Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

[DarrenTR1970]

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.

I remember when Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Superman: The Movie premiered on ABC and both aired over Sunday and Monday nights in special extended versions with footage not shown in theaters. I think that was a way of ABC enticing viewers to watch.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Of course there are always obstacles to success, and of course success is never guaranteed. And of course there are people who get ahead because of shortcuts or cheats or nepotism. But that does not make it impossible to compete with them through hard work and quality. It just makes it more worth the effort to try.

 

[wayoung]

I mean this with no malice/critism against you Christopher, and if my phrasing is off I apologize in advance, but isn't very nearly all your bibliography based on using existing, popular characters/IP, and your being allowed to write about them is because of their existing popularity and the publishers seeing that as a shortcut to financial success? Are you not argueing against your own career here?

 

[Christopher]

I mean this with no malice/critism against you Christopher, and if my phrasing is off I apologize in advance, but isn't very nearly all your bibliography based on using existing, popular characters/IP, and your being allowed to write about them is because of their existing popularity and the publishers seeing that as a shortcut to financial success? Are you not argueing against your own career here?

Not at all. I'm well aware of the difficulty of succeeding with an original project, since my original works (including the Hub series, Only Superhuman, the Arachne duology that's soon to be a trilogy, and the Tangent Knights audionovel trilogy which I'm still hoping might get a sequel) have not received as much attention as my Trek work (although I did earn out my advance on Only Superhuman while I still haven't on any of my Trek novels, because tie-ins have larger advances and smaller royalties). I always aspired to be an original novelist first and a tie-in author second, and things haven't worked out that way, though I have managed to improve the balance somewhat over the past few years. But the fact that I haven't been a breakout success in my original work doesn't mean that nobody can be, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that nobody should try. Only one person can win a marathon, but that doesn't mean the hundreds of other runners are wasting their effort.

I would also argue that my Trek novels have been popular because I didn't just rely on familiarity. On the contrary, while the vagaries of career opportunity led me into the world of Trek tie-ins, I've always striven to write them on the same level as my original work, and to tell stories that focus on new or unexplored areas of Trek continuity so that I can tell largely original stories within that setting, the kind of stories I would've chosen to tell in my original fiction if I'd had the chance. Indeed, a number of elements of my Trek novels have been repurposed from concepts I devised for my original fiction, like the galactic prehistory in The Buried Age and most of the main plot of Over a Torrent Sea. If I'd assumed that familiar ideas alone would be enough to achieve success, if I'd just remixed established continuity instead of striving to expand on it in fresh ways, I doubt my books would've been that memorable.

In short, yes, familiarity and other legs up can help, but that doesn't mean they should be seen as the exclusive keys to success. It's harder to succeed without them, but harder doesn't equal impossible or not worth trying. After all, while patterns and norms definitely exist, the achievements we remember are the ones that break the norms, that defy the odds. Last year, nobody expected Barbie and Oppenheimer to do as well as they did, but they were hits because they transcended the formulaic and predictable and offered innovation and quality. Yes, they had big stars and directors attached, but that wasn't the only reason they did well.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Not at all. I'm well aware of the difficulty of succeeding with an original project, since my original works (including the Hub series, Only Superhuman, the Arachne duology that's soon to be a trilogy, and the Tangent Knights audionovel trilogy which I'm still hoping might get a sequel) have not received as much attention as my Trek work (although I did earn out my advance on Only Superhuman while I still haven't on any of my Trek novels, because tie-ins have larger advances and smaller royalties). I always aspired to be an original novelist first and a tie-in author second, and things haven't worked out that way, though I have managed to improve the balance somewhat over the past few years. But the fact that I haven't been a breakout success in my original work doesn't mean that nobody can be, and it sure as hell doesn't mean that nobody should try. Only one person can win a marathon, but that doesn't mean the hundreds of other runners are wasting their effort.

I would also argue that my Trek novels have been popular because I didn't just rely on familiarity. On the contrary, while the vagaries of career opportunity led me into the world of Trek tie-ins, I've always striven to write them on the same level as my original work, and to tell stories that focus on new or unexplored areas of Trek continuity so that I can tell largely original stories within that setting, the kind of stories I would've chosen to tell in my original fiction if I'd had the chance. Indeed, a number of elements of my Trek novels have been repurposed from concepts I devised for my original fiction, like the galactic prehistory in The Buried Age and most of the main plot of Over a Torrent Sea. If I'd assumed that familiar ideas alone would be enough to achieve success, if I'd just remixed established continuity instead of striving to expand on it in fresh ways, I doubt my books would've been that memorable.

