Sony/Marvel working on new Spider-man deal. Andrew Garfield out?
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
Then you're not doing it right.
So are you saying that Cap 3 will be tedious garbage that these people wouldn't have gone to see anyway?
Yeah, I don't think I'm going to lose much sleep worrying about Avi Arad's employment prospects.
The number of times America pays for a ticket is how much America likes a movie.
It's a bit mercenary, but there's a number reflected in dollars that measures success or failure.
Imagine two universes, Captain America III with a Spidey Cameo (Movie X) and Captain America III without a Spidey Cameo (Movie Y)... Got that?
Final profit for Movie X - Final profit for Movie Y ≥ the cost of buying back Spider-Man from Sony, and Andrew Garfield's sense of selfworth?
Will spending millions to get Spidey into Captain America 3 make the movie 10s of millions, it otherwise wouldn't have made without Spider-Man? Will spending 10s of millions to get Spidey into Captain America III make Captain America III any additional profit at all?
It sounds like unnecessary overhead unless there are 40 thousand human beings in America willing to see Captain America 9 more times than they would have if Spider-Man wasn't in the movie. The success of this movie is now contingent on those 40,000 mad men and mad women fanatical for anything Spider-Man recouping the extensive cost of bringing Peter Parker back to Marvel.
Of course, recovering Spider-Man might not be included into Captain America III's budget.
Much ado about nothing.
Told you.
It's a bit mercenary, but there's a number reflected in dollars that measures success or failure.
Imagine two universes, Captain America III with a Spidey Cameo (Movie X) and Captain America III without a Spidey Cameo (Movie Y)... Got that?
Final profit for Movie X - Final profit for Movie Y ≥ the cost of buying back Spider-Man from Sony, and Andrew Garfield's sense of selfworth?
Will spending millions to get Spidey into Captain America 3 make the movie 10s of millions, it otherwise wouldn't have made without Spider-Man? Will spending 10s of millions to get Spidey into Captain America III make Captain America III any additional profit at all?
It sounds like unnecessary overhead unless there are 40 thousand human beings in America willing to see Captain America 9 more times than they would have if Spider-Man wasn't in the movie. The success of this movie is now contingent on those 40,000 mad men and mad women fanatical for anything Spider-Man recouping the extensive cost of bringing Peter Parker back to Marvel.
Of course, recovering Spider-Man might not be included into Captain America III's budget.
Much ado about nothing.
Told you.
We shall see...
As well as good (i.e. written and directed well).
It cost $20.50 for my ticket to Star Trek II.
If I'd parked in town, it would have cost maybe 20 dollars for 3 or 4 hours.
If I'd ate at a restaurant before or after (even a McDonalds), it'd cost 10 to 15 dollars.
If I'd bought popcorn, ice cream and a drink at the theatre it would have cost another $10 if there's a special combo deal.
The entire experience is more than just the cost of the ticket.
I haven't paid $5.75 for a movie ticket since the 80s.
America sounds like a magical place.
That's crazy.
Also, ice cream at a movie? Weird.
Also, ice cream at a movie? Weird.
But that was in the 80s!
Not that magical... my last movie ticket cost $17.
Pardon the language, but this entire scenario is horse-shit. It's neither necessary or fair to the people who worked on the TASM films, particularly Garfield.
This reeks of Marvel Studious just wanting to have their way and gaining all the rights to their characters back. Honestly, a quick Spider-Man cameo in Capt America vs Ironman is all they are going to use him for in 2016? Then Spidey will play a role in Avengers 3 Parts 1 and 2; alongside IM, Hulk, Thor, Capt America, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Ant-Man, Dr. Strange and the GOTG cast. Right....
I bet Marvel just wants the rights back and then plans to shelve the series. Given Marvel's current line-up of films, they're booked till 2020. Any new Spider-Man film would have to be scheduled after that date. But by then the big shared universe craze at Marvel will be over. Best for Sony to keep the right and move forward with Sinister 6 and TASM 3.
This may be unrelated but Marvel comics has recently cancelled their Fantastic Four comic line. Presumably to hurt the Fox FF film that comes out next year. There is also Punisher #12 which killed civilians resembling the new actors (some referenced by name) of the new FF movie.
Wolverine has been killed off in the comics and Deadpool is rumored to follow in 2015. Marvel Comics also came down with an edict that forbids X-Men writers from creating new mutants, presumably because Fox could then use them in their movies.
Again, this may all be unrelated but it seems to me that Marvel/Disney is gunning for anyone who has rights to their characters that aren't them.
I bet Marvel just wants the rights back and then plans to shelve the series. Given Marvel's current line-up of films, they're booked till 2020. Any new Spider-Man film would have to be scheduled after that date. But by then the big shared universe craze at Marvel will be over. Best for Sony to keep the right and move forward with Sinister 6 and TASM 3.
This may be unrelated but Marvel comics has recently cancelled their Fantastic Four comic line. Presumably to hurt the Fox FF film that comes out next year. There is also Punisher #12 which killed civilians resembling the new actors (some referenced by name) of the new FF movie.
Wolverine has been killed off in the comics and Deadpool is rumored to follow in 2015. Marvel Comics also came down with an edict that forbids X-Men writers from creating new mutants, presumably because Fox could then use them in their movies.
