Sony Expanding Spider Man Universe, To Produce One Movie A Year
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Sony should make a TV show called "Getting Blood Out of a Stone" because that's pretty much what they're doing with the Spider-Man property at this point. I can understand they want to hang onto the franchise, but trying to milk it beyond its limits will only hurt them on in the long run. Also, they're coming off very cocky that this will happen even though Amazing Spider-Man 2 has yet to reach theaters. There has been some negative buzz floating around this film, mostly due to the unresolved plot-holes from the last movie being carried over and, just recently, their version of the Green Goblin makes the Willem Dafoe one much prettier by comparision. The last thing Sony needs to be doing right now is painting themselves into a corner out of greed and stupidity. Unless, of course, they love to look like a pack of moronic fuck-ups who wouldn't know their assholes from their elbows.
Personally, regardless of how beneficial it is for both studios, Marvel should have the Disney lawyers come in and take the remaining properties back. Mostly because we do not want anymore desecration of these characters due to studios trying to play The Avengers game without understanding why it was a success.
Personally, regardless of how beneficial it is for both studios, Marvel should have the Disney lawyers come in and take the remaining properties back. Mostly because we do not want anymore desecration of these characters due to studios trying to play The Avengers game without understanding why it was a success.
I will say, if Marvel had the rights in the first place, they may not have bothered fleshing out their other characters as Spidey is such a big cash cowThe_Darkness said:
Mortal Kombat every year didn't work not because of overexposure but because it's a fighting game, fighting games unlike other games or movies takes time to learn and for player to get used to and when they do it last them for years. I know friends that still play Street fight 2 turbo to this day.Trishbot said:
Movies, tv series or some games on the other hand can produce a new series each MONTH if it's done right because it's something we consume once and move on. The walking dead game is a good example, if they give us a new episode once a month we would still be happy to consume more.
TV series like the new Sherlock is practically a mini movie per episode.
So if TV and Games can do it there is no reason why movies can't, they just need to do it right that's all. An example of what they could do is to plan out the whole story arc so that each movie interconnects with each other well like harry potter or the matrix.
Another routh is to do it 007 style to have each story told individually with little connectiveness but tell it well.
What I notice is movies that does well either does one or the other mentioned above, but never half heartedly on one. Which is what most movie studios do, they usually wing it when it comes to sequels. I.E. if it does well they'll make up some story and excuse to make a new one.
Hence why their plan is - apparently - to just take Spider-Man as FRANCHISE and then take characters from it as the new lead. I mean, a movie with VENOM as the lead instead of Spidey, why the heck not? It would at least something different, that's for sure.SanguiniusMagnificum said:
When Midway said "Mortal Kombat every year", it wasn't just fighting games. It was also action and adventure games like "Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks", and officially endorsed crossovers with games like Unreal Tournament and DC comics. The fighting games themselves were bi-yearly... but the brand was everywhere.ExtraDebit said:
And the reason the movies CAN'T be like a TV series is basically because of the time and cost it takes to put in all the necessary CG and effects. It's the reason a movie can film in 43 days, but then take 200+ days to add in all the web-slinging, CG explosions, glowing electric FX. The Hobbit trilogy finished filming long before the second movie came out, but the amount of effort needed to put in the effects is still gargantuan, and simply isn't feasible for a TV or monthly serialized medium.
It's why something like Agents of SHIELD looks so much cheaper and low-scale compared to the bombast and scale of the Avengers or Thor or anything else requiring a heavy dose of superhero effects.
What you suggest would work well for a hero that doesn't require a lot of effects (hence why we might be getting Luke Cage or Iron Fist on TV, since their main "power" is punching things harder than usual), but the world of Spider-man is one of incredible powers, effects, monsters, mutants, and mayhem.
They did a live action Spider-man once... and the effects were as good as you could get on TV... and it just looked AWFUL most of the time. You can't rush these things, and it's one reason The Amazing Spider-man's effects alternate from decent to dreadful due to how quickly they rushed it out to keep the filming rights from reverting back to Marvel.
It's the exact same reason Fox is pumping out so many X-men films. Hell, they already announced a new X-men movie months BEFORE the newest one was even released, along with announcing a new Wolverine, X-Force, and possibly Deadpool, because the more they can put out, the more they can lock down those rights from expiring... even if the movie is terrible.
God damn it. I am so pissed that Marvel doesn't own the rights for Spidey movies. Can you imagine what a high quality Spider-man movie we could have if Disney/Marvel was in charge?
I heard a pretty good idea about that the other day. Do a movie about Flash Thompson Venom or Agent Venom as it were. That's an interesting character and storyline. Though now that I think about it... wait until Sony loses the property. They'd just fuck that one up as well.Bindal said:
My thoughts from reading this is one spiderman universe movie each year maybe an amazing every 2 or 3 with venom, sinister six, and maybe other spiderman original characters getting their own films like black cat, cloak and dagger, and possibly firestar. If so it could work as I heard way back they own all originally spiderman created characters that aren't the punisher.
Personally, I'm even more pissed that Marvel doesn't own X-Men. They've turned my favourite comic characters into the laughing stock of the Marvel universeAdam Jensen said:
Can you imagine if Marvel could do the Civil War storyline? I guess the only way we can get there is to stop seeing non-Marvel/Disney made Marvel movies... Once those properties aren't profitable they'll stop making them and the rights will go back to where they belong. Like Daredevil.That's pretty much what I've heard. As long as Sony uses the property, they get to keep it. A certain amount of time has to pass without them making any use of the rights before they revert back to Marvel (that's how Daredevil and Ghost Rider back).Mortuorum said:
You joke, but if they really do dole out a Spidey film each year then eventually they're going to get to the death of Peter Parker and his replacement as Spider-man by Miles Morales. Especially given how much of an Ultimate universe slant the rebooted films have had so far.Trishbot said:
Sony, ever heard of market over saturation? Because yearly spider man movies will certainly cause this and you'll begin to lose money with each movie.
I also get the feeling they'll drop dead in spider man 3 horribleness within record time.
I also get the feeling they'll drop dead in spider man 3 horribleness within record time.
I'm all for a stand alone venom movie, but one spider-man related movie a year? are they trying to ruin marvel movies?.. also, i liked Amazing Spider-man and if it wasn't for the talentless Jamie fox being in the sequel i'd definitely see it.
You didn't read it properly. They want to make movies with characters from the spider-man franchise without spider-man himself. Comicsalliance has an article on what could be.rhizhim said:
http://comicsalliance.com/spider-man-movie-universe-expansion-venom-spider-woman-black-ca/