In short, yes, familiarity and other legs up can help, but that doesn't mean they should be seen as the exclusive keys to success. It's harder to succeed without them, but harder doesn't equal impossible or not worth trying. After all, while patterns and norms definitely exist, the achievements we remember are the ones that break the norms, that defy the odds. Last year, nobody expected Barbie and Oppenheimer to do as well as they did, but they were hits because they transcended the formulaic and predictable and offered innovation and quality. Yes, they had big stars and directors attached, but that wasn't the only reason they did well.

But nobody said familiarity was the exclusive key to success. The issue from the start has been the specific context of this movie. A movie that was greenlit solely because Bad Bunny picked a name out of a hat and that is built on the same production philosophy as Morbius. People already had good reason to believe Bad Bunny was literally the only thing this movie had going for it and now it doesn't even have that. That's the issue.

These impassioned rants about familiarity not being necessary really aren't relevant.

 

[The Wormhole]

Last year, nobody expected Barbie and Oppenheimer to do as well as they did,

To me, it seemed the surprising thing regarding the popularity of Barbie and Oppenheimer was the fact the two of them ended up becoming companion movies to each other, with many seeing both movies on the same day. Otherwise, I doubt anyone was surprised a movie starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling or a movie directed by Christopher Nolan dominated the box office.

 

[Christopher]

Otherwise, I doubt anyone was surprised a movie starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling or a movie directed by Christopher Nolan dominated the box office.

But if you focus only the box office, as if it's nothing but a horse race, you miss the real story of Barbie, which was that it was a bold, subversive story that had something to say, rather than just being the hollow exercise in commercialism that everyone expected it to be. All of you are obsessing on that soulless, superficial level of dollar signs and commercial strategies, and I'm sorry, but that is tragically missing the point of why people tell stories and why audiences love stories.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

To me, it seemed the surprising thing regarding the popularity of Barbie and Oppenheimer was the fact the two of them ended up becoming companion movies to each other, with many seeing both movies on the same day. Otherwise, I doubt anyone was surprised a movie starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling or a movie directed by Christopher Nolan dominated the box office.

I don't think that's true at all. It was absolutely surprising that a period piece drama/biopic about a famous scientist turned out to be the highest grossing non-Batman film Nolan ever made, easily surpassing seemingly more BO friendly movies like Inception or Interstellar. It literally doubled the BO of his grandiose war epic Dunkirk.

And Robbie and Gosling have been consistently and rightfully praised for their performances but their BO records aren't even particularly good at all, let alone so amazing that it was somehow a given they would dominate the BO.

 

[JD]

But if you focus only the box office, as if it's nothing but a horse race, you miss the real story of Barbie, which was that it was a bold, subversive story that had something to say, rather than just being the hollow exercise in commercialism that everyone expected it to be. All of you are obsessing on that soulless, superficial level of dollar signs and commercial strategies, and I'm sorry, but that is tragically missing the point of why people tell stories and why audiences love stories.

I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but isn't this conversation we're having right now about the box office? That was what I was talking about at least.
Because if we're talking about creative success, there have been a lot of great original movies with no big name directors or stars, but they've almost all been small indie movies that had very limited theatrical releases and that very few people went to see.

 

[Christopher]

I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but isn't this conversation we're having right now about the box office? That was what I was talking about at least.
Because if we're talking about creative success, there have been a lot of great original movies with no big name directors or stars, but they've almost all been small indie movies that had very limited theatrical releases and that very few people went to see.

My point is that it's possible for a movie to succeed financially because it succeeded creatively. Yes, considerations like prior popularity are a factor, obviously, but it makes no sense to assume that they're the exclusive factor. That's mistaking averages and aggregates for absolutes. If movie success were that formulaically predictable, there wouldn't be so many failures. It's never that simple. There are countless variables involved, and anything you can say about general trends and broad strokes may be true as far as it goes, but it is very, very wrong to mistake that for a universal, inviolable law. The biggest successes are the exceptions, the ones that break the rules and predictions and expectations. Surely it goes without saying that you don't become a smash hit by being average and ordinary, but by doing something special.

