But did Sony think that these films would be successful only thanks to the "notoriety" of the characters?
Ugh.
I seriously how much money Sony would accept from Disney to put an end to their (mainly) travesties and sell the rights to the competitor.
That would indeed be a good question...and any SOny shareholders OUGHT to pressure the comapny to do so. Or just let Marvel do future stuff.... 25% (or whatever fraction they signed on for) of $1 billion in net profits is better than 100% of $100 Million net loss.
Silver & Sable was the one project of the myriad of potential ideas Sony had that people were genuinely excited about (at least around here)...and it never went anywhere.
And even if they went the business minded route -- sure;y such a movie would
not cost THAT much to make...and thus be profitable to do. Which makes their refusal to do it even sillier.
Yeah, I find the whole approach to the Venom movies weird, turning them into a buddy comedy rather than a psychological horror and body-horror story. So I agree that whatever success the movies have inexplicably had is more about the performances and actor appeal than anything to do with the intrinsic concept.
I'm always bewildered when people argue that a movie can only succeed if it centers on a character who's already famous. If that were so, where would new characters come from in the first place? Every famous character started out obscure. It's a nonsensical argument, and it gets the cause and effect backward. Good movies make their characters popular, even if they never existed before.
exactly WHO here on this board has said it can "
only succeed " with that???? I think CLEAR evidence, especially in 2024 , that a familiar IP sure can HELP A LOT. 9 of the top 10 in 2024 are sequels. The one "original" is a movie version of an uberpopular current Broadway play.
It's been a while since we've seen something like the Matrix take off.
I've always felt the problem is that studio executives are business people, not creative people, yet they get to tell the creative people how to make their movies. So they have absolute authority over a process they don't understand at all.
This is a very valid point...and we see that faiure at DC as well as SOny.
Yes. People always try to peg one simplistic factor that can explain success or failure, but if it were that simple, success would be easy to achieve. It's not something you can dumb down to a pat answer. It depends on countless interacting factors. Even a well-executed movie can flop through no fault of its own; heck, many of the most well-regarded classics were commercial failures upon their release.
WHO on this very BBS (or heck, ANYWHERE) is saying this??? Familiarity sure as heck can be a HUGE HELP, as again, evidenced by 2024's top 10....
Outside of Tom Hardy, these other movies aren't passion projects for anyone. Then you hear Dakota Johnson's story about how the Madame Web movie she signed up for isn't the movie they made. There's a difference between "I have an idea for a movie" and "this IP needs to be turned into a movie."
This right here says it all.... it's why i soured on the Amazing Spiderman movies -- i
knew it was
mainly to keep the SPiderman IP... not becuase of a passion like Raimi....or with Tom Hardy, it owuld have been right around the time that Maguire would have retired anyway, and Marvel proved they truly care...so it felt logical
