So you don't understand the concept of investment, or risk, and you're accusing me of being dense.killerbee256 said:You don't understand corporations. They want ALL THE MONEY not 1/3 but ALL THE MONEY. If their own attempts were doing well they would have told Disney to sod off. But they didn't.. I'm done with you, your simply to dense to get the point.Toadfish1 said:What part of the phrase no capital needed do you not understand? Is it the "No"? The "Capital"? Or is it the "needed"? What part of the interaction of these three words, which mean a situation where Sony could do absolutely nothing and get money for it, causes your brain to shut down?killerbee256 said:You're incredibly dense and obtuse, you claim the movies are doing well and moviebob is wrong. But if that were true they would never give up the control they have over the IP or 2/3 of profits. Why can't you understand this simple fact?Toadfish1 said:So you think that no-one would ever agree o a deal that didn't involve them taking on any risk in return for significant profits unless they would couldn't make any profits under any circumstances otherwise? You really don't understand this?killerbee256 said:Wow you just out right refuse to see the point don't you? If Sony felt the movies were doing well they would never agree to joint control and splitting of the profits. But they did offer those things didn't they...Toadfish1 said:So you can't see the difference between "this movie won't make 2 billion dollars in profit" and "this is a trainwreck, get rid of it by any means"? Do you live in the real world at all?killerbee256 said:Hey the hacked emails are more then "rumors." Why would Sony offer to give Marvel/disney 2/3 of future profits if the reboots were making them money? You've got yourself a massive case of denial.Toadfish1 said:So you're recursively using rumors to back up rumors. THe rumor that Sony Japan thinks TASM movies are a failure is proof of the rumor that Andrew Garfield was fired.killerbee256 said:Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.Toadfish1 said:So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.killerbee256 said:I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?Toadfish1 said:You didn't actually follow the source, did you?killerbee256 said:You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.Toadfish1 said:Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.
I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.
It is objective fact that these movies are profitable. The question is whether they would get more profit by having another studio put up the capital and they take a cut of the gross.