Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)

[Velorath]

If Spider-man were executed as well as IM was, it would dwarf the ASM and IM III numbers. The character is more popular than IM is. In the hands of a good caretaker,  it would rival or exceed Avengers.... not be less than half the box office. That is why it would make sense to license it back to the people that can cross promote it.

The first couple Spider-man movies were well received and taking inflation and 3D upcharges into account they probably would have brought in somewhere between IM3 and Avengers. Those previous Spider-man movies were also done by Sony, who did not need Marvel's help to successfully make and market a high grossing movie franchise. To an extent, Marvel's current success only exists because Sony and Fox helped pave the way with Spider-man and X-men movies that did really fucking well at the box office. Unless Marvel is going to pay half a billion per movie in licensing fees to license Spider-man back from Sony, why the fuck would Sony ever want  to let go of the franchise until they manage to crater it completely somehow?

[Maven]

If Spider-man were executed as well as IM was, it would dwarf the ASM and IM III numbers. The character is more popular than IM is. In the hands of a good caretaker,  it would rival or exceed Avengers.... not be less than half the box office. That is why it would make sense to license it back to the people that can cross promote it.

Not to ignore Haemish's point, but I wanted to add: I don't know if Spider-Man's personality and character, translated to the real world through an actor, has as much appeal as Iron Man's. We're talking a charismatic, love-to-hate, worldly "Genius, Playboy, Billionaire, Philanthropist" fighting terrorism and governments in the name of individualism (and Downey *sold* that character to the audience from Day 1) versus a struggling American teenager dealing with urban issues who just can't seem to get a break.

Comic Books reach a limited audience (appeals to American youth) which I believe would skew the perception of character popularity. The movie format reaches a far broader demographic of people in all countries and situations. I would argue Iron Man and what's possible with his characters and his stories is the more appealing character when you take everyone into consideration and not just comic book fans. The movie's box office is a correlation.

Finally: I'm not certain you understand the business realities behind the movies when you talk about licensing.

[jgsugden]

Haemish: There are a few things that influence box office.  Hype/popularity is one.  Quality is another.  The biggest hits tend to have both. 

Velorath: There were hard critics of the first SM trilogy, and the current series, from amongst comic fans and traditional fans of the character from other media.  IM was widely well received by fans, despite not being entirely true to the comic version of the character. 

In the end, it is simple math.  If Marvel, with their cross-licensing abilities and proven record with their own characters, can likely generate more income and better franchise building by controlling the character than Sony can do on their own, it all comes down to figuring out how to split that surplus.  Sony will demand to have net revenues in excess of what they think they could do on their own.  Marvel gets the rest.  It all comes down to negotiation.

Maven: Your argument is that most people will have an easier time relating to a genius, playboy, billionaire, philanthropist than a struggling American teenager that can't catch a break?  SM is the everyman character.  IM is the fantasy.  Historically, in every form of media, the track record of the popularity of the SM proves my point.  Heck, look at how they characterized the start of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - IM, Thor, Cap - even Hulk were all considered B-team characters before the movies.  SM and X-men were the golden geese.  IM's popularity sored only after Marvel knocked it out of the park. 

I'm not saying the comic book fans define the audience for these movies.  The media does.  However, if you look at the media (CNN -> AICN -> Colbert), they base their definition on the history of the characters.... in comics.  The comics are the nexus.

In the end, it is simple t me: 1.) Marvel/Disney has proven that it does a better job with the Marvel characters than any other studio.  2.) Quality is a major factor in revenue (as is the ability to cross promote).  3.) SM, as the most popular Marvel character, is the one with the most potential for revenue. 

That all boils down to a pretty simple picture.

[Maven]

Maven: Your argument is that most people will have an easier time relating to a genius, playboy, billionaire, philanthropist than a struggling American teenager that can't catch a break?  SM is the everyman character.  IM is the fantasy.

