In the good news, this separation means I will never have to endure another minute of Venom. What a crap movie that was. Now if we can somehow cut Deadpool out the MCU will be nearly perfect. [Reply]
Originally Posted by el borracho:
In the good news, this separation means I will never have to endure another minute of Venom. What a crap movie that was. Now if we can somehow cut Deadpool out the MCU will be nearly perfect.
Everyone always says how bad Venom was but it made a billion dollars. I thought it was decent. [Reply]
Originally Posted by el borracho:
In the good news, this separation means I will never have to endure another minute of Venom. What a crap movie that was. Now if we can somehow cut Deadpool out the MCU will be nearly perfect.
Why would this kill Venom? If anything, it gives them the opportunity to get spiderman and venom on screen together.
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
What am I missing?
If Disney has half the risk, I’d take that to mean half the expense. If they have half the expense and get half of the revenue, the margin would be better than giving away 5% of the net.
Meaning that if it made money Sony would get less. If it lost money Sony would lose less. It wouldn’t take a profitable movie and make it unprofitable.
50% income - 50% expense = net
Vs
100% income - 100% expense = net -5%
So what am I missing?
Venom grossed $856 million with a budget of $100 million. Would you rather have 100% of that or 50%?
Spider-Man: FFH grossed $1.1 billion with a budget of $160 million. Would you rather have 100% of that or 50%?
Spider-Man is a 1000 ft tent pole and now it looks like Venom may be as well. Even if the other movies are money losers, Sony will still have a profitable franchise by far. [Reply]
Curious what the numbers were on the Garfield Spiderman movies. I thought those were bad, although not as bad as McGuires Spiderman 3. That franchise is bulletproof if they made anything close to the last two. To me, adding Spidey to the MCU brought what was becoming a forgettable franchise back from the dead. [Reply]
Originally Posted by CapsLockKey:
Curious what the numbers were on the Garfield Spiderman movies. I thought those were bad, although not as bad as McGuires Spiderman 3. That franchise is bulletproof if they made anything close to the last two. To me, adding Spidey to the MCU brought what was becoming a forgettable franchise back from the dead.
IMO,;the Spider-Man Franchise is dead in the water especially if they have to do a soft reboot/retcon. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Lol come on. The franchise survived Spider-Man 3 and the two Amazing Spider-Man flicks.
Sony struck out twice on their own until the help of Feige. If they are going to ignore the MCU canon then they are fucked because of oversaturation of the character with the inability to tell a compelling narrative.
I know, I'm going to save my money and not see the next installment if it's strictly Sony involvement [Reply]
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare:
Sony struck out twice on their own until the help of Feige. If they are going to ignore the MCU canon then they are fucked because of oversaturation of the character with the inability to tell a compelling narrative.
I know, I'm going to save my money and not see the next installment if it's strictly Sony involvement
In the comics Ms. Marvel is an Inhuman, but it would make a lot of sense to make her a mutant instead. Sidestep all the TV baggage of the Inhumans and let her be the introduction of mutants into the MCU. [Reply]