Sony Expanding Spider Man Universe, To Produce One Movie A Year

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Sony Expanding Spider Man Universe, To Produce One Movie A Year

image

Sony's looking at the success of Disney's Marvel franchises and thinking 'yes, please!'

"We are expanding the Spider-Man'universe into The Sinister Six and Venom, so that we have Spider-Man movies every year," says Sony's Amy Pascal, co-chair of its Hollywood unit. Sony aims to imitate Disney's success with its Marvel franchise, which has benefited from yearly releases. No confirmed date has been announced for either the Venom or the Sinister Six film, but the idea is to have them all out in cinemas by June 2016.

Why? For the money, that's why. Sony's film unit has had a troubled past. It's not just about the box office receipts; it's also about the TV loot, when each film breaks through to the small screen. In Q3 2013 we saw the consequences of mediocre releases: Captain Phillips and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 were OK, but nothing when compared to The Amazing Spider-Man and Men in Black 3, out the previous year.

None of its planned 2014 film releases look that enticing, and we've already seen what RoboCop, The Monuments Men and Pompeii have to offer. Take a look at Pompeii's box so far: it cost something like $100 million to make the Titanic-hits-a-volcano epic, and will admit to grossing $11.106 million, including its opening weekend take, in the USA as of February 24th. OK, early days, but not exactly a gold rush of a film. RoboCop also had a $100 million estimated budget, made $25.051 million on its opening weekend, and admits to grossing $44.673 million in the USA by February 24th. Respectable takings, and this February 12th release is probably going to be one of Sony's better earners for this financial year. Meanwhile The Monuments Men is poised to be a modest financial success; that one cost only $70 million to make, released on February 7th, made over 30% of its costs in its opening weekend and grossed $58.457 million as of February 24th.

Compare that to the Amazing Spider-Man, a July 2012 release. Its estimated budget was $230 million, it made $62.004 million on its opening weekend - so about the same, expressed as a percentage, as RoboCop - and grossed $262.030 million in the USA alone by October 2012. That's the kind of success Sony's Pictures Unit needs right now.

Of course, Sony has one significant disadvantage. Disney owns Marvel; it can produce whatever it likes, based on whichever property it likes. Sony only has its hooks in Spider Man and a few related characters, limiting what it can do with the franchise. Hope you like Venom; you might be seeing a lot more of him than you bargained for.

Source: Guardian

Permalink

Okay, I do like Venom (especially the most recent incarnation) but...

Sony, just give the reins back to Marvel already. Maybe cut a deal where you get some of the profits for whenever they use a Spiderman related property but just let Marvel Studios make the movies. Okay? Thanks. Now I can look forward to Avengers 3 including Spidey...

Oh, no wait, I can't. Because Sony will never do that.

Because of course there's no better way to make a single franchise popular than mechanically pumping out sequels year after year. I'm sure the quality won't suffer from that at all.

Thats not good, they all look at Marvel and rush there way to it instead of taking their time. Thats why Avengers did well because Disney/Marvel took there time. A Spiderman a year is total overkill and people will just get fed up with the character. DC are doing the same thing, rushing it through and turning the SvB movie into crap, i heard they are adding Cyborg to that movie.

Well, that simply means that eventually it will revert back to Marvel because they have a lot of trouble producing a good movie with comic characters. It's like random chance with them. I just hate to see the fans suffer because Sony is a bunch of greedy asshats.

Sony REALLY wants to hold onto this IP.

This "one new Spider-Man related movie a year" mentality is going to result in audience fatigue. I can't see how they'll be able to maintain a consistent quality film if they're pumping one out every summer. The CGI and effects in Amazing Spider-Man were really spotty. I can't imagine how the quality will be with an annual production setup.

I remember when Midway once claimed "Mortal Kombat every year"!

The result? The series went into quick decline, got overexposed, and practically imploded on itself in rushed, unpolished games until Midway went under, Warner Bros bought them up, and told them "guys, just take your time", and we got the best Mortal Kombat game, and one of the most robust and content-filled fighting games, in recent memory.

Yeah, Sony needs to lose this franchise quick... this might be a GOOD thing.

Unless they reboot it again. With Michael B. Jordan in the lead.

Well this will be fun to watch.

Think it'll be successful enough to hold on or do you think we'll be seeing another reboot in five years?