No, my argument is that more people want the fantasy and to live through it in times of hardship and uncertainty (such as we're experiencing) than to be reminded of their realities. We consume entertainment to escape. Super hero films are the most popular and profitable movie format currently as a TREND -- it won't always be like this. Gifted but flawed NON-everymen, fighting epic scale battles. Movie Iron Man is the kind of person people want to get a drink with, have at your party (even if he hogs all the attention). You want to see him tackle macro issues far beyond everyday perception with cool tech or go toe-to-toe in an argument with a trickster god because he's just that damn smart. Movie Iron Man's best scenes were when he was out of costume.

Spider-Man is a more grounded character, for sure. It also doesn't mean that there aren't people that exist who want to read about their issues and to live vicariously in that character.

Focusing *explicitly* on a comic audience, yes, Spider-Man is the more popular character and likely to generate more revenue -- in comic books. In the movie world, comic popularity is something to consider for green-lighting, but isn't the sole indicator of revenue potential.

Also, a question: why would a company hand over control of a prized character (sure of its revenue potential) to a competitor when they can make movies with it on their own?

Edit: polished argument. Let me simplify this:

1. Comic books have an inherently limited audience (primarily American youth).
2. Movies have a much broader audience than comic books that includes most everyone.
3. Youth audiences like characters whose struggle they can relate to. (Parents, right? Gosh, it's tough to balance all of life's demands.) They do not have as much exposure to real world issues.
4. Older audiences (everyone else) who have grown past this can understand when larger issues, such as corporate warfare, government and politics, and philosophic exploration, are the dominant theme of the work.
5. Youth audience responds to cool, rebellious personalities.
6. Older audience responds to charismatic, saavy personalities.
7. Spider-Man and what his stories are about cater to a youth demographic. His character is used to explore local issues in a singular setting (New York)
8. Iron Man and what his stories are about cater to an older demographic. His character is used to explore larger issues across the world. (World is his playground)
Conclusion: The movie revenue potential of Iron Man is greater than Spider Man.

Edit: added character personality and its indicators on audience appeal.

[Velorath]

Velorath: There were hard critics of the first SM trilogy, and the current series, from amongst comic fans and traditional fans of the character from other media.  IM was widely well received by fans, despite not being entirely true to the comic version of the character. 

In the end, it is simple math.  If Marvel, with their cross-licensing abilities and proven record with their own characters, can likely generate more income and better franchise building by controlling the character than Sony can do on their own, it all comes down to figuring out how to split that surplus.  Sony will demand to have net revenues in excess of what they think they could do on their own.  Marvel gets the rest.  It all comes down to negotiation.

The first two Spider-man movies were incredibly well received with rotten tomatoes scores of 89% and 94% respectively. Domestic gross for Spider-man adjusted for inflation is $553 million and for Spider-man 2 $478 million putting them above every Marvel movie except for Avengers, and Spider-man 1 is only $40 million off from Dark Knight. Even without adjusting for inflation or taking 3D into account the first Spider-man trilogy are 3 of the top 5 grossing movies based on Marvel comics.  ASM is #8 although Cap 2 might catch up to it, and taking worldwide numbers into account, it beats all the Marvel studios movies except for Avengers and Iron Man 3.

The simple math is that each Spider-man movie Sony has made has grossed between $700-800 million worldwide. There is no deal there that makes sense for either Sony or Marvel. Marvel would have to pay Sony close to those numbers for a deal to make sense to Sony, which is a massive risk for them to take. If the movie doesn't do well, they'd have to pay a shit ton of money to Sony anyway for the licensing. Even if Marvel were to make a movie that was as big a success as Avengers, Sony would walk away with half the money leaving Marvel with about as much as they've made off Cap 2. It's simple math but it looks like you didn't do any of it. Sony is still making big money off of Spider-man, and Marvel is making big money off all the characters they didn't license out.

Anyway, if Marvel had the Spider-man (and even the X-men) franchises back, how many Ant-man of Guardians of the Galaxy movies do you think we'd be getting?

