Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

[Morpheus 02]

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

And who specifically is saying that quality should be dismissed?

I'm so tired of this.

I highly doubt it

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.

Yes you do. It is essentially "I'm right, you're wrong. How could you not see that? Let me me explain why you should have..."

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.

Yes, you are trying to pick a fight. How? By ignoring what the rest of us are saying, and acting like we didn't see many of the points you say you brought up.

And you aren't broadening the discussion very much. Using Star Wars as an example is extremely dated. Star Wars came out when cable and home video recordings/video rental were at its infancy, and where 2nd run theaters and re-releases were a major way (And TV airings of cinematic movies were often a couple years after the theatrical release, and only aired one time -- total opposite of the streaming environment today).

there were also far fewer media/news outlets as well as significant sci-fi choices, so all of those factors helped contribute to Star Wars' success, as well as the toy factor.

And we could also add Sir Alec Guinness and George Lucas' burgeoning filmmaking success as factors as well.

I believe you also brought up Guardians of the Galaxy -- which also would not have been possible (i believe production-wise, and certainly success-wise) without the previous Marvel Movies.... building a trust that people would be willing to see something more off-the-wall because it was Marvel, and worth the risk.

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,

It's as possible as a meteorite hitting and killing you. Totally possible. But highly improbable. Especially with Sony involved.

and that the reasons the odds are stacked against it in Sony's case have nothing to do with the character's prominence.

Which is something the rest of us already knew, and really that is what the rest of us are trying to tell you this whole time. All of us already understand it is possible. But we don't believe it under Sony's management. But what we believe here on TrekBBS won't be the determining factor of the success or failure of Sony's upcoming movies.

Many of us joined this thread, while liking/loving Spiderman, also have a love-hate relationship with Sony (but mostly hate )

We also have the 2024 Box Office Predictor Game, which for most of us playing are mostly sequels. Even though you would be a late entry, feel free to show us which "original" movie will break the top 10. I know i was having an extremely hard time finding anything coming out that could break the top 10.

===

And getting back to the actual thread title -- hey can someone confirm or deny if Andrew Garfield is in Venom 3? I thought i read that somewhere, but want to hear from you guys..

 

[Thestral]

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.

I'd say Frozen and Zootopia both qualify.

And looking at a list for 2004-2010, I'd say The Notebook, Bohemian Rhapsody, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Pan's Labyrinth, 300, Slumdog Millionaire, The Hangover, District 9, and The Social Network all qualify. Along with several animated movies unless you want to just not include those. Maybe Parasite, too?

 

[Christopher]

I'd say Frozen and Zootopia both qualify.... Along with several animated movies unless you want to just not include those.

So you're saying Frozen and Zootopia were live action...?

 

[Thestral]

Give them time...

(but no, they're different thoughts, but I'll edit for clarity. )

 

[Christopher]

Give them time...

True.

 

[Morpheus 02]

I'd say Frozen and Zootopia both qualify.

And looking at a list for 2004-2010, I'd say The Notebook, Bohemian Rhapsody, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Pan's Labyrinth, 300, Slumdog Millionaire, The Hangover, District 9, and The Social Network all qualify. Along with several animated movies unless you want to just not include those. Maybe Parasite, too?

Frozen and Zootopia had the weight of DIsney Animation behind them.... kinda like how we disqualifed Guardians of the Galaxy because by then, the Marvel Brand had become trusted so that new things were definitley worth the risk for new Marvel Fans, and the subsequent success spurred more interest.

But your live action examples are more what we are talking about. And definitely Parasite.

So you're saying Frozen and Zootopia were live action...?

When was Live Action films a requirement for this discussion? i thought it was any cinematic movie.

 

[Morpheus 02]

So this is an ad that Alamo Drafthouse is using...

Now, conventional wisdom says that in order to calculate if a movie is profitable, you basically have to double the movie budget, as marketing is supposed to be the same amount.

Apparently, Sony is trying to circumvent that by spending $27 on photography & design. i know high schoolers who could have found a better photo (and certainly one that would evoke something Spidery, as opposed to random tourist photo in the city.

 

[JD]

So they're advertising their big superhero movie with a random picture of the cast in street clothes? That's really the best they could come up with.

I'd say Frozen and Zootopia both qualify.

Nope, like @Morpheus 02 said, it was Disney Animation, which is basically the equivalent to a franchise of it's own.

And looking at a list for 2004-2010, I'd say The Notebook,

Nope, it was based on a book, and according to Wikipedia Rachel McAdams was already known for Mean Girls

Bohemian Rhapsody,

based on the life of Freddy Mercury and starred Rami Malek was already well known for Mr. Robot, and it was directed by Brian Singer

The 40 Year Old Virgin,

starred Steve Carrell, who had already started on The Office and had worked on The Daily Show, and was Judd Appatow who had created Freaks and Geeks and produced The Cable Guy, and Anchorman

Pan's Labyrinth

directed by Guillermo Del Toro, who had already made Blade II and Hellboy,

300

Based on a comic, and directed by Zack Snyder who had already done Day of the Dead

Slumdog Millionaire

based on a book and directed by Danny Boyle,

The Hangover

directed by Todd Phillis after he did Old School

,

District 9

based on a short film and while he didn't direct it, Peter Jackson produced it,

and The Social Network

the origin story for face book all qualify. Along with several animated movies unless you want to just not include those. Maybe

Parasite

directed by Bong Joon-Hoo.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I'm sorry, but what kind of measure is this? Yes, 300 was a comic book adaptation, but hardly anybody knew the comic book. I'm a big comics reader, I'm very familiar with Frank Miller, but even I wasn't familiar with 300. Sure, Guillermo del Toro had done Blade II and Hellboy before he made Pan's Labyrinth, he still wasn't well known in the mainstream.
And being based on a short film? And not even the producer, who wasn't even very involved with the production, is allowed to be well-known?