I like venom, can we have carnage as well? I like my bad guys off the wall lunitics and Carnage seems to fit that bill.

Why are things going to "one a year" model these days? Between this, AC and COD there will be too much of the same crap. It will just sacrifice innovation and quality for name recognition and milking a name dry.

I think indie games and indie films are just going to go from strength to strength.

Got to admire their optimism, not even Fox is doing that many X-Men movies.

Heres hoping they run themselves ragged and the Spiderman license returns to Marvel.

The_Darkness:
Okay, I do like Venom (especially the most recent incarnation) but...

Sony, just give the reins back to Marvel already. Maybe cut a deal where you get some of the profits for whenever they use a Spiderman related property but just let Marvel Studios make the movies. Okay? Thanks. Now I can look forward to Avengers 3 including Spidey...

Oh, no wait, I can't. Because Sony will never do that.

It's likely that Disney owned marvel studios would never agree to such a deal, if there was a deal on the table I'm fairly confident Sony would take it.

But what is in it for Marvel/Disney? The Avengers movies are going to make pretty much the same amount of money whether spidey is in it or not.

From their point of view:
A. They pay a significant amount of money to Sony for the rights to the franchise or
B. They give Sony a cut of the earnings when spidey is used in the Avengers
It's a huge risk because if the Avengers makes similar money without the use of spiderman (which it likely will) then in both instances marvel has just cut their own profits, basically putting them at a net loss compared to the scenario in which they didn't use spidey at all and left Sony to their own devices.

We would all like to see Spiderman at Marvel studios but it doesn't seem very practical from either companies stand point in relation to monetary gains.

So when they say they are making Sinister Six and Venom in to movies do they mean they will be part of a Spidey movie or will they be seperate? Maybe they could pull it off if they don't cram Spiderman in to every single film but I'm not really sure who else the hero could be. Unless we are supposed to root for Venom in an anti-hero way against something worse. I thought the reboot was kind of boring so I know I'm less interested in movies with him in, but maybe they will do well with other characters in that mini-Universe.

Sam Raimi's Spiderman is all I'll ever need.

Besides, I've still not forgiven Sony for creating SecuROM.

Spiderman has always been at his most interesting when being the small guy brushing shoulders with giants... and this is something he can't do while Sony controls the Spiderman IP.

Disney-Marvel know what they're doing. This entire thing is just another example as to how present trademark/copywrite/IP laws are ridiculous.

well, this is going to end badly. Sony is pretty desperate to keep its entertainment branches afloat, mostly because those are the only sectors that have been making profits.

Sony and company must be doing the Parker dance right now, with high fives all around. Meanwhile, everyone is is crying softly to the void.

image

Well this will end badly.
On the brightside, they cant do venom any worse than his previous movie introduction where he falls from space onto Spiderman's bike and forces him to dance and wear his hair funny.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Sony, but you can't make a yearly-film franchise out of ONE character. The reason why Disney is so succesful right now is because they've got a whole repertoire of heroes and villains to choose from while experimenting with different styles and genres.

You just can't do that with Spider-Man.

At what point did Sony become Warner Brothers? I mean, at this point Spiderman is the only thing they can do successfully (like Batman) so instead of trying to come up with something new, they just add Spidey to everything.

A new Amazing Spiderman movie every year? That'll go down well with MovieBob...

I never knew Spiderman slung milk and not webs...taking him to the dairy huh?

10 says they can produce a film even WORSE than the first Amazing Spiderman, and that was all kinds of god-awful.

Sony should make a TV show called "Getting Blood Out of a Stone" because that's pretty much what they're doing with the Spider-Man property at this point. I can understand they want to hang onto the franchise, but trying to milk it beyond its limits will only hurt them on in the long run. Also, they're coming off very cocky that this will happen even though Amazing Spider-Man 2 has yet to reach theaters. There has been some negative buzz floating around this film, mostly due to the unresolved plot-holes from the last movie being carried over and, just recently, their version of the Green Goblin makes the Willem Dafoe one much prettier by comparision. The last thing Sony needs to be doing right now is painting themselves into a corner out of greed and stupidity. Unless, of course, they love to look like a pack of moronic fuck-ups who wouldn't know their assholes from their elbows.

