (in your opinion) which are pretty clearly shots in the dark (pretty clearly your opinion) , unless it's just an attempt to get people worked up. (I'm just simply offering a different take on the matter. If it was completly out of bounds you would feel no need to respond so often)
Sorry to so heavily edit your posting but you assume so much I thought it was the only way to effectively respond.
In my opinion.
PS-- "Outlier" ? Isn't that gore-speak? :lol:
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Like I said, different views keep things interesting. For me, though, it would be nice to read more posts like this ^ red-letter response where you acknowledge you're shooting from the hip as much as the rest of us. To me, that's missing from a lot of what I read under your username.
--- Segue ---
I still don't think we're speaking the same language on the substantive issue at hand, though.
If the fact that a completely separate project was canceled provides equal evidence against the making of another Spider-Man film as the announcement of said other film's development provides in favor of it, then it's hard for me to see how the basic definition of "evidence" even remains intact.
It's like saying the odds against an actor getting married because he backed out of a previous engagement to another girl are as solid as betting in favor of him getting married after he's engaged a second time. Without deeper knowledge of why the first engagement broke up, the evidence (i.e., his being engaged) would pretty clearly favor a marriage.
Likewise, without knowing why the previous movie was canceled and how it affects internal studio politics, then the evidence we do have (i.e., the press release) favors another movie, however weakly. And that's not simply a matter of opinion...in my opinion. :animwink:
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
No idea! Never was a big fan of ManBearPig, personally. :lol:
jt04
Well-Known Member
Nah, it's the opposite. If your posts were completely out of bounds, I wouldn't respond at all. I'd just report them.
Like I said, different views keep things interesting. For me, though, it would be nice to read more posts like this ^ red-letter response where you acknowledge you're shooting from the hip as much as the rest of us. To me, that's missing from a lot of what I read under your username.
--- Segue ---
I still don't think we're speaking the same language on the substantive issue at hand, though.
If the fact that a completely separate project was canceled provides equal evidence against the making of another Spider-Man film as the announcement of said other film's development provides in favor of it, then it's hard for me to see how the basic definition of "evidence" even remains intact.
It's like saying the odds against an actor getting married because he backed out of a previous engagement to another girl are as solid as betting in favor of him getting married after he's engaged a second time. Without deeper knowledge of why the first engagement broke up, the evidence (i.e., his being engaged) would pretty clearly favor a marriage.
Likewise, without knowing why the previous movie was canceled and how it affects internal studio politics, then the evidence we do have (i.e., the press release) favors another movie, however weakly. And that's not simply a matter of opinion...in my opinion. :animwink:
They canceled the movie that was in production. I can't imagine what they had already spent and then how much they are paying to buy out contracts. For example look at what the Tonight Show is costing NBC. Jeff Zucker will probably be fired. These are HUGE decisions. So the "WHY?" question is incredibly meaningful in my opinion. It appears to me they are just buying time.
I don't just say these things for the fun of it. :lol:
Studios Fan
Active Member
Completely agree. The issue is Disney is going to have to buy back the rights if they want Spidey. We also do not have knowledge of what is in the contract to say how long they can go without releasing a film before the rights revert back to Disney. The interesting thing is that Daredevil and Elektra should probably be getting close to reverting to Marvel if it is a time issue.
lebeau
Well-Known Member
I've read up quite a bit on this. So, I'll share some info with you.
The cancellation of Spidey 4 is actually evidence of just how determined Sony is to relaunch the franchise. Multiple sources (Sony, Raimi) have all said that Sony was developing Spidey 4 as a last hurrah for the old guard. But all the while they were developing a reboot for 2012.
The reason Spidey 4 got cancelled was that Raimi could not meet the 2011 deadline and Sony did not want to push back their reboot. They have their minds set on restarting the Spider-man franchise in 2012 no matter what.
As far as halting production on Spider-man 4, it's really not that expensive. It has been reported that none of the major players had "play or pay" contracts. So, Sony's not paying them for a movie that didn't get made.
(The NBC fiasco has nothing in common with this situation. Nothing at all.)
The answers to your "why" questions have all been reported in the Hollywood press. If you read Variety or even Entertainment Weekly, you'd have the answers to your questions.
I'm sorry, but to anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge of how the movie industry works, your theory of Sony letting the film rights revert to Marvel so they don't have to pay Disney is absurd. You might as well be arguing that the sky is blue.
If nothing else, Sony will hold onto the rights in hopes Disney will offer them a big fat pay day to buy the rights back. No way do they give them away for nothing. THAT a disaster along the lines of what is going on at NBC.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Still sounds like Sony spin and PR. Do you know someone that works there?
Do you work for Sony? :lol:
Anyway, we will see. As I said, the character seems played out to me. I really don't see what they can do to make it fresh again if they are actually going forward with the franchise. If they are actually proceeding, it almost seems like a desperate attempt to cling to the franchise and to keep it from Disney. But everyone has overdosed on 3D pixie dust at this point so reason is not in play. :dazzle: