Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

[kirk55555]

Why even bother doing El Muerto without a specific celebrity attached? He appeared in, what, two comics ever? They should just do the damn Black Cat/Silver Sable movie they were apparently planning for years if they're that out of ideas for more Spider-man related films, at least those two characters are compelling on their own.

Honestly, I think that a Morbius sequel would be more interesting then doing a movie about El Muerte, and I don't say that lightly.

 

[Christopher]

Interesting that their bullet point is basically 'Our movies are so cheap (compared to Disney), they make money regardless of how good or bad they are.'

Which is really quite a logical approach to movie-making. An ecosystem where every species is gigantic can't thrive. You need small and midsized ones as well. The giants should be the exception, not the default.

 

[Tosk]

Interesting that their bullet point is basically 'Our movies are so cheap (compared to Disney), they make money regardless of how good or bad they are.'

I'd be perfectly happy to have a multitude of lower-priced films...provided they were actually any good. So far, the Spider-less Universe movies have all been worse than almost any single ep of street level MCU fare.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

They should just do the damn Black Cat/Silver Sable movie...

I'm still mad they canceled that project. It was the one Sony film I was actually excited for.

I'd be perfectly happy to have a multitude of lower-priced films...provided they were actually any good. So far, the Spider-less Universe movies have all been worse than almost any single ep of street level MCU fare.

Yup, exactly.

Problem is I never heard of this character until this film was announced, which means the general audience definitely hasn'thrard of him. While that isn't inherently an issue (see: Guardians of the Galaxy), the writing and directing has to be on point and Sony's track record is far from there.

Also, wasn't the whole reason they were doing this film in the first place was because Bad Bunny wanted to do this character specifically? Why keep moving forward without him?

Ah, Sony logic.

 

[wayoung]

Oh wow they are crazy desperate. In Canada, if you buy a ticket to Madame Web you get 800 bonus scene points (equivalent to $8 at normal rate). They're paying you $8 to buy a $10-$15 (depending on location) movie ticket. On top of the normal reward points.

 

[Nightowl1701]

The question of today is: Does knowing your future save you from it? (Hint: It certainly doesn't save you from the comments section. "Everybody OK in your PR Department over there?")

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JD]

El Muerto is still going forward, Sony vows, with - or, as it turns out, without Bad Bunny.

Interesting that their bullet point is basically 'Our movies are so cheap (compared to Disney), they make money regardless of how good or bad they are.'

So they lost the only reason anybody would have actually cared about this movie and they're still going forward anyways? I hope for their sake they either get another big name star, or a hire a big name director, because that's the only way they're going to get anybody to actually pay attention to this.

 

[Turtletrekker]

So they lost the only reason anybody would have actually cared about this movie and they're still going forward anyways? I hope for their sake they either get another big name star, or a hire a big name director, because that's the only way they're going to get anybody to actually pay attention to this.

This movie is like "The Silence" on Doctor Who. If I'm not actively reading news about it, I forget it exists.

 

[Christopher]

So they lost the only reason anybody would have actually cared about this movie and they're still going forward anyways? I hope for their sake they either get another big name star, or a hire a big name director, because that's the only way they're going to get anybody to actually pay attention to this.

I will never understand the assumption that nobody will care about a movie unless they're already familiar with the characters. Not many people cared about the Guardians of the Galaxy before James Gunn made a movie about them. For that matter, nobody had ever heard of The Incredibles before Brad Bird's movie, because they didn't exist before it. The way to make people care about a movie is to make a good movie. Relying on their pre-existing affection for an established character is a crutch, a shortcut. It's bizarre to see it as a necessity.

Of course, "make a good movie" is a bar Sony has yet to clear in their Spidey-without-Spidey franchise...

 

[The Wormhole]

Oh wow they are crazy desperate. In Canada, if you buy a ticket to Madame Web you get 800 bonus scene points (equivalent to $8 at normal rate). They're paying you $8 to buy a $10-$15 (depending on location) movie ticket. On top of the normal reward points.

Damn. Now I wish I had a Scene card. Granted, this movie doesn't interest me enough to see it in theatres, but with a deal like that, I'd consider seeing it.

Wait, does this apply if you're ticket is for a screening on Tuesday? For that matter, is Tuesday still a cheap day at Cineplex?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I will never understand the assumption that nobody will care about a movie unless they're already familiar with the characters. Not many people cared about the Guardians of the Galaxy before James Gunn made a movie about them. For that matter, nobody had ever heard of The Incredibles before Brad Bird's movie, because they didn't exist before it. The way to make people care about a movie is to make a good movie. Relying on their pre-existing affection for an established character is a crutch, a shortcut. It's bizarre to see it as a necessity.

Of course, "make a good movie" is a bar Sony has yet to clear in their Spidey-without-Spidey franchise...

I agree, but as you also admit that's not something Sony has shown any capability of doing. And at this point it really seems like they're doing it on purpose, slapping some random shit together and relying on Marvel name recognition to get people to pay any level of attention at all, while also hoping to stumble into the magic formula that makes people view things like Venom as being 'so bad it's good' and turns them into actual financial hits.

So for the purposes of Sony's venomverse, I don't think it's out of line to say that no one's going to care about El Muerto unless it gets some kind of big attention getter attached to it.

