• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Sony plans for SPIDER-MAN UNIVERSE
3 3

164 posts in this topic

29 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

I didn't know they were doing THAT with the chatbots  I thought it was in jest... if they are serious then seriously they need to get jobs or something...   I do laugh at that though but not for the reason you think... 

It seems that anytime Sony does something that someone does not like they bring the wrath to a level 10.  Remember how upset North Korea was over "The Interview" ?

 

I get it as a fellow Marvel fan wanting to see the larger universe pulled together. But I am not a fan of how the MCU has made Peter into a Tony Stark-worshipping Iron Spider.

I love what Sony did with Venom and even more with Into The Spider-Verse. So knowing Lord & Miller have more of the Spider-Verse cooking in animated and live productions is very exciting.

The Sony attacks thing is crazy. And I agree. It can't catch a break when some action or event it is associated with leads to direct attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I get it as a fellow Marvel fan wanting to see the larger universe pulled together. But I am not a fan of how the MCU has made Peter into a Tony Stark-worshipping Iron Spider.

I love what Sony did with Venom and even more with Into The Spider-Verse. So knowing Lord & Miller have more of the Spider-Verse cooking in animated and live productions is very exciting.

The Sony attacks thing is crazy. And I agree. It can't catch a break when some action or event it is associated with leads to direct attacks.

I used to think the same way but someone changed my mind to that.  I am merely repeating his argument.  In the MCU Peter is a freshman or sophomore in HS.  Tony Stark is a genius, billionaire, playboy, and philanthropist.  He is a celebrity.  It would make sense that Peter idolizes him especially once they retconned Peter's first appearance to be in Iron Man 2 when he is the kid in the mask.  Peter as a tech guy would gravitate toward a father figure tech guy as shown in the hug scenes.

Now is it a departure from the comic?  That is definitely true.  However it wasn't really a stretch to me in the MCU. Basically you have a kid who lost his first two father figures and realizes that Tony Stark the celebrity, inventor, Avenger has an interest in him and his future.  In fact, as we saw in Homecoming as well as Far From Home, kids idolize Stark. 

I can appreciate that you didn't like it, but from a narration perspective, it wasn't unbelievable.   I definitely preferred that angle as it shows a humility to Peter Parker rather than if they had make Peter a 'typical teenage wisecracking know it all."

 

Venom?  I have not been able to get through it yet so I will reserve judgement once I see the whole thing.  From what I have seen though, I am not impressed. 

Into the Spider-verse?  That was one of the best animated Superhero movies I have seen in a very long time.  When it comes to animated movie the litmus is Disney.  As far as storytelling and animation I believe it to be on par with some of the best films that Disney has put forth in both the modern era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stan Lee's daughter came out now supporting Sony.

DAUGHTER SIDES W/ SONY OVER DISNEY In 'Spider-Man'/Mcu Split

Quote

As for how the Lees feel about it, JC tells us ... "Marvel and Disney seeking total control of my father's creations must be checked and balanced by others who, while still seeking to profit, have genuine respect for Stan Lee and his legacy." AKA ... cameos don't cut it.

 

She goes on ... "Whether it's Sony or someone else's, the continued evolution of Stan's characters and his legacy deserves multiple points of view."

 

“When my father died, no one from Marvel or Disney reached out to me. From day one, they have commoditized my father’s work and never shown him or his legacy any respect or decency.”

 

JC's parting words ... "In the end, no one could have treated my father worse than Marvel and Disney's executives."

So now big-time bloggers have started attacking her for support Sony. Even bringing up old reports where Lee's former business partner accused her of abuse.

But later on Stan Lee even disputed these claims.

Stan Lee Addresses Claims That His Daughter Abused Him: 'We Have Occasional Spats'

Quote

“There really isn’t that much drama. As far as I’m concerned, we have a wonderful life,” Lee, 95, told The Daily Beast. “I’m pretty damn lucky. I love my daughter, I’m hoping that she loves me, and I couldn’t ask for a better life. If only my wife was still with us. I don’t know what this is all about… We have occasional spats. But I have occasional spats with everyone. I’ll probably have one with you, where I’ll be saying, ‘I didn’t say that!’ But, that’s life.”

 

J.C., 68, added that the accusations made by Lee’s business partner Keya Morgan that she’d been abusing him were totally false, starting with Morgan’s timeline. He allegedly told the outlet he was with Lee for 10 years, but “No. He was with him for six months—that period of time. And a year or two before,” J.C., short for Joan Celia, said.

All over comic book character film rights. So sweet! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In the end, no one could have treated my father worse than Marvel and Disney's executives."

I don't think that this is true in the slightest. Stan Lee seemingly enjoyed every second he was ever involved with Marvel Studios. The man was purely a class act, but even so, he couldn't feign that excitement and happiness.