Personally, regardless of how beneficial it is for both studios, Marvel should have the Disney lawyers come in and take the remaining properties back. Mostly because we do not want anymore desecration of these characters due to studios trying to play The Avengers game without understanding why it was a success.

The_Darkness:
Okay, I do like Venom (especially the most recent incarnation) but...

Sony, just give the reins back to Marvel already. Maybe cut a deal where you get some of the profits for whenever they use a Spiderman related property but just let Marvel Studios make the movies. Okay? Thanks. Now I can look forward to Avengers 3 including Spidey...

Oh, no wait, I can't. Because Sony will never do that.

I will say, if Marvel had the rights in the first place, they may not have bothered fleshing out their other characters as Spidey is such a big cash cow

The_Darkness:
Oh, no wait, I can't. Because Sony will never do that.

Yeah, so exactly when do Sony's rights to Spider-Man expire? Or do they continue in perpetuity as long as they keep crapping out product?

What next? Spiderman goes Call of Duty, with three separate versions on a three year rotation?

Or is Sony actively trying to destroy the franchise(as far as movies go) before they're forced to give it up?

Trishbot:
I remember when Midway once claimed "Mortal Kombat every year"!

The result? The series went into quick decline, got overexposed, and practically imploded on itself in rushed, unpolished games until Midway went under, Warner Bros bought them up, and told them "guys, just take your time", and we got the best Mortal Kombat game, and one of the most robust and content-filled fighting games, in recent memory.

Yeah, Sony needs to lose this franchise quick... this might be a GOOD thing.

Unless they reboot it again. With Michael B. Jordan in the lead.

Mortal Kombat every year didn't work not because of overexposure but because it's a fighting game, fighting games unlike other games or movies takes time to learn and for player to get used to and when they do it last them for years. I know friends that still play Street fight 2 turbo to this day.

Movies, tv series or some games on the other hand can produce a new series each MONTH if it's done right because it's something we consume once and move on. The walking dead game is a good example, if they give us a new episode once a month we would still be happy to consume more.

TV series like the new Sherlock is practically a mini movie per episode.

So if TV and Games can do it there is no reason why movies can't, they just need to do it right that's all. An example of what they could do is to plan out the whole story arc so that each movie interconnects with each other well like harry potter or the matrix.

Another routh is to do it 007 style to have each story told individually with little connectiveness but tell it well.

What I notice is movies that does well either does one or the other mentioned above, but never half heartedly on one. Which is what most movie studios do, they usually wing it when it comes to sequels. I.E. if it does well they'll make up some story and excuse to make a new one.

SanguiniusMagnificum:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, Sony, but you can't make a yearly-film franchise out of ONE character. The reason why Disney is so succesful right now is because they've got a whole repertoire of heroes and villains to choose from while experimenting with different styles and genres.

You just can't do that with Spider-Man.

Hence why their plan is - apparently - to just take Spider-Man as FRANCHISE and then take characters from it as the new lead. I mean, a movie with VENOM as the lead instead of Spidey, why the heck not? It would at least something different, that's for sure.

ExtraDebit:

Mortal Kombat every year didn't work not because of overexposure but because it's a fighting game, fighting games unlike other games or movies takes time to learn and for player to get used to and when they do it last them for years. I know friends that still play Street fight 2 turbo to this day.

Movies, tv series or some games on the other hand can produce a new series each MONTH if it's done right because it's something we consume once and move on. The walking dead game is a good example, if they give us a new episode once a month we would still be happy to consume more.

TV series like the new Sherlock is practically a mini movie per episode.

So if TV and Games can do it there is no reason why movies can't, they just need to do it right that's all. An example of what they could do is to plan out the whole story arc so that each movie interconnects with each other well like harry potter or the matrix.

Another routh is to do it 007 style to have each story told individually with little connectiveness but tell it well.

What I notice is movies that does well either does one or the other mentioned above, but never half heartedly on one. Which is what most movie studios do, they usually wing it when it comes to sequels. I.E. if it does well they'll make up some story and excuse to make a new one.

When Midway said "Mortal Kombat every year", it wasn't just fighting games. It was also action and adventure games like "Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks", and officially endorsed crossovers with games like Unreal Tournament and DC comics. The fighting games themselves were bi-yearly... but the brand was everywhere.

