Sony Spider-Verse discussion thread
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
And Eddie Brock unexploded too?
I mean, looks like Venom, sure, but it also looks like horrible cgi/visual design. They could have produced something much better looking than that while still looking like Venom.
What's the budget on this movie? It looks a little cheap.
Homecoming and Venom are made by a completely different set of people. Marvel Studios made Homecoming*, whereas Sony made Venom. That's not to say it can't be good of course! Just that you can't use Homecoming as a sign that Sony know what they're doing.
*Sony paid for it and got all the box office, Marvel produced it and helped on all creative decisions. But they also have merch rights, so they're still making some bucks.
Homecoming and Venom are made by a completely different set of people. Marvel Studios made Homecoming*, whereas Sony made Venom. That's not to say it can't be good of course! Just that you can't use Homecoming as a sign that Sony know what they're doing.
*Sony paid for it and got all the box office, Marvel produced it and helped on all creative decisions. But they also have merch rights, so they're still making some bucks.
I had no idea, darn
that's to bad. good to know though.I knew Sony worked with Marvel on the movie but I didnt realize to what degree. This has suppressed my enthusiasm a little bit , still quite hopeful this will turn out well.
Nope.
I had no idea, darn
I knew Sony worked with Marvel on the movie but I didnt realize to what degree. This has suppressed my enthusiasm a little bit , still quite hopeful this will turn out well.
Spider-Man Homecoming has a Marvel Studios icon on it, but it is a Sony film; it was paid for by Sony, Sony kept 100% of the profits from it, and Kevin Feige's boss for the duration of the project's production phase was Sony CEO Tom Rothman.
Tosk got it completely wrong.
Considering Feige had some involvement in it and it was the ONLY good comic movie Sony has made i think the common denominator was fairly obvious.
You're talking about the business side. Tosk was talking about the creative side, which is the part that's relevant to a discussion of the likely quality of the story.
http://collider.com/spider-man-marvel-sony-deal-explained/
So from a creative standpoint, which is what we're actually discussing here, Tosk is absolutely right. In terms of the actual work of writing and making the films, the Spider-Man solo films are made by Marvel Studios, but the Spidey-adjacent films like Venom and Silver and Black are made by Sony. The same studio gets the profits from both, but that's got nothing to do with who's actually writing and shooting the films. Sony voluntarily ceded creative control of the Spidey solo films to Marvel in exchange for the bottomless profits that the MCU would deliver.
^ I dispute Collider's assertions in this matter because they're not an accurate reflection of what the partnership deal that was signed actually stipulates.
Feige and his Marvel Studios production team may have overseen the physical production process of Homecoming, but everything that they did had to first be approved by Sony CEO Tom Rothman and agreed to by Feige's co-producer Amy Pascal, which, contrary to Collider's assertion, ultimately places both creative AND business control in Sony's hands.
Feige and his Marvel Studios production team may have overseen the physical production process of Homecoming, but everything that they did had to first be approved by Sony CEO Tom Rothman and agreed to by Feige's co-producer Amy Pascal, which, contrary to Collider's assertion, ultimately places both creative AND business control in Sony's hands.
I'm totally sure that Rothman and Pascal went with whatever Feige had planned with minimal to no interference.
You're mistaking creative control for creation. The former is management, the latter is labor. Yes, Sony gets to approve or veto any idea that Marvel Studios comes up with, but it's still Marvel Studios that's actually coming up with them, because that's what Sony hired them to do. By analogy: When I get hired to write a Star Trek novel, everything I write has to be approved by CBS, but CBS doesn't come up with the ideas for me, because that's what they pay me to do. I conceive of the ideas. I write the books in my voice, my style. If they don't like one of my ideas, they say "No, you can't do that," and they might tell me the broad strokes of what they want instead, but it's still up to me to do the actual work of coming up with a replacement that meets their approval. So they have creative control over the book, but I am still the actual creator of the book.
I understand all of that, but where the conversation goes off the rails is the assertion by some - including Collider - that Marvel Studios' work in doing the labor somehow gives them ownership of Homecoming and makes it "their film".
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that your work on any given Star Trek novel gives you ownership of the contents of said novel, does it?
You're being way to nitpicky over the wording. To stick with @Christopher's analagy, even though CBS technically own the his Star Trek books, most people who read them still refer to them as the author's books. When I talk about the Enterprise: Rise of the Federation books, I refer to them as Chistopher L. Bennet's (@Chistopher) ROTF books, not as CBS's ROTF books. Generally I find that people tend to associate things more closely with the people responsible for the creative aspects rather than with the business aspects.
But we aren't talking about ownership or business here. We never have been. This started in post #307-8 above when Kytee said they liked Homecoming and hoped that they would therefore like Venom, and Tosk explained that the films were from different creators so the quality of one wasn't predictive of the other. The point was about the quality of the movies as creative works, about who wrote and directed and produced them, not who owns or profits from them.
Todd Mcfarlane shares his edit of Venom