Edit: I get it, they put the Stan Lee tribute logo in one of the MCU's worst movies (instead of Endgame - one of the best), but still...

Edited by theCapraAegagrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2019 at 6:05 PM, ComicConnoisseur said:

and that`s why I said to stock up on this book.

Most baby boomer comic collecters are so out of tune and hated that Miles Morales would be a big player like the female  Captain Marvel.

They thought FF #52 was a worst bet than FF#48. LOL

so out of tune with the modern market.

 

This is coming from a GenXer, not an old and out of tune boomer.

How long ago did you suggest that? Way back in 2017 you could have loaded up on FF #48s for less than/the same price as FF #52. Which one is worth more now? As we discussed in the other thread, FF #52 had a nice jump and will plateau/gain in value very slowly going forward. FF #48 is just starting to hit the sizzle stage and is the better investment. While BP is a more popular character with the general public now than he has ever been, the market is saying otherwise when it comes to value of the two books. 

The time to load up on on Miles Morales was 4 or 5 years ago when the book had not taken its big jump. Even then, you would be looking at what, a $100 - $150 gain for 9.8s since 2016 average prices? While I agree that UF #4 will jump with a live action film, it has not been able to sustain the $500 average sales price level in CGC 9.8 yet. There were/currently are much better modern plays than that from a profit potential perspective.

Edited by kimik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

"In the end, no one could have treated my father worse than Marvel and Disney's executives."

I don't think that this is true in the slightest. Stan Lee seemingly enjoyed every second he was ever involved with Marvel Studios. The man was purely a class act, but even so, he couldn't feign that excitement and happiness.

Edit: I get it, they put the Stan Lee tribute logo in one of the MCU's worst movies (instead of Endgame - one of the best), but still...

Her statement on that topic most probably comes down to one thing. $$$

But the part about her receiving no support calls after his passing, only she can speak to that. Other than any of the executive that supposedly didn't and maybe did.

Discrediting her character in order to distract from her statement is not the best approach just because people are emotionally wrapped up in a comic book character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Heronext said:

I wish they could work out a deal, but in business you need to be aggressive, believe in yourself and always be ready to walk away or you will get pushed around.  Whether right or wrong, Sony is probably thinking they can parlay this into 3 billion-dollar, self-financed Spider-Man Cinematic Universe (SMCU) movies a year. What incentive do they have to allow Disney to take profit that is potentially Sony’s which, with the current unprecedented CBM popularity, they have to believe is money already in the bank.  Are they underestimating the importance of a shared MCU continuity and being associated with the Feige brand?  That is their gamble.

+1 

Sony has the rights and it is their gamble to take. If Disney floated the idea of buying the rights back/buying Sony studios, then this is the correct way to play the game. Since Venom was a commercial success (the movie was weak otherwise), Sony has some leverage re: not needing Feige to generate $$$. They did the joint Spidey deal with the franchise was at a low point. Now that it has been revived a bit, and the Venomverse may have legs, Sony is in a better position to negotiate even on Spidey in the MCU.

FWIW, I think this is great since it gives Marvel the opportunity to bring Reed Richards in as the Tony Stark linchpin for Phase 5. They can slow play the lead in to the FF all through Phase 4. Here is a comment I posted in a DM discussion with some other boardies that I would love to see:

They would be better off introducing Reed Richards as a scientist/entrepreneur, building towards a cosmic radiation incident at the end of Phase 4 to launch the FF.

In that final movie, I would also tease two young men named Erik and Charles talking to a young Jean Grey or Scott Summers and asking if they know what a mutant is in the end credits scene to launch the X-Franchise. Adding those two, plus a return of the Avengers in Phase 5, would likely break the box office bank.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Her statement on that topic most probably comes down to one thing. $$$

But the part about her receiving no support calls after his passing, only she can speak to that. Other than any of the executive that supposedly didn't and maybe did.

Discrediting her character in order to distract from her statement is not the best approach just because people are emotionally wrapped up in a comic book character.

Was she involved with Marvel Studios at all?

I don't really care about her other comments either way. I just find the particular quote not believable, and hyperbolic in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kimik said:

I think this is great since it gives Marvel the opportunity to bring Reed Richards in as the Tony Stark linchpin for Phase 5. They can slow play the lead in to the FF all through Phase 4. 

If Marvel Studios in 2008 had the rights to FF and Spider-Man and X-Men, it is very likely we would not have seen the rise of Iron Man and Thor and Cap and Widow and the rest of the Avengers and certainly not GOTG these last 10 years.  The lack of those 3 (FF, Spidey, X-Men) A-list franchises forced Marvel Studios to get creative with the B-list and C-list characters it had/has.  Remember how skeptical we all were in 2008 with the rebooted Hulk and the new Iron Man?  And how we held our breath going in to see Thor and Cap First Avenger?  I think most of us assumed they would be mediocre films, at best.  Avengers 1?  A ton of skepticism going in.  Ant-Man and Dr. Strange films?  Those last two never would have happened if Marvel Studios was focused on launching FF and Spider-Man and X-Men.

