Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)

[Hutch]

I just thumbed back through this thread....

A lot of funny things in retrospect.  Some people were wrong a lot... and some people nailed a lot of things.  Some of our predictions were hilarious.

Wayyyy back on Page 1, I speculated (not predicted) that it would be cool if Avengers 2 was about Ultron.

I also was wondering why the hell there was going to be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, so it shows what I know  

[jgsugden]

...
I also was wondering why the hell there was going to be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, so it shows what I know  

Someone just made a really strong argument as to who MCU Peter Quill's father is... in fact, it kind of seems obvious, now.  Just in case it is right...

[Typhon]

Nova Core said that Quill's father is alien, I thought Adam Warlock was made up of human DNA.

[Lantyssa]

They said his father was "Something else".  They had never seen it before.

(Thanks recent bluray release!)

[HaemishM]

That would fit with Quill's mama talking about his father as an angel of light.

[jgsugden]

So I guess the spoiler thing was a waste of time...

[HaemishM]

Fuck it. It's not really much of a spoiler - maybe we need a "Wild Ass Geek Speculation" tag. 

[Hutch]

Spoilers are spoiled in the thread title.

[Threash]

They said his father was "Something else".  They had never seen it before.

(Thanks recent bluray release!)

No they said they had not seen it in a very long time.

[Tannhauser]

What about Blackbolt?  I'm not up on Marvel's cosmic entities but that would tie him to the Inhumans instead of introducing a new celestial being or whatever.  Plus the Inhumans have a base on the moon. 

Or maybe Captain Atlas?  He runs in the same circles as the Kree and Ronan, is Kree and is planning a new enhanced race with Minerva.  Maybe Peter's mom was a trial run?

Or maybe Starhawk?  He/she has a strong connection to the Guardians of the Galaxy.  But he/she had kids of their own so he/she doesn't fit that neatly into the MCU.

Of the three I'd say Starhawk.  I think he/she would be the most interesting of my three nominees.  Starhawk the dad of Starlord.  Kind of cool.

[sickrubik]

...
I also was wondering why the hell there was going to be a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, so it shows what I know  

Someone just made a really strong argument as to who MCU Peter Quill's father is... in fact, it kind of seems obvious, now.  Just in case it is right...

Also, as a reminder:

[Lakov_Sanite]

[sickrubik]

Nobody actually claimed it was a new argument. Also, directors say a lot of things.

[jgsugden]

... Also, directors say a lot of things.

To lack of wit: http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-2-interview-marc-webb/

[Lakov_Sanite]

Let us never again compare a spider man director with James Gunn please.

Some directors have a good handle on their projects, especially when they also write the scripts.  Maybe that's not always the case but in this instance, if Gunn says something is so, I'm inclined to believe him.

[HaemishM]

James Gunn has definitely earned a bit of respect that other directors of super-hero movies have not.

[SurfD]

What about Blackbolt?  I'm not up on Marvel's cosmic entities but that would tie him to the Inhumans instead of introducing a new celestial being or whatever.  Plus the Inhumans have a base on the moon.

Blackbolt wouldnt really make much sense, since an Earthbound being would have absolutely no reason to phone halfway across the galaxy to contract the ravagers to fetch his kid from a mere couple thousand kilometers away on the same planet.  That and the whole problem of how would he talk to peter's mom without vapourizing her.

Besides, from what I understand, they have no need to use Guardians to tie into Inhumans, as they are doing a huge chunk of that in the Agents of Shield TV series.

[jgsugden]

Spidey may be headed for the MCU with a recast and reboot.  CBM has missed on some of their stories, but there is independent rumors backing this one...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=112646

The sources are a bit shadowy and the rights/sharing issues seem a bit wonky (Spidey can't have a big enough role to be worth 25% production in Civil War... not at this late date), but I do think this is the ballpark where this ends up:

Spidey effectively joins the MCU as part of a reboot, Marvel gets a say in director/writer/casting but Sony retains creative control of the solo flicks, Sony and Marvel split bills (and revenue) for any movies in which Spidey appears, and Sony gets the benefit of the House of M(ouse) to promote, show and profit on any solo Spidey movies.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Even if everything leaked is true that is all still a part of a negotiation which is not even remotely close to what may or may not be agreed upon. 