[Maven]

Here: http://ifanboy.com/articles/the-all-time-comic-book-movie-box-office-ranking-list/

What I noticed:
- Spider Man's numbers are strong, with the reboot much lower down. The first trilogy started with and maintained strength compared to Iron Man's box office.
- Iron Man started low as the audience had to be introduced to the character (argument for more popularity of Spider-Man). He's now at much higher popularity and familiarity, but it took repeated performances by Robert Downey and the support of the MCU to get there. IM3 featured more Downey as Stark time, less superheroics.

So there's merit in that if the current Amazing Spider-Man run is "executed well", it could beat Iron Man 3. At this point it feels like we're arguing the difference of 50 or 100 million dollars on two properties that both have huge revenue potential.

Taking what I wrote earlier into consideration, I additionally don't think the Spider-Man has as much revenue potential as Iron Man because Spider-Man doesn't have the *direct* support of other Marvel films like Iron Man had (it has passive support from successful comic book / Marvel films) ... but that was your point, wasn't it? If it was brought into the fold and integrated, it would have much higher revenue potential.

Downey as Stark is running out of steam -- a reboot is likely after Avengers 2 when Marvel Studios enters the next phase and he gets too old for the role. IM's revenue potential is more tied up in Downey than Stark.

Yeah, jgsugden, you're right about which character is more popular, but your views on the business side undermine your other points. The studio that can execute a better film is not relevant to which studio gets to make the film. That's business's call.

[jgsugden]

....
Anyway, if Marvel had the Spider-man (and even the X-men) franchises back, how many Ant-man of Guardians of the Galaxy movies do you think we'd be getting?

Just as many, if not more.  Spider-man and X-men characters are already factored into the Marvel release strategy right now.... and now they have to factor in excess Sinister 6, Venom, Jubilee, and Wolverine's 8th cousin on his feral grandmother's side movies.

Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.  The biological web shooters, McGuire's insecure Spider-man (Parker insecure?  Yes.  Spider-man?  No), and the lack of the Gwen character ...  The character has a huge following and the movies were good (not great).  If you put the current SM in those movies, you might have had great movies, even.  Assuming they went an entirely different direction with SM III...

Maven said

The studio that can execute a better film is not relevant to which studio gets to make the film. That's business's call.

Yes - but the best business call is the one that generates the most net revenue - and the most net revenue can be generated by Marvel making the films.  The only question is whether they can reach an agreement on compensation that would get the rights back.

Regardless, given Sony's plans, and the initial box office numbers of this film, it doesn't look like that is going to have a chance to happen soon.  Maybe the rights can be licensed back around 2018 or 2021.  Mayybe.

[Maven]

Yes - but the best business call is the one that generates the most net revenue - and the most net revenue can be generated by Marvel making the films.  The only question is whether they can reach an agreement on compensation that would get the rights back.

Denying your competition revenue and market share is also smart business.

Let's go from your premise that, of all the studios, Marvel Studios can make the highest-grossing Spider-Man film, which is a reasonable conclusion from an unsupported analysis. I'm sure you will also agree with me that Marvel wants that property back, now that is has its own film studio.

How is it relevant who can make the highest-grossing film? Why would Sony hand the rights back over? They aren't swimming in bankable, low risk intellectual properties. Sony (and everyone else on the planet) knows that Marvel wants the rights back. That makes the asking price that much higher to get it -- Sony's possession is to its own advantage and Marvel's detriment.

Edit: I'm arguing on Sony's behalf. But I failed to integrate why you're arguing this case in the first place (see below)

[Maven]

You want Marvel to have the rights back to make a better quality Spider-Man film -- that's your desire -- but it feels like we're warping what's realistic to create a scenario where that's going to happen.

[HaemishM]

Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.

Again, this has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

[Merusk]

Facts: bane of the visionary.  Why do you hate vision. 

[Ironwood]

He wasn't a very good Avenger.

