|
08-20-2019, 02:43 PM | |
Hockey Town
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Casino cash: $1227050
|
Spiderman is [no longer] out of the MCU
https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-f...er-1202672545/
It was fun while it lasted, but Sony once again is stupid and has cancelled this deal. Might as well call it Sony hates money. |
Posts: 112,451
|
08-21-2019, 06:57 AM | #31 | |
MVP
Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $71116
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 18,259
|
1 0 |
08-21-2019, 07:09 AM | #32 | |
MVP
Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $71116
|
https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-f...er-1202672545/
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 18,259
|
08-21-2019, 07:46 AM | #33 | |
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $798919
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Posts: 48,268
|
08-21-2019, 07:51 AM | #34 |
__
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $3573447
|
There's just too much money in these MCU Spider-Man films for this to fully die. Surely they'll work out a deal.
They're going to have to do a hell of a heel-turn, though, narratively, if Spidey is gone. It was clear in Far From Home that they were setting him up to be the central figure of the MCU going forward. I think the central Stark/Cap/Thor trio was planned, in phase 4, to be replaced by Spidey/T'Challa/Danvers. I *think*. But make no mistake -- and this is where I disagree with DJLN -- the MCU is going to continue printing money. Thor 4 will rake it in. Strange 2 will rake it in. Black Panther 2 will rake it in. Captain Marvel 2 will rake it in. GOTG 3 will rake it in. They'll keep dipping their toes into new properties, and keep trying new stuff. Some of it will sink (like, relatively, the Ant-Man movies) and some of it will strike gold. And the machine will churn on. But narratively, the entire MCU benefits sooooooo much from Tom Holland's Spidey, and both companies make stupid money off of him. There's no way they're going to just bury him without milking him Stark-style for another 5 movies. |
Posts: 59,426
|
08-21-2019, 07:54 AM | #35 |
__
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $3573447
|
The thing I think may harm the MCU's longterm profit margin are the Disney series with Loki, WandaVision, and Falcon/Bucky.
With those shows ongoing featuring central characters, the maintenance of having to keep up with the MCU is going to increase. I think one of the reasons the MCU has thrived is because they come out basically twice a year, which (a.) forces fans to wait, but more importantly (b.) makes keeping up with the MCU low-effort. |
Posts: 59,426
|
08-21-2019, 08:13 AM | #36 |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2016
Casino cash: $2597985
|
There's enough money to go around. I liked it better when Spiderman was separate from the MCU; the whole Tony Stark/Spiderman thing doesn't feel right to me. The character is interesting enough without needing Tony Stark. Deadpool seems to be doing fine on his own and they managed to tank the X-Men. I can see separate worlds where each can exist and do fine.
Tony/Steve/Thor were my main interests. Natasha/Hawkey/Hulk/etc. are nice sidekicks. I'm a bit overloaded and the PG-13 ratings are having trouble holding my interest. |
Posts: 4,582
|
08-21-2019, 11:30 AM | #37 |
Plays to win the game!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lees Summit
Casino cash: $6873101
|
It'd be funny if Tom Holland didn't sign on to be Spiderman anymore due to this and Sony had to recast Spiderman yet again, and fall on their faces with the fans.
|
Posts: 7,669
|
08-21-2019, 11:52 AM | #38 | |
World's Best Boss
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronco Country
Casino cash: $5004654
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 18,468
|
08-21-2019, 01:46 PM | #39 | |
MVP
Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $71116
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 18,259
|
08-21-2019, 01:57 PM | #40 |
Hockey Town
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Casino cash: $1227050
|
Yea but didn't they also offer to put money in thus taking a risk as well? Where as with the last 2 they were Sony funded so Marvel had no risk.
|
Posts: 112,451
|
08-21-2019, 02:10 PM | #41 |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Casino cash: $-11497
|
|
Posts: 1,429
|
08-21-2019, 02:37 PM | #42 | |
You Sweetie!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $2021206219
VARSITY
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 71,691
|
08-21-2019, 02:44 PM | #43 |
MVP
Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $71116
|
Disney had no risk but also only got 5%. Now Disney wants 50% of the risk for 50% of the profit. If you take a movie like Venom and put the Disney deal in place, then Sony loses hundreds of millions.
|
Posts: 18,259
|
08-21-2019, 06:53 PM | #44 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Scott City KS
Casino cash: $804734
|
Quote:
If Disney has half the risk, I’d take that to mean half the expense. If they have half the expense and get half of the revenue, the margin would be better than giving away 5% of the net. Meaning that if it made money Sony would get less. If it lost money Sony would lose less. It wouldn’t take a profitable movie and make it unprofitable. 50% income - 50% expense = net Vs 100% income - 100% expense = net -5% So what am I missing? |
|
Posts: 57,702
|
08-21-2019, 07:58 PM | #45 | |
Paladin
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Gator Country
Casino cash: $10008487
|
Quote:
Bear in mind Disney is still making 100% of profits off of merchandising. So this is about Disney being greedy. |
|
Posts: 13,215
|
|
|