Seriously, only a handful of movies in all of film history fit your requirements.
Star Wars? Georg Lucas made two films before that, and it had Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing.
A Fistful of Dollars? Based on Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo, and Clint Eastwood co-starred on TV's Rawhide before.
Pulp Fiction? Tarantino's second movie as director, not to mention having written a lot of screenplays for other directors before, plus Travolta, Bruce Willis, Harvey Keitel, heck, Uma Thurman had done a couple of big movies before Pulp Fiction.

Seriously, the only major hit movie that fits your criteria that I can think of is The Blair Witch Project.

 

[JD]

That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make. It's pretty much impossible to get a movie made without having something that would get people notice it before it came out.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, yes, but that is nothing new. There may be a couple of people curious enough to check something out just because it looks cool, but the mainstream audience needs more convincing.

Like, Kevin Smith's first film, Clerks, is still considered among the best of his career, and is still the movie most people know him for, but it made only $ 4.4 million at the box office. Most people caught it on video or DVD.
Now, that $ 4.4 million figure is actually pretty impressive considering the budget of $ 30,000, and it opened a lot of doors for Smith. But it still isn't what you'd call a big smash hit blockbuster.

The average American in 2018 went to see two movies in a theater all year. Yes, even pre-pandemic, most people needed a special reason to go to the movies. It is only a small crowd of people who regularly go to the movies, and even smaller is the crowd who will go see a movie simply because it's playing.

 

[Tosk]

Wait, are we trying to think of a mega-hit movie that had zero known actors, writers, directors, or producers, and was not based on anything that already existed?

To what end?

 

[Nerys Myk]

So this is an ad that Alamo Drafthouse is using...

Now, conventional wisdom says that in order to calculate if a movie is profitable, you basically have to double the movie budget, as marketing is supposed to be the same amount.

Apparently, Sony is trying to circumvent that by spending $27 on photography & design. i know high schoolers who could have found a better photo (and certainly one that would evoke something Spidery, as opposed to random tourist photo in the city.

I'm sure they'll remember where they parked the car sooner or later.

 

[Christopher]

That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make. It's pretty much impossible to get a movie made without having something that would get people notice it before it came out.

I think that's setting the bar ludicrously low, though. It's not a binary choice between fame and complete obscurity; there are degrees in between. You're shifting your own goalposts here, since you were the one who set the parameters last week by saying that a movie couldn't get attention without a "big name" attached to it. That phrasing implies someone on the A-list, someone extremely famous and popular, as opposed to the vast majority of filmmakers and performers of more moderate prominence. By ruling out anyone who's done any released work before, you're contradicting your own "big name" premise. It is nonsensical to define "big" as synonymous with "nonzero."

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Wait, are we trying to think of a mega-hit movie that had zero known actors, writers, directors, or producers, and was not based on anything that already existed?

To what end?

To prove that everyone else is wrong, of course.


EDIT: I should delete this I know, I promise my future posts will stay focused on Madame Web and El Muerto (God help us all....). Not having a good week and this has just been aggravating me.

 

[Tosk]

Let us instead wonder then, if Sony intentionally used the same typeface for MADAME as the Stranger Things logo on purpose.

Or how much I dislike the joined letters in WEB. I do not find it aesthetically pleasing.

 

[JD]

Wait, are we trying to think of a mega-hit movie that had zero known actors, writers, directors, or producers, and was not based on anything that already existed?

To what end?

Because I said that something like that doesn't happen, and @Christopher keeps insisting that it does.

I think that's setting the bar ludicrously low, though. It's not a binary choice between fame and complete obscurity; there are degrees in between. You're shifting your own goalposts here, since you were the one who set the parameters last week by saying that a movie couldn't get attention without a "big name" attached to it. That phrasing implies someone on the A-list, someone extremely famous and popular, as opposed to the vast majority of filmmakers and performers of more moderate prominence. By ruling out anyone who's done any released work before, you're contradicting your own "big name" premise. It is nonsensical to define "big" as synonymous with "nonzero."

When I said "big name" I just meant someone who people would recognize and who's involvement with the movie would get their attention.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

OK, stay on topic, stay on topic....um, that girl's shirt says "I EAT MATH FOR BREAKFAST", is that laying it on a bit thick?

Let us instead wonder then, if Sony intentionally used the same typeface for MADAME as the Stranger Things logo on purpose.

It does look like it's targeting a Stranger Things crowd more than it is the 50-year-old comic book guy.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

So this is an ad that Alamo Drafthouse is using...

Now, conventional wisdom says that in order to calculate if a movie is profitable, you basically have to double the movie budget, as marketing is supposed to be the same amount.

Apparently, Sony is trying to circumvent that by spending $27 on photography & design. i know high schoolers who could have found a better photo (and certainly one that would evoke something Spidery, as opposed to random tourist photo in the city.

Good gods, that's official? For a theatrical film?

Sony just doesn't care anymore, do they? Just, like, not at all.

 

[Turtletrekker]

It's like they're thinking that if they can't sell it on the Spider-Man factor, they might as well try and sell it on the babe factor and hope that works better.