SPIDER-MAN 2 from Marvel & Sony (7/5/19) 4 4

[theCapraAegagrus]

20 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

...But to me, not a film I would rewatch repeatedly. I still feel Tobey Maguire portrayed a more troubled and loner Peter Parker dealing with life challenges while having to save people around him. And to me, Doc Ock is still the strongest Spidey Cinema Universe villains, followed by Michael Keaton's Vulture.

No disrespect to Tom Holland's character, which is our current Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He just comes across too cool and easily able to overcome his situations.

[I like pie]

I thought it was really good. First half was a bit slow but the second half made up for it.

To me, this was the first time a Spidey villain truly seemed like it came right from the comics. The Mysterio scenes were amazing.

My son said the mid credit scene ruined it for him. I'm hearing a lot of people saying similar but I was ok with it.

[Turtle]

Spoiler

It's a little strange to me that people are putting the Nick Fury Skrull scene in spoilers (given its insignificance to the movie as a whole) but not the fact that Mysterio is the villain.  I know it should be obvious to anyone who has read the comic that Mysterio is a well-known Spidey villain, but the trailers and the entire first half of the movie are working hard to make the viewer see him as a good guy or at least cast doubt on his villain status.  Surely this is meant to be a surprising reveal and deserving of a spoiler tag, no?

 

[Kon_Jelly]

At this point with the release being a week ago do we even need spoiler tags anymore? Who is coming into this thread now that hasn't seen it yet?

[Turtle]

Just now, Kon_Jelly said:

At this point with the release being a week ago do we even need spoiler tags anymore? Who is coming into this thread now that hasn't seen it yet?

My own personal rule is two weekends after a release and spoilers are fair game.  I also don't read threads/reviews about a movie I don't want spoiled until after I see the corresponding movie.  Personal responsibility and all that.

My point is more that either it's all spoilers or none of it is.  This half and half stuff just seems a bit silly.

[Gatsby77]

I can't speak to the validity of the source, but this article purports to clear up the "five vs. six" Tom Holland Spidey appearances:

https://www.slashfilm.com/spider-man-contract/

Supposedly, if this film *doesn't* clear $1 bn. worldwide, full rights revert back to Sony, nullifying their obligation to co-produce a third solo film with Marvel.

If it does break $1 bn. worldwide, then Marvel gets its third solo film / sixth Holland appearance.

[Turtle]

Financially speaking, what was/is a better situation for Sony: producing their own lackluster Spidey movies or handing creative control to Marvel while retaining ownership rights?

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, Turtle said:

Financially speaking, what was/is a better situation for Sony: producing their own lackluster Spidey movies or handing creative control to Marvel while retaining ownership rights?

Although Sony is probably feeling more confident after the success of its partnership with the MCU, Venom and then Into the Spider-Verse, it would be so easy for them to blow it again. I just hope they make a wise decision to keep things moving forward stronger.

[Turtle]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Although Sony is probably feeling more confident after the success of its partnership with the MCU, Venom and then Into the Spider-Verse, it would be so easy for them to blow it again. I just hope they make a wise decision to keep things moving forward stronger.

I agree, which is why I asked.  I suppose I'm trying to gauge how tempting it will be for Sony to try to put out their own Spidey movie vs. continuing a partnership with Marvel.  Did Sony make more money on Spider-man from the Garfield era or the Holland era?  I'm leaving the Maguire movies out of this since the Superhero movie landscape was vastly different in the early 2000's. 

There may have been a few bright spots for some people in the Garfield movies, but I think the vast majority of people would consider the Holland movies better overall.  I'm hoping that someone can show that they're making more money now with Spidey folded into the MCU than when he was as a solo Sony property, but I just don't know if that's the case. 

[Bosco685]

32 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I agree, which is why I asked.  I suppose I'm trying to gauge how tempting it will be for Sony to try to put out their own Spidey movie vs. continuing a partnership with Marvel.  Did Sony make more money on Spider-man from the Garfield era or the Holland era?  I'm leaving the Maguire movies out of this since the Superhero movie landscape was vastly different in the early 2000's. 

