• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread

Rich Watson said:
You'd need a subscription to read the full article but the first paragraph says it all.

www.thewrap.com

As ‘Kraven’ Hunts for Audience, Sony's Marvel Universe Takes Final Bow for Now | Analysis

Sony's Marvel universe ends with empty "Kraven" panel at CCXP, marking the conclusion of failed experiment in Spider-Man-less superhero films.
www.thewrap.com www.thewrap.com
Click to expand...
Ouch. It's sad that Sony has screwed this all up so badly, but they really did pick some strange characters to go with for these movies. I can see Venom, since he's a hugely popular character, but almost every other choice they've made has just been odd.
 
It's not so much the character choices I have a problem with. (Well, that's not completely true...I have certainly scoffed at some of their choices. But then I have never liked Morbius.)

If the movies were actually good, the audience would be there.

Fool me five times, shame on me. ;)
 
Tosk said:
It's not so much the character choices I have a problem with. (Well, that's not completely true...I have certainly scoffed at some of their choices. But then I have never liked Morbius.)

If the movies were actually good, the audience would be there.

Fool me five times, shame on me. ;)
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Just look at the Guardians of the Galaxy. Most people had never heard of them (I barely knew the name from the 90s trading cards...and that was a completely different line-up) and yet each of those films have been a terrific success because the writing, the directing, the acting, the music, and all of the choices made in between were so damn good. Hell, going into the film, I was somewhat dismissive of it because I didn't know the characters, but I came out of it a massive fan.

Or even going further back, most non-comic fans didn't know who Iron Man was in 2008 but look where he is now. Sony could've done the same with any of their characters but failed time after time after time. They don't trust their writers nor the process, so they kept meddling to the point we get garbage like Morbius and Madame Web, instead of Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy.
 
Sometimes I actually wonder if the point of this whole endeavor was to make a series of low budget movies that barely break even for the sole purpose of diluting another studios brand. I know it's unlikely, but it's hard to make sense of anything through the utter obliviousness and cluelessness that Sony has displayed throughout this whole thing.
 
Tosk said:
It's not so much the character choices I have a problem with. (Well, that's not completely true...I have certainly scoffed at some of their choices. But then I have never liked Morbius.)

If the movies were actually good, the audience would be there.

Fool me five times, shame on me. ;)
Click to expand...
I still don't get why they kept going with Spider-villains as their protagonists for the most part. And dumping most of the Spider women into one film. :shrug:
 
JD said:
Ouch. It's sad that Sony has screwed this all up so badly, but they really did pick some strange characters to go with for these movies. I can see Venom, since he's a hugely popular character, but almost every other choice they've made has just been odd.
Click to expand...
Well they have tried literally everything. What other famous characters related to Spider-Man exist?

Anyway, it's not a question of how well known a character is or not. I assure you that Iron Man was practically unknown among non-comic book readers. And Guardians of the Galaxy was little known even among comic book readers (of which there are only a few thousand, in comparison of potential millions of moviegoers).

The problem, as more than one person has pointed out, is that they are simply not very good movies.
 
JD said:
Ouch. It's sad that Sony has screwed this all up so badly, but they really did pick some strange characters to go with for these movies. I can see Venom, since he's a hugely popular character, but almost every other choice they've made has just been odd.
Click to expand...
They were limited to Spider-Man characters but couldn't use Spider-Man. So they didn't have a great selection.

Of course, Skipper is absolutely right that the prior fame of a character has nothing to do with anything. The brand-new character of Indiana Jones was more successful in 1980s movies than the very similar 100-year-old character of Allan Quatermain. The brand-new character of Luke Skywalker was more successful in the movies than the well-known, decades-old character of Flash Gordon. What matters is not where a concept comes from, but where you take it next.

I often felt the obscurity of the characters Sony had rights to could've worked in their favor. Instead of trying to play up a tenuous Spider-Man connection they couldn't really use, they could've just used these characters as the basis for a series of standalone movies in multiple genres -- a Venom horror movie, a sexy Black Cat heist thriller, a Silver Sable political thriller, that sort of thing. Instead of trying to force everything into the generic superhero-movie mold, they could've embraced the genre diversity of comics characters and used this IP to target general audiences instead of just the superhero-movie audience.

