Disney-Sony Standoff Ends MCU's Involvement In ‘Spider-Man’

[Polybius]

"Sony doesn't need Disney."

I hear this every time and yet Sony makes the deals with Disney. If the leaked emails are anything, they didn't know how to handle Peter Parker. Amy Pascal is also riding the coattails of Marvel Studios. It's obvious in the interview with Kevin Feige and other interviews/tweets where they claim Venom and other movies are "tangential" to the MCU.

That's not to say Disney isn't greedy, it's fairly obvious it is - look at how many spin offs they're trying to spawn.

[Endus]

You also missed Dick Tracey (1990, $160 million) and Darkman (1990, $48 million). The Phantom existed but was a huge flop (1996, $16 million). There were some FF4, Hulk and Captain America movies in the 90s too (Who knew?!) but they're probably better forgotten.

I'll acknowledge Dick Tracy, but I specifically (and utterly arbitrarily) gave myself a $50 mil revenue benchmark, and Darkman at $48 mil was JUST under that.

Which doesn't mean it wasn't fine, I just didn't want to list the dozens of films and needed a way to arbitrarily trim it down.

[Trifle]

I'll acknowledge Dick Tracy, but I specifically (and utterly arbitrarily) gave myself a $50 mil revenue benchmark, and Darkman at $48 mil was JUST under that.

That's true, I just wanted to acknowledge it because I thought it was kinda cool when I was like 12 years old. I never did see any of the sequels.

[Shadowferal]

I hate sony with a fiery passion dude, they're a horrible company. why the hell would I be a sony fan?

I'm just bored of disney trying to have monopoly on hollywood and somehow spinning it as a good thing, and people actually buying it.

Considering how much shit-tier movies that people thought were "great" I'm convinced that Disney has become "Mojo" and everyone is lapping up "Mojo-vision."
There was a funny youtube critique of how much awful shit "Civil-War" was and it broke it all down logically...and people still thought it was the bestest ever.

[Orange Joe]

You're not wrong, but that isn't really the point that was being made. Were their movies being adapted from obscure comic books? Of course, I mean you even forgot to mention Men in Black. But you listed 10 movies in you're post, 8 comic book movies came out this year alone, 9 came out in 2018. The original quote suggested that if the Toby era Spider man movies came out today, it wouldn't do as well and I'm inclined to agree. Back in 2000, nobody thought movies like X-Men and Spiderman could ever be adapted to the big screen, and therefore made gangbusters. Nowadays? Well, you know what happened to those two franchises.

Which of those he listed was suppose to be obscure?

[shaunika123]

Considering how much shit-tier movies that people thought were "great" I'm convinced that Disney has become "Mojo" and everyone is lapping up "Mojo-vision."
There was a funny youtube critique of how much awful shit "Civil-War" was and it broke it all down logically...and people still thought it was the bestest ever.

you can pick apart any movie.
especially one with superpowers and shit though.

civil war was entertaining, it didnt change the world or anything, but it was a good movie nonetheless.

I Dont think any of the MCU movies count as shit tier, but you're of course free to hate them and have your own opinion.

I think even the worst offenders (like ultron, IM 2 and thor 2) are just "meh"

[Kyphael]

you can pick apart any movie.
especially one with superpowers and shit though.

civil war was entertaining, it didnt change the world or anything, but it was a good movie nonetheless.

I Dont think any of the MCU movies count as shit tier, but you're of course free to hate them and have your own opinion.

I think even the worst offenders (like ultron, IM 2 and thor 2) are just "meh"

Iron Man 2 is definitely shit tier considering how much momentum they had off part 1, presumably the same writers, director, actors, etc., Mickie Rourke, there's no reason why it should have been so bad. And it was pretty bad. By MCU standards bad anyway, of course not Batman & Robin bad so I think I know what you mean.

I don't get the hate Ultron and Dark World get, I really don't, I preferred them over Avengers 1 and Thor 1, but I'm usually in the minority as it pertains to that opinion.