There may have been a few bright spots for some people in the Garfield movies, but I think the vast majority of people would consider the Holland movies better overall.  I'm hoping that someone can show that they're making more money now with Spidey folded into the MCU than when he was as a solo Sony property, but I just don't know if that's the case. 

No. 18 ‘Amazing Spider-Man 2’ – 2014

When Deadline did its EOY comparison analysis, assuming a production budget of $255M it reflected a very small profit. But at that point being the fifth Spider-Man film and it receiving so much attention even the Sony CEO got involved to make this a much bigger film, $70M profit was not the huge win expected.

So they have never lost money on these films. But it sure didn't consistently hit the huge superhero film targets from the industry.

FYI: @Gatsby77 - this is NOT a Transformers film. Nor am I defending it by mentioning the film. 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Bosco685

[Gatsby77]

23 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I agree, which is why I asked.  I suppose I'm trying to gauge how tempting it will be for Sony to try to put out their own Spidey movie vs. continuing a partnership with Marvel.  Did Sony make more money on Spider-man from the Garfield era or the Holland era?  I'm leaving the Maguire movies out of this since the Superhero movie landscape was vastly different in the early 2000's. 

There may have been a few bright spots for some people in the Garfield movies, but I think the vast majority of people would consider the Holland movies better overall.  I'm hoping that someone can show that they're making more money now with Spidey folded into the MCU than when he was as a solo Sony property, but I just don't know if that's the case. 

I think there's no question the Holland films have made Sony more money.

Didn't one of the Garfield movies cost $260 million - which was a record at the time?

The Holland films so far have been (I believe) cheaper, better received and frankly -- better.

Not that it's Andrew Garfield's fault, mind you. He and Emma Stone were bright spots in a horribly written film (ASM 2) and one that was merely adequate (ASM).

My main problem with ASM wasn't that it was a *bad* film (it wasn't -- and it was certainly a step up from Spider-Man 3). But that it was average, mediocre.

I saw it and the Dark Knight Rises back-to-back.

By the time I left the theater I barely remembered anything about the Spider-Man film, given how much better the Batman film was.

[Bosco685]

17 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I think there's no question the Holland films have made Sony more money.

Didn't one of the Garfield movies cost $260 million - which was a record at the time?

The Holland films so far have been (I believe) cheaper, better received and frankly -- better.

Not that it's Andrew Garfield's fault, mind you. He and Emma Stone were bright spots in a horribly written film (ASM 2) and one that was merely adequate (ASM).

My main problem with ASM wasn't that it was a *bad* film (it wasn't -- and it was certainly a step up from Spider-Man 3). But that it was average, mediocre.

I saw it and the Dark Knight Rises back-to-back.

By the time I left the theater I barely remembered anything about the Spider-Man film, given how much better the Batman film was.

Deadline notes ASM2 as $255M (see above). But it could easily be more since Sony refused to reveal the budget. Though when North Korea hacked their records, details did come out about a higher figure.

[Turtle]

32 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I think there's no question the Holland films have made Sony more money.

Thanks.  This is what I wanted to know (and was hoping to hear). 

I assumed the Holland Spidey movies pull in more at the box office, but Sony also has to split the pot with Marvel.  I just don't know what their comparable profits were.  I still don't. 

 

I'm curious about the split, too.  For Holland Spidey solo movies, do Sony and Marvel split the profit 50/50?  What about non-solo movies?  Surely Sony's cut for their part in Civil War would have been smaller than that from Homecoming, right?  How about Infinity War or Endgame? 

I usually don't care about the financials much, but I do hope to continue to see Holland in the role to see where they take it.  I have serious reservations about the lack of responsibility (and lack of Uncle Ben influence) that the MCU Spidey portrays which I believe is the core of the source character, but nonetheless I still enjoy his on-screen appearances and wish to see more.  I'm hoping Sony doesn't get emboldened/greedy and mess up a good thing. 