 

[Speedy Cerviche]

Right now SM is making decent money for Sony but there's a lot of weight on its shoulders. As the WSJ article mentions, Sony is banking HARD on it, not just this one, but they have 2 sequels planned, and 3 spin offs so this is a very critical film. Anyway, the opening weekend had a solid gross at 92$ million, we'll see what kind of legs it has.

[jgsugden]

Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.

Again, this has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

I'm not sure what you find unrealistic - that a more broadly liked movie tends to generate more money than similar movies that are not so well liked, or that people were critical of biological web shooters, etc....  Either way, we clearly disagree.

[eldaec]

Yes, SM series I made a lot of money - but had a lot of critics, too.  If they'd nailed a few points better and had wider acceptance, they could have been higher numbers.

Again, this has absolutely no factual basis in reality.

It's best not to reply when he says things like that.

I think that sort of nonsense is driven by hugely inflated view of the value and quality of the comic book IP that he likes, as opposed to the value of 'half way decent filmmakers doing a thing'.

[UnSub]

SM is the everyman character. 

SM is the everyman character with awesome superpowers who married a supermodel.

Even the movie versions have the women just falling over themselves to be with him.

[jgsugden]

SM is the everyman character. 

SM is the everyman character with awesome superpowers who married a supermodel.

Even the movie versions have the women just falling over themselves to be with him.

The everyman character usually rises up to get things the everyman reading/watching the story can't really get.  That is the nature of the everyman story - going from zero to hero.

[Maven]

No... that's not it at all. The nature of an everyman hero is resolving problems using only his wits and the resources available to him that anyone around him would have access to. The thing that distinguishes him is that he isn't distinguished in some way, unlike a Hero's Journey prototype who has some special ability that sets them apart. I'm thinking roles as played by Harrison Ford and John McClaine pre-contemporary Die Hard.

Spider-Man is *not* an everyman hero. His super powers alone eliminate him from that classification. He's classified as a street-level hero. He helps the little guy when he isn't put on a team like the Avengers.

Now, he DOES deal with balancing everyday issues a teenager / young adult might deal with, such as his relationships, lack of money, student obligations, etc.

[jgsugden]

You are absolutely technically correct.  No Super Hero is going to be a true everyman in the classic literature sense.  The presence of Superpowers is pretty much a nix to the idea of the true everyman.  There are a few everymen in comics (Rick Jones), but no heroes.

However, BEFORE Peter was biten, he was the everyman.  After being biten, as you point out, he continues to deal with the problems of everyday life.  The audience is intended to relate to his problems.  He is intended to be the Superhero version of the everyman.  You're intended to think, "If I had Superpowers, my life could be like his..."

My point was: This is different than Tony Stark.  The authors of Iron Man did not generally think the audience was going to relate to a rich tech genius that was a major cog in the military industrial machine.  He was intended to be a foreign character - it was pretty much the entire point of Iron Man.  Remember who was reading comics in the 60s and 70s and ask yourself what they thought of rich people that built weapons.  It wasn't until they started to break the character down in Demon in a Bottle that they tried to make his life relatable to the readers - and even then it was mostly envisioned that people reading would be familiar with his trials from seeing others, rather than themselves, going through similar issues.  Now, they've embraced a duality to them - you're supposed to despise his tendency to take control and impose his will while wishing you had the good things in his life.  With Stark, you're intended to think, "If I could choose to be a hero, I'd want to have his life, but I'd do it better."

Very different ways to relate to the character.

[Fordel]

Everyman super genius.

[Maven]

I think you're taking advantage of shifting definitions based on your earlier ambiguity of meaning. I think we both agree Peter deals with everyday problems in his personal life, and I think we'll both agree on Spider-Man's popularity with audiences. The problems Peter faces in and out of costume are different though are often intertwined for more drama. Calling him an "Everyman Hero" is a bit messy from my perspective.

I'm not really talking about Iron Man anymore -- I agree with you that Spider-Man is closer to the common person, and that Stark's current popularity is a direct result of the Iron Man movies and not his comic book incarnation.

