$117 million in the first weekend, which is at the higher end of what the studio was really expecting (Sony said $100 million, but that was a fairly obvious low-ball ploy). Considering how rave the reviews were, Spider-Man: Homecoming probably has legs. I have no idea whether it’s going to pass Wonder Woman or not, but it’s definitely possible that it will. Not that it’s a race; there’s plenty of room at the table, to thoroughly mix the metaphors.
It’s funny: I’ve heard people complain about how sparse the movie landscape was, this year. Despite those two movies, and Dunkirk in a bit, and everybody said Logan was awesome and I believe them (I still won’t watch it unless I’m in a sad mood anyway)… anyway, I’ve been happy with the movies available this summer. I’m not sure what the fuss is.
Moe Lane
Don’t watch Logan.
It is immensely depressing, set in a dystopian future and thoroughly destroys two of Marvel’s most popular characters: Professor X and Wolverine.
Why?
As for being awesome, well, a depressing film that is awesomely made doesn’t become more entertaining, it just gets even more depressing.
Life is too short; watch something else, something your children would like.
Immensely depressing? That’s overstating things. It has many depressing moments, sure, but it is also by turns nostalgic and poignant. It even has an understated sense of humor.
.
Set in a dystopian future? If you’re a mutant, undoubtedly true. But from the glimpses of everyday humans we see, most everyone’s life doesn’t seem all that different from today, and we aren’t in a dystopian state. Yet.
.
Destroys Professor X and Wolverine? Hardly. In terms of action and character, this is THE BEST Wolverine movie…the one where he’s most truly himself, for good and ill. As for the problems that afflict them, well — without getting into spoilers — we all get old. Time plays cruel tricks on us as we do. Is it so surprising that people with phenomenal powers would also develop phenomenal problems? Seeing these characters toward the end of their journey, instead of just at the height of their abilities, makes them feel more real. It doesn’t destroy them. It completes them.
.
I mean, come on. Not every superhero movie has to be the 1978 Superman, bright-eyed with optimism and blaring with triumphant trumpets. As long as I don’t have to sit through another Catwoman or Green Lantern, I’m willing to see the formula shaken up from time to time. I really liked Logan for being different. And even though I thought the ending was just a little too referential, I’d still give it a solid recommend.
Also, Thor Ragnarok this November.
Though admittedly, the Thor movies have been disappointing to date.
The first one was solid, though I admit I came in with low expectations. The second one, however, ranks down there with The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 as Marvel’s worst misfires in this incredible experiment.
Marvel and Sony needs additional negotiation for a 3rd standalone Spiderman Homecoming movie. The deal that was struck gave Marvel use of Spiderman and his rogue gallery in 5 movies. They are:
Captain America: Civil WAr
Spiderman Homecoming
Avenger Infinity War I
Avenger infinity War II
Spiderman Homecoming 2 (or however they name it)
That’s 5 movies. Yeah, Sony will probably want a hell of more money in the renegotiation for the third movie to happen.
There is also the reason why Fox keep on putting out those awful Fantastic Four movies. If they leave the movie right lapse for certain amount of time, the rights reverts back to Marvel. They’re doing fine with the X-Men franchise with reboots and such, but F4 is a blight upon the cinematic comic adaptation.
X-Men has been pretty hit or miss, too. The good ones tend to be pretty good, and justify the franchise for Fox. The bad ones, though…
Sony, or Marvel?
Marvel owns cinematic rights to all of their characters except:
X-Men and Fantastic Four (Fox)
Black Cat (Sony)
Spider-Man (Sony, currently under license back to Marvel)
Namor the Sub-Mariner (Universal)
Alpha Flight (a Canadian X-Men, so Fox has it)
Deadpool (Fox)
For Marvel to make a 3rd standalone Spider-Man, they need to pay more money to Sony to get that done.
More money? Probably. But a lot more, I don’t know. Looking at the box office figures, isn’t Sony negotiating from a position of weakness? Look at their release schedule for this year. I’m excluding the foreign titles they picked up for distribution, because they couldn’t have expected to make much on those at the theater…
.
Baby Driver: a breakout hit, albeit a small one, that will be in profit next week if it’s not already.
Life: Probably didn’t make its money back, with less than $100m worldwide against a $60m budget.
Resident Evil: A box-office flop in the States, but probably netted Sony three times its budget in profit overseas.
Rough Night: If it makes back its money worldwide, it’ll be a close thing…and that’s on a $20m budget.
Smurfs The Lost Village: Likely made Sony a modest profit based on overseas ticket sales.
Underworld Blood Wars: Even factoring in ticket sales overseas, this is basically a break-even.
.
So of six non-Spiderman, non-foreign releases this year, Sony is breaking even or taking a bath on three of them, got a modest profit on one, and got a nice profit on one more — and with Baby Driver poised to do well, though we don’t know yet how well.
.
Compare that to Disney (Buena Vista). Of their four wide-release films this year, the worst of them, Cars 3, has already grossed as much money worldwide as Sony’s BEST non-Spiderman performer, and it’s still got time to run. Pirates 5 cracked the $700m mark at the worldwide box office. Guardians 2 cracked $800m. Beauty and the Beast did over a BILLION dollars worldwide. Even with much bigger budgets, all three of those films are in profit. Pirates 5 alone probably made as much profit for Disney as Sony’s whole release slate this year.
.
So when it comes time to divvy up the responsibility for the success of Spiderman, what is Sony’s claim to a lot more money? That they looked at Disney’s stranglehold at the top of the box office, saw themselves fighting Paramount to keep from being the worst of the Big Six (and both are being beaten by Lionsgate anyway), checked their bank account to remind themselves of the reactions to the Andrew Garfield/Emma Stone misfires…and decided to license the character back and get out of the way? Anyone who wasn’t blindingly stupid would do that in their position. Amy Pascal only gets credit for not lousing up what was basically a sure thing.
tl;dr: When it comes to this Spiderman deal between Disney and Sony, Disney doesn’t need it. Sony arguably does. That makes a lot of difference.
Marvel can probably pretty strongly play the MCU card in negotiations.
“Sure, you guys can walk away from this deal to continue licensing our own character back to us. But, you won’t be able to lean on any of the MCU properties to help bolster your movie. And, lets be frank, your last three movies with the character left something to be desired. Not to mention the fan backlash if they find out that you’re holding out for more money, when the current titles are just blowing up the box office…”