 

[wayoung]

Damn. Now I wish I had a Scene card. Granted, this movie doesn't interest me enough to see it in theatres, but with a deal like that, I'd consider seeing it.

Wait, does this apply if you're ticket is for a screening on Tuesday? For that matter, is Tuesday still a cheap day at Cineplex?

They're doing $5 tickets for Tuesdays for the month of Feb. I suspect there's some fine print you only get the 800 points on a full price ticket

 

[JD]

I will never understand the assumption that nobody will care about a movie unless they're already familiar with the characters. Not many people cared about the Guardians of the Galaxy before James Gunn made a movie about them. For that matter, nobody had ever heard of The Incredibles before Brad Bird's movie, because they didn't exist before it. The way to make people care about a movie is to make a good movie. Relying on their pre-existing affection for an established character is a crutch, a shortcut. It's bizarre to see it as a necessity.

Of course, but it still helps if you have something if you a big name star or director or something that gets people to pay attention to it. GotG had the advantage of people a Marvel movie, and by the time it came out they were really starting to pick up in popularity, and The Incredibles was a Pixar movie. Just being a good movie isn't a guarantee of success, there are plenty of great movies over the years that have still bombed in the theaters.

Of course, "make a good movie" is a bar Sony has yet to clear in their Spidey-without-Spidey franchise...

Yeah, that is a bit of a problem.

 

[Christopher]

Of course, but it still helps if you have something if you a big name star or director or something that gets people to pay attention to it.

Star Wars was an unknown property from a director whose only previous success has been American Grafitti, a coming-of-age period piece, and the only big names in its cast were Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing.

I've been saying for a while now, the industry has gotten too obsessed with advance buzz and first-weekend results. It used to be that an unknown film could build an audience by being good enough to generate positive word of mouth and repeat viewing. It used to be a simple formula: make a good movie and people will see it. These days, everyone's gaming the system and talking about ways to give a film an edge with a big name or a known property or whatever, and it's all about handicapping the horse race rather than telling good stories.

 

[JD]

Like you said in the second half of your post, things have changed a lot since the '70s, so it's much harder to pull of a Star Wars today.

 

[Christopher]

Like you said in the second half of your post, things have changed a lot since the '70s, so it's much harder to pull of a Star Wars today.

Success is supposed to be hard. That's the whole point, that if you want to succeed against the competition, you have to earn it. That's where just plain doing good work comes in. You're talking like it's exclusively about prior fame, but how the hell do you think people get famous in the first place?

 

[wayoung]

By having rich parents

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, way back then, the only way to see a movie was in theatres. I guess in the 70s watching it on network TV was an option, but there would of course be commercial breaks there, so the theatres were still the optimal option. Nowadays with home media being where movies truly live, the theatres have to have more publicity and more upfront gratification in order to be perceived as worthwhile.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Well, way back then, the only way to see a movie was in theatres. I guess in the 70s watching it on network TV was an option, but there would of course be commercial breaks there, so the theatres were still the optimal option. Nowadays with home media being where movies truly live, the theatres have to have more publicity and more upfront gratification in order to be perceived as worthwhile.

With Network TV --- wasn't there usually a TWO to THREE YEAR delay? Even more than the commercials you mentioned, that whole delay could kill interest.

Also, especially with the Star Wars example -- Blockbuster hadn't even been born yet, and cable TV was still in its infancy. The only "other" option would be the Dollar /2nd Run Theater, which would be a more affordable way to see a newer movie.

And yo are quite right -- you need more of a reason to go to the movies nowadays.

Star Wars was an unknown property from a director whose only previous success has been American Grafitti, a coming-of-age period piece, and the only big names in its cast were Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing.

I've been saying for a while now, the industry has gotten too obsessed with advance buzz and first-weekend results. It used to be that an unknown film could build an audience by being good enough to generate positive word of mouth and repeat viewing. It used to be a simple formula: make a good movie and people will see it. These days, everyone's gaming the system and talking about ways to give a film an edge with a big name or a known property or whatever, and it's all about handicapping the horse race rather than telling good stories.

You do realize that your example is nearly 50 years old -- two FULL generations ago! And we mentioned the landscape then as opposed to now. There also seems to be many more new movies being released, in addition to the ways they can be seen.

And most of us have neither the time nor the resources to see several movies in the theater.... many of us are more picky. In addition to our social circles... box office just about the only way most of us use as an outside measure to consider a movie.
Why watch a movie people don't seem to like?
And more important, at least for those who you expect to actually make the movie: why spend money on a movie when you can't make your money back, let alone make a profit?

That may not sound right or fair...but life , especially now, ain't fair.

 

[JD]

Success is supposed to be hard. That's the whole point, that if you want to succeed against the competition, you have to earn it. That's where just plain doing good work comes in. You're talking like it's exclusively about prior fame, but how the hell do you think people get famous in the first place?

Sure it can be hard, but you also want to put yourself into a postion where you have a better chance of success, and for a movie that means either a recognizable franchise, or big name people in front of or behind the camera.
And honestly, I think when it comes to Hollywood, success really doesn't have that much to do with hard work. You can spend decades working your ass off, and never find any success, and someone else can manage to get a huge role as their first gig. It's more about luck, being in the right place at the right time, or knowing the right people.