I'm perfectly good with Spidey going back to Sony.  In fact, i think it needed to happen, because competition is the mother of innovation.  Spidey had become a whiny and insecure Iron Man Jr. bankrolled by the Estate of Anthony Stark with a useless Aunt May.  #notmyspiderman.  And now we can see Spider-Man team up with Venom and fight Carnage, Morbius etc.  And on the flip side, to your point, now Marvel Studios can really focus on getting a good Fantastic Four universe out there, and merge it with Dr. Strange's, the Guardians, and hopefully Sub-Mariner's, the Surfer's, the Inhumans, etc.  And the 'street-level' heroes should also rise between 2021 and 2030 ... Blade, WWBN, Moon Knight, Shang-Chi, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, Daredevil and Elektra.  I don't want to wait another decade (2030 to 2039) to see them!  EDIT, oh, and X-Men too.

Edited by zosocane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zosocane said:

I'm perfectly good with Spidey going back to Sony.  In fact, i think it needed to happen, because competition is the mother of innovation.  Spidey had become a whiny and insecure Iron Man Jr. bankrolled by the Estate of Anthony Stark with a useless Aunt May.  #notmyspiderman.  And now we can see Spider-Man team up with Venom and fight Carnage, Morbius etc.  And on the flip side, to your point, now Marvel Studios can really focus on getting a good Fantastic Four universe out there, and merge it with Dr. Strange's, the Guardians, and hopefully Sub-Mariner's, the Surfer's, the Inhumans, etc.  And the 'street-level' heroes should also rise between 2021 and 2030 ... Blade, WWBN, Moon Knight, Shang-Chi, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, Daredevil and Elektra.  I don't want to wait another decade (2030 to 2039) to see them!  EDIT, oh, and X-Men too.

This.

Upon reflection I'm entirely good with Sony keeping Spidey.

For one, they need him a lot more than Disney does.

For another, the math on this is simple -- even if Sony puts out a few horrid Spider-Man film that do 30-40% less than say...Homecoming, keeping 100% of the profits still puts them far ahead of virtually any deal Disney would be willing to make.

And if Sony somehow drives the property into the ground (highly unlikely) then they'll be much more ready to deal with Disney and a Spidey return in another 8-10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, zosocane said:

If Marvel Studios in 2008 had the rights to FF and Spider-Man and X-Men, it is very likely we would not have seen the rise of Iron Man and Thor and Cap and Widow and the rest of the Avengers and certainly not GOTG these last 10 years.  The lack of those 3 (FF, Spidey, X-Men) A-list franchises forced Marvel Studios to get creative with the B-list and C-list characters it had/has.  Remember how skeptical we all were in 2008 with the rebooted Hulk and the new Iron Man?  And how we held our breath going in to see Thor and Cap First Avenger?  I think most of us assumed they would be mediocre films, at best.  Avengers 1?  A ton of skepticism going in.  Ant-Man and Dr. Strange films?  Those last two never would have happened if Marvel Studios was focused on launching FF and Spider-Man and X-Men.

I'm perfectly good with Spidey going back to Sony.  In fact, i think it needed to happen, because competition is the mother of innovation.  Spidey had become a whiny and insecure Iron Man Jr. bankrolled by the Estate of Anthony Stark with a useless Aunt May.  #notmyspiderman.  And now we can see Spider-Man team up with Venom and fight Carnage, Morbius etc.  And on the flip side, to your point, now Marvel Studios can really focus on getting a good Fantastic Four universe out there, and merge it with Dr. Strange's, the Guardians, and hopefully Sub-Mariner's, the Surfer's, the Inhumans, etc.  And the 'street-level' heroes should also rise between 2021 and 2030 ... Blade, WWBN, Moon Knight, Shang-Chi, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, Daredevil and Elektra.  I don't want to wait another decade (2030 to 2039) to see them!  EDIT, oh, and X-Men too.

Very good point. 

Going even deeper that that, it was the licensing of those rights that allowed Marvel to stay in business.   Marvel was about to go bankrupt and the only thing they had left was to license out their characters for use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Throughout much of the course of the MCU, I've been saying I would go and see one of these movies every month.  I enjoyed them that much (in the early- to mid-years.  Post-Endgame, we shall see).  If Disney's proposal was to co-finance one Spider-Man film every 3 years (or maybe one Spidey and one spin-off every three years), it's a pretty stingy offer as they'd basically be throttling Sony's ability to get their IP to market.  I'm sure Sony would like 3 billion-dollar films a year, as would Warner, as would Disney.  I'm sure studios are thinking even beyond that.  Superhero IP right now, the Marvel brand in particular, is like a right to mint money.  I wonder what CBMs are projected to do in business over the next 10 years.  The potential upside is huge, and every studio wants a slice.  I feel bad for the Godzillas, the Sherlock Holmeses, any other franchise trying to get a foothold in today's environment.  Marvel is king of the monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Very good point. 

