Sony's credit rating cut to "junk"...Implications for Spider-Man? - Page 3

Captaindemotion · November 23 2012, 03:20 PM

FordSVT wrote:

Captaindemotion wrote:

Another factor may be how separate Sony keeps its entertainment division from its manufacturing division. If they're all free-standing divisions, with 'Chinese walls' (or Japanese walls in this case) between them, then Sony's tv and electronics may not be able to benefit from the sale of their ents division - it all depends on how creatively their accounts are set up.

And it should also be remembered that Marvel studios are notoriously thrifty. If Spidey's right go up to the highest bidder, then, while we would all like to think that Marvel is the webslinger's natural home - but they could well be outbid by another studio.

Or Disney could buy the rights to Spider Man, that would be the next best thing. No one has more money than Disney. If they think they'll profit by giving Marvel access to Spidey, they'll spend the dough. It would be peanuts compared to what they spent getting their hands on Star Wars.

That's a good point, I'd forgotten about Disney's deep pockets. Of course, having spent all that money on Spider-man and with them already having the Marvel movie verse rights, Disney may not want to spend all that money on yet another franchise.

Christopher wrote:

I think both screen versions of Spidey are good, and I like it that they take very different approaches so that they complement each other. The first film suffered a bit by having to cover some of the same beats of the origin, but that shouldn't be a problem going forward (well, depending on what they do with the Osborns).

You mean the first of the Webb movies, as oppose to the first of all the big screen Spidey movies (the 2002 one), right?

Dream wrote:

Ian Keldon wrote:

Captaindemotion wrote:

And it should also be remembered that Marvel studios are notoriously thrifty. If Spidey's right go up to the highest bidder, then, while we would all like to think that Marvel is the webslinger's natural home - but they could well be outbid by another studio.

Or they might regain the rights for nothing, depending on the exact nature of their contract with Sony. If the rights are "non-transferrable", then ONLY Sony would have the right to make Spider-Man under that contract. An end to Sony's entertainment division might see an automatic reversion of rights to Marvel.

I don't KNOW that's the case, but such a restrictive contract would be typical of Marvel.

Well, let's look at how FOX tried to deal with its expiring Daredevil rights before it finally reverted back to Marvel.

There were NEVER any talks about selling the rights to any other studio right?

I think part of the problem there was that by the time it became evident that Fox couldn't get their DD reboot up in time to avoid the reversion of the rights, the property was basically unsellable. Fox tried to get a relaunch with David Slade at the helm and then, after he bailed, Joe Carnahan made an unsuccessful pitch. By the time Fox decided that they didn't want to make the movie, the rights were only weeks away from expiring.

So even if Fox could have sold on the rights to another studio - and you may well be right that there is a restrictive covenant about selling on the rights, I don't honestly know the answer - the reality is that no other studio was going to do so as they were also going to have to get the whole shebang into operation in an unfeasibly short period of time.

Christopher · November 23 2012, 03:33 PM

Captaindemotion wrote:

Christopher wrote:

I think both screen versions of Spidey are good, and I like it that they take very different approaches so that they complement each other. The first film suffered a bit by having to cover some of the same beats of the origin, but that shouldn't be a problem going forward (well, depending on what they do with the Osborns).

You mean the first of the Webb movies, as oppose to the first of all the big screen Spidey movies (the 2002 one), right?

Yes, that was what I meant.

Kelthaz · November 23 2012, 04:43 PM

Ian Keldon wrote:

Correct, which is why your example (Spide-Man vs Iron Man) would never happen. They're aimed at the same audience.

That was my example actually.

Ian Keldon · November 23 2012, 05:47 PM

^OOPS! Sorry!

Starbreaker · November 24 2012, 02:12 AM

MacLeod wrote:

After all the PS3 is what the third most popular of the 360/PS3/Wii generation consoles.

90% of X-Box 360 owners have to buy about 4 before the RROD stops.

Kestrel · November 24 2012, 02:17 AM

I don't really care who owns the rights, but I really don't want to see a reboot again so soon.

Or I guess more accurately, I don't want to see Garfield and Stone recast and another origin story told, because as much as I really liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies, I liked this last one even better. If Marvel got ahold of the property and tied it in loosely with their ongoing universe I'd be fine with that so long as it doesn't interfere with what Webb's planning for the second movie.

Sindatur · November 24 2012, 04:29 AM

Kestrel wrote:

I don't really care who owns the rights, but I really don't want to see a reboot again so soon.

Or I guess more accurately, I don't want to see Garfield and Stone recast and another origin story told, because as much as I really liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies, I liked this last one even better. If Marvel got ahold of the property and tied it in loosely with their ongoing universe I'd be fine with that so long as it doesn't interfere with what Webb's planning for the second movie.

I really don't think future ownership will interfere with the next movie. IMHO, it will be claimed by the current Sony owners as "in the pipeline" and they will have full rights to it.

Movie 3, will likely be under discussion, but, I think II will proceed basically unimpeded

Dude · November 24 2012, 08:06 AM

In terms of competing with each other on releases, keep in mind that both Amazing Spider-Man and Dark Knight Rises were released in the same month and ASM followed Avengers by only 6 weeks. Currently, they are 1, 2, and 4 on the list for highest grosses this year. It's possible that Skyfall or Twilight may outpace ASM, probable that The Hobbit will. But by any stretch, all three major comic book movies were wildly profitable this summer. There's plenty of room in the market.

November 23 2012, 05:47 PM	#34
Ian Keldon Fleet Captain	Re: Sony's credit rating cut to "junk"...Implications for Spider-Man? ^OOPS! Sorry!

November 24 2012, 02:17 AM	#36
Kestrel Rear Admiral Location: East Tennessee	Re: Sony's credit rating cut to "junk"...Implications for Spider-Man? I don't really care who owns the rights, but I really don't want to see a reboot again so soon. Or I guess more accurately, I don't want to see Garfield and Stone recast and another origin story told, because as much as I really liked Raimi's Spider-Man movies, I liked this last one even better. If Marvel got ahold of the property and tied it in loosely with their ongoing universe I'd be fine with that so long as it doesn't interfere with what Webb's planning for the second movie. __________________ "Does it ever get easy?" "You mean life?" "Yeah. Does it get easy?" "What do you want me to say?" "Lie to me."

November 24 2012, 08:06 AM	#38
Dude Vice Admiral	Re: Sony's credit rating cut to "junk"...Implications for Spider-Man? In terms of competing with each other on releases, keep in mind that both Amazing Spider-Man and Dark Knight Rises were released in the same month and ASM followed Avengers by only 6 weeks. Currently, they are 1, 2, and 4 on the list for highest grosses this year. It's possible that Skyfall or Twilight may outpace ASM, probable that The Hobbit will. But by any stretch, all three major comic book movies were wildly profitable this summer. There's plenty of room in the market. __________________ "For every opinion, there is an equal and opposite opinion." - Newton's Third Law, Political Corollary TNZ adaptation: "For every opinion, there is a monstrous bastard who has a different opinion."

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US