[shaunika123]

Iron Man 2 is definitely shit tier considering how much momentum they had off part 1, presumably the same writers, director, actors, etc., Mickie Rourke, there's no reason why it should have been so bad. And it was pretty bad. By MCU standards bad anyway, of course not Batman & Robin bad so I think I know what you mean.

I don't get the hate Ultron and Dark World get, I really don't, I preferred them over Avengers 1 and Thor 1, but I'm usually in the minority as it pertains to that opinion.

I dont hate either ultron or thor 2
I just dont think they're anything more than "Okay"

ultron is just too stuffed and thor 2 is too forgettable imo

[Kyphael]

I dont hate either ultron or thor 2
I just dont think they're anything more than "Okay"

ultron is just too stuffed and thor 2 is too forgettable imo

Wanda and Pietro's introduction was kind of rushed, and in hindsight, introducing them was a mistake when they can only now use the word "mutants" and all the accompanying lore (Magneto.) I loved everything else about it, even if Ultron was ridiculously nerfed and his plan was a little... stupid. Age of Ultron may have been too ambitious to do as a throw away sequel, but given its scope, I was entertained and satisfied--not blown away, but I enjoyed the story way more than "Loki comes back to Earth with 2-dimensional alien/robot army, wrecks shit." Avengers 1 will always get brownie points for breaking ground, but it does not have too much replay value to me, whereas Age of Ultron, to me has much more replay value because there's a lot more going on. Maybe not executed flawlessly, but as a comic book fan, there's so much more for me to review than the bare bones, straight forward Avengers 1 plot, which, while good because of Loki, the third act felt just like a Transformers movie.

[Moe Szyslak]

Wanda and Pietro's introduction was kind of rushed, and in hindsight, introducing them was a mistake when they can only now use the word "mutants" and all the accompanying lore (Magneto.) I loved everything else about it, even if Ultron was ridiculously nerfed and his plan was a little... stupid. Age of Ultron may have been too ambitious to do as a throw away sequel, but given its scope, I was entertained and satisfied--not blown away, but I enjoyed the story way more than "Loki comes back to Earth with 2-dimensional alien/robot army, wrecks shit." Avengers 1 will always get brownie points for breaking ground, but it does not have too much replay value to me, whereas Age of Ultron, to me has much more replay value because there's a lot more going on. Maybe not executed flawlessly, but as a comic book fan, there's so much more for me to review than the bare bones, straight forward Avengers 1 plot, which, while good because of Loki, the third act felt just like a Transformers movie.

Avengers is the better constructed film. Already the scene change at the introduction of all characters at the beginning of the movie is great. Every character is very elegantly picked up from his solo movies and yet you don't need a previous movie to follow through.
The bar is now even higher, but unlike most other MCU movies (and I really love many of them) you can watch this one over and over again. (Pacing, variety, humor...)

[Agrotera]

I don't get the hate Ultron and Dark World get, I really don't, I preferred them over Avengers 1 and Thor 1, but I'm usually in the minority as it pertains to that opinion.

I sometimes wonder if the reason why the phase 2 films haven't aged terribly is because Marvel course corrected during phase 3. Rather than look back at films like Ultron and Dark World and say "well this is where it all went wrong" we instead maybe look back fondly and think "I can see what they were trying to do". Because I'm with you, Ultron has more replay value for me than Avengers 1 at this point. I can't speak to Thor 2 tho. Its not as terrible as people remember (if you stick this movie in the X-men franchise its probably considered one of the better films) but it def epitomizes the criticisms of the marvel movie.

Which of those he listed was suppose to be obscure?

In regard to brand visibility? I know TMNT was obviously not obscure but the early 90's was spent mining the barrel for anything that could capitalize on the Batman brand (the Phantom, the Shadow, the Rocketeer) and they all pretty much bombed. Im confident that the Crow was pretty obscure, Tank Girl wasn't even from this country and Mystery Men was probably the definition of obscure. And Blade? He was not not obscure, I mean, we are talking about a guy was nothing more than a supporting character so?