And the reason the movies CAN'T be like a TV series is basically because of the time and cost it takes to put in all the necessary CG and effects. It's the reason a movie can film in 43 days, but then take 200+ days to add in all the web-slinging, CG explosions, glowing electric FX. The Hobbit trilogy finished filming long before the second movie came out, but the amount of effort needed to put in the effects is still gargantuan, and simply isn't feasible for a TV or monthly serialized medium.

It's why something like Agents of SHIELD looks so much cheaper and low-scale compared to the bombast and scale of the Avengers or Thor or anything else requiring a heavy dose of superhero effects.

What you suggest would work well for a hero that doesn't require a lot of effects (hence why we might be getting Luke Cage or Iron Fist on TV, since their main "power" is punching things harder than usual), but the world of Spider-man is one of incredible powers, effects, monsters, mutants, and mayhem.

They did a live action Spider-man once... and the effects were as good as you could get on TV... and it just looked AWFUL most of the time. You can't rush these things, and it's one reason The Amazing Spider-man's effects alternate from decent to dreadful due to how quickly they rushed it out to keep the filming rights from reverting back to Marvel.

It's the exact same reason Fox is pumping out so many X-men films. Hell, they already announced a new X-men movie months BEFORE the newest one was even released, along with announcing a new Wolverine, X-Force, and possibly Deadpool, because the more they can put out, the more they can lock down those rights from expiring... even if the movie is terrible.

God damn it. I am so pissed that Marvel doesn't own the rights for Spidey movies. Can you imagine what a high quality Spider-man movie we could have if Disney/Marvel was in charge?

Bindal:

SanguiniusMagnificum:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, Sony, but you can't make a yearly-film franchise out of ONE character. The reason why Disney is so succesful right now is because they've got a whole repertoire of heroes and villains to choose from while experimenting with different styles and genres.

You just can't do that with Spider-Man.

Hence why their plan is - apparently - to just take Spider-Man as FRANCHISE and then take characters from it as the new lead. I mean, a movie with VENOM as the lead instead of Spidey, why the heck not? It would at least something different, that's for sure.

I heard a pretty good idea about that the other day. Do a movie about Flash Thompson Venom or Agent Venom as it were. That's an interesting character and storyline. Though now that I think about it... wait until Sony loses the property. They'd just fuck that one up as well.

My thoughts from reading this is one spiderman universe movie each year maybe an amazing every 2 or 3 with venom, sinister six, and maybe other spiderman original characters getting their own films like black cat, cloak and dagger, and possibly firestar. If so it could work as I heard way back they own all originally spiderman created characters that aren't the punisher.

Adam Jensen:
God damn it. I am so pissed that Marvel doesn't own the rights for Spidey movies. Can you imagine what a high quality Spider-man movie we could have if Disney/Marvel was in charge?

Personally, I'm even more pissed that Marvel doesn't own X-Men. They've turned my favourite comic characters into the laughing stock of the Marvel universe :( Can you imagine if Marvel could do the Civil War storyline? I guess the only way we can get there is to stop seeing non-Marvel/Disney made Marvel movies... Once those properties aren't profitable they'll stop making them and the rights will go back to where they belong. Like Daredevil.

Mortuorum:

The_Darkness:
Oh, no wait, I can't. Because Sony will never do that.

Yeah, so exactly when do Sony's rights to Spider-Man expire? Or do they continue in perpetuity as long as they keep crapping out product?

That's pretty much what I've heard. As long as Sony uses the property, they get to keep it. A certain amount of time has to pass without them making any use of the rights before they revert back to Marvel (that's how Daredevil and Ghost Rider back).

Trishbot:
Unless they reboot it again. With Michael B. Jordan in the lead.

You joke, but if they really do dole out a Spidey film each year then eventually they're going to get to the death of Peter Parker and his replacement as Spider-man by Miles Morales. Especially given how much of an Ultimate universe slant the rebooted films have had so far.

the existing spider man movies already recycle the few plot points the comics served them on a silver platter and they still end up mostly dull and meh.

and this on a yearly basis?

they already ran out of ideas for the next spider man movie and this will turn into a slippery slope of spider man movies with the quality and absurdity of an the asylum movie.

next spider-man flick:

spider-man cant believe that its not dr. butter! part 2!

spider-man in the curse of procrastination. one more day!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here