There has been no doubt Marvel has been wanting spidey back and were likely in talks with sony but this article just shows us what those talks were about.  It doesn't say any of those terms were concrete and it seems like those are all sony's terms/counteroffers. 

In short it's interesting stuff but insubstantial right now.

[jgsugden]

Note my reference to the other sources... I'm not saying it is a lock, but I consider it more likely than not that the deal has been reached and will be announced in the next 2 months.

[Khaldun]

I really am fascinated that folks who have been 100% wrong in every guess just keep on coming. I know I'm only batting at best 50% but...really, that's the point. When you've been wrong at what's plausible, possible and likely often enough, at some point you just sit back, grab some popcorn and see what's coming next.

[jgsugden]

You seem to be under the impression I have been 100% wrong.  You seem to have very selective memory.  I'm not going to go back through this thread (and the MAoS threads) again, but I just mentioned that I'd gotten a kick out of doing it recently to see where we were on and off... and I was pretty darn ahead of the curve, even when people claimed I was an idiot for thinking we'd see Civil War or Inhumans anytime soon.

[Fordel]

Now I got curious and checked my own posts in the thread. I made only one actual prediction, that any Captain Marvel we will see in the MCU will be Carol Danvers.

Move over Nostradamus, there is a new sheriff in town. 

[eldaec]

Regardless of whether true or not, I think the spiderman/mcu  deal described would be an awful plan for both sides.

I don't see Disney making any more money from it, and it will create a stronger fan desire for Sony to get the fuck out of Spiderman, while triggering an enormous management headache all around.

Can imagine both sides continuing to circle around this just in case one company agrees to something foolish. But this deal only works if Sony think they've burnt the franchise out and want to cut losses, or when Disney has run the MCU off the rails are willing to let Sony throw them a hail Mary.

Above all, I really struggle to imagine the Rat allowing anyone to else to have any from of creative control over a project impacting their IP.

[Tannhauser]

Marvel's in a good position, they want Spidey not need him.  Sony knows that Spidey in the MCU would make bank.  They just want a big piece of that bank.  I don't even mind if they keep Garfield, he's a good kid and that would make the two ASM's part of the MCU. 

If I were Sony, I'd not sell Spidey, I'd lease him out per movie to Marvel.  Then after his rapturous appearance in Cap 3 or whatever, Sony makes a new ASM and rides Marvel's coattails to money hats.

Honestly at this point it's up to lawyers and accountants. 

[eldaec]

The alternative to a deal for Sony is to realise they are more than capable of making bankable movies with an iconic character which will benefit from the existence of the MCU even if they do not cross over.

ASM2 took over $ 200M. About the same as Thor 2 or CA1. More than Thor1.

 Amazing Spiderman already makes more money than all but the best performing MCU films, despite being an entirely phoned in production. The first 3 Spiderman films took more money than any marvel film except Avengers and IM3.

[Khaldun]

You seem to be under the impression I have been 100% wrong.  You seem to have very selective memory.  I'm not going to go back through this thread (and the MAoS threads) again, but I just mentioned that I'd gotten a kick out of doing it recently to see where we were on and off... and I was pretty darn ahead of the curve, even when people claimed I was an idiot for thinking we'd see Civil War or Inhumans anytime soon.

Wasn't thinking of you, actually. That's the problem with subtweeting, I guess.

[Tannhauser]

The alternative to a deal for Sony is to realise they are more than capable of making bankable movies with an iconic character which will benefit from the existence of the MCU even if they do not cross over.

ASM2 took over $ 200M. About the same as Thor 2 or CA1. More than Thor1.

 Amazing Spiderman already makes more money than all but the best performing MCU films, despite being an entirely phoned in production. The first 3 Spiderman films took more money than any marvel film except Avengers and IM3.

Yes they realize that.  That's their current strategy.

[sickrubik]

The stuff that leaked detailed the discussions on a deal. One that fell through. There's a meeting set for sometime in January to discuss thing further, but currently a Sony/Disney deal is basically dead.

[Velorath]

The alternative to a deal for Sony is to realise they are more than capable of making bankable movies with an iconic character which will benefit from the existence of the MCU even if they do not cross over.

ASM2 took over $ 200M. About the same as Thor 2 or CA1. More than Thor1.

