RichardLess wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 5:59 pmI’m trying to think when Sony last made a good-great film that they grew & developed in house. The Spider-Man movies are creatively handled by Disney.
We went back and forth over this before, and I maintain it isn't really true. Marvel and Sony equally approved the director and the lead. They both discuss the story, both as a movie and as part of the larger MCU. Sony hires the writers, and the writers work under Sony to create the script, which is then approved by Marvel. Then Sony does all the hard work of actually making the movie, and by all accounts Marvel is not an active participant -- Feige has movies at Marvel to oversee. Sony then sets its own release dates (sometimes against Marvel's own wishes, like when they dropped Far From Home
only a couple of months after Endgame
) and markets the movie themselves. At best, Marvel participates in about 25% of the process.
As someone who always hopes that good work is recognized and appreciated, it really bugs me that Sony, a studio that made two extremely popular and successful Spider-Man
movies in the 2000s (and one unfairly-maligned third entry), two admittedly misguided reboot movies in the 2000s, and three extremely popular and successful Spider-Man
movies in the 2010s (at least one of which we can agree they did completely by themselves), and a critically maligned but very popular spin-off (an 81% audience score on RT) is somehow the studio that needed Marvel to save their Spider-Man
track record. Even if you want to argue about how much Marvel contributed to the two Holland movies, that's three home runs in the all-Sony territory (and for my money, two solid doubles).
RichardLess wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 5:59 pmThe Tom Hanks Robert Langdon book series? Failed.
These may not have been critically acclaimed or particularly memorable movies, but all did 3x their budget before home video, even Inferno
, so I wouldn't really call that a failure.
RichardLess wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 5:59 pmThey couldn’t even hang onto the James Bond movies. It’s a joke.
It doesn't sound like Sony was making very much money on the James Bond movies. It could be argued that Sony didn't even want them. EON drives a hard bargain. https://deadline.com/2015/10/daniel-cra ... 201528241/
RichardLess wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 5:59 pmFor some reason Sony makes these idiotic creative choices. Look at the Uncharted movie. They could’ve hired a director with proven track record. But no. They hired the guy whose best movie is the first Zombieland and every movie since has been dogshit.
To be fair, they hired a guy who just delivered them two hits, one that scored $856m versus a $100m budget (Venom
) and the other which essentially achieved the 3x multiplier (Zombieland: Double Tap
), which itself was a sequel to another one of his movies that was a huge hit for Sony. You don't have to like the guy to understand the business decision. I don't know if anyone expected Venom
to be as big as it was; I know I didn't. I can't say I'd bet money on it, because it sounds like a fatally troubled production, but maybe they felt he could do the same for Uncharted
RichardLess wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 12:04 amYeah it’s honestly odd at how inept they are. Then again, Tom Rothman is the man who hired Tim Story to make not 1 but *2* Fantastic Four movies. Took the Alien & Predator franchises & made them a joke. Made a PG-13 Die Hard movie (and a PG-13 Alien/Predator movie). It amazes me why any company would chose him to run it.
Again, you may not think these were creatively sound decisions, but all of the movies in this comment, with the exception of Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
, were undeniable hits. The guy gets hired because his movies make the studios millions of dollars. Not that complicated.