Again, this may all be unrelated but it seems to me that Marvel/Disney is gunning for anyone who has rights to their characters that aren't them.
While it's true that Garfield may be getting a bit of a raw deal, Sony has every right to re-evaluate their approach to a valuable franchise that is not performing to expectations. Also, as noted upthread, Garfield may be out anyway, Marvel or not.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Marvel doesn't have any kind of leverage. They are not going to regain the rights to Spider-Man in this deal, if it even happens. Sony will still own the rights to the character, and their studio will still be making the movies. This whole thing comes down to whether Sony wants to cooperate with Marvel and their carefully constructed plans, and it is totally and completely Sony's decision to make. If Sony decides against it, there is nothing Marvel can do except shrug and move on.
On the other hand, if Marvel is willing to help a rival studio pull themselves out of the hole they're digging for the Spider-Man franchise (and there is no real reason from a business stand-point why they would need to or even should), they should certainly be allowed some say in how it's presented in their well-established, carefully crafted universe.
Last edited:
Or because sales weren't very good. I know that's the less popular theory, but it makes more sense.
If I were Sony, and I say this with no idea of the legalities and copyrights and whatnot that are involved, I'd insist Garfield stay on as Spidey, simply to boost sales of the ASM films on home media.
Personally, I very much enjoyed ASM 2, and think it sucks that there won't be a threequel. That a film can make $700million and still be a franchise-killer absolutely boggles the mind.
Personally, I very much enjoyed ASM 2, and think it sucks that there won't be a threequel. That a film can make $700million and still be a franchise-killer absolutely boggles the mind.
This is a nonsense meme that's been making the rounds lately. The sales figures for even the most successful comic are in the tens of thousands at around $3-4 dollars per copy; the sales figures for a blockbuster movie are in the tens or hundreds of millions at maybe $8-12 per ticket. Marvel could shut down its entire comics publishing business and it would have zero measurable impact on the profits of Marvel movies. The whole reason Marvel got into the movie business big-time is because the audiences and profits in movies are so immensely huger.
Besides, the FF title in question had sales comparable to a lot of other books that Marvel and DC have cancelled. Not to mention that Marvel titles these days routinely have limited runs, get cancelled, and then get replaced with new titles featuring the same characters under different creative teams. These days, most comics are written "for the trades," with later squarebound collections in mind, so they tend to be written in arcs that can be collected in a run of a few volumes and make a complete series on readers' bookshelves. The "cancelled" series ended with issue 16 of its volume, and the previous volume by the previous team had also been 16 issues long.
Which does not imply any kind of hostility. Authors frequently "kill off" friends, colleagues, and fans as a playful joke.
Comic book characters get "killed off" all the time, only to be resurrected a couple of years later. It's been a routine sales-grab tactic since "The Death of Superman" 22 years ago. It's hard to find a major comics character, particularly among the X-Men, who hasn't been killed off at some point. Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Nick Fury, Professor X, Jean Grey, Cyclops, Magneto, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Rogue -- even Wolverine himself has been killed off before.
Besides, Marvel would be stupid to stop publishing books based on characters in the movies. Again, the movies attract thousands of times as many people as the comics do. Movies promote the sales of comics, not the other way around. Any movie, even a bad one, will bring a major bump in attention to the comics featuring the same characters. Marvel would be crazy not to want to profit from that. They'd only be hurting themselves, not Fox or Sony, if they refused to publish comics about the characters appearing in newly released movies.
Last edited:
Garfield MAY have gotten himself fired because of his attitude towards Sony, they are NOT going to insist on him staying if they don't want to work with him.
This times a thousand.
When Thor was cancelled years ago (just before Civil War), the only difference there was that there was no movie for people to scream "conspiracy". More often than not, it's to drum up interest and anticipation while waiting for the right team to come along with a great story to jumpstart the book.
Peter David's X-Factor was just cancelled. Again. Is this to stick it to Fox? When you look at the sales numbers, the answer is pretty obvious.
The only difference here is that Fantastic Four is one of Marvel's firsts and there's some sort of fondness for the book despite many of the people complaining about the cancellation not even reading it! That book is just as capable of poor sales. And a shiny new number 1 in a few months with a great new creative team will boost the sales because that's how things work these days.
Well, I think the way they treated Raimi in 3 was unfair. The reason they have Garfield at all is because Sony wants to make a Spidey movie so they can KEEP the movie rights...not because they care about the actors or production staff -- OR the fans.
Post 2020 would have been a fine time for a Raimi reboot...where THAT have made more sense (a 10-15 yeargap) than the Garfield reboot, happening just a COUPLE of years after the last trilogy released its movie.
Even though it makes a lot of money...did the marketing budget soak up a lot of that. Also, will people be THAT excited to see more? ASM2 will be like the opposite of Avengers...where it blew people's expectations, and have them geared up to see sequel in droves..possibly making more than the original. And what Avengers (and the Phase 1 & 2) movies have done is get people MORE excited to buy & watch Avengers (and character) related stuff.
Is ASM driving more people to buy more Spider Man stuff? I would think way less than the previous trilogy.
The trajectory for ASM is going to the point that the money to make a "quality" film and market it as such won't make it "worth" making a profit. Crazy...but that's how Sony has messed it up.