Again, though, of course, it wouldn't have mattered if they didn't actually put in the effort to make them good.


Turtletrekker said:
Sometimes I actually wonder if the point of this whole endeavor was to make a series of low budget movies that barely break even for the sole purpose of diluting another studios brand. I know it's unlikely, but it's hard to make sense of anything through the utter obliviousness and cluelessness that Sony has displayed throughout this whole thing.
Click to expand...

It's generally best not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. I mean, look at the history of superhero movies pre-MCU, and you'll find far more misses than hits. Few movie studios have ever figured out how to do superhero movies right. So Sony's track record is more the rule than the exception, and thus requires no special explanation.
 
I understand that can't have to be well know for the movies to do well, I just meant that I didn't think the characters that they picked were interesting enough to be worth giving a movie too.
I'm still mad they didn't move forward with the Silver and Black movie, because I really that one had to most potential of all the movies they discussed.
 
Ouch, the predictions for show Kraven's opening weekend box office being even lower than Madame Web's.
So it's looking even more likely now that Sony's Spider-Man Universe (according to Wikipedia that's it's official name now) is dead.
I'll never understand why Sony didn't do a Jessica Drew Spider-Woman movie, since she's probably the one of the best known characters that they would have other than Venom. Although based on how they handled all of the other characters they used, they probably would have found a way to ruin her movie too.
 
JD said:
I'll never understand why Sony didn't do a Jessica Drew Spider-Woman movie, since she's probably the one of the best known characters that they would have other than Venom. Although based on how they handled all of the other characters they used, they probably would have found a way to ruin her movie too.
Click to expand...
It's in production hell from 2020.
thedirect.com

Olivia Wilde’s Marvel Movie Gets Brief Update Following Director Controversy

Olivia Wilde’s rumored Spider-Woman movie has gotten a new update.
thedirect.com thedirect.com
 
JD said:
Ouch, the predictions for show Kraven's opening weekend box office being even lower than Madame Web's.
So it's looking even more likely now that Sony's Spider-Man Universe (according to Wikipedia that's it's official name now) is dead.
I'll never understand why Sony didn't do a Jessica Drew Spider-Woman movie, since she's probably the one of the best known characters that they would have other than Venom. Although based on how they handled all of the other characters they used, they probably would have found a way to ruin her movie too.
Click to expand...

Considering their Spider-Man Universe doesn't feature Spider-Man ... :lol:

Good call, Sony. Even if overdue.
 
It's still amazing to me that Sony used multiple directors and writers to create these 'anti-hero' movies, and yet they're all consistently bad in mostly the same ways. If you took all the credits off them, you'd be forgiven for thinking they're all the work of the same people.

Maybe we'd have been better off with that Aunt May movie after all. ;)
 
Tosk said:
It's still amazing to me that Sony used multiple directors and writers to create these 'anti-hero' movies, and yet they're all consistently bad in mostly the same ways. If you took all the credits off them, you'd be forgiven for thinking they're all the work of the same people.
Click to expand...

A sign of an environment where the studio executives ride tight herd on the directors, I would imagine.
 
OK...so lemme see got this right...SOny cna't use Tom Holland, mainly because they would have to reference the MCU, which isn't allowed.

But could they theoretically have their SOny Spider Verse be Andrew or Tobey's universe? And/or have Tom transport himself to one of those places (they left the universe before the 2nd magic spell, right)


Also, how oftne does SOny have to make a spider movie.

And how often do they need to make a "Spidey-ish" film to keep the license? Whatever it is...having 3 in 1 year sure was a failure.... EVen Venom 3 is only #15, and makde less than $140 million or so
 
Santa Kang said:
Aren’t the Holland films officially Sony releases?
Click to expand...

In legal and logistical terms, yes, but Marvel Studios is in charge of the creative side of the process. Basically they're MCU movies produced by Sony, whereas the others are Sony movies produced by Sony.
 
How official is the word on "Tom Holland can't be in a Sony movie"...is it just a rumor/assumption, or has it been stated as a fact by those with the authority to do so?

Because he did appear as Peter Parker, Spider-Man in Venom 2.

(I understand the possibility of a 'special circumstances' situation of course, but I still wonder what the actual deal is.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top