Going even deeper that that, it was the licensing of those rights that allowed Marvel to stay in business.   Marvel was about to go bankrupt and the only thing they had left was to license out their characters for use. 

There is a very good book that came out 15 years ago or so about the Marvel bankruptcy.  You're right, those licensed film rights kept Marvel Comics (the publisher) from folding.  Had Sony and Fox and Universal (theme park rights!) not written big checks to Marvel (the publisher), we could have seen the IP (I'm referring to the non-film IP) migrate to DC or other publishers.  Not very different from what happened to Fawcett.

Edited by zosocane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Was she involved with Marvel Studios at all?

I don't really care about her other comments either way. I just find the particular quote not believable, and hyperbolic in nature.

Stan Lee passed on 11/12/18. So since that time, she probably expected someone would reach out and never heard anything. But I bet with all the tributes that were done to honor him directly, the assumption was this was the attempt to show appreciation and respect.

But here is the statement that I felt she was the most well-balanced on, with a fair point.

"Marvel and Disney seeking total control of my father's creations must be checked and balanced by others who, while still seeking to profit, have genuine respect for Stan Lee and his legacy," she told TMZ. "Whether it's Sony or someone else's, the continued evolution of Stan's characters and his legacy deserves multiple points of view."

That last part of avoiding making these cookie-cutter and ensuring there is a diverse story being told is an interesting callout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zosocane said:

I'm perfectly good with Spidey going back to Sony.  In fact, i think it needed to happen, because competition is the mother of innovation.  Spidey had become a whiny and insecure Iron Man Jr. bankrolled by the Estate of Anthony Stark with a useless Aunt May.  #notmyspiderman.  And now we can see Spider-Man team up with Venom and fight Carnage, Morbius etc.  And on the flip side, to your point, now Marvel Studios can really focus on getting a good Fantastic Four universe out there, and merge it with Dr. Strange's, the Guardians, and hopefully Sub-Mariner's, the Surfer's, the Inhumans, etc.  And the 'street-level' heroes should also rise between 2021 and 2030 ... Blade, WWBN, Moon Knight, Shang-Chi, Iron Fist and Luke Cage, Daredevil and Elektra.  I don't want to wait another decade (2030 to 2039) to see them!  EDIT, oh, and X-Men too.

:applause:

Agreed! And, we get more superhero films as if the MCU is the only one generating such Marvel films the max it goes for is 3 films. Now you would have competing Marvel properties trying to go head-to-head with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

:applause:

Agreed! And, we get more superhero films as if the MCU is the only one generating such Marvel films the max it goes for is 3 films. Now you would have competing Marvel properties trying to go head-to-head with one another.

Great point. One I agreed with before the Sony/Disney deal that began with Civil War.  Now he’s been introduced In the MCU, personally I prefer he stay there, and Disney maybe increase their annual output to 4 films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

:applause:

Agreed! And, we get more superhero films as if the MCU is the only one generating such Marvel films the max it goes for is 3 films. Now you would have competing Marvel properties trying to go head-to-head with one another.

That right.  Marvel Studios is competing against WB/DC and now a live-action Sony (for Spider-Man).  Competition has always been a good thing.

The more I think about it, the more i did not like the Spider-Man franchise at Marvel Studios have degenerated into Marvel Team-Up or Spidey + the Avengers.  Spidey/Peter is at his best when he is on his own, against the odds.  He comes up with solutions because Peter is smart is confident (to the point of near arrogance).  That disappeared over at Marvel Studios.  I want to see him broke, fighting to pay bills (or squeeze extra money for Aunt May), sewing his ripped-to-shreds costume, getting the girl and then losing the girl, getting bad grades because he's not in school, etc.  The Marvel Studios Peter did not have a rough life at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Stan Lee passed on 11/12/18. So since that time, she probably expected someone would reach out and never heard anything. But I bet with all the tributes that were done to honor him directly, the assumption was this was the attempt to show appreciation and respect.

But here is the statement that I felt she was the most well-balanced on, with a fair point.

"Marvel and Disney seeking total control of my father's creations must be checked and balanced by others who, while still seeking to profit, have genuine respect for Stan Lee and his legacy," she told TMZ. "Whether it's Sony or someone else's, the continued evolution of Stan's characters and his legacy deserves multiple points of view."

That last part of avoiding making these cookie-cutter and ensuring there is a diverse story being told is an interesting callout.

Sounds dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3