this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
28 points (100.0% liked)

movies

3863 readers
250 users here now

Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The studio’s desire to capitalize on the superhero boom led to a series of tonal mismatches that left audiences confused rather than intrigued. “Venom” succeeded largely on Tom Hardy’s chaotic charm, but attempts to replicate that formula with “Morbius” and “Madame Web” resulted in films that seemed uncertain whether they were horror, action or comedy.

It wasn't just that they are tonally confusing. Morbius and Madame Web were really bad movies. The writing for each was terrible, the effects were bad, the direction was bad, neither movie had any redeeming qualities. I love those characters, and I would love to see what Disney could do with them, but Sony was transparently making minimally viable products to keep the valuable IP rights.

That's not to say Disney can't make a bad product. But the worst parts if the MCU were far better than the best parts of the Venomverse.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Sony was transparently making minimally viable products to keep the valuable IP rights.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the SSU movies are part of their contract with Marvel. It only applies to live-action Spider-Man films (in which Spidey is the main character).

Which means that they had no obligation to make these movies, but still chose to do so anyway. They are making these villain spin-offs because they want to, not because they have to.

Just the thought of Sony making completely unnecessary villain movies, not out of any contractual obligation, but because they genuinely believe that they can ride the coattails of the MCU...to me that's too funny to pass up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for posting the budget and box office figures, does that include marketing at all? because that might throw a different light on it a fair bit ..

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Movie budgets usually don't include the marketing costs, as that information is almost never revealed to the public. But to find out how much money a film would need to be profitable, a good guess is to multiply the budget by 2.5.

For example, a $100 million film would need to make at least $250 million to break even.

But this isn't a hard-and-fast rule, as no one can really be certain of the marketing budget.

EDIT: Typo.