LogFAQs > #926587524

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Valley of The Geeks
ParanoidObsessive 08/26/19 9:36:54 PM #116:	Broken_Zeus posted... They did okay with Amazing at well at first.... but then they cast Jamie Foxx as Electro and for some reason Paul Giamotti was cast as the Rhino (and then barely used). And, of course, it also had a downer ending after just coming off a downer ending. My understanding of that was that they weren't really ready to make a film, and were mostly just churning it out to maintain the rights (see also, 2015 Fantastic Four) and to help set up the shared universe (which is what they were way more interested in). The goal was to justify Venom, Black Cat, Sinister Six, and potential other movies in the Spider-Man universe, because they figured they could make a ton off those (and then later pull the Avengers-style "Hey, look at all these characters team up now!" mega-movie that would make a shitton of money). It's why a lot of the movie feels like they were just starting from the point of "we need to establish potential origin stories for a dozen future characters", and then tried to build around that, rather than having an actual story worth telling. Granted, the film did a piss-poor job of that (and effectively shelved their entire shared universe idea until Homecoming helped revitalize the brand), but it still made them a lot of money. It was certainly a critical and artistic failure, but not a financial one from their perspective. Broken_Zeus posted... They do a lot of stuff as one-shot comics and usually the handling is lousy. This would be more than a little different. To be fair, if they did it as a movie, it would also likely be a one-shot film and the handling would be lousy, so it's not like you'd be getting much of an improvement. Broken_Zeus posted... But don't they have to abandon what Disney brought to the table? Disney would logically have rights to at least some of it. From what I understand of their deal, no. Sony basically retains all the rights to almost everything - mechanically, their deal was that Sony made the movie, and Disney provided extra financing and technical support via Kevin Feige (who was effectively rented out as a freelance contractor) in exchange for a cut of the profits. They probably won't be able to mention Tony or the Avengers, and Happy's out. But other than that, Spider-Man, the entire supporting cast, and all of the events of his solo movies are part of the canon that Sony controls, and can refer back to whenever they want. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:926587524] in Valley of ... [t:77923465]...</cite> <quote><cite>Broken_Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>They did okay with Amazing at well at first.... but then they cast Jamie Foxx as Electro and for some reason Paul Giamotti was cast as the Rhino (and then barely used). And, of course, it also had a downer ending after just coming off a downer ending.</quote> My understanding of that was that they weren't really ready to make a film, and were mostly just churning it out to maintain the rights (see also, 2015 Fantastic Four) and to help set up the shared universe (which is what they were way more interested in). The goal was to justify Venom, Black Cat, Sinister Six, and potential other movies in the Spider-Man universe, because they figured they could make a ton off those (and then later pull the Avengers-style "Hey, look at all these characters team up now!" mega-movie that would make a shitton of money). It's why a lot of the movie feels like they were just starting from the point of "we need to establish potential origin stories for a dozen future characters", and then tried to build around that, rather than having an actual story worth telling. Granted, the film did a piss-poor job of that (and effectively shelved their entire shared universe idea until Homecoming helped revitalize the brand), but it still made them a lot of money. It was certainly a critical and artistic failure, but not a financial one from their perspective. <cite>Broken_Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>They do a lot of stuff as one-shot comics and usually the handling is lousy. This would be more than a little different.</quote> To be fair, if they did it as a movie, it would also likely be a one-shot film and the handling would be lousy, so it's not like you'd be getting much of an improvement. <cite>Broken_Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>But don't they have to abandon what Disney brought to the table? Disney would logically have rights to at least some of it.</quote> From what I understand of their deal, no. Sony basically retains all the rights to almost everything - mechanically, their deal was that Sony made the movie, and Disney provided extra financing and technical support via Kevin Feige (who was effectively rented out as a freelance contractor) in exchange for a cut of the profits. They probably won't be able to mention Tony or the Avengers, and Happy's out. But other than that, Spider-Man, the entire supporting cast, and all of the events of his solo movies are part of the canon that Sony controls, and can refer back to whenever they want. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1