And that's why you can't reduce it to simplistic bromides like "big-name stars help a movie" and assume that's the entire story. I mean, how many less successful movies did Robert Downey Jr. make before he did Iron Man? His presence was a factor, yes, but what made that movie work wasn't just who was involved, but what they did with it -- to take what was fundamentally an entirely generic, formulaic superhero origin story and use it as the framework for a brilliant exercise in semi-improvisational dialogue and acting. It was their skill that made the movie work, not their mere presence. You talk about getting big names, but the reason those names become big is that they're capable of making good movies. But that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to, because every great actor has their share of duds and misfires. Even the best batter never bats a thousand, or even half that. But when their movies do well, it's usually because they were done well. Quality matters. And thus it follows that people who aren't already famous can also make quality movies that audiences respond to. Everybody's gotta start somewhere.

 

[JD]

I apologize, I think I something must have come out wrong, I never meant to say that having big names is the only thing that it will make a movie a hit, it's just that you need to have a big name or be part of a big franchise to get people to actually pay attention to it. These days if you don't have one of those things, there's pretty much no way a big studio is going to release your movie and if a studio doesn't release it, it won't get a big enough release to be a hit.
And I think we've seen plenty of shit movies become huge hits, and plenty of great movies totally bomb, so being good isn't a guarantee of success either.

 

[Christopher]

I never meant to say that having big names is the only thing that it will make a movie a hit, it's just that you need to have a big name or be part of a big franchise to get people to actually pay attention to it. These days if you don't have one of those things, there's pretty much no way a big studio is going to release your movie and if a studio doesn't release it, it won't get a big enough release to be a hit.

I just don't agree with that as an absolute statement. As a general rule, okay, but again, it's a mistake to assume a rule can never have exceptions, because the most memorable achievements are often the ones that defy the rules and expectations. That's the definition of something special.

 

[Morpheus 02]

My point is that it's possible for a movie to succeed financially because it succeeded creatively. Yes, considerations like prior popularity are a factor, obviously, but it makes no sense to assume that they're the exclusive factor. That's mistaking averages and aggregates for absolutes. If movie success were that formulaically predictable, there wouldn't be so many failures. It's never that simple. There are countless variables involved, and anything you can say about general trends and broad strokes may be true as far as it goes, but it is very, very wrong to mistake that for a universal, inviolable law. The biggest successes are the exceptions, the ones that break the rules and predictions and expectations. Surely it goes without saying that you don't become a smash hit by being average and ordinary, but by doing something special.

And that's why you can't reduce it to simplistic bromides like "big-name stars help a movie" and assume that's the entire story. I mean, how many less successful movies did Robert Downey Jr. make before he did Iron Man? His presence was a factor, yes, but what made that movie work wasn't just who was involved, but what they did with it -- to take what was fundamentally an entirely generic, formulaic superhero origin story and use it as the framework for a brilliant exercise in semi-improvisational dialogue and acting. It was their skill that made the movie work, not their mere presence. You talk about getting big names, but the reason those names become big is that they're capable of making good movies. But that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to, because every great actor has their share of duds and misfires. Even the best batter never bats a thousand, or even half that. But when their movies do well, it's usually because they were done well. Quality matters. And thus it follows that people who aren't already famous can also make quality movies that audiences respond to. Everybody's gotta start somewhere.

Something you've completely missed is that it takes a lot of money to make a movie, especially the kind that we here at TrekBBS like (i..e Science Fiction / Fantasy). . Sorry, but ain't no way a GOFundMe page can really

So yeah, technically you are right @Christopher that you don't need a big star, or be part of something already set up to be be successful (as many mentioned to be a good movie in the first place)... but in order to get some of the types we want (such as comic book based movies), you .

there's also way too many options for people to see things.. People have to priortize. For good or bad, Netflix's top 10 basically helps people make a popular show even more popular because they can see the trailer, and will prompted to check that out if they see the same show pop up several times.

it doesn't like peer pressure is as strong as it might have been,. But your example of Guardians of the Galaxy -- it had the Phase 1 Avengers to build up interest. People saw Marvel had a good track record, so they would be willing to risk some money to see it. And the Box Office opening weekend success prompted others to check it out too, so that's how it was able to be successful (and that success funded future movies and even TV shows).

Now with Oppenheimer, which is more what you are talking about CHristpher, the director and star power helped fund the movie to get made in the first place... but then somehow, it got tied to Barbie, and i think that is what made the movie a real success, with the publicity (that and a lot of mediocre movies, plus a writers and actors strike preventing PR for other movies). And Barbie's hyper-success, i feel, was in part due to to false marketing... in that i saw sooooo many women bring their young daughters...who the movie was not actually made for, so that inflated success, and then adults found out it was good for them, so it now has set up Greta to make other stuff she wants, which might be wholly original....