[Evildrider]

Well Edgar Wright has stepped down from directing Ant-Man.  Not sure what to think about that.  I love Wrights work but I could see where he may have a problem sticking to whatever style and tone that Marvel wants for the film.  I bet if the movie was a stand alone and not hooked into the MCU there probably wouldn't have been any issues.  The cast is still solid though.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Well Edgar Wright has stepped down from directing Ant-Man.  Not sure what to think about that.  I love Wrights work but I could see where he may have a problem sticking to whatever style and tone that Marvel wants for the film.  I bet if the movie was a stand alone and not hooked into the MCU there probably wouldn't have been any issues.  The cast is still solid though.

This is bad for two reasons: The first being that Wright is a great director who really fought for this movie and the second is that it means marvel isn't going to take any chances in tone and style of their films beyond ant man such as dr strange.

[jgsugden]

This is a bit of a weird duck situation.  Wright wrote the film ~ 2006 when the MCU was just taking shape.  The story has been forced to evolve as the MCU evolved.  I'd have loved to see Wright direct this film, but I'm going to wait to see the new path before I get too worried.

I would be surprised if this did not result in a delay of the release date, though.

[Margalis]

I find it hard to care given that most of his movies are bad.

I also have trouble seeing it as trouble until I know more about why it happened. Remember the original director of Thor 2 was similarly fired / let go for "creative differences." In general Marvel takes the view that individual directors and actors aren't as important as the properties - a view I think is wise.

It seems silly to me to say this indicates that Marvel won't deviate in tone and style when Guardians is about to come out. Scott Pilgrim is stylistically out there but the rest of Wright's movies aren't, and tonally they aren't any weirder than James Gunn stuff.

[Evildrider]

According to Latin Review,  A few weeks ago Marvel took Wright's script and had some in house writer's work on it.  When it came back Wright decided he didn't like it and walked away from the project. 

This also goes along with rumors that the project was in production limbo because of Wright taking too much time to get things going.

Marvel has had nothing but good relations with directors from past movies, so this is probably less of a "DOOM!" situation then it looks like.

[jgsugden]

Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

[Evildrider]

Goddard leaving has more to do with him doing The Sinister Six then anything.

[SurfD]

Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

What was the Whedon tweet?  cant just cliffhanger us with that bit of news.

[UnSub]

Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

The Marvel Studios has a history of treating its film talent just as well as it has treated its comic talent: at best with indifference, at worst with contempt. Marvel Studios underpaid (or did their best to underpay) directors and actors on the logic that "Who really cares who the actor is; people will come to see our IP".

To date, that worked out fine. The Marvel Studios movies have been immensely successful, creating great profile for the actors who signed up to multi-film deals. For actors who wanted that boost, or wanted the guarantee of regular blockbuster work that would turn into better paying work elsewhere, it was an acceptable deal.

Directors are easier to replace - if one wouldn't play ball, it was easy enough to find another who would.

However, now that Marvel Studios has been so successful, it's much harder for them to try to lowball pay and it also appears that they are less and less likely to give directors much control over their films.

If you want links about some of this, I wrote a blog entry in 2010 before a lot of the Marvel films came out; also before "The Avengers" was such a massive hit.

[Velorath]

Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

The Marvel Studios has a history of treating its film talent just as well as it has treated its comic talent: at best with indifference, at worst with contempt. Marvel Studios underpaid (or did their best to underpay) directors and actors on the logic that "Who really cares who the actor is; people will come to see our IP".

To date, that worked out fine. The Marvel Studios movies have been immensely successful, creating great profile for the actors who signed up to multi-film deals. For actors who wanted that boost, or wanted the guarantee of regular blockbuster work that would turn into better paying work elsewhere, it was an acceptable deal.

Directors are easier to replace - if one wouldn't play ball, it was easy enough to find another who would.

However, now that Marvel Studios has been so successful, it's much harder for them to try to lowball pay and it also appears that they are less and less likely to give directors much control over their films.