[paperheart]

According to Deadline, S-M: HC made $200MM while ASM 2 made $70MM

https://deadline.com/2018/03/spider-man-homecoming-box-office-profit-2017-1202350621/

[theCapraAegagrus]

42 minutes ago, Turtle said:

...I'm curious about the split, too.  For Holland Spidey solo movies, do Sony and Marvel split the profit 50/50?  What about non-solo movies?  Surely Sony's cut for their part in Civil War would have been smaller than that from Homecoming, right?  How about Infinity War or Endgame? 

I usually don't care about the financials much, but I do hope to continue to see Holland in the role to see where they take it.  I have serious reservations about the lack of responsibility (and lack of Uncle Ben influence) that the MCU Spidey portrays which I believe is the core of the source character, but nonetheless I still enjoy his on-screen appearances and wish to see more.  I'm hoping Sony doesn't get emboldened/greedy and mess up a good thing. 

IIRC, Marvel Studios and Sony split profits of Spider-Man's solo films 50/50 after production costs are recouped, and Sony gets 0 from his other MCU appearances. I think there was some sort of 'signing bonus'-type deal in which Sony made a specific dime on Spider-Man's intro to the MCU via Civil War. I could be completely wrong on all of this, though, because I also normally don't give a  about the financials.

I have to disagree on your "lack of responsibility" comment entirely. In both solo films he's trying to do the 'right' thing - and fix his own mistakes along the way. We've seen the Uncle Ben influence a couple times already. I think it was a good move to skip the origin(s). I don't consider Stark to be some sort of 'replacement', rather, a continuation of looking up to an idol and again being heartbroken and learning from the loss.

[Gatsby77]

Slight amendment to this.

From what I read, for the solo Holland films, Sony foots 100% of the bill and gets 100% of the revenue and profits, but Marvel advises on story -- and this goes to brand protection of the character for Disney.

Then Marvel gets 100% of the associated merchandising rights (or, what our buddy Jaydog continually derides as "ancillaries" but often amount to $50-$100 million, or more, per film).

Here's some quotes from a Collider article a few years ago:

Spider-Man: Homecoming is still financed and distributed by Sony Pictures (i.e. they pay for 100% of it), and Sony gets the box office, but Marvel Studios produced the film and served as the “creative lead.” That means Feige and the Marvel Studios braintrust helped pick the director and cast, helped craft the film’s tone and style, and made sure to bring something fresh and new to character that audiences are already very familiar with. 

[...] While Marvel Studios doesn’t get any box office from Spider-Man: Homecoming and its sequel, they do still own the merchandising rights to Spider-Man and thus if Homecoming is a success, that’ll no doubt extend to the toys, underoos, and other Spider-Man products available. Moreover, ensuring Spider-Man: Homecoming is a good movie helps the MCU brand—if folks like this Peter Parker, they’re going to want to see him in Infinity Warand whatever other MCU movies he’s in.

[STORMSHADOW_80]

2 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

I can't speak to the validity of the source, but this article purports to clear up the "five vs. six" Tom Holland Spidey appearances:

https://www.slashfilm.com/spider-man-contract/

Supposedly, if this film *doesn't* clear $1 bn. worldwide, full rights revert back to Sony, nullifying their obligation to co-produce a third solo film with Marvel.

If it does break $1 bn. worldwide, then Marvel gets its third solo film / sixth Holland appearance.

Maybe that is the strategy of having everything Spidey tie into Tony Stark. So they can have more leverage at the bargaining table if needed.

[Turtle]

3 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

I have to disagree on your "lack of responsibility" comment entirely. In both solo films he's trying to do the 'right' thing - and fix his own mistakes along the way. We've seen the Uncle Ben influence a couple times already. I think it was a good move to skip the origin(s). I don't consider Stark to be some sort of 'replacement', rather, a continuation of looking up to an idol and again being heartbroken and learning from the loss.