But going back to the original subject of SOny -- is there even a soul here who has any confidence that Sony is making Spider-related stuff with any love for the material / genre (like Marvel does), and not simply to make money?

It's the same attitude that prompted the making of Garfield's movies (and its subsequent "failure").

I am not sure how long they have their license, but they seem determined to soak it of all the money they can (and perhaps the executives know their time is limited, so they are throwing everything at the wall and hoping they can get another hit). That reminds me -- i need to add a bonus challenge to The Box Office Predictor Game 2024,

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I have a feeling that many of the people here would never be discussing Barbie if it hadn't made such incredible box office.

And Barbie's hyper-success, i feel, was in part due to to false marketing... in that i saw sooooo many women bring their young daughters...who the movie was not actually made for, so that inflated success, and then adults found out it was good for them, so it now has set up Greta to make other stuff she wants, which might be wholly original....

I don't know, it seemed pretty obvious from the trailers where they were going with this so I don't know if I agree with that.

As to El Muerto, it would be an interesting test if it does matter to the viewing public at all. Even Marvel Comics hasn't found it compelling enough to create more than two issues with this guy in the last 20 years if my research (read sixty secs of Google) is correct. Without having read those issues it sounds like he's basically a riff on Bane (strong luchador guy cause of serum mask). I doubt Disney has much interest in pushing the comic arm to feature this guy more to build interest.

So does the audience at large care about the prominence of the character? I'm not sure how comic aware they are but I think however the internet can play a part in this where the pre-hype can be killed over these things which then filters to the mass audience as a lack of buzz. When there is a whiff of desperation it seems like the "influencers" jump on that. Sony seems to be a favorite dog to kick at the moment so I think it's an uphill battle to sell such an obscure character as something to be interested in.

No it's not impossible but it seems unlikely unless someone involved is passionate about it.

 

[Christopher]

I have a feeling that many of the people here would never be discussing Barbie if it hadn't made such incredible box office.

The point is why it made that box office. It's not exclusively about who the stars or the director were. There are other films with the same stars that didn't do as well, and I'm pretty sure the director had never previously made a hit of this magnitude. It made so much money because it was smart and well-made, because it offered something special that was about more than just superficial calculations and formulaic expectations. The stars and director didn't just stand there and generate success automatically by their mere presence. They earned it by doing the work to make something worthwhile. So it follows that less well-known filmmakers could also garner success by making something really good.

So does the audience at large care about the prominence of the character? I'm not sure how comic aware they are but I think however the internet can play a part in this where the pre-hype can be killed over these things which then filters to the mass audience as a lack of buzz. When there is a whiff of desperation it seems like the "influencers" jump on that. Sony seems to be a favorite dog to kick at the moment so I think it's an uphill battle to sell such an obscure character as something to be interested in.

No it's not impossible but it seems unlikely unless someone involved is passionate about it.

That's what it boils down to -- whether people care enough to make a good movie. That matters vastly more than whether the character is known to the public. Really, the comic-reading audience is less than a tenth of a percent of the moviegoing audience, thousands compared to millions. So how big a character is in comics has no relevance at all to most of the movie audience. Yes, buzz is a factor, but buzz can be generated by a good movie about a new or obscure character.

If the people making Sony's live-action superhero movies were really up to doing a good job, if they really cared enough to bring quality and fresh ideas to the table, they could make a buzzworthy movie about El Muerto as well as they could make one about Spider-Man. But that's unlikely if they're just churning out superhero movies based on shallow calculations about how to generate buzz.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The point is why it made that box office. It's not exclusively about who the stars or the director were. There are other films with the same stars that didn't do as well, and I'm pretty sure the director had never previously made a hit of this magnitude. It made so much money because it was smart and well-made, because it offered something special that was about more than just superficial calculations and formulaic expectations. The stars and director didn't just stand there and generate success automatically by their mere presence. They earned it by doing the work to make something worthwhile. So it follows that less well-known filmmakers could also garner success by making something really good.

Maybe partially because it was Barbie? It makes a billion dollars annually in toy sales. Would that movie have done as well with same cast and story but without the branding? I think the quality of the movie was a factor but I don't see how that can be dismissed as a factor in its success.