 Amazing Spiderman already makes more money than all but the best performing MCU films, despite being an entirely phoned in production. The first 3 Spiderman films took more money than any marvel film except Avengers and IM3.

The box office numbers for Spider-man are on a downward trend though, and that's despite the fact that the Amazing Spider-man movies had the benefit of 3D upcharges. Every movie has made less than the one before it and if that trend continues you're potentially looking at the mid to upper $100 million range for the next one. The budget for the first ASM is reported to be $230 million. That's $60 million more than Guardians of the Galaxy or Captain America 2. The only thing that's saving the ASM movies is the foreign market.

According to a Deadline.com article prior to ASM2's release:

ASM2’s production budget is said to be around $255M, with about $180M to $190M spent on marketing. With that said, the success of its global web of grosses from international territories are crucial. With so much riding on this one picture – the outlay investment is so high – Spider-Man 2 is the kind of picture that needs to do higher than the first, which made $752.2M worldwide and about 65% of its gross coming from international markets. At the $750M mark, Sony stands to make about 20% return on the movie so they will not lose money but not considered a big success. What would be considered successful is a worldwide gross in the $850M to $900M range. And above that number is where they ideally would like to be all in … and who wouldn’t, right? So between the domestic and international markets, those are the numbers they gotta pull off.

Given that they did in fact end up right around $750 million, ASM2 was not the level of success Sony was looking for, and it stands to reason that future entries are only going to do worse.

[UnSub]

The stuff that leaked detailed the discussions on a deal. One that fell through. There's a meeting set for sometime in January to discuss thing further, but currently a Sony/Disney deal is basically dead.

It's not surprising that Sony and Disney talked about it, but as the saying goes, no-one in Hollywood ever got fired for saying, "No".

ASM 2 didn't so as well as expected, but it still did okay. According to Box Office Mojo, it did better in foreign markets than the US market.

Also, off two data points, I don't think it's fair to say that the next ASM will automatically do worse. The biggest problem with ASM 2 is that it tried to pack too much in - a new director could potentially fix that.

[Velorath]

I consider it five points of data. You've got five Spider-man movies released by Sony in a 12 year period. I don't think rebooting the franchise erases the relevance of the other three points of data.

And yes, they did better in the foreign market. That's increasingly becoming the rule rather than the exception of every major movie release. Even movies like Battleship, John Carter, and Prince of Persia make a good chunk of money overseas. If you look at how the foreign box office has increased for a lot of franchise over the last several years, ASM's foreign numbers aren't particularly impressive and are actually down from Spider-man 3's numbers in 2007.

If you go with the numbers that say that ASM2 cost around $250 million to make, and then look at the marketing around it, and then you look at GOTG which brought in more money with less cost on characters nobody recognized, you really have to wonder how much power Spider-man has as a brand. Is that the best return Sony can get on investing a quarter of a billion dollars? It really doesn't sound like it.

Beyond that, creatively they've hit a crossroads. Could they reboot the series a second time already? If they keep going with ASM are they going to be hurt by having killed off Emma Stone in the last movie? She was one of the few bright parts of the series. Do they have the rights to so few characters that the Sinister Six was the best idea they could come up with to start building a shared universe of franchises?

There were also a fuckton more problems with ASM2 than trying to cram too much in but I'm sure I've discussed them somewhere else on here.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Much as Disney/Marvel would like spiderman back into the fold, crazy deals like the one outlined above are just not worth it.  As mentioned before, when you make the number one movie of the year guardians of the galaxy, you just don't need spiderman.

Would they love to get spidey back? Absolutely.  Are they willing to pay huge sums of cash? Not likely.

[Malakili]

If you go with the numbers that say that ASM2 cost around $250 million to make, and then look at the marketing around it, and then you look at GOTG which brought in more money with less cost on characters nobody recognized, you really have to wonder how much power Spider-man has as a brand. Is that the best return Sony can get on investing a quarter of a billion dollars? It really doesn't sound like it.

If they made a Spider-Man movie that was as good as Guardians of the Galaxy they would print money.  It isn't a brand issue, it's just that the movies have been garbage.

[Lantyssa]

Yeah, but making a good movie with second- and third-string characters means the writers try to make something more interesting than regurgitating an origin story that everyone already knows.