I feel they did a better job showing Spidey's sense of duty in this one, though it's important to keep in mind that Peter began dodging Fury's calls right at the beginning of the movie and even initially refuses to help when it's said the next elemental will be appearing somewhat far away (Prague?).  He tells Fury that he can't go because he is with his class on a trip.  He asks why other heroes can't do this job.  He even shirks the responsibility Tony Stark left to him in the form of EDITH.  None of this sounds like a responsible Spider-man.  You could say this movie is about that arc for him...that wheter Peter likes it or not Spider-man bears significant responsibility.  Shrugging his responsibility bit him hard in this movie and maybe he'll be more responsible moving forward; taking the events of this movie as a lesson.  I'm just used to costumed Spidey taking up a cause because not doing so backfired on him in the form of the death of Uncle Ben...something that happens very early on in his superhero career. 

I take bigger issue with Homecoming though.  He doesn't seem to feel obligated to do Spidey stuff, he seems to do it because he wants to prove himself worthy of being an Avenger.  He wants to impress Tony Stark.  He gives mission reports to Happy in the hopes that he'll be called up for an Avenger mission again.  He doesn't drop out of the academic decathlon because he needs to patrol as Spider-man.  He drops out so he can be available in case Tony calls him for a mission.  He planned on using Spider-man as a literal party trick to impress his friends and raise his standing amongst his peers.  When he finally confronts Vulture, he doesn't do it because Vulture is evil and can hurt people.  He does it because he's looking for redemption in the eyes of Tony who recently took his suit away.  In fact, if he had the impression that the plane was going to be hijacked, the responsible thing would have been to contact Happy or Tony.  At this point, Peter knows Vulture is going after the plane and he knows Vulture's identity.  There is no tracking or guesswork required.  Adrian Toomes doesn't live off the grid.  He lives as a citizen in the suburbs with his family.  As soon as his stuff goes missing, Iron Man (who is leaps and bounds above anything Vulture can handle) would be knocking on the door to take it back.  Instead, Peter attempts to recover the plane himself which results in a magnificent crash that miraculously doesn't seem to kill anyone.  He caused millions of dollars of property damage to catch someone who would have been caught anyway at a far lower cost.  NONE of this sounds like Spider-man has responsibility as his core value. 

Yes, he's trying to fix his mistakes, but I don't think he's trying to do the right thing.  I think he's trying to do the impressive thing to get Tony's attention and respect.  The responsible thing would have been to keep the training wheel protocols on.  The impressive thing is to disable them to prove you don't need them.  Again...I like these movies, but I don't feel that this Peter bears the weight of the Spider-man name until late in Far From Home.

[Gatsby77]

3 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I take bigger issue with Homecoming though.  He doesn't seem to feel obligated to do Spidey stuff, he seems to do it because he wants to prove himself worthy of being an Avenger.  He wants to impress Tony Stark.  He gives mission reports to Happy in the hopes that he'll be called up for an Avenger mission again.  He doesn't drop out of the academic decathlon because he needs to patrol as Spider-man.  He drops out so he can be available in case Tony calls him for a mission.  He planned on using Spider-man as a literal party trick to impress his friends and raise his standing amongst his peers.  When he finally confronts Vulture, he doesn't do it because Vulture is evil and can hurt people.  He does it because he's looking for redemption in the eyes of Tony who recently took his suit away.  In fact, if he had the impression that the plane was going to be hijacked, the responsible thing would have been to contact Happy or Tony.  At this point, Peter knows Vulture is going after the plane and he knows Vulture's identity.  There is no tracking or guesswork required.  Adrian Toomes doesn't live off the grid.  He lives as a citizen in the suburbs with his family.  As soon as his stuff goes missing, Iron Man (who is leaps and bounds above anything Vulture can handle) would be knocking on the door to take it back.  Instead, Peter attempts to recover the plane himself which results in a magnificent crash that miraculously doesn't seem to kill anyone.  He caused millions of dollars of property damage to catch someone who would have been caught anyway at a far lower cost.  NONE of this sounds like Spider-man has responsibility as his core value. 

While I hear what you're saying about the "with great power comes great responsibility" trope, I don't see the above as antithetical to the comic book Spidey.

Why?

I remember at least two Avengers issues back in the '80s that featured Spider-Man's desperate attempts to join the team (going so far as trying to break into the Avengers Mansion as a way to prove himself).

