Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
RE: Marvel's proposed 70-30 sharing:
...Hey, Sony?
You realize that YOU get to be the one with more money, right?
Jesus H. Christ, Sony is looking pettier and more immature by the minute, aren't they?!
Just gives me more reason to stick with Marvel!
![]()
But the new deal is laid out so that Sony STILL gets to be the one with more money!
Marvel made a billion dollar movie and made Mysterio a seriously credible, pee-in-pants-inducing, evil villain who gets the drop on Spidey more than once!
It's looking more and more fair for Marvel to feel like they earned some extra loot.
Sony's idiocy is so huge now, that I'm hearing this in my head:
Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Aug 22nd 2019 at 12:29:09 PM
I wouldn't call it unreasonable, just potentially overconfident. Remember, it's not that they're planning to stop making Spider-Man movies; they're just planning to make their own without Marvel Studios' assistance. If the money brought in from their independently made Spider-Man movies is at least 70% of what Marvel Studios' Spider-Man movies bring in, then doing that is the only rational move for them.
The question is whether they can actually manage to do 70% as well as the films Marvel Studios would make.
Agree with the overconfidence, they in some way think they can just continue with the movies as is that everybody will just go along and the resulting movie will still be a billion dollar block buster.
Disney/Marvel has something that Sony does not, Public Confidence, most people see that Red and While "Marvel Studios" logo and KNOW they will be seeing a quality film that is worth the ticket price, we will be seeing characters and locations they have spent the last 10 years building and developing. A Movie people will go out of their way to see opening weekend if possible.
Sony doesn't have that, they see the Sony Pictures Logo and feel that they are going to roll the dice that they would rather wait a week or so past opening to verify with friends if its worth it, they remember the failures of previous spider films and wonder if they will get burned again here.
Yes. How dare she be critical of rampant unchecked monopoly-building. The fact that some are getting this mad at her over frickin' Spider-Man of all things is amusing.
Look, I've got no love for the lady either, but the people getting hyper defensive of the goddamn Disney corporation is more than a little concerning.
Edited by comicwriter on Aug 22nd 2019 at 10:23:56 AM
Venom creator Todd McFarlane is pretty uncertain about the whole thing.
Though it sounds like he's going on outdated info since Marvel's supposed 10% was actually 5% and the proposed 50% is actually 30%.
Okay, those are some new numbers. Let's see what that would look like if Far From Home had been made under Disney's proposed new deal, under the "No Longer a Billion-Dollar Movie" formula (also known as basic math).
Under the new deal, Sony would take in $777,250,348.00 from a Far From Home-equivalent Spider-Man film. On the Spider-charts, this beats out the box office take for both of the Amazing Spider-films, but falls just short of the (somehow, because box office numbers are weird) worst-performing Raimi film, Spider-Man 2.
Also falls pretty far short of Sony's recent in-house Spider-film, Venom, which made $856m.
That being said, I don't actually know who foots the costs for the movies, Sony or Marvel. I've heard people say both. So I don't want to make assumptions here. But assuming it's Marvel, the 70-30 split doesn't seem so bad. If we adjust the box office totals by deducting their production costs EXCEPT the MCU Spider-films but only apportion 70% of those to Sony, then Sony's numbers look like this:
- Spider-Man: Far From Home $777m
- Venom: $756m
- Spider-Man: $683m
- Spider-Man 3: $633m
- Spider-Man: Homecoming: $616m
- Spider-Man 2: $584m
- Amazing Spider-Man: $528m
- Amazing Spider-Man 2: $509m (conservative estimate; budget is somewhere between $200-300m)
That changes the picture rather substantially.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.So basically, the deal being offered does benefit Sony, but they could still make more on their own, hence why they went with that.
So, are we totally hating Sony now, or still giving Disney shit on principle?
All I can say is:
<Points at Disney and Sony>
FIX THIS. NOW.
One Strip! One Strip!It occurs to me that those numbers I provided didn't adjust for inflation. Boxofficemojo doesn't provided adjusted totals for Worldwide sales, so let's do some math. We can calculate an inflation percentage based off the domestic and domestic (adjusted) tables, then apply that percentage to worldwide take.
Adding this to the existing parameters (70% MCU films, deduct production cost from non-MCU films), we get these results:
- Spider-Man: $1.135b
- Spider-Man 2: $937m
- Spider-Man 3: $909m
- Spider-Man: Far From Home: $777m
- Venom: $756m
- Amazing Spider-Man: $648m
- Spider-Man: Homecoming: $622m
- Amazing Spider-Man 2: $567m (conservative estimate)
If Venom's numbers seem weirdly high in these tables, I should note that Venom only had a $100m production. The Spider-films average around $200-230m. So when we deduct production costs, that hits the Spidey movies more than it does Venom.
It's also worth noting that Sony's been trying to recapture the magic that was Raimi's first Spider-Man pretty much since the first reboot, and this effort is tragically misguided. Ultimately, Spider-Man 1 performed as well as it did not just 'cause it was a cool superhero movie, but because of timing and marketing.
Spider-Man 1 came out in May of 2002, when the nation was still freaked out by the events of 9/11. It was poised as an AMERICA F*CK YEAH movie right when a terrified country really needed that kind of reassurance. That kind of lightning doesn't strike twice, and it's a testament to what Marvel's done with the character that they were able to recapture those kind of sales figures without the most famous terrorist attack in national history motivating filmgoers.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 22nd 2019 at 11:49:50 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