I think we're all getting bogged down with trying to go to absolutes. Is it possible Sony could kick out a superb movie about a strong luchador that will do bonkers at the box office, I suppose. I think we'd all agree that it would take some passion to make that happen, I'm not sure where that will come at the moment. Maybe there's a director just waiting to do that but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Christopher]

I think the quality of the movie was a factor but I don't see how that can be dismissed as a factor in its success.

I'm not saying anything should be dismissed. Just the opposite -- I'm saying that quality shouldn't be dismissed.

I'm so tired of this. People say "It's black, it's pure black," I try to say, "No, it's a mix of black and white and shades of gray," and people say "How can you say it's pure white?!" I don't argue in binaries. If I point out the white side, it doesn't mean I reject the black side, it means that nobody else is advocating for the white side and I want to make sure it's also taken into account, because life is an essay question, not a true-or-false question. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to broaden a dialogue.

Is it possible Sony could kick out a superb movie about a strong luchador that will do bonkers at the box office, I suppose. I think we'd all agree that it would take some passion to make that happen, I'm not sure where that will come at the moment. Maybe there's a director just waiting to do that but I'm not holding my breath.

That is literally all I have been trying to say this whole time -- that it's possible, in general, to make a good movie about an obscure character, and that the reasons the odds are stacked against it in Sony's case have nothing to do with the character's prominence.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I'm not saying anything should be dismissed. Just the opposite -- I'm saying that quality shouldn't be dismissed.

I'm so tired of this. People say "It's black, it's pure black," I try to say, "No, it's a mix of black and white and shades of gray," and people say "How can you say it's pure white?!" I don't argue in binaries. If I point out the white side, it doesn't mean I reject the black side, it means that nobody else is advocating for the white side and I want to make sure it's also taken into account, because life is an essay question, not a true-or-false question. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to broaden a dialogue.

It's because you don't come across as additive, you only want to educate and pontificate so you don't give anything to the other side. Not only is there no shades of gray below but the other side's black argument is bizarre and you will never understand.

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.

 

[JD]

I just don't agree with that as an absolute statement. As a general rule, okay, but again, it's a mistake to assume a rule can never have exceptions, because the most memorable achievements are often the ones that defy the rules and expectations. That's the definition of something special.

OK, it may not be an absolute rule, but I can't come up with a single movie that has been a huge hit in the last 20 years that was not either part of a franchise, or that didn't include big names in front or behind the camera. I can't even come up with any major studio release that didn't fit at least one of those criteria.

The point is why it made that box office. It's not exclusively about who the stars or the director were. There are other films with the same stars that didn't do as well, and I'm pretty sure the director had never previously made a hit of this magnitude. It made so much money because it was smart and well-made, because it offered something special that was about more than just superficial calculations and formulaic expectations. The stars and director didn't just stand there and generate success automatically by their mere presence. They earned it by doing the work to make something worthwhile. So it follows that less well-known filmmakers could also garner success by making something really good.

I'm starting to feel like I must be a complete moron here, because I'm obviously doing something wrong here, since you don't seem to be understanding what I'm trying to say. I never meant to say those things make movies a success, I've been trying to say that a movie can't be a success without those things. There is no way Barbie would have been the success it was, if it wasn't a Barbie movie directed by Gerta Gerwig and starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. If had been some random movie with a no name writer and unknown actors, it would not have been a major release from WB, and not enough people would have known about it for it to make $1.4 billion.

That's what it boils down to -- whether people care enough to make a good movie. That matters vastly more than whether the character is known to the public. Really, the comic-reading audience is less than a tenth of a percent of the moviegoing audience, thousands compared to millions. So how big a character is in comics has no relevance at all to most of the movie audience. Yes, buzz is a factor, but buzz can be generated by a good movie about a new or obscure character.

If the people making Sony's live-action superhero movies were really up to doing a good job, if they really cared enough to bring quality and fresh ideas to the table, they could make a buzzworthy movie about El Muerto as well as they could make one about Spider-Man. But that's unlikely if they're just churning out superhero movies based on shallow calculations about how to generate buzz.

But it doesn't matter how good a movie is, if people don't go see it.

 

[Christopher]

OK, it may not be an absolute rule, but I can't come up with a single movie that has been a huge hit in the last 20 years that was not either part of a franchise, or that didn't include big names in front or behind the camera. I can't even come up with any major studio release that didn't fit at least one of those criteria.

If so, that is something to lament, not to hold up as the natural default. I still hold out hope for the underdog.