Because membership in the Avengers would offer both a steady government paycheck *and* health insurance -- things he didn't have as a freelance photographer for the Bugle.

Pretty sure one of these issues was Avengers # 221.

The point?

Peter bending himself all-out-of-shape just to become an Avenger was an integral (or at least - periodic) part of his character during the 1980s. I can't speak to before or after that decade, though.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, Turtle said:

I feel they did a better job showing Spidey's sense of duty in this one, though it's important to keep in mind that Peter began dodging Fury's calls right at the beginning of the movie and even initially refuses to help when it's said the next elemental will be appearing somewhat far away (Prague?).  He tells Fury that he can't go because he is with his class on a trip.  He asks why other heroes can't do this job.  He even shirks the responsibility Tony Stark left to him in the form of EDITH.  None of this sounds like a responsible Spider-man.  You could say this movie is about that arc for him...that wheter Peter likes it or not Spider-man bears significant responsibility.  Shrugging his responsibility bit him hard in this movie and maybe he'll be more responsible moving forward; taking the events of this movie as a lesson.  I'm just used to costumed Spidey taking up a cause because not doing so backfired on him in the form of the death of Uncle Ben...something that happens very early on in his superhero career. 

I take bigger issue with Homecoming though.  He doesn't seem to feel obligated to do Spidey stuff, he seems to do it because he wants to prove himself worthy of being an Avenger.  He wants to impress Tony Stark.  He gives mission reports to Happy in the hopes that he'll be called up for an Avenger mission again.  He doesn't drop out of the academic decathlon because he needs to patrol as Spider-man.  He drops out so he can be available in case Tony calls him for a mission.  He planned on using Spider-man as a literal party trick to impress his friends and raise his standing amongst his peers.  When he finally confronts Vulture, he doesn't do it because Vulture is evil and can hurt people.  He does it because he's looking for redemption in the eyes of Tony who recently took his suit away.  In fact, if he had the impression that the plane was going to be hijacked, the responsible thing would have been to contact Happy or Tony.  At this point, Peter knows Vulture is going after the plane and he knows Vulture's identity.  There is no tracking or guesswork required.  Adrian Toomes doesn't live off the grid.  He lives as a citizen in the suburbs with his family.  As soon as his stuff goes missing, Iron Man (who is leaps and bounds above anything Vulture can handle) would be knocking on the door to take it back.  Instead, Peter attempts to recover the plane himself which results in a magnificent crash that miraculously doesn't seem to kill anyone.  He caused millions of dollars of property damage to catch someone who would have been caught anyway at a far lower cost.  NONE of this sounds like Spider-man has responsibility as his core value. 

Yes, he's trying to fix his mistakes, but I don't think he's trying to do the right thing.  I think he's trying to do the impressive thing to get Tony's attention and respect.  The responsible thing would have been to keep the training wheel protocols on.  The impressive thing is to disable them to prove you don't need them.  Again...I like these movies, but I don't feel that this Peter bears the weight of the Spider-man name until late in Far From Home.

SPOILERS. Don't feel like tagging this...

Considering that Mysterio defeated all 3 prior "elementals", and Fury (lied) told him to go back on his trip, I don't blame the 16-year old for wanting to have a normal summer for the first time in a few years. Spider-Man has always been about duality, too. He tried the whole "I wanna be an Avenger" and it didn't work. That was what Homecoming was all about. This time, he tried to do the opposite, and it didn't work out. "If you do nothing, and the bad things happen, they happen because of you." So, he knows that he has a responsibility. He thought it was responsible to give EDITH to Mysterio - the 3rd man in his life he thought he could look up to.

Homecoming and Far From Home are the 2 extremes to the duality of Spider-Man and Peter Parker, respectively. I suspect that the 3rd movie will convey to us how he figures out the balance. It reminds me of Zack Snyder's Superman arc. Some people don't like it because he's not the Superman the world has known for 75 years. It was an origin that we needed - something fresh - that paid off (mostly) in Justice League. This trilogy looks headed in the same direction.