Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,710 profile views
  1. Well, it simply all depends on the terms Disney are offering for involvement with the MCU. If Disney demands 50% then it is simply not worth Sony making such a deal. The highest grossing live action SM movie made $1,109m worldwide, so $554.5m to Sony under the terms Disney proposed. The lowest grossing SM movie made $709M worldwide so $354.5M to Sony under the publicised Disney offer or, ahem, $709M without any deal with Disney. It is pretty easy to see why Sony would not make such a deal. Even the lowest grossing live action SM film will make Sony more money than partnering with Disney and creating the highest grossing SM film. Sony and Disney would need a SM film to reach $1.4bn for Sony to make as much money than it would have done by going it alone. There is a definite financial upside to Sony working with the MCU but it would probably be around 15-25% going to Disney to make it work. And that is working on the assumption that without the MCU grosses would fall back to the lowest level. With Holland established, there is a reasonable expectation that Holland Spiderman 3, even without the MCU connections, would still be approaching the levels seen by Homecoming and Far From Home. Your fundamental premise that Sony could look forward to one more round of $700m box office and then box office failure is simply not borne out by previous SM grosses. You could argue that SM3, ASM and ASM 2 were all critical rejections and still the worst result, after a run of three fairly average films, was over $700m. That critically rejected SM 3 is still the second highest SM movie without even looking at inflation. There is simply no reason to believe that any live action Spiderman film, made to even a vaguely competent standard, will gross less than $700m worldwide. I think it is reasonable to assume that Sony could pump out average SM films every three years and they could realistically expect at least $700m each time. If they actually managed to pump out good films then that expectation can go a lot higher. The simple point is that neither Sony or Disney really need each other, but Sony certainly does not need Disney if it means Disney taking anymore than 20-25% of the box office take. The caveat to all this is that we do not really know the exact terms on offer. Do Disney pay Sony for Spiderman appearances in Avengers films? Or do Sony get a Box Office % of the Avenger films? Do Disney contribute to the budget and marketing of Sony MCU Spiderman films? All of which would make a difference. All we can tell is that Spiderman is a consistent Box Office draw so Sony do not need to make a deal with Disney at any cost. Unless the right deal is offered, you can't blame the bean counters at Sony for walking away and just producing Spiderman films independently of the MCU.
  2. In fairness, why would you give away 50% to a competitor. That did seem quite a high demand. If you assume an MCU Spiderman movie will make regularly make $1 billion worldwide versus a Sony alone Spiderman film making $700m worldwide then Sony is still better off without MCU involvement ($500m if you take the 50% option, $700m without MCU involvement). Venom may be poor but did make a lot of money. Perhaps they will have to reboot the Holland Spidey films sooner rather than expected but even the under-performing Spiderman films (whichever actor is in the role) make good money. It's not like Sony needs Disney to enable them to make Spiderman films, they control the exclusive movie rights to the character. I think this is all a negotiation tactic but you can't really blame Sony from walking away from a Disney request of 50% of the Box Office. Equally, we might be at the place where Disney simply has to decide if they want to offer Sony a lot of money to buy back the rights to Spiderman. You can't imagine it would be cheap though, you could easily see Disney spending half of the $4bn they spent on buying the entirety of Marvel simply buying back the rights to Spiderman.
  3. It's probably just posturing. Disney will dump a load of money to Sony to get Spiderman to appear in the next Avengers film and in return Sony's Spiderman can still reference the MCU, although perhaps to a lesser extent than the two previous films.
  4. Allegedly. I bet it never gets made, or at least this version of the project never gets made.
  5. After we see them doing precisely 20 seconds of GCSE level maths to solve a fairly simply problem. Not exactly the best and the brightest this lot.
  6. Yeah, my gut says it is down to the creative direction/differences of the project and this is a stage-managed approach for Blomkamp to leave the project. Plus maybe movie studios are getting cold feet about bringing franchises back from the dead. Independance Day 2, Terminator, new Robocop have all failed to set the world alight.
  7. Maybe not terribly wrong but Agents of Shield is a show that started slowly, steadily picked up steam until they had a great season 4. Season 5 was good, although not as good and Season 6 which has just finished was really quite poor and with a conclusion to the season story-line that basically made most of the season irrelevant. It probably does not help that they seem to have a reduced budget so we get a lot of scenes taking place on some fairly tired sets. Ally Mcbeal was another show that had its ups and downs but the introduction of Robert Downey Jr in Season 4 was a big boost and his firing for drug issues at the end of the season meant Season 5 was pretty much hobbled from the get go.
  8. These have now, by magic, appeared!
  9. Perhaps somewhat valid although ignoring the money that the remastered gained by the Netflix sale rights. The bigger problem was that they released each season for silly money to start with.
  10. I mean, that's where my contention lies. $12.5m for converting the entirety of TNG versus $7m an episode for Discovery. They may have lost money, but big money in the grand scheme? Obviously not chump change, but not exactly major money for a corporation like CBS or Paramount. In perspective, to get Disney's streaming service going they are planning to spend $1billion in a single financial year. Amazon is paying $250m just for the rights to produce a Lord of the Rings series. Netflix paying $100m for just a single year of streaming Friends. There is a lot of money floating around at the moment to create content and hooks for these subscription services. Sure, for a middle manager they may not want to spend it on converting DS9 and Voyager. You almost need someone up top to come along and just give the project a big kick and see that a one off cost in exchange for future proofing one of your most important franchises is worth doing. We shall see...
  11. I agree it is a lot more expensive than something like Friends but TNG had similar issues and came in at around a cost of $70,000 an episode to remaster or around $12.5m for the series. This is not chump change but it is also not huge money for a one off cost to basically future proof 176 episodes of a popular TV series for your sparkly new streaming service. Effectively, for the cost of two new Discovery episodes you can convert DS9 or Voyager in its entirety. Now DS9 and Voyager have different issues to cope with, more of the effects was CGI rather than model work so this has to be recreated or a work around completed as suggested in your post. But it does not seem insurmountable and I have a sneaky suspicion it might be more likely than people are thinking. If the new merged company really wants to exploit Trek then spending a bit of money to ensure every single minute of Trek is in HD might be a useful bit of spending. It's only DS9 and Voy which are left behind now, there must be a temptation to bring everything up to the same standard, particularly when you're producing new content which may be attracting new fans. And it is not like the $12.5m cost per series is dead money, there'll still be some profit created by physical sales, you can still use this content to sell your own streaming service and you can probably demand a premium when licensing it to syndication and other streaming services if it is of a better quality standard. TNG was really a special project and perhaps I can see that they might try to do DS9 or Voyager on the cheap but I still think they will want a way to present those shows which stands up a bit better to 2019 viewing methods.
  12. Whereas this is how it actually looked: Still, a fantastic battle scene. Even in SD. A shame how much they had to cut out to include the remaster in the documentary.
  13. Exclusive, Buffy and vampires drafted into Phase 17 of the MCU...
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.