Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Undoubtedly. He’s making them a shit ton of money via merchandising and indirectly within the MCU. They aren’t making a great deal directly from the Sony-produced movies but everybody benefits from the current agreement.* *Unless you hate the current Parker-Stark relationship but that plotline is now over anyway. I love the idea of having Osborne and Spider-man front and centre in the next phase of MCU. So Disney need to make this happen. Not least to save us from Spider-man vs Venom.
  2. I consume these superhero films without feeling much for them, but Spider-man is far and away my favourite - he’s more popular than any individual MCU character. Even Iron-man.
  3. It’s weird Disney apparently aren’t budging when they stand to lose far more from this deal going South. Even if they’re not making bank on individual Spider-man movies, his popularity brings them cash from tons of other avenues, including their own MCU movies by association.
  4. 50% of funding doesn’t offset a 50% loss in box office take. That’s like offering to pay $100m to take $500m.
  5. My earlier post was incorrect on the details: The existing deal is 5% of first day take. Which is low but Sony pay for everything. Disney get 5% for their creative input and nothing else. Sony doesn’t have merch rights, they go to Disney, Sony only makes profit off the total box office take. The new deal Disney asked for was 50% of the total box office take. Disney still take all merch profits. So this is a terrible deal for Sony. Reportedly, even so, they went as high as 30% - but Disney wouldn’t budge. Disney/MCU are now waging a social media war against Sony. Sony Pictures are still arrogant and creatively bankrupt, but they do own the movie rights to Spider-man, so Disney is the bad guy here.
  6. Asa Butterworth might have worked out even better than Holland, though. MCU have been consistent with their casting choices.
  7. Sony’s previous 3x live action Spider-man films have been poor (I love S3, but it was a disaster). GB16 was poor. MIB International was poor. Venom was an anomaly that didn’t deserve it’s box office take. MCU involvement will consistently yield results for them. 500m every two years versus 700m once and then likely critical and box office rejection.
  8. So reading this correctly... Disney/Marvel were like “two more movies split 50/50?” and Sony responded with a measly 5% of first take for Fiege/MCU involvement? Update: (This was misinformation see follow-up post) Sony Pictures Creative team and Amy Pascal are fucking dire. Venom is one of the worst films I’ve seen in recent memory, even worse than the bottom of the MCU barrel and I hated some of those. The way Sony handle it’s blockbuster live action franchises is inept to the point of absurdity. The idea they can just take Spider-man back into their own Venom universe and take the same money is incredibly short-sighted. They’ll get a couple of decent returns on the Venom sequel and another Holland Spidey - both will review poorly and suffer a revolt from MCU fans - and then it’ll be kaput and reboot time again. This has to be a negotiation tactic, surely?
  9. Well this is great. But also tedious and meandering in places. I understand why this is the case - to setup the climax and soak in the period atmosphere. My main reservation: I found the criticisms of the Bruce Lee cameo, Tate’s portrayal and the dog food scene to be completely unjustified in the context of the finished film. It’s middling Tarentino. DiCaprio is amazing as always. As such it’s essential viewing, but there’s a better 2-hr film in there.
  10. Thoughts... The CGI is incredible, but I don’t think the wildlife-doc aesthetic adds anything and in many ways detracts. It’s main crime is bloat, which doesn’t serve the wafer thin story too well. This didn’t need to be 2 hours. The voice acting was worse across the board - Zazu and the hyenas were awful. Timon and Pumba were the highlight and the added material and expanded cast of animals during their section was the most engaging part. The lioness’ could’ve wrecked Scar and the hyenas at any time, it was nonsensical they needed Simba to motivate them. And it didn’t make any sense Simba blamed himself for his father’s death in light of all the evidence. Overall I felt this was pointless and overlong, and I wish they’d updated the plot a little to justify the remake. Still, at least it wasn’t Dumbo.
  11. TBF their monetisation is in line with Fortnite now, it was the RNG that was objectionable. But ultimately they're just cosmetics, and their methods are in line with current industry standards. Respawn are taking unecessary flak over this imo.
  12. With full passive shards, best gear, the meal boosts, all of OD’s books, max High Jump and Accelerator, the speed and movement are incredibly satisfying. Whizzing around with projectiles like a shmup boss. I felt unstoppable and then... the kunekune offed me in about 3 seconds. Fear the kunekune.
  13. So far spent.... *checks save file*.... 5 hours preparing food and crafting items. I weirdly enjoyed it. Still gotta... Beat Harrier. All shards and demons. Beat IGA and OD. Beat Bael. I'm really hoping they let you carry the character over to the additional DLC / co-op / PvP content.
  14. @deKay Fair point. Surely the chances these guys make it into Smash just shot up by about 1,000,000%. A Nintendo exclusive sequel to the biggest Japanese retro platformer outside of Mario/Sonic, a cherished arcade game and a port that featured on the NES Classic Mini. A moveset that writes itself. #believe
  • 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.