If you want links about some of this, I wrote a blog entry in 2010 before a lot of the Marvel films came out; also before "The Avengers" was such a massive hit.

That all somewhat conveniently skips over the fact that RDJ has been one of, if not the highest paid actor in recent years thanks mainly to playing Iron Man. Also, in regards to your blog post, replacing Terrence Howard and Edward Norton were both good calls. I'm also perfectly ok with replacing Goddard with Steven S. DeKnight on Daredevil. If Goddard wants to go focus on an unnecessary spin-off of an unnecessary reboot I guess we'll see what he can accomplish when he's not sucking at Whedon or Abrams' teats.

As far as the Wright thing goes, it's a shame since I really enjoy his stuff. That said, after 8 years of talk about this movie I not entirely surprised that ultimately things didn't work out.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

The Marvel Studios has a history of treating its film talent just as well as it has treated its comic talent: at best with indifference, at worst with contempt. Marvel Studios underpaid (or did their best to underpay) directors and actors on the logic that "Who really cares who the actor is; people will come to see our IP".

To date, that worked out fine. The Marvel Studios movies have been immensely successful, creating great profile for the actors who signed up to multi-film deals. For actors who wanted that boost, or wanted the guarantee of regular blockbuster work that would turn into better paying work elsewhere, it was an acceptable deal.

Directors are easier to replace - if one wouldn't play ball, it was easy enough to find another who would.

However, now that Marvel Studios has been so successful, it's much harder for them to try to lowball pay and it also appears that they are less and less likely to give directors much control over their films.

If you want links about some of this, I wrote a blog entry in 2010 before a lot of the Marvel films came out; also before "The Avengers" was such a massive hit.

That all somewhat conveniently skips over the fact that RDJ has been one of, if not the highest paid actor in recent years thanks mainly to playing Iron Man. Also, in regards to your blog post, replacing Terrence Howard and Edward Norton were both good calls. I'm also perfectly ok with replacing Goddard with Steven S. DeKnight on Daredevil. If Goddard wants to go focus on an unnecessary spin-off of an unnecessary reboot I guess we'll see what he can accomplish when he's not sucking at Whedon or Abrams' teats.

As far as the Wright thing goes, it's a shame since I really enjoy his stuff. That said, after 8 years of talk about this movie I not entirely surprised that ultimately things didn't work out.

RDJ got paid so much because marvel/disney needed him badly, he is the reason they have this movie empire.  They are sorta stuck in a weird place now though, people know marvel movies are big so they are going to expect big paychecks if they are an established actor/director and marvel is going to be reluctant.  Also the bigger name director the more control they will want but the better marvel does the less control they will want to give.  However if they can't secure big names behind their movies, the quality will definitely suffer.

[Evildrider]

Right after I posed the above I saw that Goddard has left Daredevil and Whedon twitting something interesting... That changes my concern level.  If Wright, Goddard and Whedon are all taking positions along these lines, it says something substantial.

What was the Whedon tweet?  cant just cliffhanger us with that bit of news.

It was just a pic of Whedon holding up a cornetto.

[Margalis]

These movies don't need "big name" directors. Few movies do. Look at who is directing blockbusters these days - you have Michael Bay, then a bunch of people you've never heard of. Godzilla is Gareth Edwards. Captain America is the Russo brothers.

What these sorts of movies needs is a professional, competent steward. The Marvel movies with big-name talent behind them have been no better than the others. (I'm thinking specifically of Iron Man 3 and Thor - I couldn't even watch Iron Man 3, first Marvel movie I just turned off) Much of the movies are determined before there is even a script written. That's just the nature of these sorts of films.

If Marvel was aiming for high art then this might be an issue, but Marvel is producing people-pleasing consumer goods.

[jgsugden]

They need good directors and good talent.  Look at all the bad super hero movies.  They just need good ones that can buy into the Marvel vision and bring it to life, like Whedon, rather than ones that need to make their own thing.